The Apollo Temple at Bassae.

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. What have we learned about the temple’s architecture through 250 years of archaeology?

Jens Ole Schwarz-Nielsen March 2017

The Apollo Temple at Bassae.

Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction and practical remarks ........................................................................................ 3 The written inheritance (Pausanias) ...................................................................................... 3 1765 - 1814 (Rediscovery and ”the Society of Travellers”) .................................................. 4 1815 – 1864 (Publication) ................................................................................................... 11 1865 – 1914 (The first scientific approach)......................................................................... 12 1915 – 1964 (Dinsmoor)...................................................................................................... 12 1965 – 2015 (Cooper/Kelly and the modern approach) ...................................................... 13 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 15 References ........................................................................................................................... 16 List of Illustrations............................................................................................................... 17 List of Plates ........................................................................................................................ 17 Plates .................................................................................................................................... 18

2


Introduction and practical remarks Precariously perched on a solitary mountaintop in the Peloponnese stands the remains of an ancient temple, its outline refined in contrast to the harsh surrounding nature. It has been standing there for nearly 2,500 years, most of that time as an unused relic from a culture long gone. The temple was ‘rediscovered’ 250 years ago and is normally referred to as ‘the Apollo Temple at Bassae’ (even if ‘Bassae’ is also written as Bassai or Bassitas). It has since then been subject to a number of archaeological investigations of various character and quality, but what have we learned about the temple’s architecture through 250 years of archaeology? The question is answered through a short investigation of the written inheritance, followed by chronological investigation- and publication history in timeslots of 50 years before a summary. The article was originally written - in Danish - as an exam paper at University of Southern Denmark in 2015 and has only been lightly edited during translation. As the article uses dates from both BC and AD, all years BC are marked with a trailing ‘b.’.

The written inheritance (Pausanias) His answers to our questions showed him to have very little learning. Pausanias he had never even heard of. This is how Cockerell describes the Archbishop of Chania1, and it is not without reason, that Cockerell judges a man’s level of learning on his knowledge of Pausanias, as often his account is our primary – if not only – written connection back to the ancient monuments we encounter in Greece, and the Apollo Temple at Bassae is no exception: Phigalia is surrounded by mountains, on the left by the mountain called Cotilius, while on the right is another, Mount Elaius, which acts as a shield to the city. The distance from the city to Mount Cotilius is about forty stades. On the mountain is a place called Bassae, and the temple of Apollo the Helper, which, including the roof, is of stone. Of the temples in the Peloponnesus, this might be placed first after the one at Tegea for the beauty of its stone and for its symmetry. Apollo received his name from the help he gave in time of plague, just as the Athenians gave him the name of Averter of Evil for turning the plague away from them. It was at the time of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians that he also saved the Phigalians, and at no other time; the evidence is that of the two surnames of Apollo, which have practically the same meaning, and also the fact that Ictinus, the architect of the temple at Phigalia, was a contemporary of Pericles, and built for the Athenians what is called the Parthenon. My narrative has already said that the tile image of Apollo is in the market-place of Megalopolis.2 The inheritance from Pausanias provides us with both topography, context and architecture to work with. We are given an exact location on Mount Cotilius close to the polis of Phigalia, as well as we are given the name of the location; Bassae. We are told that the temple is dedicated to ’Apollo the Helper,’ a statement substantiated by the fact that Pausanias himself has seen the original cult statue in Megalopolis.3 We are also informed that Apollo’s name as ’the Helper’ originates from the time of the Peloponnesian War, and Apollo’s help with keeping the plague away from the Phigalians. As far as the architecture is concerned, we are informed that the temple is built entirely of stone, and then we get a snippet of information, which still keeps archaeologists occupied; that the temple was built by Ictinus, the architect who also built the Parthenon at Athens.

1

Cockerell 2008 p.60. Paus. 8.41.7-9. 3 Cooper p.70 and Paus. 8.30.2-4. Megalopolis was founded in 370/369 b., and the Apollo statue was brought as a gift from neighbouring Phigalia. 2

3


1765 - 1814 (Rediscovery and ”the Society of Travellers”) Since Pausanias’ mention in the 2. Century, the temple at Bassae disappears from history for more than 1,500 years until a coincidental ‘rediscovery’ in 1765. The French architect Joachim Bocher was on the island of Zante, where he was building a number of villas. He decided on an expedition to the Peloponnese (which at that time was under Ottoman control) and here, while riding in the countryside, he found a ruin which the locals referred to as ‘the Columns’. Bocher – contrary the Archbishop of Chania – knew his Pausanias and identified the temple as that Apollo temple, which is described by Pausanias.4 Bocher did not make his discovery public knowledge, but he did tell about it to Richard Chandler, who was himself travelling in Greece. Chandler mentioned in 1776 Bocher’s discovery as:

It was of the Doric order, and had six columns in front. The number, which ranged round the cell, was thirty eight. Two at the angles are fallen; the rest are entire, in good preservation, and support their architraves. Within them lies a confused heap. The stone inclines to gray with reddish veins. To its beauty is added great precision of execution in the workmanship. These remains had their effect, striking equally the mind and the eyes of the beholder .5 Chandler does not mention, that Bocher went back to Bassae in 1770 to measure up the temple, and that that was the last that was seen of him. When Pouqueville was in the area in 1798, the locals told about a ’voyageur’, who came to visit the temple, but was killed by bandits. Pouqueville connected, as far as anyone knows correctly, this person with Bocher.6 Now that the temple’s existence had been made public knowledge, the following years saw a string of visitors, including the French Consul L.F-S. Fauvel in 1787. None of the visitors conducted any investigations of the temple, but it was probably Fauvel, who told about it to one or more of the participants in the next expedition proper.7 Some of the visitors, however, drew or pained the temple, but it was only for the few to have access to these visual impressions. The watercolour (from around 1800, but only made publically available in 1821) in Plate 1 clearly shows the confused heap mentioned by Bocher lying inside the peristyle. What was not known at that time, was that Bocher actually had made a drawing of the temple’s plan (Fig.1). The drawing is incorrect as far as cella is concerned, but Bocher had realised that there is an internal colonnade – which he draws with two rows of 8 Doric columns in each – and a spur wall, which forms an adyton inside the building. The drawing was not made public, until it was bought (from a private collector) by the Victoria & Albert Museum at London in 19148 and here Bocher (of no fault of his own) starts a rather unlucky tradition, as we shall see that henceforth there is often a substantial delay before observations and results reach the public space. Bocher’s discover expanded the architectonic knowledge we had inherited through Pausanias, but there was nothing which per se pointed to the temple being particularly special, apart perhaps from the somewhat elongated plan. The Parthenon (8x17), Hephaisteion (6x13), the Poseidon temple at Sounion (6x13), the Ares temple from Acharnia (6x13) and the incomplete Nemesis temple at Rhamnous (6x12) are considered as belonging to the same school, period and, possibly, architect.9 If Ictinus should be the architect behind the Apollo Temple at Bassae, one would thus expect a somewhat ’broader’ plan.

4

Roux p.16. Chandler p.296. 6 Pouqueville p.116. 7 Cooper p.13. 8 Victoria & Albert Museum. 9 Lawrence p.133. 5

4


Fig. 1: Bocher’s drawing of the Apollo Temple at Bassae. C. 1765. In the margin he has written: par moi decouvert au mois de novembre de l’anne 1765. J.Bocher. Only 40 years after its rediscovery, did the temple become the centre of an investigation proper. This time the visitors were a mixed group of architects, antiquarians and fortune seekers, who have been called a range of things, of which the most complimentary is probably ‘adventurers’. They, however, referred to themselves as ‘the Society of travellers’. The group was not homogeneous10, but included J.C. Haller von Hallerstein, C.R. Cockerell, John Foster, M. von Stackelberg and the Dane P.O. Brøndsted.11 The individual participant’s reasons for travelling around during the Napoleonic Wars were as different as pure academic interest, architectonic inspiration, painting and simple greed, but the spirit which bonded the group was a mix of it all. The group was formed at Rome in 1808 and their first big success was at Aegina, where they in the spring of 1811 found a range of pediment sculptures by the Athena Aphaia temple. The sculptures were ‘bought’ from the locals for the sum of £4012 and as fast as possible sailed to the island of Zante. They were later sold to Prince Ludwig of Bavaria (for £600013) and formed the nucleus for the collection at the Glyptotek at Munich. On the hunt for further treasure, the group continued Bassae in august of 1811. Their visit was cut short when the local ‘arcont’ stopped it at the beginning of September. The Ottoman governor, Veli Pasha, was away and without his approval they could not continue. The project was thus postponed till the following year.14 But the trip was not without success. In Cockerell’s own words: Haller had engagements, which I had got

him, to make four drawings for English travellers. I made some of my own account, and there were measurements to be taken and a few stones moved for the purpose, all of which took time.15 Apart from Cockerell and Haller, Stackelberg also

completed a series of drawings and it was the works of these gentlemen, which in the following years provided the public with the first visual glimpses of the Apollo Temple at Bassae, even if – once again – it was with some delay. The drawings were, however, not the only important outcome. Of even greater importance was the discovery of a frieze under the ‘confused heap’ inside the temple’s -still standing – columns. The story cut to the essence, Cockerell saw a fox disappear into a hole in the middle of the pile of ruins.

10

Cooper p.15 for an overview of the group’s composition at various times between 1810 and 1814. Ibid. p.16-31 for a detailed review of the member’s lives. 12 Ibid. p.1416. 13 Cockerell p.49. 14 Hofkess-Brukker, C. & Mallwitz, A. p.10 15 Cockerell 2008 p.30. 11

5

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. He stuck his head in and saw and saw a marble relief.16 He covered his find in order not to alert the locals that there was anything of value, but the following year the group decided to return to Bassae in order to attempt an excavation. This time they got official permission to excavate and even permission to remove (and sell) any valuable finds on the condition, that Veli Pasha was paid half the returns.17 Permission in hand, they proceeded to clear the temple platform of the heap of debris, so they could get to the frieze that Cockerell had seen, as well as they were hoping to find pediment sculpture. Even if they did have some interest in the architectonic details, the ’excavation’ was an anything but scientific affair, which consisted of local workers simply moving the heap of ruins from inside the peristyle to outside the peristyle. Stackelberg himself has caught the spirit of the excavation in the drawing shown as Fig. 2, in which it is clear that tender care is not the highest priority.

Fig. 2: Stackelberg’s drawing (engraved) of the 1812 excavation at Bassae. Stackelberg himself refers to the drawing as: Auf dem Hauptplatze (s. die Titelvignette) bildete ein über Pfäle

ausgespanntes Arcadisches Zelttuch das Versamlungs- und Speishaus, in dem Dorische Capitale und andere Fragmente des Tempels als Tisch und Sitze dienten.18 The valuable frieze was, however, treated with more respect. In the words of Stackelbergs: Mit gröfster Vorsicht wurden alle, auch die kleinsten Fragmente, aufgelesen und so ging von ihnen nichts verloren, was die Verwitterung nicht schon gänzlich aufgelöst hatte.19 But over and above the frieze, the clearing of the temple also revealed a range of other – surprising - finds, which did not escape the attention of the travellers.

16

Stackelberg p.13. Ibid. 18 Stackelberg p.16. 19 Ibid. p.17. 17

6

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. It had from the outset been clear that the temple’s peristyle was Doric, but a number of Ionic capitals also emerged, with matching column parts. Even more surprising was, however, the find of a Corinthian capital. It soon became clear that there was more to the Apollo Temple at Bassae than the – in its own right spectacular – frieze. Inside the cella building it became clear, that the Ionic columns were a kind of half-columns, integrated at the end of spur walls short seated perpendicular to the cella building’s outer walls. It could furthermore be established, that the cella building’s long eastern wall (as the temple is orientated north to south) had the opening for a door, which lead into the furthest end of cella. Stackelberg could now draw the temple’s plan (Fig. 3) in a form which basically has survived till the present day.

Fig. 3: Stackelberg’s plan, published in 1826 (compare Fig. 1). The plan discloses the unique design, which still fascinates. That the temple is orientated northsouth is explained by the fact that narrow outcrop of bedrock on which the temple is located, is oblong in that direction and would not allow for a large east-west orientated building. Pronaos is thus located on the north-side of the temple. The stylobate measures 14,52x38,32 m. (Hephaisteion for comparison measures 13,7x 31,77 m.)20. The Doric peristyle (made from local sandstone) is as such not spectacular21, and if it is indeed a building of the Athenian school, then it is not surprising, that pronaos’ distyle in antis are aligned with the second pair of columns counted from north, as well as the middle pair of columns on the short side. It is also in line with the norms of the times, that the distance between the last pair of columns before each corner is lightly reduced to cater for the outermost triglyphs. It is however surprising that also opisthodomos’ distyle in antis are aligned with the second pair of columns counted from the south. That kind of perfect symmetry is not the contemporary norm, even if some examples can be found from the beginning of the 5th century b., for instance ’Temple A’ at Akragas and ’Temple E’ at Selinous.22 Worth noticing is also the deep pronaos and opisthodomos, which reduces cella proper (with adyton) till less than half of the stylobate’s length (Ictinus’ Parthenon has very narrow pronaos and opisthodomos without antes). The metopes on the outside are undecorated, but there are decorated metopes, in marble, over the entry to both pronaos and opisthodomos23. Fragments of these were also found during the 1812 20

Spawforth p. 156, 137. Neer p.311 claims, that the Doric columns in the peristyle are shorter than what was the norm at the times. I have, however, not – through comparison with other, contemporary, Doric temples- been able to find any proof of this claim. 22 Spawforth p. 126, 131. Both these temples also have a 6x15 plan and an adyton. 23 Lawrence p.134. This is typical Peloponnesian style and points away from an Athenian architect. 21

