Giacobbe Giusti, JACOPO SANSOVINO: Mars, Courtyard of the Doge’s Palace (Venice)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacopo_Sansovino
Giacobbe Giusti, JACOPO SANSOVINO: Mars, Courtyard of the Doge’s Palace (Venice)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacopo_Sansovino
Giacobbe Giusti, Neolithic archaeological site Monte d’ ACCODDI
Giacobbe Giusti, Neolithic archaeological site Monte d’ ACCODDI
Giacobbe Giusti, Neolithic archaeological site Monte d’ ACCODDI
Giacobbe Giusti, Neolithic archaeological site Monte d’ ACCODDI
Giacobbe Giusti, Neolithic archaeological site Monte d’ ACCODDI
Giacobbe Giusti, Neolithic archaeological site Monte d’ ACCODDI
Giacobbe Giusti, Neolithic archaeological site Monte d’ ACCODDI
View from the base of Monte d’Accoddi
|
|
Type | Monument |
---|---|
History | |
Cultures | Ozieri, Abealzu-Filigosa |
Site notes | |
Excavation dates | yes |
Condition | reconstructed |
Management | I Beni Culturali della Sardegna |
Public access | yes |
Website | Sassari, Tempio-altare di Monte d’Accoddi (in Italian) |
Monte d’Accoddi is a Neolithicarchaeological site in northern Sardinia, located in the territory of Sassari near Porto Torres. The site consists of a massive raised stone platform thought to have been an altar. It was constructed by the Ozieri culture or earlier, with the oldest parts dated to around c.4,000-3,650 BC.[1][2]
The site was discovered in 1954 in a field owned by the Segni family. The original structure was built by the Ozieri culture or earlier c. 4,000-3,650 BC and has a base of 27 m by 27 m and probably reached a height of 5.5 m. It culminated in a platform of about 12.5 m by 7.2 m, accessible via a ramp. No chambers or entrances to the mound have been found, leading to the presumption it was an altar, a temple or a step pyramid.[3] It may have also served an observational function, as its square plan is coordinated with the cardinal pointsof the compass.[4]
The initial Ozieri structure was abandoned or destroyed around 3000 BC, with traces of fire found in the archeological evidence.[4]Around 2800 BC the remains of the original structure were completely covered with a layered mixture of earth and stone, and large blocks of limestone were then applied to establish a second platform, truncated by a step pyramid (36 m x 29 m, about 10 m in height), accessible by means of a second ramp, 42 m long, built over the older one.[4] This second temple resembles contemporary Mesopotamian ziggurats, and is attributed to the Abealzu-Filigosa culture.
Archeological excavations from the chalcolithic Abealzu-Filigosa layers indicate the Monte d’Accoddi was used for animal sacrifice, with the remains of sheep, cattle, and swine recovered in near equal proportions.[5] It is among the earliest known sacrificial sites in Western Europe, providing insight into the development of ritual in prehistoric society,[5] and earning it a designation as « the most singular cultic monument in the early Western Mediterranean. »[6]
The site appears to have been abandoned again around 1800 BC, at the onset of the Nuragic age.
The surroundings of the Monte d’Accoddi have been excavated in the 1960s, and have provided the signs of a considerable sacred center. Near the south-eastern corner of the monument there is a dolmen, and across the ramp stands a considerable menhir, one of several standing stones which was formerly found in the vicinity. The foundations of several small structures (possibly residential) were excavated, and several mysterious carved stones. The most impressive of these is a large boulder carved into the shape of an egg and then cut through on a subtle curving three-dimensional line.[4]
The monument was partially reconstructed during the 1980s. It is open to the public and accessible by the old route of SS131 highway, near the hamlet of Ottava.
Giacobbe Giusti, Pietro PERUGINO: Madonna with Child Enthroned between Saints John the Baptist and Sebastian
Artist | Pietro Perugino |
---|---|
Year | 1493 |
Medium | Oil on panel |
Dimensions | 178 cm × 164 cm (70 in × 65 in) |
Location | Uffizi Gallery, Florence |
Madonna with Child Enthroned between Saints John the Baptist and Sebastian is a painting by the Italian Renaissance artist Pietro Perugino, executed in 1493, and housed in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence.
The work was commissioned by Cornelia Salviati, widow of Venetian merchant Giovanni Martini, and his son Roberto, for the chapel of the convent of San Domenico, Fiesole, which had been perhaps restored by Giuliano da Sangallo a few years before. In 1493 Perugino had married Chiara Fancelli, the daughter of architect Luca Fancelli: the face of the Madonna is a portrait of her.
In 1786 the panel was acquired for 1000 Italian scudi by Peter Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany, becoming part of the future Uffizi Gallery. The original chapel was redecorated by a painting by Lorenzo di Credi; the one now in the church is a copy by Garibaldo Ceccarelli.
It was restored in 1995.
The background, this time featuring two bays, is one of the many porticoes painted by Perugino in the 1480s and 1490s (in works such as the Fano Altarpiece or the Pietà. Also typical is the serene landscape with thin trees.
Mary sits on a high throne decorated with grotesques at the base, where it is also the signature PETRVS PERVSINVS PINXIT AN[NO MCCCCLXXXXIII (Pietro Perugia 1493). She holds the child on her knees, as he looks towards John the Baptist on the left; John, in turn, points at him. On the right is the common representation of St. Sebastian martyred by arrows, his contemplative gaze directed to the heavens.
The composition was one of the first examples in Florence of the new style of Holy Conversationelaborated in Venice by Antonello da Messina and Giovanni Bellini a few years before, with a pyramidal development pivoting on the central figure of Mary on a high throne. The painting is also one of the first by Perugino in which the Madonna is no longer an elegant maid, but a more mature and severe woman, according to the more sober climate introduced in Florence by Girolamo Savonarola. Another example of this evolution is the Madonna with Child with St. Catherine of Alexandria in the Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna.
Madonna and saints from San Domenico di Fiesole (Perugino). |
Giacobbe Giusti, BOTTICELLI: Nativité mystique
Giacobbe Giusti, BOTTICELLI: Nativité mystique
Giacobbe Giusti, BOTTICELLI: Nativité mystique
Artiste | |
---|---|
Date | |
Technique |
Huile sur toile
|
Dimensions (H × L) |
108.5 × 74.9 cm
|
Mouvement | |
Localisation |
National Gallery, Londres (Royaume-Uni)
|
La Nativité mystique (Natività mistica en italien) est une peinture à huile sur toile (108,5 × 74,9 cm) exécutée, autour de 1500–1501, par Sandro Botticelli, et conservée à la National Gallery de Londres.
L’œuvre est l’unique qui soit signée et datée par Botticelli ; son histoire est néanmoins obscure voire énigmatique. Le tableau qui était probablement destiné à la dévotion privée d’une noble famille florentine est souvent considérée comme le dernier chef-d’œuvre de l’artiste précédant une longue période d’inactivité avant sa mort, comme l’atteste une lettre à Isabelle d’Esteen 1502.
La Nativité mystique a été perdue de vue pendant trois siècles et ce n’est qu’au xviiie siècle qu’un anglais dénommé William Young Ottley, un riche amateur d’art, vit l’œuvre encore inconnue (Botticelli n’étant pas encore apprécié comme un auteur reconnu), à la Villa Aldobrandini ; il l’acheta et l’emporta à Londres. À sa mort la peinture rejoint la collection Maitland est à la mort de ce dernier la National Gallery de Londres s’est porté acquéreur en 1848.
Le titre « Nativité mystique » a été attribué par la critique moderne afin de souligner le symbolisme complexe de la scène1.
Giacobbe Giusti, BOTTICELLI: Nativité mystique
Le thème du tableau est une vision de la Nativitédu Christ, interprétée comme une Adoration de l’Enfant avec Marie, les bergers et les mages entre des chœurs d’anges, inspirée par les prophéties de L’Apocalypse selon saint Jean.
Une inscription en grec approximatif figure en haut du tableau (traduction) : « Moi Sandro ai fait ce tableau à la fin de l’an 1500 durant les troubles dont est victime l’Italie à la moitié du temps après le temps accordé au onzième chapitre de saint Jean dans le second sceau de l’apocalypse après la disparition du diable pendant trois ans avant qu’il ne soit enchaîné au douzième chapitre [comme il s’est enterré lui-même] ».
Au-dessus de la toiture de la crèche se trouvent trois anges avec des habits blancs, rouges et verts. Ils entonnent un chant en tenant un livre de chant entre les mains. Plus haut, au-delà d’un bosquet qui entoure la grotte, composé d’arbrisseaux élancés disposés en demi-cercle et le ciel bleu azur, le ciel s’ouvre en Paradis sur fond d’or dans lequel un groupe de douze anges habillés de noir, de rouge de blanc, enchaîne une ronde, et tenant des branches d’olivier auxquelles sont accrochés des phylactères portant les inscriptions « Mère de Dieu », « Épouse de Dieu», « Unique reine du monde » ; trois couronnes sont suspendues à ses rubans et surplombent le haut de la crèche.
La grotte de la Nativité est située au centre de la composition, Elle est constituée d’un relief rocheux très stylisé, ouvert vers son fond laissant entrevoir un bois couvrant tout le fond de la composition avant un ciel dégradé de bleu ; une étable en devant est constituée d’une toiture en paille soutenue par deux troncs d’arbres et des étais. La Sainte Famille y est placée : l’Enfant Jésus au centre sur une auge couverte d’un drap blanc ; Marie à droite, agenouillée, les mains jointes adorant l’Enfant ; Joseph, à gauche, assis par terre somnolant, derrière lui une branche porte une banderole ; derrière eux, au-delà de leur mangeoire, se trouvent le bœuf et un âne placé plus en hauteur.
Sur la gauche de la crèche, un ange vêtu de rose accompagne les trois personnages, portant cape et vêtus d’ocre, de rouge et de vert, couronnés de rameaux d’oliviers.
En regard à droite, un autre ange, habillé de blanc montre l’Enfant à deux personnages agenouillés, jambes nues, chaussures percées.
En bas, sous un petit sentier surplombé de rochers écaillés, trois groupes identiques d’anges portent des branches d’oliviers et enlacent trois personnages portant robe et cape, couronnés d’oliviers. Des phylactères sur les groupes de gauche portent l’inscription : « Béni soit l’agneau de Dieu, qui a pris pour nous le péché du monde »,
Autour d’eux des diablotins s’enfuient épouvantés en se transperçant de leurs propres fourches et se poussant eux-mêmes dans la profondeur à travers des crevasses dans le sol.
L’œuvre combine le thème de la nativité du Christ avec celui de la Parousie, le retour du Christ sur terre avant le Jour du jugement comme promis dans le livre de Apocalypse : à ce moment-là on assistera à la réconciliation totale entre les hommes et Dieu, comme semblent l’annoncer les figures enlacées au premier plan. Les trois couples pourraient aussi indiquer les moyens de vaincre la présence du mal, c’est-à-dire par la fraternité et par l’exemple des anges, la prière.
Le fantastique manège du haut a été probablement inspiré par une représentation sacrée mise en scène par Filippo Brunelleschidans l’église San Felice in Piazza. Il s’agit d’une recréation de l’Annonciation, dans laquelle des enfants étaient suspendus dans le vide, soutenus par une structure dorée à forme de coupole, simulant un chœur angélique. Ce type de représentation eut un tel succès qu’il a été longtemps répliqué et il est probable que Botticelli l’ait directement observée.
La ronde de ces douze anges doit correspondre aux douze heures du jour et aux douze mois de l’année, suivant les prêches de Savonarole ; comme les couleurs des trois anges du toit invoquant les trois Vertus théologales : blanc pour la Foi, rouge pour la Charité et vert pour l’Espérance ; comme ceux du bas qui portent les mêmes couleurs en anges sauvant les humains des limbes, et ainsi que les démons chassés2.
