The following abbreviations are used:
Arnold D. Arnold, Building in Ancient Egypt, Oxford 1991
Coulton J.J. Coulton, Ancient Greek Architects at Work, Ithaca, N.Y. 1977
Gebhard and Hemans E.R. Gebhard and F.P. Hemans, University of Chicago Excavations at Isthmia, 1989:1, Hesperia 61 (1992),1-77
Hemans 1989 F. Hemans, The Archaic Roof Tiles at Isthmia, a Re-examination, Hesperia 58, 251-266
Hemans 1991 Unpublished report on the Archaic Temple
Broneer 0. Broneer, Isthmia I, The Temple of Poseidon, Princeton 1971
Mazarakis Ainian A. Mazarakis Ainian, From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 B.C.) (=SIMA 121), Jonsered 1997
Orlandos A. Orlandos, Les Matériaux de Construction et la Technique Architecturale des Anciens Grecs, 2 vols. Paris 1966
Robinson 1975 “Temple Hill, Corinth,” in: Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern, Tübingen, 239- 260
Robinson 1984 H. Robinson, Roof-tiles of the Early Seventh Century B.C., AM 99, 55-66
Salmon J. B. Salmon, Wealthy Corinth, A History of the City to 338 B.C., Oxford 1984
Shiloh Y. Shiloh, The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Isrealite Ashlar Masonry, (=QEDEM 11), Jerusalem 1979
Winter N. Winter, Greek Architectural Terracottas from the Prehistoric to the end of the Archaic Period, Oxford 1993
1 I am grateful to Manfred Bietak for organizing a stimulating symposium on the connections between early Greek buildings and the architectural traditions of Egypt and the Near East. Suggestions and questions raised by colleagues at the symposium are incorporated in the following text. I thank especially Fritz Hemans for his advice and information on the temple in advance of his monograph on the building in the Isthmia series. (Figures 1-3) are preliminary drawings based on his new study. I learned much about the handling of early ashlar masonry from Jim Coulton. Nancy Winter kindly read a preliminary draft and provided helpful comments. The errors remain my own.
2 For a detailed survey of early Greek buildings with plans and extensive bibliography, see most recently Mazarakis Ainian; also H. Drerup, Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit (= ArchHom. II, 0), Göttingen 1969; A. Kalpaxis, Früharchaische Baukunst in Griechenland und Kleinasien, Athens 1976; K. FagerstÖM, Greek Iron Age Architecture: Developments through Changing Times (= SIMA 81), Göteborg 1988; A. Mallwitz, Kritisches zur Architektur Griechenlands im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert, AA 1981, 599-642. Note the long and narrow plans of the Temple of Apollo at Halieis (ratio ca. 1:6), the Heraian on Samos (ca. 1:5); Temple D at Eretria (1:4.3 to 1:5); Temple of Artemis at Ano Mazaraki (1:3.67). Some early shrines belong to a different style of building in that they are smaller in scale and wider in proportion to their length; cf. the Temples of Artemis at Ephesos (Temple B, 13.40 by 8.40 in. including peristyle, 1: 1.60), Dionysos at Iria on Naxos (Temple 11, 15.50 by 11 in.; 1:1.41); and Apollo on Delos; Mazarakis Ainian, 205-207; 189-191; 180-181 respectively.
3 The stylobate measured ca. 39.25 by ca. 14.03 in.; the Cella was ca. 7.70 by ca. 32.28 (?) in. on the outside. There is no direct evidence for the length of the Cella nor the height. Since Hemans in his forthcoming study discusses the planning of the building and the units of measurement, the following discussion focuses on the techniques of construction and possible influences on their development.
4 Compare the masonry in the slightly earlier Heraion I on Samos, that is characteristic of the time. The walls had two skins that were composed of ashlar blocks set against a rubble core. The upper portions were continued in unbaked bricks; E. Buschor and H. Schlief, AM 58 (1933) (Beilage XLVII, 3), 146-168; Mazarakis Ainian, 199-202; fig. 387; Cf Coulton, 30-35. Plaster was a necessary feature on such walls, but at Isthmia it would have been mainly decorative.
5 For the planning and measurements of the much earlier though no less monumental building at Lefkandi, see J. Coulton in The Protogeometric Building at Toumba, Part 2: The Excavation, Architecture and Finds (BSA suppl. vol. 23, London 1992), M. Popham, P. Calligas, and L. Sackett, eds., with J. Coulton and H. Catling, pp. 33-70; J. De Waele, The Layout of the Lefkandi ‘Heroon’, BSA 89 (1994), 379-384.
6 For the initial account of the remains and their reconstruction, see Broneer, 3-53; see also Hemans 1989, 1991, Gebhard and Hemans, 25-40.
7 First half 7th century: Broneer, 50, 54-55; ca. 650: Salmon, 60; 7 th century: Coulton, 35; mid-7th century, J. Wright, The Old Temple Terrace at the Argive Heraeum .and the Early Cult of Hera in the Argolid, JHS 102 (1982), 190, n. 12; ca. 650: Winter, 17 and n. 15 with references.