7

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. excavation.24 Where the contemporary Athenian temples were subject to experimental exterior decoration25, the design at Bassae follows a more conservative scheme on the exterior decoration, but the conservative approach comes to an abrupt halt as soon as we move through pronaos and into cella itself. The experience when one, in the temple’s prime, moved into cella must have been both different and overwhelming. Rather than the ‘normal’ experience of a cella segmented into (typically 3) section with columns placed in the long direction of the room, the room at Bassae must have provided an experience similar to that of Ramses II’s temple at Abu Simbel (see Plate 4). Growing from the room’s long side walls come 5 short spur walls, each ending in Ionic halfcolumns. To make the Ionic capitals attractive from all 3 possible viewing-angles, unique three-sided angle-capitals have been deployed, where the capital’s volutes have been dragged out in a 45 angle at both corners, a technique which at the same time is being attempted on the temple by Ilissos at Athens, but which, compared to Bassae, comes across as clumsy at Athens (see Fig. 4). The rearmost third of the room is separated from the rest by a diagonal row of columns with spur walls protruding from the rooms side walls at a 45 angle and a single slim column with a Corinthian capital in the middle. It is from this small adyton, that an opening lead out through the building’s east wall. Over this internal colonnade sits the four-sided frieze that Cockerell had first found pieces of in 1811, a unique internal placement sculpture, which completes this wholly unique design where a simple exterior hides a complex and refined experience in the inner space. It is tempting to say that where, for instance, the Parthenon is built to please man, the Apollo temple at Bassae is built to please the god. A perhaps more earthbound observation is, that where the frieze on the outside of the Parthenon can never be viewed more than one segment at the time, the frieze at Bassae is more approachable and can be seen as a single piece from one position.

24 25

Cooper p.201 Spawforth p.142 og Lawrence p.114. On the Parthenon there is an exterior frieze around the cella building itself, and on both the Parthenon and Hephaistaion there is an Ionic frieze above the Doric columns by pronaos and ophistodomos.

8


Fig. 4: A: Cockerell’s drawing of the three-sided Ionic capital. B: The contemporary four-sided capital from Ilissos. The excavation also disclosed roof tiles made of marble (as described by Pausanias) and ceiling decorations made from marble, testimony to a richly decorated, and expensive, coffer ceiling.26 Several of the expeditions members were gifted artists, and their drawings from (and immediately following) the excavation reached the public eye through the publications they released in the decades following. Plate 2 shows Stackelberg’s drawing of the cleared temple platform. We can here clearly see the remains of cella’s spur walls, the angled Ionic capitals and the Corinthian capital which stands (upside down) on the remains of the central column. Plate 3 shows Stackelberg’s reconstruction, where it is worth noticing that he envisages a roof that is open over cella. Plate 5 shows Cockerell’s attempt at a reconstruction of the ceiling. Den most copied drawing is, however, probably Cockerell’s reconstruction of the temple’s cella as seen from the entrance (Fig. 5). Here we see all the temple’s peculiarities in play at the same time, the we were meant to do. Towards the back of the room we see the column with the Corinthian capital, and in the adyton stands a cult statue which, at sunset, is illuminated through the small opening in the east-wall. The skylight and the domed roof is however – as the exhibited tropaion – an expression of Cockerell’s artistic license rather than based on archaeology.

26

Cooper 1996 p.339. Cooper believes that Pausanias actually refers to the ceiling rather than the roof.

9

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. All together there was very little (scientific) archaeology being applied to the 1812 excavation. Treasure hunt, architectonic curiosity and artistic expression was, however, abundant, so one way or another a wealth of information emerged regarding the temple’s architecture. It did, however, take some time before this knowledge reached the public space. First the found artistic treasures – first and foremost the internal frieze – had to find new owners. Veli Pasha had fallen from grace and been told that his replacement was on his way from Istanbul. He therefore wished to cash in his part of the spoils as soon as possible and accepted a once-off payment of £400.27 Now haste was of the essence, so the frieze was rushed off to the closest beach, where it was shipped off to Zante. It was at the very last moment, as the new governor had sent troops to stop the treasure from being sent off, but they arrived moments too late. One of the objects which did not make it aboard in time was the Corinthian capital. Fig. 5: Reconstruction of cella. Cockerell, published 1860. According to Cockerell it was smashed by the frustrated Ottoman soldiers on the beach,28 and was thus lost to posterity. The abducted frieze was subsequently sold to British Museum for the considerable sum of £19,000,29 more than three times the amount the group had been paid for the pediment figures from Aegina. From a modern perspective one can have split opinions about this abduction cultural treasure, men Kenner concludes that; Damit war eines der vollkommensten Kunstwerke, das Altertum der Neuzeit überliefert hat, vor weiterem Verfall geschützt 30 and that, at least, is one view on the matter. As was the case previously with Bocher, it would take some time before the findings of the 1812 expedition reached the public space, even if the first public mention (of the frieze) took place in 1814 through a somewhat opportunistic announcement by Martin von Wagner, who had not actually participated in the expedition.31 And so ended those 50 years, where much had been discovered, but very little had reached the public at large.

