Attilio Pizzigoni’s monograph is a self-described contribution to the science and knowledge regarding the foundations of architecture, emphasizing the forms and forces at work through the enigmatic Tholos at Delphi. Composing it as an homage to the genre of the Platonic dialogue, Pizzigoni has crafted a distinctive narrative that draws the reader in as a silent witness to the author’s own academic exploration.
The Athena Pronaia Tholos is organized into seven chapters, divided into categories based on historical and architectural principles. Each chapter is arranged as a dialogue primarily between the author, who models himself after Kafka’s parable Er, and a fictitious interlocutor, conspicuously named Pythia, who assists in unravelling the mysteries of the structural composition of the Tholos.
The first chapter is termed ‘The Meeting,’ in which the reader is introduced to the primary interlocutors, Pythia and the archaeo-ethnographer. ‘The Meeting’ functions primarily as an introduction, situating the archaeological site of Delphi historically and spatially, and as a way for the author to describe the motivations behind his project. This chapter details the theoretical and methodological approaches used for Pizzigoni’s tectonic investigations of the Sanctuary of Athena Pronaia at Delphi and the Tholos therein. Particularly influential is the scholarship of the Swiss-French architectural designer Le Corbusier (Charles-Édouard Jeanneret), and especially his 1927 book on the tectonic nature of architecture, The Five Points of Modern Architecture.
The second chapter, entitled ‘Theodorus Phocaeus,’ takes the form of an imagined autobiography of the architect of the Tholos, written by Pizzigoni as both the author of the book and the ethnologist within the dialogue itself. This pseudo-autobiography provides an imagined background for Theodorus, focusing specifically on the artists, architects, and thinkers who influenced his work, including Socratic philosophers and Praxiteles. This discussion continues into the next chapter, moving away from the fictitious account into the realm of historical evidence.
Chapter Three, ‘Marmaria,’ situates the Tholos at Delphi within its historical and artistic contexts. This chapter analyzes the people and artistic styles that likely had the greatest impact on the architectural style of the Tholos, drawing specifically on the Athenian artisans of the Classical period. Pizzigoni’s focus in this chapter concerns the true identity of the architect, as it seems implausible to the author that a non-famous architect would have been responsible for such a renowned project, making a point that Theodorus was only mentioned once in the historical record, by Vitruvius.[1] He concludes that Theodorus did not exist; rather, the name was either a pseudonym for a famous architect, namely Phidias or Ictinus, or the result of a transcription error for Theodotus. The suggestion that Ictinus was involved in some manner is not new, as other scholars like Karl Schefold, Helmut Berve and Gottfried Gruben allude to the artist’s influence on the Tholos.[2] Alternatively, Pizzigoni proposes that the design of the Tholos was the product of a collective, which he suggests is consistent with Greek philosophical thought. This framework understood that the full potential of something was achieved through a combination of multiple forms of knowledge. The structure is also considered as a space for venerating Pythagoras and geometry, although this interpretation appears to reflect Pizzigoni’s personal perspective rather than a historically grounded view, since he frames the monument as a marvel of ancient mathematics and is for him a site of devotion to these principles.
The fourth chapter is called ‘The Icosahedron’ and focuses on analyzing the geometric and mathematic principles of the Tholos based on measurements of the surviving stones themselves. Pizzigoni pieces together a plausible reconstruction of the structure based on his own investigations as well as previous scholarship, most notably by Jean Bousquet and Juko Ito et al., whose works contain the most precise and complete measurements of the structural composition of this building.[3] This chapter engages with the primary evidence of ancient Greek mathematicians and geometers, who Pizzigoni recognizes as instrumental in the design of the Tholos. The emphasis here is on Euclid, in particular his icosahedron proof about a twenty-faced polyhedron; Pizzigoni argues that the dimensions of the surviving stones align perfectly with the geometry of the structure of the Tholos and that its circular proportions were calculated within this overarching architectural composition. In this chapter, Pizzigoni provides this ancient Greek quote allegedly from Euclid’s Geometry: “Ο κύκλος στον οποίο είναι γραμμένο το εικοσαέδρον.” However, this is a modern Greek sentence that is not directly attested anywhere in Euclid; rather, it is a paraphrase of the final sections of this geometric proof that embodies the relevance of the icosahedron to the design of the Tholos.