8 Peristyle deposits: Gebhard and Hemans, 35-39; altar: 39-42. The base for the marble perirrhanterion that is frequently mentioned in discussions concerning the chronology of the temple rests on a surface (Floor 3) belonging to the second half of the 6 th century; Gebhard and Hemans, 36; AT dep III.B.1; fig. 6. The date of the basin then cannot be related directly to the first phase of the temple, although it seems very likely that it comprised one of the early dedications. See M. Sturgeon, Isthmia IV. The Sculpture, 1952-1967, Princeton 1988, 52-53, date of ca. 650; J. Boardman Greek Sculpture, the Archaic Period, New York 1978, 25-26, late 7th c. Less precisely datable but certainly belonging to the first period of the building is a large iron tripod of the 7th century, the feet of which are still embedded in the lowest floor, next to the base of the perirrhanterion; I. Raubitschek, The Metal Objects (1952-1989); Isthmia VII, Princeton 1998, sub 304, pl. 49; Gebhard and Hemans, 33, fig. 6. The earliest dedication, found in a deposit probably belonging to the temple treasury, is a bronze bull perhaps from a tripod of the early 7th century; Raubitschek, Op.Cit. 1; E. Gebhard, Small Dedications in the Archaic Temple of Poseidon at Isthmia, in: Ancient Greek cult practice from the archaeological evidence. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult (=ActaAtha-8:o, 15), ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm 1998, 100.
9 Coulton, ch. 2. References to excavation reports for 1937-1955 in H. Robinson, Excavations at Corinth: Temple Hill 1968-1972, Hesperia 45 (1976), 205, nn. 9-11. Debate regarding the date of the Corinthian temple has centered on identification of the latest sherds in a stratum of construction chips excavated by Robinson. He originally placed the chips in ca. 700, ibid., 211-212; building, 224-235; IDEM, Temple Hill, Corinth, in: Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern, ed. U. Jantzen, Tübingen 1976, 244-250. He later lowered the date to ca. 690-680; AM 99 (1984), 57, n. 5. Salmon notes that “there are many bases of ray-based kotylai which should belong well into the seventh century” (60, n. 18); and suggests a date of ca. 650 for both temples, 60-61. Robin Rhodes is currently preparing a monograph on the Corinthian temple.
11 Naucratis was founded as a Greek trading station during the reign of Psammetichus I (664-610), but the cities taking part in the settlement came principally from the Greek East; cf. W. Coulson et al. Ancient Naucratis 3, 1989.
14 W. Burkert, Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical, tr. J. Raffan, Oxford 1985, 47, 88-91. G. Kopcke, What Role for Phoenicians?, in: Greece Between East and West: 10th-8th Century B.C., eds. G. Kopcke and I. Tokumaru, Mainz 1992, 111-112. For the adoptation of Near Eastern wall decoration in bronze to Greek structures of the 7th century, see H. Philipp, XAΛKEOI TOIXOI-Eherne Wande, AA (1994), 489-498. I thank Ulrich Sinn for the reference.
15 Samos (32.86 in. by 6.75 in.): recently A. Mallwitz, Kritisches zur Architektur Griechenlands im 8. und 7. Jahrhundert, AA (1981), 624-33 (dated to late 8th or early 7th century on the basis of the ashlar blocks; no colonnade); H. Kienast, AA (1992), 174; full bibliography in Mazarakis Ainian, 199, n. 1527; figs. 384-388. Eretria (Building D, ca. 34.50/35.00 m. by 7.00/8.00 in.; ca. 740-720): P. Auberson and K. Schefold, Führer durch Eretria, Bern, 1972, 116-118; full bibliography in Mazarakis Ainian, 62, n. 174. Halieis (27.30 in. by 4.46 in.), perhaps late 8th-early 7th century or later; M. Jameson, The Excavation of a Drowned Greek Temple, Scientific American 234 (1974), 111-119; IDEM, The Submerged Temple of Apollo at Halieis in the Argolid of Greece, National Geographic Research Reports 14 (1982), 362-367; summary of the architecture and objects in Mazarakis Ainian, 162-164; bibliography, 162, n. 1156. Ano Mazaraki (estimated exterior dimensions 27.50 in. by 7.50 in.): Mazarakis Ainian, 72-73; fig. 253.
16 See n. 2 above. Note that the change in proportions at Isthmia came in the peristyle which had a ratio 1:2.8; the cella remained with a ratio of 1:4.
17 For discussions of early peristyles: Mallwitz, (supra n. 15), 621-642; Mazarakis Ainian, 278-79 and n. 47 with bibliography. Regarding the two peripteral temples often associated with Isthmia, Mallwitz argues convincingly that the peristyle was added to the Samnian Heraion towards the end of the 7th century. At the Argive Heraion the stylobate very likely belongs to the second half of the 7th centuryas discussed below in connection with the roof tiles. Coulton, while acknowledging a structural role for the “veranda” on the mid-10th century building at Lefkandi, concludes that its extent was excessive in terms of its actual use. The effect was to increase the size and monumental quality of the structure in the same way that, almost three centuries later, the peristyle enhanced the Isthmian temple. See Coulton (supra n. 5), 46-47; 58-59.
18 Broneer, 13-14, AR 1-11, 34-35, fig. 54; Gebhard and Hemans, 27-34. Only the columns should be considered secure, as the Doric order as restored by Broneer is hypothetical.
19 Chris Hayward is preparing a study of the Corinthian quarries for publication in the Corinth series. He informs us that the Corinthian stone is properly called oolitic limestone rather than poros limestone, as it is often named in the literature. For a suggestion on removal of stones from the quarry face, see R. Rhodes, Rope Channels and Stone Quarrying in the Early Corinthia, AJA 91 (1987), 545-551.
20 ARNOLD, 27-32; fig. 2.3; S. Clarke and R. Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry: The Building Craft, London 1930, q.v. For a detailed study of Egyptian limestone quarries and quarrying, see R. Klemm and D. Klemm, Steine und Steinbrüche im alten Ägypten, Berlin 1993.
21 R. Naumann, Die Architektur Kleinasiens, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1971, 38-42; Y. Shiloh and A. Horowitz, Ashlar Quarries of the Iron Age, BASOR 217 (1975), 37-48. Stepped cuttings showing removal of moderate-sized, rectangular blocks from the quarries on the slopes of the mounds at Megiddo, Ramat Rahel, and Samaria resemble those in Corinthian quarries; SHILOH, 55-60; p1s. 25:2, 30:2. Wright (I, 342-343) comments that the degree to which Palestinian quarrying depended on Phoenician examples is open to debate. For Minoan Crete, see J. Shaw, Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques ( = Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene, 49, n.s. 33), Rome 1973, 30-43; fig. 23. In Early Iron Age Greece before ca. 700 no evidence has yet been identified that blocks were quarried to size; Coulton, 45. The relation between natural break lines and block size is discussed by R. Rockwell, The Art of Stoneworking, Cambridge 1993, 156-159. For Greek quarrying in the 6th century and later, see A.K. Orlandos, Les Matériaux de Construction, Paris 1968, 11, pp. 15-20; R. Martin, Manuel d’architécture grecque, Paris 1965, I, 146-51.
22 Hemans (1991) notes that between the finished edges at the sides, the interior portion of the surface was usually cut away and left rough.
23 I am indebted to Jim Coulton, for suggesting these terms and for discussion of the problems surrounding ashlar masonry and the terminology best used to describe it. Walls constructed in ashlar masonry with a central core and the more integrated ashlar masonry of the monumental structures in the Isrealite cities of Iron Age Palestine are two-skin walls. The wall has a thickness of more than one course of blocks. For a comparison of orthostate and ashlar masonry, see SHILOH, 71-75, 79-80; pls. 27-30, 35, 36. Ashlar masonry of the Bronze Age is well treated by Gunnel Hult, Bronze Age Ashlar Masonry in the Eastern Mediterranean ( = SIMA 66) Göteborg 1983. For Minoan Crete, see Shaw (supra n. 21), 87-111.
24 Hemans, in his study of the blocks (representing ca. 20% of the original building), found that those from the cella walls fall into two groups according to width.
25 Gebhard and Hemans, 34, 38.
26 The phrase “true ashlar” is used here to designate masonry in which six sides of the blocks are at right angles to each other. See Wright and Shiloh for examples in Israel.
27 Shaw (supra n. 21), 92-107, fig. 122 (plan of wall at Palace of Kato Zakro); Hult (supra n. 23) 47.
28 Even coursing, Shaw (supra n. 21), figs. 99-109; irregular coursing, fig. 124.
29 Arnold, fig. 4.82 illustrates the variety of surface treatment; fig. 4.85 shows ashlar masonry in the chapelle rouge of Hatshepsut at Karnak.
31 Egypt: Arnold, 151; Crete: Shaw (supra n. 21), 107-108.
32 The most detailed treatment of the masonry and capitals is Shiloh, 50-87; see also Wright, 1, 401-407; 11, figs.317-321. Philip Betancourt discusses the origins of the Aeolic style in: The Aeolic Style in Architecture, A Survey of its Development in Palestine, the Halikarnassos Peninsula, and Greece, 1000-500 B.C., Princeton 1977, 27-49. Up-to date summaries of archaeological work in the Israelite sites are found in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, 4 vols., New York 1993. See also R. Reich, Palaces and Residences in the Iron Age, in: The Architecture of Ancient Israel, eds. A. Kempinski and R. Reich, Jerusalem 1992, 202-214.
33 The unit of measurement is the Egyptian long and short cubit, ca. 0.52 and 0.44-0.45 in. respectively, Arnold, 10; Clarke and Engelbach, 63; Wright, I, 476. Techniques for quarrying and dressing stone derive also from Egypt. Architectural details from Egypt: stone columns and cavetto cornice, Wright, I, 478 with examples.
34 Wright, I, 402-404; II, figs. 317-320. He suggests that, “since setting blocks on edge is not natural to solid masonry practice it may be conjectured that this is a relic or carry-over of the original Bronze Age use of ashlar masonry as facing blocks”, 404. Although of a larger scale, the Israelite ashlars are used in a fashion not dissimilar to bricks, and Wright compares the several styles of masonry to modern examples of brick work. Such a practice seems to have been unique to Israel, since in all subsequent ashlar masonry to the present day the width of the block is not less than its height. For setting and dressing blocks, see Shiloh, 60-63; Reich (supra n. 32), 211-212.
35 The length, width and height of the Israelite block as it stood in the wall had a ratio of 6:2:3; Wright, 403-404 with references. Isthmian blocks, laid on their intermediate face, have a ratio of about 3:2:1. Since the temple blocks were laid as a single row of stretchers running along the wall, a consistent length did not have the same importance as in the other system.
36 Wright, I, 405; “fugitive course”, Shiloh, 61, 78; Reich (supra n. 32), 212-213. Shiloh defines six grades of excellence in Israelite ashlar masonry, spread over a number of sites and time periods. He argues that the differences in quality represent levels of investment and not a chronological development, 66-68.
37 Naumann, (supra n. 21), 138-44.
38 (supra n. 32) 46-49 with bibliography. See also Wright I, 406. Large ashlar blocks with well-dressed margins surrounding a central boss occur at Ugarit in the Late Bronze Age as well as in foundations of Palestinian buildings; well illustrated in Wright, II, 314-315. For the capitals Wright notes that the style is found in later structures near Tyre and Byblos; the masonry may have developed from Bronze Age techniques found in the coastal regions of the Levant.
39 T.C. Mitford, Israel and Judah until the revolt of Jehu (931-841 B.C.). CAH 111.1, 2nd ed., 1982, Cambridge, pp. 466-87.
40 A. Kempinski and M. Avi-Yonah, Syria-Palestine, Geneva 1979, II, pp. 80-99. See also Reich (supra n. 32), 212, who notes North Syrian influence also in the round column bases at the corners of the monument (throne?) in the gate at Tel Dan and probably in techniques of stone dressing.
41 E.g. at Zinjirli and Tell Ta’yinat; Shiloh, 83-87. He mentions the North Syrian bit-hilani ground plan used in Palace 6000 at Megiddo (stratum IVB-VA), but dismisses the architectural form as evidence for a source of the masonry technique by noting that at Megiddo, in contrast to North Syrian practice, ashlar blocks were apparently used throughout the structure. A bit-hilani ground plan for Palace 1723 at Megiddo is rejected. A similarity in the plans of piered gates between Israel and North Syria is likewise discounted because of the difference in masonry techniques.
42 Cf. Wright, II, 312 (city gate at Megiddo); orthostate temple at Hazor (area H) at the same period, 313. For a summary of the remains at Megiddo, see The New Encyclopedia (supra n. 32), 3, 1003-1024.
43 For details of the temple and its chronology, see V. Karageorghis, Kition: Mycenaean and Phoenician Discoveries on Cyprus, London 1976, 95-100; IDEM The Sacred Area of Kition, in: Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, ed. A. Biran, Jerusalem 1981, 83-90; A. Reeves, Archaic Cyprus, Oxford 1994, 18-19.
44 Shiloh, 84-86; Sarepta: J. Pritchard, Recovering Sarepta, A Phoenician City, Princeton 1978, 82-84; fig. 43d. “The frequent use of ashlar blocks in the walls of City D distinguish it from the poorer construction found in the earlier levels.” The utilitarian and small scale structures, however, are not comparable to the monumental Palestinian buildings employing ashlar masonry.
45 Cf Y. Yadin, Megiddo of the Kings of Isreal, Biblical Archaeology 33 (1970), 66-96. For a recent summary and bibliography, see Y. Shiloh in The New Encyclopedia (supra n. 32), 4, 1017-1019. For “hewn stones”, see R. Frankel, The Measure of Hewn Stones, Tel Aviv 3 (1976), 74-78; Reich (supra n. 32), 211.
46 A.G. Auld, Kings without Privilege, Edinburgh 1994, with references to previous work; description of previous work; description of Solomon’s temple and palace, 22-29.
47 I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: an Alternative View, Levant 28 (1996), 177-187. For a vigorous defence of his views and an attack on “uncritical reading of the biblical text” , see Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age? A Rejoinder, Levant 30 (1998), 167-174. Contra: A. Mazar, Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein, Levant 29 (1997), 157-67. For a concise summary of the evidence pro and con, see M. Balter, The two Tells: Armageddon for Biblical Archaeology?, Science 287 (7. January 2000), 31-32. I am grateful to John Collins for advice on biblical matters and to Graeme Auld for calling my attention to his book and for making Finkelstein’s articles available. The detailed manner in which the temple and palace of Solomon are described in I Kings brings to mind Homer’s several accounts of Odysseus’ house on Ithaca in Odyssey I. 103-05, 330-34; II. 337-48; IV. 625-26; XXII. 109-110, 126-200; XXIII. 183-204. It is equally difficult to make a coherent plan of either structure.
48 Cf. Shiloh, 78, the “fugitive course”.
49 Rodney Young traced the evolution of sarcophagi in the North Cemetary from pits lined with limestone slabs and covered with sandstone (Grave 24) to a true sarcophagus hollowed out of a single block (Graves 27, 47); The North Cemetary, Corinth XIII, Princeton 1964, 19, 21-38. These sarcophagi were left in the graves and are now covered. See K. Dickey, Corinthian Burial Customs, ca. 1100 to 550 B.C., Bryn Mawr dissertation 1992, 25-26. He concludes that such an evolutionary sequence was not strictly the case but can be understood as a general trend.
50 Dickey (supra n. 49), 25-33. Grave GC-2, EG, found west of Corinth. The sarcophagus measures 0.956 by 0.475 by 0.285 m., a ratio of 1:2:3.3. Grave LV- 40, Lecheion Road Valley, MG I? Sarcophagus measures 1.47 by 0.61-0.65 by 0.40 m.; a later report gives an interior length of 1.53 in. With sides 0.095-0.13 in. thick, the outside length could have been 1.72 to 1.79 in. The sarcophagus is no longer visible. For Geometric burials in the Forum area, see C.K. Williams and J.E. Fisher, Corinth, 1972, Hesperia 42 (1973), 2-6; fig. 1 (plan). The finishing of slabs lining Grave H in the Forum is described by A. Brookes, Stoneworking in the Geometric Period at Corinth, Hesperia 50 (1981), 285-87. The grave is now covered.
51 The well (72-2) is located in the robbed foundation trench of the stylobate of the South Stoa, between columns 8 and 9 from the east end, and appears not to have been used. Excavation was carried out in 1972 by the Corinth Excavations of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens under the direction of Charles Williams and recorded in Notebook 548 in the Corinth Museum. Two blocks from the well are published by Brookes (n. 50), 288-89; 1, 2. 1 am indebted to Nancy Bookides of the Corinth Excavations for help with the excavation records, for new photographs of A-72-31, Figs. 5-6, and for discussions on the pieces and their context.
52 Williams and Williams note that in the Geometric period a number of residences with associated burials were located in the Forum area (supra n. 50).
53 Corinth Museum, A-72-32. Max. H. 0.347 m., max. W. at bottom 0.205 m.; cf. Brookes (supra n. 50), 1. The bottom is rough and a small section of quarry (?) surface on one facet, has not been removed; the top is broken. The front of the shaft is composed of a broad panel (ca. 0.10 m. wide) flanked by narrower panels on either side (ca. 0.08 m. wide) that make an oblique angle with the front. Two still narrower panels (0.045-0.055 m. wide) connect the front facets with the back. The uneven bottom surface is a sign that the block, if used in its present state, probably was set in earth.
54 Hemans suggests that an adze was used (personal communication).
55 Corinth Museum A-72-31. Max. H. 0.390 m., max. W. 0.362 In. Top broken; bottom complete. Front panel, ca. 0.15 m. wide; width of panels at spectator’s right: ca. 0.14, 0.127, 0.07-0.08 m.; left side ca. 0. 15-0.118, 0.13-0.15, 0.06-0.09 In. Finishing of surfaces is not as consistent as A-72-32. In the record of excavation there is mention of other fragments that could have come from the same block. Cf. Brookes (supra n. 50), 2.
56 (l 0.30 m. x 0.40 m. x 0.607 m. (ratio 1:1.33:2), Excavation Notebook 548; Basket 12; (2) 0.60 m. x 0.50 m. x 0.20 m. (ratio of 1:2.5:3) tapering to 0.10 m., Baskets 15-17; not inventoried.
57 On the distinctions between burned bones left from sacrifices and remains from dining, see E. Gebhard and D. Reese, Sacrifices for Poseidon and Melikertes-Palaimon at Isthmia, in: Olympian and Chthonian Cult. Proceedings of the Sixth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Göteborg University, April 1997 ( = ActaAth-8:o, 17), ed. by Robin Hägg, Stockholm, forthcoming.
58 R. Rhodes, Early Stoneworking in the Corinthia, Hesperia 56 (1987), 229-232; pl. 32, a and b illustrate the tooling on A-72-32 and A-72-31 respectively. For the use of cut stone with wood in the early Protocorinthian period, see R. Rhodes, Early Corinthian Architecture and the Origins of the Doric Order, AJA 91 (1987), 478.
59 Hemans, in his forthcoming study of the temple, gives a more detailed description of the stoneworking on the Isthmian blocks and the tools used.
60 The durability and attractiveness of Corinthian unbaked brick was due in large part to the fine native clay. For Greek bricks, see R. Martin, Manuel d’Architécture Grecque, 2 vols., Paris 1965, I, 48-57; Table of dimensions: 55-56; pl. VI, 1-2; Orlandos, I, 56-65; figs. 35, 36. Bricks in the Levant: Wright, I, 349-59.
61 Orlandos, I, 66-69. An early example is found in a stoa at Kassiope in Epiros.
62 The Isthmian tiles measure ca. 0.69 x 0.65 x 0.04-0.05 m. thick and weigh ca. 30 kilograms; Broneer, 40-53; AT 1-10; Hemans 1989, 262-265; figs. 2,3. Robinson (1984) identified right and left-handed tiles. Separate tiles were used on the eaves, ridge and hips, Broneer, AT 11-27. A combination eaves-hip tile sat at the lower end of each corner (Hemans 1989, 262-63). No examples of single cover-tiles have been identified at Isthmia, although they must have existed there as at Corinth; Hemans 1989, 253. For a description of the Corinth roof, see Winter, 15-16, fig. 1a, b. The name Protocorinthian was proposed by Ch. Le Roy (FD 2. Les Terres cuites architécturales, Paris 1967, 26) and is continued by Winter, 12-18 and in this paper. Ö. Wikander prefers to call it the Isthmia system: Archaic Roof-Tiles: The First (?) Generation, Op. Ath. 19 (1992), 152. For the development of early roof tiles, see also J. Heiden, Korinthische Dachziegel: zur Entwicklung der Korinthischer Dacher, Frankfurt am Main 1987, 17-29; N. Cooper, The Development of Roof Revetment in the Peloponnese, Jonsered 1989; C.K. Williams II, Demaratus and early Corinthian Roofs, in: STELE. Volume in Memory of Nikolaos Kontoleon, Athens 1978, 345-350; M. Roebuck, Archaic Architectural Terracottas from Corinth, Hesperia 59 (1990), 47-49.
63 Winter (8-11) provides a brief survey of prehistoric Greek roof tiles, concluding that at the present state of our knowledge, it is impossible to be certain that these tiles were used on a roof. At Mycene, curved cover and flat pan tiles were found together in a Late Helladic IIIB2 building and thus were very likely used together on the same roof A few examples of each type have come from Gla and Tiryns, but not in sufficient quantities to show that tile roofs were a common feature of Bronze Age architecture. References to roofing in Mycenaean buildings are collected in Mazarakis Ainian, 258, n. 2083. Wright, in his discussion of roofing in South Syria and Palestine, notes that there is no evidence for a gabled, pitched roof in the ancient buildings of the region, I, 457-63.
