. Report on the investigations at Assos, 1882, 1883, pt. I . stones which formed the cornice should exactlycorrespond with the divisions determined by the irregularwidths of the triglyphs and metopes. Moreover, the inclina-tion of the soffit, forming an acute angle with the vertical faceof the entatjfeture, would have cramped the workmen, andwould of itself alone have rendered it necessary to cut thedeep interstices between the mutules before the blocks wereset in place. The surfaces of lateral contact formed by the anathyrosisupon the cornice blocks averaged 55 mm. in width; the sink-ing betw
. Report on the investigations at Assos, 1882, 1883, pt. I . stones which formed the cornice should exactlycorrespond with the divisions determined by the irregularwidths of the triglyphs and metopes. Moreover, the inclina-tion of the soffit, forming an acute angle with the vertical faceof the entatjfeture, would have cramped the workmen, andwould of itself alone have rendered it necessary to cut thedeep interstices between the mutules before the blocks wereset in place. The surfaces of lateral contact formed by the anathyrosisupon the cornice blocks averaged 55 mm. in width; the sink-ing between them being, in some cases, as deep as threecentimeters. From the marks upon the overthrown stones we mayrecognize two distinct methods of lifting these heavy cornice 1 The word lacnnaria in this passage, IV. 3. I, should not, I think, be trans-lated ceiling, as it usually is, (for instance by Brunn, Gcschichteder GriechischenKiinstkr, vol. ii. p. 359, Stuttgart, 1859,) but rather the soffit of the corona, or theviutulcs. 7 98 ARCHAEOLOGICAL blocks into position ; the one by means of ropes looped intobroad and deep U-shaped grooves cut upon the lateral jointsurfaces, a, Figure 15 ; the other by means of iron hooks, ordogs, grappling into comparatively small and shallow slots inthe same position, b, Figure 15. The first of these, the deepgrooves, are observable in other Doric edifices of early period,— as, for instance, the temples of Aigina, Paestum, and Se- linous. AlthoughC^7 ^ ^ - ■ ^ they required much more stone to becut from the blockthan did the slots ofthe second method,they were far lesssecure. When theprojection was notsufficiently great, orsufficiently under-cut, there was dan-ger of the loop slip-ping off; and bythe swinging of theheavy blocks therough edges of thestone must alwayshave sawed upon the fibre of the rope. In one instance atAssos, that of an exceptionally heavy corner piece, the entireU-shaped boss had broken away, and was replaced by
Size: 2689px × 929px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, bookidreportoninve, bookyear1898
