Greek temple

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Parthenon on the Acropolis in Athens, Greece

The Greek temple ( ancient Greek ὁ ναός ho naós "apartment"; content not to be equated with the Latin templum " temple ") is originally the building of a Greek sanctuary that houses a cult image. In general, it was not used for cult, as worship and sacrifices took place in the open air, but it could accommodate votive gifts or cult items. It is the most significant and most widespread type of building in Greek architecture . Temple buildings that were built in the Hellenistic realms of the East or North Africa and that remained committed to the local building types were not counted as part of the Greek temple in the strict sense of the word, even if Greek design methods were used. In this context it is worth remembering Greek Parthian buildings, the temples of Bactria or the buildings of the Ptolemaic Empire, which are in Egyptian tradition .

Within a few centuries, the Greeks developed the temple from the small adobe buildings of the 9th and 8th centuries BC. To monumental buildings with double porticoed halls from the 6th century BC. BC, which reached a height of easily over 20 meters without a roof. For the design, they resorted to the landscape-specific structural elements of the various column orders , in which a distinction must first be made between the Doric and Ionic order , to which from the late 3rd century BC. The Corinthian order entered. A large number of different floor plan options were developed, which were combined with the various column orders of the rising architecture. From the 3rd century BC The construction of large temples slowed down after a brief last bloom in the 2nd century BC. In the course of the 1st century BC To come to a standstill almost completely. Only minor building projects were tackled, older temples were renewed or work was continued on their completion.

The Greek temple was designed and built according to fixed rules, the important reference values ​​of which could be the lower diameter of the columns or the dimensions of the foundation. Optical refinements removed the rigidity of the almost mathematical design principles that resulted. Contrary to what is still popular today, the Greek temples were painted, with rich reds and blues appearing alongside the dominant white. The figurative ornamentation in the form of reliefs and gable figures was extremely rich in elaborately designed temples . As a rule, the buildings were commissioned and financed by cities and sanctuary administrations. Private individuals, mostly Hellenistic rulers, could also act as builders and donors. With the drying up of these financial sources in the late Hellenism, with the incorporation of the Greek-influenced cultural area into the Roman Empire , whose administrative officials and rulers appeared as new clients, the construction of Greek temples ended. The buildings that were now being built were part of the Roman Empire architecture , which served other purposes and used more developed forms of design.

Development history overview

Temple of Poseidon in Paestum
Concordia temple in Agrigento in the Valle dei templi
Temple in Segesta

The foundations for the development of the Greek temple were established between the 10th century BC. BC and the 7th century BC BC placed. In its simplest form as a naos , it could be a simple shrine with protruding walls and a small vestibule. In the early days up to the 8th century BC There was also the form of an apse with more or less semicircular backs. However, the rectangular building type prevailed. By adding columns to this small building, the Greeks laid the foundation for the development and variety of forms of their temples.

The first temples were mostly simple adobe buildings on a stone base. The pillars, like the entablature, were made of wood. Door walls and the front of the wall were protected with wooden planks. The adobe walls were often reinforced with timber posts using truss technology . The elements of this simple, clearly structured wood construction technique were subject to all the important design principles that determined the development of the Greek temple over the centuries. At the end of the 7th century BC BC the dimensions of the simple forerunners were increased significantly. With temple B in Thermos , the building begins 100 feet, that is, 32–33 meters long, so-called Hekatompedoi (Greek for 'hundred feet '). Since the technical means were not yet sufficient to bridge the corresponding roof widths, these temples remained very narrow with a width of 6-10 meters. In order to increase the importance of the cult image and its structure, the naos was provided with a column-supported canopy . The resulting column wreath, the peristasis , remains peculiar to the temple in the Greek cultural area. By combining the temple with a column of pillars surrounding all sides, architects and builders were introduced to the all-round view as a new design requirement. As a result, the pronaos of the ring hall temple created in this way, Peripteros , was given a counterpart on the back of the building, the opisthodom , the integration of which was therefore purely aesthetic.

With the introduction of stone construction in the early 6th century BC The basic elements and shapes of the temple, such as the number and position of columns, were subject to constant change in the course of ancient Greece. In addition to the simple peripteros, in the 6th century BC In the Ionian Samos the Dipteros developed as a new building type, which finds successors in Didyma , Ephesus and Athens . From the 6th to the end of the 4th century BC Countless temples were built in BC, almost every city, every colony had several temples. In addition, there were the buildings of the extra-urban and higher sanctuaries such as Olympia and Delphi . In the observable change in the forms, the search for the harmonious form of all components and the overall appearance is recognizable: The development led from the sometimes rough and powerful early forms to the aesthetic perfection and sophistication of the later buildings, from planning carelessness to the strictly mathematical penetration of the floor plan and the structural members.

From early Hellenism, the Greek peripheral temple lost a lot of its importance. With very few exceptions, the classic temple building in the Greek motherland as well as in the Greek colonies of Greater Greece . In western Asia Minor alone , during the 3rd century BC A sluggish temple construction maintained. The construction of major projects such as the Temple of Apollo in Didyma near Miletus and the Artemision in Sardis is not making progress. Only in the 2nd century BC BC, and above all with the person and after-effects of the architect Hermogenes , who in his theoretical writings and his buildings put the construction of Ionic temples on a new foundation, there is again a lively construction activity that includes peripteral buildings. At the same time, the rulers of the various Hellenistic empires flow in abundant financial resources. Self-portrayal, competition, stabilization of spheres of influence and the increasing disputes with Rome, which were also conducted in the cultural field, developed the strength for this revival of the demanding Greek temple building. In this phase the Greek temple is spreading in southern Asia Minor, Egypt and North Africa. But despite these examples, and although economic upswing and a high degree of technical innovation in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC BC offer a favorable framework, the cult building of the Hellenistic period is represented by the vast number of small Antentempel and Prostyloi and the smallest temple, Naiskoi , which were built from the archaic period in prominent places, on marketplaces, near springs and next to the paths, but now experience their real bloom. As a special feature, as a result of this restriction to small buildings, the development of the pseudoperipteros , which creates the illusion of a ring hall temple by means of pillars on the walls of the cella . An early example is provided by Temple L in Epidaurus , which is said to find prominent successors in Roman temples such as the Maison Carrée in Nîmes .

In the early 1st century BC The building behavior changed as a result of the Mithridatic wars . Roman magistrates in the east are increasingly appearing as clients, and they rarely show their charity in the form of a temple. Nonetheless, temples are built in this phase. With the establishment of the principate , temples for the ruler's cult or temples for Roman deities were mostly built among the few new buildings. Although there are still new temples for Greek deities, the buildings either follow the canon of forms of the emerging Roman imperial architecture or retain local non-Greek peculiarities, as the temples in Petra or Palmyra show. The progressive Romanization of the East brought the end of the construction of Greek temples, even if large buildings such as the Temple of Apollo in Didyma or the Olympieion in Athens continued to be built and completed well into the second century.

With the edicts of Theodosius I and his successors banning pagan cults, the Greek temples were gradually closed or rededicated in Christian churches. This ends the history of the Greek temple, even if some buildings were still in use for a long time. The Parthenon in Athens , which was first consecrated to church, was converted into a mosque after the Ottoman conquest and remained intact until the 17th century. Only the unfortunate hit of a Venetian cannonball in the building used as a powder magazine destroyed this important temple after over two thousand years of existence.


In its canonical forms, the Greek temple has always had the same basic structure for a long time, for which the Greeks used a limited number of spatial components that are used in the floor plan and structural elements that were related to the elevation.


The central cult building of the temple, the naos, can be divided into several building areas. Most of the time the statue of gods was placed in the main room, the cella . In archaic temples, in Sicily up to the classical period, a separate room, the Adyton , can be separated for this.

At the front of the cella there is a vestibule, the pronaos, which is formed from the protruding side walls of the cella, the ante , and two columns in between. A room at the back of the temple corresponding to the pronaos is called the opisthodom. This room, which is not connected to the cella by a door, is purely aesthetic: In order to satisfy the all-roundness of the peripteros, the design of the front was repeated on the back.

All around the naos can be surrounded by one or more pillars, the ring hall or peristasis. This creates a circumferential corridor, the pteron , which offered space for visitors to the shrine and was used for cult processions.

