the Throne

 archaeological site  Add category

the Throne
Up to now , any attempt to represent the throne was based on the description of Pausanias . According to his testimony , the throne was in the form of a large rectangular , the center of which was a prominent cult statue of Apollo in the form of a column . Was placed exactly over the tomb of Hyacinth, and was used both as an altar of worship , both as a pedestal of the statue . As Pausanias points out emphatically , Bathykles of Magnesia , not only engaged in the construction and decoration of the throne , but also in all other works of design and layout of the sanctuary. Architect and artist Bathykles little is known . It is said , however, that Sparta reached via Samos, as was the case with all other artists from Ionia .

On top of the hill , south of the church of Agia Kyriaki , is the only remaining part of the foundation wall built with the system isodomon , identified with Stand ( krepides ) of the throne. Krepides of the remains that are 4 meters long and 1 meter high that he had in the lower layers of rectangular shape , porous stones , while the top surface showed a line of blocks of dark marble .

Have been tried many different approaches to represent the complex shape of the throne , such as the fantastic representations of Quatremère de Quincy in 1814 and Theodor Pyl in 1852 , Ludwig Ruhl in 1854 and Adolf Furtwängler in 1893. These representations , as well as some further attempts to play the mythological themes of decoration, have been assembled in the past in a functional way by Ernst Fiechter and more recently by Amalia Faustoferri . All proposals of the monument have a common denominator : to make plausible the description of Pausanias . The indicator of hypothetical representation varies depending on the case, and also for aesthetic standards , at the time of presentation .
It should be noted that in all representations, the basic idea of the seat prevails , regardless of its correspondence more or less convincing with the colossal cult statue of the god . On these same coordinates as the two alternative proposals for Fiechter were established in 1918. These , however, were the first to incorporate all of the architectural fragments that were found in the excavations or that came from the demolition of the church on the hill .

With the exception of the distinctive parts of the altar, all the other architectural elements were considered to be part of the throne , further complicating the problem of the representation of the monument . Thus, Ernst Buschor, for example , proposed in 1927 a form of seat more similar in appearance to a chair in which a throne , while a counter- proposal suggests a form more similar to a couch, with l ' unexpressed certainty that it could look for the model of the structure in the altar of Pergamon . Opinions similar to those of Fiechter , which were also supported by Roland Martin until 1976, lead to two alternative proposals.
The representation proposed by Helmut Prückner in 1992 , without taking into consideration all the conclusions that can be drawn from the study of the material, was based solely on the driving force of the imagination.

During the research program it was possible to temporarily restore the constituent parts of at least three sections of the throne. More precisely, have been restored :
1 ) the superstructure with the base of a Doric column on the upper level ,
2 ) the superstructure of one of the sloping walls with the inscriptions that closed sides of the building .

This allows us to consider as a matter now an established fact that, thanks to the identical building technique , the remainder of krepis should be part of the total construction of the throne, as part of its south side closed.

3) Finally, an entry with columns. This element of support is particularly notable , since Manolis Korres , after studying two bases in the shape of lion's foot , which happens today , it was the lid of a Roman sarcophagus visible in the garden of the Archaeological Museum of Sparta , had considered parts of the pilasters of the throne.

The study of architectural materials can draw the following conclusions:

1 . Four types have been localized in the eaves of SIMA .

2 . Regarding the architectural style of the building , despite the ionic elements redundant , the remaining parts of the columns are all Doric and classified into two types , with a decoration or hypotrachelion flat in the capital and, consequently , the same for the abacus and frames.

3 . The intercolumni the first row of columns is defined today with absolute precision by correcting the restoration of Geison with the inscription :
ΔΑΜΟΚΑΜΟΣ Fiechter had proposed that , after the identification and the welding of the missing part .

4 . The threshold of monumental dimensions , found in the church of the Prophet Elijah nell'Amykles that is combined with modern architectural elements similinei near the modern church of Amykles , confirms the presence of dryfakta ( railings ) at the same level as the superstructure of the throne , in which the columns Doric must have stood with the plan hypotrachelion of their capitals .

5 . The complete absence of fragments that could ensure the existence of metopes and triglyphs , since the remaining parts were subjected to a most recent restoration , it implies that the architect of the monument he wanted it to be free from all elements that relate directly to the concept of architecture , to emphasize the illusion of furniture. The same is also evident in the potential presence of one or more friezes.
As for the dating of the throne , Ernst Buschor think of a time around 530-520 BC , and was led to this conclusion by comparing with decorative elements from the " western necropolis " of Samos. More precisely , however, Konstantinos Tsakos well as Amalia Faustoferri , after reviewing the material including the results even more from the western necropolis of Samos , and even after having found a direct association with the architectural elements of the temple early Aphea in Aegina, propose a date around 560-550 BC

The cult statue

According to Pausanias ( 3.19.2 ) , the statue was about 14 meters high , made ​​of wood, covered with bronze plates , wearing a helmet on his head and in his hand a spear. This well-defined shape of the statue , however, can be connected only to a later period. This is evident by the fact that through the addition of a metal coating , donated by Croesus , was given a more human form to the previous representation . According Brunnhilde Ridgway, the appearance of this first form is dated to the late seventh century BC According to Irene Bald Romano this form must have replaced an earlier statue of smaller size, as happened in other cult statues of wood, such as those of Athina Polias , and of Hera at Samos, of Artemidos Orthias , and like that of Hera in Olympia. The statue could be a votive offerings, as is represented in the , unfortunately largely destroyed , bas-relief of the late classical period found in Amykles and, above all , in the currencies of the imperial period .
On the back of the coins Commodus Galienus the statue is represented in the form described above. In particular, in the depiction on the coin Commodus provides information to another part of the building : the pedestal, ie the base of the statue that formed at the same time the tomb and the altar of hyacinth. This news is also attested by Pausanias (3,1 , 3, verse 7): " [...] καὶ Ὑακίνθου μνῆμά ἐστιν ἐν Ἀμύκλαις ὑπὸ τὸ ἄγαλμα τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος '" ( " .. and there is the tomb of Hyacinth, in Amycles , under the statue of Apollo " ) . The blocks of conglomerate stone , which were placed in the second use in their current place throughout the krepida the throne , should probably be considered as part of the pedestal. More precisely , they must be interpreted as part of the foundation, which was about two meters in height , while the blocks of limestone , which today are five meters west of krepida , are interpreted as part of the superstructure. The fact that both the throne that the cult statue has been found in the area between the foundation and the rest of the krepida modern church , are also the conclusions of the excavation work during the summer of 2009.