Building with assembly marks: prefabrication

of architectural blocks on building sites

at Delos and Pergamon in the IIIrd c. a.C.
Ulf Weber

ssembly marks formed one category of mason’s marks used in Greek architecture1. The Greeks used

A these special marks in their columns and ashlar masonry to label prepared blocks with symbols, numbers,
numerals or other words. Assembly marks defined the position of a block within a building in order to
ensure its correct assembly2.
In the architectural engineering the marks were applied for two purposes:
1. new construction.
2. reuse3.
Assembly marks were used since the beginning VIth c. a.C. in Greek architecture. However, in the Archaic period it
was only common to label the blocks of some parts of buildings, especially parts of the roof4.
The sima of Temple A of Kalydon is one famous example from this time. Only parts of the fictile roof are preserved
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

from its superstructure, mainly the so called “Löwensimadach”. The sima elements of the long sides bear assembly marks,
scratched on the backs or the tops. The marks consist of two different parts. The first one is a numeral and the second one
a direction, for example MIA EΠI FIKATI ΠO’ EΣΠEΡAΣ (fig. 1), which means the 21st unit westwards. These sima pieces
needed assembly marks because the pattern on each element was different, and therefore each element was intended to
fit into a specific spot in the building5.
As we have seen, the Löwensimadach was labeled with extremely complex assembly marks. But generally in Greek
masonry, single letters used as numbers were more common as assembly marks. Such numbers, also called letter-labels6,
are found, for instance, on blocks of the famous Classical buildings from the Athenian acropolis.
The Parthenon was finished in only fifteen years. The construction of a building of such high quality is astonishing in
this short time, and was probably the result of new building technologies. One of these was presumably the prefabrication
of blocks on the building site, which required these blocks to be labeled with assembly marks. A few column drums with
painted assembly marks survive from the Parthenon (fig. 2). These are the only known painted assembly marks in the whole
of Greek architecture, together with the painted marks on column drums of the Classical Propylaia. Fictile roof elements for
a few other buildings also preserve painted assembly marks. All other preserved assembly marks were engraved7.

1. Ginouvès & Martin 1985, 123; Weber 2013, 1. This article is based on the research done in my doctor thesis (Weber 2013). For
permission to work at Delos I thank the 21st Ephorie of the Greek Ministry for Culture and the École Française d’Athènes. Further, for permission
to work at Pergamon I am grateful to F. Pirson and the Turkish Ministry for Tourism and Culture. And I thank W. Aylward for examining the
translated paper for mistakes and his helpful advices.
2. Höcker 2004, 271 s.v. Versatzmarken; Weber 2013, 1.
3. Weber 2013, 2. In this paper only buildings will be presented with assembly marks from its new construction. But examples for
reuse can be found in the cited volume.
4. Weber 2013, 359-360.
5. Rhomaios 1951, 58-69; Weber 2013, 132-134.
6. Tod 1954, 1-2; Weber 2013, 6.
7. Weber 2013, 325-327. For painted assembly marks on fictile roof elements see, for example, the treasury of Gela at Olympia:
Dittenberger & Purgold 1896, no. 943; Heiden 1995, 98; Weber 2013, 190-195.

– L’architecture monumentale grecque au III e s. a.C., p. 305-316

 306 – ULF WEBER
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

| Fig. 1. Kalydon, Temple A, Sima element of the western long side

with the assembly mark MIA EΠI FIKATI ΠO’ EΣΠEΡAΣ (Poulsen & Rhomaios 1927, pl. 39, fig. 39).

| Fig. 2. Athens, Acropolis, Parthenon: bearing surfaces of two column drums with its painted assembly marks;
to the left from the peristasis and to the right from the pronaos (Orlandos 1977, 155, fig. 102).
 BUILDING WITH ASSEMBLY MARKS – 307

