bevelled joints and the direction of laying in greek architecture

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Bevelled Joints and the Direction of Laying in Greek Architecture Author(s): A. Trevor Hodge Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Oct., 1975), pp. 333-347Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/503066Accessed: 16-09-2015 17:25 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

This content downloaded from 150.140.135.173 on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:25:13 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bevelled Joints and the Direction of Laying In Greek Architecture

A. TREVOR HODGE

Abstract

In Greek architecture, a bevelled joint is formed when one of the two blocks at the joint has its corner cut off at an angle, forming a bevel. This is usually seen as a device to prevent the blocks getting chipped at their corners during the laying process. This may be questioned following my observation of bevels on over twenty buildings, sometimes in rough work in the foundations that would be out of sight.

Moreover, it is important to observe at a joint which side, left or right, carries the bevel. By this criterion it will be found that the bevels usually come in recognizable sequences or runs, all bevelled on the same side, and presently changing over to a new run, all bevelled on the opposite side. There is strong evidence that these runs reflect the order of laying the blocks, and that when the bevels change sides it is because the workmen met another gang coming from the opposite direction. There is also evidence, particularly from Segesta, that we can state a rule: "At any bevelled joint, it is the block with the bevel that was laid first." This will often enable us to reconstruct the sequence of construction of a building where the more orthodox evidence from pry-holes is not available.

Applying the rule to the buildings where bevels have been observed we find that though the approach often varies, as one would expect, a common pattern can sometimes be noted. A favourite plan was to begin at one corner, working outwards simultaneously in each direction, and meeting at the corner diagonally opposite. The frequency and regu- larity of this system imply two things; first, the existence of a building contract, dividing up the work into given, specified jobs (the meeting point, exactly on the corner, was fixed by deliberate deci- sion, not random chance); secofid, from the fact that work proceeded from the starting point progressively round the temple to the meeting point on the far side (as opposed to a number of starting points which then link up), there were probably only two gangs on the job, implying that, in general, the labour force was small. At the Athenian Propy- laia, however, application of the same rule shows a large number of starting points and the proba- bility of two or three gangs at work simultaneously on each wall, implying a labour force much larger than usual, as one would expect in Athens.

PLATES 56-57

One of the problems in construction technique in Greek architecture to which as yet little attention has been paid is the order in which the blocks were laid. At first sight it is of little importance. It is the completed temple that matters, and it may seem hardly vital to know which of two adjacent blocks in the stylobate was set in place first. In reality however this can often throw valuable light on the whole construction process. When one con- siders a series of blocks such as one of the steps of a temple or one of the courses in the cella wall, one sees that there are various ways in which they could be laid. The masons can begin at one end of the building and work straight through to the other. They can begin at the two ends and meet at some point in the middle (probably the most logical pro- cedure for measuring horizontal curvature). They can begin at the middle and work outwards toward the ends. And they can begin at two or three inter- mediate points and work outwards from each until they all link up. And successive courses can be laid, all working in the same direction, alternately in opposite directions, or in some combination of these. Thus, the cella walls of the Temple of Nike at Athens were laid with each course beginning from the two ends and the last block laid being somewhere in the middle, while in the cella of the Parthenon the courses ran alternately, and apparently each was laid running straight through from one end to (almost) the other-strictly speaking, the last block laid was the one next to the anta.'

The evidence for the order of laying normally comes from the position of the dowels, shifts, and pry-holes. A block was normally dowelled to the course below at one end only. The dowel, obviously, could not be set in place until the block itself was in place, which meant that it had to be inserted in the exposed end of the block, the other end being inaccessible and covered by the neighbouring block already in place. Thus at any given joint one block

1 A. Orlandos, T& 'TXLK& Aoqs 7r;v 'APXCtWv 'EXXvj;wv (Athens 1959-1960) II, 197, fig. 154 (Parthenon); R. Martin,

Manuel d'Architecture Grecque (Paris 1965) 285, fig. 129 (Nike), and 284.


334 A. TREVOR HODGE [AJA 79 will be dowelled and one not, and it is the block with the dowel that will have been laid first. As for shifts and pries, in normal practice a block was set down by the crane almost in its final position and then was pushed home the last centimetre or two against its neighbour by a lever or crowbar, while another crowbar was sometimes laid across the top edge of the neighbouring block to engage in the approaching block and assist in manipulating it.2 The crowbar pushing the block home often had its lower end accommodated in a pry-hole cut for it in the upper surface of the course below. Normal- ly, therefore, where there is a joint there is also a pry-hole (sometimes two) in the course below and a little to one side of the joint. Which side of the joint depends on which direction the block was being pushed, and it is plain that it was always the block on the side of the joint away from the pry-hole that was laid first, as will become clear from a glance at either of the examples quoted above (note 2).

Dowels, pry-holes and the like are reliable evidence for the direction of laying, but they have great disadvantages. When a course is fully preserved in situ its dowels cannot be seen; and the pry-holes in the course below are also hidden. And if the blocks are missing, leaving the pry-holes below exposed, it may not always be easy to work out exactly where the joints fell, which is essential if we are to work out on which side of them the pry-holes were cut. If a course is partly preserved the exposed dowel of the end block and pry-hole of the last uncovered block of the course below will give evidence for the direction of laying at that point, but there may be no guarantee that all the rest of the course was laid in the same way. And when we are dealing with a course that has another one still in position on top of it, there is no way of getting at this evidence and reading it without taking the whole building apart. Finally, we may note that the dowel principle will not work for the many buildings that were built without dowels (in particular, there are very few dowels in West- ern Greek buildings).

There is, however, another feature sometimes present in Greek architecture the existence of which has not, I believe, been noted and which, where it

occurs, can be used as evidence of the direction of laying. This is the bevelled joint. The generally accepted view on bevelled joints divides them into two categories. First, there is the large, prominent bevel cut round the edges of a block as decoration. This usually occurs in buildings of Hellenistic date or later, as one of the rusticated effects then fashion- able." They are large and obvious, since one of their functions is to catch the light and emphasise the division between the blocks by a shadow-line, and they are always double bevels: that is, at any given joint both blocks are bevelled, so that the joint is marked by a V-shaped channel, with both sides set at the same slope relative to the outer surface. Bevels of this kind do not concern us in this article. The other category consists of the tiny, narrow, and almost invisible bevels cut on the edges of good classical masonry and usually considered purely as a structural device to prevent the blocks becoming chipped during the laying process.' Most commen- tators write of these bevels as being standard practice in Greek architecture, but the only place where they have actually been identified is in the walls of the Athenian Propylaia where, it is argued, they have been preserved for our inspection by the un- finished state of the building. However, I have noted that preserved bevels of this kind seem to be more widespread than is generally thought, and that while they do not always conform to the pre- scription of function set out above they do seem to obey certain rules of their own not hitherto published and, in particular, to offer good evidence for the direction of laying of the blocks bearing them. At this point, moreover, it seems to me wise to exclude from our consideration the bevels of the Propylaia. Our findings will then have been achieved independently of that building, and may then subsequently be applied to it as a reasonable test of the validity of our conclusions.

The Propylaia apart, then, the bevels found elsewhere share certain characteristics. They are usually small and narrow, and not easily seen unless one is particularly looking for them. They are in- variably single bevels: at each vertical joint only one block is bevelled, the other being left cut square (a fact that, as we will see, becomes of crucial importance). They usually occur only on the lower

2 Orlandos (supra n. 1) 130, fig. 70, and 198, fig. 155 (pry holes); Martin (supra n. I) 236-37, figs. IIo (= Orlandos, fig. 70), 111, and 237-38.

3R. Scranton, Greek Walls (Harvard 1941) 22 and 131.

A good example is the orthostates of the Leonidaion at Olym- pia. See also Martin (supra n. i) pl. XLIII, 4 (Gortys).

4 W.B. Dinsrnoor, The Architecture of Ancient Greece3 (Lon- don 1950) 173, 175. Orlandos (supra n. I) 147, figs. 88, 9o.


1975] BEVELLED JOINTS AND THE DIRECTION OF LAYING 335 part of the building, the commonest place being the euthynteria. Sometimes they run the entire length of the course around all four sides of the building; sometimes they appear only in isolated stretches; sometimes they will appear on a series of courses; sometimes on one alone. Moreover, while they are usually larger than the tiny Propy- laia bevels they are extremely hard to photograph and so to document convincingly; and they are almost never shown on the site publications. Per- sonal inspection on the site is the only way to discover them. A general survey such as this study does not claim to be an exhaustive study of all the bevels in Greek architecture, but it may be of interest if I list the buildings where I have observed bevels of this kind:

Temple of Aphaia Bevels on euthynteria, all four sides. Also all courses of foundations visible. Foundations also have horizontal bevels on lower edge of each block. See pl. 56, figs. I-3-

Temple of Nemesis, Rhamnous Bevels on middle step, all four sides where preserved. They occur only in raised decorative band (or protective strip) on middle of riser; in smooth, finished strips at top and bottom of riser joints are unbevelled. See pl. 56, figs. 4-5. The top step seems to have had bevels in raised band, but this is not certain. What is certain is that the horizontal joints in the stylobate, where these ran through the middle of one of the raised protective panels left standing between the columns, carried bevels. See pl. 56, fig. 6: this shows the riser of the top step and the stylobate at a point on the South side opposite the Temple of Themis, and shows the stylobate joint (upper part of the photograph) carrying a bevel on the right-hand side. These stylobate bevels are without parallel. I also found preserved a small Propylaia-type bevel on one of the orthostates.

Temple of Poseidon, Sounion

Large and clear bevels on top foundation course, E facade (pl. 56, fig. 7). Small and narrow bevels on raised section of bottom step, South

side. See pl. 56, fig. 8. The difference between the open cracks in the jointing of the bottom step and the flush joints in the euthynteria below is not fortuitous; the cracks are visible in the step because they are the open end of a bevelled joint. This is interesting, because, unlike Rhamnous, this is finished work and the crack-effect of the bevels must be intended, quite apart from any structural significance they had. We may note that each step block carries on its riser an oblong stippled panel surrounded by a drafted margin, the effect being to emphasize the individual blocks rather than the continuous unity of the step; this effect is reinforced by the cracks of the bevelled joints.5

Temple of Zeus, Olympia Bevels on euthynteria. Probably exist on all four sides but much is inaccessible under fallen blocks. Clear on W facade and SE corner.

Temple of Apollo, Delos Bevels on lower, raised section of euthynteria, all four sides. See pl. 57, fig. 9.

Temple of Zeus, Stratos Bevels on all steps where preserved and euthynteria, all four sides. Bevels go quite deep (about 1.5 cm.) but are very narrow and easily over- looked; the plainest to see are those on the bottom step and euthynteria, E facade. See pl. 57, fig. io, showing a joint in the euthynteria viewed vertically, from above. The joint, immediately to the right of the two prominent white spots (weathering), may just be discerned to have its left-hand side bevelled.

Treasury of Selinus, Olympia Bevels on projecting band, bottom wall course. See pl. 57, fig. 11.

Stoa of Attalos, Agora, Athens Bevels on foundations, all courses, and toichobate (i.e., the projecting string course on the East side of the Stoa at stylobate level). The bevels on the East side, which is ancient, have been re- produced on the West side by the modern masons.

5 We may in passing note that in the steps of the Theseion also, by the same architect as the temples of Rhamnous and Sounion, it would appear that bevels were used to avoid chipping. A joint inspection by Mr. W.B. Dinsmoor Jr. and myself

revealed what could be the remains of two such bevels on the middle step, North side, near the East end; apparently the bevels had been cut a little too deep and traces of them re- mained even when the protective surface was removed.


336 A. TREVOR HODGE [AJA 79 Square Peristyle, Agora, Athens

Bevels on wall blocks. A few are still in situ behind the Stoa, but most were moved in an- tiquity and used in the South Stoa, where they are to be seen now.

Treasuries, Delphi Two small treasuries behind the Treasury of the Athenians, most conveniently identified as those marked 16 and 14 in the plan on p. 629 of the 1962 Guide Bleu, Gr&ce. No. 14: bevels on wall base, W facade. No. 16: bevels on first three courses, W facade.

Old Parthenon

Very small and narrow bevels on top course of podium (the one with rusticated panels on each block). Exist only on this course and only for a short stretch running West from the SW corner, noted and accurately marked in his restored elevation by F.C. Penrose (Principles of Athenian Architecture [London 1888] pl. 9). This is the only place I know of where such bevels have been remarked and published.

Temple of Victory, Himera Clear bevels on inner face of top step, i.e., in the peristyle. Exist only at East and West ends (un- paved), in side peristyle removed in dressing blocks back to receive peristyle pavers. Bevels also on wall base of cella complex, outside (peristyle) face, all four sides. See pl. 57, figs. 13-14.

Temple, Segesta Very small bevels in protective surfaces of top three steps, all sides. See pl. 57, fig. 15: it is the right-hand block that is bevelled. The slant of the bevel may most easily be discerned in the lower- most few centimetres of the joint.

Temple G, Selinus

Large bevels in protective surface, top step; often inaccessible because of fallen blocks. Lower steps still buried in earth.

Temple D, Selinus Bevels on first and second wall courses at NE corner inside cella.

Temple A, Selinus Bevels on euthynteria, W facade.

Megaron on Acropolis, Selinus Bevels on short stretch of bottom wall course, SW corner.

Olympieion, Agrigento Bevels on inner face of top step, NW corner.

Temple of Hera, Agrigento Bevels on euthynteria and foundation courses, S side.

San Biagio, Agrigento Bevels on all foundation courses, S side.

Santa Maria dei Greci, Agrigento Bottom step, S side.6

Temple of Apollo, Syracuse Bevels on bottom step, S side.

Ionic Temple, Locri Bevels on inner face of bottom step blocks (i.e. underneath peristyle pavers), NW, and part of E sides. See pl. 57, fig. 17, and ill. 5-

The function of these bevels is doubtful, if indeed they did all have the same function. Some of them probably were an anti-chipping device, later to be removed with the removal of a protective surface. Some, on buildings of the Fourth Century or later (or even at Sounion ?) may have been for decoration-this is certainly the case with the two buildings in the Agora. We may, perhaps, see in the bevels a construction technique that, after the fifth century, was retained and perhaps adapted as decoration. More problematic are those bevels appearing on the euthynteria, usually a fairly rough member, and on the foundations. In the Ionic Temple at Locri there are bevels on the inner face

6I am not wholly certain of this. On the occasion of my visit some time ago the electric light had failed (the temple is under a modern church), and I was not able to make out too much by the flickering candle of the custode, especially as part of the crepidoma appeared to be buried under a landslide. So

it was that I never really saw these joints at all but only felt them with my hands in the dark. They certainly seemed to be ordinary bevels, but it is just possible that the course bearing them is the euthynteria, not the bottom step. I found the dark- ness a little confusing.


1975] BEVELLED JOINTS AND THE DIRECTION OF LAYING 337 of the bottom step blocks, which would be quite out of sight underneath the peristyle pavers. Chip- ping would be of no importance here, and the blocks are in any case left in a very roughly finished state. And again, why the predominance in the lower parts of the building, whatever their function ?

More important for our purposes, however, than their function is one further characteristic of these bevels. We have noted that at each joint the bevel was on one side, the other block being cut square. We may now add the observation that in any given course the bevels run in regular, identifiable sequences, according to which side of the joint carries the bevel. That is, once a joint is bevelled on one side-whichever it is-then succeeding joints in that course will be bevelled on the same side. This sequence may extend the entire length of the temple, with all the bevels on the same side, facing the same way. Sometimes, however, they change direction, a joint suddenly appearing bevelled on the opposite side to its predecessors. This joint then sets a new pattern and the joints following will conform to it. The bevels thus come in recognizable runs or series. This situation is illustrated in the diagram, ill. I, which shows in plan a course of blocks with bevelled joints. From A A, a run of left-handed bevels goes as far as the block marked D. Here they change to right-handed, leaving block D itself bearing no bevels at all, with both corners cut square. The right-hand trend con- tinues past B B, into the lower half of the diagram up to the block E. Here it switches back again and a new left-handed run carries on to C C. The block E is thus left carrying bevels at both ends, the opposite of block D. The whole picture is a very common one, encountered many times in the buildings I have just listed. On the other hand I

know of no building where the bevels switch from one side to the other at random, higgledy-piggledy; nor do I know of one where there is complete uniformity, with all the bevels in the building on the same side. Quite apart, then, from the function of the bevels, to which we may not be able to give a definitive answer, there is the question of why they come in runs and what this indicates.

The most obvious and likely suggestion is that the runs somehow reflect the order of laying the blocks and that when the bevels switch to the other side it is because we have now met a new sequence of blocks, laid starting from the opposite end. The obvious way for us to proceed would be of course to make comparative studies of the runs of bevels and the direction of lay as shown by pry-holes and see whether the two consistently cor- responded. But usually this is impossible, for there is a basic conflict. The bevels are on the blocks themselves, the pry-holes on the course below, on which they rested. Comparison of the two is thus not usually possible, since the pry-hole evidence only becomes available when the blocks (and their bevels) are missing. There are however occasions where for one and the same block comparison of bevels and pries is possible, such as the end block in a course preserved through only part of its length. But what is needed for real proof is a large temple with plenty of blocks, in which we can keep a continuous running check on the behaviour of both pry-holes and bevels for the same course. Normally this is an impossibility, but the Temple of Segesta is an exception.

At Segesta (pl. 57, fig. 16) the stylobate blocks are preserved and missing in alternate pairs, for the pair of blocks that filled each intercolumniation has been looted while the pair under each column has been preserved by the column standing on top of

A B

A' D B'

B C

B' E C' - * * F

ILL. I. Diagram illustrating bevels and direction of laying


338 A. TREVOR HODGE [AJA 79 them, giving the temple a peculiar appearance whereby at first sight the columns appear to be standing on square plinths. This is very fortunate, for it gives us, as if in a scientifically arranged experiment, an opportunity of observing continu- ously the bevels on the riser of the top step, preserved at each column, and the pry-holes on the upper surface of the course below, exposed in all the intercolumniations (as is usual in Magna Grae- cia, there are no dowels). From the pry-holes in this course the order of laying the stylobate blocks becomes clear: they started at the midpoints of the long sides and worked outwards towards the ends. As already noted, these blocks also carry bevels, contained within the protective surface on the riser of the top step. These bevels always correspond exactly with the pry-holes below them, switching direction on the very block shown by the pry-holes to have been the first block laid. From this block a run of bevels stretches out to each end of the building, in agreement with the pry-holes, which remain consistently located on the same side of the block joints. This ioo/o correspondence must constitute sure proof that here the bevels reflect and are completely linked to the direction of laying. Granted that the evidence of Segesta is itself ap- plicable only to Segesta, we are nevertheless justi- fied in taking it as a working rule that bevels do reflect direction of lay, at least until we find evidence to the contrary. It may be noted that this correspondence of bevels and direction is quite independent of any comprehension of their function or the circumstances of their cutting. I am not at all sure why the bevels exist or why they should be linked to the direction of laying, though I could make various suggestions. But the fact of the link at Segesta does seem to be established.

However, the relevance of Segesta has not yet been exhausted. The first block laid has been identified, in the middle of the course, by pry-holes. This block carries bevels on both ends-that is, it is like block E in ill. i. As one stands facing this block on the South side of the temple one knows from the pry-holes that the blocks towards the East end were laid working from left to right (i.e., working eastwards). Examination shows that their joints all carry a bevel on the left-hand side; or, putting it the other way round, all the blocks are

bevelled on their right-hand end. Towards the other end of the temple, where the blocks were laid working in the other direction, the position is reversed: the bevel is on the right-hand side of every joint, that is, on the left-hand end of the blocks. From this follows the general rule at Segesta: at any joint it was the block with the bevel that was laid first, and the other square-cut block was then pushed home against it. Moreover, this rule would appear to hold good for Greek architecture in general. The peculiar conditions of Segesta, with its blocks preserved and missing in regular alternation, are unique, but as remarked above there are buildings where we have evidence from both pry-holes and bevels for the same block, or several such blocks.

A good example is the euthynteria of the Temple of Apollo on Delos (pl. 57, fig. 9). Quite a lot of this course is missing, but there are preserved in situ some 56 blocks, all carrying bevels. Pry-holes are often visible in the course below where the euthynteria blocks are missing, and show that in this temple, too, the block bearing the bevel was laid first. The same thing can be said of the Tem- ple of Nemesis at Rhamnous. There, part of the middle step on the South side is missing, at the West end. Applying our rule to the bevels on the preserved part we deduce that it was laid from East to West, and the pry-holes for the missing section tell the same story. On the North side the entire top step is missing. Pry-holes on the preserved middle step show that it was laid from East to West, and the bevels on the middle step itself show that it too was laid in this direction. We find something similar in the wall base of the cella building at Himera. On all four sides-i.e., the two long sides and the pronaos and opisthodomos stylobates -there are bevelled joints. On the principle enunciated above they show that the course was laid starting at the NE corner, continued simultaneously along the North and East sides, and finally met at the SW corner diagonally opposite. At one or two places pry-holes give us the direction of laying of the orthostates above, and sometimes the first course of the wall blocks above that. When they do, both courses are found to be running in the same direction as that given by bevels for the wall base. It therefore looks as if all courses were laid running in the same direction,' and if so the

7 This is probably a more common arrangement than courses laid alternately in opposite directions (such as the cella of the

Parthenon), though both systems are in use. As examples we may quote the cella walls of the Megaron of Demeter at Gag-


1975] BEVELLED JOINTS AND THE DIRECTION OF LAYING 339 evidence of the bevels in the wall base stands con- firmed.

Of particular interest is the Stoa of Attalos at Athens. All the courses of the foundations, or podium, on which it stands, up to and including the toichobate, on the East side of the building (the corresponding courses on the West side are modern), carry large and clear bevels. They are all right-handed, indicating a direction of laying from North to South. I am indebted to Mr. W.B. Dins- moor, Jr., for the observation that the building really was built working in this way, as is shown by the lie of the land, the North end being much lower than the South. It is clear, then, that work had to start at the lowest point. With the ground sloping downhill and the courses being laid horizontal the shape of the podium in elevation is in effect a right-angled triangle with the ground as the hypotenuse. As they get higher up the courses get progressively longer before they are cut off by the rising groundline, and it is only the top few courses that exist through the whole length of the building. Work therefore simply must have started at the lower corner of the building and spread from it. This means the direction of lay is from North to South, confirming that here too, with one exception, the bevels obey our rule.8 The exception is the Northern extremity of the Stoa, which is a later extension, subsequently added to the already finished building (the original finished North wall, against which the extension abutted, can be seen inside the Stoa basement). Construction of the extension would obviously have to begin abutting on the already existing structure and working outwards (to the North) away from it. This direction of lay is the opposite to that employed in the original building, but there is no change in the bevels, which remain on the right-hand side. The explanation would seem to be that the bevels in the Stoa

podium are fairly large and clear, aesthetic in purpose and emphasizing the heavy and massive char- acter of the masonry. Being meant to be seen, therefore, they had to be cut on the right-hand side irrespective of the laying process because they had to match those on the rest of the building which already existed. This explains how here, because of this exceptional circumstance, it was the block with the bevel that was laid last, not first.

The coincidence of so many blocks at Segesta, Himera, Rhamnous, Delos, and elsewhere all behaving in this same way, coupled with the absence, at least to my own observation, of a single one (other than the special case of the Stoa extension) clearly behaving to the contrary, does, I think, mean that we can apply this principle as a working rule to bevels in Greek architecture in general. It is again illustrated by ill. I. By application of our rule we can now determine the actual order of the blocks laid. Since at each joint it was the block with the bevel that was laid first, we now know that the first set of blocks, starting from A and going as far as D, was laid working in the direction of the arrow drawn under them, from left to right. Be- tween D and E this direction was reversed, again as indicated by the arrow. At E it reverted to its original order, left to right.' We may also observe that under this system we may automatically recog- nize a block with bevels at both ends, such as E, as the first block to be laid, and one with no bevels at all, such as D, as the last, where two runs coming from opposite directions meet.

If this rule is accepted it becomes of great service in enabling us to reconstruct the order of laying and hence the sequence of construction for many buildings where otherwise we would not know it. Our task must now be to apply it to all buildings where bevels have been observed (the Propylaia still excluded). If the construction picture emerging

gera, the cella foundations of the Olympieion at Agrigento, the peristyle foundations of the Ionic Temple at Locri, and the foundations of San Biagio at Agrigento (all running the same way); Temple D, Selinus, illustrates the alternate arrangement (wall courses of SW corner of adyton), while the foundations of the Temple of Hera at Agrigento combine both systems: on the South side the euthynteria and the top course of the foundations run the same way (from East to West), the succeeding foundation courses alternately.

8I am much indebted to the courtesy and expertise of Mr. Dinsmoor for these suggestions, and for other valuable assis- tance. It may be worth mentioning that on this occasion I first explained my views on bevels to Mr. Dinsmoor upstairs in the Stoa. We then went out to look for bevels in the Agora, and

by chance found them on the Stoa itself, which neither of us had known were there. The bevels, apart from the Stoa extension (see below), did conform to the rule I had just enunciated. Since this happened after I had outlined my ma- terial, we may perhaps consider that our rule on bevels has, in a small way, already survived one independent test.

9 To avoid possible confusion, let me make clear that by "direction of laying" and "order of laying" I mean the same thing. I mean the sequence of laying the blocks as the gang, say, moved from one end of the building to the other; and this is what the arrows show. I do not mean the motion of the block as it was pushed home by the crowbar against its neighbour, which motion will be in the opposite direction to the "direction of laying" as defined above.


340 A. TREVOR HODGE [AJA 79 from it is a coherent and reasonable one, then that in itself will be strong evidence that our rule can be relied on. The results of such an application are set out graphically in ill. 2. Each of the oblongs represents the building named. They are not to scale, though all are correctly oriented to the North (i.e., the bottom of each oblong represents the South side of that building). Alongside the appro- priate part of each building are drawn arrows indicating the direction of laying observable there by bevels, on the principle stated above and illustrated in ill. i. Where an arrow stops short, leaving part of a side blank, it means that observation of the bevels ceases at that point, for whatever reason: no more bevels were ever cut, they are too worn to be reliable, the blocks are missing, or are buried under earth or fallen masonry. Again, though I have tried to be accurate, there may be minor slips. But the general picture is what matters.

There are two points worthy of comment. First, even the least impressive pieces of evidence do have some weight. The single arrow across the W facade of Temple A, Selinus, has as its chief significance not the fact that in this temple we know the direction of lay of one solitary course in one side, but that in this course all the blocks do carry the bevels on the same side, confirming our earlier statement that the bevels do come in recognizable runs and not at random. The lengths of the arrows relative to the size of the buildings should make it plain how long some of these runs are. Second, the general construction picture emerging from this does not seem unreasonable.

The commonest practice seems to have been to start from one of the corners and there seems to have been a preference for the North-West. There are more arrows pointing out of the top left-hand corner than into it. From there construction carried on along the two sides running away from the corner, and met again somewhere at the far end of the temple. The most neat and tidy meeting point was the corner diagonally opposite to the starting point, and this is what happened at Stratos (steps and euthynteria), Aphaia (euthynteria), and Himera (cella wall base). Sometimes the meeting

point was slightly off the actual corner (probably because one of the gangs was delayed or worked slightly slower), as in the Treasury of Selinus at Olympia, and perhaps in the Temple of Zeus there too. In the Temple of Apollo in Delos, on the other hand, apparently one run of blocks got round three full sides of the building before they met the others coming the opposite way."? In the Olym- pieion at Agrigento the blocks met in the middle of the East facade; and in the stylobate of Himera it looks as if they began at the middle of the South side and met again in the middle of the North one, but this is not wholly certain, and there is in any case some confusion at the NE corner where a small section of the East facade seems to have been laid going in the opposite direction to the rest. All of this, though reasonably consistent, is at variance with what seems to have been Athenian practice, namely, beginning at the ends and working in towards the middle."

Moreover, there is one further general point to be made. There is some significance in just where the two runs of blocks meet. In the Treasury of Selinus and the Temple of Zeus at Olympia we cannot be quite sure just what has happened since the evidence is incomplete, but at face value it would appear that the meeting point is a little to one side of the half-way mark, and determined completely by chance and the progress of the work; both gangs of workmen pressed ahead as well as they could, and that was where they happened to meet, working at their own natural speed. But the picture given by Stratos, Himera (cella), Aphaia, and the Olympieion, Agrigento, is very different. There the meeting point is so symmetrical to the building, at the mid-point of the facade or exactly on the angle block, that it cannot be fortuitous. We cannot believe that at Stratos, in the euthynteria and apparently on all three steps, the work resulted in a dead-heat with both crews arriving simultaneously at the opposite corner on all four occasions. One would normally expect one crew or the other to get there first by some small margin. But when this happened, instead of turning the corner and carrying on to meet their colleagues (as is the pic-

10 F. Courby (Dilos XII, 198), presumably relying on pries, says that the two gangs seem to have met at the opposite corner. My interpretation is based on the bevels of the blocks now in place, but there seem to be rather fewer of them in Courby's Plate III, btat Actuel, so some of them may have been placed there after excavation and hence be unreliable evidence for direction of laying.

11 It is a real difficulty with the working-all-round-the-building approach that one would expect it to make difficult the calculation of horizontal curvature, which would be handled much more easily by starting at the ends and working inwards. But the evidence of the pries at Delos, as interpreted by Courby (previous note), makes it clear that, difficult or not, this approach was sometimes followed.


1975] BEVELLED JOINTS AND THE DIRECTION OF LAYING 341

DIRECTION OF LAY BY BEVELS I Top step 5 1st course foundations 2 Middle step 6 2nd io" l o Ori tio : 3 Botom stop 7 3rd Or i 4 Euthynteria

* - l -

* _ ___ ___ __ *+-

342 A. TREVOR HODGE [AJA 79 ture in the two Olympia buildings noted), they evidently downed tools or went off to do something else; they had done their stint. The meeting point was thus an intended, not a fortuitous, one, probably planned right from the start, and it would seem, therefore, that work on the temple was seen in terms of set units. Laying the blocks along two sides of the temple was an identifiable, defined job. We may therefore detect in these two groups of buildings a fundamental difference in their approach to construction, and I would myself be very tempted to see in it a reflection of the difference between piece work and day labour. We know from the building inscriptions that both forms of payment were used. The gangs fluting the columns of the Erechtheion, for example, were all paid the same amount for each column, no matter how long they took on the job, while other workmen about the site, the product of whose labours might be less easily measurable, were paid at a rate of one drachma a day.'2 It would seem to me that the four structures of the Stratos group are most easily un- derstood in the context of a building contract.13 At Olympia-and it may be significant that both buildings are at the same site-there may have been contracts and contractors just the same. But if there were, the actual masons working for them behave like day labourers, going ahead with the job until it is finished without worrying about who did what parts of it.

We may also make one or two general observa- tions. In most buildings, it would seem, work was begun in only one point of the building and carried on expanding laterally from there until the whole course was complete. Work beginning at two or more different points and then linking up does exist, but is on the whole unusual. This may perhaps indicate that there were only two gangs at work. There is of course in theory no reason why

each one should not have been followed by another gang laying the course above on top of the blocks already laid-they did not have to wait for each course to be complete in its entirety before starting on the next, though it would have made things like the calculation of horizontal curvature more difficult-but we can probably say that in practice it does imply a fairly small number of workmen on the site, perhaps only two gangs (apart from men engaged on other jobs than laying the blocks). A large labour force might be ex- pected to begin work simultaneously at a number of points, and the fact that this does not happen might reasonably be taken as confirmation of views expressed elsewhere that the work force was small.'4

One may also note that this approach, using only a small work force and working progressively along and around the building, would be consistent with the approach to building described by Bundgaard as the "successive method."'" The es- sence of this is that the architect did not work from a drawn master plan but rather from a combination of written specification and a corpus of tradi- tional knowledge and skills-one might almost call it "architecture-lore." The temple grew progressively, bit by bit, solutions were devised for problems as they arose, and minor inaccuracies (particularly in the length of blocks) were either corrected or it was arranged that they cancelled each other out. For an architect working in this way it is clearly preferable to use a small work force working its way progressively through the temple than to attempt to co-ordinate the efforts of a large force making a mass attack on a large number of points at once. Our evidence from the bevels would seem to point in the same way.

It is at this point that we must now turn to the Propylaia at Athens. Our rule has been tested by

12Paton and Stevens, The Erechtheum (Cambridge, Mass. 1927) 412.

13 On building contracts see Alison Burford, Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros (Liverpool 1969) 97-99. A useful parallel to the workmen of the Stratos group, carefully building exactly one-half of the crepidoma, is to be seen in her 212, II. 12-16, where the contract calls for two contractors each to supply stone for "one-half of the cella." For the contrast between day labour at Athens and building contracts elsewhere, see her 12f. See also A.W. Gomme, Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford 1937) 51-52, and P.H. Davis, BCH 1937, 109-35 (contracts on Delos).

14 Burford (supra n. 13) 192: "The inference is that the number of men employed by the sanctuary at any one time . . . will rarely have numbered more than tens or scores at the

most." Bundgaard, Mnesicles (Copenhagen 1957) 132, believes that "In the building of a temple there must have been several gangs of masons at work, at least one for each side." Burford, loc. cit., assumes, reasonably, four or five men to a gang, which would give us a work force for the actual job of laying of 16-20, according to Bundgaard, or of 8-io, according to the bevel evidence of Stratos. Bundgaard also notes (228, n. 266) that in several Western Greek temples there seem to be two different sets of basic measurements in use on two different sides of the temple (two gangs at work, as at Stratos?), and that at Bassai "it is tempting to conclude that the basic measurement used on the North front was somewhat larger than that used on the three remaining sides" (compare the Temple of Apollo, Delos).

15 Bundgaard (supra n. 15) 141ff.


1975] BEVELLED JOINTS AND THE DIRECTION OF LAYING 343

application to a number of buildings and shown to give results in general consistent and probably reliable. This particular building has throughout been excluded from our consideration, partly because I am not sure that the Propylaia bevels are the same sort as those we have seen on the steps and foundations, and obeying the same rules, and partly because it seemed better to formulate our rule from evidence quite independent of the Propylaia and then to see whether when applied to the Propylaia the result made sense.

I have observed two wall blocks from the Propy- laia (at the time of writing they are placed on top of the South wall of the Old Propylon) where both

bevels and dowels are preserved, and these show that here again it was the bevelled block that was laid first. In general, however, all the Propylaia wall blocks are still in situ with the walls still standing, so that the direction of lay cannot be checked by dowels or pry-holes. The only point that can be checked is whether the bevels do come in recognizable runs or series, and whether these, translated into direction of lay, produce a reasonable system. In ill. 3 are represented three walls of the Propy- laia. They are (a) Main Hall, South side, inside (i.e., northern) face; (b) Main Hall, North side, inside (southern) face; and (c) Pinakotheke, East wall, Eastern face (i.e., the back, facing the Parthe-

ANTA

ANTA I I I I I I I I ,

NB- Th sloping li.

tis; ~th jolnts mark, t,

he Bis tl:E-

(C)

I I , ! ,I !.. .

ILL. 3. Diagram of bevels in walls of Propylaia: (a) Main Hall, South wall; (b) Main Hall, North wall; (c) Pinakotheke, East wall


344 A. TREVOR HODGE [AJA 79

non). In each diagram is shown the direction of the bevel on each block, as reliably as my eye could determine them. In each wall, of course, the bevels continue right up to the top, but beyond the courses illustrated they were getting too far away for me to see. The direction of lay, as indicated by bevels, is then shown in ill. 4, (a), (b), and (c).16

To begin with, it is immediately obvious that the case is not automatically proved. There comes to light no regular, uniform system repeated in every course. Yet there are resemblances. As one looks

at ill. 4 (a) one sees that the bottom course was laid throughout from right to left, the next one from the two ends and the mid-point simultaneously (3 starting points), and the next three all from the right-hand end and one other block in mid-course (2 starting points). In the corresponding wall on the other side of the Main Hall (ill. 4 [b]) the number of starting points on the four courses shown is 2, 3, 3, and 2. Particularly striking is the correspondence between the starting points at the fourth-fifth block from the right in all four

16There are also bevels on the risers of the steps of the West hexastyle. They are not too clear but seem to indicate that the steps were in general laid from South to North. The bevels on the four steps in the Main Hall, leading up to the crosswall, on the other hand, are completely consistent and

show that in all steps work began at the outer ends and finished at the central passageway running down the middle of the building. Under the East hexastyle there exist only the stylobate blocks (no steps), most of which seem to have been laid working from the central passage outwards.

ANTA

ANTA

(),

-

II) I-

'

-

(C) dL l

j JL J .VFW.

- t Imw

ILL. 4. Direction of laying in walls of Propylaia, according to bevels (a), (b), and (c) as in fig. 3


1975] BEVELLED JOINTS AND THE DIRECTION OF LAYING 345 courses. Regularly staggered because of the jointing in the masonry, it does seem that here the bevels really must reflect the direction of laying and the point of beginning in the successive courses. In the Pinakotheke wall the picture seems different (c). The regular direction of lay seems to have been left to right, which is what we would expect, working outwards from the central core of the building towards the wings. The orthostates were begun at the left-hand end and the mid-point (2 starting points). The first course above ran mostly from the left end, with another starting point towards the right. The next two ran uniformly from left to right. The last one was mostly left to right but there is a very confused situation toward the left-hand end that I cannot profess to understand (3 starting points).

Though there is no uniformity, yet discernible patterns do exist that can hardly be attributed completely to chance. Both "first blocks laid" and "last blocks laid" have a tendency to bunch together. In (a) there is a heavy concentration of "last blocks" (double arrowheads) around the middle of the wall, which is what we would expect from gangs working inwards from each end. But twice some- body had already set a single, solitary block in place near the wall's midpoint, and the two con- verging runs ran up and abutted on it. In (b) some- body evidently had a marked preference for a starting point one third of the way along from the right. In (a) and (b) there are quite a number of short- ish runs of four or five blocks, and several starting points. This would seem to indicate at least two gangs working on each wall, and perhaps sometimes a third one laying a block or two to lend a hand. In (c), with its long runs running all the way across from left to right, one might speculate that in view of the high level of activity in the Main Hall, here there may have been two or three gangs working simultaneously on successive courses, each gang keeping two or three blocks behind the gang working on the course below. In general the picture is of a much larger labour force than that envisaged for what we above referred to as the Stratos group; which again is what we would expect. It is well known that Athens, almost alone of Greek cities, could draw on a large pool of skilled labour,'7 and we know that this building was constructed in a fairly short time.

On the basis of all this, then, what is our verdict on our bevel rule as applies to the Propylaia? As I wrote above, it is certainly not proved correct, but some of the patterns emerging from it do look plausible and in my own view may well be right. We would probably be unwise to expect too much uniformity of approach in a complicated and ambi- tious building constructed by a large number of separate gangs. Of course, our whole case would be much strengthened if we could show exactly how the whole bevelling process operated and just why the bevel should always be cut on the first block laid. With pry holes we understand their rationale, and just why they had to be on one particular side of the joint. With the bevels it is not so simple. That there was a correspondence with the direction of lay seems to be established but it is not so easy to explain it, and indeed I cannot offer a complete explanation. One could argue simply that it was a repetitive process, and that the bevels, being always cut at the same stage in the dressing of the block, naturally always came at the same end. In some buildings, such as the Stoa of Attalos, they seem to be used chiefly as an artistic device, consciously derived from a genuine structural practice, in much the same way that the lifting bosses are not removed but deliberately left as a decoration. And the role of the bevels as an anti-chipping device, reasonable for the Propylaia, can hardly apply to those found in the euthynteria or, even worse, the foundations.

Of particular interest here is the Ionic Temple at Locri. The inside face of the blocks forming the bottom step carry bevels. The last block preserved in the course is illustrated in pl. 57, fig. 17, and in ill. 5.18 As will be seen, this block carries on its vertical face a recessed margin, C-D, giving the masons a finished surface from which to take measurements for, e.g., the placing of the cella foundations. The rest of this face is allowed to bulge forth in an oblong panel only roughly finished, which would, of course, be hidden under the peristyle pavers. The other vertical face of this block, at right angles to C-D, carries a bevel some 5 cm. deep (the strip left unhatched in my drawing). Moreover, still visible on the upper surface of the course below is an incised guideline, A (only just discernible in my photograph; it is more clearly preserved further along), cut to assist somehow in laying the

17 Burford (supra n. 13) 112f. 18 This block, the end one of the preserved section of its

course, is to be found on the West side of the temple, about one third of the way South from the NW corner.


346 A. TREVOR HODGE [AJA 79 blocks. It will be noted that it is aligned exactly on the inner edge of the bevel on our block. More- over, on the upper surface of our course there is a second guideline, B, in this same vertical plane and presumably marking the same thing. Usually a guideline marks where the edge of a block is to be set, but that is plainly not its purpose here since the block is not in fact aligned on it. If this same position is being carefully marked out on all the courses as they are laid, irrespective of where their edges actually lie, then probably we are dealing with a datum or reference line, some basic plane from which other measurements are taken. In fact, though I cannot be sure, it seems to represent the alignment of the edge of the stylobate, a vital di- mension that it would be useful perhaps to mark on courses as they were laid so as to keep the measurements straight.

Moreover, the bevels are plainly connected somehow with the marking of this reference line. I do

not really understand how, but the fact that their inner edge falls exactly along it seems too much to ask of coincidence. If so, it is possible that they were cut in situ, when it was seen how the block, once placed, lay relative to guideline A. This would explain, at least for Locri, why the bevel had to be on the block laid first, for once the second was in place next to it then no bevel could be cut on either. Be that as it may, it does look as if at Locri the bevels were connected with measurement and with marking the definitive outline of the building. It probably is unwise to go further than that, for the situation is not clear and most attempts to explain the mechanism and rationale in detail run into trouble.

However, though it is unsatisfactory that we cannot come up with a firm proof of just how the bevels function in all these buildings, in the last analysis it is the link between them and the direc-

ell

o 1o 20 30 ems. / p/

D d el ,

SC ~

4f/

10- f

AI

f~f~ / (

ILL. 5. Ionic Temple, Locri: inner face of bottom step, West side (see pl. 57, fig-. 7)


1975] BEVELLED JOINTS AND THE DIRECTION OF LAYING 347 tion of lay that matters. If this can be demon- strated to exist then even though we may not be able to explain it fully nevertheless it can be employed as a useful tool in our study of building techniques. On the evidence I have seen I am myself satisfied, at least until the arrival of dis- proof, that it does exist; and I publish in the hope

that others, now that attention has been called to the bevels and their possible significance, may observe them independently on other buildings and so help to establish how reliable a connection there is between bevelled joints and the direction of laying.

CARLETON UNIVERSITY


1... ! ... ' il i

ii!i, ? i

;?-~'i' iii ezS?:; ~ -

?"i~~~:.- ....:

FIG. I. Aphaia--euthynteria: bevel, from above

~sE\?F

"~ J; , h *"1 4* ..ia

-a-- B o. i~~ei ?a:? ?I-i i~d? ?I*P $V~:

";': j~"L k- iag Ird-

~;l-pZe ?:i;

;p~y-: ? 10.1: a ;-Tr:*;Tis -BFi~ -. D r .r

FIG. 4. Rhamnous: middle step, South side, from above

46?Bi~ g

ff i -

FIG. 7. Sounion: foundations, East faqade, from above

ii; ?7w; a 71--* , 4

FIG. 2. Aphaia-foundations, South side, showing bevels

~1~:~+*"~*?I~ ..- , :~t4~ i:i?_i-si? , .:- Bk :5:1

I ":h ?*? -rr ? r; .r ..---";

p " --~-~I?:~~t~$~ _7 ;? ~a ??~i~?

t~o~: _.,-;-?- .

a~~~?~ --r

~-??

i; --I ?, i.i~?

~::?i i: ."" "i-"(-

i ?,? :. :._ir?ixi?;_--.- :

a

FIG. 5. Rhamnous: middle step, elevation, showing bevel

in raised band

:.d ~i~db a-::: ~i--

:1t 1;

::Wi ,-F c

I: :iij i * $;Us

~U~y~;~ ii: pi g

a :,i

:::-~ I

p$p .Lii I )h-il~

:~r~i a

?i

FIG. 3. Aphaia-foundations, West fagade: horizontal bevel

rTZj L3~3~_'- t~ -i;EC~i. ~"~"~' ~i~:-it~; ,k~~p

~~JCi~ iT-r C?i.5;J-Srii4t-: 3r~l-r ?i ;a~, ~fL''"+" ~"JjL--

I;E '-i3:;,-?';`"~C~'*~65;'i ~ F_~? ;r/j;" ?, *?"~?-?c~~~B,;i~:~?~~?t

~i -:~ ~=~iE~?~i~Sbt"?~~~"~~ ?~ "- ") ri~ rSc~ .I , ~ 2,-T-~L~~

" '7 ~rr*35 i I-* ) r:- rC r~ ."C?r~~;-~ "i"~iT~Lc~?-E "4 .~;wc-r~I

''i?r; ~aPi:b4Jq~ r.. ,r .?? rS- r

";

~?~t? r;'""~l-.-,b:"~h'?,~?" i: ;-:*pl ;' ,,a5.:F

FIG. 6. Rhamnous: horizontal bevel in raised panel in stylobate

h-C r;r c,?~:?

x

~is

~ X C^ i;~

:-~:'*~?i~S

i:,. . ?mn i.i:

-i~-

FIG. 8. Sounion: bottom step, South side

Cl

Ctl ?A

tcl


?Ml'

FIG. 9. Temple of Apollo, Delos: euthynteria; bevel (on left-hand

block) within raised band r

"IL~P"-B~P~nr? rr*5 ~-j Il-r ?r~

* h-~~a a7?r?"i~ s, ,

7 ;33~1311 : Ir

* ;r.rF "~ ~4~ ii?.: " .W %s:

?;-? --~r~

c

~~?v3a~ ~~ii~ :,?.:?~K;rt~ne~r rP T"rM'I~ I izl i

rli~ab 1%U

,i?% :Ir '7 35

FIG. 12. Stoa of Attalos: foundations, East side

??I ?--I-

~?-; .r.

t: ??.-:~~??: ~~ ?.:~ !i --' ---ii_ -~;-~?

"'xi~ t c-*- -r~ i

I-i -6

:i ?_ ::-r

:': ???-";?;-BL, :::_. N_~ . .- ~i~~~i i ~~ iu~'~---!

-??i i"~-X I

FIG. 17. Locri: bottom step, inside face, showing bevel and guideline A (see fig. 5)

:,n?~~ i ;?~ 69:g_ ~-c---,? I F~i ~I

FIG. IO. Stratos: euthynteria, East facade, from above; bevel on left-hand block

1,--i:aa:~eb ": ??-

?i: + -b

a41

'" r ~ *i-c. ";'-"' ~

~-~g~ ~j~~a~kt~fe:.~ ~ pFF-""6;. ~:;i~:~j~ ~;''

r

FIG. 13. Himera: inner face of stylobate, from above

?.ii-?i %

~~"

~I i"

Ir

14-+-

i-; t,

-*I-~:

L ~?Bc: A~~t~l? n~a~-~ FIG. 15. Segesta: middle

step, elevation, South side; bevel on right

hand block

V'r r*

C *ibl~ j, ? I

FIG. II. Treasury of Selinus, Olympia: wall base, from above

-% "c, ?? 1~4~,~ ,r? ,, . i; P?- .ri? ~3L

~iJSr:i,, ~t~~ "c_ i'

I" I~DLr~lrt ?ZI. 3, ,t r i li:~ "-q~cr ,g: L*~- a. -* ri;

,t: "*I

.1 ?~ ~~rn '19,~ 1~ ~- -- ~* x-- t i-?t? *-??-';" A

?r3~j~0~~ ~ii~-~ii?+ ?r~

FroG. 14. Himera: cella wall base, from above

-

i.lA"1 ::st~iP~~ "

i- ?? ? id",

,t .. i L:

;i?:'U -:e *??~,i? :-??;-r: E;

~ls-rs ii $- :I S$:"??CP1 s* a-r?-

'~-?; --- -i i.,

FIG. I6. Segesta: crepidoma, showing stylobate blocks alternately preserved

and missing

0

C)

H


Article Contentsp. [333]p. 334p. 335p. 336p. 337p. 338p. 339p. 340p. 341p. 342p. 343p. 344p. 345p. 346p. 347[unnumbered][unnumbered]

Issue Table of ContentsAmerican Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Oct., 1975), pp. 307-400Front Matter [pp. 322-400]The Canon of Polykleitos [pp. 307-321]The Weary Herakles of Lysippos [pp. 323-332]Bevelled Joints and the Direction of Laying in Greek Architecture [pp. 333-347]Excavations at Karata-Semayk and Elmali, Lycia, 1974 [pp. 349-355]Bryn Mawr College Excavations in Tuscany, 1974 [pp. 357-366]Archaeological NotesReply to Comments by Leon Pomerance [pp. 367-368]The Wax of the Lost Wax Process [pp. 368-369]The Archon Flavius Straton (VI) Paianieus [pp. 369-371]Excavations at Buccino: 1974 [pp. 371-372]Late Minoan II Crete: A Note [pp. 372-374]Classical Inkpots [pp. 374-375]A Greek Pediment on a Roman Temple: Addenda [pp. 375-376]

Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 377-378]Review: untitled [pp. 378-379]Review: untitled [pp. 380-381]Review: untitled [pp. 381-382]Review: untitled [pp. 382-384]Review: untitled [pp. 384-385]Review: untitled [p. 385]Review: untitled [p. 386]Review: untitled [pp. 386-390]Review: untitled [p. 390]Review: untitled [pp. 390-391]Review: untitled [pp. 391-392]Review: untitled [pp. 392-393]Review: untitled [pp. 393-394]Review: untitled [pp. 394-395]Review: untitled [pp. 395-396]

Books Received [pp. 397-399]Back Matter

bevelled joints and the direction of laying in greek architecture

Documents