Frederick A. Cooper, University of Minnesota
A supplementary text accompanies this discussion, it contains: an introduction, development of the reconstruction project from the time of rediscovery in 1987, a summary of nineteenth century visits to the monument, the provisional nature of the term heroon, a synopsis of field techniques, a tentative identification as a shrine to Aristomenes based on Pausanias's description of the stadium area, and a discussion of the building's architectural refinements. Samilli Impares and the Heroon at Messene will appear in Williams Svmposia in Classical Architecture, edited by L. Haselberger (University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania).
A comprehensive study of this monument will be co-authored by Petros Themelis (inscriptions, sculpture, excavations), Pieter Broucke and Frederick Cooper (architecture, reconstruction). For purposes of a proposal for anastylosis it is appropriate to keep descriptions and detailed analysis straightforward and at a minimum. The following paragraphs summarize the process by which the dismembered blocks of this building were recomposed into reconstruction drawings and to note those construction features which enabled this process.
The podium-heroon complex contains 34 courses of wall blocks. Of this total, 10 courses of the podium consist of a reddish-brown oolitic limestone or poros. The rest are in a gray-white, crystalline limestone, locally available. Wall heights to the ten poros courses are 0.42 m to 0.46 m. In any case, the weathering of those poros blocks no longer in situ make them unuseable because of their present disintegrated condition. No attempt was made to assess their positions within the podium. The remaining 24 courses in the podium-heroon complex vary in height between 0.210 m. to 1.16 m.
The analysis of block placement in the heroon commenced in 1993, shortly after the second and final major field campaign. At the outset of the project, there was an optimistic assumption that classes of building stones would conform to the expectations of a late classical, nonperipteral design for a shrine or temple. Accordingly, most of what would be recovered were expected to be of standard-sized ashlars from the sekos wall in au isodomic design. Along this line of thinking, the building would be of modular design with most blocks conforming to recurring lengths. Also the massive fill of fallen blocks rose to the level of the stadium and this obscured not only the great height of the podium but, at the beginning of the project, led to a vast underestimate of the quantity of blocks from the podium within the unexcavated deposit.
At any rate, the initial optimism of a uniformity and canon of design led to the adoption of a system of single alphabet codes for various classes of building members. This code letter was followed by a number which was assigned by sequence of find. In practice, it was absolutely necessary to assign a final inventory number at the very moment that each block was extracted from its find spot. A correct record of initial photographs and other pertinent data far outweighed the importance of a correct identification for each stone. As it turns out, there are many blocks in the restored assemblies which were properly identified only during protracted analyses and long after the time of fieldwork.
What this means is that the header alphabet letter in the inventory frequently has little meaning in terms of actual function. Table 1 lists the single character codes assigned at the site; these are the ones painted on the blocks themselves and as currently found in the storage fields. The second column lists the two-letter equivalent which was adopted as a convenience for the post-processing stages.
|
|
|
Except for short stretches, the lower 7 courses of the podium (4 in gray-white limestone) remain in situ and therefore these courses were eliminated from overall analysis. That leaves 20 courses for consideration, of which only 3 turn out to have a uniform height (0.220/0.225), namely course 14 of the podium, the krepidoma, and the pavement within the heroon and without. A distinction between these three courses depends upon additional features.
Blocks of an approximate thickness of 0.20 m. to 0.24 m. having clamps, blind dowels, sometimes pour channels, and evidence for a finished face were given over to the krepidoma. This is not a krepidoma in the usual Greek design of a three-coursed stepped platform but, instead, a single course. Blocks for the krepidoma suffered multiple fractures, more so than other courses in the podium-heroon, but they compose into no more than a single course, thus eliminating the possibility of a two- or three-step krepidoma. Cuts for pour channels and the occasional weathering-line indicates a projection of cat 0.10 m. beyond the face of the stylobate above. The inside ~oint edge of the exterior pavement abutted this projection (0.10 m.) of the krepidoma.
Others of these thin blocks (0.20 m. to 0.24 m.) have no or very few cuttings for attachment on top sides and also have evidence for anathyrosis along vertical edges of at least three sides. This class was given over as paving. The outside perimeter of the circumference pavement sat above the coping to the podium. The top surface of the coping bears cuttings for dowels and a telltale weathering line. In other words, the outer vertical edge of the pavement formed a visual twin to the krepis of the heroon which sat behind and congruent with it. Slabs classified as candidates for paving further sorted into four distinct widths according to the following Table 2.
|
|
|
|
By process of elimination and by an accumulated fit of grids, the design of the pavements was recovered: along the flanks (A), before and behind the heroon (B), in the pronaos (C), and in the sekos (D) .
The third class of thin blocks have signs of an exposed edge and mostly single clamps (versus the pairs of clamps typical of wall courses in the heroon) at flank joints. These belong to the podium, level 14.
It should be emphasized that each course of the podium has one or more blocks in situ, except for the coping; a critical example of this at the northeast corner lies fallen just where it tipped out of place. This fact not only establishes the coping as being the twentieth course, counting from the lowest exposed white-limestone course but it also provides an initial basis for the assembly of podium blocks into original positions. Restored blocks are shown in Plates 6, 7, and 8 and with block codes in Plates 9, 10, and 11.
Re-used blocks occur within specific courses of the podium, namely courses 5, 14, and 16. In podium level 5 and 14 there are blocks with a thin base cyma reverse carved along the outside edge, identical to that found on the block reused as a toichobate, discussed below. Several reused blocks in course 14 are in situ, placed with the molding upside down, as indicated by secondary clamp cuttings on top surfaces.
The most curious instance of reused blocks occurs in podium level 16. First of all, the height, 0.38 m., of this course is conspicuously taller than the other ten gray-white limestone levels of the podium. A majority, if not all, blocks from level 16 are re-used stelai, eleven of which bear funerary epithets and therefore are arguably grave stones. The texts, epigraphy, and chronological significance of these inscriptions will be discussed by Petros Themelis in the final publication.
The packing strata within the podium consists of brecciated aggregate alternating with earth. These strata appear to correspond to the position and height of the poros or limestone courses, respectively. This agreement suggests that, as each course of the podium was laid, an in-fill was dumped and packed behind the just-laid course. The technique may have been dictated by structural concerns: alleviating settlement and as a means of drainage.
The bin-like rectangle of the podium was designed to conform to the gradient of the natural terrain which sloped steeply downwards from northeast to southwest. In other words, the base course of the podium rises from the southwest corner to the southeast and hence upwards to the northeast corner of the podium (Pls. 12-13). Here, it meets level 18 of the podium or approximately 0.90 m. beneath the pavement or the stadium floor. The ground line of the podium on the west also rises from the southwest corner towards the northwest corner but reaches only to course 7 or 4.6 m. below the top of the podium (P1. 14). At this juncture the west flank bonds into the massive retaining wall supporting the south end of the stadium. This retaining wall has quite a different masonry style: trapezoidal, isodomic design with hammer and quarry-dressed faces to the blocks. Into this, the alternating courses of dark and light limestone of the podium design return for a short distance to form a physical as well as visual bond with the stadium retaining wall. A surviving but displaced block from the beveled 10th course has an inside return, and an end block from the 14th limestone course (PL 1) bears the fragmented stub of a return towards the outside. The adjacent block to the south remains in situ (P1. 11) and thus the vertical axis of the wall return at level 14, podium to retaining wall, can be fixed at 14.45 m. from south face to retaining wall.
A re-assembly of the walls and entablature of the heroon commenced with the series of course heights derived from the antae. To begin with, it was apparent from the very first of the project that the depth of the wall diminished from bottom to top; in other words, the wall has a batter, one of the architectural refinements of classical temple architecture. Coinciding with this observation is the evidence provided by the four antae which also indicate a contraction of wall thickness bottom to top and the change in wall height from smaller to taller, course by course above the orthostate level (Pls. 1, 2, and 32). At the entablature level, there is a construction detail which led to a simple sort: epistyle and freeze are combined into single blocks across the prostyle facade but are cut as separate courses above the solid walls along the flanks and back of the heroon.
As remarked above, p. 1, there are few uniform blocks lengths; in other words, there was a conscious avoidance of a regular pattern of alternate vertical jointing. This rule follows through the entablature and geison courses. Seldom do lateral joints fall at edges to regula, mutules, or via, the usual design in Doric; instead the joints slice at random intervals through these features, though no guttee are so split. As a result, the joint edges to most entablature blocks fall along random positions. This allows for only a single adjacency of any two members of the epistyle or of the geison. This delimiting factor does not pertain to the walls, but again the vertical jointing occurs randomly. Another rule, moreover, guides the spacing: vertical joints never coincide from course above or from below.
Technical features of construction such as matched clamp cuttings were fully considered in a final determination of block placement. Eventually, all stone fragments of adequate size or state of preservation were assigned final positions. This process was guided by find-spot and facilitated by generation of plans of each class of block. All considerations being equal, blocks were re-assembled, not necessarily to a most approximate position, but according to overall fall patterns. An alphabetical listing of the catalogue of blocks (Table 3) puts into tabular form the level (podium 5 through 20 or heroon, -3 to 11) and side (north, cross-wall, east, south, or west) of assigned blocks to the podium-heroon complex. The resulting assembly of blocks are shown in the restored elevations in Plates 21-30. These elevations amply dramatize the completeness of the monument: too much survives to allow ambiguity in placement. It should be noted that, in addition to those blocks in position in the heroon reconstruction, there are a number of smaller, less-easily defined pieces which also can be assigned to specific wall and entablature courses. Intentionally, these have been omitted from restored elevations because their precise locations will be more practically ascertained at the time of the physical reconstruction. The block table lists these examples with the designation NIR (Not In Reconstruction).
There are several features in the design of the heroon that may be termed as anomalous, at least by known comparanda. A single course, shallow thread and riser to the krepis has been discussed already. Customarily, a pronaos to a tetrastyle facade contains a pair of supports, columns or piers, in antis; the temple of Athena Nike on the Akropolis at Athens is a case in point. The physical evidence from published accounts of comparable designs and those dating to the approximate period of the heroon, however, is either non-existent or ambiguous at most (e.g., heroon at Xanthos).
The absence of a distyle in antis design at Messene is predicated on several observations. First, there is the negative evidence: no such supports survive (columns or piers). Second, paving stones rather than a stylobate run between the facade antae (P1. 33). Third, there are slots for ceiling beams which run longitudinally from epistyle backer to the cross wall, creating a single visual entity (P1. 35). Fourth, the antae themselves rise to the height of the top of the wall; that is, to the epikranitis level, eliminating any space for an insertion of a transverse epistyle between the the wall crown and the soffit of the ceiling beams (P1. 35).
Approximately 50% of the stonework for the door frame to the main entranceway survives, as does one of the pair of threshold blocks (Pls. 22 and 27).
At the lowest end of a survival rate comes the roof and ceiling coffers. Six catalogued fragments of roof tiles, cover tiles and antefixes provide evidence for size and design, but this is hardly a sufficient quantity to argue for a re-assembly into an anastylosis. The same can be said for approximately six small pieces of coffer fragments. The last identification comes from the presence of a diminutive moulding which lines the interior inside corners of fragments to recessed panels (Mo 10, 11, 26, 33, 36, and 38). A small fragment of a geison-like profile may belong to a base molding underneath the coffers or ceiling beams (Mo 9). A surmise as to what happened to the stone ceiling and roof is a matter taken up at another time.
The vertical planes of the three major faces of the podium are clearly defined in the present state of preservation (Plates 3-14). Probably there was no such definition along the north or facade side. For instance, the lateral or east and west faces of the podium return outwards at the west along the exterior face of the stadium retaining wall (see above p. 5). This outside return includes the crowning or coping course, indicating that the paving of the podium must have been seamlessly integrated with the level of the racetrack of the stadium. The difference between the two co-joined areas was articulated by the raiser at the north edge of the pavement and then by that of the single-course krepis cat 3.0 m. behind. Given these conditions it is reasonable to assume that the heroon was positioned equidistant from the right and left flanks of the podium. To fix a position for the heroon along the north-south axis depends upon additional considerations.
A set of three blocks in the foreground at the top center of the podium and a lone block parallel to the forward set and at the preserved peak of the aggregate core provide the fixed points (P1. 15). The three block set does not center along the longitudinal centerline axis of the podium, nor does that of the single block further to the south. Nonetheless a distance of 4.25 m. between the transverse centerlines of these blocks equals the distance between the facade stylobate at the facade and the entrance cross wall of the heroon. The lower horizontal joint of the top course in the three-block set corresponds with the upper plane of the coping course, as restored at the northeast (see above, p. 6). In other words, the top surface of this block runs flush with the exterior paving level. A height of 0.22 m. equals the height of the paving slabs (see above, p. 3). This block's position precludes its function as a stylobate; instead, it underlies this course and thus functions as a sleeper or stereobate. A lip of cat 0.05 m. protruded from underneath the stylobate and this edge formed a joint line with the pavement. Likewise, the single block in situ at the peak of the podium falls in a position appropriate for a toichobate supporting the entrance cross wall. This cross-correspondence of alignments, heights, and elevations keys into the independently reconstructed plan and elevation for the heroon, and thus provides unassailable proof for the siting of the heroon on top of the podium.