The assembly marks of the Parthenon and the Propylaia were painted with red ochre on the bearing surfaces of the
drums8. This is important because it means the masons smoothed the tops before setting them in place. Unlike the drums of
an earlier building, the so called Vorparthenon, they prove that the tops were still smoothed after placement9. That’s why it
seems that the preparation of the bearing surfaces and the bottom beds of the Parthenon drums on the site was one way to
quicken the erection of columns, because the step of finishing the top after erection was omitted in the construction process.
Furthermore, the assembly marks of the Parthenon and the Propylaia contained – like the ones from Temple A of
Kalydon – two pieces of information (fig. 1-2). The letters defined the number of the column, and the vertical strokes the
position of a drum within a column10.
Assembly marks survive only from column drums of the Parthenon and the Classical Propylaia. Such marks are not
preserved from any other part of these buildings.
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

Therefore, it is not likely that other parts, including wall blocks, were labeled with assembly marks.
It is known from inscriptions of the Erechtheion that there the tops of wall blocks had been smoothly dressed after
the placement of the blocks11. This was apparently the most common method for placing wall blocks for a long time,
probably also used for the Parthenon and the Classical Propylaia.
Thus, it seems that no buildings are known from the Classical period that were completely labeled with assembly
marks. The earliest examples belong to the Hellenistic period.

PERGAMON: THE METER TEMPLE ON THE MAMURT KALE

A Sanctuary of Meter is located about 35 km southeast of Pergamon and 1 079 m high on Mamurt Kale. Philetairos
(281-263 a.C.) built there a small Doric temple with two columns in antis, surrounded with stoas on three sides. All these
buildings were constructed of local andesite rock (fig. 3)12.

| Fig. 3. Mamurt Kale, Temple of Meter, reconstruction of the sanctuary (Conze & Schazmann 1911, 4).

8. Orlandos 1977, 155-156; Dinsmoor & Dinsmoor Jr. 2004, 104-105 and 233; Weber 2013, 35-37.
9. Korres 1992, 46, 50 and 56 (n. 2).
10. Orlandos 1977, 155-156; Dinsmoor & Dinsmoor Jr. 2004, 104-105 and 233. And on Temple A of Kalydon, see above.
11. Paton et al. 1927, 328-329 and 344; Martin 1965, 199.
12. Conze & Schazmann 1911, 14, 37 and 43; Rumscheid 1994, 29; Rheidt 1996, 170-171; Radt 1999, 243-244.
 308 – ULF WEBER

The sanctuary was excavated by German archaeologists in 1909. They uncovered among other things the Meter
temple and registered its assembly marks. Nowadays the ruins are overgrown and the marks can no longer be seen.
The crepis with four steps was directly placed on the bedrock. The uppermost step was concurrently stylobate and
toichobate (fig. 4). As A. Conze and P. Schazmann recorded, all the blocks of the crepis bore assembly marks consisting of
two letters, which were engraved in the protective mantle of the top surfaces. The second letter represented the number
of the step and the first one the position of the block within the step13.
The four steps were numbered from the bottom to the top. This direction of counting is characteristic of new
construction. In contrast, layers of buildings with reused blocks were mostly numbered from the top to the bottom because
this was the direction of their dismantling14.
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

| Fig. 4. Mamurt Kale, Temple of Meter, southwestern long side, view and ground-plan
with assembly marks (Conze & Schazmann 1911, pl. 3).

13. Conze & Schazmann 1911, 14-17 and pl. 3.

14. Weber 2013, 339-340.
 BUILDING WITH ASSEMBLY MARKS – 309

Some other blocks of the Meter temple also bear assembly marks. A corner architrave is marked with a Λ, a geison
with a Ν and an anta block with an E (fig. 5). But these marks were engraved on the smoothly dressed bearing surfaces15.
Those assembly marks without a number for the layer (on the architrave and on the geison) reveal that only parts of a
building consisting of more than one layer needed layer numbers16. These letters, together with the assembly marks from
the crepis, suggest that all the blocks of the temple were probably labeled.
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

| Fig. 5. Mamurt Kale, Temple of Meter, an anta block and a corner architrave
with the assembly marks E and Λ (Conze & Schazmann 1911, 27, fig. 5.9; 23, fig. 3.6).

All this proves that the blocks of the Meter temple were prefabricated on the building site. The masons smoothly
dressed all joints there. That means not only the bottom beds were finished, but also the rising joints and the bearing
surfaces as well, as the assembly marks on the latter faces prove. However, the assembly marks on the protective mantle
of the steps show the outer surfaces should have been trimmed away after construction (fig. 4). But the temple was never
finished, and therefore the assembly marks survive.
Furthermore, the assembly marks of the Meter temple demonstrate that it was built by different groups of masons,
working under the principle of “division of labor”. One group prepared the blocks at the site, and another group probably
transported, lifted and placed them with the aid of the assembly marks.
We supposed this method already for the Classical buildings of the Athenian acropolis. However, a century earlier
in the c. a.C. the work was not yet shared. At this time one group of masons managed the entire construction process.
VIth

15. Conze & Schazmann 1911, 23, fig. 3 and 27, fig. 5.
16. The single letter on the anta block is a little bit enigmatic because the walls with the antas had more than one layer. Perhaps the
blocks of the antas were separately numbered from the bottom to the top.
 310 – ULF WEBER

Another progressive trait can be observed at the Meter temple: Many of the building elements were joined by dowels
with horizontal pouring channels (fig. 5)17. This method was used for the first time in Greek architecture at the end of the
IVth c. a.C. and it caught on initially in the course of the IIIrd c. a.C. 18.

In this way, the Meter temple is the first known building of Pergamon which combines several progressive features,
allowing for fast and efficient construction; although it was made of andesite and not yet of marble. Perhaps these traits
characterized already earlier buildings of Pergamon, for example the contemporary Demeter temple, made mostly of andesite,
or the older Athena temple, built of marble around 325 a.C. However, no assembly mark survive from either of them19.
Later, the famous IInd c. a.C. marble buildings of Pergamon, like the Dionysos temple or the Great altar, show all these
progressive features again. But one difference can be observed: on these buildings each assembly mark was engraved on
the smoothly dressed bearing surface, even on the crepis blocks (fig. 6). This is in contrast to the engraved marks on the
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

protective mantle of the crepis blocks from the Meter temple. But the assembly marks are of the same type because one
letter-label indicated the layer and another one the position within the layer20.

THE PHILIP’S STOA AT DELOS

The Stoa of Philip is situated directly south of the Apollo sanctuary and next to the harbor. This single aisled stoa in
the Doric order was built around 210 a.C. by the Macedonian king Philip V (221-179 a.C.). Around 180 a.C. the stoa was
enlarged northwards, and a second aisle was added on its back21.
In the first phase the building was 11 m wide and 72 m long. The masons used gneiss and granite for the foundation,
poros for the euthynteria, and marble for the entire superstructure. Blocks of every part of the building are preserved. They
show that each block of the stoa had apparently been labeled with an assembly mark, engraved mainly on the smoothly
dressed tops but sometimes on the rising joints (fig. 7-10)22.
The assembly marks could contain two messages: Each block was marked with an alphabetical number, representing
its position within a layer or a column. Moreover the masons labeled some parts of the building with an additional number
or symbol. For instance, the column elements have an extra letter-label, indicating the sequence of the columns (fig. 8)23.
This was the same method already used for the Parthenon columns, with one difference. On the Parthenon the masons
numbered the position of the drums within a column with vertical strokes and not with letters (fig. 2)24.
Symbols were added to the alphabetical numbers of the lowest crepis step to distinguish these blocks from the
second and highest step. So each block of the lowest step had an additional Psi engraved on it (fig. 10)25.
However, the most important innovation of Philip’s stoa was the use of alphabetical numbers in order to mark the
blocks of the same layer. Such numbers consisted of the twenty-four letters of the regular Greek alphabet and of three
additional letters, which were stigma, koppa and sampi. The first nine letters from alpha to theta represented the ones, the
second nine letters from iota to koppa the tens, and the last nine letters from rho to sampi the hundreds26. In this way it
was easily possible to label a large number of architectural blocks. For example, the letters ΡIA, engraved on a combined
geison-sima block, stand for the number 111 (fig. 9)27.

