An order in architecture is a certain assemblage of parts subject to uniform established proportions, regulated by the office that each part has to perform. Coming down to the present from Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman civilization, the architectural orders are the styles of classical architecture, each distinguished by its proportions and characteristic profiles and details, most recognizable by the type of column employed; the three orders of architecture—the Doric and Corinthian—originated in Greece. To these the Romans added, in practice if not in name, the Tuscan, which they made simpler than Doric, the Composite, more ornamental than the Corinthian; the architectural order of a classical building is akin to the key of classical music. It is established by certain modules like the intervals of music, it raises certain expectations in an audience attuned to its language. Whereas the orders were structural in Ancient Greek architecture, which made little use of the arch until its late period, in Roman architecture where the arch was dominant, the orders became decorative elements except in porticos and similar uses.
Columns turned into pilasters. This treatment continued after the conscious and "correct" use of the orders following Roman models, returned in the Italian Renaissance. Greek Revival architecture, inspired by increasing knowledge of Greek originals, returned to more authentic models, including ones from early periods; each style has distinctive capitals at the top of columns and horizontal entablatures which it supports, while the rest of the building does not in itself vary between the orders. The column shaft and base varies with the order, is sometimes articulated with vertical hollow grooves known as fluting; the shaft is wider at the bottom than at the top, because its entasis, beginning a third of the way up, imperceptibly makes the column more slender at the top, although some Doric columns early Greek ones, are visibly "flared", with straight profiles that narrow going up the shaft. The capital rests on the shaft, it has a load-bearing function, which concentrates the weight of the entablature on the supportive column, but it serves an aesthetic purpose.
The necking is visually separated by one or many grooves. The echinus lies atop the necking, it is a circular block that bulges outwards towards the top to support the abacus, a square or shaped block that in turn supports the entablature. The entablature consists of three horizontal layers, all of which are visually separated from each other using moldings or bands. In Roman and post-Renaissance work, the entablature may be carried from column to column in the form of an arch that springs from the column that bears its weight, retaining its divisions and sculptural enrichment, if any. There are names for all the many parts of the orders; the height of columns are calculated in terms of a ratio between the diameter of the shaft at its base and the height of the column. A Doric column can be described as seven diameters high, an Ionic column as eight diameters high and a Corinthian column nine diameters high, although the actual ratios used vary in both ancient and revived examples, but keeping to the trend of increasing slimness between the orders.
Sometimes this is phrased as "lower diameters high", to establish which part of the shaft has been measured. There are three distinct orders in Ancient Greek architecture: Doric and Corinthian; these three were adopted by the Romans. The Roman adoption of the Greek orders took place in the 1st century BC; the three Ancient Greek orders have since been used in neo-classical European architecture. Sometimes the Doric order is considered the earliest order, but there is no evidence to support this. Rather, the Doric and Ionic orders seem to have appeared at around the same time, the Ionic in eastern Greece and the Doric in the west and mainland. Both the Doric and the Ionic order appear to have originated in wood; the Temple of Hera in Olympia is the oldest well-preserved temple of Doric architecture. It was built just after 600 BC; the Doric order spread across Greece and into Sicily where it was the chief order for monumental architecture for 800 years. Early Greeks were no doubt aware of the use of stone columns with bases and capitals in Ancient Egyptian architecture, that of other Near Eastern cultures, although there they were used in interiors, rather than as a dominant feature of all or part of exteriors, in the Greek style.
The Doric order originated on western Greece. It is the simplest of the orders, characterized by short, heavy columns with plain, round capitals and no base. With a height, only four to eight times its diameter, the columns are the most squat of all orders; the shaft of the Doric order is channeled with 16 flutes. The capital consists of a necking or Annulet, a simple ring; the echinus is convex, or circular cushion like stone, the abacus is square slab of stone. Above the capital is a square abacus connecting the capital to the entablature; the Entablature is divided into three horizontal registers, the lower part of, either smooth or divided by horizontal lines. The upper half is distinctive for the Doric order; the frieze of the Doric entablature is divided into metopes. A triglyph is a unit consisting of three vertical bands. Metopes are the carved reliefs between two triglyphs; the Greek forms of the Doric order come without an individual
The Lapiths are a legendary people of Greek mythology, whose home was in Thessaly, in the valley of the Peneus and on the mountain Pelion. They were an Aeolian tribe. Like the Myrmidons and other Thessalian tribes, the Lapiths were natives of Thessaly; the genealogies make them a kindred people with the Centaurs: in one version and Centaurus were said to be twin sons of the god Apollo and the nymph Stilbe, daughter of the river god Peneus. Lapithes was a valiant warrior, but Centaurus was a deformed being who mated with mares from whom the race of half-man, half-horse Centaurs came. Lapithes was the eponymous ancestor of the Lapith people, his descendants include Lapith warriors and kings, such as Ixion, Pirithous and Coronus, the seers Ampycus and his son Mopsus. In the Iliad the Lapiths send forty manned ships to join the Greek fleet in the Trojan War, commanded by Polypoetes and Leonteus; the mother of Pirithous, the Lapith king in the generation before the Trojan War, was Dia, daughter of Eioneus or Deioneus.
Zeus was his immortal father, but the god had to assume a stallion's form to cover Dia for, like their half-horse cousins, the Lapiths were horsemen in the grasslands of Thessaly, famous for its horses. The Lapiths were credited with inventing the bridle's bit; the Lapith King Pirithous was marrying the horsewoman Hippodameia, whose name means "tamer of horses", at the wedding feast that made a war, the Centauromachy, famous. In the Centauromachy, the Lapiths battle with the Centaurs at the wedding feast of Pirithous; the Centaurs had been invited, unused to wine, their wild nature came to the fore. When the bride was presented to greet the guests, the centaur Eurytion leapt up and attempted to abduct her. All the other centaurs were up in a moment, straddling boys. In the battle that ensued, Theseus came to the Lapiths' aid, they threw him out. In the battle the Lapith Caeneus was killed, the defeated Centaurs were expelled from Thessaly to the northwest; the Lapith Caeneus was a girl named Caenis and the favorite of Poseidon, who changed her into a man at her request and made her an invulnerable warrior.
Such warrior women, indistinguishable from men, were familiar among the Scythian horsemen too. In the Centaur battle, Caeneus proved invulnerable, until the Centaurs crushed him with rocks and trunks of trees, he was released as a sandy-headed bird. In contests, the Centaurs were not so beaten. Mythic references explained the presence into historic times of primitive Lapiths in Malea and in the brigand stronghold of Pholoe in Elis as remnants of groups driven there by the Centaurs; some historic Greek cities bore names connected with Lapiths, the Kypselides of Corinth claimed descent from Cæneus, while the Phylaides of Attica claimed for progenitor Koronus the Lapith. As Greek myth became more mediated through philosophy, the battle between Lapiths and Centaurs took on aspects of the interior struggle between civilized and wild behavior, made concrete in the Lapiths' understanding of the right usage of god-given wine, which must be tempered with water and drunk not to excess; the Greek sculptors of the school of Pheidias conceived of the battle of the Lapiths and Centaurs as a struggle between mankind and mischievous monsters, symbolical of the great conflict between the civilized Greeks and "barbarians".
Battles between Lapiths and Centaurs were depicted in the sculptured metopes on the Parthenon, recalling Athenian Theseus' treaty of mutual admiration with Pirithous the Lapith, leader of the Magnetes, on Zeus' temple at Olympia. The Battle of the Lapiths and Centaurs was a familiar symposium theme for the vase-painters. A sonnet vividly evoking the battle by the French poet José María de Heredia was included in his volume Les Trophées. In the Renaissance, the battle became a favorite theme for artists: an excuse to display close-packed bodies in violent confrontation; the young Michelangelo executed a marble bas-relief of the subject in Florence about 1492. Piero di Cosimo's panel Battle of Centaurs and Lapiths, now at the National Gallery, was painted during the following decade. If it was part of a marriage chest, or cassone, it was an uneasy subject for a festive wedding commemoration. A frieze with a Centauromachy was painted by Luca Signorelli in his Virgin Enthroned with Saints, inspired by a Roman sarcophagus found at Cortona, in Tuscany, during the early 15th century.