It should be stated that an understanding of the role of these blocks has undergone different stages of interpretation and confusion. First of all, the Expedition Blouet (1831, pls. 22-34) encountered these blocks in a trench sunk into the remains visible at that time. A misunderstanding of the molding found on the cross wall toichobate as being original rather than as a feature of a block reused and in a concealed position led to a bizarre set of published reconstruction drawings. The presence of reused blocks in the podium with the same base molding means that this material from an unknown monument was employed from bottom to top in the podium; there are no signs of reused material in the fabric of the heroon, however. A rubble platform 1.5 m. wide and 0.20 to 0.40 m. in height abuts the cross wall toichobate and stretches 2.5 m. to the north. This construction has been consolidated by cement. Chunks of cement also attach to a scatter of stones in a small area to the south of the reused toichobate. A careful inspection of the rest of the fabric of the podium leads to the conclusion that its earth and aggregate core contains no sign of cement or concrete. In other words, this material found at the peak represents superficial and post-destruction construction of some sort.
The shrine and its great base have marvelously survived those ravages of vandalism and natural deterioration which have afflicted nearly all architecture built in antiquity. The bulk of the podium at Messene comes to us mostly intact; the building on top suffered complete dismemberment, probably by human agency. Most stones were smashed at joints for extraction of the iron and lead of the clamps. Fortunately, few architectural pieces were hauled away. The various reconstruction drawings (Pls. 3-11, 18-19, -21-30) and the next description amply illustrate this overall state of preservation. The next questions arise: What is gone? How crucial are these missing members to the proposed anastylosis?
To begin, the four Doric capitals of the tetrastyle facade are awesomely well-preserved. They require a minimum of mending - not structural, but cosmetic. Each shaft was composed of two approximately equal lengths. Of nearly 19 m. of shaft, all but 2 m., or 90% of the total, are preserved (P1. 37). The shafts, however, require expert and careful attention as to the physical reconstitution of the fractured and missing parts. The columns have to be returned to a structural function, especially the pairs at the corners (see below). Internal dowels and other technological devices will be required to achieve this end.
At the entablature, again nearly 90% is preserved; the missing 10% concentrates above the right-hand intercolumniation, and within the body of the frieze in the corner combination block. The lower half needs only a 0.30 cm. wide insertion to fill the gap above the northwest column.
For reasons as yet unknown, the facade tympanum has completely disappeared, yet it left behind almost all of the surrounding horizontal and raking geison. The original design of this unit can be restored from the surviving tympanum at the south. Around the corner to the left, there is a 0.55 m. wide break above the northeast ante through the entablature and the geison courses (P1. 39); here, too, this area needs careful attention and repair. A relatively insignificant break occurs at the right front above the northwest ante (P1. 41); this needs not much more than a filler, and that for cosmetic as much as structural reasons.
A tentative proposal would be to replace the missing tympanum with a form-made and pre-stressed concrete beam rather than by a newly-cut stone substitute. This would be suspended through load bearing rods inserted horizontally through the core of the prostyle facade entablature at the corners and above specially reconstructed end columns. The design would make this entire unit structurally self-sufficient and all intermediate members, including the central pair of columns, could be suspended rather than forced to become load-bearing supports.
The cross-wall presents no particular problems. The door frame with its carved molding decoration has approximately 50% of its total preserved. This means that the design for the whole casement can be fully restored in all its detail. It also means that the replacements will entail skilled masonry work for their carving. Simple wall blocks of structural form can fill the two significant gaps and readily return the wall to a load-bearing structure. The door lintel and the epikranitis above are fractured to a degree requiring significant repair.
A simpler and sounder solution might be a substitution of a prestressed, load-bearing beam above the epikranitis, or at ceiling level. The fractured epikranitis and lintel could then be suspended from this unit and thus avoid extensive use of insertion rods in these pieces.
The darkened areas in Plate 39 come forth as conspicuous holes in the fabric, but in fact the amount of missing stone amounts to a mere 3X of the total. In three places, the toichobate towards the south (course 3 at midway, and course 7 towards the south) require structural replacements; otherwise, simple filler blocks should suffice to close the other gaps in the wall.
The south facade has a major opening at the central top of the wall. Whole or partial blocks are missing at the 6th through the 10th (frieze) level. Towards the east corner, portions of blocks are missing at the 7th and 8th courses. These, along with the various smaller holes represent 8% of the total wall, which is to say, more than 90% of this facade is extant. As recommended for the other sides, structured blocks should be returned to the above-mentioned locations and simple filler-blocks will close the smaller holes.
The central block of the tympanum and the adjoining one to the east have been recovered, This leaves a triangular pair at the wings which have to be replaced by new pieces.
It is obvious from Plate 41 that the west side of the heroon is all but fully preserved. The cracked epistyle/frieze and northwest corner column were discussed above. Otherwise, the blocks of this wall could be rebuilt with a minimum of new structural components. The gaps at courses 6 and 7 at the south could be fitted with load-bearing replacements; the rest need no more than cosmetic filler blocks.
© 1996 Frederick A. Cooper