. Report on the investigations at Assos, 1882, 1883, pt. I . Fig. 14. Triglyph, Face and Side. The triglyphs were not laid first, and the metopes then slippedin between them from above, as has been frequently assumedby writers upon Greek architecture.^ The joints between thetwo were hidden by inserting the edges of the metopes intorabbets, cut upon the sides of the triglyphs in such a mannerthat the faces of the former came to be 6 cm. farther backthan those of the latter. The form of these rabbets — which ^ This time-honored error has been illustrated by a steel engraving in theExpidition Sci
. Report on the investigations at Assos, 1882, 1883, pt. I . Fig. 14. Triglyph, Face and Side. The triglyphs were not laid first, and the metopes then slippedin between them from above, as has been frequently assumedby writers upon Greek architecture.^ The joints between thetwo were hidden by inserting the edges of the metopes intorabbets, cut upon the sides of the triglyphs in such a mannerthat the faces of the former came to be 6 cm. farther backthan those of the latter. The form of these rabbets — which ^ This time-honored error has been illustrated by a steel engraving in theExpidition Scientifique de Moree, vol. iii. plate lo. Paris, 1831. INVESTIGATIONS AT ASSOS, 1883. 97 were shaped to receive the projecting band along the upperpart of the metopes, but not the delicate havvks-bill mouldingterminating them — is shown in the side view of a triglyph,Figure 14. The general arrangement of the cornice has been describedin the First Report. So great are the inevitable irregulari-ties in the distribution of the mutules, as to make it probabl
Size: 1152px × 2169px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, bookidreportoninve, bookyear1898