Dans le groupe à gauche de la crèche on pourrait voir librement une interprétation des rois magesvenus adorer l’Enfant (le plus agenouillé est barbu), comme dans le groupe des deux personnages aux chausses trouées et portant besace, agenouillés à droite, en bergers guidés fermement par un ange habillé de blanc.
La composition est caractérisée par des couleurs éclatantes répétées rythmiquement dans les habits des anges et par une disposition extrêmement libre des figures, très éloignée de la rigide géométrie perspective de la culture florentine de la première partie du Quattrocento. Les éléments de style archaïque sont nombreux : fond doré, phylactères, proportions hiérarchiques qui rendent les anges plus petits par rapport à la Vierge selon les conventions de la perspective signifiante de l’art médiéval.
L’espace apparaît dilaté grâce au stratagème de l’ouverture d’un passage dans la grotte et la disposition des personnages sur plusieurs niveaux contribuant à l’augmentation de l’effet de profondeur.
Les symétries marqués, l’attitude des personnages très variée créent une dynamique soutenue.
La composante visionnaire est très présente en opposition aux éléments archaïques de la peinture. Ce contraste détermine la particularité de l’œuvre.
L’irréalisme du tableau est accentué par la présence de textes grecs et latins.
Le thème a été probablement inspiré par la situation religieuse et politique florentine à l’aube du xvie siècle, avec les évènements tragiques constitués par la descente des troupes de Charles VIII qui envahissent l’Italie, l’exil de Florence de Pierre de Médicis et la prise de pouvoir par le parti de Girolamo Savonarola3,4. Botticelli, très influencé par les sermons, a du s’adapter au nouveau climat spirituel à Florence instauré par Savonarole. Il abandonne ses inspirations allégorique et mythologique (qui avaient eu tant de succès auprès de la cour des Médicis), en faveur des peintures sacrées. Toutes les œuvres de la sa dernière phase créative à partir des années 1480 sont caractérisées par un repli sur les formes religieuses riches de significations mystiques et symboliques dans un style archaïque en contradiction avec la tendance artistique de l’époque. Son style témoigne désormais d’une inquiétude intime dans l’environnement artistique de l’époque.
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
• | |
---|---|
Elevation | 401 m (1,316 ft) |
Patron saint | Madonna della Bruna |
Saint day | 2 July |
Matera (Italian pronunciation: [maˈteːra]or locally [maˈtɛːra] ( listen)) is a city and a province in the region of Basilicata, in Southern Italy. It is the capital of the province of Matera and the capital of Basilicata from 1663 to 1806. The town lies in a small canyon carved out by the Gravina.
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
UNESCO World Heritage Site | |
---|---|
Official name | The Sassi and the Park of the Rupestrian Churches of Matera |
Location | Province of Matera, Italy |
Known as « la Città Sotterranea » (the Subterranean City), its historical center « Sassi« , along with the Park of the Rupestrian Churches, is considered a World Heritage Site by UNESCO since 1993.
On 17 October 2014, Matera was declared Italian host of European Capital of Culture for 2019 with the Bulgarian town of Plovdiv.[2]
Giacobbe Giusti, Matera
The area of what is now Matera has been settled since the Palaeolithic. The city was allegedly founded by the Romans in the 3rd century BC, with the name of Matheola after the consul Lucius Caecilius Metellus. In AD 664 Matera was conquered by the Lombards and became part of the Duchy of Benevento. In the 7th and 8th centuries the nearby grottos were colonized by both Benedictineand Basilian monastic institutions. The 9th and 10th centuries were characterized by the struggle between the Byzantines and the German emperors, including Louis II, who partially destroyed the city. After the settlement of the Normansin Apulia, Matera was ruled by William Iron-Arm from 1043.
After a short communal phase and a series of pestilences and earthquakes, the city in the 15th century became an Aragonesepossession, and was given in fief to the barons of the Tramontano family. In 1514, however, the population rebelled against the oppression and killed Count Giovanni Carlo Tramontano. In the 17th century Matera was handed over to the Orsini and then became part of the Terre d’Otranto di Puglia. Later it was capital of Basilicata, a position it retained until 1806, when Joseph Bonaparte reassigned it to Potenza.
In 1927 it became capital of the province of Matera. On September 21, 1943, the Materani rose against the German occupation, the first Italian city to fight against the Wehrmacht.
Matera has gained international fame for its ancient town, the « Sassi di Matera ». The Sassi originated in a prehistoric troglodyte settlement, and these dwellings are thought to be among the first ever human settlements in what is now Italy. The Sassi are habitations dug into the calcareous rock itself, which is characteristic of Basilicata and Apulia. Many of them are really little more than caverns, and in some parts of the Sassi a street lies on top of another group of dwellings. The ancient town grew up on one slope of the rocky ravine created by a river that is now a small stream, and this ravine is known locally as « la Gravina ». In the 1950s, the government of Italy used force to relocate most of the population of the Sassi to areas of the developing modern city.
Until the late 1980s the Sassi was considered an area of poverty, since its dwellings were, and in most cases still are, uninhabitable. The present local administration, however, has become more tourism-oriented, and it has promoted the regeneration of the Sassi with the aid of the Italian government, UNESCO, and Hollywood. Today there are many thriving businesses, pubs, and hotels there.
Matera (Italian pronunciation: [maˈteːra]or locally [maˈtɛːra] ( listen)) is a city and a province in the region of Basilicata, in Southern Italy. It is the capital of the province of Matera and the capital of Basilicata from 1663 to 1806. The town lies in a small canyon carved out by the Gravina.
Known as « la Città Sotterranea » (the Subterranean City), its historical center « Sassi« , along with the Park of the Rupestrian Churches, is considered a World Heritage Site by UNESCO since 1993.
On 17 October 2014, Matera was declared Italian host of European Capital of Culture for 2019 with the Bulgarian town of Plovdiv.[2]
The area of what is now Matera has been settled since the Palaeolithic. The city was allegedly founded by the Romans in the 3rd century BC, with the name of Matheola after the consul Lucius Caecilius Metellus. In AD 664 Matera was conquered by the Lombards and became part of the Duchy of Benevento. In the 7th and 8th centuries the nearby grottos were colonized by both Benedictineand Basilian monastic institutions. The 9th and 10th centuries were characterized by the struggle between the Byzantines and the German emperors, including Louis II, who partially destroyed the city. After the settlement of the Normansin Apulia, Matera was ruled by William Iron-Arm from 1043.
After a short communal phase and a series of pestilences and earthquakes, the city in the 15th century became an Aragonesepossession, and was given in fief to the barons of the Tramontano family. In 1514, however, the population rebelled against the oppression and killed Count Giovanni Carlo Tramontano. In the 17th century Matera was handed over to the Orsini and then became part of the Terre d’Otranto di Puglia. Later it was capital of Basilicata, a position it retained until 1806, when Joseph Bonaparte reassigned it to Potenza.
In 1927 it became capital of the province of Matera. On September 21, 1943, the Materani rose against the German occupation, the first Italian city to fight against the Wehrmacht.
Matera has gained international fame for its ancient town, the « Sassi di Matera ». The Sassi originated in a prehistoric troglodyte settlement, and these dwellings are thought to be among the first ever human settlements in what is now Italy. The Sassi are habitations dug into the calcareous rock itself, which is characteristic of Basilicata and Apulia. Many of them are really little more than caverns, and in some parts of the Sassi a street lies on top of another group of dwellings. The ancient town grew up on one slope of the rocky ravine created by a river that is now a small stream, and this ravine is known locally as « la Gravina ». In the 1950s, the government of Italy used force to relocate most of the population of the Sassi to areas of the developing modern city.
Until the late 1980s the Sassi was considered an area of poverty, since its dwellings were, and in most cases still are, uninhabitable. The present local administration, however, has become more tourism-oriented, and it has promoted the regeneration of the Sassi with the aid of the Italian government, UNESCO, and Hollywood. Today there are many thriving businesses, pubs, and hotels there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matera
www,giacobbegiusti.com
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Samarcanda, il Registan al tramonto (foto di Massimiliano Salvo)
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Samarkand Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Location in Uzbekistan |
|||||||
Country | Uzbekistan | ||||||
Region | Samarqand Region | ||||||
Settled | 5th century BC | ||||||
Government | |||||||
• Type | City Administration | ||||||
• Hakim (Mayor) | Akbar Shukurov | ||||||
Area | |||||||
• Total | 108 km2 (42 sq mi) | ||||||
Elevation | 702 m (2,303 ft) | ||||||
Samarkand (Uzbek: Samarqand; Persian: سمرقند; Cyrillic/Russian: Самарканд), alternatively Samarqand or Samarcand, is a city in modern-day Uzbekistan and is one of the oldest inhabited cities in Central Asia. There is evidence of human activity in the area of the city from the late Paleolithic era, though there is no direct evidence of when exactly Samarkand was founded; some theories indicate that it was founded between the 8th and 7th centuries BC. Prospering from its location on the Silk Road between China and the Mediterranean, at times Samarkand was one of the greatest cities of Central Asia.[2]
By the time of the Achaemenid Empire of Persia, it was the capital of the Sogdian satrapy. The city was taken by Alexander the Great in 329 BC, when it was known by its Greek name of Marakanda.[3] The city was ruled by a succession of Iranian, Persian, and Turkic peoples until the Mongols under Genghis Khanconquered Samarkand in 1220. Today, Samarkand is the capital of Samarqand Region and Uzbekistan‘s second largest city.[4]
The city is noted for being an Islamic centre for scholarly study. In the 14th century it became the capital of the empire of Timur (Tamerlane) and is the site of his mausoleum (the Gur-e Amir). The Bibi-Khanym Mosque (a modern replica) remains one of the city’s most notable landmarks. The Registan was the ancient center of the city. The city has carefully preserved the traditions of ancient crafts: embroidery, gold embroidery, silk weaving, engraving on copper, ceramics, carving and painting on wood.[5] In 2001, UNESCO added the city to its World Heritage List as Samarkand – Crossroads of Cultures.
UNESCO World Heritage Site | |
---|---|
Official name | Samarkand – Crossroads of Cultures |
Location | Samarqand Region, Timurid Empire, Uzbekistan |
Coordinates | 39°39′15″N 66°57′35″E |
Area | 108 km2 (1.16×109 sq ft) |
Criteria | Cultural: i, ii, iv |
Reference | 603 |
Inscription | 2001 (25th Session) |
Website | www.samshahar.uz |
The name probably originates in the Sogdian words asmara, « stone, rock » and kand, « fort, town ».[6]
Along with Bukhara,[7] Samarkand is one of the oldest inhabited cities in Central Asia, prospering from its location on the trade route between China and the Mediterranean (Silk Road).
Archeological excavations held within the city limits (Syob and midtown) as well as suburban areas (Hojamazgil, Sazag’on) unearthed evidence of human activity as early as 40,000 years old, in the Late Paleolithic era. A group of Mesolithicera (12th-7th millennium BC) archeological sites were discovered at Sazag’on-1, Zamichatosh and Okhalik (suburbs of the city). The Syob and Darg’om canals, supplying the city and its suburbs with water, appeared around the 7th to 5th centuries BC (early Iron Age). There is no direct evidence when Samarkand was founded. Researchers of the Institute of Archeology of Samarkand argue for the existence of the city between the 8th and 7th centuries BC.
Samarkand has been one of the main centres of Sogdian civilization from its early days. By the time of the Achaemenid dynasty of Persia it had become the capital of the Sogdian satrapy.
