Greek Architecture and the Evolution of the Temple


temple model found in the Sanctuary of Hera, mid-8th cent. bce, terra cotta	Prinia: Temple A plan, ca 625 bce

Some of the earliest Greek temple remains date to the geometric and orientalizing periods. The votive model of the temple (it was found in a tomb) has the geometric style of ornament. In plan form, it is quite similar to the plan for Templa A, although it is a little earlier in time. The plan of temple A, similar to the model on the left, shows the relationship of the Greek temple form to the Mycenaean megaron. The continued evolution of the Greek temple involves an increase in size, the addition of more columns, and the addition of an overall underlying base of 3 steps. The screen of columns and the base create a visual and symbolic transition from the natural world to the space of the temple.

Stages in the "evolution" of the temple:

stage one is essentially the megaron (the Mycenean domestic structure which became a temple) used as a temple;
stage two shows a slight increase in size and the beginning of the peristyle;
in stage three, the peristyle is complete, the temple has incorporated the monumentality of the Egyptian temple while treating it in terms of human proportions, has become symmetric, has probably been designed according to the rule of the Golden Section, and has permanent materials in all parts of the structure. In the four plans below, the temple on the bottom right is the plan of the Parthenon.

Remember, as we noted in class, that although there is an evolution in complexity, it is not clearly a chronological evolution over time. The example on the right side, top row, is later than the example on the bottom right.

definitions:*
cella, naos: names given to the rectangular space in the center of the temple; when there is no adyton, this is the most important part of the temple
antis: side walls ending in pillars
in antis: columns framed by the "antis"
stereobate: stepped foundation for the temple
stylobate: top step of the stereobate
peripteral: a peristyle temple. The peristyle is the colonnade or screen of columns surrounding the temple.
amphiprostyle: not a complete peristyle--colonnades at front and back only
adyton: apse-like room behind the cella, without lighting

* I've included the definitions for informational purposes only. The most important are underlined.

the "Basilica" or the Temple of Hera I, in Paestum, 550 b.c.e.

The Temple of Hera I is the temple which accompanies the third plan above (left plan in the bottom of the row). The line of columns down the center of the cella is unusual. It's been suggested that the architects did not trust the perimeter columns to support the structure and added the interior row. But it may have been more than just a mistrust of the structural ability of columns. The unusually tapered columns, along with the ninth column which blocks the view of the entryway and breaks the symmetry of an 8-columned portico, create a different kind of balance which is aligned with the interior row of columns. It is a dramatic composition which suggests entasis and a contest of balance, in both the plan form and the elevation.

the Parthenon: Kallikrates and Iktinos (architects), on the Acropolis, Athens, 447-438 b.c.e.

reconstruction model of the Parthenon

The Greek Orders

You should be able to recognize the column types since they will reappear in later forms of architecture in other cultures and they can be seen in many buildings in this country (including some on campus) and we will expect you to know them on the exam. You should also remember the terminology because it is used in discussions of architecture and will continue to be used when we get to later units: capital, cornice, frieze, entablature, pediment. Another word to know, which is not a part of the column, although it refers to something about the column, is entasis. This refers to the slight swelling or bulge in the shape of the column, most apparent in the Doric order and least apparent in the Corinthian.

Other temples (in addition to the Parthenon) on the Athenian Acropolis:


Temple of Athena Nike, the Acropolis, ca 420 bce: an Ionic temple	side view of the Temple of Athena Nike (architect: Kallikrates)

Porch of the Maidens (Caryatid porch) of the Erechtheion, Acropolis, ca 410 bce (the 2nd largest building on the Acropolis)	side view of the Erechtheion and the porch with Ionic columns

The sculptural (narrative) program of the Parthenon

The narrative program includes five key components: gigantomachy, centauromachy, and amazonomachy, represented in the pediments and in the metopes; the birth of Athena (in the east pediment)*; and the Athenian procession (in the Ionic frieze). In addition to the battle scenes (the meaning of "machy"), which were used to symbolize the Athenian defeat of the Persians, the birth of Athena was an allegory for the birth of Athens, and therefore suggested the triumph of the city. Most unusual of all, the Ionic frieze depicts a procession of Athenians, part of a festival which took place every four years, with the gods shown in the frieze as spectators at this festival. This is the first time an art work for a public setting deliberately showed the people themselves engaged in a recognizable activity. In fact, since the activity is a ritual procession, they are shown doing what they come to the Parthenon to do, making this a complex layering in which the people who come to the Parthenon view a work of art which shows them coming to the Parthenon!

Your textbook is useful for an understanding of how the "pieces" of the sculptural program fit together.


metope with battle scene, between a Lapith and a centaur	Dionysos, from the east pediment, the Birth of Athena

female figure (Hestia?) from Birth of Athena, on the east pediment	another figure (Artemis?) from the Birth of Athena, on the east pediment


horsemen from the Procession on the Ionic frieze on the north side, ca 440 bce (sculptor: Phidias)	detail of the Procession in the Ionic frieze on the east side: Marshals and Young Women

One characteristic of the Panathenaic procession is the sculptor's use of isocephaly (heads at the same height). Was this done as a visual expression of the idea of democracy? Or was it, more simply, a response to the structural requirements of working within the space of the frieze?

About the Greek temple, as idea, artwork, and architecture:

The perfected Greek temple does not fuse with the landscape in the manner of the architecture of Minoan and Mycenean design. The Greek temple always remains a monument, an object in space. It is a human achievement, an object apart from the natural environment. But this quality of setting apart or separateness is not what we find with a framed painting, for the land is not just a neutral or picturesque backdrop for the temple. More similar to the Aegean cultures in this respect, the location of a temple is not really a matter of human choice--it is predetermined by the land; the temple completes the terrain, not only in a physical sense, but, and perhaps more important, in an ideological sense. The site of a temple is predetermined by events which had already occurred in a particular geographic setting. These events left certain sites sacred and demanded some type of symbolic completion to what was believed to have previously happened there. In this respect, the temple as monument commemorated the sacredness of the geography; it sanctified the location. One of the ways in which it provided this sanctification was by being set apart from the land. This was accomplished in a very particular way: by a terrace which served as a pedestal for the temple. The terrace was itself placed on a visual pedestal--three steps underlay and extended beyond the terrace, completing the final raising of the temple above the land and providing an identical approach to the temple from all sides.

Overall, the column parts and temple parts do not correspond to natural forms like trees or plants, and since, as already noted, they were not direct translations of the original wood members into stone, they cannot be understood as a translation of either nature or material structure. The viewer must ultimately respond to the column as an abstract metaphor, and this is a metaphor related to the human being, the body. Ideally, we experience the temple in an empathic way, as if we are bearing the load ourselves. And the idea of empathy is central to classical Greek architecture, because the goal of evoking a well-proportioned person underlies all the proportions of the whole and the parts. And it is in this sensing of the presence of a human being, our ability to emphathize with the structure in a physical way, that the Greek temple differs remarkably from Egyptian structures--one evokes humanly inspired rationality and reason, the other evokes a crushing monumentalism.

The combination of pedestal and peristyle, or the screen of columns, emphasize the temple as an exterior presence. The continuity of the steps, frieze and columns, wrapped completely around the inner sanctum, operates against a sense of front and back, against the idea of an approach or exit, suggests the validity of all approaches and all angles of vision. Further, the doors to the cella would be opened during the times of religious observances, so that the statue within could be glimpsed by human observers from the outside at any point. The statue was also within the range of vision of the statues that stood outside and mediated between the human spectators and divinity. This was an outdoor site of worship--an inner temple or sanctuary for a god, framed by a screen of columns which does not fully isolate it from the landscape or the world of humans but shelters it, sets it off as something apart, but something engaged in continuous interaction with the real world, an engagement which was taken to its height with the frieze for the north pediment when, for the first time, an art work in a public setting showed the people themselves in a recognizable activity–a ritual ceremonial procession.