William Smith, ed. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology vol.11 p. 721 Ovid Metamorphoses XII passim. 128, 181. 5. 8, 15, xxxvi. 5, 4
In architecture the frieze is the wide central section part of an entablature and may be plain in the Ionic or Doric order, or decorated with bas-reliefs. When neither columns nor pilasters are expressed, on an astylar wall it lies upon the architrave and is capped by the moldings of the cornice. A frieze can be found on many Greek and Roman buildings, the Parthenon Frieze being the most famous, the most elaborate; this style is typical for the Persians. In interiors, the frieze of a room is the section of wall above the picture rail and under the crown moldings or cornice. By extension, a frieze is a long stretch of painted, sculpted or calligraphic decoration in such a position above eye-level. Frieze decorations may depict scenes in a sequence of discrete panels; the material of which the frieze is made of may be plasterwork, carved wood or other decorative medium. In an example of an architectural frieze on the façade of a building, the octagonal Tower of the Winds in the Roman agora at Athens bears relief sculptures of the eight winds on its frieze.
A pulvinated frieze is convex in section. Such friezes were features of 17th-century Northern Mannerism in subsidiary friezes, much employed in interior architecture and in furniture; the concept of a frieze has been generalized in the mathematical construction of frieze patterns. Media related to Friezes at Wikimedia Commons "Frieze". Encyclopædia Britannica. 1911
The Doric order was one of the three orders of ancient Greek and Roman architecture. The Doric is most recognized by the simple circular capitals at the top of columns. Originating in the western Dorian region of Greece, it is the earliest and in its essence the simplest of the orders, though still with complex details in the entablature above; the Greek Doric column was fluted or smooth-surfaced, had no base, dropping straight into the stylobate or platform on which the temple or other building stood. The capital was a simple circular form, with some mouldings, under a square cushion, wide in early versions, but more restrained. Above a plain architrave, the complexity comes in the frieze, where the two features unique to the Doric, the triglyph and guttae, are skeuomorphic memories of the beams and retaining pegs of the wooden constructions that preceded stone Doric temples. In stone they are purely ornamental; the uncommon Roman and Renaissance Doric retained these, introduced thin layers of moulding or further ornament, as well as using plain columns.
More they used versions of the Tuscan order, elaborated for nationalistic reasons by Italian Renaissance writers, in effect a simplified Doric, with un-fluted columns and a simpler entablature with no triglyphs or guttae. The Doric order was much used in Greek Revival architecture from the 18th century onwards. Since at least Vitruvius it has been customary for writers to associate the Doric with masculine virtues, it is normally the cheapest of the orders to use. When the three orders are used one above the other, it is usual for the Doric to be at the bottom, with the Ionic and the Corinthian above, the Doric, as "strongest", is used on the ground floor below another order in the storey above. In their original Greek version, Doric columns stood directly on the flat pavement of a temple without a base. With a height only four to eight times their diameter, the columns were the most squat of all the classical orders; the Parthenon has the Doric design columns. It was most popular in the Archaic Period in mainland Greece, found in Magna Graecia, as in the three temples at Paestum.
These are in the Archaic Doric, where the capitals spread wide from the column compared to Classical forms, as exemplified in the Parthenon. Pronounced features of both Greek and Roman versions of the Doric order are the alternating triglyphs and metopes; the triglyphs are decoratively grooved with two vertical grooves and represent the original wooden end-beams, which rest on the plain architrave that occupies the lower half of the entablature. Under each triglyph are peglike "stagons" or "guttae" that appear as if they were hammered in from below to stabilize the post-and-beam construction, they served to "organize" rainwater runoff from above. The spaces between the triglyphs are the "metopes", they may be left plain. The spacing of the triglyphs caused problems. A triglyph is centered above every column, with another between columns, though the Greeks felt that the corner triglyph should form the corner of the entablature, creating an inharmonious mismatch with the supporting column; the architecture followed rules of harmony.