27

Stackelberg p.23, Cooper p.13, 21 and Cockerell 2008 p.77. Cockerell 2008 p.77. 29 Kenner p.31. 30 Kenner p. 31. 31 Hofkes-Brukker & Mallwitz p.12. 28

10


1815 – 1864 (Publication) The period between 1815 and 1865 was dominated by publication rather than exploration. This was partly caused by the Greek War of Independence - making travel in the area even more difficult than before, and partly by the fact that there was a huge backlog. The official announcement of the expedition’s finds came in British Museum’s own publication in 1820. Here there is a short description of the temple itself, written by Cockerell, but it is pointed out that It has not, however, by any means been the intention of the Author to enter minutely into the architectural details of the temple”.32 There are detailed drawings of the frieze and a couple of drawings by John Foster. One of them is shown in Plate 6, and if it is compared with Plate 1, it is clear that ’the confused heap’ now is randomly spread out outside the platform. It would be another six years before Stackelberg, in 1826, published his work covering both the expedition itself and a wide range of (illustrated) finds. It is here that the public for the first time has access to the large amounts of information that the 1812 expedition collected. More follows in 1830, where Donaldson elaborates on the temple’s architecture. This is the first time an academic article about the temple is provided by someone who was not a member of the 1812 excavation (as a curiosum, Cockerell writes an article about the Jupiter Olympus temple at Agrigentum in the same issue). One comment in Donaldson’s article is worth noticing; namely that the 1812 expedition did not – as previously stated by Cockerell – remove the Corinthian capital from the site, but that it at a later date disappeared from the temple.33 A French expedition also mentions Bassae in their 1834 publication, thus participates in spreading knowledge about the temple to a broader, French speaking, audience.34 Finally, in 1860, does Cockerell release the official report of the expeditions to Aegina and Bassae. The report should really have been written in a cooperation between several of the expedition’s members, but nearly 50 years later – without actually having taken part in the 1812 expedition himself, but supported by (the late) von Hallerstein’s notebooks – is it Cockerell who ends up as the group’s official publicist. As was the case with both Donaldson and Blouet’s publications, the content was mainly a series of plates with notes, without anything actually new being disclosed. There was, however, some peculiarities, where Cockerell diverted from von Hallerstein’s notes. We were thus e.g. told that; as in

the case at the Parthenon by Ictinus, it is remarkable that the inclination of the axis, the entasis of the column and the curvature of the horizontal lines could not be discovered in this work, either by the excavators, or by subsequent travellers .35 Not that

Cockerell’s observation per se is wrong, but he builds on an assumption, that if these refinements are present at the Parthenon, then they must also be present at Bassae, and thus an unconditional acceptance of Ictinus as the architect at Bassae.

32

British Museum 1820 Preface. Donaldson p.5c. 34 Blouet p.5-30. 35 Cockerell 1860 p.49. 33

11


1865 – 1914 (The first scientific approach) Following a quiet period, the 20. century started off with several years of Greek excavation at Bassae. Excavations took place from 1902 till 1910, but once again the collected information was only slowly released into the public space. Dinsmoor commented in 1927 on the scientific approach of the times that; The sites of the great shrines

in which the chief temples alone had hitherto formed the objects of investigation, are now in many cases completely excavated, and the superincumbent earth removed to a distance. By this system not only have new features been discovered in the plans of the temples themselves, which had escaped the attention of earlier explorers, but the foundations and the remains of numerous minor structures have been found, adding considerably to our knowledge,36 and when the result of the Greek

excavations were partly released in 1905 and 1910, the primary findings were thus not architectonic, but rather small finds such as votive offerings, ceramic shards and roof tiles, as well as the exposure of a number of detached foundations in the area immediately surrounding the temple itself. The votive offerings clearly demonstrated that there had been religious activity in the area since the later part of the 8. Century b. with numbers growing from around the middle of the 7. Century b. Ceramic shard substantiated this, with shard dating back to early Corinthian from c. 625 b.37 So there had been religious activity long before the construction of the classical temple from the later part of the 5. Century b., and here the roof tiles became interesting. Not only had roof tiles been found belonging to the classical temple, but also Archaic roof tiles had been found, an indication that there had been a temple at Bassae much further back in history than Pausanias was aware. And they also fund fragments of the lost Corinthian capital. Many had at that time expressed doubt as to whether this capital actually ever existed, or if it indeed belonged to the site where it was allegedly found, but the found fragments lead Kavvadivas to the conclusion that; es ist daher ausser allem

Zweifel, dass indem Tempel von Phigaleia dièse korinthische Säule gestanden hat, und zwar in Verbindung mit dem Bau, dass sie also gleichzeitig mit den anderen Säulen war.38

1915 – 1964 (Dinsmoor) Further publication of the Greek finds took place in 1935, but the significant researcher of this period was William Bell Dinsmoor. In his own words; it is now evident that the difficulties can be solved only through prolonged sojourns at bassae itself, and that was exactly what he did, combined with work at the British Museum, where he succeeded in getting the frieze taken off the wall and some of the previously applied cement restorations remove. Dinsmoor’s conclusions only emerged in the chapter about Bassae in his (rewritten) book from 1927, where he made a number of statements of a definite character. He was in no doubt, that Ictinus was the architect of the Apollo Temple at Bassae39, he observes, that at Bassae he had not used the many refinements seen at the Parthenon (which explains why Cockerell could not see them)40 and he launches the theory, that the temple incorporates the east-west orientated foundations of a previous temple, which the architect was asked to incorporate in the new design (which explains the plan’s extended length)41. He furthermore rejected the earlier idea, that the roof over cella was open, and instead was of the opinion that special roof tiles with covered lightopenings had been used.42 Dinsmoor followed this description of the temple up with several articles, the most detailed in MMS in 1933. Here he told how many of the ruin-elements which had been ‘excavated’ by the 1812 36

Dinsmoor 1927 p.94. Cooper p.66-7. 38 Kavvadivas p.174. 39 Dinsmoor 1927 p.112. 40 Ibid. P.112-3 og 120. 41 Ibid. 113. 42 Ibid. P.115 37

12

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. expedition had been lost (after the Greek War of Independence), but that the Greek excavation at the beginning of the century had revealed many others as well as sorted the ‘confused heap’. Dinsmoor here presented a range of further conclusions. Den most important was the sequence he proposed for the frieze, men also in the area of architecture did he fire on all cylinders. He was convinced, that the reason no pediment sculpture had been found at Bassae was, that it had been removed during roman times. He reconstructed the pediment’s rear walls and believed he could trace the sculptures all the way to Rome.43 He also believed that so many fragments of Corinthian capital had been found, that there was not one, but rather three; one (as generally accepted) in the middle and one of each of the flanking half-columns.44 Dinsmoor had planned to write at larger, consolidated, work about Bassae, he even referred to it in his own article from 1933,45 but the work was never done, and his notes were instead, on his death in 1973, passed to the 20. Century’s most significant researcher; Frederick A. Cooper.

1965 – 2015 (Cooper/Kelly and the modern approach) Cooper and his (then) wife Nancy Kelly participated in excavations at Bassae in a period between 1962 and 1970, and Cooper then continued his activities at the temple up till the end of the 1980’s. His doctoral thesis from 1970 was about Bassae, and in 1996 he published his consolidated work about the temple. The work is the absolute authority on the temple, even if not all of cooper’s conclusions are shared by others. He and Kelly specifically disagree over how many temples there has been at Bassae, and it is actually Kelly who, as the first, removed much of the mystery around the temple’s orientation and design. Kelly had in 1970 exposed parts of foundations (first documented in 1905) immediately south of the classic temple, which she combined with her special interest in roof tiles to compose a convincing argument published in 1995. The foundations are from an archaic temple, with dimensions which are practically a 100 % fit with the classic temple’s cella building (Fig. 6).46 The archaic temple was, furthermore, orientated northsouth, have small spu5 walls, ending in (wooden) columns and a door in the east-wall (Fig. 7). Kelly could, with other words, prove that the classic temple’s basic plan is a copy of the archaic temple (built with other materials) surrounded by a peristyle (which in the meantime had become the norm in Greek temples), which explains why it was moved app. 10 meters further north, where the rock is slightly broader.47

Fig. 6: The Archaic temple compared with the classic temple. 43

Dinsmoor 1933 p.224. Ibid. p.212. 45 Ibid. p.227 ’Dinsmoor, William B. Bassae: the temple of Apollo near Phigalia. (In preparation).’ 46 Kelly p.238-49. 47 Kelly p.263 44

