The Temple of Poseidon on Cape Sunium: Some Further Questions

Author(s): W. H. Plommer
Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens , 1960, Vol. 55 (1960), pp. 218-233
Published by: British School at Athens

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30104489

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Annual of the British School at Athens

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE TEMPLE OF POSEIDON ON CAPE SUNIUM:

SOME FURTHER QUESTIONS*

(PLATES 58-59)

THIS article continues my observations on the temple of Poseidon published in BSA xlv
78 ff. I begin with what I have recently noticed of the architectural detailing and dec
of this temple. Zschietzschmann (AA 1929, 223 f.) noticed a painted pattern of a very un
design on the inner taenia of the architrave. It is a well-kept rule in Greek architecture
decoration of a moulding should echo its profile. So a taenia of rectangular section, ass
that it needed decoration at all, should have had some sort of Greek fret (for which se
At Sunium, however, it has the Oriental Coil, an ornament which, in any case, is often
on Ionic buildings than on Doric. In Doric, indeed, it is known to have established itsel
one position, on a certain type of flat clay cornice-revetment, probably invented in C
found in a primitive form, and not quite, perhaps, in its canonical position, on the tem
Artemis at Corcyra,' and thereafter stereotyped on the monotonous, sub-Corinth
cornice-revetments churned out in Sicily during the century down to 480 B.c. At Suni
can only suppose that the Oriental Coil brought the Doric architrave of the side p
greater harmony with the Ionic of the east pteron.
Classical painted patterns, of course, have normally survived on marble buildings be
paint has partly protected from erosion the stretches of surface that it happened to c
more thinly painted surrounding areas have crumbled more swiftly away. So one can t
boundaries of different painted areas on ceiling-coffers from the Athenian Propylaea,
one cannot judge the original effect nearly so well here as on the Temple of Ceres at P
where the patterns on the coffers were carved as well as painted.
Was the other painted decoration of Sunium as extraordinary as this Oriental Co
relieved to find from the inner face of this cornice- ('geison-') block that the internal c
'epikranitis', the painted and moulded course immediately below the ceiling beams
normal decorative fret (PLATE 58a). Evidently, it resembled that still well preserved in
stretches on the Theseum at Athens.2
In its antae, however, Sunium resembles the Theseum less closely. The anta-capital of the
Theseum was Doric, even if its base was not. Not so the anta-capital of Sunium. I see, on the
south-west corner of the north-east anta (the only portion of anta-capital preserved), what I
take to be a hawk's-beak above an ovolo. I seemed on the temple itself, and seem even on my
photos (PLATE 58b), to be able to pick out the edged and overcurling leaves of an orthodox Doric
hawk's-beak. It looks carved now, but this will be merely the effect of the paint-for hawks'-
beaks were always painted, never carved. These painted leaves were apparently of comparable
size to that of the carved eggs on the carved ovolo. I seem to see-surprisingly-a straight fillet
and not an astragal between the hawk's-beak and the ovolo. Over this, at least, I seem to agree
* I wish to thank the Oxford and Cambridge Philological Societies, to whom I read this as a paper, for various criticisms
and suggestions.

i See Korkyra i, Abb. 75 ff. On the evidence of Abb. 79Perachora i. I 14, and, for an unusually late example, Buschor,
the Oriental Coil is to be restored along the lower part ofDie Tondaecher der Akropolis ii. Io f.
the sima-rather higher up the revetment than was usual 2 See Koch, Studien zum Theseustempel in Athen (I955)
in Sicily. For cable-patterns on actual tile-edges, seeTaf. 13B and Abb. 94.

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE TEMPLE OF POSEIDON ON CAPE SUNIUM 219