Since the original design came from wooden temples and the triglyphs were real heads of wooden beams, every column had to bear a beam which lay across the centre of the column. Triglyphs were arranged regularly; this was regarded as the ideal solution. Changing to stone cubes instead of wooden beams required full support of the architrave load at the last column. At the first temples the final triglyph was moved, still terminating the sequence, but leaving a gap disturbing the regular order. Worse, the last triglyph was not centered with the corresponding column; that "archaic" manner was not regarded as a harmonious design. The resulting problem is called the doric corner conflict. Another approach was to apply a broader corner triglyph but was not satisfying; because the metopes are somewhat flexible in their proportions, the modular space between columns can be adjusted by the architect. The last two columns were set closer together, to give a subtle visual strengthening to the corners; that is called the "classic" solution of the corner conflict.
Triglyphs could be arranged in a harmonic manner again, the corner was terminated with a triglyph. However, final triglyph and column were not centered. There are many theories as to the origins of the Doric order in temples; the term Doric is believed to have originated from the Greek-speaking Dorian tribes. One belief is. With no hard proof and the sudden appearance of stone temples from one period after the other, this becomes speculation. Another belief is. With the Greeks being present in Ancient Egypt as soon the 7th-century BC, it is possible that Greek traders were inspired by the structure
The Athenian Treasury at Delphi was constructed by the Athenians to house dedications and votive offerings made by their city and citizens to the sanctuary of Apollo. The entire treasury including its sculptural decoration is built of Parian marble; the date of construction is disputed, scholarly opinions range from 510 to 480 BCE. It is located directly below the Temple of Apollo along the Sacred Way for all visitors to view the Athenian treasury on the way up to the sanctuary. Pausanias mentions the building in his account of the sanctuary, claiming that it was dedicated from the spoils of the Battle of Marathon, fought in 490 BCE against the Persians; the Battle of Marathon can be seen in some of the images of the metopes which compare their victory to mythology. By using the founder of Athens, Theseus, to show the victories of Athens, the treasury established Athens as one of the most powerful, city-states of Greece. According to archeological records, the Athenian treasury metopes display the earliest known presence of Theseus in a large-scale sculpture.
Prior to this treasury, Theseus had been depicted on vase paintings, but never before on architecture. Although Herakles was depicted in the metopes, the added heroic character showed the Athenian's increasing devotion to Theseus; the pairing of the two heroes was a metaphor alluding to the Battle of Marathon. The metopes show Athenian identity and how they viewed their enemies both domestic. Several other city-states built treasuries in the panhellenic site of Delphi. Among other firsts, the Athenian treasury was the first Panhellenic sanctuary, dedicated by Athenians; the building was excavated by the French School at Athens, led by Pierre de La Coste-Messelière, reconstructed from 1903–1906. The structure is still visible in situ; the thirty metopes of the treasury are 67 cm tall and 62–64 cm wide, nine along the long sides and six along the short, depicted the labors of Herakles and Theseus. This is the earliest surviving juxtaposition of the two. Many of these metopes were found in the surrounding area and it is disputed on the order to which they would have appeared.
Theseus was the mythical king of its founder. Thesean metopes include: Theseus and Athena Theseus and Sinis Theseus and the Crommyonian sow Theseus and Sciron Theseus and Cercyon Theseus and Procrustes Theseus and the Bull of Marathon Theseus and the Minotaur Theseus and the Captive AmazonHeroklean metopes include: Heracles and the Nemean Lion Heracles and the Ceryneian Hind Heracles and the Centaur Heracles and Cycnus Heracles and Orthrus Cows of Geryon Geryon The platform upon which the treasury stands has a prominent inscription on its south face. ΑΘΕΝΑΙΟΙ ΤΙ ΑΠΟΛΛΟΝΟΝ ΑΚΙΝΙΑ ΤΕΣ ΜΑΡΑΘΝΙ ΜΣ. The Athenians dedicated this to Apollo as first-fruits from the Persians at the Battle of Marathon; the Athenian Treasury in Delphi was built according to a typical distyle in antis design, with two antae framing two columns. The ancient writer and traveler Pausanias was “emphatic that the Athenian Treasury was built from the spoils from the landing of the Persian general Datis at Marathon”; this means that a date than 490 BCE, after the Battle of Marathon and accounting for time of construction would be acceptable to Pausanias.