64 Thatched: from Perachora, Argive Heraion, Aetos (Ithaca), Heraion (Samos); flat: Heraion (Samos); see Th.G. Schattner Griechische Hausmodelle. Untersuchungen zur frühgriechischen Architektur, AM 15. Beiheft, 1990; Mazarakis Ainian, figs. 495, 499a-f, 500, 502-5, 507-508. It has been suggested that the checkerboard pattern on the roof of the model from Aetos represents tiles, but the steep pitch and the apsidal plan of the building make this unlikely; see Ö. Wikander, Ancient Roof Tiles – Use and Function, OpAth 17 (1988), 205, n. 21 with references.
65 (supra n. 5) 85, 89 (no. 99), 90, 93 (no. 110); pls. 69 k, 1; 72.2. The two pieces belong to one tile. Winter (12, n. 1) points out that the wide recessed channel near the front edge of the soffit is not found in early tiles but is a regular feature of late Archaic Corinthian tiles. Although the excavators report nothing later than LG in the deposit, the tile could bring the date down to the 6th century.
66 Winter 149-152; see also N. Winter, Defining Regional Styles in Archaic Greek Architectural Terracottas, Hesperia 59 (1990), 23-26. Detailed discussion of the type is given in Cooper (supra n. 62); EADEM, Archaic Architectural Terracottas from Halieis and Bassai, Hesperia 59 (1990), 65-91. Cooper prefers the term Halieis-style.
67 The construction date of the temple is not clear from the available evidence; Jameson (supra n. 15, 1974, 367) reported Late Geometric sherds and a Protocorinthian lekythos as the earliest pottery found in the interior. In the Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (ed. R. Stillwell, Princeton 1976), 375 he suggests a date ca. 675. The long, narrow proportions, building techniques, and unusual interior arrangement would be most likely at an early period, but the pottery from the interior does not appear to have been in a context to give a date for the construction. C. Pfaff reviews the evidence in: Three-peaked Antifixes from the Argive Heraion, Hesperia 59 (1990), 150, n. 5. He notes that a lower chronology into the early 6th century is possible, evidently on the basis of the roof tiles.
68 Winter, 151; N. Cooper, Archaic Architectural Terracottas from Halieis and Bassai, Hesperia 59 (1990), 77; J. Heiden, Die Tonächer von Olympia, (Ol.For. XXIV), Berlin 1995, 12-18; IDEM, Die archaischen Dächer von Olympia, Hesperia 59 (1990), 45; Pfaff (supra n. 67), 152.
69 For bibliography, see Cooper (supra n. 68), 74, nn. 7-12; Pfaff(supra n. 67), 149, n. 1.
70 Well 118 SO. Heiden (supra n. 68, 1990), 42; IDEM (supra n. 68, 1995) 13. Discussion of the tiles and filling of the well: A. Drerup, Ergebnisse und Folgerungen, Olympiabericht X (1999), 200-201; J. Schilbach, Die Tongefäße aus den Brunnen 98-129 im Südostgebiet, ibidem, 308-309. A mid 7th century date for the filling of the well is based on the latest object, a helmet (B10525) representing an early form of the Myron group. The chronology for this type of helmet, as worked out by E. Kunze, is a relative one derived from stylistic development in the form, beginning ca. 650 to ca. 570, Korinthische Helme, Olympiabericht V11 (1961), 77-128. Although Schilbach places the example in well 118 SO early in the series (supra, 309, n. 24), it should belong in the third quarter of the 7th century, and the well will thus have been filled perhaps closer to 625 than 650.
72 (supra n. 68, 1995), 14-15.
73 On the basis of the ratio between the lower diameter of the columns and the interaxial spacing, Pfaff sees the temple as slightly earlier than the temple of Hera at Olympia constructed in ca. 600, (supra n. 67) 154 and n. 9. He gives a list of temples with column diameters related to interaxial spacing. Currently he prefers a date simply in the 7th century (personal communication). See also Wright (supra n. 7) 189-192, who suggests a date in the third quarter of the 7th century. Further discussion of the temple follows below.
74 Cooper notes that the bases along the inside of the cella may have supported wooden posts added to reinforce the unbaked brick walls when the tile roof was put on, (supra n. 68) 77; Cf. Mazarakis Ainian, 163, fig. 245.
76 Winter reviews examples from Corinth and summarizes the arguments with bibliography, 12-18.
77 For Corinthians at Delphi, see C. Morgan, Athletes and Oracles, Cambridge 1990, 133-147; 216-17 with bibliography.
78 See above n. 9 for the debate regarding the date of the construction deposit. WIkander suggests a compromise of “approximately 670/650”, (supra n. 62) 153. For further bibliography, see Winter, 12, n. 4. R. Felsch places both temples in the middle of the 7th century, taking Robinson’s date of ca. 680 for the construction deposit as a terminus post quem: Further Stamped Roof Tiles, Hesperia 59 (1990), 313. On the basis of a stamped Laconian tile in the Kanellopoulos Museum, to which he assigns a stylistic date in the mid-7th century, Felsch suggests a simultaneous beginning for Laconian and Protocorinthian tiles. Since the Laconian tile has no provenence, the stamp is dated only in relation to stamped Cretan pottery of perhaps half a century earlier. Furthermore, no Laconian tiles have been found in such early contexts. It is probably wise to suspend judgement on the beginning of the Laconian tile series until more archaeological evidence is available.