with Blouet (More'e iii (1838) pl. 33; but I do not agree with him
Blouet is the last person whom I know to have attempted a detai
students, like Orlandos (AE 1917, 214), have followed him. Miss S
mouldings of this capital. But Blouet was wrong, and the Unedited A
were right; see their chapter viii, pl. I O0. This also shows the corre
architrave-crown in the east pteron, where Blouet restores a simple
only in seeing a carved ovolo, not a Lesbian Leaf on the lower part o
As I see this capital, it is the image of that at Rhamnous, which the
selves give as a painted hawk's-beak above a carved ovolo,4 and again
the two mouldings. Such an anta-capital, half Doric and half Ionic,s
of Periclean Attica. The nearest parallel to our antae is afforded by
Note the characteristic o'a'rrrv'ls of the design here, with no fi
hawk's-beak and the ovolo. Similarly, the Ionic frieze of the Par
upon an entirely Doric architrave. The feeling of Rhamnous and
But the form and grouping of their details argue that they were pr
under the influence of the Parthenon.
One now comes to the much harder question of the ceilings over the peristyles. A. T. Hodge,7
when at Sunium, noticed that the evidence for the ceiling-beams over the side peristyles sug-
gested a very strange ceiling indeed. It is reasonable to believe that on the cornice-blocks the
slight depressions in the upper surface of the inner cornice were intended to receive ceiling-
beams. The actual widths of the depressions are not implausible-say, about 17 inches or just
over 40 centimetres. This would give beams just about as wide as those over the side peristyles
of the Theseum. But the intervals between the depressions are only about 8 inches wide (PLATE
58c, FIG. I). So the ceiling would have seemed a continuous marble slab, broken only by grooves.
Is such wasteful construction conceivable?
In my own reconstruction of over ten years agos I had, of course, bowed to Orlandos. I the
knew nothing about ceilings, and I had to get my drawing finished. So I got the ceiling wron
Hodge, having none of my inhibitions, had a good look at the geisa, and observed these awkwar
data. Orlandos published his restoration of the ceiling in AE 1917, 225. But the ceiling of
side (south) peristyle, to the left, does not correspond to the evidence of the geison-blocks.
Nor, according to Hodge, does that of the west peristyle, shown on the right. I had of
discussed with Hodge the great difficulties the architect of Sunium and Rhamnous made
himself by placing his ceiling-beams so very high. Examining the site of Sunium for evidenc
as to how he surmounted these difficulties, Hodge found that the only fragment of Orlandos
larger ceiling-beams, 52 centimetres wide,9 was not in fact a normal ceiling-beam, merely pa
of a marble 'edging' for the ceiling of an end peristyle. He could see quite clearly that in sect
its preserved top slopes upwards from the outer to the inner edge. No ceiling-beam of Orlando
larger size and with a flat top is ever known to have existed.
This, I think, is not surprising. For the ceiling of one end peristyle, at least, had no lo
marble beams. I figure one cornice-block (PLATE 58e), plainly from one of the fronts of the tem
3 They are also right, as against Blouet, on the relative
capitals, compare the Erechtheum, or the Ionic temple of
heights of the moulded band and the plain fascia below Locri.
it.
This is clear on several modern photographs. See, e.g., 6 Penrose, Principles pl. xxii.
Rave, Griechische Tempel (1924) pl. 31; Warner and Hurli-7 Whom I must thank here for putting freely at my dis-
mann, Eternal Greece (1953) I I. posal the evidence in his book The Woodwork of Greek Roofs
4 Chapter VI, pl. 6. So far as I know, the anta-capitals
(I960), before its publication.
of Rhamnous have quite disappeared. But Gandy's draw- 8 BSA xlv, pl. 8.
ings are plausible and circumstantial. 9 Published by Orlandos, op. cit. 225, fig. I9.
s For the tiers of mouldings on fifth-century Ionic anta-

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
220 W. H. PLOMMER

1842"7

402-519" 2140-73

283-54

32-1489 1438

cm.

05

1930

18235

)EGDOH.TAYBNWR(MUIS,KCOLB-NEGFITRPADNKCOLB-SIEGTPM.F

174-5

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE TEMPLE OF POSEIDON ON CAPE SUNIUM 221