Alexander the Great conquered Samarkand in 329 BC. The city was known as Maracanda by the Greeks.[8] Written sources offer small clues as to the subsequent system of government.[9] They tell of an Orepius who became ruler « not from ancestors, but as a gift of Alexander ».[10]
While Samarkand suffered significant damage during Alexander’s initial conquest, the city recovered rapidly and flourished under the new Hellenic influence. There were also major new construction techniques; oblong bricks were replaced with square ones and superior methods of masonry and plastering were introduced.[11]
Alexander’s conquests introduced classical Greek culture into Central Asia; at least for a time the Greek models were followed closely by the local artisans. This Greek legacy continued as the city became part of the various Greek successor states that emerged following Alexander’s death: it would become part of the Seleucid Empire, Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, and Kushan Empire, successively.
After the Kushan era the city declined; it did not really revive until the 5th century.
Samarkand was conquered by the Persian Sassanians around 260 AD. Under Sassanian rule, the region became an essential site for Manichaeism, and facilitated the dissemination of the religion throughout central Asia.[12]
After the Hephtalites (Huns) conquered Samarkand, they controlled it until the Göktürks, in an alliance with the Sassanid Persians, won it at the Battle of Bukhara. The Turks ruled over Samarkand until they were defeated by the Sassanids during the Göktürk–Persian Wars.
After the Arab conquest of Iran, the Turks conquered Samarkand and held it until the Turkic khaganate collapsed due to wars with the Chinese Tang Dynasty. During this time the city became a protectorate and paid tribute to the ruling Tang. The armies of the Umayyad Caliphate under Qutayba ibn Muslimcaptured the city in around 710 from Turks.[12]
During this period, Samarkand was a diverse religious community and was home to a number of religions, including Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Manichaeism, Judaismand Nestorian Christianity.[13]However, after the Arab conquest of Sogdiana, Islam became the dominant religion, with much of the population converting.[14]
Legend has it that during Abbasidrule,[15] the secret of papermakingwas obtained from two Chineseprisoners from the Battle of Talas in 751, which led to the foundation of the first paper mill of the Islamic world in Samarkand. The invention then spread to the rest of the Islamic world, and from there to Europe.
Abbasid control of Samarkand soon dissipated and was replaced with that of the Samanids (862–999), though it must be noted that the Samanids were still nominal vassals of the Caliph during their control of Samarkand. Under Samanid rule the city became one of the capitals of the Samanid dynasty and an even more important link amongst numerous trade routes. The Samanids were overthrown by the Karakhanids around 1000. During the next two hundred years, Samarkand would be ruled by a succession of Turkic tribes, including the Seljuqs and the Khwarazm-Shahs.[16]
The 10th-century Iranian author Istakhri, who travelled in Transoxiana, provides a vivid description of the natural riches of the region he calls « Smarkandian Sogd »:
I know no place in it or in Samarkand itself where if one ascends some elevated ground one does not see greenery and a pleasant place, and nowhere near it are mountains lacking in trees or a dusty steppe… Samakandian Sogd… [extends] eight days travel through unbroken greenery and gardens… . The greenery of the trees and sown land extends along both sides of the river [Sogd]… and beyond these fields is pasture for flocks. Every town and settlement has a fortress… It is the most fruitful of all the countries of Allah; in it are the best trees and fruits, in every home are gardens, cisterns and flowing water.
The Mongols conquered Samarkand in 1220. Although Genghis Khan« did not disturb the inhabitants [of the city] in any way », according to Juvaini he killed all who took refuge in the citadel and the mosque, pillaged the city completely and conscripted 30,000 young men along with 30,000 craftsmen. Samarkand suffered at least one other Mongol sack by Khan Baraq to get treasure he needed to pay an army. It remained part of the Chagatai Khanate (one of four Mongol successor realms) until 1370.
The Travels of Marco Polo, where Polo records his journey along the Silk Road, describes Samarkand as « a very large and splendid city… »
The Yenisei area had a community of weavers of Chinese origin and Samarkand and Outer Mongolia both had artisans of Chinese origin seen by Changchun.[17]
The khanate allowed the establishment of Christian bishoprics (see below).
In 1365, a revolt against Chagatai Mongol control occurred in Samarkand.[18]
In 1370 the conqueror Timur(Tamerlane), the founder and ruler of the Timurid Empire, made Samarkand his capital. During the next 35 years, he rebuilt most of the city and populated it with the great artisans and craftsmen from across the empire. Timur gained a reputation as a patron of the arts and Samarkand grew to become the centre of the region of Transoxiana. Timur’s commitment to the arts is evident in the way he was ruthless with his enemies but merciful towards those with special artistic abilities, sparing the lives of artists, craftsmen and architects so that he could bring them to improve and beautify his capital. He was also directly involved in his construction projects and his visions often exceeded the technical abilities of his workers. Furthermore, the city was in a state of constant construction and Timur would often request buildings to be done and redone quickly if he was unsatisfied with the results.[19] Timur made it so that the city could only be reached by roads and also ordered the construction of deep ditches and walls, that would run five miles (8.0 km) in circumference, separating the city from the rest of its surrounding neighbors.[20] During this time the city had a population of about 150,000.[21] This great period of reconstruction is encapsulated in the account of Henry III‘s ambassador, Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, who was stationed there between 1403 and 1406. During his stay the city was typically in a constant state of construction. « The Mosque which Timur had caused to be built in memory of the mother of his wife…seemed to us the noblest of all those we visited in the city of Samarkand, but no sooner had it been completed than he begun to find fault with its entrance gateway, which he now said was much too low and must forthwith be pulled down. »[22]
Between 1424 and 1429, the great astronomer Ulugh Beg built the Samarkand Observatory. The sextant was 11 metres long and once rose to the top of the surrounding three-storey structure, although it was kept underground to protect it from earthquakes. Calibrated along its length, it was the world’s largest 90-degree quadrant at the time.[23] However, the observatory was destroyed by religious fanatics in 1449.[23][24]
In 1500 the Uzbek nomadic warriors took control of Samarkand.[21] The Shaybanids emerged as the Uzbek leaders at or about this time.
In the second quarter of the 16th century, the Shaybanids moved their capital to Bukhara and Samarkand went into decline. After an assault by the Afshar shahinshah Nader Shah the city was abandoned in the 18th century, about 1720 or a few years later.[26]
From 1599 to 1756, Samarkand was ruled by the Ashtrakhanid branch of the Khanate of Bukhara.
From 1756 to 1868, Samarkand was ruled by the Manghud (Mongol) Emirs of Bukhara.[27]
The city came under imperial Russian rule after the citadel had been taken by a force under Colonel Konstantin Petrovich von Kaufmanin 1868. Shortly thereafter the small Russian garrison of 500 men were themselves besieged. The assault, which was led by Abdul Malik Tura, the rebellious elder son of the Bukharan Emir, as well as Baba Begof Shahrisabz and Jura Beg of Kitab, was repelled with heavy losses. Alexander Abramov became the first Governor of the Military Okrug, which the Russians established along the course of the Zeravshan River, with Samarkand as the administrative centre. The Russian section of the city was built after this point, largely to the west of the old city.
In 1886, the city became the capital of the newly formed Samarkand Oblast of Russian Turkestan and grew in importance still further when the Trans-Caspian railway reached the city in 1888.
It became the capital of the Uzbek SSR in 1925, before being replaced by Tashkent in 1930. During World War II, after Nazi Germany invadedthe Soviet Union, a number of citizens of Samarqand were sent to the land of Smolensk, to fight the enemy. Many were taken captive or killed by the Nazis.[28][29]
According to various independent sources, Tajiks (Persian-speaking people) are the major ethnic group in the city, while ethnic Uzbeks form a growing minority.[30] Exact figures are difficult to evaluate, since many people in Uzbekistan either identify as « Uzbek » even though they speak Eastern Persian as their first language, or because they are registered as Uzbeks by the central government despite their Eastern Persian language and identity. As explained by Paul Bergne:
Historically, Samarkand was a diverse religious community. Since the 8th century when the Arabsentered Central Asia, Islam has become the main religion. According to some sources, approximately 90% of people are Sunni while Shia Islam, Christianity and Judaism are minor religions.
Giacobbe Giusti, Samarqand • سمرقند
Since the advent of Islam, many mosques, madrasas and mausoleum have been built and all of these make the city very attractive for tourists to visit. What is more, it is very common to notice that until these days many prayers are led in mosques especially on Friday prayer or Jummah. Many of these monuments were built during 14th–15th centuries by Tamerlaneincluding the Registan Mosque and madrasas, the Bibi-Khanum Mosque, the Shakhi-Zinda compound and the Gur-Emir ensemble, as well as Ulugh-Beg’s Observatory
Even though 90% of the population of Uzbekistan are Sunni Muslim, Islam is not followed strictly.[31]Visitors state that in style of dress and attitude to religion people of Samarkand are becoming more westernized rather than keeping their ancestors’ tradition and culture. In spite of following Islam, many Sunni Muslims in Samarkand drink alcohol especially during weddings, holidays and birthdays. In addition, there are 14 small wine manufacturers in Uzbekistan, with one of the oldest and famous being in Samarkand.[32] People have habit of drinking vodka to celebrate good days with their relatives, friends, and neighbors.
There are Shia towns in Samarkand where Shia Muslims are composed almost entirely of ethnic-Iranians[citation needed]. They have their own mosques and mausoleums.
Christians include: Russians, Koreans, Ukrainians and Armenians. Only a few churches now hold services.
Samarkand, the Ancient capital of Sogdiana, was an early Metropolitan Archbishopric of Nestorianism. As a crossroads for caravans between China, Persia and the Crimea, it was religiously tolerant. Even the Mongol Chagatai Khanate was. Marco Polo even claims that Samarkand’s founder (one of four successors to Genghis Khan) converted to Christianity; in any event his descendant and successor Algigidai (Eljigidey), ruling from 1327, allowed the Dominican Order to preach Catholicism and build a church in Samarkand dedicated to John the Baptist and wrote twice to Pope John XXII, who sent him two Dominican ‘ambassadors’. In addition to Nestorians, there were Greek Melkite and Orthodox Christians, but now also a Latin Catholic community, which on 13 August 1329 became the Diocese of Samarcanda / Semiscanten(sis) (Latin), as a suffragan of the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Soltaniyeh which had been established in 1318 by papal bullRedemptor noster from the same pope. The Archdiocese was also entrusted to the Dominicans and was meant to become an ecclesiastical province covering the Mongol khanates. By 1400 it had been suppressed, after the demise of the tolerant khanate, having had two recorded incumbents:
Timur initiated the building of Bibi Khanum after his campaign in India in 1398-1399. Before its reconstruction after an earthquake in 1897, Bibi Khanum had around 450 marble columns that were established with the help of 95 elephants that Timur had brought back from Hindustan. Also from India, artisans and stonemasons designed the mosque’s dome, giving it its distinctiveness amongst the other buildings.[19]
The best-known structure in Samarkand is the mausoleum known as Gur-i Amir. It exhibits many cultures and influences from past civilizations, neighboring peoples, and especially those of Islam. Despite how much devastation the Mongols caused in the past to all of the Islamic architecture that had existed in the city prior to Timur’s succession, much of the destroyed Islamic influences were revived, recreated, and restored under Timur. The blueprint and layout of the mosque itself follows the Islamic passion of geometry and other elements of the structure had been precisely measured. The entrance to the Gur-i Amir is decorated with Arabic calligraphy and inscriptions, the latter being a common feature in Islamic architecture. The attention to detail and meticulous nature of Timur is especially obvious when looking inside the building. Inside, the walls have been covered in tiles through a technique, originally developed in Iran, called « mosaic faience, » a process where each tile is cut, colored, and fit into place individually.[19] The tiles were also arranged in a specific way that would engrave words relating to the city’s religiosity; words like « Muhammad » and « Allah » have been spelled out on the walls using the tiles.[19]
The ornaments and decorations of the walls include floral and vegetal symbols which are used to signify gardens. Gardens are commonly interpreted as paradise in the Islamic religion and they were both inscribed in tomb walls and grown in the city itself.[19] In the city of Samarkand, there were two major gardens, the New Garden and the Garden of Heart’s Delight, and these became the central areas of entertainment for ambassadors and important guests. A friend of Genghis Khan in 1218 named Yelü Chucai, reported that Samarkand was the most beautiful city of all where « it was surrounded by numerous gardens. Every household had a garden, and all the gardens were well designed, with canals and water fountains that supplied water to round or square-shaped ponds. The landscape included rows of willows and cypress trees, and peach and plum orchards were shoulder to shoulder. »[33] The floors of the mausoleum is entirely covered with uninterrupted patterns of tiles of flowers, emphasizing the presence of Islam and Islamic art in the city. In addition, Persian carpets with floral printings have been found in some of the Timurid buildings.[34]
Turko-Mongol influence is also apparent in the architecture of the buildings in Samarkand. For instance, nomads previously used yurts, traditional Mongol tents, to display the bodies of the dead before they were to engage in proper burial procedures. Similarly, it is believed that the melon-shaped domes of the tomb chambers are imitations of those yurts. Timur naturally used stronger materials, like bricks and wood, to establish these tents, but their purposes remain largely unchanged.[19]
The color of the buildings in Samarkand also has significant meaning behind it. For instance, blue is the most common and dominant color that will be found on the buildings, which was used by Timur in order to symbolize a large range of ideas. For one, the blue shades seen in the Gur-i Amir are colors of mourning. Blue was the color of mourning in Central Asia at the time, as it is in many cultures even today, so its dominance in the city’s mausoleum appears only logical. In addition, blue was also seen as the color that would ward off « the evil eye » in Central Asia and the notion is evident in the number of doors in and around the city that were colored blue during this time. Furthermore, blue was representative of water, which was a particularly rare resource around the Middle East and Central Asia; coloring the walls blue symbolized the wealth of the city.
Gold also has a strong presence in the city. Timur’s fascination with vaulting explains the excessive use of gold in the Gur-i Amir as well as the use of embroidered gold fabric in both the city and his buildings. The Mongols had great interests in Chinese- and Persian-style golden silk textiles as well as nasij woven in Iran and Transoxiana. Past Mongol leaders, like Ogodei, built textile workshops in their cities in order to be able to produce gold fabrics themselves.
There is evidence that Timur tried to preserve his Mongol roots. In the chamber in which his body was laid, « tuqs » were found – those are poles with horses’ tails hanging at the top, which was symbolic of an ancient Turkic tradition where horses, which were valuable commodities, were sacrificed in order to honor the dead, [19] and a cavalry standard type shared by many nomads, up to the Ottoman Turks.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Siracusa – Duomo – Navata destra – Foto Giovanni Dall’Orto
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Greek temples (Ancient Greek: Ναός, Naós « dwelling », semantically distinct from Latintemplum(« temple« ) were structures built to house deity statues within Greek sanctuaries in ancient Greek religion. The temple interiors did not serve as meeting places, since the sacrifices and rituals dedicated to the respective deity took place outside them. Temples were frequently used to store votiveofferings. They are the most important and most widespread building type in Greek architecture. In the Hellenistic kingdoms of Southwest Asia and of North Africa, buildings erected to fulfill the functions of a temple often continued to follow the local traditions. Even where a Greek influence is visible, such structures are not normally considered as Greek temples. This applies, for example, to the Graeco-Parthianand Bactrian temples, or to the Ptolemaic examples, which follow Egyptian tradition. Most Greek temples were oriented astronomically.[1]
Between the 9th century BC and the 6th century BC, the ancient Greektemples developed from the small mudbrick structures into double porched monumental buildings with colonnade on all sides, often reaching more than 20 metres in height (not including the roof). Stylistically, they were governed by the regionally specific architectural orders. Whereas the distinction was originally between the Doric and Ionic orders, a third alternative arose in late 3rd century BC with the Corinthian order. A multitude of different ground plans were developed, each of which could be combined with the superstructure in the different orders. From the 3rd century BC onwards, the construction of large temples became less common; after a short 2nd century BC flourish, it ceased nearly entirely in the 1st century BC. Thereafter, only smaller structures were newly begun, while older temples continued to be renovated or brought to completion if in an unfinished state.
Greek temples were designed and constructed according to set proportions, mostly determined by the lower diameter of the columns or by the dimensions of the foundation levels. The nearly mathematical strictness of the basic designs thus reached was lightened by optical refinements. In spite of the still widespread idealised image, Greek temples were painted, so that bright reds and blues contrasted with the white of the building stones or of stucco. The more elaborate temples were equipped with very rich figural decoration in the form of reliefs and pedimental sculpture. The construction of temples was usually organised and financed by cities or by the administrations of sanctuaries. Private individuals, especially Hellenistic rulers, could also sponsor such buildings. In the late Hellenistic period, their decreasing financial wealth, along with the progressive incorporation of the Greek world within the Roman State, whose officials and rulers took over as sponsors, led to the end of Greek temple construction. New temples now belonged to the tradition of Roman architecture, which, in spite of the Greek influence on it, aimed for different goals and followed different aesthetic principles.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The MycenaeanMegaron (15th to the 13th century BCE) was the precursor for later Archaic and Classical Greek temples, but during the Greek dark age the buildings became smaller and less monumental.[2][3] The basic principles for the development of Greek temple architecture have their roots between the 10th century BC and the 7th century BC. In its simplest form as a naos, the temple was a simple rectangular shrine with protruding side walls (antae), forming a small porch. Until the 8th century BC, there were also apsidal structures with more or less semi-circular back walls, but the rectangular type prevailed. By adding columns to this small basic structure, the Greeks triggered the development and variety of their temple architecture.
The Temple of Isthmia, built in 690 – 650 BC was perhaps the first true Archaic Temple with its monumental size, sturdy colonnade of columns and tile roof set the Isthmian temple apart from contemporary buildings [4]
The first temples were mostly mud, brick, and marble structures on stone foundations. The columns and superstructure (entablature) were wooden, door openings and antae were protected with wooden planks. The mud brick walls were often reinforced by wooden posts, in a type of half-timbered technique. The elements of this simple and clearly structured wooden architecture produced all the important design principles that were to determine the development of Greek temples for centuries.
Near the end of the 7th century BC, the dimensions of these simple structures were increased considerably.[5] Temple C at Thermos is the first of the hekatompedoi, temples with a length of 100 feet (30 m). Since it was not technically possible to roof broad spaces at that time, these temples remained very narrow, at 6 to 10 metres in width.
To stress the importance of the cult statue and the building holding it, the naos was equipped with a canopy, supported by columns. The resulting set of porticos surrounding the temple on all sides (the peristasis) was exclusively used for temples in Greek architecture.[6]
The combination of the temple with porticos (ptera) on all sides posed a new aesthetic challenge for the architects and patrons: the structures had to be built to be viewed from all directions. This led to the development of the peripteros, with a frontal pronaos(porch), mirrored by a similar arrangement at the back of the building, the opisthodomos, which became necessary for entirely aesthetic reasons.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
After the reintroduction of stone architecture, the essential elements and forms of each temple, such as the number of columns and of column rows, underwent constant change throughout Greek antiquity.
In the 6th century BC, IonianSamosdeveloped the double-colonnaded dipteros as an alternative to the single peripteros. This idea was later copied in Didyma, Ephesos and Athens. Between the 6th and the late 4th century BC, innumerable temples were built; nearly every polis, every colony contained one or several. There were also temples at extra-urban sites and at major sanctuaries like Olympia and Delphi.
The observable change of form indicates the search for a harmonious form of all architectural elements: the development led from simpler early forms which often appear coarse and bulky up to the aesthetic perfection and refinement of the later structures; from simple experimentation to the strict mathematical complexity of ground plans and superstructures.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
From the early Hellenistic periodonwards, the Greek peripteral temple lost much of its importance. With very few exceptions, Classical temple construction ceased both in Hellenistic Greece and in the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia. Only the west of Asia Minor maintained a low level of temple construction during the 3rd century BC. The construction of large projects, such as the temple of Apollo at Didyma near Miletusand the Artemision at Sardis did not make much progress.
The 2nd century BC saw a revival of temple architecture, including peripteral temples. This is partially due to the influence of the architect Hermogenes of Priene, who redefined the principles of Ionic temple construction both practically and through theoretical work.[7] At the same time, the rulers of the various Hellenistic kingdoms provided copious financial resources. Their self-aggrandisation, rivalry, desires to stabilise their spheres of influence, as well as the increasing conflict with Rome(partially played out in the field of culture), combined to release much energy into the revival of complex Greek temple architecture.[8] During this phase, Greek temples became widespread in southern Asia Minor, Egypt and Northern Africa.
But in spite of such examples and of the positive conditions produced by the economic upturn and the high degree of technical innovation in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC,[9]Hellenistic religious architecture is mostly represented by a multitude of small temples in antis and prostyletemples, as well as tiny shrines (naiskoi). The latter had been erected in important places, on market squares, near springs and by roads, since the Archaic period, but reached their main flourish now. This limitation to smaller structures led to the development of a special form, the pseudoperipteros, which uses engaged columns along the cellawalls to produce the illusion of a peripteral temple. An early case of this is temple L at Epidauros, followed by many prominent Roman examples, such as the Maison Carrée at Nîmes.[10]
In the early 1st century BC, the Mithridatic Wars led to changes of architectural practice. The role of sponsor was increasingly taken by Roman magistrates of the Eastern provinces,[11] who rarely demonstrated their generosity by building temples.[12] Nevertheless, some temples were erected at this time, e.g. the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias.[13]
The introduction of the principatelead to few new buildings, mostly temples for the imperial cult[14] or to Roman deities, e.g. the temple of Jupiter at Baalbek.[15] Although new temples to Greek deities still continued to be constructed, e.g. the Tychaion at Selge[16] they tend to follow the canonical forms of the developing Roman imperial style of architecture[17] or to maintain local non-Greek idiosyncrasies, like the temples in Petra[18] or Palmyra.[19]The increasing romanisation of the east[20] entailed the end of Greek temple architecture, although work continued on the completion of unfinished large structures like the temple of Apollo at Didyma or the Olympieion at Athens into the later 2nd century AD.[21]
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The edicts of Theodosius I and his successors on the throne of the Roman Empire, banning pagan cults, led to the gradual closure of Greek temples, or their conversion into Christianchurches.
Thus ends the history of the Greek temple, although many of them remained in use for a long time afterwards. For example, the Athenian Parthenon, first reconsecrated as a church was turned into a mosque after the Ottoman conquest and remained structurally unharmed until the 17th century AD. Only the unfortunate impact of a Venetian cannonball into the building, then used to store gunpowder, led to the destruction of much of this important temple, more than 2,000 years after it was built.
Canonical Greek temples maintained the same basic structure throughout many centuries. The Greeks used a limited number of spatial components, influencing the plan, and of architectural members, determining the elevation.
The central cult structure of the temple is the naos or Cella, which usually contained a cult statue of the deity. In Archaic temples, a separate room, the so-called adyton was sometimes included after the cella for this purpose. In Sicily, this habit continued into the Classical period.
In front of the cella, there is a porch, the pronaos, created by the protruding side walls of the cella (the antae), and two columns placed between them. A door allows the cella to be accessed from the pronaos. A similar room at the back of the cella is called the opisthodomos. There is no door connecting the opisthodomos with the cella; its existence is necessitated entirely by aesthetic considerations: to maintain the consistency of the peripteral temple and to ensure its viewability from all sides, the execution of the front has to be repeated at the rear. A restricted space, the adyton, may be included at the far end of the cella, backing up on the opisthodomos.
The complex formed by the naos, pronaos, opisthodomos and possibly the adyton is enclosed on all four sides by the peristasis, usually a single row, rarely a double one, of columns. This produces a surrounding portico, the pteron, which offered shelter to visitors of the sanctuary and room for cult processions.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
These components allowed the realisation of a variety of different plan types in Greek temple architecture. The simplest example of a Greek temple is the templum in antis, a small rectangular structure sheltering the cult statue. In front of the cella, a small porch or pronaoswas formed by the protruding cella walls, the antae. The pronaos was linked to the cella by a door. To support the superstructure, two columns were placed between the antae (distyle in antis). When equipped with an opisthodomos with a similar distyle in antis design, this is called a double anta temple. A variant of that type has the opisthodomos at the back of the cella indicated merely by half-columns and shortened antae, so that it can be described as a pseudo-opisthodomos.
If the porch of a temple in antis has a row of usually four or six columns in front of its whole breadth, the temple is described as a prostylos or prostyle temple. The whole pronaosmay be omitted in this case or just leave the antae without columns. An amphiprostylos or amphiprostylerepeats the same column setting at the back.
In contrast, the term peripteros or peripteral designates a temple surrounded by ptera (colonnades) on all four sides, each usually formed by a single row of columns. This produces an unobstructed surrounding portico, the peristasis, on all four sides of the temple. A Hellenistic and Roman form of this shape is the pseudoperipteros, where the side columns of the peristasis are indicated only by engaged columns or pilastersdirectly attached to the external cella walls.
A dipteros or dipteral is equipped with a double colonnade on all four sides, sometimes with further rows of columns at the front and back. A pseudodipteros has engaged columns in the inner row of columns at the sides.
Circular temples form a special type. If they are surrounded by a colonnade, they are known as peripteral tholoi. Although of sacred character, their function as a temple can often not be asserted. A comparable structure is the monopteros, or cyclostyle which, however, lacks a cella.
To clarify ground plan types, the defining terms can be combined, producing terms such as: peripteral double anta temple, prostyle in antis, peripteral amphiprostyle, etc.
An additional definition, already used by Vitruvius (IV, 3, 3) is determined by the number of columns at the front. Modern scholarship uses the following terms:
technical term | number of columns at front |
---|---|
distyle | 2 columns |
tetrastyle | 4 columns, term used by Vitruvius |
hexastyle | 6 columns, term used by Vitruvius |
octastyle | 8 columns |
decastyle | 10 columns |
The term dodekastylos is only used for the 12-column hall at the Didymaion. No temples with facades of that width are known.
Very few temples had an uneven number of columns at the front. Examples are Temple of Hera I at Paestum, Temple of Apollo A at Metapontum, both of which have a width of nine columns (enneastyle), and the Archaic temple at Thermoswith a width of five columns (pentastyle).
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The elevation of Greek temples is always subdivided in three zones: the crepidoma, the columns and the entablature.
Stereobate, euthynteria and crepidoma form the substructure of the temple. The underground foundation of a Greek temple is known as the stereobate. It consists of several layers of squared stone blocks. The uppermost layer, the euthynteria, partially protrudes above the ground level. Its surface is carefully smoothed and levelled. It supports a further foundation of three steps, the crepidoma. The uppermost level of the crepidomaprovides the surface on which the columns and walls are placed; it is called stylobate.
Placed on the stylobate are the vertical column shafts, tapering towards the top. They are normally made of several separately cut column drums. Depending on the architectural order, a different number of flutings are cut into the column shaft: Doric columns have 18 to 20 flutings, Ionic and Corinthian ones normally have 24. Early Ionic columns had up to 48 flutings. While Doric columns stand directly on the stylobate, Ionic and Corinthian ones possess a base, sometimes additionally placed atop a plinth.
In Doric columns, the top is formed by a concavely curved neck, the hypotrachelion, and the capital, in Ionic columns, the capital sits directly on the shaft. In the Doric order, the capital consists of a circular torus bulge, originally very flat, the so-called echinus, and a square slab, the abacus. In the course of their development, the echinus expands more and more, culminating in a linear diagonal, at 45° to the vertical. The echinus of Ionic columns is decorated with an egg-and-dart band followed by a sculpted pillow forming two volutes, supporting a thin abacus. The eponymous Corinthian capital of the Corinthian order is crowned by rings of stylised acanthus leaves, forming tendrils and volutes that reach to the corners of the abacus.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The capitals support the entablature. In the Doric order, the entablature always consists of two parts, the architrave and the Doric frieze (or triglyph frieze). The Ionic order of Athens and the Cyclades also used a frieze above an architrave, whereas the frieze remained unknown in the Ionic architecture of Asia Minor until the 4th century BC. There, the architrave was directly followed by the dentil. The frieze was originally placed in front of the roof beams, which were externally visible only in the earlier temples of Asia Minor. The Doric frieze was structured by triglyphs. These were placed above the axis of each column, and above the centre of each intercolumniation. The spaces between the triglyphs contained metopes, sometimes painted or decorated with relief sculpture. In the Ionic or Corinthian orders, the frieze possesses no triglyphs and is simply left flat, sometimes decorated with paintings or reliefs. With the introduction of stone architecture, the protection of the porticos and the support of the roof construction was moved upwards to the level of the geison, depriving the frieze of its structural function and turning it into an entirely decorative feature. Frequently, the cella is also decorated with architrave and frieze, especially at the front of the pronaos.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Above the frieze, or an intermediate member, e.g. the dentil of the Ionic or Corinthian orders, the corniceprotrudes notably. It consists of the geison (on the sloped sides or pediments of the narrow walls a sloped geison), and the sima. On the long side, the sima, often elaborately decorated, was equipped with water spouts, often in the shape of lions’ heads. The pedimental triangle or tympanon on the narrow sides of the temple was created by the Doric introduction of the gabled roof, earlier temples often had hipped roofs. The tympanon was usually richly decorated with sculptures of mythical scenes or battles. The corners and ridges of the roof were decorated with acroteria, originally geometric, later floral or figural decorations.
As far as topographically possible, the temples were freestanding and designed to be viewed from all sides. They were not normally designed with consideration for their surroundings, but formed autonomous structures. This is a major difference from Roman temples which were often designed as part of a planned urban area or square and had a strong emphasis on being viewed frontally.
The foundations of Greek temples could reach dimensions of up to 115 by 55 m, i.e. the size of an average soccer field. Columns could reach a height of 20 m. To design such large architectural bodies harmoniously, a number of basic aesthetic principles were developed and tested already on the smaller temples. The main measurement was the foot, varying between 29 and 34 cm from region to region. This initial measurement was the basis for all the units that determined the shape of the temple. Important factors include the lower diameter of the columns and the width of their plinths. The distance between the column axes (intercolumniation or bay) could also be used as a basic unit. These measurements were in set proportions to other elements of design, such as column height and column distance. In conjunction with the number of columns per side, they also determined the dimensions of stylobate and peristasis, as well as of the naosproper. The rules regarding vertical proportions, especially in the Doric order, also allow for a deduction of the basic design options for the entablature from the same principles. Alternatives to this very rational system were sought in the temples of the late 7th and early 6th centuries BC, when it was attempted to develop the basic measurements from the planned dimensions of cella or stylobate, i.e. to reverse the system described above and deduce the smaller units from the bigger ones. Thus, for example, the cella length was sometimes set at 100 feet (30 m) (100 is a sacred number, also known from the hecatomb, a sacrifice of 100 animals), and all further measurements had to be in relation to this number, leading to aesthetically quite unsatisfactory solutions.
Another determining design feature was the relationship linking naosand peristasis. In the original temples, this would have been subject entirely to practical necessities, and always based on axial links between cella walls and columns, but the introduction of stone architecture broke that connection. Nevertheless, it did survive throughout Ionic architecture. In Doric temples, however, the wooden roof construction, originally placed behind the frieze, now started at a higher level, behind the geison. This ended the structural link between frieze and roof; the structural elements of the latter could now be placed independent of axial relationships. As a result, the cellawalls lost their fixed connection with the columns for a long time and could be freely placed within the peristasis. Only after a long phase of developments did the architects choose the alignment of the outer wall face with the adjacent column axis as the obligatory principle for Doric temples. Doric temples in Greater Greece rarely follow this system.
The basic proportions of the building were determined by the numeric relationship of columns on the front and back to those on the sides. The classic solution chosen by Greek architects is the formula « frontal columns : side columns = n : (2n+1) », which can also be used for the number of intercolumniations. As a result, numerous temples of the Classical period in Greece (circa500 to 336 BC) had 6 × 13 columns or 5 × 11 intercolumnitions. The same proportions, in a more abstract form, determine most of the Parthenon, not only in its 8 × 17 column peristasis, but also, reduced to 4:9, in all other basic measurements, including the intercolumniations, the stylobate, the width-height proportion of the entire building, and the geison (here reversed to 9:4).[22]
Since the turn of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, the proportion of column width to the space between columns, the intercolumnium, played an increasingly important role in architectural theory, reflected, for example, in the works of Vitruvius. According to this proportion, Vitruvius (3, 3, 1 ff) distinguished between five different design concepts and temple types:
The determination and discussion of these basic principles went back to Hermogenes, whom Vitruvius credits with the invention of the eustylos. The Temple of Dionysos at Teos, normally ascribed to Hermogenes, does indeed have intercolumnia measuring 2 ⅙ of the lower column diameters.[23]
To loosen up the mathematical strictness and to counteract distortions of human visual perception, a slight curvature of the whole building, hardly visible with the naked eye, was introduced. The ancient architects had realised that long horizontal lines tend to make the optical impression of sagging towards their centre. To prevent this effect, the horizontal lines of stylobate and/or entablature were raised by a few centimetres towards the middle of a building. This avoidance of mathematically straight lines also included the columns, which did not taper in a linear fashion, but were refined by a pronounced « swelling » (entasis) of the shaft. Additionally, columns were placed with a slight inclinationtowards the centre of the building. Curvature and entasis occur from the mid 6th century BC onwards. The most consistent use of these principles is seen in the Classical Parthenon on the AthenianAcropolis. Its curvature affects all horizontal elements up to the sima, even the cella walls reflect it throughout their height. The inclination of its columns (which also have a clear entasis), is continued by architrave and triglyph frieze, the external walls of the cella also reflect it. Not one block of the building, not a single architrave or frieze element could be hewn as a simple rectilinear block. All architectural elements display slight variations from the right angle, individually calculated for each block. As a side effect, each preserved building block from the Parthenon, its columns, cella walls or entablature, can be assigned its exact position today. In spite of the immense extra effort entailed in this perfection, the Parthenon, including its sculptural decoration, was completed in the record time of sixteen years (447 to 431 BC).[24]
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Only three basic colors were used: white, blue and red, occasionally also black. The crepidoma, columns and architrave were mostly white. Only details, like the horizontally cut grooves at the bottom of Doric capitals (anuli), or decorative elements of Doric architraves (e.g. taenia and guttae) might be painted in different colours. The frieze was clearly structured by use of colours. In a Doric triglyph frieze, blue triglyphs alternated with red metopes, the latter often serving as a background for individually painted sculptures. Reliefs, ornaments and pedimental sculptures were executed with a wider variety of colours and nuances. Recessed or otherwise shaded elements, like mutules or triglyph slits could be painted black. Paint was mostly applied to parts that were not load-bearing, whereas structural parts like columns or the horizontal elements of architrave and geisonwere left unpainted (if made of high quality limestone or marble) or covered with a white stucco.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Greek temples were often enhanced with figural decorations. especially the frieze areas offered space for reliefs and relief slabs; the pedimental triangles often contained scenes of free-standing sculpture. In Archaic times, even the architrave could be relief-decorated on Ionic temples, as demonstrated by the earlier temple of Apollo at Didyma. Here, the architrave corners bore gorgons, surrounded by lions and perhaps other animals. On the other hand, the Ionic temples of Asia Minor did not possess a separate frieze to allow space for relief decoration. The most common area for relief decoration remained the frieze, either as a typical Doric triglyph frieze, with sculpted metopes, or as a continuous frieze on Cycladic and later on Eastern Ionic temples.
The metopes, separate individual tableaux that could usually not contain more than three figures each, usually depicted individual scenes belonging to a broader context. It is rare for scenes to be distributed over several metopes; instead, a general narrative context, usually a battle, is created by the combination of multiple isolated scenes. Other thematical contexts could be depicted in this fashion. For example, the metopes at the front and back of the Temple of Zeusat Olympia depicted the Twelve Labours of Heracles. Individual mythological scenes, like the abduction of Europa or a cattle raid by the Dioscuri could be thus depicted, as could scenes from the voyage of the Argonauts or the Trojan War. The battles against the centaurs and Amazons, as well as the gigantomachy, all three depicted on the Parthenon, were recurring themes on many temples.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Battle scenes of all kinds were also a common theme of Ionic friezes, e.g. the Gigantomachy on the temple of Hekate at Lagina, or the Amazonomachy on the temple of Artemis at Magnesia on the Maeander, both from the late 2nd century BC. Complex compositions visualised the back and forth of fighting for the viewer. Such scenes were contrasted by more quiet or peaceful ones: The Assembly of the gods and a procession dominate the 160 m long frieze that is placed on top of the naos walls of the Parthenon.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Special attention was paid to the decoration of the pedimentaltriangles, not least because of their size and frontal position. Originally, the pediments were filled with massive reliefs, e.g. shortly after 600 BC on the temple of Artemis at Kerkyra, where the west pediment is taken up by the gorgonMedusa and her children at the centre, flanked by panthers. Smaller scenes are displayed in the low corners of the pediments, e.g. Zeus with a thunderbolt, fighting a Giant. The pedimental sculpture of the first peripteral temple on the Athenian Acropolis, from circa 570 BC, is nearly free-standing sculpture, but remains dominated by a central scene of fighting lions.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Again, the corners contain separate scenes, including Heracles fighting Triton. After the mid-6th century BC, the compositional scheme changes: animal scenes are now placed in the corners, soon they disappear entirely. The central composition is now taken over by mythological fights or by rows of human figures. The high regard in which the Greeks held pedimental sculptures in demonstrated by the discovery of the sculptures from the Late Archaic temple of Apollo at Delphi, which had received a veritable burial after the temple’s destruction in 373 BC.[25] The themes of the individual pedimental scenes are increasingly dominated by myths connected with the locality. Thus, the east pediment at Olympia depicts the preparations for a chariot race between Pelopsand Oinomaos, the mythical king of nearby Pisa. It is the foundation myth of the sanctuary itself, displayed here in its most prominent position. A similarly direct association is provided by the birth of Athena on the east pediment of the Parthenon, or the struggle for Attica between her and Poseidon on its west pediment. The pediment of the later temple of the Kabeiroi at Samothrace, late 3rd century BC, depicted a probably purely local legend, of no major interest to Greece as a whole.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The roofs were crowned by acroteria, originally in the form of elaborately painted clay disks, from the 6th century BC onwards as fully sculpted figures placed on the corners and ridges of the pediments. They could depict bowls and tripods, griffins, spinxes, and especially mythical figures and deities. For example, depictions of the running Nike crowned the Alcmaeonidtemple of Apollo at Delphi, and mounted amazons formed the corner akroteria of the temple of Asklepios in Epidauros. Pausanias(5, 10, 8) describes bronze tripods forming the corner akroteria and statues of Nike by Paeonios forming the ridge ones on the Temple of Zeus at Olympia.
For the sake of completeness, a further potential bearer of sculptural decoration should be mentioned here: the columnae celetae of the Ionic temples at Ephesos and Didyma. Here, already on the Archaic temples, the lower parts of the column shafts were decorated by protruding relief decorations, originally depicting rows of figures, replaced on their late Classical and Hellenistic successors with mythological scenes and battles.[26]
The functions of the temple mainly concentrated on the cella, the « dwelling » of the cult statue. The elaboration of the temple’s external aspects served to stress the dignity of the cella. In contrast, the cellaitself was often finished with some moderation. The only source of light for cella and cult statue was the cella’s frontal door. Thus, the interior only received a limited amount of light. Exceptions are found in the temples of Apollo at Bassae and of Athena at Tegea, where the southern cella wall had a door, potentially allowing more light into the interior. A special situation applies to the temples of the Cyclades, where the roof was usually of marble tiles. Marble roofs also covered the temple of Zeus at Olympia and the Parthenon at Athens. As marble is not entirely opaque, those cellas may have been permeated with a distinctive diffused light. For cultic reasons, but also to use the light of the rising sun, virtually all Greek temples were oriented to the east. Some exceptions existed, e.g. the west-facing temples of Artemis at Ephesos and at Magnesia on the Maeander, or the north-south oriented temples of Arcadia. Such exceptions are probably connected with cult practice. Study of the soils around temple sites, is evidence that temple sites were chosen with regard to particular deities: for example, amid arable soils for the agricultural deities Dionysos and Demeter, and near rocky soils for the hunter gatherer deities Apollo and Artemis.[27]
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The cult statue was often oriented towards an altar, placed axially in front of the temple. To preserve this connection, the single row of columns often found along the central axis of the cella in early temples was replaced by two separate rows towards the sides. The central one of the three aisles thereby created was often emphasised as the main one. The dignity of the central aisle of the cella could be underlined by the use of special elements of design. For example, the oldest known Corinthian capitals are from the naoiof Doric temples. The impressiveness of the internal aisle could be emphasised further by having a third row of columns along the back, as is the case at the Parthenon and at the temple of Zeusin Nemea. The Parthenon cella, also had another impressive feature, namely two tiers of columns atop each other, as did the temple of Aphaia on Aegina. The temple of Athena at Tegea shows another variation, where the two column rows are indicated by half-columns protruding from the side walls and crowned with Corinthian capitals. An early form of this solution can be seen at Bassae, where the central column of the back portico remains free-standing, while the columns along the sides are in fact semi-columns connected with the walls by curved protrusions.
The cella of a Greek temple was entered only rarely and by very few visitors. Generally, entry to the room, except during important festivals or other special occasions, was limited to the priests. Sometimes, the divine character of the cult image was stressed even more by removing it further into a separate space within the cella, the adyton. Especially in Magna Graecia, this tradition continued for a long time. Over the decades and centuries, numerous votive offerings could be placed in the cella, giving it a museum-like character (Pausanias 5, 17).
The back room of the temple, the opisthodomos, usually served as a storage space for cult equipment. It could also hold the temple treasury. For some time, the opisthodomus of the Athenian Parthenon contained the treasury of the Delian League, thus directly protected by the deity. Pronaos and opisthodomos were often closed off from the peristasis by wooden barriers or fences.
Like the cella, the peristasis could serve the display and storage of votives, often placed between the columns. In some cases, votive offerings could also be directly affixed to the columns, as is visible e.g. on the Temple of Hera at Olympia. The peristasis could also be used for cult processions, or simply as shelter from the elements, a function emphasised by Vitruvius (III 3, 8f).
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The sponsors of Greek temples usually belonged to one of two groups: on the one hand public sponsors, including the bodies and institutions that administrated important sanctuaries; on the other hand influential and affluent private sponsors, especially Hellenistic kings. The financial needs were covered by income from taxes or special levies, or by the sale of raw materials like silver. The collection of donations also occurred, especially for supra-regional sanctuaries like Delphi or Olympia. Hellenistic monarchs could appear as private donors in cities outside their immediate sphere of influence and sponsor public buildings, as exemplified by Antiochos IV, who ordered the rebuilding of the Olympieion at Athens. In such cases, the money came from the private treasury of the donor.[28]
Building contracts were advertised after a popular or elected assembly had passed the relevant motion. An appointed committee would choose the winner among the submitted plans. Afterwards, another committee would supervise the building process. Its responsibilities included the advertising and awarding of individual contracts, the practical supervision of the construction, the inspection and acceptance of completed parts, and the paying of wages. The original advert contained all the information necessary to enable a contractor to make a realistic offer for completing the task. Contracts were normally awarded to the competitor offering the most complete service for the cheapest price. In the case of public buildings, the materials were normally provided by the public sponsor, exceptions were clarified in the contract. Contractors were usually only responsible for specific parts of the overall construction, as most businesses were small. Originally, payment was by person and day, but from the 5th century BC onwards, payment by piece or construction stage became common.[29]
The costs could be immense. For example, surviving receipts show that in the rebuilding of the Artemision of Ephesos, a single column cost 40,000 drachmas. Considering that a worker was paid about two drachmas, that equals nearly 2 million Euro (on a modern west European wage scale). Since the overall number of columns required for the design was 120, even this aspect of the building would have caused costs equivalent to those of major projects today (circa 360 million Euro).[30]
One of the criteria by which Greek temples are classified is the Classical order chosen as their basic aesthetic principle. This choice, which was rarely entirely free, but normally determined by tradition and local habit, would lead to widely differing rules of design. According to the three major orders, a basic distinction can be made between the Doric, the Ionic and the CorinthianTemple.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The modern image of Greek temple architecture is strongly influenced by the numerous reasonably well-preserved temples of the Doric order. Especially the ruins of Southern Italy and Sicily were accessible to western travellers quite early in the development of Classical studies, e.g. the temples at Paestum, Akragas or Segesta,[31]but the Hephaisteion and the Parthenon of Athens also influenced scholarship and Neoclassical architecture from an early point onwards.
The beginnings of Greek temple construction in the Doric order can be traced to early in the 7th century BC. With the transition to stone architecture around 600 BC, the order was fully developed; from then on, only details were changed, developed and refined, mostly in the context of solving the challenges posed by the design and construction of monumental temples.
Apart from early forms, occasionally still with apsidal backs and hipped roofs, the first 100-foot (30 m) peripteral temples occur quite soon, before 600 BC. An example is Temple C at Thermos, circa 625 BC,[32] a 100-foot-long (30 m) hekatompedos, surrounded by a peristasis of 5 × 15 columns, its cella divided in two aisles by a central row of columns. Its entirely Doric entablature is indicated by painted clay plaques, probably early example of metopes, and clay triglyphs.[33] It appears to be the case that all temples erected within the spheres of influence of Corinthand Argos in the 7th century BC were Doric peripteroi. The earliest stone columns did not display the simple squatness of the high and late Archaic specimens, but rather mirror the slenderness of their wooden predecessors. Already around 600 BC, the demand of viewability from all sides was applied to the Doric temple, leading to the mirroring of the frontal pronaos by an opisthodomos at the back. This early demand continued to affect Doric temples especially in the Greek motherland. Neither the Ionic temples, nor the Doric specimens in Magna Graecia followed this principle.[34] The increasing monumentalisation of stone buildings, and the transfer of the wooden roof construction to the level of the geison removed the fixed relationship between the naosand the peristasis. This relationship between the axes of walls and columns, almost a matter of course in smaller structures, remained undefined and without fixed rules for nearly a century: the position of the naos « floated » within the peristasis.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The Heraion of Olympia[35] (circa600 BC) exemplifies the transition from wood to stone construction. This building, initially constructed entirely of wood and mudbrick, had its wooden columns gradually replaced with stone ones over time. Like a museum of Doric columns and Doric capitals, it contains examples of all chronological phases, up to the Roman period. One of the columns in the opisthodomos remained wooden at least until the 2nd century AD, when Pausanias described it. This 6 by 16 columns temple already called for a solution to the Doric corner conflict. It was achieved through a reduction of the corner intercolumniations the so-called corner contraction. The Heraion is most advanced in regards to the relationship between naosand peristasis, as it uses the solution that became canonical decades later, a linear axis running along the external faces of the outer naos walls and through the central axis of the associated columns. Its differentiation between wider intercolumnia on the narrow sides and narrower ones on the long sides was also an influential feature, as was the positioning of the columns within the cella, corresponding with those on the outside, a feature not repeated until the construction of the temple at Bassae 150 years later.[36]
The oldest Doric temple entirely built of stone is represented by the early 6th century BC Artemis Temple in Kerkyra (modern Corfu).[37] All parts of this building are bulky and heavy, its columns reach a height of barely five times their bottom diameter and were very closely spaced with an intercolumniation of a single column width. The individual members of its Doric orders all differ considerably from the later canon, although all essential Doric features are present. Its ground plan of 8 by 17 columns, probably pseudoperipteral, is unusual.
