Article contents
Lifting in early Greek Architecture
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Extract
In the standard handbooks on the techniques of Greek architecture, the problem of lifting heavy architectural members is considered mainly in terms of the various cranes and hoists based on compound pulley systems which are described by Vitruvius and Hero of Alexandria. It is assumed that the same basic method was employed also in the Archaic period, and that the use of an earth ramp by Chersiphron to raise the architraves of the temple of Artemis at Ephesos in the mid-sixth century was exceptional. If this is true, it is a matter of some interest in the history of technology. The simple pulley, used not to gain mechanical advantage but just to change the direction of pull, is first known from an Assyrian relief of the ninth century B.C., and may well have been known to the Greeks before they began to build in megalithic masonry in the late seventh century B.C.; but the earliest indisputable evidence for a knowledge of compound pulley systems is in the Mechanical Problems attributed to Aristotle, but more probably written by a member of his school in the early third century B.C. This is a theoretical discussion of a system which was already used by builders, but it is not so certain that practice preceded theory by three centuries or more. It is therefore worth looking again at the evidence for the use of cranes, hoists and pulleys in early Greek building.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1974
References
1 Dinsmoor, W. B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece (3rd ed., 1950) 173–4Google Scholar; Orlandos, A. K., Τὰ Ὑλικὰ Δομῆςτῶν Ἀρχαίων Ἐλλήνων 2 (1958) 101–16, 163–75Google Scholar; Martin, R., Manuel d'Architecture Grècque 1: Matériaux et Techniques (1965) 201–19Google Scholar. These works are cited below by their authors' name only. In addition, the following abbreviations are used:
FD Ecole française d'Athènes, Fouilles de Delphes.
KP Koldewey, R., Puchstein, O., Griechische Tempel in Unteritalien und Sicilien (1899)Google Scholar.
2 Vitruvius 10.2; Hero, Mechanica 3.2–5 (Teubner, ed. Nix-Schmidt; only the first of these sections survives in Greek, the rest in an Arabic translation).
3 Pliny, , Nat. Hist. 36.14Google Scholar. The story is rejected outright by Orlandos, 101–3.
4 JCuneifS 7 (1953) 5–7, fig. 1; Drachmann, A. G., The Mechanical Technology of Greek and Roman Antiquity (1963) 203Google Scholar.
5 [Aristotle] Mech. 18 (=853a32–853b13); Drachmann, A. G., The Mechanical Technology of Greek and Roman Antiquity (1963) 15Google Scholar.
6 Pulleys (in the plural) are mentioned in connection with lifting machines in a fourth century B.C. architectural inscription (IG ii2 1672.156 (329/8 B.C.)). In theory these could be simple pulleys used in parallel, not compound pulley systems.
7 It is important to distinguish the U-shaped holes discussed in the following paragraphs (FIG. 1a) from the U-shaped channels discussed later (FIO. 1b). They are characteristic of different periods of Greek architecture, and are normally related in different ways to the centre of gravity of the blocks concerned. See note 37 below.
8 For lists of the buildings where U-shaped holes occur see Orlandos 165–8, Martin 210 n. 2. Correct the reference in both for the cornice of the Peisistratean temple at Athens to Wiegand, T., Die Archaische Porosarchitektur der Akropolis zu Athen (1904) 121Google Scholar, where the further reference should read Penrose, F. C., Principles of Athenian Architecture (2nd ed., 1888) pl. 46Google Scholar. Add to the lists: the early temple of Apollo at Kyrene (Pernier, L., Il Tempio e ľAltare di Apollo a Cirene (1935) 54, fig. 27–8, pl. 4Google Scholar); an archaic capital from the Akropolis at Athens (Durm, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen (3rd ed., 1910) 98, fig. 71Google Scholar); the early temple of Aphaia at Aigina (Furtwaengler, A., Aegina (1906) 140, fig. 113Google Scholar); a cornice and tympanon block from Kalydon (Dyggve, E., Das Laphrion von Kalydon (1948) 110–15, 117–18Google Scholar).
9 U-shaped holes in these positions in ordinary wall blocks are shown by Orlandos (fig. 119.12) followed by Martin (fig. 88), and by Dinsmoor (fig. 63) respectively. The difficulty was noticed by Bourget, E. in BCH 36 (1912) 650Google Scholar.
10 In the Heraion at Olympia, the early temples of Apollo and Athena at Delphi, the Treasury of the Corinthians at Delphi (BCH 36 (1912) 650, fig. 3), the early temple of Apollo at Kyrene and the temple of Artemis at Kerkyra. For references see Orlandos 168, Martin 210, n. 2 and above, note 8.
11 This function was later fulfilled by small slots cut to take an iron crow-bar (Orlandos 129–30, fig. 70, Martin 235–6, figs. 110–11).
12 Curtius, E., Adler, F., Olympia, Architecture (1892) pl. 18Google Scholar.
13 Treasury of the Corinthians at Delphi, early temple of Aphaia at Aigina, early temple at Mykenai, Peisistratid temple at Athens (Penrose, F. C., Principles of Athenian Architecture (2nd ed. 1888) pl. 46Google Scholar), West Building at the Argive Heraion, Kalydon (unattributed). For references see Orlandos 168, Martin 210, n. 2, and above note 8.
14 FD, Demangel, R., Daux, G., Le Sanctuaire d'Athena Pronaia 1 (1923) 29–33Google Scholar.
15 For this method of carrying heavy stones see Naville, E., Bubastis (1891) pl. 30Google Scholar, and cf. [Aristotle], Mech. 29 (=857b9-20). Usher, A. P., A History of Mechanical Invention (2nd ed., 1954) 157Google Scholar, gives the load carried by a man as 90 lb = 41 kg, but that is for a full day. According to Smith, J., The Panorama of Science and Art 1 (1815) 344Google Scholar, a porter used then to carry 180 lb = 82 kg on his shoulder, while a coalheaver would carry up to 250 lb = 113 kg over a short distance; Hero takes as the standard power input for his baroulkos a man who can lift 5 talents = c. 130 kg (Hero, , Mech. 1.1 (ed. Nix-Schmidt, 4, lines 3–5)Google Scholar). Four men could therefore carry 450 kg or so by means of poles. The approximate weights given here and elsewhere in this paper are based on a weight of 2¼ tons/m3 for limestone and 2¾ tons/m3 for marble.
16 FD, Audiat, J., Le Trésor des Athéniens (1933) 34, 52Google Scholar.
17 FD, Audiat, J., Le Trésor des Athéniens (1933) 52Google Scholar, followed by Orlandos 168 and Martin 210 n. 3. FD, J. Audiat, op. cit., pl. R shows, however, no hole in the southern front architrave block to match the hole near the north end of its backer.
18 Furtwaengler, A., Aegina (1906) 50, pl. 36Google Scholar. Widespread use of a crane or hoist is virtually certain from the late sixth century B.C. onwards; see below pp. 7–8.
19 There seems to be no ancient authority for calling these bosses ancones.
20 Orlandos 163–5, fig. 119.1–2; Martin 209–10, fig. 86; Plommer, W. H., Ancient and Classical Architecture (1956) 150, 154Google Scholar. W. B. Dinsmoor prefers lifting tongs to loops of rope (Dinsmoor 173); the first argument used here does not then apply, but the second and third do, and the fourth applies with increased force. Earlier writers were more cautious about the purpose of the bosses: Choisy, A., ĽArt de Bâtir chez les Romains (1873) 111Google Scholar; Perrot, G., Chipiez, C., Histoire de ľArt 7 (1898) 334, 519, KP 225Google Scholar, Durm, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen (3rd ed., 1910) 147Google Scholar etc.
21 Ist. Mitt. 13/14 (1963–4) 32, fig. 5–7; Hogarth, D. G., British Museum: Excavations at Ephesos; the Archaic Artemisia (1908) 257, fig. 67Google Scholar.
22 Good examples of bosses with unsuitable shape or inadequate projection can be seen in Orlandos fig. 113, Martin pl. 14.2, 16.2, 17.1–2, 18.1, 27.1, 31.2, 36.2, 52.2. One set of bosses which perhaps project enough to hold loops of rope is on the drums prepared for the earlier Parthenon (JDAI 55 (1940) 242–261); some of the knobs are undercut as if to prevent a loop of rope from slipping (as drum 32, ibid. 257 fig. 9), but even here there appear to be some inadequate bosses (as on drum 44 (ibid. 248, fig. 2)). Many, but not all, of the krepis blocks of the temple at Segesta have strongly projecting bosses, but on these see below and notes 23–4.
23 KP pl. 19; Bacon, J., Clark, F., Koldewey, R., Investigations at Assos 1881–3 (1902–1921) 141Google Scholar. Bosses also occur on corner blocks of the Propylaia at Athens and the temple of Zeus at Stratos.
24 Martin 193–4. This objection in fact applies to most of the krepis blocks of the temples at Assos and Segesta, since there is a row of backing blocks tight up against the facing blocks.
25 For such a use of rollers, see Hero, , Mechanica 3.2Google Scholar.
26 Orlandos 171, fig. 125–6, Martin 215–16, 235. Work was usually begun at the two ends of a wall so that two teams of masons could be supplied by a single lifting device set up opposite the middle of the wall. Cf. also below pp. 6–7.
27 The bosses are set low on the orthostates of the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous, (BCH 48 (1924) 312, fig. 4)Google Scholar, the Mausoleum at Belevi (Martin pl. 17.1), and in several instances on the Propylaia at Athens (AJA 8 (1904) 43, fig. 2), the temple of Apollo at Didyma (Wiegand, T., Didyma 1 (1941) pl. 89, 136Google Scholar), and elsewhere.
28 Naxos: AM 49 (1924) 17–22; AA 1968, 693–717; AA 1970, 144–52. Paros: AA 1923–4, 278–94; AM 49 (1924) 22–5; AA 1970, 144–52. A similar situation occurs in the outer column shafts of the Tower of the Winds at Athens. Being monolithic, they were fluted before being set in place, and a small boss was left in four of the flutes, a few centimetres from the ground, to allow the shaft to be positioned exactly (Durm, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen (3rd ed., 1910) 157, fig. 131Google Scholar).
29 For the difficulty of removing rollers from beneath a heavy block, see AA 1968, 703, n. 8. It is noteworthy that no bosses occur on walk with a quarry-faced outer face (e.g. Martin pl. 42–3). Since it is hard to believe that a series of bosses could have been dressed off such a surface without leaving a trace, there is reason to suppose that the rough quarry face took the place of the bosses. This it could do if the bosses were intended to provide purchase for crowbars, but not if the bosses were intended to take loops of rope.
30 Vitruvius 10.2.10; Hero, , Mechanica 3.2Google Scholar.
31 Hero, , Mechanica 3.3Google Scholar.
32 Hero, , Mechanica 3.4–5Google Scholar.
33 See above p. 5 and note 26.
34 Cf. Choisy, A., ĽArt de Bâtir chez les Romains (1873) 117–18Google Scholar.
35 For lists of examples with references see Orlandos 170–2, 172–5, Martin 215–16, 218–19. The West Building at the Argive Heraion should be omitted from Martin's list for lifting tongs (Martin 215), for the relevant cuttings are U-shaped holes (Hesperia 21 (1952) 245, fig. 10). It has recently been argued that die blocks in which these cuttings occur do not belong to the West Building (AJA 77 (1973) 11–16); they must nevertheless date from the sixth century.
36 See note 6 above.
37 See FIG. 1. The lists of examples given by Orlandos 169 and Martin 210, n. 4 confuse the two types of cutting. Except for a block attributed to the Treasury of the Sikyonians (see below and note 39), the early buildings at Delphi have U-shaped holes, not U-shaped channels, and should be omitted from the lists. The broad, shallow grooves in the concealed long face of each of the architrave backers of Temple GT at Selinous (KP 125) may have been used to adjust them against the outer blocks by means of a lever. The backers weigh c. 40 tons and the cuttings imply a single point of suspension.
38 There are some exceptions (KP 225).
39 FD, Demangel, R., Daux, G., Le Sanctuaire d' Athena Pronaia 1 (1923) fig. 36Google Scholar. The building is not fully published, and it is unclear how firmly the block is attributed and whether there was a similar cutting at its other end.
40 KP 99 record three different types of cutting, of which that referred to here is the most complex; it occurs on 3 blocks of the 12 listed by KP. The other types, occurring on 4 of the 12 blocks, have no rope groove, and so would not allow a block to be set tight against its neighbour. The remaining 5 blocks have no cutting.
41 This was done with the front architrave blocks of the temple of Poseidon at Sounion; the backers there had to be lifted with lewis irons so as to be set tight up against the front blocks (Orlandos 163, 170; for a less likely method, see BSA 45 (1950) 85), but in Temple C at Selinous the main part of the architrave consists of just a single row of blocks.
42 KP 105, 225, illustrated by Durm, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen (3rd ed., 1910) fig. 237Google Scholar. These cornice blocks are attributed to Temple D by Orlandos 169, followed by Martin 212–13, but KP 105 refer to Durm's illustration (in the second edition (1892) of Die Baukunst der Griechen, 117, fig. 89) in their description of Temple C, and they make no mention of such grooves in the cornice of Temple D. Only two or three of the cornice blocks have these cuttings, and KP 225 suggest they may have been among the last laid blocks in the course.
43 KP 107, fig. 85.
44 Hesperia 24 (1955) 153–7 (Corinth); Broneer, O., Isthmia 1 (1971) 13Google Scholar. Roebuck, M. C. (Hesperia 24 (1955) 156)Google Scholar comments on the lightness of the blocks from Corinth, and suggests that the rope loops were used for the general handling of the blocks, not specifically for lifting.
45 Bacon, J., Clark, F., Koldewey, R., Investigations at Assos 1881–3 (1902–1921) 155, fig. 6Google Scholar; Orlandos 169, fig. 122. Orlandos refers also to lewis holes in this temple (Orlandos 173, fig. 127), but they occur only in the ceiling beams attributed to the temple by Clark, but justly rejected by Bacon, and Koldewey, (Investigations at Assos 166–7)