13


Cooper - contrary to Kelly who believes that there were only 3 building phases - believes that the first stone temple was built around 500 b. According to Cooper’s theory, this temple was damaged (as a result of the many wars that cursed the area), and was rebuilt I two phases between 430 b. and 400 b. The final result was the classic temple that we see (the remains of) today.48 Cooper furthermore has a number of corrections to the conclusions previously drawn by Dinsmoor. He believed that the building’s pediments are too narrow to have contained sculpture, which is the reason one were found. He has through precise measurement established that there are small refinements to the temple’s design, specifically an outward arch in the stylobate’s long side, but he does Fig. 7: Reconstruction of the archaic temple. agree that the refinements cannot be compared to those of the Parthenon. More controversially he believes, at earlier theories about one or three Corinthian capitals are both wrong. He believes that found sandstone capitals, previously discarded as ‘templates’, actually are ‘Attic-Ionic’ capitals, which sat atop the two corner-columns in the interior colonnade.49 Less controversial is his excavation of the temple’s foundations, which shows that it is constructed using a number of layers – e.g. sand, which dampens the temple’s movements in connection with earthquakes, as well as he has been able to trace the temple’s sandstone to a nearby quarry, where the quarried stones look similar to those in the immediate vicinity of the temple, but actually have 4 times their carrying strength.50 Cooper registered, drew and measured every find, complete or fragmented, and finally managed to sort out the pile of pieces that had been left behind by the 1812 expedition. In connection with he (and Kelly) has dismissed the theories of an open roof or special roof tiles with openings for light. The Greek government in 1975 created an organisation (Epirope Epikouriou), which has as its purpose to preserve and conserve the Apollo Temple at Bassae. The contemporary effort is thus more focused on conservation rather than excavation, an effort which was further strengthened when the site was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1986. The temple has subsequently been covered by a tent, which means that the contemporary visitor is offered only a very close view of the temple, without the overview that was offered to previous travellers (Plate 7). The actual investigations of the temple’s architecture thus end with Cooper, but each subsequent researcher and writer obviously have their own opinions. Neer e.g. ascribe the temple to Ictinus, but only mentions the one Corinthian capital (without Attic-Ionic side-capitals), and believe that this column may have had separate religious significance.51 This is also picked up by Spawforth, who notes that we may be seeing a ritual with roots in Mycenaean Greece.52

48

Ibid. p.74-5. Cooper p.8-11. 50 Ibid p.7. 51 Neer p.310. 52 Spawforth p.158 49

14


Summary Cult activity took place at Bassae since the end of the 8. Century b. and the activity increased from around the middle of the 7. Century b. Around 625 b. a temple was constructed from wood and mud brick with a terracotta roof.53 The temple was rebuilt around 575 b. – possibly after a fire - where an opisthodomos was added and a new roof was fitted. The original temple was replaced by a stone peripteros somewhere between 500 b. and 430 b. There is disagreement as to whether there were one or two building phases, but the classic temple we know today is from the last part of the 5. Century b. The stone temple inherited a range of design elements from the archaic temple. This lead to a design which was more elongated than was the norm of its time and range of unusual design choices such as spur walls, an adyton and an east-facing side-door. The architect of the classic temple took the opportunity to integrate these older design elements with a range of new elements. He designed a unique three-sided Ionic capital (executed in marble, contrary to the column’s sand stone), and he placed the first known Corinthian capital on a central column, separating cella and adyton. Where the architect decided on conservative exterior decoration, he revolutionised by placing a four-sided frieze on the inside of cella, where it could be viewed from a single position. Whom this architect was is unknown, even if researchers have attempted to prove that it is Ictinus. Dinsmoor outright accepted, without reservations, that Ictinus was the architect.54 Carpenter uses several pages to substantiate that Ictinus could have been in Bassae.55 Cooper does the same, and backs the argument up with a historic presentation.56 Lawrence, on the other side takes a more sceptical viewpoint, and notes a range of architectonic elements which point away from Ictinus.57 Despite these attempt to substantiate Pausania’s statement, we still miss the ’smoking gun’. There is not, as is the case with the Parthenon, left written accounts or other contemporary sources identifying the architect, and Carpenter notes that; It has been suggested that Pausanias must have been

misinformed and that the ascription of the temple to Iktinos was due to local vainglory, desirous of attaching a famous name to the remote and little visited temple.58 Facts are that some architectonic details substantiate that Ictinus could be the architect, while others make it less likely59. 250 years of archaeology has thus given us a detailed knowledge of the Apollo Temple at Bassae’s architecture, but we do not know everything, so the temple is allowed to maintain some of its mystique.

