A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous

Miles, Margaret M.

doi:10.2307/148334

Cited by 56 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…56 Petra ve Aleksandria'daki dorik yapılarda şahin gagası profilinin kullanıldığına dair bir veri tespit edilememiştir (Karşılaştırma için bk. McKenzie 1990;Pensabene 1993;McKenzie 2007). Aleksandria'da bulunan ve MÖ 2. yüzyıla tarihlenen Mustafa Paşa Mezar 2'nin plaster başlıkları, Pergamon ovolosu ve kavettodan oluşmaktadır.…”

Section: Kyma Reversaunclassified

Anadolu Dor Mimarisinde Kullanılan Anta, Pilaster ve Paye Başlıkları

Büyüközer¹

2020

Arkhaia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, which discusses the anta, plaster and pier capitals found in Doric buildings in Anatolia, the capitals have been grouped according to the form of the profiles, and each profile has been evaluated in itself. As a result of this grouping, it was determined that various profiles such as Doric cyma, cyma reversa, ovolo and Pergamene type of ovolo were used in Doric buildings. These profiles are described in detail with emphasis on their style developments. In addition to this, buildings whose dates are controversial, were evaluated and reexamined in terms of the style features of the Doric architectural blocks, and new dates were suggested for some of them.The canonical form of Doric anta capitals consists of Doric cyma (hakwsbeak). This capital type was worked in Anatolia from 4th century BC to the end of the 2nd century BC. An ovolo-type hawksbeak was used in the 4th century BC, while a cyma reversa-type hawksbeak was used in the majority examples of the 3rd century BC and all examples of the 2nd century BC. On the hawksbeak, the style development can be followed on the shape of the lower end of the beak and on the cyma reversa profiles. On the Doric anta capitals, the hawksbeak is crowned with a cavetto. However, as in the early examples, capitals crowned with a vertical fascia were also identified. The exception is the presence of the crown profile consisting of cyma recta, seen in two examples only. In the capitals, the concave curvature of the cavetto profile is well shaped and, in early examples, this profile ends with a fascia that is not too high. The height of the fascia starts to increase in the 2nd century BC examples.The capitals consisting of the cyma reversa profile, which is thought to have been inspired by Doric anta capitals, were used in the Temple of Athena at Assos in the Archaic Period. L.T. Shoe stated that the Hellenistic examples of these types of capitals belonging to the Doric order in Anatolia are limited to Priene buildings alone. However, in this study, in addition to the examples from Priene, examples were also identified from Mamurt Kale, Latmos Heracleia, Assos and Pergamon in the Hellenistic Period, as well as from Aphrodisias, Mylasa, Bargylia and Knidos in the Late Hellenistic-Augustus Period. In the anta capitals, the depth of the cyma reversa profile is generally equal to its width, and the upper curve is smaller than the lower curve. The capitals in this group are mostly crowned with cavetto, like the capitals consisting of Doric cyma. There are very few examples in which vertical fascia have been preferred.

show abstract

Section: Kyma Reversaunclassified

Anadolu Dor Mimarisinde Kullanılan Anta, Pilaster ve Paye Başlıkları

Büyüközer¹

2020

Arkhaia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26 Alcock ὼῄn an endnoteώ notes tῃe temple's refurbῄsῃment and 'rededῄcatῄon' to Lῄvia in situ as an exception to the trend for urban centralisation of cult under Roman rule. 27 Sῃear brῄefly lῄnks tῃe repaῄrs and 'rededῄcatῄon' to a wῄder programme of sanctuary refurbῄsῃments ῄn Attῄca, ῄn a 20 BRONEER (1932), p. 398;DINSMOOR (1961), p. 182-6;MILES (1989), see especially p. 163-164 fig. 11.…”

Section: The Dedicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…53 PETRAKOS (1999) I, p. 43. ELIAKIS (1980 proposes an even later date, under Julian, but his argument has not found favour.54MILES (1989), p. 237. . 365-367 is linked to reassessment of the chronology of Salamis' return to Athenian control after its purchase by Julius Nikanor of Hierapolis, who was hoplite general in AD 61/2 (IG II 2 1723).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘The People to the goddess Livia’

Stafford¹

2013

kernos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, Boersma, 1970: 191;2 Hodge, 1960: 106-15. Z Rhamnous, Temple of Nemesis: Dinsmoor, 1950: 181-3, 339;Boersma, 1970: 193-4: Mezos, 1984: table on p. 69; Iliakis, 1987;Miles, 1989: 209-14 (on r oofing).…”

Section: The Temple Of Aphaia On Aegina and The Parthenonunclassified

The comparative structure of Greek and Etruscan monumental buildings

Turfa¹,

Steinmayer²

1996

Pap. Br. Sch. Rome

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and the temples at Thermon and Calydon) employed terracotta tiles as roof covering. Classical temples such as the Parthenon were roofed with marble tiles, also of great weight. 1 By the end of the Archaic Period, Greek builders were using one of two systems for tiles, either the 'Corinthian' flat pantiles with angular covers, or the 'Laconian' with both pan and cover rounded in section. 2 The weight of roofs constructed with either system would be similar, of course. The earliest practice, though, as already attested at Corinth and Isthmia, was to use a 'combination' tile consisting of one pantile and one cover tile moulded in a single piece. These were approximately as heavy as two of the Classical Corinthian tiles, and must have been as difficult to lift and place on the roof as they were to form and fire.For ease of calculation, and since our study is intended as theoretical, we suggest (assuming a specific gravity of 2 for terracotta), as an average of all types of tiling systems, including the Etruscan (see below), a weight of approximately 60 kg for a covering of terracotta approximately 1.0 x 1.0 m and 50 mm thick. For instance, a Corinthian pantile 0.57 m wide x 0.68 m long weighs 20.2 kg. 3

show abstract

A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous

Cited by 56 publications

References 0 publications

Anadolu Dor Mimarisinde Kullanılan Anta, Pilaster ve Paye Başlıkları

Anadolu Dor Mimarisinde Kullanılan Anta, Pilaster ve Paye Başlıkları

‘The People to the goddess Livia’

The comparative structure of Greek and Etruscan monumental buildings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About