17. Conze & Schazmann 1911, 18, fig. 12; 23, fig. 5; 26; 27, fig. 5.
18. See for example Martin 1965, 282-287, 296; Hellmann 2002, 95.
19. Radt 1999, 159 and 181-182.
20. Bohn 1896, 58-62 and 68-70; Schrammen 1906, 19 and 81; Weber 2013, 209-221.
21. Vallois 1923, 5, 17-22, 163 and 165; Bruneau & Ducat 2005, 167 and 165, fig. 40.
22. Vallois 1923, 27-30, 34 and 63-67; Weber 2013, 72-75.
23. Vallois 1923, 35-37; Weber 2013, 73.
24. See above.
25. Vallois 1923, 26, 30-31 and 76 (fig. 98); Weber 2013, 72.
26. Larfeld 1902, 547-548; Tod 1950, 127-129; Guarducci 1995, 422-425; McLean 2002, 61-63; Weber 2013, 6-7.
27. Vallois 1923, 50-51, 56-57 and 65.
BUILDING WITH ASSEMBLY MARKS – 311
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

| Fig. 6. Pergamon,
crepis block from
the Dionysos temple
(above) and upper
cornice block from the
Great altar (on the left)
with assembly marks
(ΗΑ and ΦΔ) on the
bearing surfaces
(cl. U. Weber).
 Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

312 –
ULF WEBER
| Fig. 7. Delos, Philip’s stoa, elevation of the southern front with the assembly marks on the bearing surfaces (Vallois 1923, 76, fig. 99).
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015 BUILDING WITH ASSEMBLY MARKS – 313

| Fig. 8. Delos, Philip’s stoa, column capital

with the assembly mark OB on its bearing surface (cl. U. Weber).

| Fig. 9. Delos, Philip’s stoa, geison-sima block

with the assembly mark PIA on its rising joint (cl. U. Weber).
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015 314 – ULF WEBER

| Fig. 10. Delos, Philip’s stoa, block of the lowest crepis step
with the assembly mark ΔΨ on its bearing surface (cl. U. Weber).

The Stoa of Philip is the first known building in the entire Greek world labeled with alphabetical numbers as assembly
marks. In inscriptions from Athens they were used for the first time in the second half of the IIIrd c. a.C. In Asia Minor early
alphabetical numbers are found in inscriptions from Didyma of the first half of the IInd c. a.C.28. Thus, the alphabetical
numbers from Philip’s stoa are among the earliest Greek examples known.
Although alphabetical numbers seem to be the most suitable for labeling large buildings, the Greeks used it very
rarely for this purpose. They prefered simple letter-labels. Why they did this is hard to determine. Perhaps only a few
masons were familiar with the use of alphabetical numbers and for others they were too complex29.

CONCLUSION
The first ancient buildings completely labeled with assembly marks belong to the IIIrd c. a.C. One was presumably
the Meter temple from Mamurt Kale near Pergamon, and a second surely the stoa of Philip at Delos (fig. 3 and 7). Earlier
examples might have existed in the Classical period. But primarily the Meter temple and Philip’s stoa attest to the labeling
of each block of the superstructure on Greek building sites30.
With the simple method of labeling the blocks with numbers, one group of masons could prefabricate blocks on the
site, and other groups could accomplish subsequent steps like transporting, lifting, fitting, and finally dressing and painting.
This is also evidence for the “division of labor” in Greek architectural engineering.
In addition, assembly marks on the smoothly dressed bearing surfaces show that all the joining surfaces were
finished before the placement of the blocks (fig. 5, 6, 8 and 10)31. This method was adopted no later than the IIIrd c. a.C.

28. Tod 1950, 132 and 138; Rehm 1958, n° 39-41; Guarducci 1995, 419 and 425; McLean 2002, 60; Weber 2013, 332.
29. Weber 2013, 332-333.
30. See above.
31. Contrary to the view of R. Martin, A. K. Orlandos, and M.-C. Hellmann in their books on Greek architecture.
 BUILDING WITH ASSEMBLY MARKS – 315

It allowed for the continuous setting and fitting of wall blocks without interruption because the work step of dressing the
bearing surfaces was omitted. In the meantime other masons could prepare the blocks for the following layer on the site.
This procedure accelerated the completion of a building considerably32.
But this did not apply generally for column elements. For these two methods betray equal preference across antiquity.
The first method meant finishing the tops in advance: This is proved on column drums of the late Archaic Apollo temple
from Didyma, and in the Hellenistic period on column parts of the Philip’s stoa at Delos (fig. 8)33. The second method
meant finishing after placement: In the Archaic period this is proved on column drums of the “Vorparthenon” from the
Athenian acropolis and in the Hellenistic-Roman period on unfinished, but already placed, column drums of the Apollo
temple from Didyma34.
Another interesting clue is provided by the assembly marks on the protective mantle of the steps from the Meter
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

temple (fig. 4). Normally only a small number of blocks with assembly marks survive from Greek buildings. But it is proved
that at least from the Hellenistic period on most blocks were engraved with assembly marks. If a large number of marks
were cut into the protective mantle of the blocks, and this is likely, then we can understand the reason for their absence
today. The Meter temple is one of few examples showing a mostly lost, but probably common, practice in antiquity.
The other practice possibility, which is also mostly gone, was to paint the assembly marks35.
Beyond that the Meter temple and Philip’s stoa show other progressive traits. The temple is one of the earliest
buildings whose blocks were connected by dowels with horizontal pouring channels (fig. 5). This method was adopted
in Greek architecture in the IIIrd c. a.C. In contrast, the use of alphabetical numbers as assembly marks, as on the stoa of
Philip, was very progressive too, but had never become standard practice (fig. 9)36.
The assembly marks from the same stoa respond further to the question of where the blocks of a building were
prefabricated, at the site or at the quarry. The latter is not possible, but is sometimes supposed – for example by M. Korres
for the Eumenes Stoa in Athens37. The wall blocks of Philip’s stoa show that prefabricating at the quarry is unlikely, because
the wall blocks bear only one assembly mark, which represents its position within the layer, but not the layer itself. Therefore
the wall blocks could not have been prepared at the quarry, because masons would not have been able to distinguish
similar blocks of different layers later at the site. Furthermore, another simple reason makes prefabrication at the quarry
unlikely: The risk of damaging the finished faces and edges of blocks during transport was too high38.
This is proven, for instance, by blocks with a protective mantle found in several ancient quarries or on the way
between the quarries and the building sites or even at some building sites themselves. Blocks with smoothly dressed surfaces
and assembly marks engraved on them have not been found at any Greek quarry until now39.
In the end, the Meter temple shows that the methods used to construct the famous Pergamene marble buildings of
theIInd c. a.C. were already practiced on andesite buildings in the first half of the third century (fig. 3-4). The Meter temple
still bears all the progressive traits. Moreover, the assembly marks of the Meter temple show that their usage was not a
special feature established especially for marble buildings of the IInd c. a.C., as V. Kästner assumes. Kästner argues that the
vast usage of assembly marks in the IInd c. was caused by the economical use of marble imported to Pergamon40. But this
was not the case, as the Meter temple shows.
Between this building and the famous second century buildings stands the Stoa of Philip V at Delos. Here masons
labeled every block of the marble superstructure with an assembly mark (fig. 7). In this way, the stoa was built faster and
cheaper than other buildings. This must have also characterized Pergamene buildings of the IIIrd c. a.C., when many high
quality marble buildings were constructed at Pergamon in a short time.

32. Weber 2013, 350-351.

33. See Weber 2013, 297 and above.
34. Korres 1992, 46, 50 and 56, n. 2; Knackfuß 1941, 89; Rehm 1958, n° 39; Weber 2013, 350.
35. Weber 2013, 325–327.
36. See above.
37. Korres 1984, 205.
38. Weber 2013, 352-354.
39. Weber 2013, 352.
40. Kästner 2007, 268.
 316 – ULF WEBER

Bibliography

Bohn, R. (1896): Die Theater-Terrasse, AvP 4, Berlin.

Bruneau, P. and J. Ducat [1965] (2005): Guide de Délos, 4th ed. M. Brunet, A. Farnoux et J.-C. Moretti, Sites et Monuments 1, Paris.
Conze, A. and P. Schazmann (1911): Mamurt-Kaleh. Ein Tempel der Göttermutter unweit Pergamon, JdI Ergh. 3, Berlin.
Dinsmoor, W. B. and W. B. Dinsmoor Jr. (2004): The Propylaia to the Athenian Akropolis, II, The Classical Building, Princeton.
Dittenberger, W. and K. Purgold (1896): Die Inschriften von Olympia, Olympia 5, Berlin.
Ginouvès, R. and R. Martin (1985): Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine, I, Matériaux, techniques de construc-
tion, techniques et formes du décor, Roma.
Guarducci, M. [1967] (1995): Epigrafia greca, I, Caratteri e storia della disciplina, Roma.
Éléments sous droit d’auteur - © Ausonius Éditions Décembre 2015

Heiden, J. (1995): Die Tondächer von Olympia, OF 24, Berlin.

Hellmann, M.-C. (2002): L’architecture grecque, I, Les principes de la construction, Paris.
Höcker, C. (2004): Metzler Lexikon antiker Architektur: Sachen und Begriffe, Stuttgart.
Kästner, V. (2007): “Der Große Altar von Pergamon”, in: Scholl & Platz-Horster, ed. 2007, 260-289.
Knackfuß, H. (1941): Die Baubeschreibung in drei Bänden, Didyma 1, Berlin.
Korres, M. (1984): “Vorfertigung und Ferntransport eines athenischen Großbaus und Proportionierung von Säulen in der hellenistischen
Architektur”, DiskAB, 4, 201-207.
— (1992): Vom Penteli zum Parthenon: Werdegang eines Kapitells zwischen Steinbruch und Tempel, Munich.
Larfeld, W. (1902): Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik, II, Die attischen Inschriften, Leipzig.
Martin, R. (1965): Manuel d’architecture grecque, I, Matériaux et technique, Paris.
McLean, B. H. (2002): An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (323 BC-337 AD), Ann Arbor.
Orlandos, A. K. (1977): Ορλάνδος, Η αρχιτεκτονική του Παρθενώνος II, Athen.
Paton, J., G. Stevens, L. Caskey and H. Fowler (1927): The Erechtheum, Cambridge (Mass.).
Poulsen, F. and K. Rhomaios (1927): Erster vorläufiger Bericht über die dänisch-griechischen Ausgrabungen von Kalydon, Copenhagen.
Radt, W. (1999): Pergamon. Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metropole, Darmstadt.
Rehm, A. (1958): Die Inschriften, Didyma 2, Berlin.
Rheidt, K. (1996): “Pergamenische Ordnungen. Der Zeustempel und seine Bedeutung für die Architektur der Attaliden”, DiskAB, 6, 162-180.
Rhomaios, K. A. (1951): Ρωμαίος, Κέραμοι της Καλυδώνος, Athen.
Rumscheid, F. (1994): Untersuchungen zur kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus I, Mainz.
Scholl, A. and G. Platz-Horster, ed. (2007): Die Antikensammlung. Altes Museum. Pergamonmuseum, Mainz.
Schrammen, J. (1906): Der Große Altar. Der Obere Markt, AvP 3 (1), Berlin.
Tod, M. N. (1950) : “The Alphabetic Numeral System in Attica”, BSA, 45, 126-139.
— (1954) : “Letter-Labels in Greek Inscriptions”, BSA, 49, 1-8.
Vallois, R. (1923): Le portique de Philippe, Delos VII.1, Paris.
Weber, U. (2013): Versatzmarken im antiken griechischen Bauwesen, Philippika 58, Wiesbaden.