53

Cooper p.73. Dinsmoor 1927 p.112. 55 Carpenter p.135-46. 56 Cooper p. 57 Lawrence p.133-34. 58 Carpenter p.143-45. 59 Carpenter p.149-58 for a complete comparison of arguments for and against. 54

15


References Blouet, Abel. 1834. Expédition Scientifique de Morée ordonee par le Gouvernement de Français. Deuxiéme Volume. Paris: Firmin Didot Fréres. British Museum 1820. A description of the collection of ancient marbles in the British Museum; with engravings. Part IV. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Carpenter, Rhys. 1970. The Architects of the Parthenon. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Chandler, Richard 1776. Travels in Greece o r an account of a tour made at the expense of the Society of Dilettanti. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cockerell, Charles R. 1860. The Temples of Jupiter Panhellenius at Ægina and of Apollo Epicurius at Bassæ near Phigaleia in Arcadia. London: John Weale. ---- --. 2008(1903). Travels in Greece. Athens: Anagnosis. Cooper, Frederick A. 1996. The Temple of Apollo Bassitas - Volume I. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Dinsmoor, William Bell 1927. The Architecture of Ancient Greece. London: B.T.Batsford. ---- --. 1933. The Temple of Apollo at Bassae, Metropolitan Museum Studies IV, 204-227. Donaldson, T.L. 1830. The Temple of Apollo Epicurius at Bassae. London: Priestley and Weale. Hofkess-Brukker, C. & Mallwitz, A. 1975. Der Bassai-friese in der ursprünglich geplanten Anordnung. München: Prestel Verlag. Kavvadivas, P. 1905. Der Apollotempel von Phigaleia. Comtes rendus de congrés international d’archéologié 171-9. Kelly, Nancy. 1995. The Archaic Temple of Apollo at Bassai: Correspondences to the Classical Temple, Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 64.2, 227277. Kenner, Hedwig 1946. Der Fries des Temples von Bassae-Phigalia. Wien: Frank Deuticke. Lawrence, A.W. 1996. Greek Architecture. London: Yale University Press. Neer, Richard T. 2012. Art & Archaeology of the Greek World - A new history, c. 2500 - c. 150 BCE.London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. Pausanias, Pausanias Description of Greece with an English Translation by W.H.S. Jones, Litt.D., and H.A. Ormerod. London: William Heinemann Ltd. 1918. Pouqueville, F.-C.-H.-L. 1805. Voyage en Morée, à Constantinople, en Albanie et dans plusieurs autres parties de l'Empire ottoman pendant les années 1798, 1799, 1800 et 1801 - Tome Premier. Paris: Gabon et Comp. Roux, Georges 1976. Karl Haller von Hallenstein Le Temple de Bassae. Strasbourg: La Biblioteque et Universitaire de Strasbourg. Spawforth, Tony 2006. The Complete Greek Temples. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Victoria & Albert Museum. According to conversation with, and email from, Catherine Flood, Curator of Prints, 21/5/2015, the drawing (with others) was bought from one ‘T. Thorp’ in 1914. 16


List of Illustrations Front page: Stackelberg T.II. Fig. 1: Roux p.17. Fig. 2: Stackelberg Title Page. Fig. 3: Stackelberg T.IV. Fig.4: Cockerell 1860 PL. XIV. (A) og Lawrence p.96 (B) Fig. 5: Cockerell 1860 p.59. Fig. 6: Kelly p.228. Fig. 7: Kelly p.239. Fig. 8: Kelly p.245.

List of Plates Plate 1: Dodwell, Edward 1821. Views in Greece, from Drawings by Edward Dodwell Esq. F.S.A &c., London: Rodwell and Martin. Plate 2: Stackelberg T.III. Plate 3: Stackelberg T.V. Plate 4: https://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/5655. 20150403.20:20CET. Interior of the rock hewn temple of Abu Simbel--Holy of Holies in rear and statues of gods--Egypt. (97) (1904). (03/04/2015). Plate 5: Cockerell. Pl. IX. Plate 6: British Museum Pl. XXVII. Plate 7: http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/2/eh251.jsp?obj_id=1142 and http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/392 (14/05/2015)

17


Plates Plate 1: Watercolour of the Apollo Temple at Bassae before the 1812 excavation.

18

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. Plate 2: Stackelberg’s drawing of the cleared temple-platform.

19

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. Plate 3: Stackelberg’s reconstruction.

20

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. Plate 4: Interior of the Great Temple at Abu Simbel (ca. 1264 b.).

21

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. Plate 5: Cockerell’s reconstruction of the coffer ceilings.

22

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. Plate 6: John Foster’s drawing of the cleared temple.

23

The Apollo Temple at Bassae. Plate 7: The modern conservation effort.

24