Anyone else catch this Nova show last week…I was impressed by how it was built and how they figured out how some of it was done.
The Greeks had very advanced understanding of optics and used subtle curves to make lines appear straight, when straight lines would not look straight, etc. Tolerances of just a few thousandths of an inch. Cools measurement techniques.
If it airs again, I would like to watch it again:
Replies
Just watched part of it.
Interesting detail of the cedar blocks in the center of the column blocks to align them.
Had to be a government deal, wood wasn't good enough for the restoration crew, they had titanium blocks made to do what the Greeks did with wood.
How they stacked them up I didn't see, or haven't they figured that out yet?
Joe H
I guess they didn't think the wood blocks would last long enough.
The thing is, the wood was hermetically sealed so nothing could get to it--not even air, as the column drums fit together so tightly. (Okay, just looked up hermetically and see that it, in common useage, already means artight, so I was redundant--sorry about that!) One thing--I wonder if by using titanium they may not have problems later--wood might allow some movement to relieve stress, whereas titanium may cause other problems. Just wondering. Sometimes we (modern people) get arrogant about how to do things better and make things worse. I loved it when they went to fit the drum they'd so carefully measured and it was something like a half inch off.
I noticed that the modern restoration contractors occasionally put a new block in place on a column and realized they needed to make slight adjustments, so they lifted the huge blocks of marble again, brought them down to grade, and fine-tuned the blocks with abrasives. Then they got the crane to lift the block again for another test fit. Imagine doing that 2,000 years ago -- "Hey, Sophocles, let's lift it again." "The hell you say, Euripides -- you lift it this time."
It'd be like, "Yeah, Euripides, make sure we got it right this time--stick your head under there and take a close look...ooops!"
Joe & ALL,I didn't catch the whole show...don't think they explained how 12 ton blocks were lifted, amazing to me though.I agree on the switch to titanium...perhaps a way to let future civilizations know what was original and what was renovation.More later, too busy right now.Back to work,Basswood
Yeah, that was slick. Not a straight line to be found. And what was it like 5 yrs to build it?
Saw a special on the Great Wall too..that WAS 5 yrs. and 3000 towers, manned by 50 soldiers each...sheesh.
Spheramid Enterprises Architectural Woodworks
"Success is not spontaneous combustion, you have to set yourself on Fire"
Yeah, I watched that, too. I was familiar with the standard entasis for columns, but wasn't aware that everything from the foundation up was built with subtle curves.
I've always understood that the curves were to compensate for the optics of the human eye ... to make everything APPEAR straight. A tapered column without the slightly convex curve would appear somewhat concave, for example, thinning in the middle.
But the narration on the program indicated that the entasis was to give life to the marble -- the slight bulge as if flesh straining under the weight of the entablature. That's a bit of a stretch, I think.
I was hoping they'd explain how the Greeks managed to lift such enormous blocks of marble, and finess them so exactly into place. I did miss part of the show, so perhaps I missed that? An architect friend says the Greeks used block-and-tackle systems, pulleys and cranes. Still, pretty amazing!
Allen
The history channel covered that last week. Seriously.++++++++++++++++++
"Where will our children find their enjoyment when everything gets itself done by steam? Frederick Law Olmsted, 1850s?"
Allan,They taught us in Architecture school that the entasis was to create the feeling of the columns bulging under their load. How we can know that without going to primary source documents is beyond me, but that's what I was taught was one of the reasons for the entasis.Steve
Steve, that's very interesting. In my art and design classes, only the optical component was mentioned. Certainly, a straight taper would look concave toward the mid-portion of the column. But the "bulge under the load" idea seems plausible, too, as part of the design theory.
Allen
But the "bulge under the load" idea seems plausible, too, as part of the design theory.
I've seen this explanation applied to a number of classical (linear) moldings. Although it sounds a little kooky at first, when you see a graphic explanation it makes sense. If I can find a picture I'll post it.
If the curve in the columns just eliminates the perception of a concave curve (entasis?), to make them appear straight, then there is no "bulging under the load" intended.If the convex curve is greater than just compensating for the optical illusion of concavity, we would see a bulge. The bulging would still apear less than it really is, but it could be seen. So the Greeks would have to overcompensate to get the "straining under the weight" look.Given their pursuit of visual perfection...I bet they just changed the curve enough for it to look straight...if it is curved enough to look "bulgy" that would show me to be wrong.
"I bet they just changed the curve enough for it to look straight ... if it is curved enough to look "bulgy" that would show me to be wrong...."
That was previously my understanding, but apparently it's widely believed that the Greeks did, indeed, overcompensate to create the "flexing under the load" appearance.
I've done no additional research, though. But, as you say, if you view the Parthenon, and the columns appear to be a straight taper, then the Greeks only compensated for the optics. If they appear to bulge slightly, then they wanted to create that effect of muscularly straining to hold the weight.
Of course, the viewing angle and distance is going to have a huge effect, too.
Allen
To my eye the curve is still evident. One thing that's interesting to me is the evolution of the proportions over time. The earlier greek temples have widely varying proportions. Many look really odd, with huge mushrooming capitols and stout fat columns. I'm currently reading a good book by Christopher Tadgell called "ANTIQUITY Origins, Classicism and the New Rome". It has some great photographs in it. I'll have to see if it addresses the weight-bearing concept. The columns also are supposed to represent humans (mostly females, I think) on one level, and the different orders represent different stages of womanhood. I'm trying to remember from 20 years ago, so I'm probably wrong, but I think Ionic was pre-adolescent female, corinthian was courting age, and doric was matron. There are even columns that are actual female figures..karyatids I think they are called. I'll have to look back to my notes from distant times...Steve
Edited 2/16/2008 6:17 pm by mmoogie
The columns also are supposed to represent humans (mostly females, I think) You are thinking of Caryatid'shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryatid
Yes, I was looking back through some notes from an architectural history class I took 18 years ago, and reading the Tadgell book, and both claim that the columns were representative of humans. Supposedly the Doric order was male, Ionic was married females, and Corinthian was unmarried females. There is also a very rare male version of the caryatid called an atlantid or telemon.Steve
Edited 2/17/2008 8:08 pm by mmoogie
I didn't know the orders had male and female representations. Do you know where the atlantid is located?
So the Greeks would have to overcompensate to get the "straining under the weight" look.
Given their pursuit of visual perfection...I bet they just changed the curve enough for it to look straight...if it is curved enough to look "bulgy" that would show me to be wrong.
Look at these pictures of the Temples of Hera and Apollo, from 550 and 450 BC, respectively. (By comparison, I think the Parthenon was completed around 430 BC.)
The columns on the pictured temples are clearly bulging outward. It's obvious that (for those temples, at least) the purpose of the entasis was NOT to correct for any optical illusions and thus make them appear straight.
Hera and Apollo are only two examples, but there are many others that were designed with columns that display obvious convex geometry. With this in mind, the explanation of entasis as a corrective technique to overcome optical illusion seems shaky in my opinion.
I sometimes wonder if the modern scholars make mountains out of molehills regarding the subtle curves on the Parthenon. Perhaps there is a much simpler explanation that they are overlooking.
For example, the PBS video mentions the fact that the floor has a slight convex hump to it. Like entasis, they suggest that the hump is to correct for optical illusion.
Could it be that the hump was designed with a much more mundane purpose? Some, for example, have suggested the design was intended to shed rainwater. Makes sense to me. ;)
View Image
View Image
Edited 2/17/2008 2:33 am ET by Ragnar17
I sometimes wonder if the modern scholars make mountains out of molehills regarding the subtle curves on the Parthenon.
I was wondering the same thing. Sometimes modern explanations seem "retrofitted" to the evidence. Maybe they just thought it would look cool, much as we do now.
I watched a Tom & Jerry cartoon yesterday with a Greek theme...the columns in the cartoon definately bulged in the middle!To my eye, those curves did give things a rather animated look. <g>Thanks for posting the pics, I like curves.Experts often make more of things than the original artists had in mind. I remember an interview with Michael Stipe of the band REM, where the interviewer was commenting on the deeper meaning of REM Monster, Stipe had to step in and say, "What we were really trying to do was something loud and stupid."
"To my eye, those curves did give things a rather animated look."
Very true! Images of cartoons, and the exaggerated bulges and flexing shapes that are so common in that art form, have been popping into my mind since this thread started.
When I was a professional illustrator back in the 1980s, I often used a "pseudo-technical" technique that at first glance appeared to be a very traditional, tightly rendered ink drawing (usually architectural or technological in subject matter).
But I only used french curves as a "staight edge," never an actual straight line. It was often very subtle, but I think really enlivened the illustrations.
Straight lines can be very static.
Allen
Your use of French curves for graphic drawing sounds neato. As I said, I love curves, did you see my curved wall pic I posted in the barrel vault thread?Some day I would like to learn some boatbuilding carpentry, and then apply it to building homes and furniture.
Clicky here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/parthenon/quarry.html
This month's Smithsonian, too. Suddenly the Parthenon is very popular !
I was there in 1972, amazed that tourists could climb anywhere, take away anything.
Greg
I was there last year. Now it's all fenced off with cranes everywhere.
Runnerguy
Sorry I missed it but thanks for the "heads up" should it air again (and knowing PBS, it will).
I enjoy those kind of shows. I remember another one they did a while back about the giant obelisks in Egypt and that was facsinating.
Runnerguy
Sorry I missed it...
If you click on the link in post#1, you can watch it online.
good show but $100 million to date and project is only started metal roof with vinyl siding would have been the way to go
"I'm not responsible for my actions."
That was a fascinating program, I wish they had done more along the lines of how many people it took and what primitive tools were actually used. It was done in such a quick time frame that the sheer number of hands used must have been in the millions!
Yes, I watched it too. It's amazing that they were able to get such tight tolerances using basic hand tools on marble. Then the question becomes how they were able to erect the columns in the first place let alone maintain tight tolerances. I watched as the modern Italian trades people used forklift and sky cranes to lift small portions of the columns but how did they do it 2500 years ago?
Nova did a similar show regarding obelisks in Eqypt and building of the pyramids. Simply amazing and leaves me in shame that we are unable to duplicate something even close to their standards with todays technology.
As I recall, the pyramids were completed in approximately a 20 to 25 year span of time and we, in the bay area, have a simple eight lane bridge across the bay that's been in the works longer then that and it's a long way from completion as I speak.
It's amazing what can be accomplished with unlimited free (slave) labor!!Bill
Don't know about the Parthenon, but the pyramids were not built by slaves.
I think an abundance of slaves is the key to most major ancient building projects. There were may very skilled people to do the design, engineering, and crafting the close tolerances but it never hurts to have a couple hundred slaves on the ropes to lift.
I watched as the modern Italian trades people used forklift and sky cranes to lift small portions of the columns but how did they do it 2500 years ago?
I've seen (model) displays which showed how the Romans built typical gatehouses. Although there were some ingenious details, the overall approach didn't require anything more complicated than wooden cranes, pulleys, cribbing, and scaffolding.
Whether the stones were signficantly heavier at the Parthenon is something I don't know.
The level of accuracy still amazes me. But then again, it doesn't always take high technology to achieve high accuracy. Our current way of thinking (speaking for myself at least) often leads us into that trap. Since we rely so heavily on power tools, heavy equipment, and high tech, it's hard to think outside that box.
NOVA broadcast a show on how the pyramids were constructed shed some light on possible methods of moving 1 to 1 1/2 ton blocks. They attempted to lever, block and wedge those blocks and had a tough time when they got up above ground level. If you've ever been to the pyramids you see that all the blocks weigh at least 10 to 15 tons each and they speculate that the total number of blocks would require placing two to three block a minute for a period of 10 to 15 years. To this day, you can't slip a credit card in the crack between any two blocks. Leaves me scratching my head!
Saw a link recently (on this site?) to some research that points to the liklihood that the pyramids were actually "concrete", made from local materials, formed up and poured in place. Makes sense. Or, at least more sense than trying to figure out how those things were built so quickly and accurately with manual labor and without modern methods.
Google "concrete pyramids" and you'll get a bunch of sites.
None of the sites mention ICFs tho'.
Go figgur!
Mike HennessyPittsburgh, PA
Edited 2/8/2008 12:12 pm ET by MikeHennessy
I saw that too. We apparently flasks and bottles made in a similar way.
UFOs and Aliens did it!
Speaking of moving heavy things and how were the pyramids and Stonehenge and such built.
There is a builder near me who is playing with heavy weights. Check out his website if ya get a chance. Pretty interesting stuff.
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com