for it makes no provision for roof-tiles and shows the

face is well preserved, and shows no depressions for cei
were unusually wide, especially the west peristyle, the
It would have been difficult to cut the many long thi
used on Sunium-required on these peristyles for sel
flaws. But the beams would need a length of at least I6
styles respectively, compared with less than 8 feet for
12 or 13 feet for the great door-lintels, normally the
architecture was largely dominated by the lengths o
our end peristyles should have been of some different
from the marble borders along their north and south e
marks for stone beams, as appear on so many lateral c
a sort of timber frame or wall-plate, whose edge reste
A fine white marble fragment found by Mr. David L
School is apparently from a coffer-lid or coffer-fram
styles. Not having seen this fragment, I have had to d
Sinclair Hood and the photograph given me by Mr. Lew
It is broken on all sides, and perhaps also at the back
metres. I do not see how the fragment could come fro
just possible physically. The decoration, a painted b
ceiling. Normally, it adorns not coffer-lids but coffer
bead and reel, however, is in an asymmetric border
of the coffer-frame, where it rested on the ceiling-be
half the fragment, would thus have been invisible. But
bearing surface on the ceiling-beams, to judge from th
peristyle (above, p. 219), was about 5 inches broad. Nor
than the coffers themselves-hardly thicker, for insta
Mausoleum.'6 I think, then, that our fragment is from
ceiling-pattern would thus closely resemble that of
The size of the beads, nearly an inch in diameter,
They would be grossly out of scale with the small coff
shall see, one seems compelled to restore over the side
twice as wide as the beads on the Theseum (FIG. 2B), wh
ceilings varying from 6 to Io feet in width. The beads
between 15 and 18 feet in clear width, and with coffer
would fit the end peristyles.'7
1o Cf. BSA xlv. 80. vaou rov EV W1t AarrTnrEr0t. Euthynteria 'dans ce texte
ne describing
" Cf. Penrose, op. cit. 16. After peut gubre designer the qu'une assise appartenant aux
unequal
architrave-blocks of the Parthenon, Penrose
parties hautes concludes:
de l'6difice, et contribuant au maintien de la
toiture' (Robert).
'We may infer that stones of fourteen feet longSee also and
his p. 96.
upwards
were very rare', and shows that the 14 The unbroken backs reached
Parthenon of coffers and frames could,
the
limit with the blocks available.
however, be quite rough. See, e.g., Koch, op. cit. pl. 14.
12 Not, perhaps, all. Hodge tells me he has seen one block Is Uned. Antiqu. of Attica chap. vi, pl. ix.
of side-cornice without the marks for the beams-clearly a 16 Lethaby, Greek Buildings fig. 33.
block from one side of the end peristyles. '7 Coffer-lids have normally bands of egg and tongue,
'3 Stones levelled to receive such a wall-plate could, Icoffer-frames of bead and reel. The carved coffers of the
think, be called Ovrrpita Tro ~vAcbparos. See the Delian Epidaurian tholos show this well (Lawrence, Greek Archi-
Account of c. 280 B.c., quoted by Robert in Dilos xx, Troistecture pl. 88b), as does the ceiling of the Nereid Monument,
sanctuaires sur le rivage occidental (1952) 1oo: $0h- t arro8ovri now in the B.M. See also the Erechtheum inscription,
vJrlp 1.kc0sovO oyvS ?,tOvS 'TOvSJ E1; WOV&Tnpatva ov -Ovhuoprroa Tovquoted below, n. 25.

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IINCHES
II 0 Ii 2 3 4 5 6

r2
r2 R
R,

2R1

FIG. 2. A, FRAGMFENT FROM SUNIUM. B, DECORATION ON COFFER-FRAMES, THESEUM (FROM STUART AND REVETT III, PL. 9)

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE TEMPLE OF POSEIDON ON CAPE SUNIUM 223

The beads are compass-drawn circles, but the reels are drawn by h
quarters of its own diameter from its neighbour. But no subtle mathem
used. Here Sunium seems most unlike the Theseum, where, accordin
bead and reel is laid out mathematically (FIG. 2B), an isosceles triang
of one reel, having a base running from the centre of one bead to a po
of the other. This is nice. But the mixture at Sunium seems equally typic
Compare the sima Olympia Taf. cxxi, 2 (rather earlier, according to the
The end peristyles of Sunium seem, then, to me to have had ceilin
and marble coffering-the exact opposite of the construction I am force
peristyles. The strange ceilings of this temple are due partly, I think, t
marble.
The Agrileza marble used at Sunium splits very easily; and I suppose it cannot easily be
undercut to the degree required for certain fine details. In this it is the exact opposite of the
wonderful fine-grained hard limestone ('calcaire') exploited at Delphi in the fourth century.

o S 10 15 CMS,
I + + + + i I i

FIG. 3. COLU

The patter
relief, so b
to make th
had only s
above the
iii, ch. i, p
less than

18 SeeagreeOrlando with this. Vitruvius, admittedly comp

full discussionwith external columns, says that, to increas
Sidon thickness (1958), of a shaft, one increases the num
fluence ('Sin autem videbunturof an
graciliores, cum e
reasons.
fuerint striae XXIIII, in his faciendae erunt XXVIII
19 A. W. Lawrence has now broached the theory
aut XXXII': (Greek
De Architectura iv. 4. ii). My eye seems to
Architecture (1957) 180) that the columns were
confirm excessively
Vitruvius, at least to me, and to make a column of
high at Sunium, so as to look right from the diameter
constant sea, and
seemthat
thicker, the more flutes it is given
they were given fewer flutes, so as to appear
(see FIG. 7). thicker than
they really were to a spectator at close quarters. I cannot

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
224 W. H. PLOMMER

Antiquities of Attica ch. vi, pls. 4

or 6: I. The arrises, therefore, pr
No coffers from the side-ceiling
tain round peg-holes of a kind mo
roughly half-way along many o
placed as near the edge as possib
one example (PLATE 59a; cf. FIG. 4
later repairs where the beams h
constant a position, that one grow
dently a dowel-hole and no repair
I made the beam 9 inches high fro
compare the probable position of
preserved cutting on another b
of the span. The round peg-hole
beam. I have tried (FIG. 4 (iv) a
Over each bay there might be a c
perhaps two boards, hollowed out
could be pegged to the ceiling-b
nicely fill the opening.zz
Can we guess the material? Not,
imitate marble coffering; or som
of stone (e.g. the Erechtheum ins
and heavy gilding. The wood at le
carved coffer-lids. This is the ruv
There is, however, a good argum
and set in the dark cella of the E
the light colours perhaps more ap
darkness of their ill-lit interiors b
by the glitter of lamps and gildi
maria. In that of Epidaurus, the in
of the peristyle.z4 The Erechtheu
inscriptions show, treated to lavi
peristyle. But either boxwood or
These side-ceilings of Sunium se
other material, but for the amoun

20 TO see the different shapes

believe, of
shows the the
that flu
greater shallowness keep the same
at Sunium, shallow
compare B
(Sunium) and Koch, op. cit., pl.
peculiarities of 54 (the
Sunium
the mathematical construction
ness of the of Classica
marble an
comprising for the make
most part arcs of circ
his building mor
op. many tricks.
cit. 51 and pl.2 I. See also Stuart and Revett
and iii, ch. I pl. 12. (The curve
21 For the fragment of
of coffer-slab from thethe centre
ceiling of our
end peristyle, seeequal
usually an are on a radius above, p. 221. to the width,
whole flute. But towards 22 The traces seem the
to show that arris
the coffer-lids could
thehave cur
between temple and formedtemple.) the modelled soffit I offindtwo boards, with
that a joint over
wh
drawings of Koch and the centre
Bloues,of the ceiling-span.
the Thisflutes
would make eachof
wider, seem to be shallower
9 inches wide and nearly 3 than feet long. those on
see my FIG. 3. But this 23 Paton is andbecause
Stevens, Erechtlheum, my figure
Inscription no. xi,
the top of the shafts, and,
col. ii, line 31. according to B
towards the top become 24 Defrasse and Lechat, shallower
,pidaure 118 f. at S

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (V)

HALF-SCE)

FIG.4CELNOFSIDPER- STYLE,UNIM:(i)RAS OFCEILNG-BAMS;(i)ECTION THROUGCEILN-BAM;(iV)T TAIVERSOATINFEBAY; (V)PLANOFRESTDBY

A
A'

SCALEINFT

(I)

(i)

I012345

(i)

(i)

