Libmonster ID: JP-1379
Author(s) of the publication: S. D. Kryzhitsky


The significance of the discovery of the temple and the temenos as a whole at the Berezansky settlement in 19971 cannot be overestimated, given the role of the Berezansky settlement in the process of Greek colonization of the Northern Black Sea region and the rather high degree of preservation of the excavated building remains. Today it is the second (after the Olbia temple of Apollo the Physician) earliest temple in the Northern Black Sea region and the first of them dedicated to Aphrodite. This determines the feasibility of trying to justify and suggest its graphic reconstruction. The purpose of the reconstruction is to determine the type of temple-the three-dimensional solution of its main facade and the structure as a whole, the order, the design of walls and ceilings, and the height dimensions.

The situation with the general layout of temenos, which was preceded by "ground structures", is not fully clarified. According to the author of the excavations, V. V. Nazarov, two chronologically indistinguishable construction periods can be traced here, covering the second half of the VI-beginning of the V century BC. In the first of them, to which V. V. Nazarov also refers the construction of the temple, the territory of the temenos (masonry N 224, 225, 237, 236) associated with the temple was larger than later (Fig. 1). In the second construction period, the area of the site on which the temple was located is reduced due to the construction of the temple. walls N 226 and 223 and is about 130 m2 .

* This article was prepared by me during the lifetime of Yuri Germanovich and on his initiative - especially for the "Bulletin of Ancient History". As you know, the subject related to the history of Berezan and Olvia has always occupied a prominent, if not the main, place among his diverse scientific interests. It is hard to believe that now Yura's energetic voice will not be heard in Berezan, and our annual meetings in Olvia will not take place. A reliable comrade and friend, a highly gifted and subtle researcher, who has done more than anyone else to recreate the political history of Olbia, interpret epigraphic monuments, and much more, has left us too soon. This loss cannot be made up by the team "close" - scientists of the scale of Yuri Germanovich are not born every day. His image will always remain in our hearts, and his works - in our memory. For us Olviopolites, he will always be alive.

1 See the article by V. V. Nazarov in this issue of Vestnik Drevnoi Istorii. There are also preliminary publications about the excavations of Temenos and the temple, as well as a dimensional drawing.

page 165

Figure 1. Schematic plan of the second parietal gland

However, it seems to us that, given the lack of clear chronological benchmarks and reliable stratigraphic references, it is more realistic to correlate the appearance of the temple with the construction of a late fence (masonry No. 226). This is supported by the completely random nature of the location of the temple relative to the fence of the first construction period (masonry N 236, 237) and, conversely , by the clear connection of the temple in terms of planning with the later fence (masonry N 226). This suggests that in the second construction period on Temenos, a site was specially allocated for the construction of the temple and its construction was carried out.

In this regard, it seems to us that the dating of the temple can be somewhat clarified, based on the following considerations. The temple is located in the upper cultural layer, which is generally dated, as already noted, from the second half of the sixth to the beginning of the fifth century BC. 2 It follows that the time of the beginning of the functioning of the temple (i.e., the beginning of the formation of the layer in which the temple was located), if it is determined, as it should be, by the latest material, refers to Considering the fact that on the Berezan surface mud-stone construction appears, apparently, not earlier than the end of the third quarter of the VI century BC3 , the construction of the temple of Aphrodite is obviously logical to be attributed to the time not earlier than the last quarter of the VI century.

The location of the entrance to the temenos of the Temple of Aphrodite has not been determined. It is absolutely certain that it could not have been only from the side of the fence N 225 (from the south), presumably-from the rear fence-N 226. Judging by the relatively good preservation of fence No. 223, the entrance to temenos in it could only be located at the point of rupture at its western end. Against this, however, says a small (for the entrance to the temenos) gap width, which is only about 80-90 cm. Given the location of the temple and the circular altar on the site, it is possible to set up the entrance to temenos in the eastern fence (N 222) opposite or slightly to the side of the main longitudinal axis of the temple. It should be emphasized that the asymmetrical layout of Temenos is in line with the urban planning techniques of the Archaic period and in Greece itself.

The temple is located 5.5 m from the eastern (masonry N 222), 0.7-0.9 m from the southern (masonry N 225), 1.2-1.3 m from the western (masonry N 226) and 4.7-4.8 m from the northern (masonry N 223) fences of temenos. The main facade is oriented to the east with a deviation to the south of about 30. The preserved height of the plinths of the temple walls (0.2 - 0.6 m), which coincides in places with the heights of the remains of the plinths of the fences, suggests that the temple functioned until the end of Temenos ' life.

2 Single fragments of ceramics from the fourth century BC were found only during the excavations of the mentioned round altar.

Solov'ev S. L. 3 Novye aspekty istorii i arkheologii antichnoi Berezani [New aspects of the history and archeology of ancient Berezani].

page 166

Fig. 2. Masonry facings of the southern antelope (wall 8). 1-northern facade; 2-southern facade

The territory on which the temple is located has a slight slope to the north4 . The rear wall of the church (N 6) 5 sank at the northern end by 0.1-0.15 m relative to the southern one, and the horizontal position of the masonry rows was also violated. Together with the masonry N 6, the south-western wall of the temple (N 8) adjacent to it also received a slope to the north. This suggests that the deformation of the underlying soil occurred after the construction of this structure. Otherwise, the rows of masonry on the back wall of the temple would be horizontal. In some places, there are also subsidence of plinths. In particular, this applies to the central part of the wall that separated naos from pronaos. The two ants also sank towards the east. Drawdowns were caused by construction on the ground of non-uniform density. Given the small thickness of the underlying cultural layer in the places of subsidence, we can expect the presence of filled-in bottoms or semi-earthen structures.

The stone plinths of the walls of naos and pronaos, sometimes up to 0.6 m high and 0.32-0.34 m thick, have been preserved from the temple. This smallest thickness is the original one. The plinths are built on clay made of seashell. The foundations of the plinths, judging by the pits at the western ends of the north-eastern (N 7) and south-western (N 8) walls, consist of a single bedded row of untreated polygonal slabs protruding from the facade of the plinths by 0.07-0.12 m. Judging by the upper section of the masonry, the plinths were three-layered. The external facades of walls N 6 and 7 to the height of two rows of masonry are laid in a single-row bed system of rectangular slabs of small dimensions (up to 0.3 - 0.4 m in length along the facade) with relatively good framing, but loose priteski. Inside-

4 Below, we provide a detailed description of the features of an open structure, since this is necessary for a more complete description of it in order to justify reconstruction.

5 Numbers of masonry walls of the temple conditional.

page 167

3. End face of the southern ante (wall 8). View from the east

the lower facades of the antae have only one row of such masonry. The southern facade of masonry No. 8 is built in a bed-like system, but without a clear row. The above-mentioned one or two rows are laid in irregular bedding made of untreated polygonal slabs and rubble. In the same technique, the internal facades of the naos walls are stacked to the full height. The outer facade of the wall separating naos from Pronaos is laid out according to the same system as the two lower rows of the external facades of the temple. Bandaging between rows is not observed everywhere. The masonry remains up to six rows high in some places. All the walls are deformed in one way or another - slopes, subsidence, bulging, delamination increase the thickness of the walls in some places up to half a meter 6 .

Of particular interest is the end face of the left antae (Figs. 2, 3). It consists of two hewn rectangular slabs - the lower one, installed orthostatically, and the upper one, laid on the lower slab with a "bed". The upper plate protrudes forward from the lower one, which is explained by the deformation of the antelope formed as a result of the subsidence of its end face, which is clearly visible on the facework of the northern facade of the left antelope. The width of these slabs on the main facade is larger than the walls, and is 0.44 m. Moreover, the plates are located relative to the end of the ante not symmetrically, protruding into the pronaos. Apparently, the antes, or at least their end parts, were laid out of stone to the full height or lined with wood.

The absence of significant collapses of stone along the masonry (a small collapse of buta was located only along the wall N 8 inside the room), approximately the same height of the plinths, as well as their three-layer construction with a slight thickness and the absence of binding layers laid with pokes on the facade of stones, suggest that the walls above were made of raw bricks. This is also supported by the yellow-clay filling of the temple premises, as well as partially adjacent territory. The careless nature of the masonry facades of the plinths suggests that in ancient times they were apparently completely covered with clay coating.

All this, as well as the nature of the backfill of the remains of the temple, suggests that the temple most likely began to gradually and independently collapse as a result of the mentioned deformations, being completely buried under the blurs of the mud parts of the walls no later than the V century BC. e. The upper parts of the structure made in wood-the roof, the entablature of the portico were dismantled by residents of Berezansky settlements. In any case, there are no signs of a sudden catastrophe or the simultaneous destruction of this building. The almost complete absence of tiles in the layers that covered the temple speaks in favor of the roof with an adobe or reed coating.

6 For more information, see Nazarov V. V., Marchenko K. K., Oreshko V. M., Nazarova T. D., Stanitsyna G. A., Rudich T. A. Report on the work of the Berezanskaya expedition in 1997. Report on excavations at the site " T " (Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine).

page 168

Table 1

Name of measures and their standards in meters

Dimensions of individual parts of the temple in meters, feet, and cubits

5.72 m

Wall N8

1.34 m

Deep pronaosa (class 8)

4.25 m

Wall N6

3.62 m

Deep. naosa (class 8)

0.32-0.34 m

Wall thickness

Large Ionian foot - 0.35 m

16.34 rubles

3.83 f

12.14 f

10.34 f

0.91-0.97 f

Small Ionian foot - 0.294 m

19.46 f

4.56 f

14.46 f

12,31 f

1.09-1.15 f

Small Ionian foot - 0.296 m

19.32 f

4.53 f

14.36 f

12.23 f

1.08-1.15 f

Ionian elbow-0.525 m

10,90 l

2.55 l

8.10 l

6,90 l

0.61-0.65 l

Attic elbow - 0.444 m

12.88 l

3.02 l

9.57 l

8,15 l

0.72-0.77 l

Doric foot - 0.3265 m

17.52 f

4.10 f

13.02 f

11.09 f

0.98-1.04 f

Doric foot - 0.327 m

17.49 f

4.10 f

13.00 f

11.10 f

0.98-1.04 f

Attic foot - 0.301 m

19.00 f

4.45 f

14.12 f

12.03 f

1.06-1.13 f

Attic foot - 0.308 m

18.57 rubles

4.35 f

13.80 f

11.75 f

1.04-1.10 f

The temple consisted of naos and pronaos. No doorway was found between them, however, judging by the preserved fragment of the right part of the masonry separating them, the width of the opening could have been no more than 1.4 m and no less than 0.9 m, based on the nature of the masonry of the left part of the wall separating naos from pronaos. The absence of any remnants of masonry or stylobate between the ends of the antae indicates that there was an open, rather than semi-closed portico or wall. This defines the space between antae as pronaos. Clear completion of the end of the left ant (the end of the right ant is destroyed) gives a pronaos depth of 1.34 m.

In ancient times, the temple had a relatively rectangular layout. However, due to deformations of the masonry, largely due to movements of the underlying soil, this clarity has been disrupted, as a result of which the dimensions of the internal facades of opposite masonry do not currently coincide in length. Nevertheless, the minimum lengths of two mutually perpendicular walls of the temple-north-west and south-west-allow us to establish the overall dimensions of the temple equal to 5.72 x 4.25 m. The dimensions of the naos are 3.44-3.51 x 3.62-3.75 m, the pronaos are 3.56 x 1.34 m, the minimum thickness of masonry walls is 0.32-0.34 m.