Using these components, different types of floor plans could be realized in Greek temple construction. The simplest example of the Greek temple is the Temple of Ants, also called templum in antis , a small rectangular building that served to protect the cult image. In front of the cella was the pronaos formed by the extended cella walls, the ante, which was connected to the cella by a door. To support the entablature, there were two columns in antis between the foreheads of the antennas . If this simple form had an opisthodoma, the plan type is called a double-sided temple. In a variant of the double-sided temple, the opisthodoma on the back of the cella is only indicated by half-columns and short ante pillars, so that it can be addressed as a pseudo-opisthodoma.

Temple shapes

If a column of usually four or six columns is placed in front of the vestibule of the temple of the temple over its entire width, the type is called prostylos. The amphiprostylos was created by repeating this column position of the prostylos on the back of the temple.

In contrast, the term Peripteros describes a temple that had a pillared hall that ran around on all sides, mostly a yoke deep. This resulted in a free colonnade, a peristasis, around all four sides of the temple. A Hellenistic or Roman modification of this widespread type of temple is the pseudoperipteros, in which the columns in the form of half columns or pilasters were only blinded to the side walls and the back wall of a prostylus.

The Dipteros had a double column hall on all sides, whereby the column positions on the front and back could be extended by further rows. The Pseudodipteros differs from the Dipteros in that the inner column position of the peristasis is missing, but the gallery is two column yokes deep.

The so-called round temples, which could have a surrounding column wreath and are called (peripteral) tholos , represented a special type of construction. Often of a sacred character, the function of a temple for Greek tholoi can usually not be proven. A structure similar to the Tholos is the Monopteros , which however lacks the cella.

In order to address floor plan types more clearly, the definitions can be mixed: peripteral double-antic temple, prostylic antic temple, peripteral amphiprostylos, to give just a few examples. In addition, Vitruvius (4, 3, 3) differentiated according to the number of front columns. The following terms are used in research today:

Temple shape front
Distylos 2-column
Tetrastylos 4-pillar, as early as Vitruvius
Hexastylos 6-pillar, as early as Vitruvius
Octastylos 8-column
Dekastylos 10-column

Only the 12-column hall at the Didymaion is called dodecastylus . 12-column temple fronts, however, have not survived.

Few temples had an odd number of front pillars, such as Hera Temple I in Paestum or Apollo Temple A in Metapont , which with its nine front columns can be referred to as Enneastylos, or the archaic Temple C in Thermos , which with its five columns on the narrow sides can be described as Pentastylos .


Temple Features2.jpg

The structure of Greek temples is always divided into three zones: the step structure, the columns, the entablature.

The underground foundation of a Greek temple is called a stereobat . It consists of several layers of cuboid stones. The top layer, the euthyntery , partially protrudes from the ground. Their surface is carefully smoothed and balanced. On the Euthynterie there is a mostly three-part step structure, called Krepidoma or Krepis , the top step of which forms the base for the pillars and is therefore called stylobate . Stereobat, Euthynterie and Krepis together form the substructure of the temple.

On the stylobate stand the rising and tapering column shafts , which are normally composed of individual column drums . Different numbers of flutes are cut into the shafts depending on the column order : while in the Doric order there are usually 18–20 flutes, Ionic and Corinthian columns generally have 24 flutes. In early Ionic columns, the number of fluting could be increased up to 48. While the Doric columns stand directly on the stylobate, the Ionic and Corinthian columns have a base that can rest on an additional plinth .

At the upper end of the column, a concave neck of the column, the hypotrachelion , leads over to the capital in the case of Doric columns , which in the case of Ionic columns immediately follows the column shaft. In the Doric order, the capital consists of a round, initially very flat bead, the echinus , and a square plate, the abacus . In the course of development, the Echinus of Doric capitals stretches more and more until it rises linearly at an angle of 45 degrees. In contrast, Ionic columns have an echinus decorated with an egg stick , which is followed by a transverse, volute- forming cushion on which a flat abacus rests. The eponymous Corinthian capital of the Corinthian columns , on the other hand, had wreaths of stylized acanthus leaves , from which stems and volutes grow, which strive to the corners of the capitals of the abacus.

The entablature rests on the capitals. In the Doric order, the entablature was always divided into two parts: an architrave and a triglyph frieze . The Ionic order of Athens and the Cyclades also knew the frieze above the architrave. The Ionic temple of Asia Minor, however, was the frieze until the 4th century BC. Unknown BC. With them, the tooth cut followed directly on the architrave . Originally, the roof beams were hidden behind the frieze, which we encounter directly on the exterior when we cut Asia Minor. The Doric frieze was divided by triglyphs . These lay over the column axes and over the center of the yoke. Between the triglyphs were metopes - some painted, some decorated in relief . In the Ionic and Corinthian order, on the other hand, the frieze is either left smooth or has reliefs and paintings. In the stone construction, the covering of the pillar and the approach of the roof construction is lifted up into the geison, the frieze loses its structural function in favor of a purely decorative character. The cella, especially in the front area of ​​the pronaos, is often decorated with architraves and friezes.

The cornice protrudes clearly above the frieze or an intermediate link, such as the tooth cut of the Ionic and Corinthian order . It consists of the geison , which was formed on the sloping roof slopes of the narrow sides as a sloping geison , and the sima . Gargoyles , mostly in the shape of lions' heads, were attached to the long sides of the often lavishly decorated Sima . The gable triangle or tympanum , which resulted on the narrow sides of the temple through the gable roof introduced by the Dorians, while older roof forms in Greece were obliged to the hipped roof, often had a rich multi-figure decoration with mythical scenes or battles.

At the corners and on the gable ridge there were initially geometrical, later floral or figurative forms of decoration, the so-called akrotere . If the local conditions permitted, the temple stood free and was therefore designed to be all-round. In doing so, it took no account of its surroundings, but stood entirely on its own as a self-sufficient structure. In this it differed significantly from the Roman temple , which was often integrated into an architectural city structure or in a square design and was designed much more strongly and with more emphasis on the front view.

Design and dimension

The floor plan of Greek temples could reach dimensions of up to 115 × 55 meters, thus filling the area of ​​an average football field and having column heights of approximately 20 meters. To structure such building dimensions harmoniously required sophisticated design tools that had already been developed at smaller temples and had proven themselves. An important measure for this was the foot, which had different sizes depending on the landscape orientation and fluctuated between just under 29 and 34 centimeters. From this basic dimension, the units were derived from which the temple to be designed developed. Important factors were the lower diameter of the pillars or the width of the base plates for the pillars, the plinths. The center distance of the columns, the yoke , could also serve as the basis for the design. These dimensions were related to other design elements, to the column height, to the column spacing, and ultimately, through the number of columns, had an effect on the external dimensions of the stylobate and the ring hall on the one hand, and the actual naos on the other. Through vertical references in particular to the Doric order, all this immediately opened up fundamental possibilities for the design of the entablature. In addition to this very rational approach, the temples of the late 7th and early 6th centuries BC Chr. Tried to develop the basic dimensions from the planned dimensions of cella or stylobate and to derive the small units from the large ones in a process that was almost reversed. For example, the cella length was set at 100 feet - a sacred number that recurs in the sacrifice of 100 animals - and all further classifications had to be subject to what often led to solutions that were difficult to understand.

The system according to which the architect integrated the Naos into the ring hall was also important for the design. Initially, this was not a question due to structural necessities and always led to axial connections between cella walls and columns, but this connection was broken with the introduction of stone construction. Nonetheless, the reference was always retained in temples of the Ionic order. In Doric temples, on the other hand, the wooden roof structure, which was originally attached behind the frieze , began in stone construction behind the geison. The connection between the frieze zone and the roof, the structural elements of which could now be arranged free of axial references, was thus loosened. As a result, the cella walls no longer had a predetermined connection to the columns and could be freely positioned in the ring hall. It was only as a result of a long development that the architects chose the connection between the outer wall alignment and the assigned column axis for the temple of the Doric order as a binding reference line. But even this ideal was seldom realized at Doric temples in Greater Greece.