79 Contemporary: Broneer, 50; Salmon 59-62; development: Robinson 1984, 57. The Corinthian tiles are approximately square, measuring ca. 0.67 in. on a side by 0.035 in. thick, and weighing ca. 29.5 kilograms, while the Isthmian examples are thicker and heavier and slightly longer than they are deep from front to back (0.69 in. by 0.65 in. by 0.04-0.05 in. thick), see n. 62 above.
81 Broneer, Group 6 blocks, 26-28; for Corinth, see Robinson 1975, 246-247. A new study of the Corinth temple is being made by Robin Rhodes.
82 Roebuck reports that in 1937 many tile fragments of this type were visible at the site, and others were said to be among the Perachora material in the National Museum at Athens. Two pieces were brought to Corinth from Perachora and are now in the Corinth Museum, inventoried as FC 102 and FC 103. One fragment comes from a hip tile; M. Roebuck, Archaic Architectural Terracottas from Corinth, Hesperia 59 (1990), 49, n. 6; cf. Robinson, 1984, 55, n. I. I saw some fragments of Protocorinthian tiles on the upper terrace in 1978.
83 R. A. Tomlinson, The Upper Terraces at Perachora, BSA 72 (1977), 197-202. Tomlinson lowers the date of the building to the mid 6th century on the basis of the latest inscriptions built into the hearth and the later roof tiles found there; Mazarakis Ainian prefers a date in the late 8th century, 155. See also U. Sinn, Das Heraion von Perachora, AM 105 (1990), 53-116.
84 The proposal of a 7th century predecessor to the Archaic temple by the shore was first made by H. Payne, Perachora I, The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Hera Limenaia: the Architecture, Bronzes and Terracottas, Oxford 1940, 80-83. Salmon suggests a building of ca. 735 built by the Bacchiads after the collapse of an earlier apsidal structure (The Heraeum at Perachora and the early History of Corinth and Megara, BSA 67 (1972), 161-65; 175-78; Wealthy Corinth, 59). He associates the Corinthian and Isthmian Temples with the Cypselids, 180. B. Menadier (The Sixth Century B. C. Temple and the Sanctuary and Cult of Hera Akraia, Perachora, diss. University of Cincinnati, 1997, 62, 72-74, n. 21.) agrees with the idea of a 7th century temple, although she could not identify any blocks that might have belonged to it except possibly two ashlar foundations labeled x and y on Payne’s plan (op.cit., pl. 138). She places the building somewhere between the second quarter and the end of the 7th century on the basis of the roof tiles that, in personal communications, Roebuck and Rhodes told her are later than those at Isthmia and Corinth. She did not examine the tiles. For the tiles, see also Cooper (supra n. 62), 5, 28.
85 Le Roy (supra n. 62), 21-28; figs. 1-2; pls. 2-4, 106-108. Four series have been identified, two with slip and two unslipped. The fabric in all cases is very similar to that found at Corinth and Isthmia.
87 M. Courby, F11) 11.1, 1927, 193, fig. 151.
88 Single cover tiles were found at Corinth for use in the center of each flank where the left-hand and right-hand pan and cover tiles came together, and they almost certainly existed at Isthmia although none are preserved. Robinson 1984, 60
89 For a detailed discussion of the fitting of the tiles on the roof and their relation to the wooden framing, see Heman’s forthcoming study of the temple (supra, n. 2).
90 In the later periods a central place for tile production is probable. At Phari on Thasos, in the Archaic and early Classical periods, pottery and Laconian roof tiles were made in the same kilns; J. Perreault, L’atelier de potier archäïque de Phari (Thasos): La production de tuiles, Hesperia 89 (1990), 201-210. Large purpose-built tile kilns of the Classical period are found in Corinth (Ancient Corinth. Guide to the Excavations, 1954, 87; Orlandos, 1, 71-74), Nemea (references in Perreault, op.cit., 208, n. 13) and Morgantina.
91 W, Rostoker and E. Gebhard, The Reproduction of Rooftiles for the Archaic Temple of Poseidon at Isthmia, Greece, JFA 8 (1981), 211-227. For observations on the fabrication of Corinthian tiles, see Robinson 1984, 58. For suggested methods of fitting the tiles, see Broneer, 40-50, figs. 60-64; Robinson 1984, 60-62; Winter, 15-16; fig. 1, a-b. Molding techniques used for the Archaic tiles from Kalapodi and elsewhere are discussed by G. HÜBNER, Die archaischen Dachterrakotten von Kalapodi, in: Le Moulage en terre cuite dans l’Antiquité ed. A. Miller, Lille 1997, 131ff. The variety of techniques with and without molds that he suggests for tile production in the 6th century is surprizing given the quantity of production. For tiles at Sardis, see E. Hofsteader, Lydia Architectural Terracottas: A Study in Tile Replication, Display and Technique, The Archaeological Exploration of Sardis ( = Illinois Classical Studies, Suppl. 5), Champaign-Urbana 1994.
92 For anaylsis of the manufacture of Type A amphoras, see I. Whitbread, Greek Transport Amphoras, (= BSA, Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4), 1995, 268-270. While Whitbread sampled and tested Archaic Corinthian roof tiles, he did not study the Protocorinthian examples.
