191
Ionic, whereas the Classical temple of the Athenians and the Poros temple of Apollo
built only a few meters away, in the same sacred space, were Doric.
From the fifth century BCE, we witness the marrying together of more than one
orders within the same structure. This is more commonly manifested in the combination of Doric and Ionic elements, with the earliest examples encountered in some
of the Classical temples on the Athenian Acropolis. Less than four decades later
emerges the earliest extant combination of all three orders in one structure, in the
Temple of Apollo at Bassae, reputedly constructed by the Parthenon’s architect:
Doric exterior, Ionic interior and a sole Corinthian column prominently placed in
the temple’s sekos. Within less than a century, the combination of the Doric and the
Ionic is explored fully, as seen in Andron B at the Sanctuary of Zeus at Labraunda
(in Asia Minor), which unorthodoxly combined the two orders in the building’s
façade: Doric frieze carried by Ionic columns (Karlsson, 2013). The plasticity and
playfulness of Hellenistic art finds it hard to maintain the austerity and heaviness of
the Doric order. This results in the gradual abandonment of the Doric, eventually
replaced by the Ionic and Corinthian orders, although use of the latter does not
spread widely in Greece before the Roman period.
It is clear, that the choice of architectural orders was determined by a number of
factors, relating to aesthetics, fashion, function and visitor experience. Such striking
examples, are the temples of Apollo in Bassae and Didyma. The former, copies to a
large extent its Archaic predecessor, maintaining the austere Doric exterior, but as
mentioned, employs all three architectural orders along with a number of other
unique architectural features, in order to enhance visitor experience (Boutsikas,
2020). The latter, plays with perception: it is an Ionic unroofed shell of colossal
proportions, visible from a great distance and particularly imposing once approached.
The actual entrance to this structure though, of much more modest size, was in the
shape of two extremely narrow passages leading to an interior grove, which encompassed a small-scale Ionic temple. This small prostyle structure was the actual temple of Apollo and the seat of his oracle. Since it is possible that the orientation of a
temple was influenced by the intention to enhance visitor experience by its architecture, it may be possible to trace a preference towards specific orientations employed
by each architectural order. An indication that his may have been the case could be
the Greek Sicilian temples, all of which are Doric and oriented towards the east. In
the following sections, we will test the idea of architectural orders favouring specific orientations by examining a sample of 131 Greek temple orientations.
2 Survey Methods
The data included here comprise structural orientation measurements taken using a
magnetic compass and clinometer, which offer a level of accuracy considered sufficient for the purpose of this study. Accuracy higher than one degree of arc would
exceed what the ancient Greeks were able to achieve. It was not until after the time
of Hipparchos (190–120 BCE) that improved dioptra were made. For his
An Investigation of the Role of Architectural Orders in Greek Temple Orientation
Ionic, whereas the Classical temple of the Athenians and the Poros temple of Apollo
built only a few meters away, in the same sacred space, were Doric.
From the fifth century BCE, we witness the marrying together of more than one
orders within the same structure. This is more commonly manifested in the combination of Doric and Ionic elements, with the earliest examples encountered in some
of the Classical temples on the Athenian Acropolis. Less than four decades later
emerges the earliest extant combination of all three orders in one structure, in the
Temple of Apollo at Bassae, reputedly constructed by the Parthenon’s architect:
Doric exterior, Ionic interior and a sole Corinthian column prominently placed in
the temple’s sekos. Within less than a century, the combination of the Doric and the
Ionic is explored fully, as seen in Andron B at the Sanctuary of Zeus at Labraunda
(in Asia Minor), which unorthodoxly combined the two orders in the building’s
façade: Doric frieze carried by Ionic columns (Karlsson, 2013). The plasticity and
playfulness of Hellenistic art finds it hard to maintain the austerity and heaviness of
the Doric order. This results in the gradual abandonment of the Doric, eventually
replaced by the Ionic and Corinthian orders, although use of the latter does not
spread widely in Greece before the Roman period.
It is clear, that the choice of architectural orders was determined by a number of
factors, relating to aesthetics, fashion, function and visitor experience. Such striking
examples, are the temples of Apollo in Bassae and Didyma. The former, copies to a
large extent its Archaic predecessor, maintaining the austere Doric exterior, but as
mentioned, employs all three architectural orders along with a number of other
unique architectural features, in order to enhance visitor experience (Boutsikas,
2020). The latter, plays with perception: it is an Ionic unroofed shell of colossal
proportions, visible from a great distance and particularly imposing once approached.
The actual entrance to this structure though, of much more modest size, was in the
shape of two extremely narrow passages leading to an interior grove, which encompassed a small-scale Ionic temple. This small prostyle structure was the actual temple of Apollo and the seat of his oracle. Since it is possible that the orientation of a
temple was influenced by the intention to enhance visitor experience by its architecture, it may be possible to trace a preference towards specific orientations employed
by each architectural order. An indication that his may have been the case could be
the Greek Sicilian temples, all of which are Doric and oriented towards the east. In
the following sections, we will test the idea of architectural orders favouring specific orientations by examining a sample of 131 Greek temple orientations.
2 Survey Methods
The data included here comprise structural orientation measurements taken using a
magnetic compass and clinometer, which offer a level of accuracy considered sufficient for the purpose of this study. Accuracy higher than one degree of arc would
exceed what the ancient Greeks were able to achieve. It was not until after the time
of Hipparchos (190–120 BCE) that improved dioptra were made. For his
An Investigation of the Role of Architectural Orders in Greek Temple Orientation