Fundamental proportions of the building were also determined by the ratio of the front pillars to the pillars on the long sides. As a classic solution, Greek architects used the formula “front pillars: flank pillars = n: (2n + 1)”, which could also be applied to the number of yokes. This resulted in the numerous temples of the classical period , which had either 6 × 13 columns or 5 × 11 yokes. The same - now abstracted - proportion runs through the entire Parthenon, in which not only the column positions with 8 × 17 columns follow the same formula, but all other design dimensions reduced to the ratio 4: 9. It can be found, among other things, in the yoke, in the stylobate and in the definition of width and height of the building up to the geison, which is subject to the inversion in the ratio 9: 4.

Ratio of column diameter to intercolumn

From the turn of the 3rd to the 2nd century BC In the architecture discussion, the relationship between column strength and clear spacing, the intercolumnium , played an increasing role, which found its reflection in Vitruvius' writings . According to this relationship, Vitruvius (3, 3, 1 ff.) Distinguishes between five different design concepts and temple types:

  • Pyknostylos, densely or crowded columnar: intercolumnium = 1 ½ lower column diameter
  • Systylos, near or narrow column: intercolumn = 2 lower column diameters
  • Eustylos, beautiful or well-columned: intercolumnium = 2 ¼ lower column diameter
  • Diastylos, wide column: intercolumn = 3 lower column diameters
  • Aräostylos, thin or light columnar: intercolumn = 3 ½ lower column diameter

The fixation and discussion of these design principles go back to Hermogenes, handed down by Vitruvius as the inventor of Eustylos. In fact, on the temple of Dionysus by Teos , which is ascribed to Hermogenes (Vitruvius 3, 3, 8), an intercolumnium width of 2 1/6 lower column diameters can be demonstrated.

Optical refinement

In order to solve the mathematical rigidity and to counteract the illusions of the visual perception, a curvature of the entire building that cannot be seen with the naked eye was introduced. The ancient architects had recognized that straight elongated horizontal lines appear to hang in the center. Correspondingly, horizontal lines were actually arched upwards by a few centimeters towards the center of the building by a curvature that could include stylobate and entablature. Columns were also covered by this avoidance of mathematically straight lines, in that they were not tapered linearly upwards, but rather the impression of a more or less strong swelling of the column shaft, called entasis , was created. In addition, when they were erected, the columns inclined slightly towards the center of the building, the so-called inclination . Curvature and entasis have been around since the 6th century BC. Demonstrable. Most consistently and finely all of these design elements were implemented in the classic building of the Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens . Its curvature runs through all the horizontal structural members up to the cornice, even the cella walls take up the curvature in full. The inclination of the entasis columns is continued in the architrave and triglyph frieze, while the outside of the cella walls repeat the inclination of the columns. No stone of the building, no architrave, no part of the frieze could be cut as a simple rectangular cuboid. All structural elements showed slight deviations from right angles that were determined individually for each element. Today, this makes it possible for every structural element that has been preserved, be it the columns, the entablature or the cella walls, to precisely determine its original position on the building. A tremendous increase in the effort made, although the Parthenon in the record time of only 16 years - 447 to 431 BC. - was erected and completed with figurine decorations.


Color reconstruction on the scaffolding of the Concordia Temple in Agrigento
Main article: Ancient polychromy

The Greek temples were basically colored. Only three basic colors without gradations were used: white, blue and red, black could also be used. The steps, columns and architraves were predominantly white. Only details such as the ring-shaped notches at the base of Doric capitals, the anuli , or decorative elements of the Doric architrave, such as taenia and guttae , could be contrasted in color. The frieze was clearly structured with colors. In the Doric triglyph frieze, blue triglyphs alternated with metopes on a red background, which in turn could have colored figures in high relief. Reliefs, ornaments and gable sculptures were framed with more colors and nuances. Elements that are clearly in the shadows could have a black background, such as the mutuli or the slits of the triglyphs. So mainly non-load-bearing parts were painted, while the load-bearing parts such as the columns and the horizontally structured elements such as architrave and geison were covered with a layer of white stucco.

Building plastic

Battle of Centaur against Lapith - Metope of the Parthenon

The Greek temple was often decorated with figurative figures. The frieze zones in particular offered space for reliefs and relief panels, the gable triangles were carriers of multi-figure scenes with free-standing sculptures. But the architrave could also be decorated in relief on Ionic temples in archaic times, as the older Apollo temple in Didyma proves. The architrave corners were taken there by gorgons , followed by lions and probably other animals on the sides. However, the early Ionic temple of Asia Minor had no independent frieze as a structural element that could have received such reliefs. The actual relief bearer remained the frieze, either as a triglyph frieze with its sculpted metopes, or as a continuous frieze on Cycladic , Attic, and later also on Ionic temples in Asia Minor.

The metopes as separate individual images, which with a few exceptions could contain a maximum of three figures, mostly represented individual scenes from a larger context. Scenes are rarely distributed over several metopes, rather moments from a higher-level action, in particular combat, were selected and the entire event developed in this way . Other thematic connections could also be illustrated in this way. For example, the metopes from the Temple of Zeus in Olympia above the cella showed the twelve deeds of Heracles , six on each side of the temple. Individual mythical scenes such as the robbery of Europe or the kidnapping of a herd of cattle by the Dioscuri were just as much part of the depiction as scenes from the Argonaut saga or the Trojan War . The battles against Centaurs , the Amazons , the giants , such as those encountered at the Parthenon in Athens, recur at many temples.

Frieze from the east side of the Parthenon, Louvre, Paris

Fighting scenes of all kinds were mostly also the subject of Ionic friezes, such as the Gigantomachy at Hecateion in Lagina or the Amazonomachy at the Temple of Artemis in Magnesia am Meander , both of which date back to the late 2nd century BC. Belong to BC. The to and fro of the changing events was shown to the viewer in complicated compositions. In addition, there were calm or peaceful scenes: assemblies of gods and processions dominate the approximately 160-meter-long frieze that forms the upper end of the naos walls at the Parthenon.

Statue of Apollo from the west pediment of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia

The decorations on the gable triangles were highlighted because of their size and frontality. Initially, the gables were filled with powerful reliefs, such as on soon after 600 BC. Artemis temple in Kerkyra , whose west gable occupies the center of the gorgon Medusa with her children, flanked by panthers. Slightly shifted into the spandrels of the gable field, smaller scenes are depicted, such as Zeus hurling lightning bolts fighting giants. Almost free plastic, despite the fact that it is shaped by lions facing each other, it is around 570 BC. Chr. Gable decoration of the first ring hall temple on the Athens Acropolis, in whose spandrels Heracles, among others, fights against Triton . After the middle of the 6th century BC Chr. The composition scheme changes and the groups of animals are in turn placed in the gussets before they disappear completely from the gables. The central composition is now occupied by battles between the gods or lined up groups of figures. The appreciation the Greeks showed for these figured gables is evident in the discovery of the figures from the late Archaic Temple of Apollo in Delphi , whose gable sculptures were made after the temple was destroyed in 373 BC. Were literally buried. The local reference is increasingly emerging as the theme of the individual gable representations. The east gable of the Temple of Zeus in Olympia shows the preparations for the chariot race between Pelops and Oinomaos , the mythical ruler of Pisa near Olympia. It is the original myth of the sanctuary itself that is shown here in the most prominent position. And it is similar with the birth of Athena in the east gable of the Parthenon or the dispute over the Attic land between Athena and Poseidon on its west side. On the gable of the younger Kabir temple in Samothrace from the late 3rd century BC. Finally, a purely local cult legend of the sanctuary was presented, which was of no overriding interest for Greece.

Eckakroter from the Asklepieion in Epidaurus

The roof was crowned by Akrotere, originally in the form of richly painted clay panes, from the 6th century BC. Mostly as three-dimensional sculptures that adorned the gable corners and ridge. Bowls and tripods , griffins and sphinxes , especially mythical figures and gods could be represented. So crowned Niken knee running scheme to Alcmaeonids temple of Apollo at Delphi sanctuary, horse Amazons were the Eckakrotere the temple of Asklepios at Epidaurus. Pausanias (5, 10, 8) describes the bronze tripods serving as corner acrotere and the niks of the first acrotere of the temple of Zeus in Olympia made by Paionios .

For the sake of completeness, another bearer of figural jewelry should be mentioned, the columnae caelatae of the Ionic temples of Ephesus and Didyma. In the archaic temples, the lower areas of the column shafts were decorated with almost freely worked high reliefs, which initially represented simple rows of figures, but in their late Classical and Hellenistic new buildings portrayed peaceful mythical scenes and battles.

Function and design

Statuette of Athena Parthenos, Athens, National Museum 129

As the dwelling of the cult image, the temple was functionally related primarily to the cella. The effort made for the exterior construction served to increase its majesty. In contrast, the design of the cella itself was mostly reserved. The cella, and thus the cult image, had the cellature as the only source of light. The incident light could therefore only insufficiently illuminate the interior. The temples of Apollon von Bassae and Athena in Tegea were an exception . Both had a door in their southern cella wall, which could additionally illuminate the room or the cult image. The temples of the Cyclades , which were mostly covered with a roof made of marble tiles, had a special feature . The gold and ivory temple of Zeus in Olympia and Athena Parthenos in Athens had such a marble roof. Evenly diffuse light may have created a special atmosphere in such covered rooms. For cultic reasons, but also to use the light of the low sun, almost all Greek temples were facing east. But there were also temples facing west, as evidenced by the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus or the Temple of Artemis in Magnesia on the meander. In both cases the deviation is obvious for cultic reasons.

The cult image was aimed at the altar in front of the temple. In order not to disturb this relationship, single-row column positions initially arranged in the middle were doubled within the cella and shifted towards the side walls. The central nave of the resulting three-nave interior was mostly emphasized. In order to increase the dignity of the interior designed in this way, special design elements could be used. For example, the oldest detectable Corinthian capitals come from the Naoi Doric temples. In order to increase the impression of the interior, the inner columns could be set up in a U-shape, as can be proven, for example, at the Parthenon in Athens and the Temple of Zeus in Nemea . At the Temple of Athena in Tegea, this arrangement was finally moved completely to the cella walls, and only half-columns, crowned by Corinthian capitals to increase the importance, divide the room. An early form of this solution is found at the Temple of Apollo in Bassae, in which the middle column of the rear column position still stands free in the room, while the columns on the long sides are formed as half-columns on protruding wall tongues.

Ground plan and reconstruction of the cella of the Temple of Apollo at Bassae

The cella of the Greek temple was rarely entered and only by a few visitors. In general, apart from high celebrations and special occasions, entry into the room was reserved for the priests. In order to move the cult image even further, it was sometimes housed in a more separate room within the cella, the adyton . This tradition has been preserved for a long time, especially in Greater Greece. In the course of the years numerous gifts could be set up in the cella, so that the room could get an almost museum-like character (Pausanias 5, 17).

The rear room of the temple, the opisthodom, mostly served as a storage place for cult items. He was also able to recover the temple treasure. In the case of the Parthenon in Athens, the federal treasury of the Attic League was placed under the protection of the deity. Like the pronaos, the opisthodom was often secured by wooden barriers.

Not only the Cella, but also the ring hall of a temple of the preparation of the votive offerings could serve, often in the intercolumniations found place of the columns. Votive offerings could also be attached to the columns themselves , such as the Heraion in Olympia . The peristasis was sometimes used for cult processions or simply offered people space and protection. Vitruvius (III 3, 8 f.) Praises the ring hall of a pseudodipteros because it allows a large crowd to be in the ring hall without being forced.

Client, construction and costs

The clients of Greek temples were primarily two groups: on the one hand, public clients with the responsible committees and institutions, to which the administrations of large sanctuaries belonged; on the other hand, influential and potent private donors, such as those we encounter above all in the form of Hellenistic monarchs . The financial expenses were covered by current income, be it through taxes or special charges, or through the sale of raw materials such as silver. Also collections were often used at national sanctuaries like Delphi or Olympia. Hellenistic monarchs were able to act as private donors in foreign cities and finance public building projects, as demonstrated by the example of Antiochus IV , who commissioned the new Olympieion in Athens . The funds came from the private assets of the donors.

Construction contracts were put out to tender after a popular or council meeting had passed a resolution. The responsible committee selected a winning design from the submitted designs. Then a building commission began its work as the supervisory authority. The tasks of the commission were tendering and awarding of contracts, construction supervision and acceptance of the work as well as wage payments. The construction tender contained all the information that would enable a building contractor to submit a realistic offer for the implementation of the project. Usually the lowest offer for the most comprehensive service was awarded the contract. In the case of public buildings, the building material was usually provided by the developer, exceptions were stipulated in the contract. Usually entrepreneurs were only responsible for specific work in the overall context, as the size of the company was very modest. Initially, payment was made per worker and day, from the 5th century BC onwards. BC, payment by piece or construction phase prevailed.

The cost could be immense. A column from the new building of the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, for example, cost 40,000 drachmas according to the accounts received, which corresponds to a current equivalent of almost 2 million euros if the daily wage of a craftsman at this time is set at 2 drachmas. The building design provided for 120 pillars, which, when converted, resulted in costs of 360 million euros for the “pillar forest” alone.

Temple of the various column orders

One of the criteria for classifying Greek temples is the architectural column order , which served as the basis for the design of a temple. Depending on the choice of the column order, which was seldom a free one, rather it was determined by tradition and the boundaries of the landscape, the laws that a building had to follow were very different. A distinction is made between three major systems of order, which are followed by the addressing of the temple types: The Doric , Ionic and Corinthian temples .

Temple of the Doric order

Temple of Hephaestus in Athens
Temple E in Selinunte

The image of Greek temple architecture is mainly shaped by the numerous, sometimes very well-preserved temples of the Doric order . The numerous ruins of southern Italy and Sicily were accessible to travelers from an early age, the temples in Paestum and Akragas or Segesta , also the Hephaisteion in Athens or the Parthenon influenced research and discussion of the Doric temples.

The beginnings of the Greek temple building in the Doric order can be traced back to the 7th century BC. Trace back to BC. At the transition to stone construction around 600 BC It stands before us largely fully developed, only details of the Doric order are further developed and refined, especially in dealing with the requirements of temple construction.

Apart from early forms, which sometimes ended in apsidal backs and had hipped roofs, appear quite soon and even before 600 BC. The first 100 foot long ring hall temple. An example is that around 625 BC. Built Temple C in Thermos, a 100 foot long Hekatompedos, which was surrounded by a ring hall with 5 × 15 columns and whose cella divided a central column position into two aisles. Brightly painted clay tablets, obviously early metopes, and clay triglyphs prove that the entablature was already completely committed to the Doric order. All temples built in the sphere of influence of Corinth and Argos in the late 7th century BC BC seem to have been Doric Peripteroi. The earliest stone columns do not yet have the coarse compactness of the high and late archaic buildings, but take up the slimness of their wooden predecessors. Already around 600 BC The moment of all-roundness is transferred to the temple of the Doric order in that the preceding pronaos received a counterpart on the back, the opisthodom. This all-sidedness, which was given from an early age, is reserved for the Doric temple, especially in the Greek motherland. Neither the Ionic temple nor the Doric temples of Greater Greece followed this aspect. With the onset of monumentalization of the stone forms and with the relocation of the wooden roof structure to the area of ​​the Geison, the Doric temple loses its connection between the Naos and the ring hall. The relationships between the wall and column axes, which result as a matter of course in the smaller building, dissolve and the position of the naos in the peristasis is not subject to any fixed rule for a good hundred years and begins to “swim”, as it were.

Doric capital from the Temple of Hera in Olympia

At the Heraion in Olympia, the transition from wood to stone construction is easy to grasp. Because the pillars of the building, originally made entirely of wood and clay, were replaced by stone pillars over time. As in a museum for the history of the Doric capital and the Doric column as a whole, all time stages up to Roman times can be found here. Pausanias still saw one of the wooden pillars that stood in the opisthodom. At the temple with its 6 × 16 columns and its still wooden beams, the corner conflict peculiar to all Doric ring hall temples had to be compensated. It was achieved by making the corner yokes smaller, the so-called corner contraction. The temple is extremely progressive with regard to the integration of the Naos into the ring hall, which anticipates the later canonical solution of the relationship between outer wall alignments and assigned column axes. With its differentiation between the wider yokes of the narrow sides and the narrower yokes of the long sides, the temple is by all means groundbreaking, which also applies to the rhythm of the columns in the cella, which correspond to the outer columns.

The oldest complete stone structure of a Doric temple is from the beginning of the 6th century BC. Artemis temple built in Kerkyra, today's Corfu. All parts of the temple rose massive and heavy, the compact pillars of which hardly reached five times the lower pillar diameter in height and which, with its only pillar-wide intercolumns, offered a dense column front. The individual forms of its Doric order are still far removed from the canon, although all the necessary links are present in the structure. Its floor plan seems strange, with a column arrangement of 8 × 17 columns, which seems to represent the building type of the pseudodipteros.

Ruin of the Temple of Zeus in Olympia

Among the temples Doric taking peisitratische Olympieion a special place in Athens. Although never completed, the architect tried to adapt the Ionian Dipteros to this building. Column drums that were built into the later foundation suggest that a Doric temple can be recognized in the design. Nevertheless, the floor plan follows its Ionic models on Samos so far that such a solution hardly seems to be reconcilable with a Doric triglyph frieze. After Hippias 510 BC. After it had been driven out of Athens in the 3rd century BC, the building was immediately abandoned: Democracy did not want to continue building on the monument to tyrannical self-expression.

Apart from this exception and examples from the experimental area of ​​Greater Greece, the classic Doric temple of the Peripteros remains. To bring it to completion is pursued with vigor. The architect Libon von Elis soon found the classic solution on around 460 BC. Temple of Zeus at Olympia was built. The temple with its 6 × 13 columns or 5 × 12 yokes is designed rationally through and through. A yoke is 16 feet wide, a triglyph + metope made 8 feet, a mutulus + via made 4 feet, the tile width of the marble roof was 2 feet. The shape of the column is strong, but the swelling of the shaft has only a weakly pronounced entasis, the echinus of the capitals stretches almost steeply upwards at 45 degrees. The entire structure is pervaded by a curvature. The cella is exactly 3 × 9 yokes and is aligned with the outer walls in the axes of the opposite columns.

The Parthenon

6 × 13 columns, the classic ratio, recurs at numerous temples. Just as often it occurs in a modification related to the yoke numbers in temples, which have a column ratio of 6:12 and a yoke ratio of 5:11. At the Parthenon it is increased to 8 × 17 columns, but follows the same pattern. Despite its eight columns on the narrow sides, the temple is a pure peripteros, the outer sides of which align with the axes of the 2nd and 7th columns. Nevertheless, many other special solutions lift the temple out of the mass of Greek peripteroi. The ante of the pronaos and opisthodom are shortened to short pillars . Instead, it has prostyle column positions within the peristasis on the front and back and seems to take up ionic solutions. The design of the Naos with its western area sheltering four columns is also striking. The archaic predecessor already owned this “Parthenon” room. The ratio 4: 9 applies throughout the design. The column diameter to the column spacing was determined by this, the aspect ratio of the stylobate follows it, including the naos without ante. Temple width to temple height up to the horizontal geison is determined by the ratio 9: 4, and this is followed by the ratio of temple length to temple height, which is 81:16, increased to a square ratio. All of this was relaxed and resolved again by the refinements mentioned above, which run through the entire building, from component to component, through all layers. 92 metopes adorned with figures adorn the triglyph frieze: Centauromachy , Iliupersis , Amazonomachy and Gigantomachy are their themes. The Naos is crowned by a surrounding Ionic figure frieze depicting the procession on the occasion of the Panathenaic Mountains . Finally, large-format figures adorn the pediment of the narrow sides. As a classic Greek temple par excellence, so the Parthenon presents itself to many to this day.

In the 4th century BC A few Doric temples with 6 × 15 columns or 6 × 14 columns were built as a reminiscence of archaic predecessor buildings. Overall, the Doric temples tend to be lighter and lighter in their structure. The pillars become narrower, the distance between pillars becomes wider. This expresses an alignment of the proportions and weighting of Ionic temples, which in the Ionic temple receives its answer in the increasing heaviness of the structural elements. From the point of view of this mutual influence, it is not surprising that at the Temple of Zeus in Nemea in the last third of the 4th century BC. The front is emphasized by a vestibule two yokes deep, while the Opisthodom was suppressed. But emphasis on the front is a characteristic of Ionic temples. The increasing reduction in the number of columns on the long side, which can be observed on the Ionic temple, has its counterpart in the Doric temple building. At a small temple in Kournò, the peristasis is reduced to 6 × 7 columns, the stylobate only measures 8 × 10 meters, and the corner supports were formed as half-columns on the "narrow sides" . The ring hall of large Doric buildings is only a citation here, its function as a canopy for the cult image building is obvious for the statue shrine.

Temple G in Selinunte

The development in Sicily and southern Italy hardly participates in any of this. Not only is temple construction largely dated to the 6th and 5th centuries BC. Chr. Limited. In the remaining period of time, the Greeks in Greater Greece mostly developed unusual solutions that would have been hardly conceivable in the mother cities of the colonies. Temples with an uneven number of columns at the front can be identified in two examples. Both temples had nine front pillars. The advanced technical possibilities compared to the mother country formed the basis for many deviations. The structural innovations in the timber structure developed in the colonies made it possible to span unprecedented spaces, which in direct consequence led to deep ring halls and spacious buildings of the Naos. Often the peristases are two yokes deep, so that they have to be addressed as pseudodipteroi. The opisthodom only plays a subordinate role, although it was well represented, as at the Temple of Poseidon in Paestum. Much more often, however, the temples had a separate room at the rear end of the cella, which was generally not allowed to be entered, the Adyton. The Adyton could well have been laid out as a free-standing building within the cella. If possible, columns were not placed in the cella, which meant that free roof structures were required that spanned up to 13 meters.

Model of the Olympieion in Akragas

The largest such building was the in many ways absolutely “Un-Greek” Olympieion in Akragas , a “pseudo” peripteros of 8 × 17 columns equipped with half-columns and figurative supporting figures, telamons , and partly closed with walls and shear walls. With external dimensions of 56 × 113 meters, the building was the largest ever completed Doric temple. While the architects of the colonies were basically so independent and willing to experiment, they were even more so in the details. The undersides of Doric geisa could be decorated with cassettes instead of the usual mutulus plates. If the emphasis on the main side - often by ramps and staircases with up to eight steps as well as vestibules up to three and a half yokes deep - was the clear design principle of the temple, this was canceled out by expanding the distance between columns on the long sides, such as at Temple I of Hera Paestum. The Doric corner conflict could be completely ignored in the colonies alone; when it was solved by Lower Italian architects, numerous different solutions were used: widening of the corner metopes or corner triglyphs, changes to the distance between columns and metopes. In some cases, different solutions were used simultaneously on the front and long sides.

Ionic order temple

The Erechtheion in Athens

For the early ionic temples before the 6th century BC At most one can speak of Ionic temples in the sense of the Ionic settlement area . Components that could be assigned to the ionic order are missing. Nevertheless, the rational system can already be recognized in the early temples, which subsequently permeates the Ionic temples. From the earliest times, the cella walls and corresponding columns are axially related to one another, while in Doric temples the outer cell walls are aligned with the column axes. The early temples, like their archaic successors, also manage without any all-round design; the opisthodom is regularly absent and not until the 4th century BC. The peripteros is completely “ionized” in BC. In contrast, early Ionic temples are characterized by an emphasis on the front by means of double column positions. The overly long peristases become the determining element. At the same time, the Ionic temple thrives on its preference for lively and richly decorated surfaces, of shadow plays that are used everywhere.

As soon as the Ionic order becomes tangible in the temple building, it is simultaneously increased to a monumental level. Around 560 BC The Rhoiko temple erected in the Heraion of Samos in BC reached basic dimensions of 52 × 105 meters as Dipteros. A double wreath of 8 × 21 columns surrounded the naos, at the back there were even ten columns. The front, however, had different yoke widths, with the central yoke being particularly wide open. With the same diameter, the columns were three times the height of their Doric counterparts. 40 fluting enriched the delicate surface play of the column shafts. The Sami bases were decorated with a sequence of horizontal fluting, but with this playfulness they still weighed 1500 kilograms. The capitals of this building were probably made entirely of wood, like the entablature. Ionic volute capitals of the outer ring hall were only preserved in the later rebuilding of the Polykrates . The pillars of the inner peristasis, on the other hand, had so-called wreath capitals and dispensed with volutes.

On the Cyclades we encounter temples made entirely of marble, but no corresponding Ionic volute capitals have been found. The marble beams belong to the Ionic order.

With the around 550 BC Artemision of Ephesus started earlier, the legacies become more numerous. The building designed as a Dipteros, for which Theodoros von Samos, one of the architects of the Sami Heraion, was able to be hired, surpasses all models with its 55 × 115 meter substructure. His cella was designed as an open inner courtyard, known as a sekos , and the building itself was made entirely of marble. The temple was considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, which may seem justified given the effort put into it. The columns rose on Ephesian bases, 36 columns were adorned at their lower end with figure friezes as tall as a man, the so-called columnae caelatae . The columns had between 40 and 48 fluting, which could be cut alternately wide and narrow. With the first marble architecture of Greek architecture documented here, the largest spans ever conquered in stone were immediately bridged. The central 8.74 meter long architrave block with its 24 tons weight had to be lifted to a height of over 20 meters using pulleys. Like its models, the building still had a differentiation of the front yokes and increased the number of pillars on the back to nine. According to ancient sources, Kroisos was named after one of the founders of the temple and there was indeed a donor inscription on one of the pillars he donated. The temple was built in 356 BC. Set on fire by Herostratus and immediately rebuilt. For the new building, a mighty crepe with at least ten steps was executed for the first time, while the older Ionic temples generally managed without a special substructure. As a counterweight to the accentuated plinth, the higher-proportioned entablature had to oppose the rising slender columns with an optical weight, it was a real burden.

Ruins of the Temple of Apollo at Didyma

Also around 540 BC The construction of the Temple of Apollo at Didyma near Miletus, which began in BC, was a Dipteros with an open inner courtyard. Its walls were structured by strong pilasters, which were rhythmically related to the position of the circular hall columns. As at Artemision of Ephesus, the columns were formed as columnae caelatae with figural decoration and had 36 fluting. Around 500 BC The construction was stopped and only after 331 BC. Resumed as a new building, finally completed in the 2nd century AD. The enormous construction costs may explain as one of the reasons for the long construction time. The Attic standard yoke was used for the first time in the Ionic temple construction, so there was no longer any differentiation of the front yoke widths.

The ruins of the Temple of Athena in Priene

Peripteroi of the Ionic order were mostly dimensioned somewhat smaller and more compact in their columnar relation than the ring hall temples of the Doric order. With the temple of Athena Polias in Priene , the building of Pytheos , which was already considered a classic Ionic temple in antiquity, has been preserved. It is the first monumental peripteros of Ionia, built between 350 and 330 BC. Was built. His design is based on a grid of 6 × 6 feet, with a pillar plinth taking up exactly one such field. The Peripteros had 6 × 11 columns, so the ratio of the yokes to each other was 5:10 or 1: 2. Walls and pillars were axially related to one another following Ionic custom. The peristasis was designed to be equally deep on all sides, the front was no longer emphasized and an opisthodoma was integrated for the first time on the back of the cella. The rational-mathematical penetration of the conception shown here corresponds entirely to the natural-philosophical Ionic world of thought. A great afterlife was granted to the construction and work of Pytheus. In Hermogenes, who presumably came from Priene himself, Pytheus became a worthy successor who lived around 200 BC. BC brought the temple building of the Ionic order to a final climax.

As the lead architect, Hermogenes built one of the first pseudodipteroi with the Artemision in Magnesia on the Meander. The inner column position on the pseudodipteros, with two yoke-deep halls at the same time, led to an immensely expanded approach, the pteron, which need not shy away from a comparison with the concurrent hall architecture. The building's grid in magnesia followed a 12 by 12 foot square. The ring hall had a wreath of 8 × 15 columns, i.e. 7 × 14 yokes, which corresponds to a ratio of 1: 2. The naos consisted of a 4 yoke deep pronaos, a 4 yoke deep cella and an opisthodom comprising 2 yokes. A figural frieze followed over the architrave of the ring hall, depicting an Amazonomachy at 137 meters. Above that lay the tooth cut , the Ionic Geison and the eaves strip called Sima.

Although it was also an Ionic settlement area, the Ionic order only led a shadowy existence in the temple building of Athens or Attica . Mention should be made of the little one, around 420 BC. The amphiprostyle temple of Nike Apteros on the Acropolis was completed in the 3rd century BC and combines Ionic columns on plinthless Attic bases, a three-fascia architrave and a figural frieze, but dispenses with the Asian minor tooth cut. East and north hall of 406 BC The Erechtheion on the Acropolis, completed in the 3rd century BC , also followed this sequence of structural elements.

As a novelty, the type of pseudoperipteros was introduced at an Ionic temple in Epidaurus. The small Ionic prostyle had half-columns on the long sides and back, the peristasis was reduced to the facade.

In Greater Greece the Ionian temple is hard to grasp. As an exception, it can be traced back to the early classical temple D, a peripteros of 8 × 20 columns, in Metapont . His architect combined a tooth cut from Asia Minor with an Attic frieze and proves that the distant colonies were certainly able to participate in the development of the motherland.

Corinthian order temple

The Olympieion in Athens

As the youngest of the three classical Greek building codes, the Corinthian order made it into the exterior of Greek temples late. After the Corinthian order had proven its suitability for the monumental external order at the mausoleum of Belevi, for example , from the second half of the 3rd century BC onwards the number increased. The references to Corinthian temples. With the between 175 and 164 BC The Hellenistic Olympieion in Athens, conceived and begun in the 3rd century BC, the Corinthian temple appears for the first time well dated and preserved. The mighty Dipteros with its 110 × 44 meter base and 8 × 20 columns is one of the largest Corinthian temples. Donated by Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, it combines all the features of the Asia Minor-Ionic order with the Corinthian column capital. In Athens, the building remains an outsider in terms of its order, the architectural forms of Asia Minor and as a Dipterus.

Around the middle of the 2nd century BC A Corinthian peripteros with 6 × 12 columns was built in Olba-Diokaisareia in Rauhen Cilicia . The mostly upright columns stand on Attic bases without plinths, which is unusual for the time. The 24 fluting of the columns are only faceted in their lower third. The corresponding Corinthian capitals are made from three work pieces each, also a special shape. The entablature of this temple was probably Doric order, at least that suggests mutulus plates , which are scattered in the ruin. All of these special forms make an Alexandrian foundation and workhouse appear possible, as Alexandria both had the greatest preference for the connection of Corinthian capitals with Doric entablature and most consistently did without the plinth under Attic bases.

The temple of Hecate in Lagina, a small pseudodipteros of 8 × 11 columns, offers another floor plan solution. Its structural elements again follow the Asian Minor Ionic form canon. As a special feature, however, it has a rich figurative frieze that depicts this small frieze around 100 BC. The building built in the 3rd century BC makes it a gem.

The few Greek temples of the Corinthian order, which almost always offer a single solution in terms of their structural forms or their floor plans, are almost always to be interpreted as expressions of royal foundation. By means of the Corinthian order, the material and technical expenditure that was carried out for a building could be increased considerably, which accommodated the self-portrayal of the client. With the decline of the Hellenistic monarchies, with the rise of Rome and forces friendly to Rome , mercantile elites and sanctuary administrations increasingly appear as builders. By building Corinthian temples, self-confidence and independence could be demonstrated. As an element of Roman imperial architecture , the Corinthian temple found widespread use throughout the Roman-Hellenistic cultural area, especially in Asia Minor, until the late imperial period .


Web links

Commons : Greek Temple  - Collection of Images, Videos and Audio Files
Wiktionary: Temple  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations


  1. ^ Heinrich Drerup : Greek architecture in geometric time . Goettingen 1969.
  2. ^ Heinrich Drerup: On the origin of the Greek ring hall . In: Nikolaus Himmelmann-Wildschütz , Hagen Biesantz (ed.): Festschrift for Friedrich Matz . Mainz 1962, pp. 32-38.
  3. Ralf Schenk: The Corinthian Temple to the end of the Principate of Augustus (= International Archeology. Volume 45). 1997, pp. 41-47.
  4. Klaus Bringmann, Barbara Schmidt-Dounas: Donations from Hellenistic rulers to Greek cities and shrines. Historical and archaeological evaluation . Edited by Hans von Steuben, Klaus Bringman. Akademie Verlag Berlin, Berlin 2000.
  5. ^ Astrid Schürman: Greek mechanics and ancient society . Stuttgart 1991, p. 5.
  6. Hans Lauter : The architecture of Hellenism . Knowledge Buchges., Darmstadt 1986, pp. 180-194; Gottfried Gruben: The temples of the Greeks . Hirmer, Munich 2001 (5th ed.), Pp. 33-44.
  7. ^ Friedemann Quaß : The class of dignitaries in the cities of the Greek East. Studies on the political and social development in the Hellenistic and Roman times . Stuttgart 1993.
  8. ^ Klaus Tuchelt: Early monuments of Rome in Asia Minor . 23. Supplement notices from the German Archaeological Institute, Istanbul Department. 1979, pp. 119-122.
  9. for example the temple of Aphrodite in Aphrodisias , which was being tackled around the time; compare Charlotte Roueché, Kenan T. Erim (Ed.): Aphrodisias Papers: Recent Work on Architecture and Sculpture . In: Journal or Roman Archeology . Supplementary series Volume 1. 1990, 37 ff.
  10. Heidi Hänlein-Schäfer: Veneratio Augusti. A study of the temples of the first Roman emperor . Rome 1985.
  11. For example the Jupiter temple of Baalbek ; compare Margarete van Ess , Thomas Weber (eds.): Baalbek. Under the spell of Roman monumental architecture . 1999; Klaus Stefan Freyberger: In the light of the sun god. Interpretation and function of the so-called Bacchus temple in the sanctuary of Jupiter Heliopolitanus in Baalbek . In: Communications of the German Archaeological Institute Department Damascus . Volume 12, 2000, pp. 95-133.
  12. About the Tychaion in Selge ; compare Alois Machatschek, Mario Schwarz: Building research in Selge . Austrian Academy of Sciences Philosophical - Historical Class Memoranda. 152nd Volume. Supplementary volumes to the Tituli Asiae Minoris. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna 1981, p. 96 plate 4 fig. 70; J. Nollé, F. Schindler: The inscriptions from Selge . 1991, p. 89 No. 17.
  13. ^ John Bryan Ward-Perkins : Roman Imperial Architecture . 1983.
  14. ^ Klaus Stefan Freyberger , Martha Sharp Joukowsky: Leaf tendrils, griffins and elephants. Sacred architecture in Petra . In: Thomas Weber, Robert Wenning (ed.): Petra: ancient rock city between Arab tradition and Greek norm . Special issue Antike Welt. Zabern, Mainz 1997, 71 ff.
  15. Pierre Collart: Le sanctuaire de Baalshamin à Palmyre . 1969.
  16. Elizabeth Fentress (Ed.): Romanization and the City. Creation, Transformation, and Failures . In: Proceedings of a conference held at the American Academy in Rome to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the excavations at Cosa, 14-16 May, 1998 (= Journal of Roman Archeology. Supplementary series. Volume 38). Portsmouth 2000.
  17. For construction activity and financing during the imperial era, see as an example for the province of Asia: Stefan Cramme: The importance of euergetism for the financing of urban tasks in the province of Asia . Cologne 2001. ( Online ).
  18. ↑ The same basic proportions can be found, in a less pure execution, at the Hephaisteion in Athens. General Wolfgang Müller-Wiener: Greek construction in antiquity . CH Beck, Munich 1988, pp. 27-32.
  19. Wolfram Hoepfner in: Wolfram Hoepfner, Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner (Ed.): Hermogenes and the high-Hellenistic architecture. International colloquium in Berlin from July 28 to 29, 1988 as part of the XIII. International Congress of Classical Archeology. Mainz 1990. p. 12; Meral Ortac: The Hellenistic and Roman Propyla in Asia Minor . 2001, p. 115 ( online )
  20. ^ Lothar Haselberger: Old Issues, New Research, Latest Discoveries: Curvature and Other Classical Refinements . In: Lothar Haselberger (Ed.): Appearance and Essence. Refinements of Classical Architecture: Curvature . University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 1999, pp. 1-68.
  21. ^ Charles Picard, Pierre de La Coste-Messelière : Fouilles de Delphes . Volume IV, 3, 1931, p. 15 ff.
  22. Literature on building sculpture: M. Oppermann: From Medusabild zur Athenageburt. Image programs of Greek temple gables from archaic and classical times . 1990; Heiner Knell: Myth and Polis. Image programs of Greek architectural sculpture . 1990.
  23. ^ K. Bringmann, H. von Steuben, Donations from Hellenistic rulers to Greek cities and sanctuaries . 1995; Hildegard Schaaf: Studies on building foundations from the Hellenistic period . 1992.
  24. Hans Lauter: The architecture of Hellenism . Knowledge Buchges., Darmstadt 1986, pp. 12-27; Wolfgang Müller-Wiener: Greek construction in antiquity . CH Beck, Munich 1988, pp. 15-25, 33-39.
  25. For the building documents of the temple see Albert Rehm : Die insschriften . In: Theodor Wiegand: Didyma . Part 2 (edited by Richard Harder). Berlin 1958. pp. 13-103. A lower daily wage of 150.00 euros was used as the basis for the conversion.
  26. Dieter Mertens: The temple of Segesta and the Doric temple architecture of the Greek west in classical times . 1984.
  27. Georg Kawerau, Georgios Soteriades: The Temple of Apollo to Thermos . In: Ancient monuments . Volume 2, 1902/08 ( online ).
  28. ^ H. Koch: To the metopes of Thermos . In: Communications from the German Archaeological Institute Athens Department . Volume 39, 1914, p. 237 ff.
  29. ^ General Dieter Mertens: The old Hera temple in Paestum and the archaic architecture in southern Italy . 1993.
  30. ^ Alfred Mallwitz: The Heraion of Olympia and its predecessors . In: Yearbook of the German Archaeological Institute . Volume 81, 1966, pp. 310-376.
  31. This will only be repeated 150 years later at the Temple of Apollo at Bassae; on the temple see Frederick A. Cooper: The Temple of Apollo Bassitas . Volume 1-4. 1992-1996.
  32. Gerhart Rodenwaldt : Korkyra. Volume 1: The Artemistempe. Mann, Berlin 1940.
  33. ^ Renate Tölle-Kastenbein : The Olympieion in Athens . Böhlau, Cologne 1994.
  34. On around 470 BC Built Apollo II temple on Delos , at the Hephaisteion in Athens, at the temple on Cape Sounion and others; see Gottfried Gruben: The Temple of the Greeks . Hirmer, Munich 2001 (5th edition), pp. 212-216.
  35. Michael B. Cosmopoulos (Ed.): The Parthenon and its sculptures . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004.
  36. The direct successor to the Athenian Hephaisteion (compare Homer A. Thompson - Richard E. Wycherley: The Agora of Athens. The History, Shape and Uses of an ancient City Center (= The Athenian Agora. Volume 14). 1972, 140 ff.) Erected a temple, which took up the design framework of the Parthenon again, on which the designing architect did not, however, implement the dominant 4: 9 ratio quite so purely.
  37. As at the Temple of Zeus in Nemea (compare Frederick A. Cooper ea: The Temple of Zeus at Nemea. Perspectives and Prospects . Exhibition catalog Benaki Museum Athens 1983. Athens 1983) or at the Temple of Athena Alea in Tegea (see Charles Dugas , Jules Étienne Berchmans, Mogens Becker Clemmensen: Le sanctuaire d'Aléa Athéna à Tégée au IVe siècle. Geuthner, Paris 1924).
  38. ^ Frederick A. Cooper ea: The Temple of Zeus at Nemea. Perspectives and Prospects . Exhibition catalog Benaki Museum Athens 1983. Athens 1983.
  39. The deep vestibule already met at the slightly older Doric Athena temple of Tegea, but there it also encompassed the back while retaining the Opisthodom. In both temples the tendency to richer interior decoration continues, which in both cases were equipped with half-columns or columns of Corinthian order.
  40. Hans Lauter: The architecture of Hellenism . Knowledge Buchges., Darmstadt 1986, p. 187. 195 Fig. 65. 66a.
  41. ^ Dieter Mertens: Cities and Buildings of the West Greeks. From the colonization time to the crisis around 400 BC . Hirmer Verlag, Munich 2006.
  42. With the Temple of Hera I in Paestum (Dieter Mertens: The old Temple of Hera in Paestum and the archaic architecture in Lower Italy . 1993) or at the Temple of Apollo A in Metapont (Dieter Mertens: Cities and Buildings of Western Greece. From the Colonization Period to the Crisis around 400 before Christ . Hirmer Verlag, Munich 2006, pp. 157–158.)
  43. As with the Hera temple I in Paestum or the temples C, F and G in Selinunt (with further literature: Luca Giuliani: Die archaischen Metopes von Selinunt. Zabern, Mainz 1979; Dieter Mertens: Selinus I. The city and its walls . Zabern, Mainz 2003; Dieter Mertens: Cities and Buildings of the West Greeks. From the Colonization Period to the Crisis around 400 BC . Hirmer Verlag, Munich 2006, pp. 117–124, 227–228, 231–235).
  44. For example at Temple G in Selinunte .
  45. ^ Dieter Mertens: Cities and Buildings of the West Greeks. From the colonization time to the crisis around 400 BC . Hirmer Verlag, Munich 2006, p. 198.
  46. Eight steps, for example, at Temple C in Selinunte, three and a half yokes deep porch at the Temple of Apollo in Syracuse ; compare Dieter Mertens: Cities and Buildings of the Western Greeks. From the colonization time to the crisis around 400 BC . Hirmer Verlag, Munich 2006, pp. 104–110.
  47. As on Heraion II on Samos; compare Hermann J. Kienast: The rectangular peristasis supports on the Sami Hekatompedos . In: Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner (Ed.): Column and entablature. On the structure and process of change in Greco-Roman architecture . Building research colloquium in Berlin from June 16 to 18, 1994 (= discussions on archaeological building research. Volume 6). 1996, pp. 16-24.
  48. Christof Hendrich: The column order of the first Dipteros of Samos . Habelt, Bonn 2007.
  49. Gottfried Gruben: Naxos and Delos. Studies on the archaic architecture of the Cyclades : In: Yearbook of the German Archaeological Institute . Volume 112, 1997, pp. 261-416.
  50. ^ Anton Bammer: The sanctuary of Artemis of Ephesus . 1984; Anton Bammer, Ulrike Muss: The Artemision of Ephesus (= ancient world . Special issue 20). 1996.
  51. Ulrike Muss: The building sculpture of the archaic Artemision of Ephesus (= special publications of the Austrian Archaeological Institute. Volume 25). Vienna 1994.
  52. Most recently, Peter Schneider: New finds from the archaic Temple of Apollo in Didyma . In: Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner (Ed.): Column and entablature. On the structure and process of change in Greco-Roman architecture . Building research colloquium in Berlin from June 16 to 18, 1994 (= discussions on archaeological building research. Volume 6). 1996, pp. 78-83.
  53. The temple of Zeus in Labraunda had only 6 × 8 columns (compare Pontus Hellström, Thomas Thieme: The temple of Zeus . In: Labraunda - Swedish excavations and researches . Volume 1,3. Lund 1982.), the Temple of Aphrodite in Samothrace only 6 × 9 columns (compare Ibrahim Hakan Mert: Investigations on Hellenistic and imperial architectural ornamentation by Stratonikeia . Cologne 1999, pp. 261–301, online ).
  54. ^ Frank Rumscheid: Investigations into the architectural ornamentation of Hellenism in Asia Minor . 1994, pp. 42-47.
  55. ^ Carl Humann: Magnesia on the meander . 1904, p. 55; see also the articles in: Wolfram Hoepfner, Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner (ed.): Hermogenes and the high-Hellenistic architecture. International colloquium in Berlin from July 28 to 29, 1988 as part of the XIII. International Congress of Classical Archeology. Mainz 1990.
  56. On pseudodipteros in general see W. Hoepfner in: Wolfram Hoepfner, Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner (ed.): Hermogenes and the high-Hellenistic architecture . International colloquium in Berlin from July 28 to 29, 1988 as part of the XIII. International Congress of Classical Archeology. Mainz 1990, p. 2 ff. 30 ff. But there is also the Temple of Aphrodite in Messa on Lesbos (compare Ibrahim Hakan Mert: Investigations into Hellenistic and imperial architectural ornamentation by Stratonikeia . Cologne 1999, p. 26 ( pdf download ), revised print edition: Ibrahim Hakan Mert: Investigations into the Hellenistic and imperial architectural ornamentation of Stratonikeia (= Istanbuler Forschungen. Volume 50). Tübingen 2008) a pseudodipteros, which could have originated at the latest during the lifetime of Hermogenes, if not older. Other pseudodipteroi: Temple of Apollo Smintheus in Chryse (see Ibrahim Hakan Mert: Investigations into the Hellenistic and imperial architectural ornamentation of Stratonikeia . Cologne 1999, p. 26 note 177 and passim, online ), Temple of Apollo in Alabanda (compare Frank Rumscheid: Investigations on Asia Minor Bauornamentik, Volume I. Zabern, Mainz 1994, pp. 141-143).
  57. Temple L in Epidaurus; compare Hans Lauter: The Architecture of Hellenism . Knowledge Buchges., Darmstadt 1986, pp. 189-190.
  58. On the temple in Metapont compare Dieter Mertens: The ionic temple of Metapont . In: Communications from the German Archaeological Institute. Roman department . Volume 86, 1979, p. 103 ff. Remnants of a small Ionic prostyle from the Hellenistic period were also found on the Poggetto San Nicola in Agrigento, the ancient Akragas.
  59. So possibly the Serapeion in Alexandria and a temple in Hermopolis Magna , both buildings of Ptolemy III. , Corinthian order. A small Ante temple of Athena Limnatis in Messene , certainly Corinthian order, is only preserved in drawings by early travelers and in a few fragments. The few seem to date to the end of the 3rd century BC. To suggest. For the beginnings of the temple building of the Corinthian order see Ralf Schenk: The Corinthian Temple up to the end of the Principate of Augustus (= International Archeology. Volume 45). 1997, pp. 16-21.
  60. On the Olympieion see Renate Tölle-Kastenbein: The Olympieion in Athens . Böhlau, Cologne 1994.
  61. ^ Theodora S. MacKay: Olba in Rough Cilicia . 1968; Detlev Wannagat : New research in Diokaisareia / Uzuncaburç, report on the work 2001-2004 . In: Archäologischer Anzeiger . 2005, pp. 117-166.
  62. See Hildegard Schaaf: Investigations into building foundations from the Hellenistic period . 1992; Ralf Schenk: The Corinthian Temple until the end of the Augustus' Principle (= International Archeology. Volume 45). 1997, pp. 26-27; Detlev Wannagat: To the column order of the Zeus temple of Olba-Diokaisareia . In: Olba II . First International Symposium on Cilician Archeology, Mersin 1.-4. June 1998, Mersin 1999, pp. 355-368.
  63. On the temple see Ulrich Junghölter: On the composition of the Lagina frieze and on the interpretation of the north frieze . 1989; Frank Rumscheid: Investigations into building ornamentation in Asia Minor . Volume I, 1994, p. 132 ff .; Ralf Schenk: The Corinthian Temple until the end of the Augustus' Principle (= International Archeology. Volume 45). 1997, p. 28 ff.
  64. Further Greek temples of the Corinthian order can be found in Mylasa at the end of the 2nd century BC. (Compare Walter Voigtländer in: Adolf Hoffmann, Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner , Wolfram Höpfner , Gunnar Brands (Eds.): Bautechnik der Antike . Colloquium Berlin 1990. Discussions on Archaeological Building Research. Volume 5. 1991, pp. 247–248; Ralf Schenk: The Corinthian Temple to the end of the Principate of Augustus (= International Archeology. Volume 45). 1997, pp. 37-39) and in Pergamon on the middle school terrace (compare P. Schazmann: Das Gymnasium . In: Altertümer von Pergamon, Volume VI, 1923, pp. 40 ff .; Ralf Schenk: The Corinthian Temple to the End of the Principate of Augustus (= International Archeology. Volume 45). 1997, pp. 39–41).
  65. On the social function of the Corinthian Temple see Ralf Schenk: The Corinthian Temple until the end of the Principate of Augustus (= International Archeology. Volume 45). 1997, pp. 41-47.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on October 24, 2007 in this version .