Side P Tapınağı'nda yeni araştırmalar, yeni bulgular ve yeni yorumlar

Abstract

In the summer of 2013 and 2014 new research began at Side s Temple P, which rises on asemi circular podium and ends with a rectangular shape. This renewed architectural researchon the building extends the findings of earlier studies on the temple, which was published forthe first time by Lanckoroński in 1890. In 1947 it was excavated by Mansel, and a new restitu-tion was proposed by Gliwitzky in 2010. Current researches concentrated particularly on thestone compatible and precise architectural drawings of in situ and dislodged blocks, usinghistorical building research methods. Through these methods new information was obtainedabout the building phases of the lower floor, the architecture of the elements of the monumen-tal entrance, and the dedicatee(s) of the temple.The first research on Temple P was conducted by Lanckoroński and his team, who markedthe temple as P in his map of Side in 1890. In his very brief description Petersen mentions atympanum belonging to Temple P in Side and recalls a similar architectural element that hehad seen in Kremna before coming to Side and describes a figure on it . This description wasinterpreted by Mansel, who carried out excavations in Side 57 years after its discovery, as if itbelonged to the tympanum and the Side figure with the hypothesis that the one in Side wasworn but the other well preserved . Thus it was taken as evidence to identify the temple sdedication to Men. Actually Lanckoroński s publication states that the dedication of the templeto Men was a possibility; nevertheless, he named the temple as P.Mansel mentioned the dedication to Men cautiously in his early publications but sup-ported this hypothesis more determinedly in his final publication. Without checking the reliefon the tympanum, he claimed that a figure on a Gallienus coin of Side depicted Men, thusTemple P should be dedicated to Men, although many researchers objected to this identifica-tion. However, nothing contrary has not been proven yet. Descriptions of this temple usuallystart with an unusual plan type , and then it is either placed under a separate category orignored totally in typological studies. Thus, more than 120 years after its discovery, there stillis no systematic study, documentation or publication of Temple P. Researchers underline theinefficacy of Mansel s data and the deficiency of its presentation.In this context it can be stated that the frame of the researches has been constrained by thelack of satisfactory information on Roman temple architecture. Indeed, is it not more interesting to study non-typical examples, to see how much the rules were transcended or to investigate the reasons for producing unusual solutions for the sake of research, rather than studyingexamples not stretching the rules? Thus, our architectural study on Temple P started with theseconcerns in mind and relied on the chance and possibility to turn to the building itself at firstindependent of the building s function and the time period to which it belongs.In the first stage of this new research the focus was on the building itself as the main reference. Dislodged architectural blocks scattered around the monumental entrance before thesemicircular cella rising on a podium were examined. Recording through drawing was realizedusing a computer-supported relevé method. Relevés of technical joints like clamps, dowels etc.as well as areas with finely dressed stone surfaces were prepared on 1:10 scale based on geo-desic measurements. A standard description technique was developed that was suitable for thedeformation of the stone. On the other hand, on the lower floor where no technical joints ex-isted in masonry, relevés of 1:20 were prepared by hand. Dislodged architectural blocks weredrawn to a 1:10 scale containing all the data necessary for research on historical buildings, andtheir photographs were taken for documentation.Documents hand-drawn on site were scanned and digitised using the capabilities of theCAD program in order to prepare the basis for restitution. Ceiling coffers were researched byputting together drawings on a 1:10 scale using a computer.On-site research on the tympanum has shown that the bust in its middle is not a male withconical headgear , as thought by former researchers, but rather a female in high relief. Thisfemale is flanked with a stylized ear of wheat on the right and a stylized opium capsule on theleft. Heavily worn traces on the stone can still be discerned in certain sunlight revealing theearlobes, a triangular pit under the chin, her throat, and her hair in curls. So this is a goddessfigure flanked with her attributes; thus, she should be identified as Demeter.From the point of architecture, the presence of two such façade elements of equal size in-dicates a symmetrical façade. This situation brings a question with itself: So to whom was thesecond tympanum dedicated? In this context the future questions to be investigated are: Didthe temple house another cult of mystery together with that of Demeter? So was the secondtympanum dedicated to another deity, or did it refer to another quality of Demeter such asThesmophoros or Karpophoros? Was there a depiction of Kore (Persephone) in a mother-daughter context or of Hades?The basement concealed in the podium of Temple P may have served the cult of Demeterand/or another cult of mystery referring to Hades and Persephone, death and life. In the ritesof Demeter the basement may have served for the enactment of the abduction of Persephoneby Hades, the god of underworld, or her return. The shape of the hidden and introvertedrooms downstairs, unconnected with the outside except for the holes in the ceiling openinginto the cella, should be related to the worship manner of the mystic cult. The three roomsmay be symbolically referring t