Chapter Five, ‘Nothing in Excess,’ is named after one of the famed maxims inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi and discusses the overarching tectonic design of the Tholos. The primary focal point of this chapter concerns the notion that each architectural element of a Greek temple was designed specifically to structurally support the others. Pizzigoni suggests that, since the fracture points on all of the surviving pieces of the Doric frieze were made at the same spot and angle, the Tholos was destroyed by accident. He contends that individuals lacking the technical knowledge of Greek architects removed the sculpted metopes, treating them as purely decorative rather than architecturally necessary, critically damaging the buildings structural integrity.
The sixth chapter, ‘Agalmata,’ predominantly engages with the nature of the Tholos, specifically how its form relates to its function. Pizzigoni introduces the notion that the building was intended to serve as a statue, as both the container and the content of a temple. This chapter returns to the discussion of the previous one, regarding the self-supporting nature of the architectural elements of the Tholos. In particular, Pizzigoni theorizes that the trapezoidal roof tiles were designed to support each other and the roof itself when interlocked, in a system of counter pressures and reciprocal forces.
The final chapter, ‘The Marble Roof,’ repeats and expands upon points from the two previous chapters, with the conjecture that the Tholos was surmounted by a domed stone roof with a central hypaethral opening. Pizzigoni argues against the use of wood in either the roof or support structure of the Tholos, in a lengthy discussion within the footnotes concerning the cost of wood versus marble in ancient Greece.[4] Pizzigoni returns his attention once more to the stone roof tiles, arguing that they were not tiles in the traditional sense, but rather structural elements assembled into a self-supporting interlocking roofing system.
In lieu of a formal conclusion, The Athena Pronaia Tholos ends with a selection of images entitled “Random Walks,” which include architectural drawings by the author and figures supplementing the reader’s understanding of the topography of the Athena Pronaia sanctuary. In addition to a bibliography, named “Pythia’s Backpack,” Pizzigoni has included a useful glossary with definitions of architectural or historical terminology.
A short appendix consists of three sections pertaining to the Tholos at Delphi and circular architecture more broadly. The first two, written by Antonio Corso, concern a statue base found within the Tholos and archaic clay architectural models of Greek temples. The models in question are not directly related to the Tholos; rather, Corso more broadly suggests they were used as project models by temple architects. The third section, by Daniele Castrizio, discusses the topic of circular temples on Roman coins in a similar manner to Price and Trell’s 1997 monograph Coins and their Cities. While interesting, it is unclear how these final chapters contribute substantively to the preceding discussion of the Tholos at Delphi.
The primary motivation of this book appears to be supporting Pizzigoni’s previous arguments about the reconstruction of the roof of the Tholos. Throughout this text, Pizzigoni repeatedly characterizes the roof as a dome, offering little supporting evidence beyond the mathematical and geometrical plausibility. While he does not engage at length with alternative roofing theories in the present monograph, his 2023 and 2025 collaborative articles acknowledge that the majority of scholars argue in favour of a conical or vault shaped roof.[5] Additionally, Pizzigoni proposes the presence of a hypogeum within the cella; however, this idea is largely unsupported in the scholarship. The 1925 excavation reports attribute a hole in the cella floor to looters, while Nicolas Kyriakides mentions a central pit as only a possibility.[6] The presentation of this idea reflects a potential misinterpretation of the current reconstructions of the Tholos and would have been better framed as a tentative hypothesis rather than a fact.
Pizzigoni frequently refers to or quotes ancient authors like Plato and Plutarch in-text, yet does not include the relevant references to them in the footnotes.[7] Additionally, there are several instances in which the secondary sources that are supposed to direct the reader to a more comprehensive analysis on a certain topic do not offer the fullest academic perspective. For instance, one reference points to Gino Canlas’ 2022 entry on the Sanctuary of Athena Pronaia at Delphi from the Database of Religious History, which is designed “as a gateway to reliable, comprehensive knowledge concerning the history of religions around the world”[8] as opposed to a scholarly reference. In Chapter Five, Pizzigoni provides one reference on the Athenian Parthenon, a 2022 monograph by William St. Clair. The body of literature on this building is vast, and including several more notable texts, especially Jenifer Neils 2005 or Jeffrey Hurwit 2004, would benefit the reader’s engagement and understanding of the present subject.
Perhaps two of the largest downsides of this monograph are the author’s inclination towards repetition and his use of generalizations. The discussions on the roof tiles and use of reciprocal forces in Chapter Six are largely repeated throughout the following chapter without offering additional or supplementary information. There are several instances where generalized statements, such as Baroque vaults and medieval cathedrals resembling classical temples, are made without offering any direct comparisons which would have augmented these points.[9]
Regarding the universalized nature of the tholos, Pizzigoni rightly notes that “its shape became an emblem capable of expressing the spirit of a collectivity, and in which that collective community recognized itself.”[10] This statement appears to be in opposition to Pizzigoni’s suggestion that all subsequent tholoi were copies of the Tholos at Delphi. The assumption that these later buildings replicated a singular original is largely incorrect, as one of the most notable features of the tholos as an architectural typology is their variability, as the above quote recognizes. What remains the same is the base style, the circular plan, while what vary are the architectural and iconographical nuances that often reflect local preferences and demonstrate the hybridity of material culture, such as the solid masonry of the Arsinoeion on Samothrace and the monopteral Ionic design of the Temple of Roma and Augustus on the Athenian Acropolis.
The topic of tholoi in the ancient Mediterranean is largely neglected within the scholarship on ancient architecture. The Tholos at Delphi remains one of the most commonly studied and published of all known tholoi, comparable in scholarly attention to the Thymele at Epidauros and the Philippeion at Olympia. The Athena Pronaia Tholos contributes to the broader discourse on tholoi, in particular it expands current research concerning the architectonic structural design of Tholos at Delphi. It provides the reader with a comprehensive background on the cultural and historical influences responsible for the architectural design of the Tholos. While the writing style allows for a more public facing and diversified audience, it is often difficult to distinguish between what is true and what is fiction due to the narrative nature of the dialogue, as is the case with the second chapter on Theodorus Phocaeus. Drawing from a large body of prior literature on the subject, Pizzigoni does an admirable job condensing the often convoluted and conflicting accounts of this structure, presenting it in a palatable manner through his use of a narrative dialogue. However, the high price point combined with the critiques raised above are largely detrimental to the accessibility and overall academic value of this monograph. Accordingly, this monograph would be best suited to those scholars and institutions already well versed or specializing in tholoi or ancient Greek architecture more generally.
References
Aita, D., V. Beatini, E. Garavaglia, V. Paris, A. Pizzigoni, and L. Sgambi. 2025. “The Roofing System of the Tholos of Athena Pronaia in Delphi: Archaeological Hypotheses and Structural Suggestions.” International Journal of Architectural Heritage 19: 906–931. doi:10.1080/15583058.2024.2316289.
—. 2023. “The Stone Roof of the Tholos of Athena Pronaia in Delphi: Structural Hypotheses Starting from Fragments of Marble Tiles.” The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLVIII-M-20-2023 (29th CIPA Symposium, 25–30 June 2023). Florence: Copernicus Publications. 59–66. doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-M-2-2023-59-2023.
Berve, H., G. Gruben, and M. Hirmer. 1963. Greek Temples, Theatres, and Shrines. London: Thames and Hudson.
Bousquet, J. 1993. “La tholos de Delphes et les mathématiques préeuclidiennes.” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 117 (1): 285–313.
Charbonneaux, J. 1925. Le Sanctuaire d’Athena Pronaia: la Tholos. Paris: E. de Boccard.
Clair, W. St. 2022. The Classical Parthenon: Recovering the Strangeness of the Ancient World. Edited by L. Barnes. Open Book Publishers.
Hurwit, J. M., and A. D. Newton. 2004. The Acropolis in the Age of Pericles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ito, J., Y. Hayashida, K. Horiuchi, Y. Okada, K. Hoshi, T. Katsumata, A. N. Ota, and J. Yoneoka. 2004. New Measurements and Observations of the Treasury of Massaliotes, the Doric Treasury and the Tholos in the Sanctuary of Athena Pronaia at Delphi. 2 Vols. Tokyo: Kyushu University Press.
Kyriakidis, N. 2010. “Erreurs à Delphes. La tholos de Marmaria au fil des interprétations (ca 1840–1940).” Anabases 11: 149–163.
Neils, J., ed. 2005. The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schefold, K. 1966. The Art of Classical Greece. New York: Crown Publishers.
Notes
[1] Vitr. 7 (Pizzigoni preface 12).
[2] Schefold 1966, 201; Berve and Gruben 1963, 342.
[3] Bousquet 1993; Ito et al. 2004.
[4] Pizzigoni 2025, 132–133 n.10.
[5] Aita et al. 2023 and Aita 2025.
[6] Charbonneaux 1925; Kyriakides 2010.
[7] Pizzigoni 2025, 88 n.23, 89 n.24 & 26, and 123.
[8] https://religiondatabase.org/landing/about/about-the-drh
[9] Pizzigoni 2025, 135.
[10] Pizzigoni 2025, 45.