Despite being a primary source, Pausanias on occasion may have been misguided or misinformed, classical scholars still maintain the great date debate. John Boardman notes that “on a purely archaeological and stylistic grounds the Treasury has appeared to many scholars to date around 500 BCE, some would put it earlier.” Recent findings compiled by University of Chicago professor Richard T. Neer, referencing excavations from 1989, advocates for the date:“A ledge of 0.30 meters in width projects from the Treasury’s stereobate along its south side only, that this ledge helps to support the Marathon base. In other words, the plan of the Treasury takes the base into account from the earliest phase of construction; the two structures are thus integral, both must date after the battle of Marathon in 490 BCE. With this archaeological datum, the chronology of the Athenian treasury must be considered settled. Pausanias was correct.”It is debated to have an earlier construction date due to the late archaic style used for the architecture.
The Doric style was modeled after the use of wood to create structures. The paintings inside the treasury were dated back to the 480's BCE making specialists believe construction started before the military win; the treasury was made to contain votive offerings such as spoils of war and Kouros. This is where the famous twin kouros statues and Bition, were found, they were made at the Temple of Athena in Argos, but were given to the Athenian Treasury as a mark of respect. Due to Athens being a super power at the time, many city-states paid them for protection; the treasury was not only an offering to the gods, but a statement of their power showing off armors and other pottery. The treasury was a statement about the wealth of their new government. After transitioning from a tyrant ruled city-state into a democracy, the Athenians sought to internationally display their increased military success and prosperity. Votive offerings were given after a great win, a prayer, or a funeral piece; these offerings were given by all Greeks to the gods in a sign of worship.
Having separate treasuries allowed Athens to show more of their prominent victories and achievements, establishing their identity as a people
Triglyph is an architectural term for the vertically channeled tablets of the Doric frieze in classical architecture, so called because of the angular channels in them. The rectangular recessed spaces between the triglyphs on a Doric frieze are called metopes; the raised spaces between the channels themselves are called meros in Greek. In the strict tradition of classical architecture, a set of guttae, the six triangular "pegs" below, always go with a triglyph above, the pair of features are only found in entablatures of buildings using the Doric order; the absence of the pair converts a building from being in the Doric order to being in the Tuscan order. The triglyph is thought to be a tectonic and skeuomorphic representation in stone of the wooden beam ends of the typical primitive hut, as described by Vitruvius and Renaissance writers; the wooden beams were notched in three separate places in order to cast their rough-cut ends in shadow. Greek architecture preserved this feature, as well as many other features common in original wooden buildings, as a tribute to the origins of architecture and its role in the history and development of man.
The channels could have a function in channeling rainwater. In terms of structure, a triglyph may be carved from a single block with a metope, or the triglyph block may have slots cut into it to allow a separately cut metope to be slid into place, as at the Temple of Aphaea. Of the two groups of 6th-century metopes from Foce del Sele, now in the museum at Paestum, the earlier uses the first method, the the second. There may be some variation in design within a single structure to allow for corner contraction, an adjustment of the column spacing and arrangement of the Doric frieze in a temple to make the design appear more harmonious. In the evolution of the Doric order, the placing of the triglyphs evolved somewhat at corners. In post-Renaissance architecture the strict conventions are sometimes abandoned, guttae and triglyphs, alone or together, may be used somewhat randomly as ornaments. For example, the Baroque Černín Palace in Prague has triglyphs and guttae as ornaments at the top of arches, in a facade using an eclectic Ionic order.
Classical order This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed.. "Triglyph". Encyclopædia Britannica. 27. Cambridge University Press. P. 271. Media related to Triglyphs at Wikimedia Commons
Temple of Aphaea
The Temple of Aphaia or Afea is located within a sanctuary complex dedicated to the goddess Aphaia on the Greek island of Aigina, which lies in the Saronic Gulf. Known as the Temple of Jupiter Panhellenius, the great Doric temple is now recognized as dedicated to the mother-goddess Aphaia, it was a favorite of the romantic artists such as J. M. W. Turner, it stands on a c. 160 m peak on the eastern side of the island 13 km east by road from the main port. Aphaia was a Greek goddess, worshipped at this sanctuary; the extant temple of c. 500 BC was built over the remains of an earlier temple of c. 570 BC, destroyed by fire c. 510 BC. The elements of this destroyed temple were buried in the infill for the larger, flat terrace of the temple, are thus well preserved. Abundant traces of paint remain on many of these buried fragments. There may have been another temple in the 7th century BC located on the same site, but it is thought to have been much smaller and simpler in terms of both plan and execution.
Significant quantities of Late Bronze Age figurines have been discovered at the site, including proportionally large numbers of female figurines, indicating – – that cult activity at the site was continuous from the 14th century BC, suggesting a Minoan connection for the cult. The last temple is of an unusual plan and is significant for its pedimental sculptures, which are thought to illustrate the change from Archaic to Early Classical technique; these sculptures are on display in the Glyptothek of Munich, with a number of fragments located in the museums at Aigina and on the site itself. The periegetic writer Pausanias mentions the site in his writings of the 2nd century AD, but does not describe the sanctuary in detail as he does for many others; the temple was made known in Western Europe by the publication of the Antiquities of Ionia. In 1811, the young English architect Charles Robert Cockerell, finishing his education on his academic Grand Tour, Baron Otto Magnus von Stackelberg removed the fallen fragmentary pediment sculptures.
On the recommendation of Baron Carl Haller von Hallerstein, an architect and, moreover, a protégé of the art patron Crown Prince Ludwig of Bavaria, the marbles were shipped abroad and sold the following year to the Crown Prince, soon to be King Ludwig I of Bavaria. Minor excavations of the east peribolos wall were carried out in 1894 during reconstruction of the last temple. Systematic excavations at the site were carried out in the 20th century by the German School in Athens, at first under the direction of Adolf Furtwängler; the area of the sanctuary was studied during these excavations. The area under the last temple could not be excavated, because that would have harmed the temple. In addition, significant remains from the Bronze Age were detected in pockets in the rocky surface of the hill. From 1966 to 1979, an extensive second German excavation under Dieter Ohly was performed, leading to the discovery in 1969 of substantial remains of the older Archaic temple in the fill of the terrace walls.
Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner and Martha Ohly were associated with this dig, which continued after the death of Dieter Ohly until 1988. Sufficient remains were recovered to allow a complete architectural reconstruction of the structure to be extrapolated; the sanctuary of Aphaia was located on the top of a hill c. 160 m in elevation at the northeast point of the island. The last form of the sanctuary covered an area of c. 80 by 80 m. In its earliest phase of use during the Bronze Age, the eastern area of the hilltop was an unwalled, open-air sanctuary to a female fertility and agricultural deity. Bronze Age figurines outnumber remains of pottery. Open vessel forms are at an unusually high proportion versus closed vessels. There are no known settlements or burials in the vicinity, arguing against the remains being due to either usage. Large numbers of small pottery chariots and thrones and miniature vessels have been found. Although there are scattered remains dating to the Early Bronze Age such as two seal stones, remains in significant quantities begin to be deposited in the Middle Bronze Age, the sanctuary has its peak use in the LHIIIa2 through LHIIIb periods.
It is less easy to trace the cult through the Sub-Mycenean period and into the Geometric where cult activity is once more reasonably certain. Furtwängler proposes three phases of building at the sanctuary, with the earliest of these demonstrated by an altar at the eastern end dating to c. 700 BC. Securely known are a cistern at the northeast extremity and a structure identified as a treasury east of the propylon of the sanctuary; the temple corresponding to these structures is proposed to be under the temples and thus not able to be excavated. Furtwängler suggests that this temple is the oikos referenced in a mid-7th-century BC inscription from the site as having been built by a priest for Aphaia; the top of the hill was modified to make it more level by wedging stones into the crevices of the rock. Ohly detected a peribolos wall enclosing an area of c. 40 by 45 m dating to this phase. This peribolos was not aligned to the axis of the temple. A raised and paved platform was built to connect the temple to the altar.
There was a propylon with a wooden superstructure in the