It is unclear what measure of length was used in the construction of the temple. The most reliable values for determining the size of the temple elements used - the length and width, the thickness of the stone plinths-give reason to assume that the Doric foot of 0.327 m is most likely used (see Table. I) 7 . In this case, the length and width of the temple will be 17.5 x 13 feet, and the thickness of the wall directly corresponds to one foot (0.98-1.04 feet). Here, naturally, it is doubtful that the long side, from which all subsequent dimensions should have come, corresponds not to an integer number of feet, but to a fractional one-17 feet and 2 spans. However, an Attic foot (0.301 m) that perfectly matches the length of the temple's longitudinal wall, in which it fits exactly 19 times, does not match well with the rest of the dimensions.

It is also possible to use the small Ionian foot (0.294 m). But in this case, both main dimensions of the temple are fractional (19.46 x 14.46 f), and the wall thickness is significantly (3-4 cm) higher than one foot.

Considering that in the early Olbia region mainly Asia Minor measures of length were used - the great Ionian foot (0.35 m) and the cubit (0.525 m) 8, and when

7 The table shows the dimensions of the elements of the temple that have been preserved for their entire length, as well as the smallest (original) thickness of the stone plinths.

Буйських А.В. 8 Ордер в античнiй архiтектурi Ольвii, Тiри, Херсонеса. Abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Historical Sciences. Kiiv, 1993, p. 13.

page 169

Table 2


External dimensions of churches

Dimensions of naos

Pronaos sizes


The temple as a whole




4.25 x 5.72 m

24.31 m2

3.44-3.51 x 3.62-3.75 m

1.34 x 3.56 m





8.68 x 6.84 m


5.33 5.54 m

1.95 x 5.54 m




The construction of the temple of Apollo the Physician, apparently, is a small Ionian foot (0.296 m) 9. It would be logical to expect the use of the Ionian standard on Berezani as well. Nevertheless, taking into account what was said above about the Doric foot, it seems possible, at least as a question statement, to assume that the Doric foot was most likely used in the construction of the Berezansky temple. Indirectly, this is confirmed by the fact that the width of the end face of the left ant, and it is here that it is most logical to expect the use of an entire measure, is 0.44 m, i.e. corresponds to the attic elbow.

Moving on to the reconstruction of the temple, first of all, we will determine its planning type. The absolute size, as well as the nature of its location on the territory of temenos relative to the south-western and north-western fences of the site, completely exclude the possibility of an amphiprostyle or peripterialal solution, i.e. the temple could be either antic or prostyle. The absence of the remains of the stylobate of the colonnade, or bases of columns 10, both between the antae (and this in turn excludes the possibility of a blind facade of the temple or a semi-closed columned portico), and in front of them, gives grounds to finally stop at the antae solution. Indirectly, this is also supported by the fact that if the facade was chosen correctly , there would be disproportionately little free space between the temenos fence and the main facade of the temple 11, which is not typical for ancient Greek architecture.

Thus, taking into account all that has been said, the final type of temple can be defined as an antechamber with an open portico. The Berezansky temple is close to similar structures in other places of the ancient world, in particular, the treasury at Delphi in the sanctuaries of Apollo and Athena, which in size slightly exceeded our temple 12 . Especially in its proportions, the temple of Berezani is close to the archaic temple of Athena on Kalabak Tepe in Miletus 13 (see Table 2). The latter Berezani temple is identical in proportions not only of the plan as a whole, but also in its components - naos and pronaos. From the temple of Athena in Miletus, the Berezansky temple differs mainly in its size - it is more than two times smaller in area. Given the almost complete proportional similarity of our temple to the Milesian one, as well as the Ionian origin of the inhabitants of Berezani, there is reason to assume that the Milesian temple of Athens is a prototype of the Berezansky one.

Due to the lack of architectural order details in the Temenos excavation site and in general in the settlement as a whole, the reconstruction of the temple volumes can only be based on

Kryzhitsky S. D. 9 Temple of Apollo the Physician on the Western Temenos of Olbia (Reconstruction experience) / / VDI. 1998. N 1. P. 172.

10 The absence of later intrusions supports this conclusion.

11 The distance from the portico to the fence would be only approx. 3,5-3,8 m.

Bommelaer J.-F. 12 Guide de Delphes. Le site. P., 1991. Fig. 4. PI. 2, 5. Among these buildings, only the treasury of the Cnidians was smaller in size than the Berezansky temple, its width along the facade was only 5.18 m (ibid. P. 142). Unfortunately, the poor preservation of this treasury makes it impossible to conduct a comparative analysis with our temple.

Gerkan A. 13 Kalabektepe, Athenatempel und Umgebung // Milet. 1925. Bd I. Ht 8. S. 18, 19. Fig. 9, 10.

page 170

based on the analysis of its layout, the width of the left ante, analogies and recommendations of Vitruvius.

The presence of a warrant in this case is not in doubt, since its existence is determined by the planning type of the structure itself, as well as by the mentioned shelf or half-shaft at the base of the end face of the left ant. This raises the question of what kind of order could have been used here. Considering that in the Northern Black Sea region in archaic times the Doric order is not known at all, and all the found order details of the VI-first half of the V century BC belong to the Ionic Order 14, we have enough reasons to believe that the Berezansky temple could have been solved in the Ionic or, if we take into account the lack of a base at the preserved end of the ante, in the Attic order.

The next problem is determining the character of the portico. It was already mentioned above that the portico was of an open type, but the question arises whether it had columns and how many (Fig. 4). The small size of the overlapping span of the portico, equal to 3.33 m (this value is 0.23 m less than the width of the naos due to the greater thickness of the ends of the antes than the walls, as mentioned above), gives grounds to abandon the possibility of placing two columns between the antae, as is typical for small antae buildings. If there were two columns in the Berezansky temple between the antae, the lower diameter of which should correspond to the thickness of the antae, as is customary in Greek architecture, the intercolumnium would be no more than 0.83. If we take into account the removal of the profiling of the column bases (5-10 cm on each side of the opening), the intercolumnium will decrease by 0.1-0.2 m and will amount to 0.63-0.73 m. This narrowness of the passage is unrealistic. Even in the smallest treasures in absolute size (for example, in the Aeolian treasury on Marmaria in Delphi, the width of the main facade of which is about 6 m) 15 the width of the central intercolumnium was at least 1.1 m. One can, of course, assume that in the Berezansky temple the central intercolumnium could be wider than the side ones, and such examples are known, in particular, in Delphi 16 . But in this case, the side intercolumns of the Berezansky temple would lose all meaning, since with stone columns, and even more so pillars (in the case of the Attic order), they would become almost impassable. This option (Fig. 4, 1) is possible with a big stretch and only in the case of using wooden pillars, the diameter of which could be about 0.20-0.25 m, but this would completely violate the horizontal proportional relations in the construction of the facade. Thus, it is possible to abandon the two-column portico.

There are still two options for constructing a portico: without columns at all, or with a central column installed along the main longitudinal axis of the temple (Fig. 4, 2). The latter is possible in principle, if we take into account the finds in Olbia of molds for casting pendants in the form of a temple with an odd number of columns on the main facade .17 However, given the shallow depth of the pronaos of the Berezansky temple, which, taking into account the diameter of the column, is reduced to one (if not less) meter, the installation of the column along the main longitudinal axis of the entrance opening to the naos seems unlikely, since it would significantly complicate the functioning of this structure.

Based on what has been said above, the most realistic design is the portico of the Berezansky temple without columns (Fig. 4, 3). With a small span of 3.33 m, such a solution for a wooden entablature is quite possible. In favor of the same Nali-

14 The appearance in the Northern Black Sea region of the first structures made in the Doric Order dates back no earlier than the middle of the fifth century BC (Buiskikh. Order... p. 14; Buiskikh A.V. Doricheskiy order v Severnom Prichernomorye [Doric Order in the Northern Black Sea Region]. II readings in memory of Professor P. O. Karyshkovsky. Abstract of the report of the Jubilee Conference on March 9-11, 1991. Odessa, 1991, p. 10).

Bommelaer. 15 Op. cit. Fig. 11.

16 For example, the Aeolian treasury at Marmaria, or the treasury of the Athenians.

17 For more information, see Kryzhitsky S. D. To the problem of the possibility of existence in the Northern Black Sea region of temples with an odd number of columns along the main facade / / VDI. 2000. N 1. P. 144 sl.

page 171

Fig. 4. Variants of placement of columns and high-rise dimensions of the temple facade. 1 - two-column version; 2-single-column version; 3-proportions and scheme of the facade of the temple, adopted in the reconstruction; 4-proportions of the facade of the temple when determining the height of pilasters by proportional ratios characteristic of the Attic order

the presence of a wooden entablature indirectly indicates the complete absence of any fragments of such a structure made in stone on Berezan.

When determining the height of the antae of the portico, we get two limits: the upper one, the width of the column of which, based on proportional constructions for the Attic order, fits in its height 10-11 times. In this case, the height of the pilaster will be in the range of 4.40-4.84 m (0.44 x 10-11). The facade of the temple gets too elongated proportions (Fig. 4, 4), not typical for Greek temples of the Ionic order. The lower limit gives the calculation of the antae height, taking into account the ratio of the column diameter (in this case, the antae thickness) of the Ionic order to its height. This value for the areostyle (in the case of a columnless portico in the Berezansky temple, its intercolumnium will much exceed the areostyle), if we follow Vitruvius (III.Z.10), will be-H k = 8D = 0.44 x 8 = 3.52 m. In this case, the facade of the temple takes on more realistic proportions (Fig. 4, 3).

There is no doubt that the portico of the Berezansky church was pedimented. In addition to analogies, this is also explained by the fact that in the conditions of the Northern Black Sea region, there are no sufficient grounds to assume the possibility of installing flat roofs in ancient times. In addition, the extremely low saturation of the cultural layers of Berezan with fragments of tiles makes it quite possible to use a reed or adobe roof in this small structure of the archaic period (the latter was until recently widely used in residential buildings of modern residents of the village of Parutino). The angle of elevation of such a roof was, of course, not less than that of Che-

page 172

5. Facade of the Temple of Aphrodite. Reconstruction of S. D. Kryzhitsky

turnip roofs, i.e. not less than 21 o 18 . Given the expected material of the roofing carpet, the angle of elevation of the roof slopes could most likely be in the range of 21-30. With a thirty-degree rise in the roof slope, the minimum gable height will be approximately 1.2 m.

In the reconstruction of the facade (Fig. 5), we assume a simplified two-part entablature of an architrave and a denticle with a cornice, which fully corresponds to both the wooden structure and the time of construction of the Berezansky structure. The height of the entablature in this case, taking into account the recommendations of Vitruvius (III. 5. 8-11), will be 0.5 m 19 at the minimum and 0.9 m 20 at the maximum height of the antelope, and the total height of the temple from the floor level to the top point of the pediment will be in the range of 4.87-6.59 m. In the reconstruction of the facade, we assume a height of about 5.1-5.2 m based on the method proposed by I. R. Pichikyan for reconstructing the order facades of ancient churches, according to which the height from the stereobat to the level of the corner acroterium corresponds to the width of the facade of the Ionic Order temple 21. With a wooden entablature, you can also assume the use of architectural terracotta overlays. However, there is no data on this issue. Thus, the Berezansky temple, in our opinion, could most likely be a small building that did not have a stereo bath and was located in a rather confined space (Figs. 6, 7).

The calculated coefficients of the degree of reliability of the reconstruction of the Berezansky structure give the following picture. Coefficient of confidence of type determination for all three reconstruction variants (two-column, single-column-

He is. 18 Residential ensembles of ancient Olbia IV-II centuries BC Kiev, 1971. p. 95.

19 If the column is 12-15 feet high, the architrave will be 0.22 m high, the zophorion will be 0.16 m high, and the denticles and cornice will each be 0.06 m high.

20 If the column is more than 15 feet high, the architrave is 0.39 m high, the zophore is 0.29 m high, and the denticle and cornice are each 0.11 m high.