93 Hemans, in his 1987 study of the Isthmian tiles, observed many traces of cutting, trimming and fitting of the tiles before and after firing.
94 The temperature of the kiln was measured at 638, 654 and 712 degrees Centigrade. Since the raw yellow-beige clay was fired to a bright red, the temperature was higher than in the original kiln. See Whitbread (supra n. 92) for relation of kiln temperature to color of clay after firing.
95 Überlegungen zur technischen Struktur und Formentwicklung archaischer Dachterrakotten, Hesperia 59 (1990), 292.
96 “[Thatch] constitutes a graver fire hazard… For this reason… I feel absolutely convinced that this was the main, perhaps the sole, reason for the invention and diffusion of tiled roofs in Early Archaic Greece”, (supra n. 62) 154. Tile and stone construction obviously did not make a temple fire-proof. The Archaic Isthmian temple burned completely in ca. 470-450, and its Classical successor suffered severe fire damage 60-70 years later.
97 Mold: Corinth Museum KH 1. A. Stillwell, The Potters’ Quarter (Corinth, XV.1), Princeton 1938, 1, 87-88, pl. 29; preserved height 0.063 m., width 0.036 m. Cf. J. Boardman, Greek Sculpture. The Archaic Period, Oxford 1978, 13, figs. 23, 24. For the location, see Corinth XV. 1, pl. 51, upper plan. I am grateful to Nancy Bookides for information on the piece and its findspot.
98 Fagerström argues that. the roof was the determining factor in designing the shape and type of construction for the building (supra n. 2), 105.
99 Many tiles preserve the incised lines. Examination under a microscope by Stella Bouzakis, conservator in the Isthmia Museum, revealed that the incision was made by a pointed instrument held against a straight edge while the tile was still leather hard.
100 Hemans 1989, 255-257, n. 22.
101 Hemans 1989, 262. Hemans restores the width of the member as 0.055 m. and the amount of projection as 0.015 m. from the remains of earth mortar on an eves/hip-tile, figs. 2,3.
102 At the time of Hemans’ study in 1987 tiles weighing 14,684.71 kilograms had been recovered from the excavations. They represent about 28 percent of the roof (by weight), Hemans 1989, 260. The 109 tile fragments that were found in the 1989 excavations, most of them small, do not substantially alter the picture presented in 1987. With proportions of 1:2.75, Table B (Hemans 1989), the temple would have had 12 horizontal rows of tiles. Although the dimensions of the building as revealed by the 1989 excavations (supra, n. 3) are somewhat different from those used in Hemans 1989, they do not alter the basic pattern of the roof.
104 C. Moore and G. Allen, Dimensions, Space, Shape and Scale in Architecture, New York, 1976, 21-22.
105 The dressed rectangular masonry suggested to Mallwitz the later date (supra n. 15), 599-642; IDEM, Osservazioni sull’architettura nella Grecia dei secoli VIII e VII a.C., ASAtene 59 (1981), 81-96. The second phase of the temple belongs in the late 7th century.
106 For relations between Corinth and Samos, see Salmon, 224-25.
107 Similar to the orthostate construction seen in the Bronze Age on Cyprus, at Ugarit, on Minoan Crete, and in SyriaPalestine; Hult (supra n. 23), 16, 30, 38, 46.
108 C. Antonaccio, Terraces, Tombs, and the Early Argive Heraion, Hesperia 61 (1992), 85-105. Using the description of unpublished sherds found in 1927 in deep probes in the terrace fill, she identifies them as belonging in the 7th century and lowers the date of the terrace to the middle of the century. The sherds themselves were not examined. Mazarakis Ainian reviews the arguments pro and con with the relevant bibliography, 156-57, and nn.1108-1117. See also M. F. Billot, Recherches archéologiques récentes á, l’Héraion d’Argos, in: Héra. Images, espaces, cultes. (Actes du Colloque International de Lille, 1993), Naples 1997, 57-70. Pfaff(supra n. 67, 153-55) argues for a date in the fourth quarter of the 7th century, although he now would prefer simply the 7th century (personal communication). Mazarakis Ainian places it early in the 7th century, contemporary with the monumental terrace, since he is not convinced by Antonaccio’s identification of the unpublished sherds. I. Strom agrees and relates construction of the terrace and temple with an active period at. the sanctuary in the first half of the 7th century, that is apparent also in the bronzes. She sees a close connection between the first Hera temple and the early temples at Corinth and Isthmia; The Early Sanctuary of the Argive Heraion and its External Relations (8th-Early 7th Cent. B.C.), Bronze Imports and Archaic Greek Bronzes, Proceedings of the Danish Institute in Athens 11, 1998, 90-91, n. 376.
111 See especially Wright (supra n. 7) 186-201; H. Plommer, The Old Platform in the Argive Heraeum, JHS 104 (1984), 183-84; I. Strom, The Early Sanctuaries of the Argive Heraion and its External Relations (8th to early 6th Cent. B.C.): The Monumental Architecture, ActaArch 59 (1988), 173-203.
113 Ch. Tsountas, ΠAE, 1986, pp. 59-61; A.J.B. Wace, Mycenae: An Archaeological History and Guide, Princeton 1949, 84, 86; N. Klein, Excavation of the Greek Temples at Mycene, BSA 92 (1997), 247-322.