Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:50:59.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Architectural Details from the Asklepeion at Balagrae (Beida)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

G. R. H. Wright
G. R. H. Wright*
Affiliation:
Avignon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawings made in 1958 of the Beida Sanctuary peristyle afford a basis for comment on characteristic architectural developments in Cyrenaica, seen as part of the Oriental Hellenistic world.

Since this complex is dated epigraphically to Hadrianic times it offers information on the chronological compass of forms and motifs which are well established at a much earlier period (3rd century BC). Notable features are the mixing of elements from different orders and the use of the cordiform angle pier often in association with the Rhodian-type peristyle.

The emergence of these devices can be seen in the Apollo Temple at Bassae, and they are subsequently formalised in the so-called Argolid School. This style was spread about the Hellenised Orient in the wake of Alexander's conquests. It can be seen particularly in Ptolemaic Alexandria, but owing to the destruction of almost all the free-standing building at Alexandria the bulk of the evidence comes from the Ptolemaic provinces, notably Cyrenaica, Cyprus and Southern Palestine/Arabia.

The details of the Balagrae peristyle also show the retention of some old established Cyrenaican regional manners (Doric Capital with moulded abacus, simplified Ionic Capital, etc) and the complete absence of any specifically Roman innovations either of design or construction.

Type
Articles
Information
Libyan Studies , Volume 23 , 1992 , pp. 45 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Libyan Studies 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. v. RE II, 2 Col. 2814; Vitali, L., Fonti per la storia della religione cirenaica, Padua, 1932, p. 133Google Scholar; E, & Edelstein, L, Asclepius II, Baltimore, 1945, pp. 248ff.Google Scholar

2. For the name Amyntas, in Cyrenaica, cf Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1963, p. 36 (on a tomb at Teucheira).Google Scholar

3. For the possibility of an earlier sanctuary (of Baal > Balagrai?) v. Stucchi, S., Architettura Cirenaica, Rome, 1975, p. 103 n.2.Google Scholar

4. v. Hamilton, J., Wanderings in North Africa, London, 1856, p. 123.Google Scholar

5. For the modern history of the site v. Goodchild, R., Libya Antica III–IV, 1966–1967, pp. 203–204.Google Scholar

6. At least this is the sense in which Rhodian Peristyle is usually taken by modern scholars. Vitruvius states only that the Southern portico is higher. However, e.g. Crema, L. recognises (Architettura Romana, Turin, 1959, p. 113)Google Scholar the elevated portico from two superimposed orders as specifically constituting the category.

7. E.g. The Propylaia, v. Plommer, H., Ancient and Classical Architecture, London, 1956, p. 136.Google Scholar

8. E.g. The Temple of Ceres at Paestum, v. Plommer, op. cit. (note 7), p. 136; Lawrence, A. W., Greek Architecture, London, 1957, pp. 128–129, fig. 73Google Scholar; and The Temple of Apollo Alaeus at Crimisia ( v. ibid., pp. 125-126, fig. 69).

9. Cf. Lawrence op. cit. (note 8), p. 129.

10. The use of this type of Ionic-Corinthian cornice in mixed orders with either Ionic or Doric Columns and a Doric triglyph frieze became very general in later Hellenistic times, cf. Plommer, op. cit (note 7), p. 259; Lawrence, op. cit. (note 8), p. 201. It was a prominent feature in Cyrenaica, v. Humphrey, J. H., ed., Apollonia, the Port of Cyrene, Tripoli, 1976 ( Libya Antica Supplement IV), pp. 220–222Google Scholar; Kraeling, C. H., Ptolemais, Chicago, 1962, pp. 222–223.Google Scholar

11. For convenient examples of these designs, cf. Normand's, Parallel of the Orders of Architecture, ed. R. A. Cordingley, London, 1959 pass. They took their inspiration from Roman examples which were influenced by the Greek Temples of Southern ItalyGoogle Scholar, cf. A. W. Lawrence, op. cit. (note 8), p. 129.

12. v. for convenience, Robertson, D. S., Greek and Roman Architecture, Cambridge, 1964, p. 139, fig. 59.Google Scholar

13. v. Roux, G., L'Architecture de l'Argolide aux IVè et IIIè siècles av JC, Paris, 1961.Google Scholar

14. E.g. in the capitals of the Greek Propylaion at Cyrene, fourth century BC, v. Stucchi, op. cit. (note 3), p. 123, fig. 104.

15. E.g. the capitals in the Theatre of Marcellus, v. for convenience, Normand's Parallel of the Orders of Architecture (note 11), Pl. 12.

16. For a simple outline of the historical development of the Doric Capital, cf. A. W. Lawrence, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 101-103. The theme is rehearsed more fully in Willberg, W., ‘Die Entwicklung des dorisches Kapitell’, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 19–20, 1919, pp. 67–81.Google Scholar

17. v. (for convenience) Normand's Parallel Orders (note 11 ), Pl. 7.

18. For the Aeolic and Proto-Aeolic Capital in general, v. Betancourt, P., The Aeolic Style in Architecture, Princeton, 1977Google Scholar; A, Ciasca, Il Capitello detto Eolico in Etruria, Florence, 1952Google Scholar; Shiloh, Y., The Aeotic Capital (Qedem 11), Jerusalem, 1979.Google Scholar A direct connection between Aeolic and Corinthian capitals has been postulated in view of the stance of the volutes (cf. Betancourt, op. cit., p. 132; Ciasca, op. cit., p. 22).

19. v. (for convenience) Normand's Parallel Orders (note 11), Pls 58–60.

20. The matter has been dealt with or referred to in broader connections cf., e.g. Fyffe, H., Hellenistic Architecture, Cambridge, 1936, pp. 78, 110Google Scholar; Caputo, G., L'origine delle mezzecolonne appogiate a pilastro Palladio II, 1938, pp. 56–63Google Scholar; Büsing, H., Die Griechische Halbsäule, Wiesbaden, 1970, pp. 56–61Google Scholar; Stucchi, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 190–191.

21. Cf. Stucchi, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 190–191.

22. v. Büsing, op. cit. (note 20), pp. 39–40, 72, 78; cf. Dürrn, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen, Darmstad, 1892, p. 106, fig. 80Google Scholar; Coulton, J. J., Greek Architects at Work, London, 1977, p. 75, fig. 24d.Google Scholar

23. v. (for convenience) A. W. Lawrence, op. cit. (note 8), p. 178, fig. 99, Pls 80 and 81.

24. v. G. Roux, op. cit. (note 13).

25. v. Bousquet, J., Le Trésor de Cyrène, Paris, 1952Google Scholar (Fouilles de Delphes II, 5).Google Scholar

26. Stucchi, op. cit. (note 3), p. 61-62. Furthermore Stucci was able to adduce an earlier model in Cyrene for the Treasury at Delphi. This monument, The Temple of Elwat Gassam (first half of fourth century BC) provides the required analogy, albeit via some restoration (v. Stucci, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 52–53). The matter is further discussed in a later context.

27. v. ibid., p. 100, fig. 81.

28. v. ibid., pp. 105–106, fig. 94.

29. v. ibid., p. 141, figs 116 and 117.

30. v. ibid., pp. 118–119, figs 98 and 99 (c. 250 BC-225 BC).

31. v. ibid., p. 150, fig. 123 (c. 250 BC).

32. v. ibid., pp. 125–128, figs 105–108 and pp. 204–208, figs 195–197; Perkins, J. B. Ward–Ballance, M. H., ‘The Caesarium at Cyrene and the Basilica at Cremma’, Papers of the British School at Rome 26, 1957, pp. 157–194.Google Scholar

33. c. AD 200 according to Stucchi, op. cit. (note 3), v. pp. 288–289, figs 306, 307.

34. v. ibid., p. 311, fig. 322.

35. v. G. R. H.Wright in Humphrey, op. cit. (note 10), p. 181, fig. 5, pp. 210–211.

36. Cf. Kraeling, C., ed., Ptolemais, City of the Libyan Pentapolis, Chicago, 1962.Google Scholar

37. v. ibid., pp. 62–67, figs 11–12; cf. Stucchi, op. cit. (note 3), p. 204, figs 194, 195.

38. v. Kraeling, op. cit. (note 36), pp. 116–117, fig. 41; Stucchi, op. cit. (note 3), p. 190, fig. 184.

39. v. Pesce, G., Il Palazzo délia Colonne, Rome 1950Google Scholar; Stucchi, op. cit. (note 3), p. 216, fig. 205, p. 301, figs 309 and 310.

40. The more rudimentary device is the ad hoc bracket protruding from the shaft of the higher column to lodge the architrave of the inferior colonnade as can be seen readily e.g. in houses at Delos and at the intersection of colonnaded streets at Jerash, Palmyra, etc. (v. Lawrence, op. cit. (note 8), Pl. 140a; Fyffe, op. cit. (note 20) fig. 24).

41. v. Archäologische Anzeiger 59, Col. 332.

42. v. Humphrey, op. cit. (note 10), pp. 175–224.

43. A conspectus of these forms is available at a glance in Coulton, J. J., Greek Architects at Work, London, 1977, p. 100, fig. 40Google Scholar; cf. Wesenberg, B., Kapitelle und Basen, Bonn, 1971, pp. 116ff.Google Scholar

44. Cf., for convenience, Robertson, op. cit. (note 12), p. 97, fig. 44; Lawrence, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 133–134, fig. 75.

45. It seems that this type of base was rare but known in earlier pre-Roman times; cf., e.g. the bases of the Doric columns in the Monumental Well House at Cyrene built during the second century BC which are virtually identical with those of the Augusteum, v. S. Stucchi, , L Agorà di Cirene, Rome, 1965, p. 194, fig. 14.Google Scholar

46. v. Büsing, op. cit. (note 20), p. 40; cf. Dürrn, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen, Darmstadt, 1892, p. 106, fig. 80.Google Scholar

47. v. Büsing, op. cit. (note 20), p. 23, fig. 35.

48. v. for convenience, Adriani, A., Repertorio d'Arte dell Egitto Greco-Romano, Palermo, 1966, cf., e.g. Pls 49,56, 83, etc.Google Scholar

49. v. e.g. Brünnow, R. E. and von Domaszewski, A., Die Provincia Arabia, Strassburg, 1904Google Scholar; Wiegand, Th., Petra, Berlin, 1921Google Scholar; Jaussen, J. A. and Savignac, R., Mission en Arabie, Paris, 1909–1922.Google Scholar

50. v. Büsing, op. cit. (note 20), pp. 12 and 57, figs 20 and 21.

51. v. ibid., pp. 57–58, figs 66–69; Coulton, J. J. (The Treatment of Re-entrant Angles) Annual of the British School Athens 61, 1966, pp. 137ff., figs 3–5.Google Scholar

52. The most familiar and accessible exposée of the problem is that given by Robertson, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 108–111.

53. This question is now fully covered in Coulton, op. cit. (note 51), pp. 132–146.

54. This specific question was investigated by two different scholars at exactly the same time. The one Büsing, op. cit. (note 20), in the course of a comprehensive survey of the semi-column in Greek architecture and the other Coulton, op. cit. (note 51), concerned specifically with the re-entrant angle problem in the Doric frieze. Both recognised the same issues and followed the same reasoning. Büsing was so conscious of the autonomous nature of the problem and its solution that having exposed the question, he was at pains to except it from all further general discussion of the engaged semi-columns.

55. Possibly that of Stratonike, mistress of Ptolemy II mentioned by Athenaeus XIII, 876, as near the sea in this region.

56. v. Büsing, op. cit. (note 20), pp. 21–22, figs 32 and 34; PEQ 93, 1961, pp. 101–103; Avigad, N., Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem, 1954.Google Scholar

57. v. Adriani, op. cit. (note 48), Pl. 19, figs 66 and 67.

58. v. Fyffe, op. cit. (note 20), p. 78, fig. 22(b).

59. Cf. Adriani, op. cit. (note 48), Pls 49ff, etc.

60. Cf. ibid., Pl. 18, fig. 61.

61. E.g. in the Palaestra (South East Building) at the Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates near Kourion, v. Wright (note 65), fig. 125.

62. Cf., for convenience, Büsink, Th., Der Tempel von Jerusalem II, Leiden, 1980, pp. 1039–1041, figs 236 and 237 (Samaria)Google Scholar; p. 1053, fig. 241 (The Winter Palace at Jericho).

63. v., for convenience, ibid., pp. 1369–1370, figs 321 and 322 (Kapernaum); p. 1378, fig. 329 (Kafr Bir'im).

64. Cf., e.g. the capitals in the Theatre of Marcellus (11 BC), v. Normand's Parallels (note 11), fig. 12; the Baths of Diocletian (AD 300), Normand's Parallels, fig. 14, etc.

65. v. Wright, G. R. H., Ancient Building in Cyprus, Leiden, 1992, Chap. IV 2, c, iii, fig. 298.Google Scholar

66. v. Lezine, A., Architecture Punique, pp. 73–80, fig. 37.Google Scholar

67. The fact that there is a parallel does not prejudge the mechanics of its formation. The most straight forward explanation is that Cyrenaica became a part of the Alexandrian architectural province on becoming a part of the Ptolemaic Empire (cf. Lauter, H., ‘Ptolemais in Libyen — Ein Beitrag zur Baukunst Alexandrias’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 1972, pp. 149–178.Google Scholar This view has been controverted (e.g. by Stucchi, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 191–192, n. 4, 217 n.1, 228 n.1) who wishes to minimise the influence of Alexandrian architecture on that of Cyrenaica. This may well be. Parallels exist between the two regions but they may be due to influence from Cyrene on Alexandria — or common reception of foreign influences. For the development of Alexandrian architecture, v. von Hessberg, H., Zur Entwicklung der Griechischen Architektur im Ptolemaischen Reich in das Ptolemaische Agypten (Dai Symposium), Mainz, 1978.Google Scholar

68. ‘Similarities’ does not mean complete uniformity, cf. e.g. the popularity in both Palestine/Arabia and Cyprus of the ‘Nabataean Capital’ (a draught form of Corinthian). This ubiquitous feature is as yet completely unreported in Cyrenaica. Why?