Pichikyan I. R. 21 On the method of reconstructions of antique order facades based on architectural fragments. 1978. 152. p. 77. Fig. 3; same name. Asia Minor - Northern Black Sea Coast. Antique traditions and Influences, Moscow, 1984, p. 257 pp.

page 173

6. View of the temple from the south-east. Reconstruction of S. D. Kryzhitsky

7. View of the temple from the northeast. Reconstruction of S. D. Kryzhitsky

Coecient of the degree of reliability of the plan reconstruction for the columnless variant - kn = 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.4 x 0.7 + 0.4 x 1.0 = 0.88; for the single - column variant-Kn = 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.4 x 0.7 + 0.4 x 1.0 = 0.88; for the single-column variant-Kn = 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.4 x 0.5 + 0.4 x 1.0 = 0.80; for the two-column version-kn = 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.4 x 0.3 + 0.4 x 1.0 = 0.72. Coefficient of degree of trustworthiness-

page 174

accuracy of facade reconstruction for a columnless version - kf = 0.1 x 0.7 + 0.2 x 0.7 + 0.1 x 0.7 + 0.2 x 0.7 + 0.2 x 0.7 + 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.72; for a single-column version-kf = 0.1 x 0.7 + 0.2 x 0.7 + 0.1 x 0.5 + 0.2 x 0.7 + 0.2 x 0.7 + 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.7; for two-column - K f = 0.1 x 0.7 + 0.2 x 0.7 + 0.1 x 0.3 + 0.2 x x 0.7 + 0.2 x 0.7 + 0.1 x 1.0 + 0.2 x 0.3 = 0.68. As you can see, in both cases, i.e. based on the reconstruction of both the plan and the facade, a columnless option is more likely. The order recovery confidence factor is the same for all three options: K o = 0.2 x 0.5 + 0.3 x 0.5 + 0.3 x 0.5 + 0.2 x 0.5 = 0.5 22 .

In conclusion, we note that the almost square proportions of the naos and the extremely shallow depth of the pronaos are typical for treasuries, but not for temples. In other words, it is possible that, given the proportions and unusually small size of the Berezansky structure, as well as the tightness in its placement on the site, it could not be a temple, but a treasury.


S.D. Kryzhitsky

The article proposes a graphic reconstruction of the 6th с. Sun Aphrodite's temple. According to the reconstruction, the temple was one in antis with an open columnless portico. The order of the temple was Ionic or Attic. The wooden entabliture was simplified, consisting of an architrave and denticles with a cornice. The portico had a pediment, the slopes of its roof rising at an angle of 21-30. The thatching was of adobe or reeds. The walls were built of raw bricks upon stone socles. As a unit of length the builders must have used the Dorian foot. Almost square shape of the naos, a very short pronaos and an unusually small size of the building are typical of treasuries.

22 Calculations are given according to the methodology: Kryzhitsky S. D. Architecture of the ancient states of the Northern Black Sea region. Kiev, 1993. pp. 30, 31.


Permanent link to this publication:

Similar publications: LJapan LWorld Y G


Nikamura NagasakiContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster:

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

S. D. Kryzhitsky, TEMPLE OF APHRODITE ON BEREZAN. RECONSTRUCTION // Tokyo: Japan (ELIB.JP). Updated: 17.06.2024. URL: (date of access: 13.07.2024).

Publication author(s) - S. D. Kryzhitsky:

S. D. Kryzhitsky → other publications, search: Libmonster JapanLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex


Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Nikamura Nagasaki
Nagasaki, Japan
17 views rating
17.06.2024 (25 days ago)
0 subscribers
0 votes
Related Articles
10 hours ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki
11 hours ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki
2 days ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki
2 days ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki
2 days ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki
2 days ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki
2 days ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki
5 days ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki
5 days ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki
6 days ago · From Nikamura Nagasaki

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

ELIB.JP - Japanese Digital Library

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners


Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: JP LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Japan ® All rights reserved.
2023-2024, ELIB.JP is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Preserving the Japan heritage


US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android