![]() ![]() After the casting of the new course upon that part of the work already completed…. 4 Further, he writes: “after the first part had been cast, the second was modeled upon it, and for the following part again the same method of working was adopted…. He explains: “For the individual metal sections could not be moved.” 3 But given that the monumental architraves of the Hellenistic temples in Asia Minor are heavier than any large bronze piece, this is clearly not true. Philo claims that the Colossus was cast in a different way than normal statues. In this paper, a more analytic approach is taken: it is a technical-archaeological commentary on the text by Philo, verifying whether the details he mentioned are compatible with the ancient situation. 2 His text has been given a lot of authority in our scholarly tradition. Philo of Byzantium ( De septem mundi miraculis 4) wrote the longest text describing bronze casting to survive from antiquity, and also left a description of a casting technique said to have been used for the Colossus. ![]() For this reason, it is worth undertaking a reconstruction of the manufacturing process of this lost statue. However, a requirement for recognizing these remnants is knowledge of the casting technique that was used. Furthermore, these remnants must be discoverable in the city of Rhodes. The statue-made of cast bronze with a height of 70 cubits (30–35 m, or 98–114 ft.)-must have left at least some remnants of its production. In the argument over where the monumental statue known as the Colossus of Rhodes was located, its casting has hitherto seldom been considered. This means that we can give the archaeological evidence greater weight than this text. A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that he used a written reconstruction of a working process. Philo’s text contains a certain level of technical knowledge but lacks important details and indeed states an important falsehood. The analysis reveals basic differences between the three casting methods. Then the various steps of the working process attested in ancient times are examined. Therefore, the indirect lost-wax process in antiquity is compared with better-known methods used to create two extant colossal statues, the Great Buddha in Nara (cast in courses) and the Bavaria in Munich (cast in large sections). How do we reconstruct the fabrication process of an exceptionally large and lost statue? First, the general parameters for the working steps must be known. Here it is argued that the technology used for the Colossus was no exception. ![]() The study of large-scale ancient bronzes and foundries, however, has provided evidence only for casting in large sections. The paradoxographer Philo of Byzantium ( De septem mundi miraculis 4) claimed that the Colossus of Rhodes was cast in situ in horizontal courses buried gradually by an earthen embankment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |