# Greek Doric Temples

CROTONE (KR), Tempio di Hera Lacinia in it.wikipedia.org

Woodward, Robert J., "An Architectural Investigation into the Relationship between Doric Temple Architecture and Identity in the Archaic and Classical Periods." 2012, Doctoral thesis.

Dinsmoor, W.B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece, London. Batsford 1950

Mertens, D. Der Temple von Segesta und die Dorische Tempel Baukunst des Griechischen Western in Klassischer Zeit. Deutsche Archaologisches Institut, 1984

Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, Kroton (Crotone) Calabria, Italy

Clarke, Joseph T., AJA 1887, vol 3, Baltimore

www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0006:entry=kroton

###### 14

# Kroton 480-440 BC

According to Herodotus [(484-425 BC), “Historiae”, VIII, 47] Kroton was founded by settlers from Achaia between 709 and 708 BC, and was the city that welcomed Pythagoras (570-495 BC) around 530 BC. Pythagoras went on to found the school of the Pythagoreans, a school that became famous for its mathematicians and architects.

There is scarcely any information concerning the ancient city since there are no ruins of it remaining. Many fragments of masonry and ancient edifices are said to have been in existence till about the middle of eighteenth century when they were employed in the construction of a the port's breakwater. During its heyday, the city's extent was 12 miles in circumference.

The ruins of the Doric temple amount to one solitary column which closely resembles those of Kardaki at Corfu. A second column was standing till near the middle of the last century along with the remains of the wall which formed the peribolus-wall of the temple, along with the steriobate, but those were quarried for use in other construction and carried off. The temple once stood on a immense platform composed of large blocks to raise it above the projecting rock below. The temple commanded a impressive view in all directions, forming a landmark for voyagers. The single column that forms its solitary remnant, can still be seen from out at sea.

The temple is assumed to have 14 columns on the long side, but that would make the intercolumniation 3.73m and an intercolumnar length 49 meters and a width of 18.846 meters. The column height and base width is listed by Woodward (2012) as 8.299m 1.779 meters, respectively. This is quite stout for this date and falls somewhat outside the statistical norm for temples of this type. One would expect the column base to be stlightly less than what was recorded and equal to about 1.69 meters.

If we estimate the number of columns on the long side to be 15 rather than 14, with a interaxial length of 52.64m and a width of 18.8m, and an interaxial dimension of 3.76 meters. The ratio of w/l is then 2.8 or that of the square root of 8, or 2.828. This fits well with the column height and the statistical norm for column base width. To add more confusion, the Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites as well as the Tufts.edu site lists the temple as having 16 columns on the long side.

With so little concrete data to go on, much work still needs to be done to determine exactly what configuration the temple had.

Comparing type 6 14 temples and type 6 15 temple statistical probability. More data is needed.