3 8491
Q
This content downloaded from
193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 226 W. H. PLOMMER

of astragalos-moulding were a
merely rested on the beams, a
were glued to the larger mem
stant earth-tremors, where
merely slide a little. I do not
there was less homogeneous, a
were unusually small, and so
For a long time I remained,
beams, so narrowly spaced, ov
and to make them rest on the
them and enclosing them, rat
edges would enclose a rough
move easily. The construction
would work equally well. In an
construction. The normal Gre
raised bearing surface over th
trave. This spared the more d
the soffit of an architrave-blo
and the architrave given a s
sound, although rather harder
Could one have had a similarly
number of a size suitable to t
I or 2 inches narrower, givi
beams that we have are quite c
sloping cuttings to allow room
without interpreting it.27 So w
We find that, further, the
distance of 25 inches, or 63 ce
metope, which is 126 centimet
over the side peristyle of the
In normal Greek roofs every
which protect the joints betw
cuttings to give head to the r
width, and in similar position
unit. Moreover, we have the b
blocks. Surely, then, we can se
the antefixes, the ornamental
know that Sunium had antefi
figured3' a block, which seems

25 See, e.g., Paton 27 AEand

lines 19-21:
aaropay]ahov Err[l] yolporavr[TI] E[Tr T r kins), I.
EV K+ll]atK[tla 'r]apahaorVTI TETOp[v
EVpvov i K.T.h.
26 As Mr. Lacey has reminded me, the gales that rage
on this site may well have persuaded the architect to set
his ceiling-beams close to one another, and to fasten the
coffers tightly.
1917, p. 226. "8 BSA xlv. 82.
Stevens, Insc
29 Stuart and Revett iv2, 'Further Elucidations'
30 BSA xlv. 0o4. My words, however, are not clear there.
I was surprised to find this architect observing the unit at
Rhamnous even in the ceilings of the end peristyles. For
those of the side peristyles he now seems to me to have
observed it in all three temples.
31 ADelt 1915, 17.

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A B

FIG. 5. CORNICE-BLOCKS AND RAFTERS, SUNIUM

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 228 W. H. PLOMMER

sima. As on the Parthenon,

stopped. But the junction w
seen this block, which no m
Surely, with all these data,
confident of no solution.
Because of their size, I could not turn over the cornice-blocks, many of them half-buried.
Consequently, I could not relate the mutules on their front soffit to the spaces for ceiling-beams
on the rear of their upper faces.
Several of these surviving cornice-blocks show the marks of two complete ceiling-beams and
two complete intervals. I show drawings of two (FIG. 6). One must remember that the depres-
sions were a little wider than the ceiling-beams they were meant to receive. On these two
blocks, the marks ran in opposite directions. The first had the left-hand edge of a beam, the
second that of a space aligned on its own left-hand edge. Besides these blocks, others exist
which show a more ragged alignment with the ceiling-beams (FIG. I). This is what one would
expect. At some point on every side of a classical temple the joints of the cornice-blocks must
'break step', so that there may be exact symmetry between the important corner-blocks. Joints
down the centres of mutules were normally not encouraged,32 while they were normally un-
thinkable down the centres of viae (where Cockerell places them in his reconstruction of
Bassae.33 So at Sunium one might expect the ceiling-beams to rest neatly on the corner-blocks
down only one half of each side (cf. FIGS. I and 6). After two or three transitional blocks the
joints would have been shifted to one side or the other by the width of one via, or about 5 inches
(I2 centimetres) at Sunium. This has evidently happened with Hodge's left-hand cornice-
blocks (FIG. I).
At present we have evidence for the displacement shown below on my diagram (FIG. 5 (b)),
not for that above. The ceiling-beams fell in some cases exactly on the corner of the cornice-
block, in others over the joint between two blocks. I know no evidence of joints below the
spaces; and it is obviously better construction to rest the massive ceiling-beams, rather than the
flimsy coffers and returns, on the joints of the cornice. My diagram shows that it is impossible
to break joint, and keep the ceiling-beams and rafters in the same position relative to the
cornice-blocks. To the left of the diagram are the plans and elevation (showing both the blocks
and the rafters) of four hypothetical geison-blocks (FIG. 5 (a)), illustrating the four possible ways
compatible with our evidence of disposing the ceiling-beams, and rafters on the 'tidy' half of
side cornice. The rafters, I think, were meant to come above the ceiling-beams, to avoid the
delicate coffer-frames and lids. But here I face another difficulty. I think I have drawn the
rafter-cutting on my ceiling-beam a little too wide, whereas in Hodge's drawing it seems a
little too narrow (cf. PLATE 59a). I measured these rafter-cuttings as about 21/2 to 3 inches wide. This
would be a small scantling for Greek rafters of square cross-section, designed to support large
tiles. Yet I am loth to widen the rafter, for, in one case at least, a peg-hole for the coffering
comes very close to the rafter-cutting. A rafter extending over the peg-hole would leave no
room for the coffer-lid or even the coffer-frame, which, in my view, the peg should have pierced.
Moreover, by making the rafters thicker, so as to extend to the moulded edges of the ceiling-beams,
I do not correct the asymmetry of their placing over the mutules. This is clear from blocks (I)
and (4). If one makes the rafters thinner in the only legitimate way, by moving their edges

32 The temple of Aphaia on Aegina is an exception. of cornice-blocks seem to make against Cockerell. Stuart
See Fiechter in Furtwaengler, Aegina, pl. 35. and Revett iv, Bassae pl. iii, shows a cornice jointed on the
33 Aegina and Bassae, Bassae pl. iv. In my ignorance, I principal facade in a normal way.
did not examine this feature when I visited Bassae. My photos

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE TEMPLE OF POSEIDON ON CAPE SUNIUM 229

FEET
o I 2 3 4

FIG. 6. CORNICE-BLOCK AND R

inside those of the ceiling-b

lessly eccentric.
It is apparently no easier to
(2) and (3)). Moreover, ther

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
230 W. H. PLOMMER

them there, one has to abbreviate and d

from Orlandos's diagram.34 Finally, Vit
rafters, the lower ends of which wer

FIG. 7. UNFLUTED COLUMN COMPARED WITH

building: '. .. e cantheriorum proiecturi

tectura iv. 2. iii). This is an implausible
Yet so thin is the corona of a Doric corn
and an antefix resting on the via rat
building, has its own logic for assessing
violated by antefixes over viae, especial
34 ADelt 1915, 19, fig. 3.

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE TEMPLE OF POSEIDON ON CAPE SUNIUM 231

Finally, if, as seems to be the case, the antefixes observed the unit,
symmetrically over either mutules or viae, what happened to the ro
sides? How did it contrive to be symmetrical about the centre? I do
the problem to others-preferably to a survey-party able to measure
existing cornice-blocks.
One last problem is raised by this cornice. Orlandos restores a cour
blocks above the cornice-blocks proper, hemmed in between the
rafters. I know of no analogy for such a course. The large eaves-
section in such temples as the Parthenon or the Athenians' temple at
and function. I wonder whether Orlandos's blocks ever existed. Note
have been to cut, with no angle a true right angle. Of course, Greek
blocks, but usually for a good reason; and here they would merely t
against the ceiling. As it is, these can hardly clear the ceiling, even
ends as far forward as possible towards the external face of the corn
Orlandos sees evidence for his course in the dowel-holes on the
blocks. Now Greek dowel-holes, as on the frieze-blocks at Sunium
of blocks, and run at right angles to these joints. But on some of our
dowel-holes of the right direction for Orlandos's course (PLATE 59d)
may seem when timber was normally fastened to stone by round
holes merely served for dowels of normal form to peg the rafters.3
course existed, the rafters in any case seem to have been dowelled at
less disputably in the early fourth century at Tegea.37 Tugs on the d
split the rafters. But in fact the stress just here would have been ver
On some cornice-blocks we find, indeed, a variety of dowel- and pe
stand (cf. FIG. 6). But I refuse at present to interpret it in Orlandos'
for the rafters are, even here, thrown right forward on to the corn
continuous stone blocks of Orlandos's width impossible.
This temple of Poseidon presents many other problems. There i
the cella door. I should still defend the main lines of my earlier reco
dimensions I there gave the lintel-blocks-although I still do not k
was two or three lintel-blocks thick. If three, the jambs must have pr
Bassae.38 The threshold originally comprised three blocks in a line fr
two side blocks supported the door-jambs or their equivalent. The ce
and tile northern is now the best preserved. In his drawings of both s
includes, but somewhat soft-pedals, a pair of massive dowel-holes in
been enlarged by robbers. But their depth and position surely show
interrupted. As in the Parthenon, there were probably no proper
These pairs of dowel-holes were I o feet from one another. The
block was 8 feet wide-the interaxial distance of the central pair

35 Orlandos's illustration (op. cit. fig. I3) 36

inHere,
fact however,
ignoresI face another inexplicable difficulty.
the relation of rafters and ceiling-beams. His drawing
Assuming of onlyjust cleared the ceiling-beams,
that the rafters
the rafter-cutting in the ceiling-beam (AEI 1917,
cannot legitimately
226), while get their lower end as far out as these
obviously wrong in some points, yet agreescuttings
with onmy thephotos,
geisa. See FIG. 6.
and Hodge's drawing of a beam (left-hand side ofand
37 Clemmensen hisothers, Tegle, pl. 44.
38 Theseand
picture, as opposed to the reconstructed ceiling Mainland
rafterGreek temples, unlike those of Magna
Graecia, seem
of the right-hand side) shows that the cutting wasseldom
highto have had at this point a staircase
and the slope shallow, implying a rafterinthrown
the thicknessforward
of the wall.
on the cornice-block. 39 AE 1917, 220, nos. II and I2.

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
232 W. H. PLOMMER

FIG. 8. CEILING OF RHAMNOUS,

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE TEMPLE OF POSEIDON ON CAPE SUNIUM 233
each pair of holes a further foot beyond its edge. An opening Io feet wide, or only sl
should have been about 20 feet high, to give the normal Periclean double-squar
further, would mean a lintel at the same height as the outer architrave-a highly sat
result.
Doric door-frames of the Classical period were normally plank-like, as one see
Parthenon or from the elaborate and rather wonderful traces in the Tholos of Marmaria.
The frame at Sunium would have made a negligible difference to the opening. But, of c
though so thin, these frames or veneers40 were very important in the whole design. I
the stumps of wall attached to the East Wall of the Propylaea show no trace of any inte
to veneer them. So I am most loth to believe that they were meant for doors of the sor
Dinsmoor envisages in his East Elevation of the Propylaea.4I
Sunium was bound to have a hard time, exposed as it was and is to thunderbolts,
and other hazards. Zeus showed little self-control in its destruction if his temple which h
was our temple of Poseidon:

ia~i 'rr&$&, Zj C.tiPE a~i Kic Kpovicov 63cov Kcd PEKKEa~~.TVS,

ElTEP PahkEl 701~j ~rrl6PKOu&, 8rj-r' oQ4Xipcv EI3V vaTrPrjasv
o~i86 KA~cbvvplov oi,8~ OE~c0p0Y; Kai-rol co~popa( y' Eica' i~1TfopKo1
d T OY -r 1JTiro1J yE VECOV fpcA?l Kc o~i oviov ajKpoV AO8~vicov.42
W. H. PLOMMER

ADDENDUM

Since writing this, I have had to consider the much later ceilings of the side p
temple of Apollo at Delos, reconstructed by Holland and Davis in AJA xxxv
from an inscription of 279 B.c. Here coffer-lids of terracotta were perhaps pinne
pegs to timber coffer-frames. One is reminded of our peg-holes at Sunium.
peristyles seem to have had no ceiling-beams at Delos, as they had at Suni
system of coffer-frames and pegs must have been different. (2) Terracotta coff
have been larger than the (evidently) tiny coffer-lids of Sunium. (3) I am loth t
terracotta coffering into a Periclean temple of this sort. (4) Something should h
of such cheap earthenware coffers. So terracotta coffering, though possible, seem
at Sunium.

40 Whether of marble or timber, who knows? I stillI have decided for timber.
hesitate between Miss Lorimer's timbers and Dinsmoor's 41 Architecture of Ancient Greece 202, fig. 76.
42 Ar. Clouds 398-405.
marble. On p. 554 of my Ancient and Classical Architecture

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
B.S.A. 55 PLATE 58

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
THE TEMPLE OF POSEIDON AT SUNIUM

(a) REAR FACE OF GEISON-BLOCK WITH PAINTED FRET. (b) N.E. ANTA-CAPITAL, S. FACE. (C)
(d) FRAGMENT OF CEILING-COFFER. (e) GEISON-BLOCK FROM FLOOR OF PEDI

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
b3 V1 c~ c~

(b)

(d)

(d)LATERGISON-BCK,UPF.

THEMPLOFSIDNAU

(a)
(c)

.'SULIMACGNWOH,KB-EVRTF)(:YPDba

This content downloaded from

193.198.212.4 on Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:14:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms