INTERPRETING ROPE CHANNELS: LIFTING, SETTING AND THE …€¦ · Greece, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East. This article’s last section analyses the grooves in relation

INTERPRETING ROPE CHANNELS: LIFTING, SETTING ANDTHE BIRTH OF GREEK MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE

by Alessandro Pierattini

University of Notre Dame

The first stone ashlar blocks of Greek architecture, those of the mid-seventh-century temples at Isthmia and Corinth, pose aproblem for understanding the beginnings of Greek stone construction. Their peculiar feature is the presence of groovesplausibly explained as a way to move the blocks with ropes. Yet scholars disagree about how these ropes would have beenused, and during what stage of construction. The first excavators of the two temples suggested that the ropes would haveserved to lift each block into place, and were subsequently extracted from the grooves once the block had been set against itsneighbour. Later scholars dismissed this theory as both inconsistent with the evidence and technically impracticable,questioning whether lifting machines were used in Greek construction as early as the mid-seventh century. Currently, thewidely accepted view holds that the crane appeared in the Greek world only in the late sixth century. An alternativehypothesis is that the grooves were cut early in the construction process so that ropes could be used to manoeuvre the blockswithin the quarry. However, the ‘lifting’ theory continues to have its adherents. Clarifying the significance of these parallelgrooves is thus a matter of some importance to the history of Greek construction. This article reassesses the alternative theseson the basis of a new examination of the evidence, and demonstrates that the idea that the grooves served for lifting is themost plausible. Furthermore, it argues that forerunners of the crane appeared in Greece well before the late sixth century.Finally, by examining how the blocks would have been manoeuvred into place after lifting, it contends that the grooves alsoserved the purpose of placement, with a method anticipating the Classical period’s sophisticated lever technique.

INTRODUCTION

The two early temples of Apollo on Temple Hill at Corinth and of Poseidon at Isthmia, datingfrom the first half of the seventh century, were the first in ancient Greece with a cellaconstructed of stone ashlar blocks squared on all six faces. This kind of masonry represents acrucial step in the development of Greek monumental stone architecture, marking a departureboth from mudbrick construction, which had been the norm for most Greek buildings, and fromprevious experiments with stone construction. The blocks of the two temples were cut touniform dimensions and arranged in a single row (as stretchers) in isodomic courses. As obviousas this technique might seem to a modern builder, when it emerged in these two sacredCorinthian sites it was unprecedented not only in Greece but indeed throughout the AncientMediterranean and the Near East, where previous stone masonries had usually consisted of a‘double skin’ with inside and outside facing stones and rubble packing in between.

All dates are BC, unless stated otherwise. The architectural materials from the early temple at Corinth are unpublished. Partial and brief descriptions of

block types found are in the excavation reports: Weinberg ; Roebuck ; Robinson a; b; (on theroof tiles). For the interpretation of the Corinthian finds with reference to those from Isthmia, see Rhodes ;a; ; . On the ‘proto-Corinthian’ roof tiles from the two temples, see Williams ; Roebuck ;and, in particular, Sapirstein ; . The data from the excavations of the Early Archaic temple at Isthmia and their interpretations have been

published by the excavator Oscar Broneer and his successors. On the architecture of the temple, see, inparticular, Broneer (monograph with catalogue of the finds); Gebhard and Hemans ; Gebhard ;; Hemans . On the roof tiles, see Rostoker and Gebhard ; Hemans ; . A similar kind of masonry had appeared around the second quarter of the th century in Ionia, in the cellas of

the early temples of Artemis at Ephesus and of Hera at Samos. The broader context of stone masonries in the Eastern

The Annual of the British School at Athens, , , pp. – © The Council, British School at Athens, doi:./S

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 22 May 2020 at 21:35:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030

https://www.cambridge.org/core

Hence the blocks from these two early temples offer a unique chance to understand thebeginnings of Greek stone construction. Their most peculiar feature is the presence of twoparallel grooves on each block’s underside and on one lateral face. These cuttings have beenexplained, plausibly enough, as a way to move the blocks with ropes. Yet scholars disagree abouthow these ropes would have been used, and during what stage of construction. The earliestthesis, proposed by Saul Weinberg and endorsed by Oscar Broneer, suggested that the ropeswould have served to lift each individual block into place and were subsequently extracted fromthe grooves once the block had been set against its neighbour.

Later scholars have dismissed this theory as both inconsistent with the evidence and technicallyimpracticable, questioning whether lifting machines were used in Greek construction as early as themid-seventh century; the widely accepted view holds that the crane appeared in the Greek worldonly at the end of the sixth century. As an alternative, they suggest that the grooves were cutearly in the construction process so that ropes could be used to manoeuvre the blocks within thequarry. However, the ‘lifting’ theory continues to have its adherents.

Clarifying the significance of these parallel grooves is thus a matter of some importance to thehistory of Greek construction. In this article, I will reassess the alternative theses on the basis of anew examination of the evidence and demonstrate that the idea that the grooves served for lifting isthe most plausible. Furthermore, I will argue that lifting machines appeared in Greece well beforethe late sixth century. The crane is regarded as one of the most remarkable Greek inventions inbuilding technology. But when can a lifting machine be called a crane? In discussing liftingtechnologies, I will adopt the current definition of the ‘crane’ as an apparatus involving a rigidframework and one or more methods of mechanical gain (hoists, winches) to lift a heavy loadattached to a rope, regardless of whether it can also move the load sideways, as certain cranesdo. I will refer to other, simpler devices as ‘lifting machines’ when they include some, but notall, of a crane’s components. This distinction will allow us to ask at what stage Greek liftingmachines became conceptually similar to modern cranes, and thus allow us to examine thenature of ancient Greeks’ innovations in lifting technology. Finally, by examining how the blocksfrom Isthmia and Corinth would have been manoeuvred into place after lifting, it will contendthat the grooves also served the purpose of placement, with a method that anticipates thesophisticated lever technique that spread during the Classical period.

The discussion is organised as follows. After a brief description of the blocks and theircharacteristic grooves, a chronological review of previous scholarship will focus on the variousinterpretations of these grooves and their purpose. The following sections will reassess the twoalternative theses for their practical feasibility and their historical plausibility. Practical factors atplay include the strength of the ropes presumably used by the ancient builders, the weight of theblocks, the depth and disposition of the grooves and the logistics of construction. Historicalquestions include deciding whether the ‘lifting’ theory necessarily entails use of a sophisticatedapparatus like the crane, or can make do with more traditional devices. The next question iswhether crane technology should be regarded as implausible at such an early stage of Greekhistory. To this end, I re-examine the earliest Archaic Greek blocks with cuttings that havetentatively been associated with lifting. Next, from a broad selection of ancient artefacts rangingfrom stone sarcophagi to ships, I discuss clues to potential forerunners of the crane, examiningexamples from the Bronze Age to the Early Archaic period, and from a wider context includingGreece, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East. This article’s last section analyses thegrooves in relation to other features of the two temples’ blocks, which have been overlooked in

Mediterranean from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age is examined in relation to early Corinthian stone masonryin Gebhard , –. The mechanical advantage the crane provides depends on the kind, size and number of the advantageous

mechanisms employed. The hoist, which is a multiple pulley system (also called block-and-tackle system), gearsdown the load, partly transferring it onto the wooden frame; the winch, which is basically a revolving axle,multiplies the effect of manpower in proportion to the ratio of the distances from the fulcrum (axle of the winch)to the points of application of manpower (the bars) and that of the load, respectively. Variations of the winch arethe capstan and the windlass; while the winch and the capstan have a vertical axle, in the windlass it is horizontal.

ALESSANDRO PIERATTINI



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


previous scholarship. These observations will shift the discourse from lifting to the next step in theconstruction process, which is the final setting of the blocks in place.

DESCRIPTION OF THE EVIDENCE

The blocks from the early temples at Corinth and Isthmia were not found in situ but scattered overthe areas around the later temples. With evident signs of fire damage, they were found mixed withburned debris containing fragments of terracotta roof-tiles, ceramics, votives and other materialsthat suggested a dating from the first half of the seventh century for both buildings. Thepresence of cult-related materials and the fact that the buildings were made of stone blocks andterracotta tiles suggest that these were monumental temples. At Isthmia, some of the blocks havebeen associated with sections of foundation trenches found below the floor of the ClassicalTemple of Poseidon. At Corinth, no clear traces of a predecessor to the sixth-century Temple ofApollo have been documented in situ on Temple Hill, but it is unlikely that the debris wouldhave been brought up the hill from a lower level. Hence the material most likely belongs to anearlier temple on the same site.

The blocks from the two temples are similar in material, dimensions and shape. They are madefrom a soft and fine-grained oolitic limestone, which is different from the harder limestone used forthe later temples in both locations. This oolitic limestone was available in the immediate vicinity ofboth construction sites and was presumably quarried there. Complete blocks were found only atIsthmia. They measure approximately . m high, from . to . m wide – different widthspresumably pointing to different walls of the cella – and, on average, a little more than . mlong, although length is variable (Gebhard , ). At Corinth, blocks range from . to. m in height and from . to .m in length, and, while no single block preserves its fullwidth, the maximum surviving width reported is . m (Robinson a, –). At bothsites, the blocks are believed to come from the cella walls, with the exception of two categoriesof blocks from Isthmia, which have been tentatively associated with a hypothetical peristyle.

Although none of the blocks exhibit proper band anathyrosis, on most of them the bottom wasmade roughly concave in the centre so that superimposed blocks made contact only over narrowbands at the front and back edges. At Isthmia, one lateral joint face of each block was usuallytreated in the same way as the bottom. Tool marks show that the blocks were first roughlyprocessed by adze or axe. Only the exposed faces, the upper surface and the contact edges werelater finished with a chisel.

The two parallel grooves peculiar to the two temples’ blocks are arranged along the bottom andusually continue up one end (Fig. ), with few exceptions. The cuttings are set at approximatelyequal distances from the front and back edges – usually between . and . m. Most of thegrooves have a triangular or pseudo-trapezoidal cross-section. They are usually about . mdeep, and their width is in most cases about twice their depth. Tool marks suggest that theywere carved with an adze and, in some cases, finished with a flat chisel.

The later Temple of Apollo on Temple Hill at Corinth has been dated to – (Robinson a, n. ).The second Temple of Poseidon at Isthmia was built after –, when the first temple was destroyed by fire(Broneer , n. ). On the geological characteristics and the quarries, see Hayward ; ; ; ; . Roebuck (, ) previously reported a height range of .–.m, an estimated width of . m and the

existence of a block preserving its full length, measuring . m. These are the blocks in categories and , which Broneer interpreted as stylobate and cornice blocks,

respectively (Broneer , –, –). One further category of blocks not from the cella walls are those ingroup , tentatively associated with a discontinuous stylobate inside the cella (Broneer , ). Such a primitive form of anathyrosis has been referred to as ‘hollowed anathyrosis’ (Sapirstein , , after

Ginouvès and Martin , ), or ‘edge’ anathyrosis (Coulton , ). See also Martin , –; Orlandos, –. However, unlike previous descriptions of this technique, several of the blocks from Isthmia makecontact not only at the edges but over bands of varying width.

INTERPRETING ROPE CHANNELS



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP

In , Saul Weinberg found blocks that he attributed to a predecessor of the sixth-century templeon Temple Hill, at Corinth. Having observed grooves ‘encircling’ each of these blocks, he was thefirst to hypothesise that they ‘served to hold the ropes used in lifting the blocks into place’(Weinberg , ). In , Mary Campbell Roebuck resumed the excavations at Corinthand found new evidence from the early temple. Based on the quantity of mud brick fragmentsfound in the debris, she hypothesised that the building walls must have been made of thismaterial and that the stone blocks belonged only to a wall-socle. For this reason, there wouldhave been no need to lift them high enough to require a lifting apparatus. Roebuck proposed,instead, that the grooves served to lift the blocks out of the quarry or onto carts.

From to , Oscar Broneer excavated the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia and foundhundreds of blocks with the same characteristic grooves, which he associated with an earlytemple and divided into categories on the basis of formal features. Unlike Roebuck, he restoredthe cella as a fully stone-built structure, assigning one category of blocks, shaped like a Doricgeison, to the wall’s upper courses. This reconstruction seemed to invalidate Roebuck’s reasonfor rejecting the idea that the parallel grooves on the blocks were used in lifting, at least inrelation to Isthmia. While Broneer did not directly discuss Roebuck’s alternative thesis, his

monograph on the Temple of Poseidon accepted Weinberg’s original idea that the grooves were‘intended to hold two ropes or cords by which the blocks were lifted and put into place’ and tolet the ropes slip out once the block was laid with its two grooved faces in contact with theblocks already in place (Broneer , ).

In his review of Broneer’s monograph, J. James Coulton (, ) questioned whetherthe lifting theory implied the use of a sophisticated lifting device as early as the first half of the

Fig. . (a) Typical disposition of the grooves on the bottom of a block and continuing along oneend. (b) Grooves on the side of block Ar from Isthmia. Drawing and photo by the author.

‘The rope grooves present something of a problem in this reconstruction. It is difficult to understand why theywere cut in light blocks destined for a socle which could have been set in place easily by two men. But it is moredifficult to restore the blocks on the top of a mud brick wall. Perhaps the rope grooves were cut so that theymight be lifted out of the quarry or onto carts more easily’ (Roebuck , ).




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


seventh century. In his seminal essay of , Coulton argued that use of cranes was not commonin Greece until the late sixth century (Coulton , ). Indeed, the spread of tongs and lewis holesdates from this period, and both kinds of cuttings are generally accepted as positive evidence for theuse of cranes. Following up this argument, Coulton presented a historical sequence showing thatblocks weighing more than tons were not unusual in buildings of the sixth century,supposedly lifted by means of ramps, whereas block size decreased from the end of the century.This reduction apparently occurred in conjunction with the introduction of cranes, whoseloading capacity must have been initially limited. A related phenomenon was the disappearanceof monolithic columns in favour of drum-built shafts at the end of the Archaic period, again ashift in technique presumably intended to keep the weight of individual blocks within theloading capacity of a crane. Coulton concluded that the sizes of individual blocks did notincrease again until the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods, a development he linked toprogress in crane technology.

Henry S. Robinson and Charles K. Williams II excavated Temple Hill from to .Robinson’s report of the first five seasons, extending through , mentioned vast quantities ofstone fragments and furnished a synthetic description of certain types of blocks (Robinsona, –). He ascribed the mud brick found in the debris not to the temple itself, but tothe north wall of the Archaic roadway, on which the temple’s remains had subsequently beendumped. Consequently, in contrast to Roebuck’s previous hypothesis, he restored the templewith a cella wall constructed of stone blocks from foundations to eaves, and accepted the ideathat the grooves on the individual blocks served to provide a hold for lifting ropes (Robinsona, ) (Fig. ).

In subsequent years, the materials from the two temples were re-examined by RobinF. Rhodes, who later took over the study of the early temple at Corinth. Rhodes’s conjecturaltemple reconstruction considered both options for the cella: a fully stone-built wall or a stonesocle with a mud brick superstructure (Rhodes , ), and for both alternatives he restored astone cornice at the top of the wall, basing his hypothesis on a set of blocks cut to receive roofbeams. In contrast to Robinson’s view, Rhodes contested the idea that the parallel grooves onthe cella blocks could have served for lifting (Rhodes , –; Rhodes c). On the onehand, he questioned practical aspects of the operation. The grooves, to his mind, were tooshallow to accommodate ropes thick enough to lift an individual block, and yet slender enoughto be pulled free once the block had been set in place. Furthermore, the ropes used in liftingshould have produced friction marks on the blocks, but the extant blocks from the two templesshow no such marks.

On the other hand, Rhodes noted certain Isthmian blocks with unusual features he foundinconsistent with the theory that the parallel grooves were used in the final process of layingdown the blocks and removing the ropes (Rhodes c, ). Firstly, one block (Ar ) onlyhas grooves on the underside and none on either end. Broneer had suggested that this elementmust have been ‘designed for the first stone set down in a given course’ (Broneer , ).Because no other block had been set next to it, there was no need for grooves on its end toextract the lifting ropes; they would simply fall away. Rhodes countered that, if the later Greekpractice of building walls by beginning with the corners was already in use in this period, Ar could not possibly have been the first laid in its course, for this block has edge anathyrosis onboth ends and could not have served as a corner block (Rhodes c, ). Secondly, twoblocks (Ar , ) present two mutually perpendicular pairs of grooves on the underside. Pullingout either of the perpendicular ropes would have been impossible because it would have beenpinched between the other and the stone surface underneath (Rhodes c, ). Lastly, in

See Rhodes ; a; b; c. Rhodes and reaffirm the same views. Clear evidence for this practice is provided by the disposition and profile of pry holes on the upper bed of each

course of blocks in the Treasury of the Siphnians, in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi and in the Temple of Leto atXanthos. References in Hellmann , n. . For a thorough discussion of the evidence, see, in particular, Dauxand Hansen , ; Hansen , ; Hansen , . A somewhat less clear picture emerges from Hodge ,.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


describing another, unusually short (.m) block (Ar ), Broneer proposed that it must be thelast one laid down in its course, trimmed to fit precisely into the void left between the blocks alreadyin place (Broneer , ). But the disposition of the grooves, as usual on the bottom and on oneend, is once again problematic, for the ropes would have been pinched between the non-groovedend of Ar and the adjacent block.

Having rejected the lifting theory, Rhodes (c, –) elaborated on Roebuck’s idea that thegrooves might have served to remove the blocks from the quarry. He suggested a process in which,after three sides of a block were freed (as usual, by digging trenches around each individual block),grooves were immediately cut on the front and top surfaces. Then, after the block was detachedfrom the quarry bed, it was tipped onto its side and tipped over again, using ropes to ease itdown (Fig. ). The grooves were cut to prevent the ropes from slipping off the block while itwas being moved; and with the channels cut in advance, the ropes could be put in position andthe block readied for removal from the quarry as soon as it had been turned.

Recently, however, Frederick P. Hemans (, –), who conducted excavations at Isthmiawith Elizabeth R. Gebhard in , has reaffirmed the lifting theory. Without discussingRhodes’s alternative explanation for the grooves, Hemans briefly addresses one of the practicalobjections to lifting, namely whether the grooves are compatible with ropes strong enough to liftthe blocks. On this subject, he notes that ‘while there are a very few examples of blocks thatwould not have accommodated a . m rope, these are rare among the hundreds of blocks’(Hemans , ). He also reports that a modern sisal nautical rope . m thick has abreaking load of c. kg, equal to the estimated weight of the heaviest blocks at Corinth andIsthmia. Considering that each block potentially accommodated two ropes, he concludes thatloading capacity would have been about twice as much as needed.

In addition, Hemans interprets two factors in connection with the idea that cranes were used atIsthmia. First, some of the blocks from the early temple have U-shaped channels on theirunderside, in addition to, or instead of, the usual parallel grooves. Based on the function ofU-shaped channels in later contexts, Hemans interprets this trait as decisive evidence for the useof cranes. Second, five longitudinal rows of circular holes are found in the ground below thelevel of the early temple’s original floor. While Broneer, who found the holes, associated themwith scaffolding, Hemans (, ) suggests that they ‘mark the positions of hoists or cranesthat were used to erect the walls’. He concludes that the early temple’s blocks were lifted by asingle-arm crane that hoisted them directly to their final place in the wall.

The continuing scholarly debate about the purpose of the grooves calls for a detailedreassessment of the alternative theses. As we have seen, Roebuck’s argument against the liftingtheory has been disproved at both sites by the existence of blocks from the top of the cella walls,which did need lifting. As yet, however, the idea that the grooves were used in the quarry hasneither been critiqued nor dismissed. Rhodes’s objections to the lifting theory demand a more

Fig. . Grooves and ropes as devices for lifting, attached to cranes. Drawing by the author, afterRobinson a, fig. .




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


complete and detailed discussion. Finally, Hemans’s arguments in favour of crane use must be re-examined, along with potential alternatives, in relation to the historical problem of liftingtechnologies’ early development.

WERE GROOVES USED IN THE QUARRY?

Re-examination of the quarry theory reveals several problems. A first issue regards the fact thatBroneer’s excavations of the gully north of the temple at Isthmia produced several presumablyunused blocks. Two of these had grooves, while others did not and were only partially finished(Broneer , ). The presence on the site of blocks without grooves from the early templewould prove that a) the grooves were not cut in the quarry, and b) were not actually neededbefore the blocks were employed in the masonry. Unfortunately, however, these blocks are nowlost and their association with the early temple can no longer be proven. Consequently, whileBroneer’s account casts doubt on the theory here examined, his evidence cannot be regarded asconclusive.

Another critical point regarding this thesis is the lack of positive evidence or parallels to supportit. In fact, to my knowledge, no quarries, either before or after this period, preserve abandonedblocks with comparable grooves. It is particularly difficult to study early quarry techniquesbecause later operations obliterate previous evidence. However, evidence suggests that from theBronze Age, the same basic method had been used throughout the ancient Mediterranean withall types of stone, both soft and hard: that is, by digging a trench around the perimeter of eachblock and then detaching its bottom with wedges (Shaw , ). The only traces that thismethod usually leaves on the blocks themselves, before they are turned with a crowbar and givena first finish, are horizontal striations on the sides, produced when the trench is dug with apickaxe or a similar tool, and channels resulting from chisel-cut holes, often used toaccommodate wedges. These channels are different from the parallel grooves on our blocks,for they do not usually run the whole length of a block’s face and they occur as a row of severalshort elements approximately .–. m apart.

From a practical standpoint, quarrying operations do not provide a compelling explanation forthe disposition of the grooves in any case. Rhodes illustrates a quarrying process that requires onlythe grooves on the horizontal face of the blocks; there is no need to carve vertical channels on thelateral face. Moreover, once a block had been detached from the bedrock, the ropes in the

Fig. . Grooves as devices for removing the blocks from the quarry. Drawing by the author,after Rhodes c, fig. .

Daux and Hansen , –, in particular figs –. Occasionally, holes and wedges can also be used tobreak the stone in vertical planes.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


horizontal grooves could not help in turning or lifting it, manoeuvres necessarily carried out bymeans of levers, but were only used to ease it down and drag it.

As for dragging the blocks in the quarry (presumably on wooden tracks, rollers, or on a sledge,in order to reduce friction), the ropes could be secured well enough by carving two small notches atthe edge of their undersides; the grooves would have been an unnecessary precaution. TheCorinthians seem to have adopted this simple method to secure the ropes for moving their stonesarcophagi. These monoliths had been provided with notches in the middle of their exteriorvertical edges ever since the Middle Geometric period, and the sarcophagi on display in theArchaeological Museum at Ancient Corinth show that the same method was still in use aroundthe mid-seventh century.

In brief, even without considering Broneer’s report of blocks without grooves found on theconstruction site, there is no evidence to support the idea that the grooves were carved in thequarry to facilitate operations in that setting.

PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE LIFTING THEORY

We must now re-examine Rhodes’s objections to the lifting theory, beginning with the practicalquestion of whether the grooves are deep enough to accommodate ropes of a sufficient strengthto support an individual block. To this end, we must consider groove depths in relation to ropethickness and strength, and in relation to the maximum weight of the blocks. Hemans brieflydismissed this problem by stating that most grooves at Isthmia are deeper than necessary toaccommodate robust ropes, but we must focus on minimum depth values to eliminate any rareexceptions that could undermine the theory. In addition to expanding on Hemans’s data fromIsthmia, we must also widen the scope of our inquiry to include the blocks from Corinth,research on which has yet to be published. Moreover, Hemans’s conclusions refer to a modernsisal rope, whereas an accurate assessment must take into account the kinds of ropes used by theancient builders. In conclusion, I will investigate whether lifting ropes could have producedfriction marks on the blocks, and examine the practical feasibility of extracting the ropes.

Minimum groove depths

Because of their rough manufacture, the grooves vary in depth along their length. To record theminimum values, whenever possible, I took measurements by sliding a ruler along the bottom ofeach groove and using a board laid against the surface, across the groove, as a reference.Grooves on the same face of a block usually run at about the same depth, while those on thesame block but on different surfaces (horizontal v. vertical) sometimes differ in depth. Mymeasurements aimed at recording the minimum depth value for each block, though thisoperation is complicated by the fact that the grooved surfaces usually have edge anathyrosis.Consequently, in order to estimate the total width of the gap that would have been left for arope to be pulled out, a block fragment has to be large enough to preserve both a groove and itsadjoining contact surfaces.

At Corinth, of the fragments mentioned in Robinson’s report (a, ), about arelarge enough to supply useful information. It is possible to measure minimum groove depths withsufficient accuracy on of these. I did not observe a depth less than . m (Rhodes reported a

Sanders et al. , –. Previous monolithic sarcophagi have no such notches, and their exterior corners arebevelled. I examined the grooves on the blocks from the early temples at Corinth and Isthmia in June . I thank the

th Ephorate for Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens,Excavations in Ancient Corinth, and the University of Chicago excavations at Isthmia for allowing me to studythe materials from the early temples. Some blocks from previous excavations had been lost before Williams and Robinson resumed excavations in

.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


minimum depth of . m), a figure that occurs only in one vertical incomplete groove on block. Apart from this exceptional example, the minimum figure is . m, which occurs in blocks (depth . m, width . m) and (depth ., width .m). Minimum depthvalues can be described as follows, by adopting ranges of depth variation of . m:

Class , depth smaller than . m, consisting of elementClass , depth .–. m, consisting of elements

Class , depth .–.m, consisting of elements

Class , depth .–. m, consisting of elements

Class , depth larger than . m (maximum depth . m), consisting of elements.

At Isthmia, Broneer used most of the best preserved stone materials from the temple to reconstructa portion of the cella wall. It is possible to access the grooves on only some of these, and only atsome points along their length. I was therefore able to take measurements in the way describedabove with only about per cent of the blocks. As a result, my data from Isthmia are lessexhaustive than those from Corinth, and I will confine myself to reporting the minimum valueand the interval of maximum frequency. Beginning with the latter, my survey confirms that mostgrooves have depths between . and . m, as previously reported by Hemans (, ).The minimum value, however, is . m. Interestingly, the corresponding groove is not on abottom or side face but on the exposed overhanging soffit of one of the geison blocks (Ar ,Fig. ), where extracting the ropes would not have posed problems. Furthermore, the smoothsurface around the groove might suggest that, in this case, the groove was initially deeper butwas reduced when the surface was finished, after the block was set in place.

Maximum weight of the blocksThe average weights of the ordinary cella blocks from Corinth and Isthmia are – kg and –

kg, respectively, but some blocks from Isthmia are much heavier than this. To estimate theirmaximum weight, I have considered the geison blocks from Isthmia (Fig. ), whose average size isabout .× .× . m= .m. Because the volume of these blocks is reduced by theirpeculiar cut on the underside, this figure should be rounded down to about .m. Assuming

The block is unusual in that it has grooves along both ends. The groove on the opposite end of the onedescribed above is . m deep and . m wide. This fragment shows clear signs of erosion, and its groovesmight originally have been deeper. This is a vertical groove on one end of the block. The corresponding horizontal groove on the underside is

. m deep and . m wide. Nos. , , , , , , , , , , , . Nos. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

, , , . A block with no number must be added here, which at the time of my survey was placed on top ofblock no. . Nos. , , , , , , , , . Nos. , , , , (the maximum groove depth of . m was observed in fragment ). Little less than one third of the blocks that I have re-examined are accessible for measurement of groove-

depth. Most of these blocks, which represent the bulk of the stone finds from the early temple, are published inBroneer , –. Other, smaller fragments, in most cases badly broken or difficult to assign to any precise blockcategory, are stored on the ground in the area NE of the temple; on none of these have I observed grooves with adepth less than . m. The average size considered here for the standard cella-wall blocks from Corinth (.× .× .m) is

conjectural, for no complete blocks were found. My estimate assumes the means between the minimum andmaximum values reported by Roebuck and Robinson. To estimate the weight of the blocks from Isthmia, I haveassumed average measurements of . (Gebhard , ) × .m (means between . and . m, theminimum and maximum values reported by Broneer , –) × . m (Gebhard , ). Classified as group blocks, Broneer , –.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


a density value for Corinthian oolitic limestone of .–. tons/m, the corresponding weightmust lie within the range of – kg.

Ancient ropes: plant fibres and rope strengthAncient Greek and Latin literary sources mention seven plants in connection with ropemaking:papyrus, from Egypt; flax, cultivated in Egypt and in other regions of the EasternMediterranean, including Greece; hemp, grown in Italy and in the Rhone valley; esparto, fromthe Iberian Peninsula; date palm, widespread in Egypt and in general in the south-south-east ofthe Mediterranean; broom, endemic in most of the Mediterranean coastal areas; and rush,present in Greece (Casson , ; Charlton , –, –).

Fig. . Block Ar from Isthmia (the block is upside down, so the groove faces upwards).Photo by the author.

Fig. . Geison blocks (group ) from Isthmia, piled at the west end of Broneer’s reconstructedwall. Photo by the author.

Sanders et al. , n. , n. . The density range reported in Hayward ( n. ) is .–. tons/m. The density value for general limestone previously used by Coulton (, n. ) was . tons/m.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


Field research has provided physical evidence for five of these fibres: ropes of esparto, hemp,palm and rush have been found in shipwrecks, while papyrus is associated with contexts in theEgyptian mainland. In addition to the plant fibres known from literary sources, there isphysical evidence of ropes made from halfa grass (a poaceous plant widespread in Africa andthe Middle East), doum palm and common reed.

Pliny the Elder (..) singles out ropes of esparto (Stipa tenacissima) for being among thestrongest ones suitable for nautical and construction use. Esparto was certainly used in Greece,but only after , when the Carthaginians invaded Spain, its area of production, after whichesparto was exported throughout the Mediterranean. One of the ancient Latin names foresparto, spartum, could also refer to a native Greek plant that had been used to make rope fromHomeric times; thus in the Iliad (.), spartos can mean either the plant itself, or ‘rope’. Thisplant is broom (Spartium junceum), endemic to the region of Thebes in Boeotia.

From very early times, flax (Linum usitatissimum) had also been used to make cordage in Greece.In antiquity, flax ropes were well-known for their extraordinary strength, mentioned by Pliny(..–), along with esparto, as some of the most valuable commodities of his time.Herodotus (.., ., .) recounts that Xerxes, during his military campaign against Greecein , commissioned ropes of white flax from the Phoenicians, and ropes of papyrus from theEgyptians, to build bridges across the Hellespont. A line from Euripides confirms the use of flaxin Greek rope manufacture during the Classical period (Casson , n. ; Charlton ,–). Its use for the same purpose presumably dates as far back as the Mycenaean period, assuggested by Linear B sources which state that the city of Pylos was renowned both for thecultivation of flax and the manufacture of ropes.

In summary, the earliest Greek literary references to ropes suggest that flax and broom wereused in Greece for rope making from pre-Archaic times. Use of flax ropes, in particular, is alsoattested in Greece in the Classical period and later. While there is no direct evidence for flaxropes from early-seventh-century Corinthia, it is nonetheless plausible that in this period, too,the Corinthians, with their advanced nautical industry, would have had access to ropes of thismaterial or of other fibres of comparable quality, as strong ropes are essential in nauticaltechnology.

Vegetable fibre ropes have high tensile strength, and the analysis of archaeological samplesshows that the quality of ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman cordage was as high as that ofsimilar modern products. The breaking load of traditional flax rope .m in diameter

Esparto ropes are documented in the shipwrecks of Comacchio (Bonino , –; Berti , – and figs, ) and Lake Nemi (Ucelli , , , ), both contexts from the st century; Marsala, Sicily, mid-rdcentury (Frost , ); and perhaps Cape Gelydonia, Turkey, c. (cf. Du Plat Taylor ). At Lake Nemi,in addition, there is evidence for hemp ropes. Date palm ropes were used with the stone anchors found in theDead Sea, from the rd century (Shimony, Yucha, and Werker , ). Bulrush ropes were found in theshipwreck of Ma’agan Mikhael, Israel, th century (Shimony, Yucha, and Werker ). However, Homer mentions papyrus (byblos) ropes in a nautical context (Odyssey, .–). Royal boat of Cheops, ca. . See Nour et al. , . The last two plants were probably used to make the ropes found in the shipwreck from Cape Gelydonia

(Turkey, ca. ; Du Plat Taylor ). The Latin names in parentheses are not the ancient names used by Roman authors but refer to the modern

Linnaean classification. This is known from Pliny the Elder (.), along with general notions on esparto. The relatively recent date of

its import in Greece is confirmed by Gellius (..). The distinction between Greek broom and Iberian esparto is correctly made by Gellius (..). It seems possible that the contribution of Pylos to the military campaign against Troy, which is the only one not

explicitly mentioned in Statius’s Achilleid (.–), consisted of flax cordage (Williams ). On the Corinthians’ mastery in shipbuilding, see section ‘Lifting Methods In Context’. Charlton , . Ancient ropes were usually made by twisting fibres into yarns, then yarns into cords, and

then cords into larger and longer ropes. The technique is basically the same still in use today, the main differencebeing the use of modern machines.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


exceeds kg, and that of a rope . m in diameter is almost kg, more than enough to liftthe heaviest of the Early Archaic blocks from Isthmia and Corinth.

The question of whether ropes of small diameter were common in antiquity finds a partialanswer in nautical archaeology. Although the evidence provided by wrecks and other findings ofnautical cordage is patchy, ropes about . m thick, or less, are documented from EasternMediterranean contexts dating from the Bronze Age and from the Late Classical and EarlyHellenistic periods (Charlton , –). Ultimately, the data examined thus far support thethesis that the blocks were lifted by ropes. Indeed, the grooves are carved to a depth that willadmit ropes thick and strong enough to sustain even the heaviest load.

Friction marksRhodes’s next argument against the lifting theory rests on the hypothesis that lifting by ropes wouldhave produced friction marks on the blocks, whereas no such marks are visible on the extant blocks.He bases his argument on an experiment conducted at Nemea during the first phase of the Templeof Zeus Reconstruction Project (–), where the original blocks from the Archaic temple werelifted by means of nautical ropes measuring less than . m in diameter, producing relatively deepmarks on the surface of the stone. Rhodes provides no detailed description of this experiment;hence my own considerations must rely to some extent on hypothesis. Theoretically, the act oflifting should not necessarily induce ropes to slip along the stone surface. Yet we can imaginethat tension in the ropes, possibly associated with slight oscillations of the hanging block, mighthave turned the sharp upper edge of the non-grooved side face into a sensitive point, especiallyconsidering the softness of the freshly cut oolitic limestone. As a result, we might surmise thatslight abrasions could have been produced on this edge and therefore appear on the originalblocks. However, one additional consideration points to a different conclusion.

According to a Greek building practice common from the Archaic period onwards, blocks werequarried at a slightly larger scale than their anticipated final dimensions and were transported to theconstruction site with this extra layer of stone (àpergon; Martin , ) still in place. Their extraheight accommodated any irregular fracturing that might occur when the block was separated frombedrock. Moreover, the excess layer of stone around a block would have protected it fromaccidental damage during transportation. Lastly, it would have allowed masons to achieveuniformly level surfaces by giving walls and other architectural elements their final finish onlyafter all the blocks had been set in their final position. The use of this method in pre-Archaicconstruction is suggested by the remains of a layer of stone projecting c. . m above thefinished surface of a faceted drum from the Geometric period recovered from well – atCorinth (Rhodes b, ; Brookes , ). The excavations at Isthmia likewise provideevidence that this practice was observed in the construction of the early temple. Indeed, on theexposed surface of three blocks, the protective excess layer of stone was only partially removed,beginning, as usual, from the edges (Fig. ).

Strength values and relative diameters for traditional ropes were provided by Antica Corderia Corai ofPordenone, Italy. If each block was attached to two ropes . m thick, their breaking load would have beennearly three times higher than required to support the heaviest blocks. Rhodes (, n. ; c, n. ) reports marks deeper than . m. Excess in vertical dimension to accommodate irregular separation from the bedrock is generally c. cm in

Corinthian oolite quarries (Hayward , n. ). According to Hemans (, ), however, the exposed surfaces of the blocks from Isthmia were finished

before setting. I disagree for practical reasons. The cella wall was divided into panels chiselled to catch stucco.Because block length is variable and the panels extend over multiple blocks, it would have been hard to definepanel spacing on the individual blocks before laying them in their final positions. Consequently, I believe thatchiselling was done after laying the blocks. Ar (IA ), Ar (IA ) and Ar (IA ). The layer of stone projects only up to . m from the

finished edges of the upper surface of the blocks. This suggests that either the protective layer was relatively thin, orthat it was dressed down in a number of steps, the layer now visible being the result of a first, preliminary dressing.A third option is possible. All three of these blocks belong to the category that Broneer associated with the stylobate




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


Following this practice, a block arriving at the construction site ready for use would have hadonly two of its faces finished before it was lifted into place. These finished faces would havebeen the bottom and the end intended to make contact with the neighbouring block already inplace – in this case, the grooved end. The top and the opposite end of the block would still becovered in their protective stone skin during lifting. Consequently, if the ropes had producedfriction marks on the top edge of this end, these marks would likely have been effaced when theprotective skin was removed, after setting the block in place.

Extracting the ropesOnce it has been established that the grooves are compatible with ropes strong enough to supportan individual block, and that the absence of friction marks does not necessarily undermine thelifting theory, it remains to show that the ropes used in lifting could be pulled from their grooveseasily, without damage either to the rope itself or to the block. Traditional ropes made fromplant fibres are coarse and less flexible than modern synthetic products, suggesting that thegrooves’ rough manufacture and their -degree turn at the end of each block may havepresented problems, especially given the high friction coefficient of oolitic limestone.

I therefore carried out experimental tests on a replica block made from oolitic limestone of thesame quality as that of the original blocks (Fig. a), squared by adze and finished by chisel. I basedits final dimensions (. × .× .m) on the average measure of the blocks from Isthmia.Three grooves of different depths were carved on the underside and on one end of the block.Tool marks in the grooves were not smoothed, but left as rough as they appear on most originalblocks. For the extraction test I used single lines of traditional broom and flax ropes withoutknots (Fig. b). In deciding on rope thickness and groove depth, I examined the worst casescenario presented by the data discussed in the previous sections of this article, and managed toslip a rope . m thick out of a groove . m deep and . m wide. While the -degree

Fig. . Block Ar from Isthmia, with upper surface left unfinished. Photos by the author.

(group ; Broneer , –). If they had been left unfinished, frequent treading might have reduced the initialunevenness of the upper surface. I conducted two similar tests on two replica blocks in different periods. The first test was conducted in June

at Corinth, with the support of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, which provided thetools and the stone from the local quarries. At the time, I was only able to procure sisal rope. I repeated the testin July at Lemnos, with the support of the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene. This time, I used broomand flax ropes. I am particularly grateful to Giovanni Riccardi, the stone-mason and conservator who processedthe block and carved the grooves. On how the ropes were potentially tied to form a sling around each block, see the section ‘Reconstructing the

setting method’, below.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


angle slowed down the process to some degree, the operation, which was repeated times,proved to be relatively effortless and neither damaged the rope nor produced visible markson the stone. The experiment yielded similar results when repeated with the other twogrooves, with depths of . and . m (groove width being approximately twice as large),and ropes with diameters of . and . m, respectively. In the replica, as well as in allof the well-preserved blocks observable, the hollowing of the two grooved faces (which ismaximum at the face’s centre) is imperceptible or very small at each groove’s sides.Consequently, the ropes could not deviate sideways from their trajectory and never got jammedwhile being pulled out.

GROOVES IN UNUSUAL DISPOSITIONS

We now turn to Rhodes’s objections relating to unusual features of some Isthmian blocks. Thesefeatures present apparent inconsistencies with the second step of the lifting theory, that is, layingdown the blocks and extracting the ropes. Rhodes begins with the block that displays grooves onits bottom but not on its ends (Ar ). Because this block has edge anathyrosis on both ends, wemust agree with Rhodes that it could not have been from a corner. If corner blocks were the firstin their course to be laid, then Broneer’s argument that Ar had no grooves because it was laidfirst cannot hold.

The idea that corner blocks were laid before their neighbours seems consistent with the fact thatthe only well-preserved corner block from Isthmia (Ar ) has no vertical grooves on its sides.Moreover, there were practical advantages to beginning construction at the two ends of a wall.In the first place, it would have been difficult to manoeuvre a corner block into place if its

Fig. . (a) Replica block with a groove . m deep accommodating a .m thick rope. (b)Broom (top) and flax (bottom) traditional ropes . m thick. Photos by the author.

Overall, extracting a rope m long from the grooves (including the -degree angle) took about seconds. The ropes produced no marks despite the fact that when this experiment was carried out, the stone surfaces

were still relatively soft, since the grooves had just been cut and the stone was not yet covered by the hard greypatina that forms on oolitic limestone after some exposure to the air.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


neighbour had already been set; without a free horizontal surface available on the bedding there wasno way to lever the corner block into its place. Secondly, starting construction from the cornerswould have allowed a single lifting device placed opposite the middle of the wall to supply twoteams of masons working simultaneously (Coulton , n. ). We should thus agree thatblock Ar was likely not the first to be laid in its course. Yet does this fact necessarily weakenthe argument that grooves served to lay down the blocks and then remove the ropes?

Direct examination of Ar is problematic because it lies at the base of Broneer’s rebuilt wall,with adjacent blocks hiding its ends (Fig. a). However, the published drawing (Broneer , fig. ) shows that the edge anathyrosis on its ends is much deeper than the other blocks’, such that itwould have been easy to extract ropes from the gap left between this block and its neighbour(Fig. b). Therefore, the absence of vertical grooves on this block does not undermine thetheory here examined, although it remains to be explained why in this case the builders achievedthe same result by using the anathyrosis gap instead of the usual end grooves. It is worthremembering, however, that the blocks from these two early temples show the earliest knownoccurrence of anathyrosis, and that the resulting masonry represents a first primitive step towardopus isodomum. Masons must have developed the necessary know-how and craftsmanshipexperimentally at the same time as building progressed. Given the experimental nature of EarlyArchaic Corinthian stone construction, some lack of consistency must be expected, all the moreso because constructing stone-block buildings required a larger number of workers, and morecomplex coordination, than building mud brick and timber structures.

In the case of the blocks displaying two pairs of mutually orthogonal grooves on the underside,Rhodes (c, ) contended that it would have been impossible to use four ropessimultaneously and then remove them from the grooves, unless two of the grooves weresignificantly deeper than the others. My survey shows that in both blocks of this category theorthogonal grooves do, in fact, have different depths, c. . and .–. m, respectively(Fig. ). The existence of similar blocks among the finds from the Corinth temple might be

Fig. . Block Ar from the early temple at Isthmia. (a) Photo by the author. (b) Drawing bythe author, after Broneer , fig. .

On setting methods, see the last section of this article. At the two points where we would expect to find the usual grooves, the gap widths measure c. . and .m. The two sets of grooves on the underside of Ar are . and .–. m deep, and they are . and

.–. m wide, respectively. In Ar they are .–. and .–. m deep, and they are . and.m wide, respectively. Because of their different depths, which seem to have been deliberately carved toaccommodate two sets of crossing ropes at the same time, I do not believe these grooves result from a mistake ora changed intention.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


suggested by two mutually perpendicular grooves on fragment . In this case, too, the orthogonalgrooves have different depths (. and . m, respectively).

The third problematic case Rhodes presents is that of the short block Ar (Fig. ). Broneersuggested that this was the last to be laid down in its course. This hypothesis, however, seemsinconsistent with the disposition of grooves on the bottom and on one end of the block, becausethe rope projecting from the non-grooved end would have prevented it from slotting into its gap.It is therefore worth exploring two alternative scenarios: first, Ar might not have been laiddown with ropes, or second, it might not have been the last one placed in its course. As for thefirst option, it must be noted that, among all the stone materials from the two early temples atIsthmia and Corinth, Ar is the only block that features what seems to be a shifting notch atthe exposed face’s bottom edge (Fig. b); this feature might suggest that the builders were

Fig. . Block Ar from Isthmia, with crisscrossing grooves. Photos by the author.

Fig. . Block Ar from Isthmia, side (a) and front (b) views. Photos by the author.

In this case, however, one of the two grooves does not continue up to the edge of the surface, which might meanthat the block was either never finished, and perhaps never employed, or that its intended function changed while itsgrooves were being cut. On the use of lever holes at Isthmia, see the section ‘Reconstructing the setting method’, later in this article.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


experimenting with alternative techniques for manoeuvring the last block into its gap from thefront.

As for the block’s order of placement, it is true that in Greek stone-block masonry, becausethe courses were usually laid from the corners of the wall toward the centre, a block of non-standard length might potentially be required in the middle of a course in order to completeit. However, short blocks would not necessarily have served only this purpose. Indeed,trimming down a course’s final block from one of average size would have produced anothershort block as scrap. We can imagine that such short blocks might have been put aside to beused in the same way on other courses. Yet not all of these scrap blocks would necessarilyhave been long enough to fill any final gap, in which case I believe they would have been usedat other points of the masonry. After all, short blocks such as Ar would also have beenneeded at different points of the wall in order to break the continuity of vertical jointsbetween successive courses.

Nor did the block cut to fit the final gap in a course necessarily have to be unusually short. Thelength of the Isthmian blocks is variable, so that in some cases the final gap could be filled by a blockof average length. Such a conclusion is consistent with the presence, at Isthmia, of both short andaverage length blocks with grooves on the bottom and on both ends. According to Broneer (,), these too were designed to fit into the last gap on their courses. In this case, the disposition ofthe grooves is consistent with Broneer’s hypothesis, for it would have allowed the builders to insertthe last block into its gap and remove the ropes.

Rhodes’s alternative explanation for the grooves on both ends of these blocks seems lessconvincing. He suggests that these were the last blocks on a given bedding plane of thequarry, removed by two sets of workmen quarrying in opposite directions. It is unclear,however, why both crews would have cut the blocks’ grooves on opposite ends. Evenassuming that Rhodes is correct, in fact, these blocks would have been tipped out on one side,not both.

On the basis of these reflections, we can conclude that neither the length of Ar nor theaforementioned blocks’ unusual disposition of grooves necessarily weakens the theory that thegrooves were used in the final process of laying down the blocks on their course and removingthe ropes. More generally, none of the objections examined thus far seem to undermine thelifting theory. On the contrary, this theory provides a more compelling account of the groovesand their disposition than its alternative. Does it also imply that cranes were used in Greece asearly as the first half of the seventh century?

EARLY LIFTING TECHNOLOGIES

While the grooves were most plausibly cut on site and used in lifting the blocks by means of ropes,this is not enough evidence for claiming that the builders were employing cranes. Before exploringthe hypothesis that these sophisticated lifting machines were used at such an early stage of Greekconstruction, we must examine more traditional low-tech alternatives in light of the evidencefrom the two temples.

If so, the grooves on the underside would have been used to secure ropes during lifting, but I do not have aconvincing justification for the grooves on the side, other than that the short block in question might have beencut from an average size block on which the customary grooves had already been carved. This occurs in many Doric temples at the midpoint of the side cornice (Hodge , ). Of average length are a block from the cella (Ar ; Broneer , ) and two of the large blocks attributed to a

stylobate (Ar and Ar ), although Broneer’s alternative hypothesis was that these two blocks were used in the baseof cult statues (Broneer , ). A shorter wall block with grooves at both ends is Ar (Broneer , ). Workmen may have carried this out without noticing that grooves had already been cut by a different crew on

the opposite end. While this is theoretically not impossible, it is arbitrary, whereas Broneer’s explanation is supportedby a precise practical argument.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


Low-technology alternatives to the crane and the evidence in situ at IsthmiaThe earliest method used by all ancient civilisations for lifting heavy objects was pulling them byropes up ramps made of earth or mud brick. From a mechanical viewpoint, the ramp is anadvantageous machine: lifting an object on an inclined plane requires less force than lifting itvertically, at a cost of an increase in the distance the object must be moved. Therefore, thelonger the ramp (and the lower its pitch), the greater the advantage in using it. On the onehand, the ramp allows the lifting of loads of virtually unlimited size without conceptual orpractical complications, so long as the ramp itself is large and solid enough to support the load.On the other hand, ramps of soil or mud brick require a considerable expenditure of effort forconstruction and removal, regardless of the size of the blocks being lifted. Therefore, we wouldgenerally tend to associate them with sizable loads. As a matter of fact, earthen ramps andscaffolds were the main means of lifting stones and carrying them to their final place in themasonry in Pharaonic Egypt and Assyria. In these regions, the use of blocks weighing severaltons was common in monumental construction, and a plentiful supply of labour was availablefor building and removing massive earth structures.

The same method is believed to have been the norm in the Greek world throughout the Archaicperiod, so a reasonable conjecture would be that the Early Archaic blocks from Corinth and Isthmiawere lifted in this way. As documented outside Greece, a common system to reduce friction whilemoving blocks along a track was to arrange them on wooden sleds. Yet this method would fail toexplain the presence of grooves on our blocks, because the ropes would be fastened to the sled, notto the blocks.

Alternatively, we can imagine that, accommodated by the grooves, the ropes could have servedto suspend the blocks from a sling carried by hand up a ramp and along an earthen scaffold.However, two considerations cast doubt on this hypothesis. The first is purely practical: theblocks from the two early temples are of modest size compared with the average loads lifted byramps in Egypt and Assyria, or with the Greek blocks presumably lifted the same way in thefollowing decades of the Archaic period. Consequently, the idea of going to the trouble ofbuilding and dismantling earthen structures might not have appeared very practical, and mighthave encouraged the use of alternative methods, if available.

The next consideration concerns the five rows of circular holes Broneer found below the floorlevel of the early temple at Isthmia (Fig. ). These holes reach diameters up to .m and depthsof up to m below the original floor level, and their spacing changes from row to row, with mbeing the most common. The location of the rows, which are set on either side of thepresumed position of the cella walls and along the centre axis of the building, suggests that theholes accommodated wooden structures somehow related to the construction of the earlytemple. If so, then these structures were set where we would have expected earth scaffolds,suggesting that the latter were not used.

On the mechanical understanding of the inclined plane in antiquity, see brief discussion and references inMartines, Bruno and Conti , –. On Egyptian lifting methods and the ramp, see Arnold , –. A representation of the ramp appears in reliefs from the palace of Sennacherib (–). Well-known passages from Pliny (., –) recount that the sizable architraves of the th-century Temple of

Artemis at Ephesus were placed on their columns by using a ramp made of sand bags. Sleds are shown in Egyptian and Assyrian wall paintings and reliefs, and actual wooden sleds are preserved in

Egypt (Arnold , –, –; Arnold , pls –). See table of weights in Coulton , . This occurs along the two exterior rows (Broneer , –). Broneer , –. The idea that they belong, instead, to a predecessor of the early temple was advanced by

Koenigs (, ), who, however, thought it unlikely, based on the irregular disposition of the holes. Earth structures would otherwise have needed to fit into the space between the holes and the presumed position

of the cella walls. In many cases, this is less than m wide, and, because earth structures usually taper upwards, thecorridor above would have been even narrower. The geison blocks from Isthmia are up to over . m wide, and itwould have been hard to carry them along such tracks.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


An alternative low-technology hypothesis based on the relatively moderate weight of the twotemples’ blocks is that they could have been ‘passed from one pair of men to the next up astepped wooden scaffold’ (Rhodes c, n. ). While this idea is consistent withBroneer’s initial association of the holes with scaffolding (Broneer , ), I believe it unlikelythat the geison blocks from this site, weighing up to about kg, could have been lifted thisway. Even with teams of four porters, passing a block from step to step multiple times wouldhave been time-consuming and hardly practical.

Finally, in his most recent contribution to the debate, Hemans () did not deal with thehypothesis of low-technology lifting methods, but rather reinterpreted the two exterior rows ofholes at Isthmia as marking the position of cranes. This thesis is based on the holes’ ‘relation tothe position of the cella walls, their wide spacing, and the substantial posts they held’ (Hemans, ). Unfortunately, Hemans died before he could publish an extensive explanation of thisview, and his thesis was left unsubstantiated: the holes alone do not necessarily imply the use ofcranes. The Oikos of the Naxians on Delos provides a suggestive parallel. In the bedrockunderneath the floor of the early-sixth-century building, two longitudinal rows of eight holeswere found. Most of these holes have a diameter greater than . m, and, while they areirregular in shape and depth, they are aligned crosswise in pairs, with spacing consistent alongthe length (c. m). Kalpaxis (; ) interpreted the holes as marking the position of two-legged cranes used to lift the axial columns of the building. However, these columns were mostlikely wooden, and erecting them without machines would not only have been possible but alsoeasier and faster than digging large holes and building cranes.

In summary, the holes in the bedrock at Isthmia hardly seem compatible with the use of earthenstructures along the cella walls. Though these holes should not be regarded as conclusive evidencefor cranes, no evidence associates sockets so large and widely spaced with wooden scaffoldingeither. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed above, neither building an earthen ramp nor

Fig. . Conjectural reconstruction of the plan of the early temple at Isthmia, showing thecircular holes (in black) presumably associated with the construction of the building.

Drawing by the author, after Hemans , fig. ..

Indeed, Rhodes claims that most of them would have been light enough for two men to lift. See also Robinsona, n. ; Sanders et al. , . It is assumed that one porter can carry to kg over a short distance on flat ground or on a gentle slope

(references in Coulton , n. ). Mazarakis Ainian , . A more credible hypothesis seems to be that the holes accommodated the posts of

a predecessor of the oikos (the so called pre-oikos), presumably with a tripartite plan. In such contexts, holes usually serve to provide lateral stability to the posts. In some later Greek contexts, the

occurrence of holes with a similar width has been associated with lowering blocks along ramps. A well-known




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


manually carrying the blocks up a scaffold would have been practical enough, provided that therewere alternative methods for lifting the blocks. But what other methods were available to the Greeksin the Early Archaic period? To answer this question, we must now examine certain Early ArchaicGreek blocks with peculiar cuttings that some scholars have tentatively associated with lifting. Onceagain, the earliest of these are found at Isthmia.

U-shaped channels and other cuttings suggesting early cranesThe U-shaped channels found on some blocks from the early temple at Isthmia are the earliest butnot the only examples of such cuttings that would seem to contradict the idea that the crane spreadonly from the late sixth century onwards in the Greek world. Other U-shaped channels have beendocumented on blocks from buildings dating between the seventh and the mid-sixth centuries.Moreover, in the same period cuttings of two more kinds might have been used to suspendblocks from lifting machines: V-shaped holes appearing on the top surface of Archaic blocks andpresumably associated with suspension from a rope, and varieties of cuttings that suggestpotential prototypes of the lewis.

U-shaped rope channels (Fig. a) appearing on both side contact-faces of blocks are widelybelieved to indicate the use of a crane (Coulton , ). Those documented at Isthmia(Fig. ) appear on the underside of several blocks from the early temple. The fact that thechannels are not on the sides but on the underside does not rule out the fact that they couldhave served for lifting, provided that they occurred at both ends. In fact, all but one of theseblocks have only one end preserved, and the single complete block (Ar ) has a U-shapedchannel only at one end. However, this feature might reflect the peculiar position of this block,which comes from a corner of the cella wall, where a lifting boss might have been preferable tocuttings on an exposed face. At any rate, the U-shaped grooves on the Isthmian blocks do notconstitute conclusive evidence for lifting machines because, without a block with U-shapedchannels on both ends, we cannot rule out the possibility that a single such channel could haveserved a purpose other than lifting.

A limestone block associated with the early Temple of Hera at Argos presents a similar situation.This temple, too, is dated within the seventh century, although its chronology is contentious. Theblock at issue is a half-drum measuring about . m in diameter and .m thick. The verticalface cut along the diameter has a single U-shaped channel. Suspending this block from a ropewould have been possible if a corresponding boss had originally existed on the opposite curvedsurface. However, because the block was presumably a base (Hellner ), it would not haveneeded lifting, so it seems likely that this U-shaped channel had a different purpose.

example is that of the sockets on either side of the track that brought the blocks of the Parthenon down the slopes ofMount Pentelicon (Korres , –, ). IA , , , , , , , . This groove usually has a slightly projecting lip for holding the

ropes. In addition to the U-shaped groove, Ar (IA ) and Ar (IA ) have the usual parallel grooves onone end. In Ar (IA , group ), the end adjacent to the loop may have been recut at an angle at a later time. Ar (IA ) has two loops on the same end of the underside but no parallel grooves. See Broneer , , –, figs, , –, pl. a; Hemans , nn. , . Another corner block (Ar ) has been identified. As this is a fragment, it is impossible to say whether it

originally had a U-shaped groove like its companion. Yet its two partially preserved adjoining faces show clearlythat this block could not have had two U-shaped grooves set at opposite ends. For the two blocks (Ar , ) thathave no parallel grooves but have a U-shaped one at the preserved end, it is impossible to say whether the non-preserved end had a similar cutting. For the blocks with both a U-shaped groove and a pair of parallel grooves(Ar , , ), I have no convincing explanation. In any case, the U-shaped groove is always near the contactend of the block, which is the one that has vertical grooves. While in general the use of projecting bosses in lifting has convincingly been questioned (Coulton , –), it

seems that, at least in some cases, bosses might have been used in this way. See Korres , , ; Korres, Panetsosand Seki , . For Sicilian blocks with U-shaped grooves at one end only, see Koldewey and Puchstein , . See synthesis in Billot .




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


Two Greek contexts, neither of which are from the mainland, document early U-shapedchannels on both ends of blocks: the early Temple of Hera at Paestum (so-called Basilica),dating from the mid-sixth century, and the Temple of Athena at Assos, for which Wescoat(, ) has recently proposed a date around . However, Coulton (, ) observed thatin both temples the blocks provided with U-shaped channels belong to the upper courses of themasonry and could have been set in place long after construction began, if building continuedfor an extended period of time.

V-shaped rope holes (Fig. b) appeared on the top of Archaic blocks from the second half ofthe seventh century and were in use, although sporadically, until the late sixth or beginning of thefifth century. Such cuttings may be associated with suspension from a rope when one appears over ablock’s centre of gravity, or when two appear symmetrically on either side of it. The earliestexamples are found at Delphi. Here, a pair of V-shaped holes occurs on the top of a columndrum that has tentatively been attributed to the treasury of the Corinthians, which would suggesta date within the second half of the seventh century (Østby , ; Bommelaer , ).Similar cuttings have been observed on column drums and capitals from the early Temple ofAthena Pronaia (weighing about kg) and on drums from the early Temple of Apollo(weighing up to about kg), both dated to the first half of the sixth century. In all threeDelphian cases, the cuttings could have served for suspending the blocks either from a machineor a pole carried up a ramp by porters (Coulton , ). However, the shift from monolithiccolumns to drum-built shafts has convincingly been associated with the aim of reducing theweight of the lifted blocks, presumably to keep it under the crane’s maximum lifting load(Coulton , –). That the Delphian columns were made of drums may speak in favourof the use of lifting machines.

Fig. . Blocks from Isthmia with a loop channel on the underside. (a) Block Ar . Photo bythe author. (b) Block Ar . Drawing by the author, after Broneer , fig. .

Fig. . U-shaped channels (a) and V-shaped holes (b) on Archaic blocks. Drawing by theauthor, after Coulton , fig. .

Monolithic shafts disappeared at the end of the th century, except for columns of very small dimensions.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


Slightly later evidence is found at Corinth, on a fallen capital of the mid-sixth-century Temple ofApollo on Temple Hill, which was the successor of the early temple. This capital preserves only oneV-shaped hole not found above its centre of gravity. Yet if this was originally one of a pair, the twoholes could have served to lift the capital together. Considering its remarkable weight (about tons), it has been observed that this block could hardly have been lifted without a crane (Pfaff, n. ). However, the temple’s column shafts are monolithic. This raises the questionof why, if the capitals were lifted by crane, the shafts were not made from drums, which wouldhave allowed them to be lifted by the same means.

Cuttings in the third category consist of a rectangular slot cut from the top through the bottomof a block. A peg attached to a rope was presumably let down through this vertical slot. The bottomsection of the slot was shaped for allowing the peg to be secured to the block. Then, after the blockhad been laid in place, the peg could be pulled out from above, as would later be done with thelewis. Cuttings of this kind are found at Aegina and Olympia on blocks from c. or slightlylater. Those at Aegina are found on drums from two votive columns, weighing between and. tons each. The vertical slot of one drum, found at the sanctuary of Apollo at Kolonna,features a notch towards the bottom that would have made contact with the outer leg of a devicesimilar to a three-legged lewis. The slot of the other drum, from the sanctuary of Aphaia,features another, smaller slot at ° relative to the first and forming a cross-shaped hole at thebottom. The peg inserted into the main slot would have been secured to the drum by rotatinginto the crossing slot beneath.

The same cross-shaped cuttings seen at the sanctuary of Aphaia also appear at Olympia. Suchcuttings occur on drums and capitals from the Temple of Hera, and probably date from the firstconstruction phase of the building. The drums belong to the column at the south west corner ofthe peristyle and weigh up to . tons each. Because the column is made from drums, andbecause the drums have cuttings to allow suspension from ropes, the use of a lifting machineseems out of the question. The fact that identical cuttings are found on the three extant capitalsfrom the cella’s interior colonnades suggests that these, too, were lifted in the same manner.These capitals have long been presumed to have originally been placed on wooden shafts, but ithas recently been suggested that the shafts were monolithic from the outset. In either case, thisexample shows that a capital might have been lifted by machine regardless of whether thecolumn shaft underneath was made from drums.

This conclusion also applies to the capital with V-shaped cuttings from the Archaic Temple ofApollo at Corinth, one that had also rested on a monolithic shaft. Moreover, it suggests thehypothesis that lifting capitals might have been among the first architectural applications of earlylifting machines. With experience, the builders might have realised that dividing the shafts intodrums of a weight comparable to that of the capitals would have enabled them to use the same

Based on the measurements published in Fowler and Stillwell (–, fig. , pl. IX), I have estimated avolume of about . m and a corresponding weight between . and tons (using density values of . and

T/m, respectively). Hoffelner and Kerschner , – and fig. . The drum is broken and it is impossible to estimate its original

weight, but based on the reconstruction in Hoffelner’s illustration it would hardly have weighed more than a ton. Inthe sanctuary at Kolonna, a cutting of a similar kind was found on a wall block (Hoffelner and Kerschner , fig.). In this case too, the block is broken and it is not possible to estimate its original weight. Drum n. , measuring . m (height) × .m (lower diameter) (Gruben , –). The estimated

weight is between . and . tons, considering density values of . and T/m, respectively. Dörpfeld , – and fig. . The measurements of these drums are not specified. Generally, however, the

lower diameters of the columns from the temple range from . to . m and the heights of most of the drums fromabout . to . m, so the drums in question cannot have weighed more than . tons, assuming a maximum densityvalue of T/m. Sapirstein , –. Most of the shafts inside the cella, now lost, were associated with crescent-shaped

cuttings, which are supposed to have served for lifting shafts made from a single piece. In a few cases, the slabsunderneath columns have no such cutting, so we cannot exclude that some of the interior columns might havebeen made from drums.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


lifting method for the whole column, not to mention the considerable advantages that drumsoffered for transportation to the building site.

The shift from monolithic columns to construction with drums and the concurrentdevelopment of lifting machines would have taken place at different times in different areas.Based on the known evidence, it seems to have started at Delphi with small columns as early asthe second half of the seventh century and to have continued in the same area, as well as atOlympia and Aegina, around , with blocks weighing about ton. At Corinth, about half acentury later, similar experiments seem to have been repeated with much larger blocks, althoughthey were not yet applied to column shafts.

In summary, while the early evidence of U-shaped channels from Isthmia and other sites provesinconclusive, the other cuttings discussed do suggest that lifting machines were put intoexperimental use a full century before the adoption of the crane became common practice inGreek construction in the late sixth century. However, this evidence comes later than the earlytemples of the Corinthia, and may not apply to previous Greek technology. We must turninstead to a broader category of artefacts, and to an area wider than Greece, in order to findclues about earlier experiments with lifting devices.

LIFTING METHODS IN CONTEXT. GREECE, EGYPT AND THE NEAR EAST FROM THEBRONZE AGE TO THE EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD

In Greece, the earliest evidence, to my knowledge, is represented by the already mentionedCorinthian sarcophagi, the oldest of which date from the Early Geometric period. As largemonoliths weighing up to . tons, they raise the question of how they were lowered into theirpits. A simple, low-technology method might have been filling the pit with sand or gravel,dragging the sarcophagus onto the top, and digging away the sand from around and below it.

Since no trace of sand was found at the bottom of the graves, however, this method has beenconsidered unlikely. An alternative would have been a ramp, but the narrow space in the burialpit eliminates that possibility (Sanders et al. , –). A third option, more plausible from apractical point of view, would have been to lower the sarcophagi into their pits vertically, byropes passing over a framing system used to change the direction of pull. Such a simple devicewas neither a crane nor, more generally, a lifting machine, but a lowering device. As such, itrequired no advantageous traction mechanisms but, rather, a braking system for controlleddescent, likely provided by the friction between ropes and heavy cross beams or bollards.

Similar devices were used in construction since the Old Kingdom in Egypt, where heavy stoneswere lowered into vertical pits or along ramps by suspending them from ropes fixed tocrossbeams (Fig. a, b) (Arnold , –).

The Assyrians, too, used mechanisms for redirecting traction. The earliest evidence from thisarea is a ninth-century bas-relief from Nimrud showing a rope and pulley being used for raising

Over the last two decades, three monolithic sarcophagi have been documented at Corinth in the Panayia field:– (Pfaff , –) and – (Pfaff , –), both dating to the Early Geometric period, and –

(Sanders et al. , –), from the Middle Geometric period. More sarcophagi are known from previousexcavations, dating from the Late Proto Geometric to the Middle Geometric periods (Sanders et al. , –;Pfaff , n. ). Two of the three recently found in the Panayia field at Corinth are the largest Greek sarcophagi ever

documented. The one in grave – has exterior measurements of .× .× . m and walls ranging from. to .m thick (Pfaff , ); and the other one (grave –) is even larger (exterior measurements:.–.× .–.× .–. m) and has thicker walls (Pfaff , ). They are made of sandstone orsandy limestone, and their estimated weights are .–. tons (–) and .–. tons (–), respectively.For measurements of Greek sarcophagi in general, see Dickey , –. Similar techniques were among the usual methods employed in Egypt for lowering heavy stones into vertical

pits. See Arnold , –. Such is the device illustrated by Sanders (Sanders et al. , fig. ).




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


water from a well in a town besieged by the armies of Ashurnasirpal (–) (Fig. ) (Laessøe, and fig. , with references in n. ; Drachmann , ). While this device is not a craneeither (for it lacks means of mechanical gain), it functions as a rudimentary lifting machine; itspulley reduces friction between the rope and the crossbeam, whereas lowering machinespresumably used friction to their advantage.

The concept of redirecting a force by using a rope passed over a frame must have been obviousthroughout the Eastern Mediterranean from early times. Indeed, in this area depictions of ancientvessels dating from the Bronze Age onwards (Fig. ) show that sails were manoeuvred by pullingand releasing brails passing over the yard and were raised by pulling on halyards that passed throughholes or other devices, if not around true pulleys. The sail vessels pictured on Greek vases fromthe seventh and sixth centuries seem to rely on similar technology. The ship represented on an ivoryplaque from Sparta (Fig. b), found in a deposit dated by Laconian II pottery (–) (Dawkins, – pls. , ), features a masthead provided with one circular device that could beinterpreted as a pulley. On a seventh-century votive plaque from Corinth (Fig. c) (Casson

Fig. . Egyptian methods for lowering blocks into pits by means of ropes and woodenframeworks. (a) Lowering a grooved block with ropes. (b) Reconstruction of the loweringapparatus. (c) Wooden pulleys from the Ramesside (left) and Saite (right) periods. Drawings

by the author, after Arnold , figs ., ., . and ..

The oldest pulleys, however, are found in Egypt from the Twelfth Dynasty onwards (Fig. c). Their primitivestone forerunners – bearing stones, or fast pulleys – are found in contexts from the Old Kingdom (Arnold , ,– figs .–, .–). While there is no proof that the Egyptians used more complex mechanisms, such asmulti-pulley hoists, winch use has been conjectured from the presence of deep round holes in the ground foundacross construction sites or from the four round brick foundation piers along the ascending ramp at the pyramidof Senwosret I at Lisht, perhaps supporting revolving axles (Arnold , –, fig. .). On the development of shipbuilding technology from Egyptian prototypes to Greek Archaic vessels, see Casson

, ch. ; on shipbuilding in the Eastern Mediterranean from the Geometric through the Archaic periods, seeCasson , ch. . A similarly shaped device appears on Minoan seals (Casson , figs –).




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


, fig. ), two such devices appear on the masthead of a merchantman, plausibly representingmetal ears for guiding the rigging that raised the yard and sail (halyards). No matter what the deviceon the masthead might be, the concept was the same. There can thus be no doubt that in theseventh century Greek shipwrights had mastered such technology. Furthermore, the Corinthians’primacy in this realm is well known from Thucydides, who recounts both that they invented thetrireme and were the first to modernize shipbuilding techniques, and that the Corinthianshipwright Ameinocles was commissioned to build four ships for the Samians at the end of theeighth century.

In the mast-and-yard system of an Archaic Greek sailboat, all the main components of a cranewere already present, with the exception of hoists and winches, namely: a vertical structure withstabilising ropes (forestay and backstay); an arm with lateral mobility (yard with braces); and ropespulled down vertically or at an angle (halyards and brails) to raise loads. Shipbuilding technologymight well have triggered the development of the first lifting machines, which might then have beenapplied to construction. Indeed, on sailing vessels, the presence of ropes and masts would have

Fig. . Ninth-century Assyrian relief from the North-West Palace of Ashurnasirpal at Nimrud,showing a pulley (underneath the arm of the first archer from the right). Drawing by the author,

after Laessøe , fig. .

Thucydides ..–. On the date, see interpretations in Hornblower , . However, Coulton (, n. ) has observed that some details of the rigging of Dionysus’s boat (Fig. d)

on the cup by Exekias might be regarded as forerunners of advantageous compound pulley systems. Norepresentation of winches is found in ship pictures of the Archaic period.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


encouraged experimentations, especially when loading cargo. It seems perfectly plausible,therefore, that the Corinthians of the seventh century might have lifted the first ashlar blocksof Greek architecture by using ropes and a framework that might be regarded as a primitivelifting machine.

LIFTING AND THE FINAL SETTING OF THE BLOCKS

Further aspects of the evidence from IsthmiaTwo aspects of the evidence from Isthmia that have been overlooked in previous scholarship suggestthat the grooves on the temple’s ashlar blocks would not only have served for lifting. First, all of thebroad blocks Broneer assigned to the single-step stylobate of the early temple (Fig. )consistently exhibit parallel grooves, although these blocks were laid in a shallow trench in theground and therefore would not have required lifting. Second, the only non-grooved stones ofthis temple belong to the single-course foundation below the stylobate (Fig. ). Interestingly,these foundation stones are also the only ones that were not set against their neighbours with

Fig. . (a) Minoan seal (c. – BC) showing a circular device on top of a ship mast.Drawing by the author, after Casson , fig. . (b) Ivory plaque found at Sparta (– BC) showing what seems to be a pulley on top of the masthead. Drawing by the author,after Dawkins , pl. . (c) Stern of a merchantman with two ‘ears’ on themasthead, depicted on a th-century votive plaque found at Corinth. Drawing by theauthor, after Casson , fig. . (d) Dionysus’s boat from the cup by Exekias (–

BC), showing ‘ears’ on the masthead. Drawing by the author.

Coulton , . This also calls to mind Vitruvius’s description of maritime loading devices, such as therevolving boom (carchesium versatile, ..), perhaps fastened to the ship mast (see Callebat and Fleury ,–). The side faces of these blocks were covered by the Archaic pavement on the interior side and partially covered

by the ground on the exterior side, so the stylobate was almost at the same level as the ground. See discussion inBroneer , , . Two stones and part of a third have been found in situ by the eastern end of the north stylobate trench (Broneer

, ). While the two group blocks from Isthmia (Ar and ) also have no grooves in their present state, theymight well have had loop channels on the underside. This is suggested by a rough cutting Broneer (, ) noticed




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


tight joints, as their shape is not perfectly regular and the gaps between them were filled with earth.Only three of these stones are preserved in situ, therefore they do not provide information as reliableas that of the other blocks. This is no reason, however, to neglect them entirely.

To account for the grooves on the stylobate blocks, one could assume that they might have beenused to secure a sling attached to a hand barrow, which would have been a practical way to movethese stones horizontally and lay them down. This hypothesis does not exclude lifting machines,which would have been used to lift and place the blocks of the masonry’s higher courses. Yet wemight wonder why the same method used with stylobate blocks would not be adopted with thefoundation stones, some of which are as sizable as the standard blocks of the superstructure.

Fig. . Group blocks from Isthmia. (a) Blocks Ar and Ar . Drawing by the author, afterBroneer , figs –. (b) The group blocks preserved near the north-west corner of the

temple area. Photo by the author.

at one end of Ar and would be consistent with the fact that group blocks are supposed to belong to a corner ofthe cella wall, as is Ar , which does have a loop channel. As the grooves were the main criterion used by the excavators to assign blocks not in situ to the temple,

foundation stones, which have no grooves, could be identified as such only when they were found in situ. Amongthe unpublished materials in the deposit east of the wall reconstructed by Broneer, I have seen fragments ofroughly squared stones without grooves, which might have belonged to the foundation course. Of the three stones preserved, one has a regular shape except for the side next to the adjacent stone. It measures

c. .× .× .m.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


The reason becomes apparent if we consider the necessary step that followed lifting in theconstruction process, which was manoeuvring each block into position tightly up against thestones already in place. This was a necessary operation for which these blocks apparently offerno clear evidence. In later periods, this delicate step required special cuttings in the stones, sowe would expect the parallel grooves to have served this purpose in addition to lifting. Indeed, atIsthmia, all of the blocks that had to be brought tightly up against adjoining stones have grooves,regardless of whether they needed lifting. Conversely, foundation stones do not have grooves. Inaddition to the fact that they did not require lifting, this is because their loose joints did notimply close contact. After all, as the next section will show, the occurrence of straight grooves onblocks dating from Pharaonic Egypt to Archaic Greece seems to have been closely related tosetting blocks next to their neighbours by ropes, although it was apparently confined toparticular kinds of blocks, or blocks in special positions.

Straight rope grooves and setting methodsThe earliest parallels that come to mind are from Egypt. While no Egyptian blocks are known tohave parallel grooves in the same arrangement as those from the two early temples of theCorinthia, the Egyptians did cut rope grooves on particular kinds of blocks (Fig. a). Theseblocks were set in tight contact with adjoining ones, and the grooves allowed for laying themdown with ropes, as well as for the ropes’ removal, which would have been impossible otherwise.Examples include sarcophagus lids, closing stones of crypts, portcullises, keystones, pavementslabs and repair stones (Arnold , , –, , figs .–, ., .).

The blocks that most closely resemble those from the early temples of Corinth and Isthmia arefrom Greece. They were found at Phlius, in ancient Argolid, built into walls and graves during theRoman period, but they originally belonged to a building of which nothing is known. Only four

Fig. . Foundation stones of the early Temple of Poseidon at Isthmia, found in situ at theeastern end of the north stylobate trench. Photos by the author.

Blegen and Hill found the blocks in (Blegen , –; Scranton ; Miller , ). I am indebtedto Stephen Miller for bringing these blocks to my attention.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


blocks are preserved today at the museum in Nemea (Fig. ), all with inscriptions on the exposedside, which suggests that they might be from a sacred building. The characters in the earliest ofthese inscriptions also suggest a terminus ante quem for the building within the first half of thesixth century. Like the early Corinthian blocks, those from Phlius have parallel grooves on thebottom and on one side, and they also resemble early Corinthian blocks in material anddimensions. The only remarkable difference is that, in addition to the parallel grooves, theblocks from Phlius feature a semi-cylindrical cutting in the middle of the grooved side. Becausetheir paucity and lack of original context makes the blocks difficult to interpret, we cannotdetermine whether the semi-circular cutting was an original feature or resulted from a later use.All we can gather is that the experimental building method at Isthmia and Corinth had followersin the subsequent century within a radius of about km from the area of its early development.

Other significant parallels from the Greek world are found at Perachora, in the Corinthia, and atSelinus and Akragas, in Sicily. At Perachora, the blocks of the north interior stylobate of the Templeof Hera Akraia (last quarter of the sixth century) feature a groove extending from side to side acrossthe bottom (Fig. ), near the end that would have abutted the block already in place during settingmanoeuvres. Indeed, this groove would have allowed the corresponding end of the block to be liftedand lowered while the block was being set against its neighbour (Menadier , – fig. ).

At Selinus, some geison blocks from Temple C (mid to late sixth century) have a couple oflongitudinal grooves on the underside that turn up on both ends. Such cuttings occur on only afew blocks, while the rest of the cornice blocks have none. This might suggest that the grooveswere used for laying blocks down in particular positions, perhaps by manoeuvring a loop of ropewith levers. According to Koldewey and Puchstein (, ), the geison blocks from TempleC that are provided with grooves were the last ones laid on their course, as later proposed byBroneer for Ar , the block from Isthmia featuring grooves on both ends.

Fig. . One of the four Archaic blocks with grooves found at Phlius, presently housed at themuseum in Nemea. Photos by the author.

Coulton , , who also mentions blocks with grooves from the pronaos walls of Temple D (Koldewey andPuchstein , fig. ); these also have grooves on both ends. This seems consistent with the fact that in later Greek practice the laying of the last block of any given course

was performed with special care, as it had to be lowered down vertically into its gap, often by means of tongs or alewis. However, Temple C seems to have been constructed in two phases, with significant technological changes that

may also have involved the lifting devices. A remarkable technological change is represented by the shift frommonoliths to columns built of drums. The chronology of Temple C is discussed in Marconi (–) in




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


At Akragas, in the Olympieion (begun in the early fifth century), sets of two grooves runningparallel to the architrave are found along the resting surface of the engaged columns’ lowercapital-blocks, as well as along their vertical joints (Koldewey and Puchstein , figs , ;Durm , fig. ; Stuart and Revett , pl. VIII fig. ); they are interpreted by Koldeweyand Puchstein (, ) as rope-grooves. The only ends of them remaining visible inside theneck-flutes were easily sealed with properly fashioned stone patches. Each of these blockscomprises a half echinus and, below it, the corresponding top end of the fluted semi-column.Apparently, only the right-hand block of each echinus has grooves on the vertical joint passingthrough the capital’s centre. These would have been needed for removing the ropes if the leftside was already in place.

In brief, in Greece and in Egypt straight rope grooves seem to have been used in the final settingof stone blocks. At any rate, the generalised use of grooves on all of a building’s blocks, as in theearly temples at Corinth and Isthmia, seems to be an isolated case, unless the grooved blocksfrom the Temple of Hera Akraia at Perachora are remnants of a seventh-century predecessor, allof whose blocks might have had the same kind of groove.

Reconstructing the setting methodOnce a connection is established between the grooves and the final setting of the blocks, thequestion now becomes how this operation was performed and how it related to lifting. Accordingto Hemans (, ), lifting and setting a block into position were performed in a single step,assuming that a lifting machine could deliver the block precisely to the final position so that nofurther adjustment would be needed. This is highly improbable, as testified by the complexmanoeuvres this operation would require in later periods, when the blocks were lifted to theircourse by a crane placed against the wall’s midpoint, laid down on rollers, and movedhorizontally to their final place, where they were lowered with crowbars.

Hero (Mechanica .) and Vitruvius (..–) describe a single-arm crane offering amplemobility (Fig. ). However, in spite of the wide horizontal reach of this device, we know fromHero’s account that, even with this machine, a block was likely laid down near its final position

Fig. . Blocks of the north interior stylobate of the late th-century Temple of Hera Akraia atPerachora, each with a groove extending from side to side across the bottom. Photo by the

author.

connection with the stylistic features of its metopes. I am indebted to Clemente Marconi for bringing this to myattention. I am grateful to Heinz Beste, who is currently studying the temple for publication, for providing me with

information about these blocks. Interestingly, Menadier (, ) has suggested that the grooves on the blocks from Perachora might be a

development of the system used at Corinth and Isthmia.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


and then pushed the last few centimetres to its home against its neighbour in the usual way, onrollers. Moreover, while he praises the ingenuity of this machine, Vitruvius adds that it was onlyfor experts. These accounts reflect the knowledge of the Hellenistic period, when considerableexperience had been gained in lifting and other technological realms. That a machine in theseventh century could outperform a Hellenistic one is hard to believe, given that liftingtechnology was presumably in its early stages.

Therefore, manoeuvring was most likely performed after and independent of lifting. In theClassical and Hellenistic periods, this operation usually involved the following steps. First, oncea block was brought against its neighbour, the rollers were removed. This was done withcrowbars, which lifted the block from two points, the bottom of the free end and the top of thecontact end, where special holes had been cut in the middle for accommodating the ends of thecrowbars (Fig. a). Then, as the block was lowered, contact between the adjoining faces wastested and adjustments made by levelling out potential imperfections. Once this was done andthe block was laid down on its bedding, the free end was pushed in order to tighten the joint.This last step required that a pry hole (or two) in the course below it be present to providepurchase for the crowbar (Fig. b).

The blocks from the early temples of Isthmia and Corinth may have been set into position in oneof two ways: by using levers; or by using a combination of ropes and levers. Levers would have beenfeasible on a practical level, as in most cases the anathyrosis is deep enough in the centre to allowthe tip of a lever to be extracted after a block was lowered onto its bedding. Moreover, some of thewall blocks from Isthmia present a rough cutting, .–.m wide and about .–. m deep,that is particularly interesting in this connection, a fact that has thus far been overlooked. Thiscutting was intentionally carved (apparently with an adze) in the middle of the side face’s

Fig. . Single-arm lifting machine described by Vitruvius (..–), with a compoundpulley system (polyspastos) but no winch. Galiani , pl. XXV.

This method was already used in Egypt, as is shown by the cuttings found in the masonry of the Red Chapel ofHatshepsut at Karnak (Lacau et al. , fig. ). The Greek practice is described with admirable clarity andaccuracy in Korres (–) and Korres, Panetsos and Seki (–). In order to manoeuvre this partof the block, and in addition to the hole near the top edge of the contact end, another cutting was needed at theedge of the adjoining block. A similar cutting was also usually made in the course below, to be used incombination with the lifting hole at the bottom of the free end of the block. The two lifting holes, above andbelow, were aligned with the block’s centre of gravity. There could be one or two pry holes. The number andprofile of the cuttings, as well as their distance from the edges, varied from case to case. For specialconfigurations, see Korres , . Other relevant illustrations are in Fraisse and Llinas , –. Forprevious descriptions of this practice, see Martin , –, figs –.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


bottom edge. As we have seen, this is where a lever hole is likely to be found on later Greek blocks,so it seems reasonable to hypothesise that the cutting at issue was carved specifically for use with alever.

The blocks from Isthmia thus offer the earliest Greek evidence for lever holes and confirm thatlevers were employed in setting the first stone blocks of Greek monumental architecture. Inparticular, on some blocks from the ends of Broneer’s reconstructed wall, the cutting is foundon the exposed non-grooved end (Fig. ), which would have been the free end while the blockwas being manoeuvred into place. This would seem to suggest that the lever was used to liftand lower this end in the very same way as later practice. However, while examination of theends of Broneer’s reassembled blocks is often difficult (in some blocks this part is not evenpreserved), it does show that there are blocks on which the cutting is absent. Moreover, onothers the cutting is found on the opposite side, the one with grooves. For this fact I have nobetter explanation than that the builders, while accustomed to using levers for moving stones(presumably from quarrying), might have discovered the best method during the process ofexperimenting with different setting techniques.

Besides using a lever to lift and lower the free end of a block, later practice required a means forpushing the free end and a means for lifting the side of the block near the neighbouring stone.Would our blocks have allowed these two additional operations? As to pushing the free end afterlowering the block on its bedding, I believe that, even without a pry hole, a wooden leverinserted into the gap between the bedding and the slightly concave underside of the block – or

Fig. . Setting by manoeuvring with levers accommodated by specific cuttings. (a) Once ablock has been brought on rollers against its neighbour, the block is lifted with levers at twopoints and the rollers removed. The block is then lowered. (b) The free end of the block is

pushed to tighten the joint. Drawings by the author.

This cutting is evident on the non-grooved side of blocks IA , and and is a bit less pronounced onIA . Unfortunately, the non-grooved end of most of the blocks, when preserved, is hidden by the adjoining stonesin Broneer’s wall.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


into the special cutting described above, if present – would have had sufficient grip on the roughlimestone surface to move the block, considering its relatively modest weight and the fact that,generally, crowbars are more effective when they are inclined against rather than perpendicularto the direction of action (in order not to slip out). The grooves would have provided the onlymeans of lifting and lowering the opposite side of the block. Because a lever was used on thefree end, it seems logical that the same means would also be adopted on the contact end forpulling a loop of rope, so that two men, one on each side of the block, would suffice for the job(Figs e and a).

There is no evidence as to how the rope was tied around each individual block to form a sling forlifting or, later during setting, how exactly the rope was attached to the lever at the contact end.From a practical standpoint, though, the setting method proposed above could only work if,after lifting, the sling could be easily and quickly attached to the lever, and then just as easilyuntied to remove the rope once the block was set. Among the most reliable knots used today forjoining two ends of a line under load are the fisherman’s knot and the Flemish bend (Fig. a, b).These are double versions of the overhand knot and the figure eight bend, respectively, which areboth attested from Egyptian times onwards. There can be little doubt that the Greeks, whowere skilled sailors, mastered these knots and their variations from early times.

With a sling made from a loop of rope (Fig. c) it would have been easy to equalize the ropelengths above a block to ensure that its resting face stayed horizontal during lifting. If such a slingwas used, after the block had been laid down and brought against its neighbour, the same slingcould be easily attached to a lever (in a position convenient for lifting the block’s end) bypassing one of the loop’s ends through the other and then around the lever’s tip a number oftimes (twisting the loop at each successive round) (Fig. d, e). Once the block had been set,untying either of the knots mentioned above would have only taken a matter of seconds, for theyare relatively easy to loosen once the tension is over.

Fig. . Rough cuttings at the lower edge of the free, non-grooved end of the blocks at Isthmia.(a) Block IA , at the eastern end of the taller portion of Broneer’s reconstructed wall. (b)Blocks IA (bottom) and IA (top), at the opposite end of the same portion of the

wall. Photos by the author.

The earliest evidence for these knots comes from the ancient Egyptian ropes in the British Museum (Charlton, –). Later, the overhand knot (chiestos brokos) also features in Book of Oribasius’sMedical Collections (latefourth century AD, but recording a st-century BC work), which represents the earliest textual evidence for ancientknots (Charlton , –). As shown in Fig. e, the suspension point of the block’s end cannot be directly above the vertical joint but

must be placed slightly distant from it, on the block’s side, in order to prevent the rope from slipping off thevertical grooves.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


Developments in setting techniqueThe use of linear grooves continued throughout the Archaic period, but sporadically and on blocksof special categories. In subsequent Greek Archaic architecture, the characteristic V-shapedholes (Fig. ) that I have discussed in connection with lifting appeared on the top face ofblocks (references in Coulton , n. ). While the presence of one or two such holes nearthe centre of the top face points to lifting as the sole purpose, two V-shaped holes, one locatednear each end, would have permitted both lifting and the final setting, as I have argued wasthe case for the parallel grooves. Indeed, after lifting, a loop of rope attached to the cutting nearthe neighbouring stone would have allowed workmen to lift and lower this side with a lever(Fig. b) in much the same way, I believe, as with the grooves of the Early Archaic Corinthianblocks (Coulton , fig. ).

However, in most cases there seems to have been only one V-shaped hole near one end, forwhich the only plausible purpose would have been manoeuvring a block into place. In fact, ifsuch a cutting were used for suspending a block, this would hang almost vertically (Coulton, ). The earliest examples of such off-centre cuttings in Archaic Corinthian architectureappear on foundation blocks of the Corinthian Treasury at Delphi, a building dedicated byKypselos (reign –) and consequently dated immediately after the early temples of Corinthand Isthmia (references in Pfaff , n. ). Later examples appear, in the Corinthia, onsome foundation and wall blocks of the Temple of Hera Akraia at Perachora (Fig. a) and onsome reused blocks in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth, as well as on a few other

Fig. . (a) Fisherman’s knot (consisting of two overhand knots). (b) Flemish bend (consistingof a double figure eight bend). (c) Sling for suspending a block, consisting of a loop of ropeaccommodated in the grooves. (d) Attaching the sling to a lever. (e) Using levers for moving

the block vertically (and removing the rollers). Drawings by the author.

See the section ‘Straight rope grooves and setting methods’, above. A Corinthian example is an epistyle block associated with the Apsidal Building near the Sacred Spring (Pfaff

, n. ).




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


isolated Corinthian blocks (Pfaff , ). Similar cuttings appear also at Olympia, on the wallashlars of the Temple of Hera (Durm , fig. ), and in ancient Argolid, on the geisonblocks of the Archaic temple on the Acropolis at Mycenae (Klein , –, figs , ) and

Fig. . Setting technique (: lifting and lowering; : pushing) and the conjectural developmentof ways of lifting the contact end of a block with levers. (a) Lever attached to a ropeaccommodated by grooves in the blocks of the early temples at Isthmia and Corinth. (b)Lever attached to a loop of rope accommodated by a V-shaped hole. (c) Lever’s tipaccommodated by a specific cutting below the upper edge of the block’s contact face.

Drawings by the author.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


on blocks from the early Temple of Zeus at Nemea (Fig. b). In particular, the temple atNemea shows striking similarities with those from the early temples at Isthmia and Corinth,suggesting that this building should be regarded as their most direct descendant.

Unlike the blocks from Corinth and Isthmia, those with off-centre V-shaped holes from laterArchaic contexts also, in some cases, have pry holes (Fig. a). Providing much betterpurchase for levers than shear friction, pry holes represent the Greeks’ best solution for pushingstones. V-shaped holes placed near the contact end, no matter how soon they were used withtongs, seem reminiscent of their forerunners, rather than being on the verge of the nexttechnological advance. As we have seen, in later periods, lifting the contact face of a blockwould involve a special cutting near its top edge, as well as a corresponding cutting on theneighbouring stone (Figs a and c). These sophisticated cuttings allowed the lever morecontrol and were better suited for marble blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

The study of the stone blocks from the early temples at Isthmia and Corinth offers enoughinformation to reconstruct the way in which their characteristic grooves were most plausiblyused. More generally, the material also reveals important clues for understanding the beginningsof stone construction in Greece. Study of groove depth, maximum block weight and ropestrength shows that the original thesis that the grooves were used in lifting is technically

Fig. . V-shaped holes on Archaic blocks. (a) A wall block from a lower course of the Templeof Hera Akraia at Perachora, with an off-centre V-shaped cutting and a pry hole. (b) Fragment

A from the early Temple of Zeus at Nemea. Photos by the author.

The Temple of Zeus is dated to the second quarter of the th century (Miller , ). Miller associates theseholes with tongs, rather than with ropes, and maintains that the cuttings in question served to lift the blocks with acrane. However, according to this view, the blocks would have been laid down obliquely and set into place by levers ina way that seems hardly practical (Miller , fig. ). Thus I believe that the cuttings at issue were used forsetting, rather than lifting. For a description of the blocks from the early Temple of Zeus at Nemea, see Miller, – These are found, e.g., on the top of the blocks of the Temple of Hera Akraia at Perachora and on at least some

blocks from the early Temple of Zeus at Nemea. We would be inclined to associate pry holes with iron levers with a sharp tip, so it may be supposed that such

holes marked the transition from wooden to iron levers. Indeed, cutting V-shaped holes into marble would have taken too much time and effort (Martin , ).




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


plausible. Moreover, this thesis seems more compelling in explaining the grooves’ peculiardispositions than the alternative theory that they were used in quarrying.

As to lifting technique, Coulton’s thesis that fully developed cranes with mechanicallyadvantageous devices spread in the Greek world only in the late sixth century is still convincing.However, simpler machines seem to have been used for moving loads vertically by redirectingtraction in the Eastern Mediterranean and Near East since the Bronze Age. Familiarity with thisbasic concept is proven by its usual application to ship technology, as shown by representationsof sail boats from the Bronze Age through the Archaic period. In particular, Archaic Corinthianship depictions confirm that this technology was known in the region. After all, beginning fromthe Early Geometric period, the Corinthians also seem to have employed a similar technique ondry land for lowering their massive sarcophagi into narrow pits.

It is impossible to say exactly when the hoist and winch were invented. However, while the sizeof the largest blocks used in construction was reduced in the late sixth century, presumably as aconsequence of the relatively limited loading capacity of the first cranes, this capacity was still inthe order of several tons. Therefore, it is likely that both the winch and the hoist were alreadypart of the crane by that time. In particular, the winch might have been adopted in theCorinthia early in the Archaic period. This is suggested by rope marks and holes found in asection of the Diolkos – the paved trackway created across the Isthmus under Periander (–) – presumably resulting from hauling heavy cargo with capstans (Raepsaet , ), a kindof winch. If true, then it is reasonable to assume that experiments with wooden frameworks(previously used to redirect pull) combined with mechanically advantageous tractionmechanisms had been performed in construction during the sixth century, and that an increasein loading capacity had accompanied this technological progress. This development seemsconsistent with the sequence of maximum loads early machines could lift, from the geisonblocks of the mid-seventh-century temple at Isthmia (up to c. kg) to the drums lifted atseveral sites (Olympia, Aegina, Delphi) since the beginning of the following century (about

ton), and eventually to the capital of the mid-sixth-century Temple of Apollo at Corinth ( tons).Last but not least, the setting method with which Corinthian builders had experimented by the

mid-seventh century seems to be at the very beginning of the technique later employed throughoutthe Classical and Hellenistic periods. Rudimentary though it may appear, this early method, whichused a combination of ropes and levers, must nonetheless have been effective with blocks of modestsize, at least to some degree. The development of this technique would not have been linear, andthe cuttings on Archaic Greek blocks from different areas (or, in some cases, even from the samesite) suggest that builders were experimenting with a variety of solutions at the same time. Yet somestages of setting technique’s development can be traced through the evidence, in particular asconcerns lifting the contact end: from the parallel grooves at Corinth and Isthmia (Fig. a) tothe single groove on blocks of the Archaic Temple of Hera Akraia at Perachora and off-centreV-shaped cuttings (Fig. b), to finally arrive at the distinctive lever hole used from the Classicalperiod onwards (Fig. c).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am particularly indebted to Jim Coulton, who helped me develop and strengthen my arguments,and to Manolis Korres, from whom I learned much about the manoeuvring of stone blocks. I amalso grateful to Elizabeth Gebhard, Chris Hayward, Nils Hellner, Dieter Mertens, ClementeMarconi, Giorgio Ortolani, Robin Rhodes, Ingrid Rowland, John Stamper and Paolo Vitti, whohave all generously shared their expertise and advice. Any errors that remain are my own.

Coulton (, –) has hypothesised that both the winch and the compound pulley hoist were used in thefirst cranes of the late th century. A slightly different view has recently been advanced by Wilson (, ), whohas observed that late-th-century cranes might have owed their loading capacity to the use of multiple ropes attachedto simple pulleys, rather than to a compound pulley hoist.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


Finally, I thank all those who supported my fieldwork, and in particular: K. Kissas andS. Koursoumis (th Ephorate for Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities); Guy Sanders, NancyBookidis, Ioulia Tsonou-Herbst, James A. Herbst and Nikol Anastasatou (American School ofClassical Studies at Athens, Excavations in Ancient Corinth); and E. Gebhard and J. Perras(University of Chicago Excavations at Isthmia).

[email protected]

REFERENCES

Arnold, D. . Building in Egypt: Pharaonic StoneMasonry (New York and Oxford).

Arnold, D. . The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I(New York).

Berti, F. . Fortuna Maris. La nave romana diComacchio (Bologna).

Billot, M.-F. . ‘Recherches archéologique récentesà l’Héraion d’Argos’, in de La Genière, J. (ed.),Héra: Images, espaces, cultes. Actes du ColloqueInternational du Centre de Recherches Archéologiquede l’Université de Lille III et de l’Association P.R.A.C. Lille, – novembre (Naples), –.

Blegen, C.W. . ‘Excavations at Phlius, ’, Artand Archaeology , –.

Bommelaer, J.-F. . Guide de Delphes: le site (Paris).Bonino, M. . ‘Sewn boats in Italy: sutiles naves and

barche cucite’, in McGrail, S. and Kentley, E.(eds), Sewn Plank Boats (Oxford), –.

Broneer, O. . Isthmia I: The Temple of Poseidon(Princeton, NJ).

Brookes, A.C. . ‘Stoneworking in the Geometricperiod at Corinth’, Hesperia , –.

Callebat, L. and Fleury, P. . Vitruve. Del’architecture. Livre X. Texte établi, traduit etcommenté (Paris).

Casson, L. . Ships and Seamanship in the AncientWorld (Princeton, NJ).

Casson, L. . Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times(London).

Charlton, W.H. Jr. . ‘Rope and knot-tying in theseafaring of the ancient Eastern Mediterranean’(unpublished MA thesis, Texas A&M University).

Coulton, J.J. . ‘Lifting in early Greek architecture’,JHS , –.

Coulton, J.J. . ‘Review of Isthmia I: The Temple ofPoseidon’, JHS , –.

Coulton, J.J. . Ancient Greek Architects at Work:Problems of Structure and Design (Ithaca, NY).

Daux, G. and Hansen, E. . Le trésor de Siphnos(Paris).

Dawkins, R.M. . The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia atSparta (London).

Dickey, K. . ‘Corinthian burial customs, ca. – BC’ (unpublished PhD thesis, Bryn MawrCollege).

Dörpfeld, W. . Alt-Olympia: Untersuchungen undAusgrabungen zur Geschichte des ältesten Heiligtumsvon Olympia und der älteren griechischen Kunst, vol. (Berlin).

Drachmann, A.G. . The Mechanical Technology ofGreek and Roman Antiquity (Copenhagen andMadison, WI).

Du Plat Taylor, J. . ‘Basketry and matting’, in Bass,G.F. (ed.), Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck(TAPS New Series Volume , Part ; Philadelphia,PA), –.

Durm, J. . Die Baukunst der Griechen (Leipzig).Fowler, H.N. and Stillwell, R. . Corinth, vol. ,

Introduction, Topography, Architecture (Athens).Fraisse, P. and Llinas, C. . Exploration archéologique

de Délos faite par l’Ecole Français d’Athènes. Fasc. :documents d’architecture hellénique et hellénistique(Paris).

Frost, H. . ‘Cordage’, in Frost, H. et al. (eds),Lilybaeum (NSc Supp. Vol. ; Rome), –.

Galiani, B. . L’architettura di Marco Vitruvio Pollionetradotta e comentata dal marchese Berardo Galiani(Naples).

Gebhard, E.R. . ‘The evolution of a panhellenicsanctuary: from archaeology towards history atIsthmia’, in Marinatos, N. and Hägg, R. (eds),Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches (London), –.

Gebhard, E.R. . ‘The Archaic temple at Isthmia:techniques of construction’, in Bietak, M. (ed.),Archaische griechische Tempel und Altägypten(Vienna), –.

Gebhard, E.R. and Hemans, F.R. . ‘University ofChicago excavations at Isthmia, : ’, Hesperia, –.

Ginouvès, R. and Martin, R. . Dictionnaireméthodique de l’architecture Grecque et Romaine, vol. :Matériaux, techniques de construction, techniques etforms du décor (Athens).

Gruben, G. . ‘Die Sphinx-Säule von Aigina’, AM, –.

Hansen, E. . ‘Versetzen von Baugliedern amgriechischen Tempel’, in Brands, G., Hoepfner,W., Hoffmann, A. and Schwandner, E. L. (eds),Bautechnik der Antike (Mainz), –.

Hansen, E. . ‘Delphes et le travail de la pierre’, inJacquemin, A. (ed.), Delphes cent ans après la grandefouille: essai de bilan (Athens), –.

Hayward, C.L. . ‘A systematic study of the ooliticlimestone exposed in the ancient Greek andRoman construction-stone quarries at Examilia,near Ancient Corinth, Peloponnese’ (unpublishedreport, Wiener Laboratory Internal Report ,Athens).

Hayward, C.L. . ‘High-resolution provenancedetermination of construction-stone: a preliminarystudy of Corinthian oolitic limestone quarries atExamilia’, Geoarchaeology , –.

Hayward, C.L. . ‘First results from a high-resolution study of ancient construction-stone



mailto:[email protected]


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


quarries of the Corinthia, southern Greece’, inSchvoerer, M. (ed.), Archéomatériaux: marbres etautres roches. Actes de la IVème Conférenceinternationale de l’Association pour l’étude des marbreset autres roches utilisés dans le passé (Bordeaux),–.

Hayward, C.L. . ‘Geological evidence for the pre-eighth century topography of the central plateau’,in Morgan, C. (ed.), Isthmia VIII: The MycenaeanSettlement and the Early Iron Age Sanctuary(Princeton, NJ), –.

Hayward, C.L. . ‘Geology of Corinth: the studyof a basic resource’, in Williams, C.K. II andBookidis, N. (eds), Corinth: The Centenary, – (Athens), –.

Hayward, C.L. . ‘Corinthian stone exploitation andinscribed building accounts’, in Kissas andNiemeier (eds) , –.

Hellmann, M.-C. . L’Architecture grecque, vol. : lesprincìpes de la construction (Paris).

Hellner, N. . ‘Drehspuren am Säulenbauteil desarchaischen Heraion von Argos’, RA , –.

Hemans, F.P. . ‘The Archaic roof tiles at Isthmia: are-examination’, Hesperia , –.

Hemans, F.P. . ‘Greek architectural terracottasfrom the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia’, inWinter, N. (ed.), Greek Architectural Terracottas(Hesperia Supp. Vol. ; Princeton, NJ), –.

Hemans, F.P. . ‘The Archaic Temple of Poseidon:problems of design and invention’, in Gebhard, E.R. and Gregory, T. E. (eds), Bridge of the UntiringSea (Hesperia Supp. Vol. ; Princeton, NJ),–.

Hodge, A.T. . The Woodwork of Greek Roofs(Cambridge).

Hodge, A.T. . ‘Bevelled joints and the direction oflaying in Greek architecture’, AJA , –.

Hoffelner, K. and Kerschner, M. . Alt-Ägina, vol..: Die Sphinxsäule. Votivträger, Altäre, Steingeräte.Perirrhanterien und Becken (Mainz).

Hornblower, S. . A Commentary on Thucydides(Oxford).

Kalpaxis, A.E. . ‘Die Pfostenlöcher unter demNaxieroikos auf Delos. Spuren einesVorgängerbaues oder eines Baugerüstes?’, inKrinzinger, F., Otto, B. and Walde-Psenner, E.(eds), Forschungen und Funde. Festschrift BernhardNeutsch (Innsbruck), –.

Kalpaxis, A.E. . ‘Naxier-Oikos I und andereBaugerüste’, AA , –.

Kissas, K. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds) . TheCorinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese: Topographyand History from Prehistoric Times until the End ofAntiquity. Proceedings of the International Conference,Organized by the Directorate of Prehistoric andClassical Antiquities, the LZ’ Ephorate of Prehistoricand Classical Antiquities and the GermanArchaeological Institute, Athens (Athens).

Klein, N.L. . ‘Excavation of the Greek temples atMycenae by the British School at Athens’, BSA, –.

Koenigs, W. . ‘Review of Isthmia I: The Temple ofPoseidon’, Gnomon , –.

Koldewey, R., and Puchstein, O. . Die griechischenTempel in Unteritalien und Sicilien (Berlin).

Korres, M. . Μελέτη αποκαταστάσεως τουΠαρθενώνος, vol. (Athens).

Korres, M. . From Pentelicon to the Parthenon: TheAncient Quarries and the Story of a Half-WorkedColumn (Athens).

Korres, M., Panetsos, G.A. and Seki, T. (eds) . TheParthenon: Architecture and Conservation (Athens).

Lacau, P., Chevrier, H., Bonhême, M.-A. and Gitton,M. . Une chapelle d’Hatshepsout à Karnak, vol. (Cairo).

Laessøe, J. . ‘The irrigation system at Ulhu, thcentury BC’, JCS , –.

Marconi, C. . Temple Decoration and CulturalIdentity in the Archaic Greek World: The Metopes ofSelinus (Cambridge).

Martin, R. . Manuel d’architecture grecque, vol. :matériaux et techniques (Paris).

Martines, G., Bruno, M. and Conti, C. . ‘Liftingblocks, st–th century AD: the inclined plane’, inCamporeale, S., DeLaine, J. and Pizzo, A. (eds),Arqueología de la construcción. V. th InternationalWorkshop on the Archaeology of Roman Construction.Man-Made Materials, Engineering and Infrastructure(Anejos de Archivo Espanol de ArqueologiaVol. ; Madrid), –.

Mazarakis Ainian, A. . From Ruler’s Dwellings toTemples: Architecture, Religion and Society in EarlyIron Age Greece (– BC) (Jonsered).

Menadier, B. . ‘The sixth century BC temple andthe sanctuary and cult of Hera Akraia, Perachora’(unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cincinnati).

Miller, S.G. . Nemea: A Guide to the Site andMuseum (Berkeley, CA and Oxford).

Miller, S.G. . ‘The early Temple of Zeus atNemea’, in Kissas and Niemeier (eds) , –.

Miller, S.G. , ‘Lifting in Archaic Greekconstruction’, in Zampas, K., Lambrinoudakis, V.,Simantoni-Bournia, E. and Ohnesorg, A. (eds),Architekton: Honorary Volume for Professor ManolisKorres (Athens), –.

Nour, M.Z., Inkaner, Z., Osman, M.S. and Moustafa,A.Y. . The Cheops Boats (Cairo).

Orlandos, A.K. . Les matériaux de construction et latechnique architecturale des anciens Grecs, vol.

(Athens).Østby, E. . ‘Delphi and Archaic Doric architecture

in the Peloponnese’, in Jacquemin, A. (ed.),Delphes: cent ans après la Grande Fouille. Essai debilan. Actes du Colloque International organisé parl’École Française d’Athènes, Athène-Delphes –septembre (BCH Supp. Vol. ; Athens),–.

Pfaff, C. . ‘Archaic Corinthian architecture ca. to BC’, in Williams, C.K. II and Bookidis, N.(eds), Corinth: The Centenary, – (Athens),–.

Pfaff, C. . ‘Geometric graves in the Panayia field atCorinth’, Hesperia , –.

Raepsaet, G. . ‘Le diolkos de l’Isthme à Corinthe:son tracé, son fonctionnement, avec une annexe,considérations techniques et mécaniques’, BCH, –.

Rhodes, R.F. . ‘The beginnings of monumentalarchitecture in the Corinthia’ (unpublished PhDthesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

Rhodes, R.F. a. ‘Early Corinthian architecture andthe origins of the Doric order’, AJA , –.

Rhodes, R.F. b. ‘Early stoneworking in theCorinthia’, Hesperia , –.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


Rhodes, R.F. c. ‘Rope channels and stonequarrying in the early Corinthia’, AJA , –.

Rhodes, R.F. . ‘The earliest Greek architecture inCorinth and the th-century temple on TempleHill’, in Williams, C.K. II and Bookidis, N. (eds),Corinth: The Centenary, – (Athens), –.

Rhodes, R.F. . ‘The woodwork of the seventhcentury temple on Temple Hill in Corinth’, inKienlin, A. Von (ed.), Holztragwerke der Antike:Internationale Konferenz, . März–. April inMünchen (Istanbul), –.

Robinson, H.S. a. ‘Excavations at Corinth: TempleHill, –’, Hesperia , –.

Robinson, H.S. b. ‘Temple Hill, Corinth’, inJantzen, U. (ed.), Neue Forschungen in GriechischenHeiligtümern. Internationales Symposion in Olympiavom . bis . Oktober (Tübingen), –.

Robinson, H.S. . ‘Roof tiles of the early seventhcentury BC’, AM , –.

Roebuck, M.C. . ‘Excavations at Corinth, ’,Hesperia , –.

Roebuck, M.C. . ‘Archaic architectural terracottasfrom Corinth’, Hesperia , –.

Rostoker, W. and Gebhard, E.R. (eds) . ‘Thereproduction of roof tiles for the Archaic Templeof Poseidon at Isthmia, Greece’, JFA , –.

Sanders, G., James, S.A., Tzonou-Herbst, I. andHerbst, J. . ‘The Panayia field excavations atCorinth: the Neolithic to Hellenistic phases’,Hesperia , –.

Sapirstein, P. . ‘The emergence of ceramic rooftiles in Archaic Greek architecture’ (unpublishedPhD thesis, Cornell University).

Sapirstein, P. . ‘How the Corinthians manufacturedtheir first roof tiles’, Hesperia , –.

Sapirstein, P. . ‘The columns of the Heraion atOlympia: Dörpfeld and early Doric architecture’,AJA , –.

Scranton, R.L. . ‘Inscriptions from Phlius’,Hesperia , –.

Shaw, J.W. . Minoan Architecture: Materials andTechniques (Padua).

Shimony, C., Yucha, R. and Werker, E. .‘Ancient anchor ropes from the Dead Sea’,’Atiqot , –.

Shimony, C., Yucha, R. and Werker, E. . ‘Theropes’, in Linder, E. and Kahanov, Y. (eds), TheMa’agan Mikhael Ship. The Recovery of a -Year-Old Merchantman. Final Report, vol.

(Jerusalem), –.Stuart, J. and Revett, N. . The Antiquities of Athens

and Other Places in Greece, Sicily etc.: Supplementaryto the Antiquities of Athens, vol. (London).

Ucelli, G. . Le navi di Nemi, nd edn (Rome).Weinberg, S.S. . ‘Excavations at Corinth, –

’, AJA , –.Wescoat, B.D. , The Temple of Athena at Assos

(Oxford).Whitley, J. . ‘Archaeology in Greece –’,

AR , –.Williams, C.K. II. . ‘Demaratus and Early

Corinthian roofs’, in Kontoleon, N.M. (ed.),Στήλη: τόμος εις μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος(Athens), –.

Williams, R. . ‘Nestor’s war effort (Stat. Ach..)’, CQ ., –.

Wilson, A.I. . ‘Machines in Greek and Romantechnology’, in Oleson, J.P. (ed.), The Oxfordhandbook of Engineering and Technology in theAncient World (Oxford and New York), –.

Ερμηνεύοντας τις αύλακες περίδεσης. Η ανύψωση, η τοποθέτηση και η γένεση της Ελληνικής Μνημειακήςαρχιτεκτονικής.

Οι πρώτες λιθόπλινθοι της Ελληνικής Αρχιτεκτονικής, των ναών των μέσων του ου αιώνα π.Χ. στην Ισθμία και τηνΚόρινθο, θέτουν ένα πρόβλημα για την κατανόηση των αρχών της λίθινης οικοδομικής. Αυτό το ιδιαίτεροχαρακτηριστικό τους είναι η παρουσία αυλάκων ερμηνευμένων λογικά ως ένα μέσα για μετακίνηση των πλίνθων μεσχοινιά. Ωστόσο οι ερευνητές διαwωνούν ως προς τον τρόπο με τον οποίο αυτά τα σχοινιά θα χρησιμοποιούνταν καισε ποιο κατασκευαστικό στάδιο. Οι πρώτοι ανασκαwείς των δύο ναών πρότειναν ότι τα σχοινιά θα εξυπηρετούσαντην ανύψωση κάθε λιθόπλινθου στη θέση της, και ύστερα απομακρύνονταν από τις αυλακώσεις όταν η λιθόπλινθοςείχε τοποθετηθεί σε επαwή με τη διπλανή της. Αργότερα ερευνητές απέρριψαν αυτή τη θεωρία τόσο ως αντιwατικήμε τα τεκμήρια όσο και τεχνικά ανέwικτη, αμwισβητώντας αν ανυψωτικές μηχανές χρησιμοποιούνταν στηναρχαιοελληνική οικοδομική ήδη από τα μέσα του ου αι. π.Χ. Επί του παρόντος, η ευρέως αποδεκτή θεωρίαυποστηρίζει ότι ο γερανός εμwανίστηκε στον Ελληνικό κόσμο μόνο στον ύστερο ο αι. π.Χ. Μια εναλλακτικήυπόθεση είναι ότι οι αύλακες ανοίγονταν νωρίς στην κατασκευαστική διαδικασία ώστε να μπορούν ναχρησιμοποιηθούν σχοινιά για τη μετακίνηση των λιθόπλινθων μέσα στο λατομείο. Ωστόσο, η «ανυψωτική» θεωρίασυνεχίζει να βρίσκει υποστηρικτές. Η διευκρίνηση της σημασίας αυτών των παράλληλων αυλακώσεων είναι έτσιένα θέμα ιδιαίτερης σπουδαιότητας για την ιστορία της αρχαίας ελληνικής οικοδομικής. Αυτό το άρθρο, επανεκτιμάτην εναλλακτική θεωρία με βάση την επανεξέταση των τεκμηρίων, και αποδεικνύει πως η ιδέα ότι οι αύλακεςχρησίμευαν για την ανύψωση είναι η πιο εύλογη. Επιπλέον, το άρθρο υποστηρίζει ότι οι πρόδρομοι του γερανούεμwανίστηκαν στην Ελλάδα πολύ πριν τα τέλη του ου αι. Τέλος, μέσω της εξέτασης του τρόπου με τον οποίο οιλιθίπλινθοι θα μετακινούνταν στη θέση τους μετά την ανύψωση, διατείνεται ότι οι αύλακες χρησίμευαν επίσης στηντοποθέτηση, με μια μέθοδο που προβλέπει την εκλεπτισμένη τεχνική των μοχλών της Κλασικής περιόδου.Μετάwραση: Στέλιος Ιερεμίας.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245419000030


Documents

INTERPRETING ROPE CHANNELS: LIFTING, SETTING AND THE …€¦ · Greece, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East. This article’s last section analyses the grooves in relation