Among the Doric temples, the PeisistratidOlympieion at Athenshas a special position.[38] Although this building was never completed, its architect apparently attempted to adapt the Ionic dipteros. Column drums built into the later foundations indicate that it was originally planned as a Doric temple. Nonetheless, its ground plan follows the Ionic examples of Samos so closely that it would be hard to reconcile such a solution with a Doric triglyph frieze. After the expulsion of Hippias in 510 BC, work on this structure was stopped: Democratic Athens had no desire to continue a monument of tyrannicalself-aggrandisation.
Apart from this exception and some examples in the more experimental poleis of Greater Greece, the Classical Doric temple type remained the peripteros. Its perfection was a priority of artistic endeavour throughout the Classical period.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The canonical solution was found fairly soon by the architect Libon of Elis, who erected the Temple of Zeus at Olympia around 460 BC. With its 6 × 13 columns or 5 × 12 intercolumniations, this temple was designed entirely rationally. Its column bays (axis to axis) measured 16 feet (4.9 m), a triglyph + metope 8 feet (2.4 m), a mutulus plus the adjacent space (via) 4 feet (1.2 m), the tile width of the marble roof was 2 feet (0.61 m). Its columns are powerful, with only a slight entasis; the echinus of the capitals is already nearly linear at 45°. All of the superstructure is affected by curvature. The cella measures exactly 3 × 9 column distances (axis to axis), its external wall faces are aligned with the axes of the adjacent columns.
The Classical proportion, 6 × 13 columns, is taken up by numerous temples, e.g. the Temple of Apolloon Delos (circa 470 BC), the Temple of Hephaistos at Athens and the temple of Poseidon on Cape Sounion.[39] A slight variation, with 6 × 12 columns or 5 × 11 intercolumniations occurs as frequently.
The Parthenon[40]maintains the same proportion at a larger scale of 8 × 17 columns, but follows the same principles. In spite of the eight columns on its front, the temple is a pure peripteros, its external cella walls align with the axes of the 2nd and 7th columns. In other regards, the Parthenon is distinguished as an exceptional example among the mass of Greek peripteroi by many distinctive aesthetic solutions in detail. For example, the antae of pronaos
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
and opisthodomos are shortened so as to form simple pillars. Instead of longer antae, there are prostylecolonnades inside the peristasis on the front and back, reflecting Ionic habits. The execution of the naos, with a western room containing four columns, is also exceptional. The Parthenon’s Archaic predecessoralready contained such a room. All measurements in the Parthenon are determined by the proportion 4:9. It determines column width to column distance, width to length of the stylobate, and of the naos without antae. The temple’s width to height up to the geison is determined by the reverse proportion 9:4, the same proportion squared, 81:16, determines temple length to height. All of this mathematical rigour is relaxed and loosened by the optical refinements mentioned above, which affect the whole building, from layer to layer, and element to element. 92 sculpted metopes decorate its triglyph frieze: centauromachy, amazonomachyand gigantomachy are its themes. The external walls of the naos are crowned with a figural friezesurrounding the entire cella and depicting the Panathenaic procession as well as the Assembly of the Gods. Large format figures decorate the pediments on the narrow sides. This conjunction of strict principles and elaborate refinements makes the Parthenonthe paradigmatic Classical temple. The Temple of Hephaistos at Athens, erected shortly after the Parthenon, uses the same aesthetic and proportional principles, without adhering as closely to the 4:9 proportion.[41]
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
In the 4th century BC, a few Doric temples were erected with 6 × 15 or 6 × 14 columns, probably referring to local Archaic predecessors, e.g. the Temple of Zeus in Nemea[42]and that of Athena in Tegea.[43]Generally, Doric temples followed a tendency to become lighter in their superstructures. Columns became narrower, intercolumniations wider. This shows a growing adjustment to the proportion and weight of Ionic temples, mirrored by a progressive tendency among Ionic temples to become somewhat heavier. In the light of this mutual influence it is not surprising that in the late 4th century BC temple of Zeus at Nemea, the front is emphasised by a pronaostwo intercolumniations deep, while the opisthodomos is suppressed.[44]Frontality is a key feature of Ionic temples. The emphasis on the pronaos already occurred in the slightly older temple of Athena at Tegea, but there it was repeated in the opisthodomos. Both temples continued the tendency towards more richly equipped interiors, in both cases with engaged or full columns of the Corinthian order.
The increasing reduction of the number of columns along the long sides, clearly visible on Ionic temples, is mirrored in Doric constructions. A small temple at Kournó has a peristasis of merely 6 × 7 columns, a stylobate of only 8 × 10 m and corners executed as pilasters towards the front.[45] The peristasis of monumental Doric temples is merely hinted at here; the function as a simple canopy for the shrine of the cult statue is clear.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Sicily and Southern Italy hardly participated in these developments. Here, most temple construction took place during the 6th and 5th centuries BC.[46] Later, the Western Greeks showed a pronounced tendency to develop unusual architectural solutions, more or less unthinkable in the mother poleis of their colonies. For example, there are two examples of temples with uneven column numbers at the front, Temple of Hera I at Paestum[34] and Temple of Apollo A at Metapontum.[47] Both temples had fronts of nine columns.
The technical possibilities of the western Greeks, which had progressed beyond those in the motherland, permitted many deviations. For example, innovations regarding the construction of the entablature developed in the west allowed the spanning of much wider spaces than before, leading to some very deep peristaseis and broad naoi. The peristasis often had a depth of two column distances, e.g. at Temple of Hera I, Paestum, and temples C, F and G at Selinus,[48]classifying them as pseudodipteroi. The opisthodomos only played a subsidiary role, but did occur sometimes, e.g. at the temple of Poseidon in Paestum. Much more frequently, the temples included a separate room at the back end of the cella, entrance to which was usually forbidden, the adyton. In some cases, the adyton was a free-standing structure within the cella, e.g. temple G in Selinus. If possible, columns inside the cella were avoided, allowing for open roof constructions of up to 13 m width.
The largest such structure was the Olympieion of Akragas, an 8 × 17 columns peripteros, but in many regards an absolutely « un-Greek » structure, equipped with details such as engaged, figural pillars (Telamons), and a peristasis partially closed off by walls.[49] With external dimensions of 56 × 113 m, it was the largest Doric building ever to be completed. If the colonies showed remarkable independence and will to experiment in basic terms, they did so even more in terms of detail. For example, the lower surfaces of Doric geisa could be decorated with coffers instead of mutuli.
Although a strong tendency to emphasize the front, e.g. through the addition of ramps or stairs with up to eight steps (at Temple C in Selinus), or a pronaos depth of 3.5 column distances (temple of Apolloat Syracuse)[50] had been become a key principle of design, this was relativised by the broadening of column distances on the long sides, e.g. Temple of Hera I at Paestum. Only in the colonies could the Doric corner conflict be ignored. If South Italian architects tried to solve it, they used a variety of solutions: broadening of the corner metopes or triglyphs, variation of column distance or metopes. In some cases, different solutions were used on the broad and narrow sides of the same building.
For the early period, before the 6th century BC, the term Ionic temple can, at best, designate a temple in the Ionian areas of settlement. No fragments of architecture belonging to the Ionic order have been found from this time. Nonetheless, some early temples in the area already indicate the rational system that was to characterise the Ionic system later on, e.g. the Heraion II of Samos.[51] Thus, even at an early point, the axes of the cella walls aligned with the column axes, whereas in Doric architecture, the external wall faces do so. The early temples also show no concern for the typical Doric feature of viewability from all sides, they regularly lack an opisthodomos; the peripteros only became widespread in the area in the 4th century BC. In contrast, from an early point, Ionic temples stress the front by using double porticos. Elongated peristaseis became a determining element. At the same time, the Ionic temples were characterised by their tendency to use varied and richly decorated surfaces, as well as the widespread use of light-shade contrasts.
As soon as the Ionic order becomes recognisable in temple architecture, it is increased to monumental sizes. The temple in the Heraion of Samos, erected by Rhoikos around 560 BC, is the first known dipteros, with outside dimensions of 52 × 105 m.[52] A double portico of 8 × 21 columns enclosed the naos, the back even had ten columns. The front used differing column distances, with a wider central opening. In proportion to the bottom diameter, the columns reached three times the height of a Doric counterpart. 40 flutings enriched the complex surface structure of the column shafts. Samian column bases were decorated with a sequence of horizontal flutings, but in spite of this playfulness they weighed 1,500 kg a piece. The capitals of this structure were probably still entirely of wood, as was the entablature. Ionic volute capitals survive from the outer peristasis of the later rebuilding by Polycrates. The columns of the inner peristasis had leaf decoration and no volutes.
In the Cyclades, there were early temples entirely built of marble. Volute capitals have not been found associated with these, but their marble entablatures belonged to the Ionic order.[53]
Roughly beginning with the erection of the older Artemision of Ephesosaround 550 BC[54] the quantity of archaeological remains of Ionic temples increases. The Artemision was planned as a dipteros, its architect Theodoros had been one of the builders of the Samian Heraion. With a substructure of 55 × 115 m, the Artemision outscaled all precedents. Its cella was executed as unroofed internal peristyle courtyard, the so-called sekos. The building was entirely of marble. The temple was considered as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, which may be justified, considering the efforts involved in its construction.
The columns stood on ephesian bases, 36 of them were decorated with life-sized friezes of human figures at the bottom of the shaft, the so-called columnae caelatae.[55]The columns had between 40 and 48 flutings, some of them cut to alternate between a wider and a narrower fluting. The oldest marble architraves of Greek architecture, found at the Artemision, also spanned the widest distances ever achieved in pure stone. The middle architrave block was 8.74 m long and weighed 24 metric tons; it had to be lifted to its final position, 20 m above ground, with a system of pulleys. Like its precedents, the temple used differentiated column widths in the front, and had a higher number of columns at the back. According to ancient sources, Kroisos was one of the sponsors. An inscription referring to his sponsorship was indeed found on one of the columns. The temple was burnt down by Herostratos in 356 BC and reerected soon thereafter. For the replacement, a crepidoma of ten or more steps was erected. Older Ionic temples normally lacked a specific visible substructure. This emphasised basis had to be balanced out be a heightened entablature, producing not only a visual contrast to, but also a major weight upon the slender columns.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The temple of Apollo at Didyma near Miletus, begun around 540 BC, was another dipteros with open internal courtyard.[56] The interior was structured with powerful pilasters, their rhythm reflecting that of the external peristasis. The columns, with 36 flutings, were executed as columnae caelatae with figural decoration, like those at Ephesos. Construction ceased around 500 BC, but was restarted in 331 BC and finally completed in the 2nd century BC. The enormous costs involved may have been one of the reasons for the long period of construction. The building was the first Ionic temple to follow the Attic tradition of uniform column distances, the frontal diffentiation was not practised any more.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Ionic peripteroi were usually somewhat smaller and shorter in their dimensions than Doric ones. E.g., the temple of Zeus at Labraunda had only 6 × 8 columns,[57] the temple of Aphroditein Samothrace only 6 × 9.[58] The temple of Athena Polias at Priene,[59] already considered in antiquity as the classical example of an Ionic temple, has partially survived. It was the first monumental peripteros of Ionia, erected between 350 and 330 BC by Pytheos. It is based on a 6-by-6-foot (1.8 m × 1.8 m) grid (the exact dimensions of its plinths). The temple had 6 × 11 columns, i.e. a proportion of 5:10 or 1:2 intercolumnia. Walls and columns were aligned axially, according to Ionic tradition. The peristasis was of equal depth on all sides, eliminating the usual emphasis on the front, an opisthodomos, integrated into the back of the cella, is the first proper example in Ionic architecture. The evident rational-mathematical aspect to the design suits Ionic Greek culture, with its strong tradition of natural philosophy. Pytheos was to be of major influence far beyond his lifetime. Hermogenes, who probably came from Priene, was a deserving successor[according to whom?] and achieved the final flourish of Ionic architecture around 200 BC.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
One of the projects led by Hermogenes was the Artemision of Magnesia on the Maeander, one of the first pseudodipteroi.[60] other early pseudodipteroi include the temple of Aphrodite at Messa on Lesbos, belonging to the age of Hermogenes or earlier,[61] the temple of Apollo Sminthaios on Chryse[62] and the temple of Apolloat Alabanda.[63] The arrangement of the pseudodipteros, omitting the interior row of columns while maintaining a peristasis with the width of two column distances, produces a massively broadened portico, comparable to the contemporaneous hall architecture. The grid of the temple of Magnesia was based on a 12-by-12-foot (3.7 m × 3.7 m) square. The peristasis was surrounded by 8 × 15 columns or 7 × 14 intercolumnia, i.e. a 1:2 proportion. The naos consisted of a pronaos of four column depths, a four columns cella, and a 2 column opisthodomos. Above the architrave of the peristasis, there was a figural frieze of 137 m length, depicting the amazonomachy. Above it lay the dentil, the Ionic geison and the sima.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
Although Athens and Attica were also ethnically Ionian, the Ionic order was of minor importance in this area. The Temple of Nike Aptera on the Acropolis, a small amphiprostyle temple completed around 420 BC, with Ionic columns on plinthless Attic bases, a triple-layered architrave and a figural frieze, but without the typical Ionic dentil, is notable. The east and north halls of the Erechtheion, completed in 406 BC, follow the same succession of elements.
An innovative Ionic temple was that of Asklepios in Epidaurus, one of the first of the pseudoperipteros type. This small ionic prostyle temple had engaged columns along the sides and back, the peristasis was thus reduced to a mere hint of a full portico facade.[64]
There is very little evidence of Ionic temples in Magna Graecia. One of the few exceptions is the early Classical Temple D, an 8 × 20 columns peripteros, at Metapontum. Its architect combined the dentil, typical of Asia Minor, with an Attic frieze, thus proving that the colonies were quite capable of partaking in the developments of the motherland.[65] A small Ionic Hellenistic prostyle temple was found on the Poggetto San Nicola at Agrigento.
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
A Ionic temple with a design very similar with that of a Greek Temple is known from Jandial in the northwestern Indian subcontinent, today Pakistan. The Temple is considered as a semi-Classicaltemple. Its design is essentially that of a Greek Temple, with a naos, pronaos and an opisthodomos at the back.[66] Two Ionic columns at the front are framed by two anta walls as in a Greek distyle in antis layout. It seems that the temple had an outside wall with windows or doorways, in a layout similar to that of a Greek encircling row of columns (peripteral design).[67] It has been called « the most Hellenic structure yet found on Indian soil ».[68]
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The youngest of the three Classical Greek orders, the Corinthian ordercame to be used for the external design of Greek temples quite late. After it had proved its adequacy, e.g. on a mausoleum of at modern-day Belevi (near Ephesos), it appears to have found increasing popularity in the 2nd half of the 3rd century BC. Early examples probably include the Serapeum of Alexandria and a temple at Hermopolis Magna, both erected by Ptolemaios III. A small temple of Athena Limnastis at Messene, definitely Corinthian, is only attested through drawings by early travellers and very scarce fragments. It probably dates to the late 3rd century BC.[69]
The first dateable and well-preserved presence of the Corinthian temple is the Hellenistic rebuilding of the Olympieion of Athens, planned and started between 175 and 146 BC. This mighty dipteros with its 110 × 44 m substructure and 8 × 20 columns was to be one of the largest Corinthian temples ever. Donated by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, it combined all elements of the Asian/Ionic order with the Corinthian capital. Its Asian elements and its conception as a dipteros made the temple an exception in Athens.[70]
Around the middle of the 2nd century BC, a 6 × 12 columns Corinthian peripteros was built in Olba-Diokaisarea in Rugged Cilicia.[71] Its columns, mostly still upright, stand on Attic bases without plinths, exceptional for the period. The 24 flutings of the columns are only indicated by facets in the lower third. Each of the Corinthian capitals is made of three separate parts, an exceptional form. The entablature of the temple was probably in the Doric order, as is suggested by fragments of mutuli scattered among the ruins. All of these details suggest an Alexandrian workshop, since Alexandria showed the greatest tendency to combine Doric entablatures with Corinthian capitals and to do without the plinth under Attic bases.[72]
A further plan option is shown by the temple of Hekate at Lagina, a small pseudoperipteros of 8 × 11 columns.[73] Its architectural members are entirely in keeping with the Asian/Ionic canon. Its distinctive feature, a rich figural frieze, makes this building, erected around 100 BC, an architectural gem. Further late Greek temples in the Corinthian order are known e.g. at Mylasa[74]and, on the middle gymnasium terrace at Pergamon.[75]
Giacobbe Giusti, Greek temple
The few Greek temples in the Corinthian order are almost always exceptional in form or ground plan and are initially usually an expression of royal patronage. The Corinthian order permitted a considerable increase of the material and technical effort invested in a building, which made its use attractive for the purposes of royals self-aggrandisement. The demise of the Hellenistic monarchies and the increasing power of Rome and her allies placed mercantile elites and sanctuary administrations in the positions of building sponsors. The construction of Corinthian temples became a typical expression of self-confidence and independence.[76]As an element of Roman architecture, the Corinthian temple came to be widely distributed in all of the Graeco-Roman world, especially in Asia Minor, until the late Imperial period.
Giacobbe Giusti, Musée archéologique national de Tarente
Giacobbe Giusti, Musée archéologique national de Tarente
Giacobbe Giusti, Musée archéologique national de Tarente
Ouverture |
|
---|---|
Site web |
Pays | |
---|---|
Commune | |
Adresse |
Corso Umberto I, 41; via Cavour, 10 ; 74123 Taranto, Italia
|
Coordonnées |
Le musée archéologique national de Tarente(en italien : Museo archeologico nazionale di Taranto) dit aussi MArTA est un musée consacré à l’histoire de Tarente et du monde apulien de la période préhistorique au haut Moyen Âge.
Fondé en 1887, il est abrité dans le couvent des « Alcantarini » (Frères Mineurs s’inspirant de Pierre d’Alcántara) ou de San Pasquale. La façade néo-classique, réalisée à partir de 1903, est l’œuvre de Guglielmo Calderini (1837 – 1916). Agrandi d’une nouvelle aile entre 1935 et 1941, le bâtiment fut endommagé par la guerre, et restauré de 1949 à 1952. À partir de 1998, l’édifice subit plusieurs travaux de restructuration. Le musée est peu à peu rouvert au public entre 2007 et 2013.
Actuellement visitable, le premier étage se développe autour d’un parcours muséal illustrant la période de la Grande Grèce jusqu’à la romanisation : il expose principalement du matériel provenant de tombes monumentales du ive et iiie siècles av. J.-C. tels un riche ensemble de figurines de terre cuite et des objets en métal précieux notamment des bijoux hellénistiques en or dits Ori di Tarento qui ont rendu célèbre le musée dans le monde. Parmi les pièces d’exception se trouvent :
Œnochoés apuliennes à la panse en forme de tête de femme.
http://www.bridgepugliausa.it/articolo.asp?id_sez=1&id_cat=49&id_art=3466&lingua=it
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C3%A9e_arch%C3%A9ologique_national_de_Tarente
Giacobbe Giusti, GIOTTO ou TADDEO GADDI: Polyptyque Baroncelli
Giacobbe Giusti, GIOTTO ou TADDEO GADDI: Polyptyque Baroncelli
Giacobbe Giusti, GIOTTO ou TADDEO GADDI: Polyptyque Baroncelli
Artiste | |
---|---|
Date |
1328 env.
|
Type |
tempera et or sur bois
|
Dimensions (H × L) |
185 × 323 cm
|
Mouvement | |
Localisation |
Le Polyptyque Baroncelli est un retablepolyptyque datant de 1328 longtemps attribuée à Giotto avec une tendance plus actuelle à Taddeo Gaddi. Il est exposé dans son emplacement d’origine de la chapelle Baroncelli de la basilique Santa Croce, à Florence. Il porte le texte OPUS MAGISTRI JOCTI.
Le polyptyque qui est cité dans les biographies de Giotto par Lorenzo Ghiberti et Giorgio Vasari est retenu comme œuvre du maître jusqu’à la fin de xixe siècle. C’est à partir du début du xxe siècle que l’authenticité de la signature est mise en doute par Adolfo Venturi qui émet l’hypothèse qu’elle ait pu être ajoutée au xve siècle quand Sebastiano Mainardi a ajouté les séraphins entre les petites arcades. Depuis, Offner a supprimé le polyptyque du catalogue de Giotto, Douglas, Sinibaldi et Brunetti l’attribuent à son atelier et Berenson, Perkins et Ventura l’attribuent à un proche collaborateur qui selon Frey serait Taddeo Gaddi1.
Les études postérieures inversent la tendance en rendant une crédibilité à la signature en accréditant une participation dans la conception et la réalisation de Giotto : Previtali (organisation), Baldini et Salvini (dessin) ou dans la stesure de certains morceaux de meilleure qualité , en particulier le panneau central (Longhi, Marchini et Gnudi). Paatz, Bologna et Bellosi parlent d’œuvre de Giotto et atelier1.
La chronologie fait moins débat et la période correspond à la phase tardive de l’artiste, après les fresques de la chapelle Peruzzi (1325 environ) et son départ pour Naples (1329), ou tout au plus aussitôt son retour à Florence (1334), mais avant son départ pour Milan1.
L’hypothèse actuelle la plus suivie est celle émise par Federico Zeri, qui a retrouvé le cuspide du panneau central l’Éternel et Anges au musée d’art de San Diego, c’est-à-dire une collaboration entre Giotto et Taddeo Gaddi et la datation, de 1328 environ, correspondant au début de la décoration à fresque de la chapelle Baroncelli, qui est attribuée en totalité à Taddeo Gaddi1.
Giacobbe Giusti, GIOTTO ou TADDEO GADDI: Polyptyque Baroncelli
Éternel et Anges, cimaise du panneau central du polyptyque, musée d’art de San Diego.
L’ensemble des cinq compartiments du registre médian du polyptyque est entouré en haut et sur les côtés par une corniche d’époque Renaissance (la cimaise originale ayant été coupée, le haut du panneau central est tronqué dans son arcature).