4/10/2023 0 Comments Greek to fill in copy spaceThey were not designed to satisfy the aesthetic demands of modern man for an ideal layout, an ideal city, unrelated to an actual time or place. As elements of a city they were subject to contemporary conditions of growth and change. It is not always easy to remember that these complexes were built by the ancient Greeks not as isolated objects, as we see them today, but as parts of a dynamic urban environment. It is true that the rules were not followed exactly on every occasion, but on the whole they persisted-and here lies the interest for us today. I believe, however, that this study demonstrates that all changes obeyed the same basic rules of architectural spacing. But we can perhaps assume that it was also because, as has just been mentioned, less exact proportions and measurements were used in these sites than in the sacred precincts.ĭifferentiation between sites that were planned and those that developed over a period of time may appear to present another difficulty. The reason for this was, certainly in part, that the poor condition of some of the sites did not permit a precise determination of the position of all buildings. The difference is in the angles of vision and the distances between the buildings: in the secular sites it was not possible to determine whether a specific angle of vision was used. Only one difference was found between the sacred precincts and the secular sites, and this may be circumstantial, as there are so few well-documented examples of the latter. 32, 96, and 56), appears to have been governed by the same laws as that of the sacred precincts. The layout of the agoras at Miletus, Magnesia, and Pergamon, for example (see Figs. Just as we can consider a temple as representative of Greek architecture, so we may consider the layout of an entire sacred precinct as typical of all Greek spatial complexes. The relationship between a sacred precinct and a secular layout was the same as that between a temple and a secular building: the first was a more perfect exemplar than the second. Although most of the sites described in this study are sacred precincts, I am convinced that the system prevailing there represents a general theory of spatial organization-a theory of city planning.Īs far as we can judge from excavations, the temples of ancient Greece were better built and the sacred precincts more carefully laid out than other parts of the city: this is why their remains are more numerous than those of secular buildings. The few variations in the system are related primarily to mathematical formulae, which are described later in this chapter. The most important discovery resulting from this study, in my view, is that the Greeks employed a uniform system in the disposition of buildings in space that was based on principles of human cognition. A preliminary hypothesis, whether it is right or wrong in detail, is essential to the process of scientific investigation: only after its initiation is there an incentive to test its accuracy. Even if future excavations show some of my conclusions to have been in error, I shall be content if I have succeeded in laying the foundation stone upon which others can later construct a valid and comprehensive theory. Imperfect evidence, I admit, makes it difficult to establish proof, yet in all the sites investigated-and they comprise the most important and best-preserved of those now known-I believe that I have traced the main outlines of a system of design. In short, the hypothesis presented here is based upon careful study of the few complete examples just mentioned and upon less thorough examination of a number of others. At some of the other twenty-one sites only parts of the layout could be observed and verified, so that my account of these is fragmentary. These represent a very small proportion of the known sites, and certainly they do not suffice to demonstrate an irrefutable argument concerning the Greek system of planning. * Only eight can be considered intact or authoritatively reconstructed: the Athens Acropolis III, the Asclepeion at Cos, the sequential layouts of the agora at Miletus, and the sanctuaries of Aphaia at Aegina, of Athena at Pergamon, of Zeus at Priene, of Demeter at Selinus, and of Poseidon at Sounion. The condition of these varies considerably, so that it is impossible to comment with equal assurance on all of them. I investigated twenty-nine sites, two of which are Roman. The purpose of this study is to verify a theory concerning the ancient Greek system of site planning and to examine this system in relation to the culture as a whole rather than to check the precise details of its application at every site and at every period.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |