_ ?,???? 'sra?
dhS;i:
':.?
; ??E '"' ; : ?CfllPb9PP;(!1?;iiT:-L';?4:?-jl;?ib36:-S.;*il-,? -LiJu;ti,'i;V%IPL%b;6.;,:L9-;-. *u rrr - -e a,-----r.--c.
;.? ?i ':?I ' ;' ?? :?:'?
.r,??? .*:
1LII:: :i .?:???? ';? .?;?i.r-- i: UI1IIIHB-
i-P7j ri-r
:'2%1Csll
I
I
".
BE-
U1IIIWI
-? , t:?
ri"e ''?' i;
"'
i
SXj "
?: ;-i. ?
W:?? 1;_:.li.
??? .; :????? :?-:::?1.Pej? ?;:t:'':' ??, '""" ?:.??-:::; ??-:
''
?I ?
?B:; ; .::??.?;? .;trr:?:. . .:??:? .;. 'P?rk:;ir.;? ??? ??i??:??d?i' ? .,: :-Ei, ?:
7r F
'"
??-?
i?P;: !.t.g
- JI' ??... ?
1?
: 9??':
i
?CFJLi.i;.T;:'
.???r? i;??t?i ;:f;.,i?;????I? -?-?-:?I-'':'? :.?.? ?.:-? ???
::
:
''
u9CI
j.
..cl?.:??;-?-??!.;; ??. T':i?. ????. ?:-?..?! -'?'"it.i gti-'4? -?-- i? ?:??? ?r;:..? ;,si :if l?-L???I'.' 1?
:r?.r ?
:.fS ?:.... ?; ;
;;
.dI' Z .-i??' r ''''? ?:.???? ..?.? : "': t'
.....!??.:?:, ?: s;? : :
?nra?r:: .rC,'??: ?;'
i: ..- .?
i?s?:
...i
:..:..
::Y.:
?* ??;. '"
1
. ?, - ?? ?..r? :.?? $, '
::? ';??-? ??::. -.4.? r" ZIr i: ???'* ?c ;??i
I:
''
''':. -I????. '?4 ???'i'?'?.? I ?.:
??
. i.?...
nl 't --:?? ::
i,????
-1?. ?: ?-
.
?::?? ?:
?:
?! :?:???.:
i-??'
--'?Y -;
7reC;L:.? :*. .p. :r*?. ''i." ?-.? ...?;% :., ??-:?? ''''r: L*:?I:?: L??'r '?
L:
...
spF C"'
II
D1:?S i
;..*?? I'?3Z'S
?;:
r ?: C?r? ???-:
iir? ??.?
?
--
-R-,.::
:":
::;-------i?;i_?r-- -?- ? h 'j:? ??;?.:'*" r I:'
?,-rTr?l ?;
S'P'?
PERSPECTIVE
RESTORATION
OF
?
TEIE
BABBIUS
MONUMENT
by E. Skroubelos and J.Travlos)
RESULTS OF EXCAVATIONS CONDUCTED BY
THE AMERICAN
SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES
AT ATHENS
VOLUME I, PART HI IN MONUMENTS
THE
LOWER
AGORA
AND
NORTH
OF
THE
ARCHAIC
TEMPLE
BY
ROBERT L. SCRANTON
THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 1951
ALL RIGHTS
PRINTED
RESERVED
IN GERMANY
AT J. J. AUGUSTIN,
GLUCKSTADT
PREFACE CorinthianAgora of the Roman period presents a complexity within its simplicity which is at once an aesthetic phenomenon of note and a tribute to the earlier builders, who laid out their sparse array of buildings, one by one, in such a way as to allow for addition after addition without destroying the essential unity of the plan. But the complexity becomes a problemin exposition, for the whole cannot be understoodwithout the parts, nor the parts by themselves alone. The present volume is a step toward the whole, although much remains to be done. Earlier volumes of the Corinth series have set forth most of the monuments on the north side of the Lower Agora: the Propylaea in Part I of Volume I; the Northwest Stoa and Shops, and the Facade of the ColossalFigures, in Part II - all by ProfessorRichard Stillwell. The present volume describesthe West Terrace,where most of the sanctuaries were, the Central Terrace where were the Bema, Shops and other monuments, the remaining part of the north side, above Peirene, and the monuments up and down the area of the Lower Agora. Thus the Lower Agora and its periphery are completed, with the exception of the Julian Basilica at the eastern end, which will appear elsewhere; as will the whole of the Upper Agora, dominated by the South Stoa. It should be noted that with the exception of the Northwest Stoa, already published, none of the Greekremains in the area of the Lower Agora is included. This is due partly to the unity of the volume, but far more to the fact that the Greek remains are to a considerable extent unvailable for study until further excavation has been carried out, or, as is the case with the Sacred Spring, are to be publishedin other contexts. The accounts of the various buildings offered in this volume owe much to a considerable number of people, and perhaps suffer in some ways from the exchange from hand to hand. Of the buildings on the West Terrace,the northernmost (Temple D, the temple of Hermes) with the area to the north was found in 1907 and the excavation was later completed by Professor Oscar Broneer; the southernmost (Temple F, the temple of Tyche) with the area to the south, was dug by Dr. Gladys Davidson (now Mrs. Weinberg) and ProfessorRichard Howland, under the general direction of ProfessorsBroneer and Stillwell. The rest of the buildings were excavated by myself under the general direction of Professors Stillwell and Morgan, with small exceptions noted in the text. The formal study of these buildings was begun in 1938, with Mr.Wulf Shaefer, then engaged by the School as architect at Corinth,working on the drawings; the work was interrupted by the war and resumed in 1946-47, with Mr. John Travlos, School Architect, and Mr. Elias Skroubelos,his assistant for Corinth,reworkingsome of the drawings THE
war by Hermann Wagner, but most are by Harissiades. Plates 10,, 253,261, 274,57~, and 592 are by Dr. Saul Weinberg. The Central Terrace was excavated in sections by a number of people: Professor Broneer did the eastern half of the eastern Shops, Miss Mary Folse, under the direction of Professors Broneer and Morgan,did the remainderof the eastern section of shops and the Bema; and Miss Mary Campbell, under Professor Morgan, did the rest. Except as noted, all of the drawingsare by Mr. Travlos and Mr. Skroubelos.All of the excavations benefited from real contributions by the foreman, Evangelos Lekkas. The study of the monuments north of the Archaic Temple is based on the results of excavations conducted by ProfessorF. Josef de Waele in 1929 and 1930. In the course of my own study I have further benefited substantially from discussion of the problems with B. H. Hill, and Vinko von Peschke contributedimportant ideas during the course of his work in preparing the drawings and restorations. The plan of the actual state is by Peschke, based on original plans by Douglas and Stillwell; the other drawingsare all by Peschke. Most of the photographs are by John L. Caskey, Director of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. It will be clear that I owe much to the notes of the excavators named, and it goes without saying that far more ideas than could be detailed were offered by the architects working with me, nor would grateful acknowledgmentbe complete without referenceto the architectural experience of Mr. Leicester B. Holland. Dr. B. H. Hill has provided important suggestions for the account. Above all, the intimate knowledge of Professor Broneer on all matters Corinthianhas influenced every page. The studies of the Lower Agora were made in 1946-47, while I was living at Corinth on funds provided in part by the Fellowship Committee of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, and, in part, by particular generosity, by the Faculty Fellowship Committee of Vassar College, from which institution I was then on leave of absence. The study of the monuments north of the archaic temple was made during the summer of 1949, on funds of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Emory University
ROBERT SCRANTON
TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
. . .
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN PLATES
. .
ix
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
LIST OF FOLDING PLATES AT END OF VOLUME CHAPTER I.
V
.
..........................
. .
. . . . . . . . . .
THE BUILDINGS ALONG THE WEST TERRACE .
I. INTRODUCTION .3......... II. ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT
. . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . .
3
................ .
.
3
....
6
.6................
6
A. THE TERRACE .............................. B. THE PRECINCT OF HERMES
.
. . .
. . . .
. . . . .
8
. . . . . . . . . . .
16
. . . . .
32
. . . .
C. THE AREA NORTH OF THE TEMPLE OF HERMES
. .
.
D. THE BABBIUS MONUMENT ................... E. THE FOUNTAIN OF POSEIDON
17
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. .
F. THE TEMPLES OF "HERAKLES" AND POSEIDON ............
36
G. TEMPLEK
51
.
............................
H. THE RAMP SOUTH OF THE TEMPLE OF "HERAKLES" . . . . . . ..
.
I. THE PANTHEON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .......... J. THE TEMPLEOF TYCHE K. THE SOUTH END OF THE TERRACE III.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. HISTORYAFTERA.D. 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE BUILDINGS ALONG THE CENTRAL TERRACE
C. THE CIRCULAR MONUMENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. THE DIONYSION . .. E. THE BEMA COMPLEX
. . . . . . . . . . . .
...
57 63
64 67 72 74
76
...................
A. THE EARLY STOA ........................ B. THE RETAINING WALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
52
74
1. INTRODUCTION........................... DEVELOPMENT II. ARCHITECTURAL
52
..................64
CHRONOLOGY AND IDENTIFICATION
A. CHRONOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. IDENTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER II.
XV
..
..
. . ..
. . . . .. .......
. . . . . .
..
76 77 80
85 91
F. THE BASE IN FRONT OF THE BEMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
H. SMALL MONUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CENTRAL TERRACE .....118 I. PASSAGES THROUGH THE TERRACE .................121
III. CHRONOLOGY AND IDENTIFICATION ................. CHAPTERIII. THE ROMANLOWER AGORA
.........
124
13
..............
I. INTRODUCTION......................... II. THE ROMANPERIOD III. CHAPTER IV.
133
........
.135
.......1......
CHRONOLOGY AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
.............148
BUILDINGS NORTH OF THE ARCHAIC TEMPLE ...............
155
I. NATURAL SITUATION AND EARLIEST HISTORY OF THE AREA II. BUILDINGS OF THE FIFTH TO THE THIRD CENTURIES B.C.
156
....... ........
157
....
A. THE PAINTED BUILDING ...........
..
..157 163
B. THE NORTH STOA ........................ C. THE ASCENT TO THE ARCHAIC TEMPLE D. CHRONOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION
...............
173 173
................
III. THE ROMANPERIOD ..................
......
180 180
A. THE ROMANMARKET ...................... .................
188
................... C. OTHERROMANCONSTRUCTION
190
AND INTERPRETATION................. D. CHRONOLOGY
190
B. THE ROMAN RETAINING WALL
IV. SUMMARY . ..
..
..
..
. ..
..
. ..
..
. . . ..
. . . . .193
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT Perspective Restoration of the Babbius Monument .............
Frontispiece
Fig.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.
Plan of the Agora about A.D. 200. ........................ Tuscan Capital and Base. ............................ Architrave-Frieze from Temple of Hermes ..................... Elevation of Block from Corner of Gable of Temple of Hermes ............ Elevation of Block from Peak of Gable of Temple of Hermes ............ Section of Horizontal Cornice of Temple of Hermes ................. First Step of Podium of Babbius Monument .................... Second Step of Podium of Babbius Monument ................... Base Moulding of Podium of Babbius Monument ................. Orthostate for Revetment of Podium of Babbius Monument ..... ....... Crown Moulding of Podium of Babbius Monument ................. Block from Crown Course of Podium, or Euthynteria of Upper Structure, of Babbius Monu. ment ................................... Block of Stylobate of Babbius Monument ..................... Restored Drawing of Base of Column of Babbius Monument ............. Architrave-Frieze of Babbius Monument .................... Cornice of Babbius Monument .......................... Drawing of Ceiling Block of Babbius Monument, restored in Position ......... Marble Pine Cone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One of the Balustrades, probably from Fountain of Poseidon ............. ....... Naturalistically Carved Bases. ............ Base for Dolphin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orthostates from Wall of Temple of "Herakles". ................. Blocks of Stylobate of Temple of "Herakles" ................... Restored Drawing of Base of Column from Temple of "Herakles" or Temple of Poseidon Capital from Temple of "Herakles" or Temple of Poseidon .............. Architrave-Frieze from Temple of "Herakles" ................... Corner Block from Gable of Temple of "Herakles" ................. Block from Peak of Gable of Temple of "Herakles" ................. Blocks from Poros Architrave-Frieze and Cornicefrom Temple of "Herakles" ......45 Threshold of Temple of "Herakles" ........................ Cornice from Gable of Temple of Poseidon ..................... Inscribed Architrave-Frieze of Temple of Poseidon ................. Poros Architrave Block, possibly from Pantheon .................. Poros Wall-Crown Block, possibly from Pantheon ................. Marble Cornice Blocks from Pantheon ....................... Capitals from Pantheon ............................. Column Base, possibly from Pantheon ...................... Crown Moulding from Temple of Tyche ...................... Base Moulding from Temple of Tyche ....................... Base of Column from Temple of Tyche ......................
4 10 12 13 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 34 35 36 39 40 41 42 42 44 45 47 48 49 54 54 55 56 56 58 59 60
43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.
Cornice Block from Side of Temple of Tyche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tympanum from Temple of Tyche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Development of the Buildings on the West Terrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan of Existing Remains and Restored Section of Circular Monument . . . . . . . . Sketch Plan of Successive Periods of Circular Monument: About 15 B.C., A.D. 15, and . . . . . . . . . . . . .... A.D . 45 ... . .. . . . . Plan of Existing Remains of Dionysion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restored Plan of Dionysion ........................... Base Mouldings from Scholae of Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orthostate from Schola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pier, with Orthostate and Crown Moulding, of Schola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Architrave from Eastern Schola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Floor Slab from Bema showing Clamp and Mark of Juncture of Sill behind Schola . . . Base Moulding of Bema Podium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crown Moulding of Bema Podium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corner Stylobate of Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment of Base for Pier of Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment of Pier A of Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment of Pier B of Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment of Pier C of Bema ........................ Seat Blocks from Side of Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seat Block from Rear of Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment of Orthostate from Side of Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment of Pier by Central Entrance to Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flat Arch over Door of Shops ........................ Plan of Existing Remains of Altar in Lower Agora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggested Restoration of Altar in Lower Agora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Actual and Restored Plans and Sections of Augustales Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small Base in Front of East Schola of Bema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan with Half-Elevation and Section of Stepped Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pier with Half-Column from Lower Story Fagade of North Stoa . . . . . . . . . . . Section of Cornice from Lower Story Facade of North Stoa .. . . . . . . . . . . . Balustrade-Pier from North Facade of Second Story of North Stoa . . . . . . . . . . Upper Section of Pier from North Faqade of Second Story of North Stoa . . . . . . . . Fragment of Doric Capital, possibly from North Stoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bedding for Interior Pier from Second Story of North Stoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interior Pier from Second Story of North Stoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horizontal Section of Architectural Member found near North Stoa . . . . . . . . . . Elevation and Horizontal Section of Anta found near North Stoa . . . . . . . . . . Block from Stylobate of North Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cornice from North Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Restored Section and Elevation of Southeastern Cornerof North Market viewed from the West
62 62 65 80 84 86 87 94 94 95 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 107 108 113 139 140 143 144 145 165 165 165 167 167 169 171 171 171 185 186 189
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN PLATES Plate
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1 2 7. 1 2 3 4 5 8. 1 2 9. 1 2 10. 1 2 3 11. 1 2 12. 1 2 3 4 13. 14. 1 2 15. 1 2 16. 17. 1 2 3 4 18. 1 2 19. 1 2 3 4
General View of the West Terrace from the North View of the West Terrace from the South Trench Showing Stratification South of Temple of Hermes Court in Front of Temple of Hermes View of Foundations of Temple of Hermes The South End of the West Terrace Fragments of Tuscan Capital and Base Temple of Hermes Ionic Capital Marble Architrave-Frieze Top of Frieze Block from Peak of Gable Corner Block from Gable Area North of Temple of Hermes Foundations of Babbius Monument Foundation Core of Babbius Monument Showing Imprint of Planks from Form Blocks from Revetment of Podium of Babbius Monument Babbius Monument Inscription on Orthostate from Podium Stylobate Block Shaft of Column Architrave-Frieze from Babbius Monument Capital from Babbius Monument Babbius Monument Cornice Ceiling Block, exterior Ceiling Block, interior Pine Cone, possibly from Finial Remains of Basins of Fountain of Poseidon Raking Balustrades from Fountain of Poseidon Naturalistically Carved Base, probably from Fountain of Poseidon Marble Dolphin and Base with Dedication Aphrodite from Fountain Foundations of Temples of "Herakles" and Poseidon Poros Orthostates from Temple of "Herakles" Marble Stylobate Block from Temple of "Herakles" Fragment of Column from Temple of "Herakles" or Temple of Poseidon Capitals from Temple of "Herakles" or Temple of Poseidon Inscribed Architrave-Frieze from Temple of "Herakles" Blocks from Entablature of Temples of "Herakles" and Poseidon Temple of "Herakles" Poros Horizontal Cornice from Rear Gable Poros Architrave-Frieze from Rear Corner Fragment of Marble Lintel Fragment of Marble Threshold
21. 22.
23.
24.
25.
26. 27.
28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.
37.
2 Cornicefrom Corer of Gable 3 InscribedArchitrave-Frieze 4 Anta Capital Foundationsof TempleK 1 Poros Anta Capital,possiblyfrom Pantheon 2 MarbleCornicefrom Pantheon 3 Frieze Slab, possiblyfrom Pantheon 4 MarbleCapitalsfrom Pantheon Templeof Tyche 1 Fragmentof Step Block 2 CrownMouldingfrom Niche 3 Base Mouldingfrom Interior 4 Architrave-Frieze,possiblyfrom the North Wall Templeof Tyche 1 Base of Column 2 Capital 3 Cornicefrom Cornerof Gable 4 CentralBlock from Tympanum 1 Base with Inscriptionto Victoria 2 Statue of Victory found near Templeof Tyche 3 Coinof Plautilla, showingAphrodite,possiblywith MuralCrown 4 Statue of Tyche, possibly Cult Statue from Templeof Tyche 1 Coinsreferringto Cult of Tyche 2 Base for Statue of Regilla, designatedTyche 1 Statueof Aphroditeor ArtemisfoundnearPantheon 2 Statue of Athena found near Pantheon 3 Head of AntoninusPius, possiblyfrom Base in Passage North of Pantheon 4 Coinof CommodusshowingPoseidon,possiblyfrom Fountain 1 Apolloand Muse,foundnearTempleof Hermes 2 Fragmentsfrom Groupof Warriorsfound at North End of West Terrace 3 Fragmentof Statue of Zeus Chthoniosfrom SanctuaryNorth of Templeof Hermes View of Agorafrom West View of Agorafrom East WesternPart of CentralTerracefrom North 1 CuttingsforEarlyStoa Stylobate,andforShopSill,beforeEast CentralShopsVIII-X 2 East CentralShops I and II, with EarlierCuttings,from West 1 Retaining Wall behind West CentralShops I and II 2 Passage (A) East of CircularMonument 1 CircularMonumentfrom North 2 Junctureof Mouldingof CircularMonumentand Retaining Wall Ittar's Drawingof CircularMonument(Courtesyof the British Museum) CircularMonument 1 Cuttingsfor Base Moulding,East Side 2 Foundationson West 3 Mouldingfrom SecondPeriod Dionysion 1 View from North 2 Rear Wall below Floor Level
2 39. 1 2 40. 1 2 3 41. 1 2 42. 1 2 3 43. 1 2 44. 1 2 45. 1 2 3 46. 1 2 3 47. 1 2 3 48. 1 2 3 49. 1 2 3 4 50. 1 2 51. 1 2 3 52. 1 2 3 53. 54. 1 2 55. 56. 1 2 57. 1 2
The Bema and the Churchfrom the West The Eastern Schola The WesternSchola Seat Block with Dolphin,Cornerof WesternSchola Lion's Paw from Seat Block at Rear of WesternSchola Seat Block from End of West Wall of WesternSchola Base Mouldingsfrom Scholae Orthostatesfrom East Wall of Eastern Schola,with Pier and Base Mouldings Graffition Bottom of Orthostatefrom Schola Pier from East Wall of Eastern Schola Fragmentsof Capitalsfor Piers of Scholae CrownMouldingsfrom Scholae Architravefrom Eastern Schola CrownMouldingof Bema Podium Base Mouldingand Orthostateof Bema Podium Floor Slab from Bema at Point of Juncturewith Sill behind Schola Fragmentsof OrthostatesfromBemaPodiumRevetmentwith Cuttingsfor Attachment of Rostra Slabs from Edge of Bema Floor Stylobate and Foundationof Bema in situ CornerStylobate of Bema Fragmentof Base from Pier of Bema Pier A, from beside Entranceto Bema Pier B, from Corer of Bema Pier C, from End of Side Wall of Bema Seat Blocks from Side of Bema Fragmentof Seat Block from Rear of Bema Fragmentsof Orthostatesfrom Above Seats on Bema Fragmentof Pier by CentralEntranceof Bema Anta Capitals,possiblyfrom Bema CarvedFrieze, possiblyfrom Bema CorniceBlock, possiblyfrom Bema Foundationfor Platformin front of Bema East CentralShops from Bema East CentralShops from CircularMonument OpusIncertumof Walls of Shops Remainsof Anta FlankingEntranceto Shops Fragmentof ConcreteVaultingfrom Shops Sill of East CentralShops XII-XIV, showingFoot-Wearand Recutting Bench from Back of Shops,facing on UpperAgora Painted Plaster on Walls of Shops CentralRoom of East CentralShops Base Mouldingin CentralRoom of East CentralShops MarbleFloor of CentralRoom of East CentralShops Late Constructionin East CentralShop IV Tracesof Late Bench againstRear Wall of East CentralShop XIII Late "Chapel"in West CentralShopVI, andLaterStepsBuilt overWholeRangeof Shops InscribedPaving Slabs from Over Shops
Stylobate Orthostate Anta Entablature Entablature from Light Exedra Coin of Lucius Verus, showing Circular Monument Cross on Pier by Entrance to Bema Passage B, East of Bema Passage C, West of Bema The Walls above Peirene Foundations of Altar in Lower Agora Maenad Relief, possibly from Altar The Terentius Altar Mast Emplacement, from the West Bottom of Mast Emplacement Augustales Base for Statue of Athena Top of Augustales Base The Stepped Base in front of the Facade of the Colossal Figures The Kantharos Base Small Base in front of East Schola of the Bema The Iustitius-Heliodorus Base The Composite-Circle Base Round Altar The North Stoa and Roman Market from the West, soon after Excavation The Roman Market and North Stoa from the East, soon after Excavation Remains of the Painted Building, from the East East End of the Painted Building, from the West The Archaic Road on the Northeast Shoulder of the Temple Hill Stylobate of the North Stoa with the Sill of the Stoa Area and Drain Entrance to the Great Cistern through the Roman Shop Cornice from Between First and Second Floors of North Stoa North Stoa from the West Some of the Stone Catapult Balls Southwest Corner Room of Roman Market Gold Coins found under Floor of North Stoa Roman Market from West, after all Byzantine Additions were Removed Central Shops on South Side of Roman Market Interior of Door of Shop, with Mosaic in Corridorin Front South Corridorof Roman Market showing Mosaics as Preserved Details of Mosaics Bathing Scene on Black-Figured Vase Bathing Scene on Red-Figured Vase S Bathing Scene on Red-Figured Vase
2 3 4 59. 1 2 3 60. 1 2 61. 62. 1 2 68. 64. 1 2 65. 1 2 66. 1 2 3 67. 1 2 3 68. 69. 70. 1 2 71. 1 2 3 4 72. 1 2 3 73. 74. 1 2 75. 1 2 3 76. 1 2
A. General Plan of West Terrace Showing Existing Remains B. Restored Plan and Elevation of West Terrace, about A.D. 200 C. Restored Order of Babbius Monument D. Restored Elevation of Babbius Monument E. Plan of Existing Remains, Restored Plan, and Restored Elevation of Buildings along the Central Terrace F. Plan of Existing Remains of Bema, and Restored Elevation along Longitudinal Section G. Restored Plans of Lower and Upper Levels of Bema Complex H. Sections of Eastern Wall of Schola and Revetment of Bema Podium I. Capitals from the Scholae J. Plan of Existing Remains of East Central Shops, and Restored Plan K. North Stoa and Market, Actual State L. Sections: A - Through the North Market at A B - Through the North Stoa at B M. The North Stoa Restored N. The North Market Restored 0. Key Plan of the Central Area of Corinth (Partially revised through 1949 from plan by J. Travlos in 1947)
MONUMENTS IN THE LOWER AGORA AND NORTH OF THE ARCHAIC TEMPLE
CHAPTER
I
THE BUILDINGS ALONG THE WEST TERRACE I. INTRODUCTION period of greatest development, the west terrace of the Lower Agora of Roman Corinth presented a solid array of small temples, facing the lower market place.1 The other three sides of the Agora were lined with civic and commercial buildings (Fig. 1). Along the north, below the archaic temple, was the long facade of the Northwest Shops, the Captives Facade with the Basilica behind, the Propylaea, and probably a colonnade of some sort above the ledge under which lay the fountain Peirene. On the east was the great height of the Julian Basilica. Along the south side, separating the Lower Agora from the higher south terracein front of the South Stoa, were the CentralShops, extending to the east and west of the Bema. But the phalanx of buildings along the west terrace must have been one of the dominant notes of interest in the Agora, not only because of the slightly elevated position at the narrow end of the area, but because, to adopt the words of Pausanias, here were most of the sanctuaries. Beginning at the south2 was the Temple of Tyche, an Ionic building of unusually rich and fine workmanship, and beside it the Pantheon, a temple of the Corinthianorder. Then came a broad passage leading to a sort of "forum transitorium" behind the temples; above this the observer in the Agora would have seen the monumental approach to Temple E to the west, and parts of the West Shops at the western side of the area. North of the passage were twin temples dedicated by Commodus, probably to Herakles and Poseidon respectively; in Pausanias' day this position was occupied by the Fountain of Poseidon, with its statue of the god with one foot resting on a dolphin spouting water. Behind these would have appearedthe flank of a building tentatively called Temple K, but the dominant figure of the northern side of the terrace would have been theround Corinthian tempietto of Babbius. North of this was the precinct of Hermes, with a temple and a second statue standing on a base at the corner, the ensemble reached through a forecourt and flight of AT ITS
1 In general, see Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936, pp. 21-22; 25-27; Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, pp. 263-4; Broneer, Hesperia, XVI, 1947, pp. 235-6. Detailed references will be given below. 2 These names may be given in anticipation of the identifications to be offered at the end of the study. Athough the identifications are to some extent conjectural, it seems preferable to use the names of the deities in referring to the buildings in the text, so as to avoid the confusing reference by letters of the alphabet. Purely conjectural, or less certain identifications are indicated by quotation marks. The equation with the letters given in the excavation reports are as follows: Temple D is the temple of Hermes; F is the temple of Tyche; G, the Pantheon; H, the temple of "Herakles"; J, the temple of Poseidon.
1*
0
? u ?
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L d ?
O ?:
0?F
8F85
to
,t"'POLL'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..
..-..'
O~~~~~ 30
Lb D
100
\
T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r\Y ? M. - s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
J P,
,ju3'
,o
PA,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~eo9 s
J1 M.
?
,60Vioo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 .ABOUT A.D. 200 FIGURF1. PLANoF TH, .AGORA
o~
court in which probably stood statues of Zeus; and through which the precinct of the great archaic temple could be reached. The area in which these buildings stood lay on the edge of an artificial terrace extending between the Central Shops and the Northwest Stoa (Pls. 1, 2). Behind the temples, the western side of the terrace was later bounded by the West Shops, a row of vaulted rooms, flanking a monumental approachto the plateia in front of Temple E to the west. To the north was a gate for the road leading to the Odeion, the Theatre, and Sikyon; to the south, the area has not been explored. The history of habitation on the site goes back to the earliest period known from Corinth,although the massive foundations of the closely serriedarray of six temples and several monuments have destroyed all but slight traces of the periods earlier than Roman times. From the evidence at our disposal, however, it appears that in the ages preceding the habitation of Corinth, there was a fairly even slope to the west, with a small valley leading southeast and another northwest, at the ends of the area, and a small hollow in the middle, for we find deposits of prehistoric pottery of the neolithic period lying in the hollows.3 There are also remains of geometric civilization; a grave, probably of this period, was found within the foundations of the temple of Tyche, and another was disturbed by the buildersof the temple of Poseidon.4Several fine specimens of geometric and early Corinthianwares have been found in back fill against the walls of the temples. Of later Hellenic habitation the remains are few. A small cistern just to the west of the temple of Poseidon was discovered in 1935; it produced a quantity of objects of late Hellenistic date, some of unusual interest. Among these were several fine ivory combs, the arm of a chryselephantine statue, and some figurines.5Earlier excavations west of the north end of the area, in 1903, produced a deposit of Greek terracottas6relating to a hero cult. These suggest the proximity of one or more sanctuaries,but no architectural remains of these have been identified. We can hardly guess even the source of the objects. In fact, the most extensive remains in the area which are of pre-Roman date suggest the convergence of a series of roads leading down into the Agora (Plan A). A trench (PI. 3) between the temple of Hermes and temple K, extending from the Agora pavement to the plateia of the west terrace, shows that at one time a gentle slope connected the two levels, traversed almost indiscriminately by traffic of all sorts. A broad road, indeed, was marked out by lines of stones set as curbs and serving to keep the earth from sliding. The direction of this road is northwest by southeast; i. e., it leads up to the A. J. A., XL, 1936, p. 43. Stillwell, loc. cit. Stillwell, loc. cit. Heermance, A. J. A., VII, 1903, p. 350; VIII, 1904, p. 433, pl. XVII; Robinson, A. J. A., X, 1906, pp. 164-173.
3Stillwell, 4
6 6
A small drain, presumably continuing the one behind the Hellenistic terrace wall at the end of the Northwest Stoa,7 leads down toward a large drain in the Agora in front of the temple of Poseidon. Thus the main artery of traffic would appear to have been from the area of the Roman Sikyonian gate to a road leading up the center of the present Lower Agora, but there is also a slight slope down to the east, suggesting that traffic also diverged to the early road in front of the Northwest Stoa. Traces of another road have been found west of the South Stoa, and possibly this joined the first road east of the Pantheon. Probably a third road or path led directly west. The stratification in the trench showed a successive series of packed surfaces, suggesting the continuous use of the road over some period of time, but the pottery was meager and serves only to show that the later phases of the road cannot be earlier than Hellenistic times.
II. ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT A. THE TERRACE
THEfirst actual construction which can be traced is the erection of a retaining wall along the line marked approximately by the front of the foundations of the Roman buildings (Plan A, PI. 4). This wall held up the eastern face of the terrace which enclosed the cul-de-sac at the western end of the Northwest Stoa.8 Near the entrance of this culde-sac a flight of steps 3.20 m. wide led up southward to the top of the new level. The original height of the steps and hence of the wall, with the terrace behind, may be estimated approximately by a study of the partially preserved western cheek. The top of the highest preserved block is about 0.60 m. above the top of the foundations as we find them along the east face of the terrace. This top surface is unworn, and evidently carried other blocks. A similar block would raise the height to 1.20 m. But the level of the highest road at the western end of the temple of Hermes is about 1.90 m. above the bottom of the retaining wall, so that it is likely that a third block is to be postulated, bringing the height of the terrace to about 1.80 m. The line of the south wall of the cul-de-sac was continued eastwardin the early Roman period by a low terrace facing the Northwest Stoa through the area of the later Northwest Shops,9 but the east face of the retaining wall of the west terrace proper takes its departure just east of the stairs. The remains of this wall consist first of a line of euthynteria blocks below the edge of a foundation of poros blocks in front of the temple ? Stillwell, Corinth, I, ii, pp. 108-109.
Described by Stillwell, Corinth, I, ii, pp. 107ff., 128. 9 Ibid., p. 108.
8
just under the edge of the core. To the south, a few blocks are missing, but the broken end of another appearsunder the foundations of the temple of Poseidon and still another projects from beneath a concrete base at the southeast corner of the temple of "Herakles." South of this point nothing is preserved for a distance of two meters, but a block at right angles to the line, about 1.30 m. behind it, may have formed the north cheek of a road passing through the terrace between the Pantheon and the temple of "Herakles", for 1.80 m. to the south is a line of blocks which might have served as the south cheek. The latter is not at right angles to the line we have been following, but the main retaining wall continued southward in the same line. In this area, the wall had two periods. In the first, it lay below the stylobate of the temple of Tyche, as indicated by a block in the foundation of the temple, and cuttings in bed-rockto the south. Just south of the temple a stairway intersects the line, but a final trace of it may be seen in a block disappearing under the foundations of the archaic colonnade bearing an aqueduct, opposite the end of the line of the Central Shops; the stone in question was evidently unknown to the builders of the colonnade, for half a meter of earth lies above it before the foundations of the colonnade on that side begin. In its second period, the terrace to the south of the ramp seems to have been moved eastward about 2.40 m. at an early date. The new line may be seen in a series of blocks some 0.50 m. in height, now serving as the foundation for the first step of the temple of Tyche, and to the south is a cutting in the hardpan continuing the line as far as the line of the cheek of the stairs leading up to the west. The situation in this area of the stairs is rather complicated, because of several disturbing factors (PI. 61). The first of these is the fact that at some period the great Roman sewer, entered by a vaulted chamber over whose roof the stairs at present ascend,10was excavated through the area and the concrete ceiling for the sewer now forms the floor of the approach to the stairs. In the second place, the distributing basin for the aqueduct on the archaic columns leading from the cornerof the South Stoall was erected on foundations which obscure part of the area, while the massive basin itself has tipped over, concealing still more of it. Finally, a third structure of brick-facedconcrete was erected at some periodjust north of the distributing basin, completely blocking the approach to the present stairs. The original terrace may or may not have had a stairway at this point. The probabilities, indeed, are against it, since the ground in front must have risen rather rapidly to the south, and the lower level would have merged with the upper not far to the soutlh. However, the retaining wall of the second period in all probability did have stairs at this 10 Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936, pp. 22-24. '
Broneer, A. J. A., XXXIX, 1935, p. 64, and XXXVII, 1933, p. 566.
the earlier terrace, which might have served as its northern cheek. The bottom step of the present stairs ascending the vault may be of this construction, re-used; it is of poros and much worn, and differsin these respects from the upper treads. At a later period the large drain was put in, and the stairs moved back to rest directly upon the vault; the southern cheek was extended at this time in a constructionof rubble-concrete.Later the distributing basin of the aqueduct was built on a heavy foundation sunk into the projecting corner of the terrace south of the stairs; and finally, much later, the brick-concrete foundation was constructed. Two other points should be noted. There is a line of small stones joining the two cheeks of the road between the Pantheon and the temple of "Herakles;" whether these are originalwith the terrace or not is a question. They are much slighter in construction, and although it is conceivable that they supported a step, the probability would appear to be that they were introduced at some later period, possibly Byzantine, since the whole area has been disturbed by Byzantine excavation. The second point concerns a block fixed in the core of the Babbius monument, at its south corner (PI. 82). It is concealed by the cement of a Byzantine grave, and might be taken for part of the grave, were it not for the fact that the concrete of the base covers one edge. It resemblesthe blocks of the cheeks of the stairways, interrupting the terrace wall. It is possible that there was a stairway at this point, which would be approximately the center of the north section of the wall, and that this block was not removed for re-use by the builders of the Babbius monument. The aspect of the Agora at the time of the completion of the original terrace must have been simple. The observer in the market below would have seen only the wall, scarcely more than head-high, penetrated by a road, and perhaps a flight of stairs halfway from the road to the northern corner. The period of this arrangement cannot be settled accurately by excavational evidence, since so little fill remains, but the conditions in this area would be perfectly compatible with the date suggested by Stillwell for the terrace in the cul-de-sac, and of the Northwest Stoa; namely the end of the third or the beginning of the second century B.C. The extension of the terrace forward in its southern section might then have been a modification introduced by the early Roman colonists.
B. THE PRECINCTOF HERMES At the north end of the terrace is the Precinct of Hermes, whose history is the most complicated of the entire group. (Plans A, B; PI. 5). It was one of the two earliest temples of the series, if not the earliest. In its original period it stood on the terrace above the cul-de-sac, approached by the original stairs from the north. Built almost
period the ground level on the south at least was raised, and a large circular base for a statue was erected at the southwest corner. Later the cul-de-sac on the west end of the Northwest Stoa was filled in, and the terrace in front of the temple was cut away to provide a sunken fore-courtfromwhich the temple and the new level to the north were approached by marble stairs. At this time or later the temple was rebuilt in marble.At some period the precinct was enclosed by a wall on the south, west, and north. Foundations The foundations of the temple consist of a mass of concrete rubble, which was evidently filled into a pit excavated to the approximate size of the temple plan (PI. 5). The concrete was applied in layers some twenty-five to fifty centimeters thick. Those parts of the foundation which were to carry the poros walls rose no higher than ca. 1.40 m. above the Agora level below the eastern face of the terrace; at this level poros blocks were laid, and concrete poured between to support the floor, to the level of the top of the second course of blocks ca. 0.90 m. higher. We know that at one period the temple was built of marble, but there is reason to suppose that originally it was largely, if not entirely, of poros. The finished poros wall blocks along the north side show traces of cement, by which a marble revetment might have been held. The single block of the correspondingcourse on the south, however, has no such traces. It would thus appear that after the originalconstruction the groundlevel to the south was raised to cover the lowest course of the original building, and that then or later it was rebuilt of marble. The raising of the ground level is corroboratedby the fact that the surface of the round base at the southwest corner lies at the same level as the top of the second poros course of the temple, and was evidently flush with the ground when it was built. The lowest foundation course was not finished on its external surfaces, and so was evidently not intended to be visible; the second preservedcoursewas finishedon the outer surfaceevidently to be seen. Hence the groundlevel must have lain nearthejoint, ca. 1.801.90 m. above the Agora below. The third course of blocks is missing, but it must have been recessed ca. 0.15 m., as indicated along the north side, where the second course is fairly well representedby a series of shallow rectangularcuttings along the outer edge of the top surface about 0.08-0.14 m. from the edge. These suggest beddings for marble revetment, which belongs to the second period, but they indicate that even in the original structure the third course was recessed, leaving a narrowledge around the wall. The blocks are, to be sure, apparently re-used, with traces of clamp cuttings, but the regulararrangementof the cuttings would be hard to explain as fortuitous.
Early Period of the Temple The floor in the original period, if we allow a few centimeters, say ten, for paving above the level of the second poros course, would have been approximately 0.60 m. above the ground along the side; but the ground level sloped to the east, so that the pronaos floor could have been ca. 0.70 m. above the ground level in front. For this three low steps may ' _ ______'_' ., }..-'0.49'4 .- ... H !\\ be postulated, on the front only, since there is no projection of the pronaos foundations to carry steps along the side. For the superstructureof the poros building there is no certain evidence. Numerous poros blocks have been found in the vicinity from several different structures, but none c I -70 that can be certainly, or even probably, assigned to the temple of Hermes. But it is lo o 2o 4o C m . tempting to assign to this temple a marble base and capital of the Tuscan order found in t - -:,,0.4: the vicinity (P1. 62; Fig. 2); such would be . a 4- appropriate to an early temple in a Roman /..C. ""--"--"'--,!::'::::::::::::;";,'" ^^ i"/ ' ,,. * _ / colony, and there is no other structure to o )^.\{A^ which they can be definitely attributed. They are well made and designed, in the typical scheme for the order. The top of the shaft is APITAL AND BASE........ TUSAN FIGURE 2............ included in the capital, decorated with four i ............ ........... '..... rosettes. Above is a raised ring, surmounted by the echinus and low abacus. The base flares broadly toward the bottom, but is plain and simple. Whatever the buildingwas which . . . ........ . / , was adorned by these capitals, it must have CPTLADB"-_F FiGua 2 TU:''"SCAN been erected early in the history of Roman Corinth; it is improbable that the second or third generation of colonists would have been experimentingin Italic forms. The capital and base are of blue marble, FIGURE, 2 TUSCAN CAPITAL AND BASE not poros; the shaft may or may not have |i
H .:
i..
question whether it supported a stone architrave, which the mass of the foundations of the temple might seem to require. Still, the capitals may have carried a poros architrave in spite of the lack of cuttings. Later Period of the Temple At a later period, as we have seen, the temple was rebuilt in marble,in the Ionic order, but remained a simple tetrastyle structure. The walls were sheathed with a thin marble revetment; marble columns, architrave-frieze,cornice, and pediments were substituted for the originals. Of this period of the temple much more detail can be given. Presumably the rise in ground level, indicated by the circularmonument in the rear, to the height of the cella floor extended along the south side, but not the north. This is indicated in part by the traces of cement on the second course of wall blocks on the north side, already mentioned; partly by the fact that the pavement laid on the filled-in cul-de-sac at the west end of the Northwest Stoa about A.D. 10012was at the originallevel. But whether or not the level immediately in front of the temple was changed, and if not, where the transition took place, cannot be determined. Possibly a gradual slope was laid out, which would allow the building to rise above ground level in front only slightly. Of the stylobate itself, and of the columns, no attributions can be made, with the exception of an Ionic capital (P1. 71), but a number of interesting fragments of the entablature are preserved. The architrave-friezeand cornices present curious inconsistencies. There remain two column-borne architrave-friezeblocks, (P1.72,3; Fig. 3), each ca. 2.15 m. long, from the pronaos. Each has been broken at one end; they have an apparently original diagonal cutting for half the thickness of the block, with the rest of the end roughly cut or broken away. They might come either from the front of the temple, over the corner columns, or from the side, leading back from the cornercolumn. But the position of the sole clamp on one of the preservedblocks suggests that the block fitted into a cutting in another architrave-friezeextending across the roughly-cut end of the block, which would be appropriate for the front corner architrave-frieze. The preserved blocks, then, come from the side. The top surfaces show a sort of anathyrosis: that is, there is a bearing surface some 0.05 m. wide, carefally smoothed on each edge, the part between being cut deeper in rather rough fashion. In each example, the mouldings and the fasciae are cut with moderate care, rather better on the presumed outer side. The lines are almost true, but not exactly so. The lower surface is carefully worked, with clearly defined areas where the architrave rested on the column. About two centimeters of projecting, undressed stone occur at the end of the carved surface 12
Corinth, I, ii, pp. 110-113, p1. XIV, section A-A.
the remarkableabsence of anathyrosis on the ends, which are so roughly dressed as to leave the joints awkwardly visible.
'
'..'.
;.'::
'^ .,v-'',*
'..'....
,,
,, , ^^,,,,
r_ j//
,...... ,'
..,,
C \i'*'<
''
1i \ U'
0.469
I 0.39
-
I1
'
I
t'
i
FIGURE 3. ARCHITRAVE-FRIEZE FROM TEMPLE OF HERMES
A third specimen of the architrave-frieze, this time apparently finished on one side only, and of half the thickness of the two describedabove, evidently came from the side walls of the building. It has been recut for use as a door-sill, but the probabilityis rather remote that a block of full thickness could have been so nicely split lengthwise. There are several fragments from the cornice, interesting for their excellent state of preservation and for some peculiarities. The preservedspecimens include the left corer from the front faqade (or right from the rear) (P1. 75; Fig. 4). The dentils on the raking cornice are not at right angles to their respective overhang, but cut at a true vertical. This, like the other cornices which rested on the frieze, has horizontal anathyrosis on the lower bearing surfaces, matching that of the frieze blocks themselves. There is also careful anathyrosis on all vertical joint surfaces of external lines, and the workmanshipis rather uniformly careful and good throughout; only in the recesses of the junction of horizontal and raking cornices are the surfaces rough. A cutting on the top provided for an akroterion.
cornice require no special comment; the cornice at the peak of the gable (P1.74; Fig. 5),
$0
0
1hnhH
2o
- - L
FIGURE
1 11 LImil
Li 1
[:i
40
-
I
I
60
I cm
t
.
OF BLOCK FROM CORNER
4. ELEVATION
OF GABLE OF TEMPLE
OF HERMES
however, has some features which should be mentioned. The under surface does not show the quasi-anathyrosis,but is smooth all over, resting equally on the tympanum. 0.666
to
o
_Im. FIGURE
io
-i
5. ELEVATION
50
cIm. .
50
I
OF BLOCK FROM PEAK
OF GABLE OF TEMPLE
OF HERMES
side, with the division between marked only by a vertical line incised on the surface. The block is roughly flat on top, and could have carried an akroterion, although there are no dowels or special cuttings for attachment. The sole cutting on the top is a lewis hole. The restoration (Plan B) of the marble temple, based on the angles of the gables, the width of the foundation, and the diameters of the columns inferred from the capital and architrave-frieze blocks, shows an unusually wide, low building, from which it may be inferred that the proportions of the Tuscan temple were closely followed. In fact, it is highly probablethat the cella was unchanged, only the order being replaced. A block from the side corniceis of interest, in that it lacks the upper part of the cyma recta, which must have been part of the roof tile (Fig. 6).
I
L
lo
o
,-In~,,,
Io
I'i
2o
3o
i
I
40
5o
I cm.
FIGURE 6. SECTION
OF HORIZONTAL
CORNICE
OF TEMPLE
OF HERMES
The Precinct The original temple, as we have seen, was built at the end of the terrace, approached by stairs from the cul-de-sac to the north. Whether there was any enclosing wall on the south and west, we do not know. The marble temple, however, had a quite differentsort of environment. The terrace in front had been cut away, apparently at the same time that the cul-de-sac to the north, and the west end of the Northwest Stoa, were filled in to create a new area at a high level, joining the west terrace directly to the hill of the archaictemple.13 By this time, the level of the ground to the south of the temple had been raised slightly. The temple was, then, approachedby a flight of steps rising from a court not quite rectangular,but about twelve meters long and seven meters deep. These steps turned to ascend also to the new area to the north. They were of poros blocks sheathed with white marble clamped by tiny iron clamps to the poros behind. The risers were ca. 0.22 m. high, and the tread ca. 0.345 m. wide. The north and west flights were definitely 13
Stillwell, Corinth, I, ii, pp. 110, 114-116.
the whole flight seems to have been rebuilt; along the lower steps to the north are remains of concrete, shaped to carry steps, and in front of the lowest step along the west are three limestone blocks, along two of which runs a wide stele bedding. The south side of the lower court was flanked by a terrace wall of rubble concrete sheathed with marble. Along the bottom ran a base of blue marble sheathing 0.25 m. high, surmounted by a plain round moulding of white marble 0.03 m. high; above this the sheathing seems to have been plain white. At one period a wall continued this line to the west, as indicated by broken foundations at the rear of temple K, to a block southwest of the round base in the corner of the sanctuary; thence it continued north to the eastern pier of the central gateway of the propylon on the Sikyonian road. The corner, and the abutment against the gate, are indicated by poros blocks still in situ, but the rest of the course of the west wall is known only from early excavation drawings, presumably representing a plundered footing trench. The line is covered, however, by marble paving behind the temple, so that it did not last long. What superstructurethis wall carriedis uncertain; it is difficult to imagine a high enclosing wall, and in all probability it took the form rather of a low parapet. In the new lower court east of the temple is a foundation of poros blocks, roughly rectangular. As it stands it is almost ten meters long overall, and 2.50 m. wide. The blocks at the northern end, however, may be attributed to a podium-base flanking the north stairs on the east, and the existing blocks represent two foundations. The top of the blocks within the court properhas been cut down in such a way as to indicate that the foundation was lowered to receive the paving, and some marble slabs still lie over the edges of the blocks. This shows that the monument had been demolished,and it may in fact date from before the construction of the lower court, being a heavy foundation behind the original retaining wall. The original monument on each foundation was in all probability a sculptured group. The circularbase in the southwest corner (Plans A, B), of the precinct may have been erected at this time; at least it was built in reference to the higher level. The base consists of a well-described circle of poros blocks, with four rough blocks arranged to provide four corners. The surface of the base was evidently intended to be flush with the ground, for the blocks are not cut to their full thickness in the circular form; the edges are trimmed down about four centimeters,,and the surfaces of the blocks are Koughfrom there down. No superstructure can be assigned definitely to the base. The four stones "squaring the circle" may suggest that in a second period the round monument was replaced by a square one. In front of the lower court to the east, between the Northwest Shops and the projecting podium of the Babbius monument, to be described later (p. 18, PI. 4), are three foundations - one consisting of two poros blocks against the stylobate of the Shops,
the Babbius monument, and a third in the center, consisting now of two poros blocks. The overall width involved is ca. 10.50 m., but the center of the central foundation is only 5.00 m. from the stylobate of the shops. A square marble plinth 0.775 m. square, and ca. 0.23 m. high, has been found which would rest on these foundations; it would carry a simple pier, or possibly a column. Whether the columns or shafts on the foundations bore a lintel or not, they probably served to signalize the entry to the fore-court. They are later than the Northwest Shops and hence not part of the originalplan of the fore-court. The final period of the precinct of Hermes, then, becomes fairly clear. Approached between the shafts just mentioned, it would appear beyond the lower court, at the top of a flight of marble-revetted steps, and in the backgroundwould stand a statue or monument on the circular base. C. THE AREA NORTH OF THE TEMPLE OF HERMES North of the temple of Hermes, in its marble period, approachedby the steps on the north side of the lower court, was an area'4paved with thin marble slabs (remains of a mosaic were found still further north) and entered by a gateway northeast of the temple. This area lay on earth filling the west end of the Northwest Stoa and the old cul-de-sac between it and the temple of Hermes. Whether or not this was enclosed cannot be determined; possibly a light wall or barricadeconnected a wall along the Sikyonian road with the terrace west of the Northwest Shops, leading thence to the hill of the archaic temple. At any rate, the sill of a door is preserved,flanked by heavy poros foundations. At some later period, presumablythat of the reconstructionof the steps, limestone slabs were placed in front of the sill, raising the groundlevel in front some 0.13 m. Within this area stood a building consisting of four rooms representedby foundations still standing in the west end of the Northwest Stoa, and in the southwest corner stood a massive concrete base. This base occupies the site of the curiousstructurewith three square niches56 at the original lower level in the end of the cul-de-sac, built over the remains of a baffling arrangementof cement and cobbles, possibly of the Greekperiod and possibly hawng to term of use, had a comdo with a fountain. The structure with three niches, in its short plicated history which has still to be explained. In one of its periods, in all probability' it was sponsored by Cn. Babbius Philinus, whose name appears on a poros wall-borne architrave built with others like it into the foundations for the gate above the stairs.16 Impossible as it seems to be to formulate a definite opinion of the history and architecture of this region, there can be no doubt that it had considerablesignificance, and that its function was no common one. 14
Stillwell, Corinth, I, ii, pp. 107-115
15
Ibid., pp. 110-111.
16 West, Corinth,VIII, ii, no. 131.
The building to the south of the court just described, known as the Babbius monument, was familiar long before its foundation was discovered. Some of the curved architrave-friezeblocks, including the one bearing the name of CnaeusBabbius Philinus, many of the cornices, the roof slabs, and other members, were found in 1907 around the church of St. John, although the foundations lying under the narthex of the church were not discovered until 1935, nor laid bare until 1987.17 It was a circular building with eight Corinthiancolumns, but no cella; in front of it, projecting from the terrace, was a rectangular podium (Plans A and B; P1. 82; Frontispiece). Foundations The foundation for the actual tempietto is a core of solid concrete and broken stone ca. 6.00 m. square, and 2.70 m. in height above the level of the Agora in front (P1. 82). The eastern face of the block rests on the inner edge of the foundations of the early terrace wall. To a height of about 1.80 m., the core is rough on its surface, suggesting that it was built of broken stone with concrete poured in as the stone was put in place, inside a pit excavated in the earth. Along the south side, near the eastern face, some blocks of poros hidden by the cement of a Byzantine tomb protrude from the core. It has already (p. 8) been suggested that they represent the cheek of a flight of stairs through the terrace at this point, incorporatedinto the concrete block. Above the 1.80 m. level, the surface of the base is different. In places, particularly along the west side (P1.91),it seems to bear the impression of boards, as though a wooden form were set up, and loose stone and concrete poured in. On other sides, the lines suggesting boards are less distinct, and it has been suggested that the core was built up and then troweled over on the outside. In either case, it is clear that the lower part was pouredin a pit, or below ground level, and that the upper part was poured or laid above ground level. Furthermore, the fact that pebbles, and even small stones are caught into the otherwise smooth surfaces seems to indicate that while the surface was still soft, earth including pebbles was pressed against it. In other words, it would appear that when the building was started the ground level was ca. 1.80 m. above the Agora in front (the height of the original terrace), and that immediately after the last concrete was finished, i. e., during the construction of the building, the level was raised. This correspondsto the indications of a raising of the terrace level which we have found in the temple of Hermes. The full height of the increase near the monument base in the temple of Hermes precinct seems 17 Cf. Robinson, A. J. A., XII, 1908, p. 67; Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936, pp. 25, 27; Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, p. 542. The monument lay with the eastern face of its core under the threshold of the Church of St. John; the plan of the excavations of 1907 (Corinth, I, i, pl. III) will indicate the area around the Church, from which many blocks were found, enabling H. D. Wood to make a tentative restoration in 1908.
2
the question of the exact level at the Babbius monument will be consideredlater (p. 24). The foundations for the podium may be seen about 2.75 m. east of the face of the core, in a stone packing for the foundation of a wall. The packing is about 0.90 m. wide. Traces of similar packing can be observed turning westward at a similar distance to the north of the monument (in a line with the south wall foundation of the temple of Hermes precinct), and a slight trace of a foundation of similar nature was found returning to the line of the early terrace beyond the southeast corner. Reconstruction- The Podium Considering first the superstructure on the packing, we have examples of every member of a heavy revetment for a podium or projecting terrace (P1. 92). Numerous blocks of blue marble, whole and fragmentary, have been found ca. 0.32 m. in height, ranging from 0.30 m. to 0.50 m. in thickness, and from about a meter in length for the shortest complete specimen, to 1.75 m. for the largest (broken)fragment (Fig. 7). These
A," :-I:': '.':-.
''
FIGURE 7. FIRST STEP OF PODIUM OF BABBIUS MONUMENT
blocks are finished smoothly on one face, and dressed with a toothed chisel on the bottom. There is anathyrosis at the ends, along the front and top edges. The top surface is fairly smooth, with a weather line some five centimeters from the front edge. On the top are also cuttings for hook clamps; the complete clamps must have been ca.
top, 0.07 m. by 0.03 m., without pour channels excepting on the two comer blocks. A few pryholes also occur. It is thus evident that these blocks stood lowest in a series, with others resting upon them. Two of the blocks have clamps at only one end, indicating that they abutted against something at the other end to which they could not be clamped. A second series, represented by fewer examples, was generally similar (Fig. 8). The same kind of stone was employed, and the dressing of the front is the same. These
;./'
blocks are, however,
^:^,-' '"*' **-.**
only 0.25 h.uu-.m. hig, -.--_
.-!,
and .... bear dowel ---|-|
cuttings C<*T.
on both top and bottom
FIGURE 8. SECONDSTEP OF PODIUMOF BABBIUSMONUMENT on
top are
similar
to
those
already
described.
There
is
no
weather
lie.
In
view
of
the
surfaces, those on the lower surface coming at the ends of the blocks. The clamp cuttings similarities it would seem that they ested on the first series, and formed
of thenormal
second step in a heavy revetment. Examples of a base moulding of white marble have been found in the immediate vicinity (Fig. 9); the marble is similar to that used in the tempietto itself. This series includes two complete blocks, a fragment of a corner, and other fragments. The height is 2*
and an astragal at the top. The design is simple, the workmanshipgood on some of the pieces, but hasty on others, where some of the chisel marks have not been smoothed off. 0.374
L-____ t .1 -'
-
,
' - -,
p0
I
_1
_03,35
__
_
,
.496 0__''_fo.496
__
? ___615
-
._--_
?
_',
FIGURE 9. BASE MOULDING OF PODIUM OF BABBIUS MONUMENT
The blocks with the moulding are some 0.45-0.50 m. thick at the bottom, thicker than the second series of blue marble blocks, but it could have rested on them if an underpinning of poros were provided behind. The top and bottom surfaces are in some places less carefully dressed than in others, but the dowel cuttings at the ends of the lower surfaces and the clamps and dowels on top are similar, and there seems to be no real difficulty in assigning the white marble moulding as the third element in the ensemble. A series of heavy orthostate blocks of blue marble was found in the same area, the preserved examples 1.30 m. high, and ca. 0.30-0.35 m. thick (Fig. 10). They vary in width, the narrowest complete example being 0.70 m. wide; the widest, 1.00 m. But some fragments join in such a way as to show that some of the slabs must have been considerably wider. Their thickness shows that they could rest on the white marble moulding, and the similarity of clamps and dowels attests the relationship. Cuttings on the top indicate that they were clamped not only to each other, but to blocks behind,
bottom courses was carried up behind the orthostates. The surface of the two blocks is beautifully smoothed, with a simple apophyge ending in a straight band at the bottom.
,. .,
__ .' ::nnn3n
5C
c42l
U
'Lf
T
T
FIGURE 10. ORTHOSTATE
FOR REVETMENT
OF PODIUM
OF BABBIUS
MONUMENT
A peculiarity lies in the elusive red color that could be seen on the visible face when first found. It does not seem natural to the stone, for it did not occur on the joint surfaces. In places it would almost seem that a design had been worked in color, but not enough was preserved to corroboratethis. Possibly an attempt was made to produce a porphyritic effect. Another peculiarity is the presence of a filmy lime deposit on some of the blocks. This would suggest that they had once been used as the lining of a cistern or water basin, probably after the monument had been dismantled. a autifully carved inscription (P1. 1): bes One of the blocks bears S.AED-PONTIF. II-VIR- P
building (P1. 111), so that the original inscription on the revetment may be restored: [CN. BABBIUS PHILINU]S AED PONTIF [D S P F C IDEMQUE] IIVIR P
The carvingis unusuallyfine, recallingthe best of AugustanRome. The inscription, moreover,makes certain the associationof the series in question with the circular building,althoughthere could have been little questionin any case, in view of the circumstancesof discovery. To returnto the reconstruction, however,the dowelson top of the revetmentdemand a courseabove. This may be identifiedin a white marblecornice(Fig. 11), similarin --
o.44
1-
0.295
lo
5
?^ ...:. ? 1
...
.
o
lo
.
-...:.~ .
. ..
20
30
' .
.
.
.'.
40l
L., -
^? .
CYrC.
c
..'
;
FIGURE 11. CROWN MOULDING OF PODIUM OF BABBIUS MONUMENT
material and workmanshipto the base moulding.The total height of the block is 0.257 m., the thicknessca. 0.50 m., the overhangabout0.25 m. The material,the style, the technique,the clampsand dowels,all point to the associationof this piecewith the series in question. 18
West, Corinth, VIII, ii, no. 132, p. 107. C] N BABBIUS ?PHILINUS *AED(ilis) *PONTIF [ex] . [D(e)] S(ua) *P(ecunia)*F(aciendum)* C(uravit) IDEMQUE II VIR *P(robavit) ?
appears to be represented by the fragment of blue marble similar in appearanceto the bottom step (Fig. 12). It is 0.325 m. high,with a smoothly dressed face. On the bottom are two dowel cuttings, correspondingfairly well to those on top of the cornice. On the top, there is no trace of clamps or dowels, which would suggest that this is the crowning
1
,2 'JO^?L-0
FIGURE PODIUM,
3-o 2 IO
12.
1P rO
ICv
BLOCK
FROM CROWN COURSE
OR EUTHYNTERIA TURE,
5c,
9M
OFBABBIUS
OF UPPER
OF
STRUC-
MONUMENT
member, although to be sure it is small enough so that the absence of cuttings is not conclusive. On the other hand, the top surface is treated in a special way, with fine stippling, and could well have been a visible surface. The back, moreover, is interestingly cut. At the bottom, the block is ca. 0.17 m. thick, but halfway up the thickness diminishes to about 0.15 m. The lower part is roughly picked off, but the upper part has a fairly smooth dressing, as though for a joint surface, over an area some 0.06 m. wide. In short, if we mount this on the cornice, we have a capping element to the revetment above the cornice, and the curb or bounding element of a platform or pavement behind. Now the sum of the heights of these elements is 2.70 m., which is just the height of the top of the concrete core of the Babbius monument as nearly as it can be determined in view of the rough surfaces involved. It is probable that some slight amount of erosion has lowered the top of the packing on which the revetment stood, perhaps 0.05 m.; this would allow for a thin paving of marble slabs to lay over the square between the revetment and the core, and to cover those parts of the core not covered by the stylobate, which would articulate the construction of the podium in front of the terrace with the construction on top of the core. It is further evident that this podium must have terminated against the terrace wall. But the original terrace was only 1.80 m. in height, and no element of the podium carries out this level. Moreover,it is highly improbable
0.60 m. above the ground would be ridiculous. Hence we have still another indication that the height of the terrace was raised at this time, and we may conclude that the new level aroundthe Babbius monument was about at the top of the cornice, or 2.35-2.40 m. above the Agora level. We have seen that the rise in level suggested by the round base in the corer of the precinct of Hermes would have brought the ground in that vicinity up to about 2.30 m., which matches closely enough. In view of the fact that the north side of the podium so reconstructed carries out the line of the south face of the lower courtyard in front of the reconstructed temple of Hermes, it might be thought that the courtyard was introduced at the time of the construction of the Babbius monument, and that the revetment continued across as far as the steps. There are, however, objections to this. In the first place, the court and steps were not put in until the end of the first century after Christ (later than the Babbius monument, as we shall see later). To hypothesize earlier steps leading up to the temple of Hermes might be possible, but does not seem a likely solution. In the second place, the wall now extending along the south side of the court indicates that it originally stood to its full height in rubble concrete, with a facing of thin slabs. These are of white marble, where preserved against the stairs, and could not carry out the blue marble orthostates. Nor is there any apparent provision for carrying out the line of the second step (the first step of coursewouldterminate against the step leading up to the court). So, on the whole, it would seem that the north line of the podium of the Babbius monument determined the line of the court, rather than vice versa. Reconstruction- The Tempietto Turning now to the tempietto on the concrete core, we must refer again to the crown element of the podium. This apparently rose higher than the level of the raised terrace wall, and may have continued over the new terrace, behind the Babbius monument, to describea square within which the building stood. No proof of this exists, but something must have existed to suggest a euthynteria, and the traces for so slight a step could easily have disappeared. The round building itself is well represented by architectural members. Of the stylobate, four blocks are preserved practically intact, and there are fragments of the other four. They are of blue marble (PI. 102; Fig. 13), like the bottom step of the podium, with similar workmanship,and of the same height. They vary slightly in the measurement along the outer curve, one is 2.02 m., another seems to be only 1.82 m. The sides show anathyrosis for the top, and the front and back joints. They are only ca. 1.05 m. from front to back, and the inner edge is left rather rough, showing that the inner part of the floor consisted of lighter material, possibly a mosaic.
surface, they must have rested directly on the concrete, or on a thin packing above it, rather than on another course of blocks as a euthynteria, so that the krepis of the building was only one step high. But it is evident that the corners of the concrete core must
O-
i4 lo
o
1^H. HHH-
2eO
40 F
60
80
2,0
4o
6.0
8o
--
4
C :IC:'cm.. .
FIGURE 13. BLOCK OF STYLOBATE OF BABBIUS MONUMENT
have projected from under the stylobate; these probably were covered by the thin paving hypothesized from the crown course of the podium. On the upper surface of the blocks we can trace in places the bedding for the column bases, ca. 0.75 m. in diameter. The center of the column was calculated to fall approximately (in view of the different sizes of stylobate blocks, only approximately) on the joint between the blocks, and the area thus concealed was used for the clamps joining the blocks, and, of course, for the dowels fastening the column bases. There were two dowels for each column, one on each block; each dowel hole had its pour-channel.In at least one case the dowel was recut and reset. The floor surface of the stylobates was not carefully dressed; it was smoothed carelessly with the toothed chisel. There is almost no sign of wear on the floor surface, so little, indeed, as to suggest that the building was seldom entered. Of the bases of the columns we possess two fragments. They are of simple design (Fig. 14) and carefully worked, suitable associates for the base moulding of the podium, and are made of the same marble. They measure ca. 0.75 m. in diameter on the bottom, fitting the indications on the stylobate, and are 0.58 m. in diameter on the top, the height being 0.205 m. From the shafts (P1. 103) only a few fragments are preserved,but enough to give the details of the fluting and the necking. It is impossible to ascertain from the ruins the height of the shaft, but a normal proportion of nine and one third
(P1.112; Plan C). The details of leaves and stalks are worked out in the round, without an
affecteduse of undercuttingfor light effects. The carvingis, in general,good, without being too meticulousabout the finishingof unseen surfaces.The bottom diameteris
4
.'..o::..
?
1 i
FIGURE
14.
0.56
?
6
,
1-
IIb ___________
RESTORED
DRAWING
? 0.751
. , o
OF BASE OF COLUMN
OF BABBIUS
MONUMENT
ca. 0.53 m., suggesting a top diameter for the column below the apophyge of ca. 0.50 m.
The capitalsriseto a heightof 0.675m., andaretoppedby a very low abacusmeasuring some0.69 m. squareacrossthe centers,not includingthe rosettes.Thetop surfaceis not 19 This makes the columns, with base and capital, 5.32 m. high. According to Dinsmoor, Architectureof Ancient Greece(London, 1950), in the chronological list of Greek temples, the columns of the north porch of the Ereehtheum were 9.36 diameters high; of the east porch, 9.52, of the west front, 9.00. There are numerous indications at Corinth of attention to the Erechtheum in architectural matters, which makes the analogy particularly pertinent. The later Ionic temples listed by Dinsmoor average 9.23 diameters.
surface of 0.06 m. was made for the accommodation of the architraves, but even this is by no means smooth. Six of the architrave-friezeblocks are preserved entire, although in some of them the cornershave been badly chipped and broken off. A fragment comprisingmore than half
F ,
. .' ;''
?'' ',. ? '.
'.. ?'~__"~_']
'' :
'.
'
.'
1.396
50 o
20
40
6o
. OF BABBIUS MONUMENT FIGURE 15. .ARCHITRAVE-FRIEZ
JV
l.o
.
1
0.478
o
lo
20
3o
40
5,o
FIGURE 15. ARCHITRAVE-FRIEZE OF BABBIUSMONUMENT
of a seventh is also preserved. The material is, again, white marble, and the workmanship is probably the best encountered heretofore on the building. (PI. 111; Fig. 15; Plan C). Even so, the examples range in length from 1.79 to 1.84 m. (measured on the outer curved surface of the lowest fascia). The length measured on the inner face is
surface with only slightly inferiorfinish was left for the ends resting on the capitals. The three fasciae are also smoothly worked on the outside, although on the inside the toothed chisel marks have not been polished off. The inscription, already referredto (see above o.922
.11
1o652
__
~
1
.
I
I
Ao
FIGURE
16.
CORNICE
OF BABBIUS
MONUMENT
p. 22), is carved on the upper two of the three fasciae, and occupies the entire length of one architrave block. The cutting of the letters is quite as well done as anything in the building. The fasciae are surmounted by a narrow cyma reversa with a delicately carved Lesbianleaf pattern, and a crowningcavetto. Above this, the curved friezeis embellished relief. anthemia in relief. with anthernia with
on the top there are both clamp and dowel cuttings. These are, as is to be expected, somewhat larger than those on the lower members; the clamps must have been 0.380.40 m. in length and the dowels were 0.06 m. by 0.05 m. There are no pour channels for the dowels, which were thus inserted into cuttings in the joint surfaces of the cornices, and were leaded from the side. The bearing surface, again, is rather roughly worked. The blocks are 0.66 m. in height. Of the cornice blocks (PI. 121; Fig. 16) we have three examples almost complete, although even these have been broken. The length, measured along the dentils, is some 0.90 to 0.95 m.; the height, 0.037 m. A fine running acanthus adorns the cyma recta, and in all respects the workmanshipon the details of the cornice mouldingsis excellent. The interior face of the cornice is treated in two parts. The lower, some 0.15 m. in height, is highly finished and was evidently seen from the interior. The upper part is cut out in a wide, shelf-like bedding, presumably for the reception of the ceiling blocks. This disposition seems strange, for the cornice extended some 0.80 m. outside the line where the roof began to rise. Two heavy clamps united the cornice blocks across each joint. The ceiling and roof of the building were evidently one. A few fragments of white marble blocks, cut as long wedgeshaped sections from the surface of a cone, are to be assigned this position (P1. 122_3;Fig. 17). The upper surface is treated with a sculptured
!
o.267
{~~1.727 FIGURE
17. DRAWING
OF CEILING
BLOCK OF BABBIUS
MONUMENT.
RESTORED
IN POSITION
scale pattern decreasing in size toward the top. Good anathyrosis on both sides helped to seal the joints and support the great blocks without danger. These slabs were of various sizes, and some were not cut symmetrically; none is preserved entire, so that complete measurements are not possible, but one was 1.14 m. in width at the bottom,
the rear interior face of the cornice blocks; their upper ends came together and met around a small circular opening in which was probably a finial, serving also as a keystone. The angle made by the ceiling and roof is determined by the angle of the surfaceswhich bore against this finial. This was cut like a keystone, thicker at the top than at the bottom, for the bearing surfaceinclines from the vertical as indicated by a (presumably)horizontal bevel across the top of the roof I blocks. The finial was undoubtedly a floral ornament,and probably largely of bronze. There has been found, however, a marble I .4 pine cone (P1. 124; Fig. 18), which resembles in its pattern, I P I workmanship, and material, the slabs from the ceiling, and which may well have served as the core of the finial. A final comment may be made on the masons' marks on some of the blocks. Although there are in all an appreciable i , number of these marks, they do not occur on members of I every group of blocks, nor do they occur on every representative of any particular group, with the probable exception of FiGURE 18. MARBLE PINE the architrave-frieze and cornices. Beginning at the bottom, CONE (SCALE 1/10) we may cite the cases in which the marks occur. /
/
'I
'
I
4 I
II,
I
I:
if
On the lowest course of the podium: A r, M, X AA On the base moulding KA On the orthostates ME Ar A On the architrave-friezes B r r A-e l On the cornices
6 Xa
(lower surface) (upper surface) (bottom)
(right end) (right end) (right end) (right end) (left and right) (on top of block with A and e, beside a chiselled line) (right end) (left end)
None of the preservedexamples of groups not mentioned here possesses a mark. In all of the groups mentioned, with the exception of the architrave-friezeand cornice, there are
been any. Of the architrave-friezeand cornice, any of the examples preservedcould have had marks on surfaces now broken off. The significance of these marks is somewhat obscure. Were every block so lettered, one would suspect that the structure had at some time been completely dismantled and then rebuilt, but the scattered letters preserved would seem to be of little use in such a process. On the other hand, it is difficult to see what value the marks could have had in the original construction of the building. The letters vary widely in quality. A wide disparity in letter form as well as quality would suggest that many hands were engaged in making them. The marks on the architrave-friezeand cornice do make an intelligible series. On the basis of the last citation, it may be supposed that each block had two letters; one on the joint surface corresponding to the letter on the adjoining block. As there are two gammas,the series must have read in two directions from a central point, so: 1 E-A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A-F
F-B
B-A
A-B
B-F
F-A
A-E
The architrave-friezeblock with the inscription is number 5; this is most probably to be placed on the eastern front, looking over the Agora, both because of its finding place and because the east must have been the principal approach. This block was doubtless laid first, and the other blocks would, therefore, have been laid in both directions until the circle was completed. The presence of the W-like mark on architrave-frieze number 8 corresponds conveniently to the similar mark on one of the cornice blocks. The incised line is doubtless the setting line for the cornice with the same mark. As no other blocks of the architravefrieze have such letters, it may be supposed that the "W" cornice was laid first, and the others in succession thereafter. This explanation of the letters on the architrave-friezeand cornice does not, of course, solve the problem of their significance for the history of the building. The use outlined above could have been made either in the original construction (if the blocks were finished on the ground and then set in place) or in a reconstruction. The letters on the blocks of the podium cannot be so explained, and may possibly have been the marks of the various workmen, to show the amount of work they have done. The final result is a building which must have been a credit to the architect who designed it, and an adornment to the Agora of Corinth (Plan D; Frontispiece). The circular tempietto, with eight columns, rested on its stylobate a step above the raised level of the new west terrace. In front of it, to the east, lay an extension of the terrace, serving as a podium for the tempietto itself. Above the simple step-like base, and the modest base-moulding, rose the broad expanse of the heavy revetment, bearing at eye
was surmounted by a cornice, which supported the step supplying a transition between the podium and the building above. Extreme simplicity and directness of form marked
the design in its lower parts, but as one looked higher above the graceful columns, the carving of the architrave-frieze and cornice must have made an impression of richness pleasing to the better taste in the Roman provincial town. And again the donor's name recorded his generosity, though this time less boldly. Above this the conical roof rose lightly to a finial which must have been agreeably in keeping with the rest of the structure. E. THEFOUNTAIN OF POSEIDON Immediately to the south of the Babbius monument is a complex consisting of two temples built over the meagerremainsof an open oramental fountain.20The temples, of "Herakles" and Poseidon, will be consideredlater, but we may now turn our attention to the fountain itself (Pls. 13, 16). The demolition of the structure in classical times, when the two temples were constructed, was so thorough that it is next to impossible to discover more than the barest outline of the arrangementsof the original fountain. Not only were the concrete foundations of the structure cut up for reasons difficult to comprehend, but the temples covering the area occupied by the fountain have sealed most of the remains under their concrete cores. That there was a fountain is definitely proven by the slight remains of the water basins. These lie under the temple of Poseidon, crossing the line of the original terrace. The two basins toward the east, at a level of about 0.50 m. above the Agora pavement in front, have only the northwest and northeast corners of the floors respectively, preserved. Of the third, ca. 0.52 m. higher, the northwest corner and the lower part of the western wall are preserved, together with a small section of the floor. The concrete of these basins is quite distinctive: extremely hard, made of a white cement and small pebbles. The north side of the basins, 1.40 m. long, was cut away almost to the level of the floor of the basins. Across the front of the mass runs a drain, which may or may not be the original drain for the fountain, but which in any case probably marks the eastern extremity of the structure, for the concrete of the foundation comes to an end about 0.40 m. from the edge of the channel. About 13.20 m. to the west, at a point where the foundations of the temple of Poseidon were cut out by Byzantine builders, appears a line of poros blocks running north and south, and apparently returning toward the east in a line correspondingto the foundations flanking the basins to the north. Evidently, then, this is the rear of the structure. As to its overall width, it is almost impossible to 20 Very slight remains of the Fountain were discovered in 1907 and appear on the plan of the excavations of that year (Corinth,I, i, pl. III), but they were not mentioned in print until 1939 (Morgan,A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, p. 263).
is, however, part completely. a hard rather like that of the fountain. It covers and fills the mass of concrete temple, original drain which led down through the area, and its extreme southerly preserved point may be taken to represent the southern edge of the fountain. The width would be about 11.00 m., but this can be only an approximation. We can also only approximate the dimensions of the basins. If we allow for a step or two across the front, and a wall or parapet along the front, the easternmost basin might have been approximately a meter from front to back. Its length, across the width of the structure, allowing for a side foundation of ca. 1.40 m. on the south to comparewith that on the north, would have been ca. 8.20 m. The wall between the middle and western basin probably lay on the line of the retaining wall, making the middle basin 1.40 m. wide, the western basin ca. 4.00 m., allowing ca. 0.75 m. for the dividing wall. A peculiarity of the upper basin, however, is that its western wall is not straight, but bulges outward toward the presumed center of the fountain. This western wall seems to have been at least 0.50 m. high above the floor of the upper basin; masonry similar to that of the water basins is preserved to that height inside the foundations of the temple of Poseidon, although cut away by the builders of the temple. From these indications we may make a tentative suggestion as to the arrangementof the basins. Assuming that the water in the upper basin stood as high as the rear wall, or ca. 0.50 m., its level would be almost a meter above the floor of the lower basins. It could cascade into the second basin in a fall of perhaps0.25 m., then over the lower wall into the third basin, with a depth of 0.50 m. The overflow was undoubtedly led away in the early stone drain connecting with the main storm drain of the Agora. The small channel running across the front of the fountain, neatly made of narrowbrick, possibly existed at the time to carry off water splashing on the front steps of the fountain, although it may be a later construction. The foundations on either side of the basins, 1.40 m. wide, must have carried some sort of parastade, or possibly flights of steps. In the vicinity were found several fragments of heavy marble balustrade with a sloping top (PI. 141; Fig. 19); they are 0.34 m. wide at the bottom, and ca. 0.31 m. wide at the top. The top edge is round, and flares to a taenia marking off the curved surface from the flat sides. The whole surface is roughly stippled. Thereis anathyrosis at each end. The sides of these blocks are treated variously; one part of the surface is somewhat raised, with a step-like profile under the sloping moulding. On another, the whole surface drops straight from the taenia, with no undercutting, so that it would appear to have been intended to fit against something. It is apparently impossible to place these blocks definitely on our foundation, but it seems inescapable that they belong somehow on the flanks of the cascade. Perhaps they stood against the outer surfaces of the walls of the water basins. 3
from the poros foundation across the back, mentioned above (p. 32), and the concrete wall of the upper basin itself, ca. 0.90 m. wide, there is nothing between to associate with the fountain except possibly a fairly hard packing of broken stone that seems to run
o.765
.
i
.5o .50 o
.?p 9 FIGURE PROBABLY
19.
ONE
OF THE BALUSTRADES, OF POSEIDON
FROM FOUNTAIN
throughout the area. This might be interpreted to represent all that is left of a solid foundation of poros blocks. A "normal"decorative fountain of this sort would consist of a colonnaded fa9ade, perhaps projecting on each side of the basins, with niches for statues, and with a water reservoirbehind. But the possibility of a reservoirseems to be precluded by the absence of any remains of the very substantial waterproof concrete that was used for the basins. Nor does the foundation behind the water basin suggest that there was a fa9ade with niches above the basin; 0.90 m. is too slight for such a structure. What the foundations do suggest is that there was a rectangularstructure of poros foundation blocks, with an earth or loose stone filling in the center. This would be appropriate for a large rectangular base holding statues, and perhaps surroundedby a low wall or balustrade. A statue of a semi-nude female was found in the area, holding a shell in front of the pudenda, and pierced in that area so that water could have poured out over the shell (P1.152). Furthermore,two blue marble bases with cuttings on top for marble dolphins, together with a large part of one of the dolphins, and with inscriptions bearing a dedication to Poseidon by Babbius, were found near the fountain (P1. 151;
the surfaces to resemble natural rock, were also discovered near by. One of these has curved cuttings on the top which might have held some sort of sculptural piece, a seated
nymph or the like (P1. 142; Fig. 20). It rested on somethingbelow, to which it was
,
)
FIGURE 20. NATURALISTICALLY CARVED BASES (SCALE 1/20)
fastened by a clamp on each end. The other has correspondingclamps at its upper edge. Thus the base must have been at least two blocks high. It is not certain that the two these high there may bases, preserved rck-ikebases, ofthee hgh rock-like ma have hae been ben several sverl of sother blcksjoin, oinso presrve blocks arranged on an arc, and giving a grotto-like effect.21 But the precise arrangement is 21 A clay model of a grotto-fountain sanctuary from Lokri in the Reggio Museum may suggest a somewhat similar effect, although probably representing a natural grotto (Arch. Anz., 1941, p. 651). 3*
with one describedby Pausanias, that if it was in actuality the fountain of Poseidon, the dominant position in the center would have been occupied by a statue of that god with one foot on a dolphin spouting water (Fig. 45, center).
'6'
/C!
lo
o
20
4o
60
FIGURE 21. BASE FOR DOLPHIN
A final question is the source of the water for the fountain. Nothing remains to give a specific clue to this; undoubtedly the water was brought in lead pipes, perhaps from the aqueduct at the west end of the Central Shops (above, p. 7). F. THE TEMPLESOF"HERAKLES"ANDPOSEIDON
Completely covering the foundations of the fountain, and extending somewhat to the south, are the remains of two Roman temples whose foundations and architectural problems are so closely interlocked that it is best to consider them together. A partial study of the two buildingshas already been published,22but it will be desirableto present a summary of the problemshere, together with some modifications and additions. In general, the buildings are practically identical. Both are Corinthian prostyle, standing above broad flights of stairs. They were so much alike in many details that it is often difficult to assign any given block to one or the other structure. 22
Hesperia, XIII, 1944, pp. 315-348; cf. also Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936, p. 25; Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII,
1939, p. 263.
The whole area covered by the foundations is about 16.50 m. square (PI. 16; Plans A, B). The line of division between the two buildings is not easy to ascertain precisely, but from the differencesin concrete and the traces of the line of juncture in some places, it is apparent that the temple of Poseidon is the earlier, and was about 7.50 m. wide. The foundations of the building were evidently set in a trench cut forththesupport of the walls, about 1.10 m. wide on the flanks, and 1.50 m. wide on the back; the foundations for the front were laid on the demolished concrete substructure for the fountain of Poseidon. Noteworthy is the fact that the hard concrete of the fountain was carefully cut away in some places, while along the north side, where the temple projected outside the line of the fountain, the foundations for the temple were so slight that they have disappeared. The poros foundation blocks were laid on the concrete poured in the bottom of the trench, and at the level of the top of the first course a solid platform (5.50 x 6.00 m.) of concrete was poured in between the walls to supply a foundation for the floor, the top of the foundation being about 2.10 m. above the Agora pavement in front. The foundations for the pronaos floor have largely disappeared,but the remains suggest that it was about 5.50 m. wide and 3.25 m. deep. The foundations for the steps have almost entirely disappeared,but a line of blocks probablyrepresentingthe southern paratid extends as far as the drain across the front of the complex. In fact, a cover slab for the drain has a bedding ca. 0.50 m. wide along the top, which may have received the bottom step, although this would make the flight 4.00 m. from front to back, and would bring the level of the top of a normal flight too high. Therefore it is likely that the paratids extended somewhat beyond the first step, and that a narrow platform extended across the head of the steps in front of the stylobate. The foundations of the "Herakles" temple are much the more massive and solid (P1.16). It would appearthat in this case a mass of concrete covering the entire area was poured, and that on the bed thus formed the poros block foundation for the walls was laid around the sides, with more concrete poured between them as the walls rose. The foundation for the cella floor thus formed was about as wide as that for the temple of Poseidon - ca. 5.70 m. - but longer, and about 0.70 m. higher than the floor of the Poseidon temple. The bedding for the south wall of the temple of "Herakles"is 2.00 m. wide, whereas that for the north wall is only about 1.00 m. This suggests that the southern temple is the later of the two, being crowdedagainst its neighbor on the north, but spreadingmore freely on the south. The pronaosfloor, only about 1.25 m. from front to back, is appreciably more shallow than that of its neighbour. Again, the remains of the foundations for the steps are slight, but there are traces beyond the line of the drain, suggesting that the construction extended between 4.90 m. and 5.30 m. in front of the stylobate, since the cella floor stood some 2.70 m. above the
vicinity have a tread of ca. 0.33 m. and a rise of ca. 0.22 m. Although no step can be assigned definitely to this temple, it seems desirable to accept the standard; the stylobate is 0.80 m. high, leaving ca. 2.40 m. for the steps, or about eleven steps. The combined treads of these would be ca. 3.65 m., leaving a slightly raised pavement in front. Traces on the north side indicate that the cheek of the steps was about one meter wide. Only a few of the poros foundation blocks for the Poseidon temple are preserved. There are a few scattered blocks of the first course, and half a dozen of the second course at the southwestern comer. Byzantine builders were somehow disturbed in their attack on the building, for one block was discovered still resting on the marble roller inserted for its removal. The blocks of the second course are neatly cut and finished on the exposed and joining surfaces, and were probably partly exposed in the originalstate of the building. The outer comer of the block at the southwestern corner has been considerably damaged, whether from wear while exposed in situ, or as a result of damage in later construction. The poros foundation walls of the temple of "Herakles"are rather more imposing than those of the other; their workmanship and scale are still admirable. Three courses are preservedon the western side. The lowest was evidently never meant to be seen, for the blocks are laid rather haphazardly and the exterior face was never trimmed down evenly. The second course is more neatly laid, although the outer surface is not precisely even. The blocks of this course on the north flank are smaller and less well cut. The third, top, course preserved in situ now consists of three blocks laid as stretchers 1.60 m. long, 0.77 m. high, and 0.50-0.60 m. wide. Behind are backers bonding into the concrete. At the northwestern corner is a heavier block 1.25 m. long and 0.88 m. wide. This course is well finished on the outside, and set back ca. 0.25 m. from the face of the second course. The most remarkablefeature of these blocks is that they are bonded with double-T clamps (P1.21), some of which are still preservedin situ. The clamps are ca. 0.20 m. long, with the cross pieces 0.07 m. long, and seem to have been well made and set. They are irregularlyused, but they are undeniably double-T clamps, and thus constitute a noteworthy feature in Roman work.23There are also two pry-holeson the comer block, about a meter from the western edge, but strangely enough, in view of this equipment, no dowel holes. These details of the foundationssuggest some conclusions about the buildings. In the first place, the Poseidon temple is the earlier, because of the points noted above: the wide southern foundation and the more carelessnorthernporos foundation of the temple 23
Cf. Dipylon in Athens and Library of Hadrian (structure in middle of court), Kiibler, Ath. Mitt, LIII, 1928, p. 179. Also the Fa9ade of Colossal Figures, Corinth, I, ii, pp. 65ff., and the arch by the Library of Pantainos in Athens, Hesperia, IV, 1935, p. 328.
second place, the Poseidon temple plan would seem to have been some 6.80 m. wide and 12.00 m. long (assuming a slight retraction of the upper courses within the preserved foundations), with an approach extending about 4.50 m. in front. The cella would have been about 5.50 m. wide and 6.50 m. deep; the pronaos, ca. 3.30 m. deep. The plan of the "Herakles" temple would have been ca. 7.50 m. in width (subject to slight modification below) and 12.00 m. in length, plus ca. 4.60 m. for the steps. The interior proportion would have been quite different, with a cella ca. 6.00 m. wide and 7.80 m. long, and the pronaos only ca. 1.80 m. deep inside the columns (see p. 37). Reconstruction- Temple of "Herakles" In the considerationof the superstructure,it will be more convenient to deal with the temple of "Herakles" first. From the walls of this building we can identify certain poros blocks from the lowest course (P1. 171; Fig. 22). Their association with the temple is
?-
?----?
1?
L
.
. .
t
*
'
'.
'
-
----
,'I
:
'
MM
.
FIGURE
22.
ORTHOSTATES
FROM WALL OF TEMPLE
OF "HERAKLES"
(SCALE 1120)
clamps like those on the foundation. The outer surface is smoothly finished, but the inner is rather rough, evidently to be covered with a plaster or marble sheathing. The joint surfaces have an anathyrosis six to eight centimeters wide along the inner and outer edge. The effective width of the block, exclusive of the base moulding, is 0.60 m., and the height 0.85 m. The base moulding consists of a plain vertical band or plinth 0.095 m. high and an Attic-Ionic base 0.22 m. high, above that. One block, a comer, shows an anta 0.60 m. wide, projecting 0.05 m. In addition to the clamp cuttings, there are pry-holes and a lewis hole on one of the blocks; the lewis holes are about five by twelve centimeters at the top, and about eight centimeters deep, larger at both ends at the bottom. Other blocks from the walls indicate varying course heights: 0.59 m., 0.615 m., 0.625 m. Three marble blocks of the stylobate are preserved (P1. 172; Fig. 23). One, from the o.6352
0
IHcHH
Ij L
...//,
?
,
Lo28
FIGURE
23.
BLOCKS OF STYLOBATE OF TEMPLE OF "HERAKLES
northeastcorner,is recognizable by the imperfectfinishon the northsidewhereit was hidden by the neighboringbuilding. It has two clamp cuttings on the west joint-surface, and two on the south; most of the surface is occupied by a square dressingfor a column base with a plinth ca. 0.77 m. square; a dowel in the center, with pour channel, held the base in place. The block adjoining this to the south is preserved. It has matching clamp cuttings on its north joint edge, but not on the south. A third block, without clamps or dowels, may have come from the center intercolumniation,being somewhat longer. The irregular system of clamping is noteworthy, as is the fact that the clamps would have been visible.
mentary examples exist, of the right size for the marks in the cornerblock, but without dowels underneath (Fig. 24). It is, of course, possible that only the corner bases were F
i '
-
.... --
^
_(c
2o
0
......
24.
-
,.
lo
FIGURE
\
RESTORED
DRAWING
"HERAKLES"
40 .- -
OF BASE
OR TEMPLE
60
I-It..
OF COLUMN
FROM TEMPLE
OF
OF POSEIDON
doweled. These, with some red marble-brecciacolumns, (Pl. 173)may be assigned to the twin temples of "Herakles" and Poseidon, partly because of scale, and partly because too many fragments of these columns exist to have gone on any one temple of the series. The columns have cuttings on the sides, showing that grilles stood between the antae and corner columns, and, on one of the temples, also between the side openings of the fa9ade. The capitals, however, may be identified with a strong degree of probability, because of the fact that a considerable number were found in the same locations as the other parts of the entablature (PI. 174;Fig. 25). They are 0.60 m. high; a completely preserved example has a lower diameter of 0.44 m., and is 1.04 m. diagonally across the (restored) volutes at the top. Other fragmentary examples seem to have been 0.46-0.49 m. in lower diameter. On the upper surfaceis a rectangularbearing surface ca. 0.45 m. square. On the bottom is a small square dowel hole, carefully centered on diametriclines; on top of each are two dowel holes ca. 0.06 m. square, with roughly cut pour channels. The design is conservative and uninspired, the most significant characteristic being a
istic effect. The rosette against the abacus varies in design, with smalleror largerpetals,
..
...,.. ,
i
FIGURE
25.
CAPITAL
FROM TEMPLE
TEMPLE
OF "HERAKLES"OR
OF POSEIDON
(SCALE 1/20)
but as the workmanship also varies slightly among the examples, this does not seem significant. Of the architrave-frieze blocks the most interesting is that for the southern front intercolumniation, which bears an inscription with the name of Commodus erased (P1.18; Fig. 26). It is 2.28m. long, measured on the lower surface; 2.37 m. on the upper.
-
I
'r--''.
"/''<*''*'." ^V'^1^1'^
-'.-!
_
_
S CALE 0
. :......... ..i
'
...., 'i: ................
:.
FIGURE
26.
i
; "" .'.. :'""":
'NEKRV EADN P ARCHITRAVE-FRIEZE
=
0,5
1. rm
f'
O FROM TEMPLE
OF "HERAKLES"
It is 0.695 m. high, 0.465 m. wide at the bottom, and 0.64 m. wide at the top. In profile it has two fasciae on the architrave; a moulding consisting of a small roundel, a larger quarter-round, then an equivalent concave moulding. The frieze band is plain and is surmounted by a roundel, a cyma reversa, and a taenia. The execution of these mould-
Most of the tooling seems to have been done with a claw chisel, and visible surfaces are fairly well finished. Hidden surfaces, however, such as the tops of the mouldings, are quite rough. On the top of the block is an elaborate array of cuttings. In the center is a lewis hole measuring 0.10 by 0.11 m., otherwise like those on the poros blocks. There are two groups of pry-holes; one is 0.62-0.65 m. from the comer, another, 1.20 m. farther in, is accompaniedby two dowel holes 0.04 m. by 0.07 m. without pour channels. There are four clamp cuttings, two at each end. Three are for ordinaryhook clamps, the fourth is shallow, for a more strap-like fastener. The manner in which the corner is prepared is also significant, in a connection to appear later (p. 49). From the inner corner the block is cut into diagonally some 0.45 m., thence straight to the end of the block. On the lower surfaces are dowel cuttings for the capitals. No other piece of architrave-friezefrom the facade has been identified, and before discussing the fragments from the walls of the building we may consider the other elements of the facade. These include22two cornercorniceblocks, one piece of horizontal cornice from the pediment, two from the raking cornice, and the peak block (P1. 182). The section of horizontal cornice is 1.20 m. long, correspondingto the spacing of the pry-holes on top of the frieze, although, since the preservedblock has dowel cuttings on the right but not the left, it must have come from some other position in the fagade. The most important feature to describe here is the characteristic profile, singularly unimaginative, but with a certain impressiveness of scale. The dentil range is 0.095 m. high, the dentils being 0.055 m. deep and 0.04 m. wide, spaced about 0.03-0.035 m. apart. Noteworthy is the absence of any moulding between dentils and overhang; the transition is effected only through a graceless curve. The corner blocks are more interesting, although not better executed (Fig. 27). The space at the corner of the dentil range is occupied by a crude rounded knob, possibly representing a pomegranate. The dentil range of the raking cornice is uncut, and somewhat narrowerthan normal. Along the side sima are three roughly-carvedlion's heads, without the usual hole for the escape of water through their mouths. On the top is a rough platform, on which an akroterionmight have stood, although there is no trace of it. Apart from the lewis hole the only cuttings are two clamps, of which one may have been unfinished and never used. The inner corneris cut out, possibly for the reception of a rafter in the pronaos roof. The width of the under surface, minus the projection of the dentil, is 0.60 m., correspondingto the pry-hole on the frieze which supported it. The block from the opposite end of the gable is too badly mutilated to provide further information. Of the two blocks from the raking cornice, the larger may have fitted against the better preserved of the corner blocks. At its lower end are two clamp cuttings, one un22
See footnote p. 36.
damaged, but even in its original condition the joint could hardly have been very tight. The poor joint would not have been clearly visible from the ground.
L~:I':. '
.'?
SECTION.
'.'...
~~~~~\ '
_
';;' ...._....
.:_
._:
'
\
B
S CALE .t
?
I.
,
0,5
,
X_
II
.
i
I
1
I
1p,0
FIGURE27. CORNER FROM OFTEMPLE OF"HERAKLES" BLOCK GABLE
The peakblockis well preserved(Fig. 28); its most interestingfeatureis the bedding for an akroterioncut on the top, about 0.07 m. d deep, 0.50 m. wide, and 0.70 m. in maximum length. Its irregularshape suggests that it carrieda group, or a figure kneeling or running to the left. Also interesting is the fact that the dentil range diminishes in height from 0.095 m. at the lower edge to 0.09 m. on the peak, whereas the range on the smaller raking cornice presumed to join on the left has a dentil range of about 0.10 m. But this variation in measurement is not unexpected, in view of the extreme irregularities running throughout the building. For example, the overhang is 0.14 m. at the lower end of the peak block, and 0.13 m. at the top.
thick, appropriateto the cornice, and has the familiarlewis and clamp cuttings, and the same manner of dressing. The slope, about one in two and one half, is close to that estimated from the cornices, although the irregularitiesof workmanshipmake precision difficult and of little value. These elements of the fa9ade give us some information,then, as to the elevation of the
,
'
I.95
*'""* . *'-* i -**1'* ?~.~'"'
I.
' '" (o FIGURE GABLE
28.
BLOCK
FROM PEAK OF
OF TEMPLE OF "HERAKLES"
(SCALE 1/20)
o
DO
FIGURE
29.
BLOCKS
ARCHITRAVE-FRIEZE
FROM POROS
AND CORNICE FROM
TEMPLE OF I"ERAKLES"
would measure three times 2.28 m., or 6.84 m. across the bottom of the architrave; three
times 2.87 m., or 7.11 m. across the top of the frieze. Restoring the gable from the cornices, however, we get a length of ca. 7.40 m. for the dentil range. From this must be substracted ca. 0.10 m. for the projection of the dentils, giving 7.30 m. for the top of the frieze, and 7.02 m. for the bottom of the architrave, or 0.19 m. too much. In view of the
lack of precision in the building, any further accuracy is hardly demonstrable; but recallingthe previous estimate of ca. 6.00 m. for the interior of the cella, to which would be added ca. 1.20 m. for the thickness of the two walls, we have a figure of 7.20 m. for the outer dimension of the building at the bottom, exclusive of pilasters, which would correspondto the figures derived from the cornice. Furthermore, it would allow for a longer central architrave, and a wider central intercolumniation, which would be desirable.The interaxial distance between the cornercolumns and their neighborson the facade would be ca. 2.05 m. (2.28 m., the lower length of the architrave, less 0.23 m., or
half its lower thickness, to account for the distance between the center of the corner column and the end of the block). The central interaxial space, then, would be ca. 2.60 m. Whether the porch was tetrastyle prostyle or distyle in antis probably cannot be settled definitely. A side intercolumniation equivalent to the front corner intercolumniation would fit nicely on the foundations, and, all things considered, the tetrastyle scheme is preferable. As the back of the architrave-friezeis completely worked and the back of the cornice is not, the ceiling of the pronaos evidently came between. The ceiling of the pronaos must then have consisted of thin slabs resting on the top of the inner moulding of the frieze, which projected ca. 0.09 m. behind the cornice. From the rest of the building we have four more pieces of architrave-friezeand one side cornice block of marble. The profiles, workmanship,and material are identical in all cases, including the carelessness so obvious at close' inspection, which probably was negligible to the casual observerwhen the blocks were in position. The peculiarities and particularposition of these have been discussedin the original article in Hesperia.22 Among the more interesting features of the temple of "Herakles"is the fact that there are several examples of cornice and architrave-frieze blocks belonging to the same system, but cut in poros rather than in marble. At least four architrave-friezeblocks, including one from a corner (PI. 192; Fig. 29) and three corniceswith sima (Fig. 29), and one without sima (PI. 191), and a tympanum block can be identified, recognizable by scale, profile and workmanship. One of the architrave-friezeblocks lacks the topmost cyma reversa; two of the cornices are ca. 0.50 m. thick and the other 0.40 m., while the marble blocks are 0.46 m. The poros architrave-frieze must belong to the rear of the building, or to the side abutting against the temple of Poseidon. The tympanum and the 22
See footnote p. 36.
the rear fagade was in fact poros, although the point and method of transition from poros to marble on the south side cannot be demonstrated.24 There remain, finally, the lintel and threshold, which can probably be assigned to the door of the "Herakles"temple because of the kind of marble and the workmanshipof the fragments. There are two pieces of the lintel preserved (PI. 193) representing the two ends; one is 1.30 m. long, the other, 1.10 m. The two fragments do not make contact on the broken surfaces, and the length of the central (missing)section is uncertain.25In any case, we may note the similarity in style between the broad heavy mouldings and those of the architrave-frieze.The less smooth areas at either end of the lower surface suggest a bearing surface some 0.72 m. long; the lewis holes are at each end instead of in the center of the block, probably because of its excessive length.
II.. nn, I. ,
, ,,,.. . i,i
J.... ..
..:..
*
Il-
!:-: ".'
'i
4o
1
5o
FIGURE
30.
THRESHOLD
OF TEMPLE
i.5o
OF "HERAKLES"
Somewhat more than half of the threshold is preserved in a massive block of marble which had been re-used, upside down, as a threshold in at least one mediaeval structure (P1. 194; Fig. 30). The cutting for the original door includes a bedding for the pivot on which the door swung, and at least one hole near the center to receive a bar for fastening the door. Whether both of the holes preservednear the middle were used at the same 24
Temple E at Corinth was also partly of poros at the rear (Freeman, Corinth, I, ii, pp. 187-9, nos. 23-25).
26 In my article on these buildings (Hesperia, XIII, 1944, pp. 336-8) an attempt was made to estimate the
original length of the block from cuttings on the back, which were at that time assumed to have been fashioned to hold a sheathing. It has been pointed out by F. W. Householder that these cuttings are more likely to have been for the door fastenings, and the original argument is invalid. However, in general the opening must have approximated the width of the central intercolumniation, or about two meters.
fication, is uncertain. A groove running along the outer line of the opening may have held a metal frame for a light outer door or grille. Reconstruction-
Templeof Poseidon
The temple of Poseidon offers less opportunity for restoration, since there are fewer blocks preserved. There is, moreover, a good deal of uncertainty as to the attribution of most of the blocks which have been attributed to it. The reason for this is the remarkable fact that these two temples are in many respects identical twins. The difference in ground plan is fairly obvious, but the formal and structural details of the superstructure are so similar that for a long time all of the blocks were thought to have come from the
: ' . -.: ::
io
-'?' FIGURE
31.
CORNICE
-: .-: :.:?:. -
I(V/'.... .._.
0 o i2
o 40
c,Im.
80
FROM GABLE OF TEMPLE
OF POSEIDON
same building. The profiles of the architrave and frieze, for example, are identical, and the important dimensions vary no more than might be allowed in a single building with the lack of precise workmanshipwhich we have observed in the temple of "Herakles." It is still not certain whether the capitals all belong to one or both buildings.
distinction between the two buildings based. There are two cornice blocks, one from a corner (P1.202; Fig. 31), and one from a gable peak (P1. 201) and there are small fragments of others. The first is in all respects the twin of one of those describedfrom the temple of "Herakles,"save for the unmistakabledifferencethat it has a quarter-roundmoulding between the dentil range and overhang. For all the imperfection of workmanshipobserved on that temple, it is inconceivable that an entire moulding should have been left out on so many of the preservedblocks. Hence there can be no doubt that the cornice with the quarter-roundbelongs to a separate building. It, like the others of the same profile, was found among the group of blocks around the foundations of the two buildings; as one cornice for the temple of "Herakles," without the moulding, can confidently be assigned because it was found in a hole by the south side of its temple, immediately below its original position, there can be little doubt that the series with the moulding goes with the temple of Poseidon. The block is so mutilated that detailed comparison is impossible, save only in the dentil range. Here the only appreciable difference is that the dentils are only 0.08 m. high, as compared with the usual 0.10 m. on the twin building.
_
_
_
_
_
_ _ ______;;
_
_
_
_
_
S C ALE 0o
.'--"-- " IW [ i;''.-""
-" '
;'
^
-.'
'.
0,5
1.0,
'
''
. .. ws -.w P~
.",
_
'.,.'
.
,_, :
?
.,
,
...
ffi;E
FIGURE
32.
.
X_ w
-n~l_ w.~ _."
INSCRIBED
_ ,.,,
-
? --'
-...
..
e_'_w_ _ .X. .
.'.,w__
. ...
ARCHITRAVE-FRIEZE
OF TEMPLE
OF POSEIDON
The other important block from the Poseidon temple, found just in front of the foundation, is an inscribed architrave-frieze,from the right hand intercolumniation of the front, bearing part of the name of Commodus (P1. 203; Fig. 32), like the left-hand corner architrave from the "Herakles" temple. As the profile, style and general scale 4
There are many slight differences, however, sufficient to justify the division into two groups.26In view of the extra moulding in the corniceand the intimate association of the two foundations, it seems fair to accept the second architrave-friezefor the temple of Poseidon, especially when we find the differences in material and tooling dividing the surviving fragments of the architrave-friezesimilarly. On this basis we may assign four tympanum blocks and two mutilated wall architrave-friezeblocks to the Poseidontemple. It is also probable that two square pilaster capitals go with this, rather than with the other. Their design (P1.204)is the same as that of the capitals assigned to the "Herakles" temple, but since that is most logically restored as prostyle with open sides and only slight antae, these full projecting anta caps would more likely go with a structure whose antae took the form of full projecting wing walls, a feature which would be entirely natural to the deep pronaos of the temple of Poseidon. More than this, in fact, we can scarcely say about the restoration of the building. Its general plan has been indicated; its fa9ade probably was closely similar to that of its neighbor. Twin temples are known elsewhere, such as those at 'Atil in the Hauran, which are also identical in plan, although not contiguous. Also, almost duplicating features are seen in works of the fifth century B.C., as Dinsmoor has shown in the work of the "Theseum architect."27So there is no inherent impossibility in visualizing two temples side by side, just alike from the outside, differing only in proportion on the interior, and in the porches.
The Inscriptions Before leaving the two temples it would be well to note the significance of the inscriptions (Pls. 181,203).If we restore the temple of "Herakles"inscription to the length indicated by the conclusionsdrawnfrom the architecturalevidence, i. e., ca. 7.02 m., the most probablerestoration would be: 1. IMP CAESAR DIVI M ANTONINI PII GER [M FIL DIVI PII NEPOS DIVI HADRIANI PRONEPOS DIVI TRAIANI PARTHICI ABNEPOS] 2. DIVI NERVAE ADNEPOS j[MAUREL COM[MODUS ANT AUG PIUS SARM GERMMAX BRITT PONTIF MAX TRIB P XV IMP VIII COS VI PP]]] 3. EX TESTAMENTOCORNEL BAEBIAE FECIT CUR [AVITQUE ]28 26
Hesperia, XIII, 1944, pp. 340-343. For the 'Atfl Temple, see H. C. Butler, Publications of the American ArchaeologicalExpedition to Syria, 1899-1900, Part II, Architectureand other Arts in Northern Central Syria and Djebel Haurdn (New York, 1903), pp. 342-6, dated A. D. 151. Robertson, Greekand Roman Architecture(ed. 2, reprint of 1945) pp. 230, 345, 375, accepts the dating A. D. 209-211. For "Theseum Architect," see Dinsmoor, Hesperia, IX, 1940, pp. 44-47. 2 For detailed account of the inscription see Hesperia, XIII, 1944, pp. 45-6. 27
we see below. read almost exactly the same, with the exception of the date, Since we do not know the exact length of the Poseidon fagade, we could not even attempt a scale restoration of the text, as we might do with the temple of "Herakles." But since the letters of the Poseidon inscriptionare only a little smallerthan those of the other, and the facade only a little shorter, the proportionswould be about the same. The date of the temple of Poseidon can be determined exactly by deciphering the rasura as follows: PONTIF MAX TRIB P X IMP VII COS IIII P P The tenth tribunician power of Commodus extended from December 10, 184, to December 10, 185 A.D.,28 so that the completion of the buildingmust have fallen within that period. The restoration of the third line of the inscription on the temple of "Herakles" is of course quite impossible. Any number of expressions would be appropriate to the line, and there is too little to suggest even the tenor of what was to follow.29 G. TEMPLE K
To the west of the Babbius monument lie the bare foundations of a small temple facing south"3(P1.21). These consist entirely of the rubble concrete beddingfor the walls and stylobate and the steps of the building; no concrete mass was prepared for the reception of the floor. The overall dimensions of the foundations are ca. 11.80 m. by 7.30 m. The foundations for steps and stylobate are 3.20 m. deep; this gives some indication as to the height of the building above ground level, for the stylobate could hardly have been wider than a meter, giving about 2.00 m. for the steps. This would accommodate about seven steps with a thirty-centimeter tread. Allowing a rise of about twenty centimeters, the stylobate would have stood about a meter and a half above the ground in front. The foundations also supply a clue to the chronologicalposition of the building; the southeastern corner of the temple interlocks with the foundations of the temple of Poseidon. It is difficult to determine the nature of the actual contact, to show the relative date, but it seems clear that Temple K was already in existence when the other was built. The builders of the Temple K would not have crowded their faqade into the 28
See footnote p. 50.
For some speculations on the identity of Cornelia Baebia and her relations to Commodus, see Hesperia, XIII, 1944, pp. 346-8. 30 Temple K was noticed, rather than discovered, in the final sweeping of the area in 1938. Cf. Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, p. 264. 29
4*
would have had no scruples about abutting the rear corner of their building on some earlier structure. For the restoration of the superstructure,we have nothing that can with any confidence be assigned to the building. Representatives of numerous buildings, mostly poros, were found in the neighborhood,but it would be futile to attempt to assign any of the isolated fragments to the foundation. The restoration indicated on the plan, therefore, is purely imaginative, except for the probable arrangementof steps in front. H. THE RAMPSOUTHOF THE TEMPLEOF "HERAKLES"
Projecting south of the temple of "Herakles," about on the line of the stylobate of the temple, are the remains of a foundation of concrete lined with poros blocks, probably intended to form a square about 4.00 m. on each side (Plan A). The northwesterncorner of the squareis apparently covered by the foundation for the southern wall of the temple of "Herakles," but the actual poros wall of the temple would not have impinged on the line of any superstructureon the foundation, nor do the foundations for the front part of the temple cover any part of it. Still, it seems clear that the foundation is earlier than the temple. Presumably a large monument or statue of some sort stood on the foundation. The position of the monument, however, is suggestive as to the succession of events in the area. If the southern line of the fountain was properlydetermined above (p. 32), the northern edge of the base is about 3.70 m. from the edge of the fountain; on the other hand, the southern edge of the base is about 3.55 m. from the edge of the cheek of the originalramp penetrating the late Hellenistic terrace in the area. Hence it would appear that on the constructionof the fountain, the section of the terrace lying to the south of it was taken out, and a wide ramp extending from the fountain to the original southern cheek led up from the Agora. The monument base, then, was built in the axis of the enlarged ramp. I. THE PANTHEON
To the south of the passage-way stood the largest building of the series, and perhaps the most solidly built. The Pantheon31is representedby a mass of concrete and rubble, extremely hard, ca. 8.50 m. wide and 13.40 m. long (PI. 2; Plans A, B). The foundation was built with the parts designed to support the outer walls penetrating the earth a meter below the section supporting the floor and pronaos wall. Large broken blocks of poros are included in the mass, and on the north side is preserved a course of poros blocks of the facing. These blocks were probably, however, largely concealed, for the 31 Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936, 25; p. Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, p. 264.
sloped down along the side of the building, so that parts of them were visible. The foundation for the pronaos wall is formed by irregularblocks of poros imbedded in the concrete; mediaeval builders have quarried away parts of these blocks, but with considerable lack of success, for they are one with the mass of the foundations. The most striking thing about the foundation structure is that no arrangement for steps is preservedin front. The floor foundation now lies about 2.70 m. above the Agora level southeast of the building, but except where mutilated the front edge of the concrete foundation, apparently in the line of the stylobate, drops sheer from the front edge to the bottom below the Agora level. It is true that everything in this area, to a depth of over a meter below the virgin soil, has been excavated by later builders, but in view of the solidity of the main core, it is strange that the steps should have been supported in such a way that they could be removed so easily. The foundations at the north end of the steps of the temple of Poseidon have likewise disappeared, and it is certainly possible that the steps were carried on a relatively loose fill of poros blocks and broken stone. Apparently the steps for the Julian Basilica were similarly supported, although those for the South Basilica lay on solid concrete. Nevertheless, in view of the extreme solidity of the foundations of the main structure, the slightness of foundation for the steps in front must be significant. Undoubtedly we are to conclude that the temple was originally constructed after the terrace south of the road had been extended eastward, so that in its original state the building faced on a narrow terrace. Later the construction of the temple of Tyche rendered the building inaccessible, and steps leading down to the Agora were put in, on the light foundations hypothesized above. For the reconstruction of the building we may make first a few tentative inferences from the foundations. The width of the bedding for the side walls, about 1.40 m., suggests that there was at least one step-like course in addition to the stylobate and euthynteria, although they may not have been equally wide. The width of the foundation for the pronaos wall is only 1.00 m., and the actual thickness of the wall could hardly have been more than 0.75 m. From the superstructureare preserved some marble cornices which may be certainly attributed to the building, and other marble fragments more tentatively associated with it. But there are, in addition, some poros fragments which belong to a structure of about this size. These were found in the vicinity, and in all probability representa poros period of the building. Thereis a poros pilaster capital of the Corinthianorder (PI. 221)only partly preserved, with a side dimensionof about 0.60 m.; the front is preservedfor part of the width only.32 32 On the basis of a tentative identification of this building with a coin type, it has been restored with pilasters on an attached colonnade running along the sides (P1. 26, d; see p. 70, note 55).
trave (Fig. 33). The preserved member comes from the corner of the wall, being unfinished on the back. A block with the surface plain except for a crown moulding may have served as a lintel, or as the crown course on the interior (Fig. 34). .f
-.,
,
FIGURE 33. POROS ARCHITRAVE BLOCK, POSSIBLY FROM PANTHEON (SCALE 1/20)
FIGURE 34. POROS WALL-CROWN BLOCK, POSSIBLY
FROM PANTHEON
(SCALE 1/20)
At a later period, the temple was reconstructed,in part at least, in marble. It is clear that marble cornices were put in, for several fragments including two corners were found by the foundations. They are well designed (P1. 222; Fig. 35); the cutting is accurate and smoothly finished, and the profiles are in good tradition and well executed. On the other hand, in one of the corner blocks the space between the two end dentils is cut out and finished; in the other, the two dentils merge in a cornerin the line of their outer faces. The raking cornicein this building was evidently cut in a separate piece and laid on top of the cornerblocks. The sima, too, along the side, was cut separately, or as part of the roof tile. The blocks were well clamped, with two hook clamps at each joint.
shows a smoothly finished, almost polished surface on the joint, indicating that it was cut from a large block, perhaps from some heavy monument.
IB
' {.,t f.*, ,4 ft0M*'
: ', g:
':
*
,",
'. .
'."_
c
*-
*_?
LY-
'
J':" l
/ V~i^I5
lf: /W: .:
H
FIGURE
?
?
i'i---
'I0
'l ei .'
35. MARBLE
j
*,
1; n
it
i
11"
11 I I J'
II
II
If It I
CORNICE BLOCKS FROM PANTHEON
1
14
;
(SCALE
.1
1/20)
iancapitals were found near the foundation, one for an unattached column, the other
FROM PANTHEON BLOCKS CORNICE FIGURE35,. MARBLE .120)(SCLE
The assignment of capitals and architrave-friezeis much more difficult. Two Corinth-
(P1. 224; Fig. 36). They measure 0.57 m. in height, and 0.55 m. in diameter. Both have dowels on top and bottom. The carving is fairly well executed, in rather low relief with little undercutting. This style lies between the modelled, sculptural cutting of the Babbius monument, and the quasi-coloristicwork of the temples of "Herakles" and Poseidon, which we have dated at the end of the second century. The attached column is almost completely in the round. Correspondingin scale to these capitals is a simple
\ '-------
,t'
i
/
1/
.....',--~~,?
l
i
' /
r
_._..... ............
..............................
(7 ~
~
\~~~~!
t.
'
o
? o.
(
'P /----F
*r
:' ../_:,'...I:
Sc/m. .......
3.. .......I.. ..... L.;"".Z,d
F
to
o
4o
FIGURE 36. CAPITALS FROM PANTHEON (SCALE 1/20)
FIGURE
37.
COLUMN
BASE,
POSSIBLY
FROM
PANTHEON
Ionic base (Fig. 37); several fragments of apparently different shafts of smooth white 60o 20 80 marble have been found, of approximately the right size. No particular one can be definitely assigned to the building. There seem to be no good candidates for architrave-frieze.It may be that the cella was not rebuilt in marble, but only the porch and fa9ade. It is barely possible, however,
architrave-frieze,coming from some place along the walls (P1.223). To the marble reconstruction,perhaps, may be dated the installation of the steps to the Agora below. The foundation of the floor now stands, as we have seen, about 2.70 m. above the Agora level southeast of the building. Thirteen steps of 0.22 m. rise would give a total height of 2.86 m. to the bottom of the stylobate. Probably the Agora level dipped slightly toward the passage north of the building, to account for part at least of the difference.Probably, as apparently was usual in these buildings, the tread was some 0.383m. In view of the height of this flight, we must assume that the stairs were flanked by paratids.
J. THE TEMPLEOF TYCHE The last, and in many respects the most interesting, of the series of buildings under discussion is the temple of Tyche,33directly to the south (P1.2; Plans A, B). It was a tetrastyle Ionic building resting on a base of three steps, approachedfrom the Agora by a flight of steps between massive paratids. It was richly adornedwith carved mouldings, and was particularly characterized by having a niche in the rear of the cella for the statue. It is evidently later than the Pantheon, for the concrete of the foundations abutting on the latter is carelessly laid, with irregular open spaces whecrethe tumbled rubble failed to settle properly against the neighboring structure. On the south the stone pieces are fairly evenly laid in to form a rather straight, tight wall. Again, the concrete was apparently laid in trenches dug for the line of the walls, but in this case no central mass was poured for the floor, which must have rested on earth or stone packing. Contrary,however, to usage in the other temples, there is a good solid concrete foundation for the steps. The overall width of the foundations is 7.40 m., and the length, including the steps, is 14.00 m. The foundations for the steps show that the lowest rested on purposely preserved remnants of the retaining wall of the second period, protrudingabout 0.05 m. above the level of the Agora in front as it now shows; but while the pavement of the Agora was intact this bedding would have been invisible. The length of the step between the paratids is 3.65 m., a distance equal to the width of the temple within the walls. On each side of the steps the line of the wall foundation is continued in a mass of masonry 1.80 m. wide, which doubtless represents the core of a paratid on each side of the stairs. The foundation for the steps indicates a total depth of ca. 3.30 m. A flight of ten steps, employing blocks found near by, with risers about 0.22 m. and a tread of ca. 0.33 m., would produce the proper depth, and presumably gives the height of the podium as 2.20 m. 33 Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936, pp. 21-22; Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, pp. 263-4.
The foundations for the walls are unusually thick for a building so small. We cannot suppose that they were 1.80 m. thick, the width of the foundations. The question as to whether the walls were centered on the foundations, or built along the outer or inner edge, may be settled from the pediment to be describedlater (pp. 61-63), which indicates that the stylobate was approximately5.60 m. long. This means that the walls went along the inner edge of the foundation, and cannot have been more than 0.85 m. thick (5.60 m. less 3.80 m., the width of the space between the foundations, leaves 1.80 m., or not more than 0.90 m. for each wall). Since the total width of the structure is 7.40 m., there was a space of 0.90 m. on the foundations outside the walls to be accounted for. This would be space enough for three steps along each side of the building. In fact, there are fragments of step blocks similar to those of the front (P1.23,), which could occupy this position. Hence we may infer that the temple itself was constructed on its special podium of three steps, at the top of the base podium ascended by the ten steps between the paratids.
lo- 2 4
,_,B,\
|-~ c
I 5ECTION a-a
r)
-
34 o.2. ?'234
M.
'i AI
^
T(
0
\
/
FIGURE
38.
CROWN
MOULDING
FROM TEMPLE
1-
OF TYCHE
,
.y m
itself are unfinished; the lifting bosses remain, and the tread surface was not tooled smooth, nor worn by foot traffic. These, in all probability, lay on the side adjoining the Pantheon, where it would have been almost impossible to approach. The foundation for the front wall of the cella is set in curiously at a slight angle, but would have accommodated a wall at right angles to the sides no more than 0.80 m. thick, corresponding to the thickness calculated above. The thickness of the rear foundation, however, is ca. 3.00 m. Of this, we can explain a maximum of ca. 1.70 m. by the steps, wall and euthynteria already inferred, but a width of 1.30 m. remains unaccounted for. It cannot be established certainly whether the excess lay inside the wall, to be used as support for statues or the like, or whether it lay outside the cella to support a shallow free-standing colonnade or false fagade. There is scarcely room for the free-standing colonnade, and too much for engaged columns, so that in all probability the former alternative is correct, and the excess width was used for the support of something within the building. The most reasonablesuggestion would be a niche at the end of the building containing the cult statue. Corroborationof this restorationmay be seen in the discovery near the foundations of some finely carved crownmouldingfrom a niche (P1.232; Fig. 38). The moulding consists of a small astragal with bead and reel, above which is an ovolo with a heavy egg and dart surmounted by a fascia crowned with a small cyma reversa with a shallow-cut Lesbian leaf. The niche would have straight sides and back, so that its size can only be estimated. Correspondingto this (although no curved pieces are preserved) is a base moulding consisting of a torus with a guilloche, above which is a cavetto and a cyma reversawith a Lesbian leaf (P1.233; Fig. 39). The material of these mouldings is a white marble with a bluish cast; the workmanshipis extremely good, and the style recalls that of the Erechtheum. For the elevation of the building above the stylobate we have identified a set of cornices, and part of a tympanum; for architrave-friezeand capitals, we have no certain candidates, but some suggestions.
FIGURE 39. BASE MOULDING FROM TEMPLE OF TYCHE (SCALE 1/20)
this building. The bases, of which we have fragments from three or four, consist of a flaring cyma recta with a delicate pattern of overlapping leaves (PI. 241; Fig. 40) between an upperand a lower torus. They are 0.185 m. high, and have an upper diameter of 0.514 m. inside the moulding. The upper surface is equipped with dowel cuttings and two pour channels across the diameter of the circle. The stone is white marble with a rosy tinge. Although quite shallow and soft, the cutting is none the less delicate, and careful, so that the bases are among the finest we have. Capitals for the order are possibly representedby an Ionic capital (PI. 242) with a delicate overlappingleaf pattern on the fillet binding in the pulvinus at the ends, smaller, and perhaps more clearly cut than those on the bases, but somewhat reminiscent of them in its general character.
o.514
I
01
.73
lo
o
HF
.
FIGURE
40.
ito
A BASE
20
OFCOLUN-OF COLUMN
3.0
4o
cTEE.
FROM TEMPLE
OF TYCHE
FIGURE
41.
POSSIBLY
ARCHITRAVE-FRIEZE FROM TEMPLE
BLOCKS, OF TYCHE
(SCALE 1/20)
As to the entablature itself, the architrave-frieze offers a difficult problem. Some fragments from a series evidently intended to be mounted on a wall, since they are only slabs and moreover are of such careless workmanshipthat they can scarcely have been
Pantheon (P1. 234; Fig. 41). They show three fasciae and a flat frieze; some of them carry a moulding above the frieze, others do not. They seem very poor for this building, but in the absence of better candidates may serve to suggest the proportions. At the cornice level we are on firm footing. Three blocks, one from the southeast corner (P1.243; Fig. 42), one from the side (Fig. 43), and one from the front, were found.
SECTION
A -B
A
\
CALE 0 FIGURE
42.
BLOCK
i '
i I I
I 0o5
I
i
I
I 1,O
OF CORNICE FROM CORNER OF GABLE OF TEMPLE
OF TYCHE
The first is the best preserved, and its details may be describedfor all. The dentils are small and well cut; in the corner is a small round object. The moulding above, a delicately executed cyma reversa, is well proportionedand finished. Above is the overhang, the face of which is surmounted by a second cyma reversa. The sima along the side is elaborately worked with a running rinceau, well cut. The lion's head spouts along the sides are pierced for the escape of water. On the top is a base for a small corner akroterion, and hook clamps for attachment to adjoining members. An interesting survival from the temple is the central block of the tympanum, of bluish white marble (P1. 244; Fig. 44). In the center is a raised, unworked surface, circular in shape and surrounded by a series of neatly-cut dowels, probably for the
and preserves part of the second and third, and all of the last three letters of the word VENERI, finely cut in well-proportionedletters of early imperial times. Calculationsof the angles of the tympanum and the corner cornice show that the length of the front
ERI
1L....
-- . -" FIGURE
43.
CORNCN
_.. FIGUREll 44.:
',:
.....
''
'
" _
BLOCK FROM SIDE OF TEMPLE
. TEMPLE* TMAU
.
OF TYCHE
:.- :.: i FO
i
(SCALE 1/20)
C.AL .
00,5
FIGURE 44. TYMPAN'UM FROM TEMPLE OF TYCHE
l 1,0
approximatelength of the stylobate at about 5.60 m., as given above. The temple as restored was obviously the finest building of the group, from the points of view both of design and execution. The combination of the Greek-stylekrepis of three steps and the Roman-style podium approachedby a high flight of stairs is both interesting and attractive. The details are varied, well conceived, and well executed. The pediment with inscription and ornament is an important find because of its bearing on the identification of the temple (below, p. 68). Finally, the "apsidal" arrangementis both remarkable among the Corinth buildings, and interesting architecturally for its unusual form.
K. THE SOUTH END OF THE TERRACE
The area south and west of the temple of Tyche is too close to unexcavated ground to be studied in final form at this time, but some general observations may be made here for the sake of completing the picture of the west terrace. To the southwest of the temple of Tyche is a deep cutting in the natural earth, sunk 1.20 m. below the surface of the west terrace pavement (PI. 61).34This cutting measures 1.56 m. in width, and 1.60 m. in length, and was evidently the pit in which a heavy foundation was set. At the bottom is preserved one block of the foundation, with large swallowtail clamp cuttings. When found, this base was tentatively associated with the acanthus columns discovered in 1934.35A capital bearing four figures in relief underthe corners of the abacus had been associated with the column, in spite of certain striking differences in size and dowel cuttings. A second capital, however, has since been found, and there is other evidence that there were originally two acanthus columns. The association of column and foundation, therefore,is improbable. Evidence to be found in the unexcavated region to the southwest may throw new light on the significance of our foundation, but too little is known about this area to justify further speculation. Finally, we may notice the distributing basin of the aqueduct on the colonnade of archaic columns, which stood at the intersection of the west and central terraces. It may be suggested that the brick structure filling the stairway north of the distributing basin may represent the remains of a fountain built there, possibly replacing the Fountain of Poseidon destroyed by the temples built duringthe reign of Commodus. 4 Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936, 24. p.
35 Loc. cit.; ibid., XXXIX, 1935, p.66. Also, especially, the forthcoming publication of the West Shops by W.
B. Dinsmoor.
III. CHRONOLOGYAND IDENTIFICATION A. CHRONOLOGY We have already discussed the development of the terrace in its Greek phases. The originalhill slope, traversedin several directionsby roads leading to and from the Agora, gave way toward the beginning of the second century B.C. to the more clearly defined west terrace, supported by the long retaining wall. Access was afforded by steps leading up from the road in front of the Northwest Stoa; a flight of stairs at the southern end of the wall served that side of the area. A ramp led up two thirds of the way south from the northern end, and possibly another flight of stairs led up in the middle of the northern section so designated. The wall may or may not have been surmountedby a balustrade, but we may suppose that immediately this terrace began to accumulate a series of small monuments and dedications of various sorts, which embellished in a minor way the western limit of the great market place. After the Roman re-occupation, the two buildings which began the series of monumental constructions were probably the temple of Hermes and the Pantheon (Fig. 45). These were, as we have seen, probably built of poros in their early periods, which is a priori reason for assigning them to an early date in the scheme at Corinth. Moreover, if our assignment of the Tuscan order to the first temple of Hermes has any validity, this would be a further argument for the early date, although under the circumstances little weight can be attached to it. In any case, we have seen that the temple was earlier than the Babbius monument, because of their relation to the changes in level of the terrace, and the Pantheon is earlier than the temple of Tyche. Thus, in the first Roman period, probably about the beginning of our era, we may visualize the original terrace with the temple of Hermes standing on it at the north, above the cul-de-sac in front of the restored Stoa, and the Pantheon along the ramp or wagon road dividing the terrace south of the center. The next monumental construction in the region was probably the Babbius monument. There is some fairly tangible evidence to show that Babbius was active in the early part of the first century in Corinth,36and the style of the building is appropriateto the early years of Tiberius. This, too, would be the period of the raising of the level of the terrace. The Babbius monument is also probably earlier than the fountain, since the podium would have awkwardly blocked out the side of the fountain, which would have been otherwise designed had there been a free choice. A more subjective argument for this relative chronology of the Babbius monument may be derived from its position about the center of the northern section of the terrace; this symmetrical arrangement 36 West, Corinth,VIII, ii, no. 100, and no. 131.
ij
G
THE
F
*
jnn|
0
|
WEST TERRACE
ABOUT
"
THE TIME OF CHRIST
I_
THE WEST TERRACE ABOUT A.D.
f
G
THE
FIGURE
45.
THE
WEST
DEVELOPMENT
TERRACE
ABOUT
A.D.
OF THE BUILDINGS
200
ON THE WEST TERRACE
[65]
the other arguments for placing the tempietto earlierthan the fountain. The next building to be constructed was either the temple of Tyche or the fountain. The association of the bases dedicated by Babbius with the fountain would suggest that the latter was built duringhis lifetime. This cannot be too late in the first century, if the occurrence of Babbius' name on poros, and hence presumably earlier Augustan structures, means much. On the other hand, it should be appreciablylater than the tempietto, as we have shown that the awkward juxtaposition of the fountain and podium presupposes that the tempietto was built before the fountain. In view of the fine workmanship on the details of the temple of Tyche, which suggest an early date, it would be preferableto place it, chronologically,between the Babbius monument and the fountain. On the other hand, it is a little difficult to see why the temple of Tyche should have been built so tightly against the Pantheon if the wide space between the tempietto and the ramp were available when it was planned. However, there may have been special reasons for putting it here, and the argument based on the crowding of the buildings cannot be pressed too far, since if there had been a genuine desire to avoid it, the temple of Tyche could have been built a little further to the south. The temptation to make this as early as possible because of the workmanshipon the details is so strong that we may tentatively place it earlier than the fountain. There can be little difference in actual years, since the three buildings must lie within twenty-five years of one another, and must have been finished by the middle of the century. Temple K is undoubtedly later than any of those thus far mentioned, and earlierthan the temples of "Herakles" and Poseidon. It can hardly be earlier than the fountain, for it would never have been put in the background with the unusual orientation toward the south had there been room on the terrace. The construction of the fountain undoubtedly meant the widening of the ramp joining the Agora with the west terrace, so that the north flank of the ramp was the side of the fountain. Presumably at some later time, and before the time of Commodus,the base in the axis of the widened ramp was built. The chronology of the temple of Hermes after its original period has already been discussed; the base in the southwestern corer was erected after the time of the Babbius monument, and since, as we shall see below, Pausanias seems to mention it, before the middle of the second century. The reconstruction of the temple in marble may have taken place when the courtyard with stairs was sunk in front of the temple and the mysterious court to the north designed, about A.D. 100. The gate-like monuments in front of the new approach, and the base on the edge of the court may be a little later. An approximate chronology might be suggested, then, as follows: the temple of Hermes and the Pantheon (in their original form), in the reign of Augustus; the Babbius monument, the temple of Tyche, and the Fountain, in the reign of Tiberius; the recon-
Hermesat the end of the first centuryafter Christ;TempleK betweenA.D. 50 and A.D. 150; the templeof Poseidon,A.D. 185, and the templeof "Herakles"in A.D. 191 (Fig. 45). B. IDENTIFICATION
Theidentificationof most of the buildingsas they existedin the time of Pausaniasis apparentlyquite obvious, althougha secondglance reveals at least one complicated Pausaniassays problem.In his accountof the sanctuaries"on the Agora"at Corinth,37 (omitting mythological excursuses) "....
on the market place, for most of the
sanctuariesare there, are ArtemissurnamedEphesianaand (two) xoana of Dionysos gildedexcept on the faces .... Thereis also a templeof Tyche;the statue is standing, and of Parianmarble.Besidethe templeis a sanctuaryof all the gods.Nearby is built a fountain,and there is a Poseidonof bronzeon it and a dolphinunderthe feet of the Poseidon,spoutingwater.Thereis also a bronzestatue of ApollosurnamedKlariosand a statueof Aphroditemadeby HermogenesofKythera.Therearetwo statuesof Hermes, both standing;for one a templehas beenmade.Thestatuesof Zeusarealsoin the open; one has no surname;anotheris calledChthonian,and the thirdHypsistos."Furtheron (II, 3, 6) he says "As you leave by the roadgoingto Sikyon,you can see on the righta temple and a bronze statue of Apollo, and a little further on the fountain called Glauke's." In the firstpassage,Pausaniasmentionsdefinitelytwo temples,one of Tyche,and one of Hermes.He also speaksof a "sanctuary"of all the gods, by whichone may or may not understanda temple.He describesas of somenote a "built"fountain,andmentions severalstatues without sayingwhetherthey werein temples.Viewingthe plan of the areaas it was in the time of Pausanias,or at least beforeCommodus,we couldmakethe followingapparentequations.Beginningat the south,the firstfoundationwouldbe the templeof Tyche;besideit the sanctuaryof all the gods - the Pantheon.Nearby would be the fountain- of Poseidon.Thencometwo statues,one of Apolloand one of Aphrodite; of these, one couldhave stood in the Babbiusmonument,the otherin the Agora below,on the terraceabove,or (as we shalldiscussbelow)in or nearthe templebehind. Particularlyin the last case, Aphroditemay have stoodin the Babbiustempietto.Next cometwo statuesof Hermes- one of them in a temple.Thisfits perfectlythe arrangements of the temple at the north, for the statue in the open could have stood on the circularbase in the rear. The three statues of Zeus would thus fall outside the area, either in the Agorabelow, or possiblyin the now-removedarea over the end of the NorthwestStoa. 37 Pausanias, II, 2, 6-8.
5*
place the original temple of the market god Hermes above the Northwest Stoa. On the other hand, it encounters a serious difficulty in that the southernmost temple, the presumptive temple of Tyche, is clearly labelled V] ENERI, which would certainly imply that the temple was dedicatedto Venus, rather than to Tyche. If this is accepted at face value, the only solution is that Pausanias was not following any topographical order, and his descriptionis useless in identifying any of the buildings. There is, however, a way of reconciling the apparent contradiction. The Venus of Pompeii was so representedas to appear more like Fortuna than Venus - deeply robed, with mural crown, rudder,and scepter; she could easily have been mistaken for Fortuna, as indeed her first modern discoverersthought her.38Naturally, Venus Pompeianawould not be worshippedat Corinth,but the type and concept is thought to derive from Venus Felix, who might well have had a temple at Corinth,as she had elsewhere. Thereis, to be sure, a certain difficulty in this, for the Felix and related Victrix concepts seem to have been overshadowed after Caesar's death by the Genetrix,39which would be a factor especially important to consider in the cults of a Julian colony. However, it seems that Felix, Victrix, and Genetrix were aspects of Venus that freely interchanged;40the attributes might even have appearedwith Genetrix. But the cult of Venus Victrix never really died, and there is independent evidence for attention to Victoria in the area of the west terrace. A base dedicated "Victoriai Sacrum"41(P1.251)was found near the Babbius Monument,and a statue of a figure with attachments for wings was found not far off42 (P1. 252). The concept Venus Victrix (Victoria)is clearly close to Fortuna43and there is a Corinthiancoin which represents a figure that has been taken as both Aphrodite and Tyche,44and another representing a figure looking into a mirror or shield, like the Aphrodite of Acrocorinth, but wearing something which may be a mural crown (P1.253). In short, it is possible that the temple was dedicated to Venus Victrix in such a form as to resemble Fortuna or Tyche, and that this figure came to be regardedas the Tyche of the city, as Artemis seems to have become the Tyche of several other places,45and as 38 Bernoulli, Aphrodite (Leipzig, 1873), pp. 120-121; Wissowa, in Roscher, Lexikon der Griechischenund Romischen Mythologie, Vol. VI (Leipzig, 1924-37), pp. 192ff.; for convenient illustration, Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, (New York, 1899), p. 12, fig. 4. See also especially Swindler, in A. J. A., XXVII, 1923, pp. 302-313. 39 Wissowa, loc. cit., and in his Religion u. Kultus derRomeri. e., Miller's Handbuch,V, iv (Munich,1902), pp. 237-8. 40 Wissowa, loc. cit.; Bernoulli, op. cit., p. 95. 41West, Corinth,VIII, ii, no. 11. 42 Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936,p. 41. 43 Latte, in Roscher, op. cit., pp. 294-302; and Keune, Roscher, op. cit., s. v. Victor (Victrix), pp. 289-291, headings, "Venus Victrix," and p. 292, headings "Fortuna Victrix" and "Victoria Victrix." 44 Imhoof-Blumer, Numismatic Commentaryon Pausanias, p. 155, no. 13, pl. FFVII; which is the same as J. H. S., VIII, 1887, p. 51, no. 13, pl. FF VII. 45 Waser, in R6scher, op. cit., V (Leipzig, 1916-24), p. 1337. Waser remarks that he does not know of another divinity having become the Tyche of a place, but apart from the almost certain example at Pompeii and the probable one at Corinth, it is conceivable that Pausanias saw another Venus-Tyche at Aigeria, where he saw a Tyche with an Eros (VII, 26, 8; cf. Waser, op. cit., p. 1340). It is perhaps worth pointing out that this quasi-identification is different essentially from the other association of Venus and Fortuna at Rome on a fertility basis (Waser, loc. cit., and Otto, in Pauly-Wissowa, R. E., s. v. "Fortuna."
Corinthis appropriatein several ways. In the first place, her cult was a prominent one in Corinth from earliest times, and her head appears frequently on coins of the Greek period. Also, her name is closely associated with the survival of the city in the Persian wars, when the prayers of the temple prostitutes were creditedwith saving the city,46a circumstance which associates her closely with Victory. Finally, the goddess was commonly regardedas having to do with the sea, which would be particularlyimportant to Corinth; and as Euploia she was sometimes represented with a rudder.47Thus the significance of Aphrodite to the city as a leading divinity, the various particularregards in which she was held, and the attributes pertaining to many of these, theeeer mae her natural figure to become the Tyche par excellenceof Corinth. The cult statue of the temple may probably be representedby a figure preservedfrom the waist down, standing on a plinth, on which rests a wheel48(P1.254). It was found in 1902, in the west end of the Northwest Stoa. The history of the type, according to Johnson, is strikingly apt to the particularproblem: ". . . the original of the type may have represented Aphrodite. In our copy it became a Nemesis or a Tyche, and in the Cretancopy an Artemis." Other monuments related to the temple and cult, and which probably stood near by, include a base which carrieda statue of Regilla, wife of Herodes Atticus (P1.262). In the inscription she is hailed as "Tyche."49A head of Tyche (Nemesis)50was found nearby, and a statue which may have representedsuch a concept.51 The cult of Fortuna-Victoriaand the temple are also representedon Corinthiancoins (P1. 261). The earliest notice of the cult on coins would seem to be on one issued by A. VatroniusLabeo and L. Rutilius Plancus,52dated shortly after A.D. 22-23, representing a Victory alighting on a globe and holding a wreath and palm (P1.261a).Another, of the duoviri P. Vipsanius Agrippa and M. Bellius Proculus,53dated shortly thereafter, 46 Athen. XIII, 573ff.; Schol. Pindar, 01., XII, 32; Plut. "de Herod. Malign.," 39d, 871 A (cf. Odelberg, Sacra Corinthia [Upsala, 1896], pp. 58, 64-65). 47 Bernoulli, op. cit., p. 377. 48 Johnson, Corinth, IX, pp. 12-14, no. 6. 49 Inv. 1638, found near St. John's, March 22, 1935. A base of white marble 0.435 m. high, 0.81 m. long, and 0.56 m. deep. Letters ca. 0.02 m. high. As tentatively restored: ['PrnytXy s6]8' d-y-cai. uine 8;' IX apo e T?irXV?eiTr; i6L0ov [7troav a]onpoauviv apa.Ovkv&p
5
.oX60 &pXVnd HpXX8)X tiyac 67r5aev ['A.tJx]o CA [7;CavT]o'iqaOp?Tr7e'l< &Xpovetx6OeVeo, [8v 7t]6aOI'EXX vcov ?cXv eppcOT1ov aTOcvTcv 7lv ivOo6 'AXacciiaso. [xpka]aova' 8' aOiTSe Pou?X aeTUXsTV 'Ot Xaaxouaa ['PnyEX])x, XOaiLvV. [etxoval 7r]p&Ts[LiVLCTaCoaTO Line 6: 7rXVi= 7r?Xdv. Line 8: 7c]p6 = Latin pro;
50
Johnson, op. cit., pp. 46-7, no. 54.
51
Broneer, A. J. A., XXXIX,
62 63
1935, p. 67, pl. XX,'/A and B.
Edwards, Corinth,VI, p. 20, no. 46, pl. II. Edwards, op. cit., p. 21, no. 48, pl. II.
= el5iVLT?L
??I.
Ventidius Fronto (A.D. 51-2?), put out a coin representing Nero holding a patera and being crowned by Tyche, wearing a mural crown and holding a cornucopia,and another representing a tetrastyle Ionic temple with a statue inside4 (P1.26,,). The temple on the latter has a disk on the tympanum and steps on the sides, like the presumptive temple of Tyche above the podium. Miss Edwards calls the statue Nero, but the B.M.C. does not identify it at all, and it might as well be a Venus-Victoria-Fortunatype simplified in representation. Two later coins of L. CaniniusAgrippa (A.D. 68-9) show a tetrastyle temple from the right front, i. e., northeast56(P1. 261d).This has a flight of steps in front, pilasters or half-columns on the side, and something, not a disk, in the tympanum. It cannot be, therefore, our temple of Tyche, but could very well be the Pantheon. On the reverse of one coin is a head with mural crown;56perhaps the two sides, then, represent the two cults side by side. The significance of the coins in regard to the chronology is not clear. As has been noted, it seems desirable to date the temple of Tyche in the first half of the centuryy before P. Ventidius Fronto; its construction may have been signalized by the coins of Labeo and Plancus, and Agrippa and Proculus. The later coins may refer to particular events in connection with the cult. If this point be established, there can be no doubt about the Pantheon, the fountain of Poseidon, and the Temple of Hermes. Statues of numerous divinities have been found in the vicinity; among those not definitely established elsewhere, we may imagine standing near, or in, the Pantheon, an Athena57(P1.272), an Artemis58(P1. 27k), and one of several Apollos. On the base by the temple of "Herakles" may have been a colossal statue of Antoninus Pius59(P1.273). For the two temples of Commodus,of course, Pausanias offers no assistance in identification. But the earlier is built over the ruins of the fountain, and may possibly have been dedicated to Poseidon by way of compensation. In view of Commodus'affection for Herakles, the other may have been dedicated to that hero. The fountain, however, may be representedby the Poseidon on a coin of Commodus60(P1.274). From the environment of the temple of Hermes we may expect two cult statues, which Pausanias describes as of bronze. But on the base in the court below may have stood a group of Apollo, the Muses, and other attendants of sylvan nature6l (P1.281),and 64 Edwards, op. cit., p. 22, nos. 54 and 55, pl. II. The second in B. M. C. no. 550, pl. XVII, 7. 65 Edwards, op. cit., p. 24, nos. 69, 72, pl. II; B. M. C., nos. 572-6, pls. XVIII, 7 and 8. 56 B. M. C., 572-4, calls it "Tyche;" Edwards, op. cit., no. 69, "Roma." 67 A. J. A., XLI, 1937, p. 542. 58 A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, p. 267. 59 A. J. A., XXXIX, 1935, p. 68, pl. XIX, B. 60 B. M. C., no. 630, pl. XXI, 2. 61 Johnson, Corinth, IX, no. 12 (Apollo), nos. 13, 14, 15 (Muses); also unpublished fragments.
group of several figuresin Pergamenestyle62(P1.282). In the sanctuary to the north, over the cul-de-sac, would have stood the three statues of Zeus, one of them, or perhaps all three, on the great base over the old room with three niches. A figure possibly representing Zeus Chthonios (P1.283) was found near by,63and a group of statuettes of Cybele64 which might well have been associated. This accounts for everything mentioned by Pausanias in his account of the sanctuaries "on the Agora" excepting the statue of Aphrodite by Hermogenes of Kythera, and the Apollo Klarios,65and for all the substantial remains found in the vicinity except the Babbius monument and Temple K, behind the fountain of Poseidon. Of the statues, the Apollo was bronze, the Aphrodite of marble; neither, so far as Pausanias states, was provided with a temple, although either might have been. Were it not for the fact that there was actually a temple and another covered building, we should confidently suppose that both statues stood in the open on the terrace above, or in the Agora just below. Under the circumstances, however, this would leave both buildings nameless and unmentioned by Pausanias - possible, but in view of his inventory-like recital, perhapsimprobable. Whether, on the other hand, the Apollo goes with the Babbius monument or with temple K; and where the Aphrodite went, are difficult questions. The only possible clue is the second passage cited: "As you leave by the road going to Sikyon you can see on the right of the road a temple and a bronze statue of Apollo, and a little farther on the fountain called Glauke's." If we reconstruct Pausanias' way through Corinth, he came first from the southeast to the west terrace, then turned to the middle of the Agora, then followed up the Lechaion Road for a bit, and finally, evidently retracing his steps through the Agora itself, went up the passage between the Pantheon and the fountain of Poseidon to take the road to Sikyon between the precinct of Temple C and the great archaic temple. By this route, the first building he would see on actually leaving the lower Agora would be - on the right - temple K; and passing through the gateway to the north, a little farther on, he would come to the fountain of Glauke. By this interpretation, temple K would become a temple of Apollo. Whether it was a temple of Apollo Klarios, and housed the statue mentioned earlier by Pausanias might not at first seem likely, but consideringthe arrangementof the buildings, it is not wholly unreasonable. In his original course along the front of the west terrace, he would have noted and entered the buildings facing his path, but Temple K would have been partially concealed, at least, by the fountain. Undoubtedly, however, he would have been aware of Johnson, op. cit., nos. 110, 111, 115, 100; cf. also, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, p. 542; Capps, Hesperica,VII, 1938, 551-556. pp. 63 Johnson, op. cit., no. 23. He calls the figure Serapis, but also refers to Cook, Zeus, I, pp. 188-190. 64 Johnson, op. cit., nos. 55-59. 65 Also the Artemis Ephesiana and the Xoana of Dionysos, for which see p. 126. 62
obvious place to localize it, however, would have been in the passage out of the Agora toward Sikyon, and here he may have recordedit again from its primary point of view. In the first notation he refers to "A bronze statue of Apollo surnamed Klarios;" in the second, to a "temple and a bronze statue of Apollo." There may have been two statues, one outside the temple and partially visible from the lower Agora, and the other inside, the two noted separately; or there may have been only one, inside the temple, and mentioned first by report and the second time when he actually saw it. It is at least possible to suppose the latter; having identified the divinity once, he merely localized it in his second reference66. This interpretation, of course, contradicts that held since the earliest days of the excavation of Corinth,that the temple of Apollo mentioned by Pausanias was the great archaic temple. As to this, there are some unpublished arguments for another identification for the archaic temple, and if these can be substantiated the attribution of Temple K to Apollo might bear considerableweight. But until, or unless, the identification of the archaic temple be changed it is better to reserve judgment in regard to Temple K, at the cost of leaving it anonymous. Finally, it would be impossible to omit entirely a discussion of the identification or purpose of the Babbius monument. It has already been suggested that it might have contained the statue of Aphrodite by Hermogenes of Kythera, but this is only a guess and there is no real evidence as to the purpose of the building. One can scarcely ignore the hope of F. Robert67that discoverersof circularbuildings will considerthe possibility that they have a chthonian significance.Pausanias does mention a ChthonianZeus, but states explicitly that it was in the open, and we have perhaps better placed it elsewhere. Evidence has already been mentioned for the possible existence of a hero cult in the vicinity in Greek times (p. 5) but there is no specific evidence to associate the Babbius monument with this. Readers of Thymelewill find numerous suggestions of possibilities for the purpose of the monument but probably the only definite conclusion that can be reached is that the most significant purpose of the building is that which it notably achieved and still serves - to perpetuate the name of a successful and beneficent Corinthian,Cn. Babbius Philinus. C. HISTORYAFTERA.D. 200 The later history of these buildings is shadowy, and the few facts serve only to make the situation the more tantalizing. The brick structure filling the stair-entrancesouth of the Temple of Tyche and north of the basin at the end of the colonnaded aqueduct at 66 Comparethe somewhat similar situation hypothesized in reference to the Royal Stoa and the Stoa of Zeus in the Athenian Agora (Hesperia, VI, 1937, pp. 64-76). 67 Thymele, (Paris, 1939), p. 423.
Commodus,although the manner of its construction gives an intangible suggestion of a rather later date. This monument, however, is only a minor figure, and the most striking late classical development in the area was the probable erection of a number of statues whose style can hardly be earlier than the fourth century of our era and might well be later.68At least five such figures are representedby substantial fragmentsdiscoveredin the vicinity of the Babbius Monument, built into mediaeval walls. They seem to represent officials or dignitaries of some sort, although whether civil or ecclesiastic may perhaps be debated. In any case they imply that the area of the West Terrace was a favored position for the display of honorary statues in the later days of classical, or in early Christian, Corinth. The buildings themselves were not dismantled until the later fifth century at least. The most massive blocks from them were found in the network of early Christianwalls which eventually began to spread over the edges of the Agora area. Evidence for the dating of these walls is not completely evaluated, but it is probably safe to say that they cannot be earlier than the fifth century, when the Agora as a whole was remodeled (pp. 132, 152), nor even than the sixth century, for coins of that period were found in conjunction with some of them. We may therefore surmize that the West Terraceremained, substantially as it was at the end of the second century, through the fifth century and probably well into the sixth. During these later years the late statues mentioned made their appearanceamong the divinities and distinguished people of earlier times. But the destruction, when it came, was thorough, for blocks from all parts of the buildings were used in the first mediaeval structures on the site, and the very rubble foundations were pitted and hewn away. Almost certainly this occurredbefore the desertion of the city during the seventh and eighth centuries,69for the subsequent mediaeval construction was founded in earth filling these cavities. But although the Terraceas such lost its identity, the general area occupied by the buildings once again became the site of monumental constructionwhen, during the height of the middle ages, a small monastery occupied almost the entire site, and the mutilated foundation core of the Babbius Monumentlay below the narthex of the Churchof St. John. 68 Johnson, Corinth, IX, nos. 322ff., and Stillwell, A. J. A. XL, 1936, p. 41. 69 G. R. Davidson, Hesperia, VI, 1937, pp. 227-239, especially pp. 228 and 238; cf. Harris, Hesperia, X, 1941, p. 160; p. 156, fig. 1.
CHAPTER
I
THE BUILDINGS ALONGTHE CENTRALTERRACE I. INTRODUCTION THEAGORAat Corinth, in earliest Greek times probably a small place, not yet closely defined, in the vicinity of Peirene, came eventually to consist of an extensive area with several subdivisions, three of which have been excavated to the Roman levels. Of these three areas (Fig. 1), two constitute longitudinal subdivisions of a rectangle extending generally east and west: a Lower Agora to the north, and an Upper Agora to the south; the third is a terrace along the western end of the Lower Agora, constituting a sort of forum transitoriumbetween the Lower Agora and roads or monuments to the west. The Lower Agora from early Roman times was separated from the Upper by a terrace along which was, in the course of time, erected a series of buildings (Plan E; Pls. 29, 30, 31). In the middle, opposite the Propylaea and Basilica, stood the high platform of the Bema or rostra, flanked on either side by scholae, or rectangularexedrae with benches. Beside these ran passages with steps to the Upper Agora beyond, and thence stretched to east and west the long rows of the Central Shops. The ensemble was closed at the east by the CircularMonument, a column rising above a podium, and at the west by a curious building with a semi-circularroom - a structure which in anticipation may be designated as the Dionysion. It is the form and history of these buildings which is the subject of the present study.1 Although it is no part of this study to discuss in detail the form and history of the Greek Agora, the account of which must await further excavation in most of the area so far exposed, it is of some interest and importance to the backgroundof the monuments to be discussed to sketch the general development of the later Greek and Hellenistic Agora (Plan 0). By the middle of the fourth century B.C. the Greek Agora had come to include substantially the area now marked by the Lower Agora of Roman times, and it extended as well across the area of the Roman West Terrace. At the eastern end of the market place are the remains of the starting line of the Agora race-track and the curved terrace with the curious arrangement of water conduits and cobbled walk, bounding the race1
In general, see Broneer, A. J. A., XXXVII, 1933, p. 554; Broneer, A. J. A., XXXIX, 1935, pp. 54-5, 64; Morgan, A. J. A., XL, 1936, pp. 470ff; Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, pp. 542-3; Morgan, A. J. A., XLII, 1938, pp. 364-8; Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, pp. 260-262; Broneer, Hesperia, XVI, 1947, p. 236.
Traces of a road contemporary with these arrangementslead southeast of the curved terrace. Just west of this road the natural rock and clay lie a meter higher than the road under the CircularMonument; west of that, under Shops IV and V, a drain from the southeast dips below the level of the later Roman Agora, and west of this again, behind Shop VII, Greek floors lie at a level of the top of the drain. This indicates that a ridge extended from the curved terrace to the southeast, along the road. The curved terrace as an architectural or functional unit in itself, for such it seems to have been, appearsto terminate in front of the central room of the eastern CentralShops, and there may have been another road leading south at this point. Further west, in front of the Bema, traces of the macadam3pavement of the fourth-century Agora are visible in holes cut through the Roman pavement, but for about three meters directly in front of the Bema the macadam ends against a slightly preserved cutting in the native clay, as though there had been a retaining wall running east and west on this line. Behind the Bema were found geometric graves at a fairly high level;4 perhaps the early classical surface here lay higher than to the east or west. Indications of the boundary of the fourth-century Agora appear again in front of Shop VI of the western group, where a drain extends into the Lower Agora after having crossedthrough the line of Shops VII and VIII, coming from the directionof the western end of the South Stoa. This drain5is curiously constructed: the southern face is of good ashlar masonry; the northern of much less regularstone-work. The southern wall, moreover, has been cut back along its present inner edge with a rabbet, to receive cover slabs which lie directly on the top of the northernwall. In front of Shop VI this wall seems to turn slightly south of the line of the drain, toward the traces of a retaining wall in front of the Bema. This seems to indicate that the southern wall was earlier, constructed for some other purpose than a covered drain (possibly for a wider, open drain), and was later supplemented by the northern wall and the cover slabs. It also appears, from remains visible without further excavation, that the macadam of the fourth-century Agora extended as far as the drain. The exact nature of drain and wall, and their history, cannot yet be presented, but it is clear that here the Agora in the fourth century extended south of the line of the Central Shops. Finally, traces of the macadam are found even behind the temples of the West Terrace, indicating that the Agora extended farther west than that line. Everywhere south of the line just sketched, where later working has not removed them, are traces of buildings of the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ. In general, then, the fourth century Agora occupied the area of the Roman Lower 2
Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, pp. 549-551. A distinctive pavement of finely crushed, hard-packed, light-colored poros stone. 4 Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, pp. 543-5. 5 Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, pp. 258-60. 3
terrace walls where the ground to the south lay high, and along the western half by an open drain. From the Agora roads extended in various directions. An early modification of this scheme will be noted below, but the most important change came with the construction of the South Stoa in the latter half of the fourth century, when the Greek Agora was opened to include the whole area of the Roman Agora of both levels. At this time, however, as far as present evidence shows, there was no division into two levels or areas. Rather, a pavement of cobbles6was laid down over the remains of the houses demolishedfor the operation, and the surface of the expanded Agora sloped generally down to the north - steeply where the earlier levels had been high, as at the extreme eastern end and near the Bema; more gently between these points, and to the west. Against this topographical background, then, may be visualized the architectural development which resulted in the establishment of the two distinct levels.
II. THE ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT A. THE EARLY STOA
The earliest building in the area seems to have been a stoa occupying about the same position as the East Central Shops. It is representedonly by cuttings in the bedrock for the foundation for the front and back walls. The evidence for the ends is equivocal, and no member from the superstructurehas been identified. The traces of the front and back foundations are, however, clear and unmistakable (PI. 3212; Plan J). The rear wall is represented by a cutting ca. 0.55 m. wide which extends along the back of the shops, immediately in front of their rear wall. It was discovered wherever tests were made - in Shops I, II, VIII, X, XI and XIV, and in the central exedra of the group. In Shops VIII, XI and XIV of the series, the cutting seems, superficially,wider than in I and II, but this is only at the top, where the northern edge has been somehow broken down. The actual bedding surface in various places here could not have been wider than in the easternmost shops. The cutting in front, some 1.50 m. wide, almost certainly represents the foundation for a euthynteria carrying steps and a stylobate with columns; the considerablewidth is otherwise inexplicable (P1. 321). Furthermore,it is possible that the course of blocks which now constitutes the front foundation of the later shops survives from the euthynteria of the stoa; the blocks fit neatly into the front half of the cutting, and are just one half its width (see also p. 112). 6
Morgan, A. J. A., XL, 1936, p. 475, and XLIII, 1939, p. 258. There it is dated in the fourth century B. C.
steps with a stylobate. This would bring the floor level to a height of about a meter above the bedding, which would permit the clearly earlier drains which converge under Shop IV to pass beneath the floor, and would bring the floor level in front to approximately that of the cobble pavement behind. The level of the ground in front of the stoa would lie approximatelywhere it does now, and did in the time of the Roman Agora and shops. The ends of the stoa cannot be precisely established. It is, however, clear that the eastern end lay east of the end of the shops, under the foundation of the CircularMonument. The cutting for the rear wall continues under the foundation for the easternmost wall of the shops (PI. 322). There is, however, no exact indication of how much further the stoa extended in this direction, except that the native clay rises sharply under the drum of the CircularMonument, so that the end of the stoa must have fallen between this drum and the shop wall. At the west, on the other hand, investigations in the eastern exedra by the Bema show that the stoa extended no further, at least, than some point in the passage between the shops and exedra; and (unfortunately indistinct) cuttings in the earth just within the end shop suggest that the end of the stoa may have fallen just inside the shop. In short, it would appear that the stoa was almost exactly as long as the section of shops, and occupied almost exactly the same position, a few centimeters to the east.7 B. THE RETAININGWALL The next construction, in point of time, seems to be a retaining wall8 extending from the road east of the CircularMonument two-thirds the length of the Agora to a point behind Shop II of the western section of the Central Shops (P1. 331). This wall lay immediately behind the bedding for the stoa, and consisted of a facing of good poros blocks, many of which were re-used from some earlier building (probably the South Stoa), and of smaller slabs or squared bits of poros, including re-used blocks, arranged as backers between the facing and the side of the cutting in bed-rock or earlier fill in which the wall was set. The wall is well preserved immediately to the south of the Circular Monument (P1. 332),where, indeed, a crown course marked by a fascia some 0.26 m. wide is still in situ. Oddly enough, at this point the level in front, as indicated by the native clay on which the central drums of the CircularMonument are founded, is only two courses below the top of the crown course, although the wall extends yet two more courses to its bedding in the trench cut for it in the native clay. Immediately to the west, how7 It has been suggested that the cuttings here interpreted as for a stoa might in reality represent an early plan for the Shops, which was not carriedout. But it seems unlikely that the rear wall would have been laid out directly in front of the Retaining Wall, when that could, as it did for the Shops, serve well for the rear wall. 8 Broneer, A. J. A., XXXIX, 1935, pp. 54-5.
or four visible courses high. It can easily be traced by foundation beddings, and masonry in the original position or re-set, for the entire length of the eastern section of the Central Shops, for which it serves as the rear wall. In the middle of this line, where the central room of the shops projects behind the line of the terrace, it seems to have been cut out, and only slight traces of its passage through the area of the room remain. At the western end of the eastern section of the shops the Retaining Wall has been somewhat reset to make a corner with the end wall of the shops, but the lower courses continue without bonding behind the end wall, and seem to have been cut down for the passage of the road or later stairs between the shops and the Bema complex. Moreover, cuttings in the earth in the area of the stairs mark its line. Behind the rear wall of both scholae of the Bema the wall is well preserved,but it seems to have been cut out for the foundations of the podium of the Bema itself. Behind the Shops I and II of the western section of the Central Shops it is again well preserved in its lowest course, but at the end of this line it terminates in a rather curious way (P1. 383). The line of heavy blocks ceases, and a small squared stone, surmounted by a quasi-orthostate oriented rather toward the southwest, provides, as it were, a period to the line. Unfortunately the orthostate is in turn concealed by a mass of opus incertumof a base built behind and against the wall, and it is impossible to determine whether the wall continued in the new direction, since later intrusions have extended below this level to the south, west and north. But that the course of the wall in its main east-west line terminated here seems indisputable, nor has any definite trace of another wall to the west in the same line been discovered. In all probability, therefore, there was a short spur from the main line in a southwesterly direction, below which a gradual slope from the Lower Agora extended toward the south for the remaining distance to the area of the Dionysion. In short, the Retaining Wall would be simply an extension of the barrierbegun by the early stoa for about two-thirds the length of the Agora. The arrangementswithin the foundations of the CircularMonument and to the east are somewhat confusing, and must be considered in detail. The eastern end of the Retaining Wall lies within the circle of the podium of the monument, and from the end of the wall a short spur extends northward, consisting of good poros blocks (P1. 382; Fig. 46). The top of the spur slopes down to the north, as though it were the curb or retaining wall of a ramp. About four and one-half meters to the east is the foundation of a roughly parallel wall, extending from the corer of the Julian Basilica to a point opposite the end of the Retaining Wall, whence it turns east, continuing the line of the Retaining Wall as far as the Southeast Building. It will be recalled that the road from the fourth-century Greek Agora passed southward in about this area; in fact, the wall for the east flank of the new passage is set down in a trench cut through the middle
struction of the Retaining Wall with its sloping spur included a ramp replacing the earlier road. The road was shifted slightly to the west, and the level was raised a meter or more above its Greek level. The stratification in the line of the ramp two meters south of the Retaining Wall, and the wearing away of the corner of the top block of the eastern extension of the Retaining Wall both indicate the same rise in the level of the road. Possibly the level on the west side was a little higher, as traffic tended to swing to the southeast on emergingfrom the Lower Agora. In summary, then, at some period later than the stoa a Retaining Wall was built for two-thirds of the length of the Agora, beginning with a ramp at the eastern end. This wall probably served to bring the eastern part of the Upper Agora to a uniform level by filling. The two levels were permitted to merge in a continuous slope for the western third of their length, a slope which need not have been great, since the level of the Lower Agora rises toward the west throughout this distance. MONUMENT C. THE CIRCULAR
The arrangements at the eastern end, however, were soon modified radically by the construction of the CircularMonument.9This consists of a podium some nine meters in diameter and over two meters high, with mouldings at top and bottom, neatly whitened with plaster. From the center of the podium rose a shaft of smooth poros drums, possibly surmounted by a statue. To the east ran a road, and to the west stretched the plain line of the terrace. At a later period a rectangularfoundation was built around the podium, and this rectangularfoundation, in turn, was modified in certain details, as will be seen. (P1. 341; Fig. 46).
First Period The podium is constructed of re-used blocks, in a manner which indicates great care and skill. A foundation for the enclosing circle of the podium was laid of poros blocks, some of them cut down from columns taken from a small but delicate building; this course is set in bedrock and rises ca. 0.15 m. above the level of the Roman pavement around it. Above it comes a euthynteria ca. 0.34 m. high, with well tooled curved surfaces showing that it stood largely above ground on the north and east; near the Retaining Wall on the southwest a weather line indicates that the ground sloped 9 This was possibly discovered and drawn in 1802 by Lord Elgin's company, since a drawing by his architect, Ittar, seems to represent it (P1. 35). It was partly demolished in the 19th Century and excavated by Skias in 1892 1892, p. 122). Partially re-excavated by the American School in one of the first exploration trenches (IIpaxwdx&, (no. VII) in 1896 (Richardson, A. J. A., I, 1897, p. 469), it was cleared in 1933 (Broneer, A. J. A., XXXVII, 1933, p. 554 and pl. LXI). Cf. Broneer, A. J. A., XXXIX, 1935, pp. 53-4, fig. 1. It is discussed by Broneer in Hesperia, XI, 1942, pp. 145 and 153-4, and by Dinsmoor, ibid., pp. 314-5.
CORINTH
80
up to the top of the euthynteriaat the junctionwith the RetainingWall, and on the east the.groundseemsto have riseneven higher.Theeuthynteriawas madeof re-usedblocks whose originalshape was rectangular,and whosesurfaceswere formerlyfinishedwith
A
as. z l ...
, FIGURE
PA 1
~
E O
R
.
.
,.
a
AI
_..,
4r,
,,,__ _. ., , .?__
'
.
_
.
.,
_.
m
-,
:.
~~~~~~~~
I"n
~~~~~_
/
1~~~J
~~~~Er~~
....,.....4
.
.
of the monument. se ca. 0.345 m. high, bearing a base moulding Above the euthynteria came a course whose execution deserves special description. At the point where this course makes contact with the Retaining Wall, to the southwest of the center of the Monument, the moulding is carefully and precisely cut out for some fifteen centimeters (P1. 342). Like the euthynteria and foundation courses, the base moulding course is let into the face of the Retaining Wall by more or less carefully cut rabbets, and the good finish of the moulding itself recedes into the cutting. Then for the space of 0.40 m. the moulding seems to have been roughed out only in a preliminarymanner. Thence, for most of the perimeter,it seems to have been finished with precision, but coated with plaster. There may, in fact, have been several coats of plaster; in some places the moulding seems to a rough rosurface for the better adherence have been chipped away as though to provide of a coarser plaster, which itself was to have been moulded. On the east side facing the road, however, the moulding again is only roughly cut, with deeper cuttings ca. 0.20 m. wide, at each joint, where the proper profile of the moulding was worked out (P1. 361). In short, it would appear as though the first block had been cut and the moulding at the end properly finished before it was set into the Retaining Wall, in order to provide a good beginning for the moulding; then the other blocks were cut to the circle, with the moulding only roughed out, but with guide profiles cut at each end. Then the blocks were set and trimmed to the circle, with the moulding finished only on those portions which were to be visible. It thus becomes clear that the groundon the west and northlay considerablylower than that on the eastern, or road, side, where it rose at least as high as the top of the moulding. The base moulding course has another peculiarity worthy of note. Like those of the euthynteria, these blocks were re-used, some with plastered faces preserved, and many with lifting-holes of Greek type, bridge-like cuttings under which ropes could be passed for hoisting the blocks to a high place. These evidently belong to the earlieruse: they do not occur on all of the blocks of this course, on the exposed surfacesat least; they are not centered on the blocks, and it is hardly likely that lifting devices would have been necessary to put them into their present position, where they could have easily been handled with crowbars. Yet another peculiaritylies in the fact that a rectangularcutting has been introduced into the face of the course, northwest of the center. It is now filled with the rubble of the later construction, and its depth cannot be determined,nor does it show whether or not it continues through the euthynteria, but its width is 0.65 m. All the blocks of this course, and of the euthynteria, are well fastened with clamps about 0.14 m. long, many of which are still in position. Above the moulding course stood a course of poros orthostates 1.24 m. high. Thereare 6
quired new blocks from the quarry. Above, there must have been a crown moulding, but no fragment of this has been identified. In any case, it would have been about 0.30 m. high, bringing the top of the podium to the bottom of the circular drum. The space within the orthostates was apparently filled with poros and conglomerate blocks, including various re-used fragments of columns, statue base, and other members; the whole podium, then, was a solid mass of masonry, and may well have supported a paving of some sort across its entire top. From the plan (Fig. 46) it is clear that the circle is not complete; it is rather a large arc of a circle projecting from the line of the Retaining Wall, encompassingthe sloping spur wall of the earlier ramp. On the other hand, at the eastern end of the arc a straight foundation of light masonry continues southward for ca. 3.50-4.00 m. This undoubtedly represents a continuation of the line of orthostates (the base moulding course would have been undergroundhere) and hence the flank of a passage ascending to the Upper Agora along the line of the ramp. In the center of this podium stood a shaft of poros drums of which the bottom one, 2.10 m. in diameter and 1.35 m. high, is still in position. The drum rests on a massive
foundation of enormous poros blocks, of which there are four courses bedded on the native clay. The size of the blocks composing this foundation is worthy of note: those extending the long way of the rectangle are over three meters long, 0.65 m. wide, and 0.30-0.40 m. high. The drum is not centered on the rectangle, but is located at oneend, so that a platform some 0.70 m. wide projects northwest of the drum. A later well sunk along the side of the column has cut out the center of the projecting foundation. The drum itself is smooth, and was evidently surmounted by at least one other, and probably more, fragments of which have been discovered. Richardson, the first of the American archaeologists to excavate the monument, believed that there were at least two others,10and Broneer" identifies the monument with one shown on a coin (P1.592) illustrating a tall shaft surmountedby a statue. But Dinsmoor12identified the monument with one illustrated by a drawing of the architect Ittar (PI. 35), made in 1802 for Lord Elgin, and argues that the drawing shows only two drums. He dismisses the assertion of the Corinthian informants of Richardson that there had been two removed, as an exaggeration. Actually, Ittar's drawing does not prove that there were only two in his time, for the section shows no indication whatsoever of the drums, and the division between the second and third drum might have fallen just above or below the moulding, where it would not show in the elevation.13 10 Richardson, A. J. A., I, 1897, p. 469 "... column it evidently was, if the report of the inhabitants can be trusted, who were unanimous in the statement that within the memory of middle-aged persons two drums of the same diameter, but not so high, had been taken away by blasting with powder, and used for building purposes." 11 Hesperia, XI, 1942, pp. 145 and 153-4. 12 Hesperia, XI, 1942, pp. 314-5. 13 The identification with Ittar's and is to some extent baffling. There would seem to be drawing interesting little question but that it is correct, for the dimensions of the bottom drum correspond almost exactly: Ittar's
a shaft above the members drawn by Ittar, but that the pedestal as drawn supported some monument at the lower level. To this theory the dotted lines in Ittar's drawing of the top drum, suggesting a cavity of some sort perhaps too large for an empolion, might seem to add weight. Dinsmoor also feels that the foundation for the drum is too slight to support a column of a height proportionateto the lower diameter. But these arguments are not wholly convincing; indeed, the foundations seem excessively heavy for a base no higher than Ittar shows. The foundation created by the surroundingmass of masonry would be sufficient for a column if it supported only a monument and not an entablature. The cutting in the top indicated by Ittar might not, under the circumstances, represent the original working, but even if it did, it would not rule out a shaft above. Finally, the moulding by no means signifies of necessity that the structure stopped where Ittar's drawing does, but might equally well, or rather better, indicate only the top of the base of a monumental column correspondingto those of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius in Rome. In this connection it might be noted that Ittar's drawing shows the diameter above the moulding a few centimeters less than that below. Altogether, it would be more appropriateto the conditions to restore a tall shaft supportinga tripod or statue. An altar or another statue may have rested on the foundation projecting northwestward at the foot of the shaft, and other monuments may have stood on the pavement over the heavy foundation above the rest of the podium. Viewed in its original period as a whole, from the point of view of one in the Lower Agora, a circularterracewould have been seen, projectingfrom the cornerof the Retaining Wall and the passage along the east; above this would rise the shaft surmounted by some adornment,and on the terracewould rest statues or other objects. Viewed from the south, the monument would have appearedsimply as an extension of the Upper Terrace level above the passage to the Lower Agora, with the shaft and statues rising directly from the ground level (Fig. 46). A rectangularbase standing in the Upper Agora southwest of the monument properly belongs to the considerationof the first period of the CircularMonument.Its orientation is approximately that of the CircularMonument, as indicated by the direction of the foundations of the central shaft, and it lies approximately the same distance behind the extension of the orthostates of the podium in the road-wall to the south. There is no lower diameter - six feet, eleven and three sixteenths inches - is 2.103 m., compared to our diameter of 2.10 m.; Ittar's height - four feet, four inches - is 1.321 m., compared to our height of 1.35 m. The difference is easily
explained in measuring weathered poros, especially under the conditions under which Ittar must have worked. This is too great a coincidence to be dismissed. On the other hand, there is nothing in the preserved remains to explain the low rectangular stylobate or base on which Ittar shows the drums resting. Furthermore, it is hard to see how Ittar should have drawn the monument at all. It must have been almost completely buried in his time, and would have required rather extensive digging to lay bare, an expenditure of energy which the probable exposed remains in his time would hardly seem to have justified. 6*
have been another shaft like the first, as its foundation is indeed slight. In fact, it may have faced on the road rather than with the CircularMonument itself. A smaller base, consisting of a single block, stands toward the corner of the straight extension of the terrace of the podium along the road. This may be earlier, as it seems to be wheelworn along the side toward the road, and this could hardly have been possible after the
FIGURE
47.
SKETCH
PLANS
OF SUCCESSIVE
PERIODS
OF CIRCULAR
MONUMENT:
ABOUT
15 B.C.,
A.D.
15,
AND A.D.
45
construction of the podium terrace. Both evidently belong with the general environment of the CircularMonumentitself, sharing its orientation, but the nature of their association remains obscure. Later Periods The second period of the CircularMonumentis representedby the masonry laid along the north and west, almost converting the circle into a rectangle. The original blocks of poros facing enclosing the rubble-concrete core of the structure are in large part preserved along the north; foundations for similar blocks extend along the west to the line of the wall of the shops (Pls. 34; 862), and a cutting in bedrock just west of the easternmost wall of the shops indicates that the rectangularbase continued as far as the Retaining Wall (PI. 322). There are also remains of concrete against the base moulding and euthynteria near the Retaining Wall, but these may, of course, date from the period of the shops. In its new form, the Monumentwas bounded on these two sides by straight walls, ornamented with marble facing, remains of which exist at the junction between the brief eastern return of the rectangularstructure and the original masonry, where it has been preserved by stairs of a still later date. There was (P1. 363) a band or low socle of dark marble 0.25 m. high around the bottom, then a moulding of white marble held together with iron clamps. Above this nothing definite is preserved,but in all probability there was a high zone of marble, white or colored, smooth or panelled, surmounted by
podium. What, on the other hand, happened on the east, along the road, is less certain. The total absence of any trace of the continuation of the rectangular base on this side suggests that the original curved podium remained here, strange though this seems (Fig. 47). At a later period the western face was again modified. The masonry of the rectangular base was cut back for most of its length from the Retaining Wall, and the recess lined with thin marble slabs, without base mouldings (PI. 362), and hence, presumably, without crown moulding. There is, however, nothing to suggest that the northern facade was altered at this time. Presumably this latest alteration was contemporarywith the construction of the shops, whose easternmost wall falls on the line of the face of the recess, cutting into the euthynteria of the CircularMonument (Fig. 47). The final period of construction in this area must be the replacement of the earlier roads and rato ramps the east of the Monumentby a flight of steps, whose poros risers at the bottom abutted against the marble moulding of the rectangular extension of the Monument, and higher up rested on beddings cut in the euthynteria and base moulding course of the original structure. At this time, finally, the eastern face of the Monument was brought to a straight line. D. THE DIONYSION Among the earliest structures on the line of the central terracewas the building at the westernmost end14which, for reasons to be developed later (p. 126) may be called tentatively the Dionysion (PI. 371; Figs. 48, 49). The central unit consisted of a semicircularroom with a porch faced by four rectangularpiers. The floor of the room was of vari-colored marble slabs; in the center of the back was a light structure, possibly a table. Half way around the walls on each side was a light base. At the corners, to the right and left of the entrance, were probably benches. Flanking this unit were two wings, each represented on the fagade by a wide opening between an anta against the end pier of the central facade, and a light column at the corner. Behind this was a simple rectangularroom. Problemsof Stratification As this building presents problemsof some difficulty, for many of which only tentative solutions may be offered, it is perhaps desirable to describe in some detail its various foundations in their environment. The most tangible point of departurein this account is the macadam pavement of some presumably fourth century GreekAgora pavement, 14 The western room was discovered in 1904 (Heermance, A. J. A., VIII, 1904, p. 438, pl. XVII, building D), but the rest of the structure was not cleared until 1938 (Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, pp. 260-262).
At the eastern end, in the line of the passage and stairs leading from the Roman Lower Agora to the Upper, this pavement lies almost at the bottom of the stylobate course. At the eastern springof the circularwall at the rearof the building,it is only about thirteen
j '"
i
'I
--
t
h
^iI
______&Mc____
ilgI ;
.III1
_
_______
"'1
II1
_____
iloi'l'lllll
^
^
3
E. SKR. 1947
FIGURE 48. PLAN OF EXISTING REMAINS OF DIONYSION
centimeters below the level of the marble floor (i. e., the stylobate level); at the western spring it is four or five centimeters below. From this point the pavement is missing to the west, until it reappearsbeyond the line of the West Terraceat a considerablyhigher level. In front of the building it does not appear at all, but on the contrary the pavement of the Roman Agora rests directly on prehistoric accumulations. In short, we are to visualize a shallow valley running down in a northeasterly direction along the site of the later building. Along the rear of the building, above the macadam pavement, appears the later cobble pavement of the Upper Agora, and over this is a deposit of gravel, sand, and clay, which seems to slope up rapidly from a level a few centimeters above the stylobate 15 At the eastern end of the stylobate, investigation of the footing trench for the building showed that there is an earlier Greek level 1.20 m. below the stylobate in the area of the passageway between the building and the shops, and some construction coming between the macadam period and the building itself. These, however, clearly have no bearing on the immediate problem; they have not been examined, nor need they be described.
at the southwestern corner, and presumably continued to the top of the euthynteria of the aqueduct colonnade extending from the corner of the South Stoa to the end of the West Terraceca. 1.80 m. above the stylobate of the Dionysion.
DPLAN D N OF FIGURE 49. RESTORED PLAN OF DIONYSION (SCALE AS IN FIGURE 48)
Along the rear walls of the building extends a drainparallelto the wall and just behind it, apparently dating from a period before the cobble pavament. The trench in which it was laid was filled with clayey silt, the macadam pavement is cut for its construction, and the cobble pavement lies over both. Southeast of the building, in the middle of the passage between the two Agora levels, this drain appears to have been intersected at a later date by another drain crossing it at right angles; when the latter was built, the cutting for the old one was walled up with rough stones. Although the coincidence of the line of the drain with that of the rear wall of the building has obscuredthe stratigraphicrelationships of the various structures, it is clear that the building is later than the sloping deposit of gravel; that is, it is the latest of the phenomena hitherto mentioned. On the other hand, its relation to the final deposit over the sloping gravel, by which the Upper Agora was finally brought to a level, cannot be determined by any physical contacts.
In the period of the macadam pavement, the fourth century B.C., the Agora lay higher than the stylobate to the north and west, dipping slightly in the area of the east room of the building, and rising slightly again to the line of the wall between the Agora and the early houses to the south. Probably a road then extended to the southwest along the line of the wall. At a later period a drain was cut along a line just south of the rear wall of the later building, but the trench was either filled with mud or for some reason left open and soon silted up. The southward extension of the Agora toward the end of the fourth century occasioned the demolition of the houses, the construction of the big drain on the line of the boundary of the earlier Agora, and the extension of the Agora surface by a new pavement to the south. Afterward, a considerable delta of sand and gravel was deposited from the southwest. Into this were cut the foundations for the building and the intersecting drain to the east, and at this time too the macadam pavement north of the building was cut down approximately to the level of the stylobate of the building. The absolute chronology of this sequence will be consideredlater (p. 125), but we must have this much in mind in orderto interpret the architecturalhistory of the building itself. Foundations The foundations of the Dionysion seem to have been set into a pit dug for the whole area of the building. The poros blocks of the wall foundations are set in a cutting in earlier deposits whose edge shows around the outside, but, within the circuit of the foundations, earlier deposits have been removed to bedrock, on which the foundation course rests. After the removal of this earth, and the laying of the first foundation course, quantities of broken stone and debris, evidently from some metal-working establishment (forbits of slag and bronze corrosionare abundant), were filled to the top of the first course. The floor thus formed is extremely hard-packed and smooth, superficially recalling the macadam surface of the Greek Agora. In the rectangularrooms some of the blocks of the second course show broad draftings around the edges, with the central panel brought more or less to a flat surface but hardly smoothed. In the semi-circularroom the block at the back of the room on the axis was finely finished in a curve (Pl. 372),but the others have only the bottom and side joints finished in a broad drafting for setting purposes. The stylobate, which on east and north consists of blocks of Acrocorinthianlimestone, does not rest cleanly on the poros foundation below; some of the blocks are full height and rest firmly on the lower course, but others are undercut and braced on the lower course by underpinning. The front of the rectangular rooms, also, shows a similar disparity between the broad flat surfaces of the lower course and the relatively slight poros
blocks are re-used. In the semi-circularroom, directly on the originalhard-packedfoundation filling and against the finished surface of the curved wall block, is a small deposit of working chips of poros, and over this, through the larger area of the room, is a deposit of earth and gravel to the level of the top of the second course. On this the cement bedding of the marble floor slabs rests. On the uppersurface of the smooth curved wall blocks there is a precisely inscribed arc serving as a guide line for setting the marble floor. In the rectangular room, and in the hall along the front, the fill above the original hard surface and the floor level of the stylobate and marble slabs of the semi-circular room includes quantities of marble chips, ash (almost pure carbon), and a curious substance consisting of masses of black, carbonlikematerialup to five centimeters thick, set in a hard compact mass of white material resembling poros dust. This material sometimes occurs loose, sometimes in masses of extraordinary hardness. It gives the impression of being a porphyritic stone in some cases softened by fire or heat, like weathered granite. Superstructure The marble slabs of the floor of the semi-circularroom, ca. 0.03-0.055 m. thick, are laid in a simple pattern of reddish and blue colored slabs with white slabs around the edges. Around the outside, the preservedslabs show tooling and discolorationsindicating that something solid stood around the wall, but the traces are too irregular to permit certainty in restoration. In the cornertoward the front there may well have been placed a bench; half way around the side the signs indicate a rectangular object 0.75 m. wide and 0.35 m. deep, and at the back, opposite the door, there certainly stood some object, although what it might have been cannot be determined, especially since the broken fragments of the paving seem to have been rearranged.In view of the fact that there is no special foundation under the floor for any of these objects, it is a fair assumption that nothing heavy stood at the places indicated. It has, indeed, been suggested that a bench ran continuously around the room, but the indications rather favor a series of separate objects. Possibly we may restore a bench in each corner, a base or pedestal for a light statue on either side, and a table of some sort at the back. The walls were evidently carried up in poros, plastered rather than sheathed with marble. Traces, at least, of plaster exist on the upper courses preserved in the rectangular room, and there is no indication of the footing for marble sheathing in the floor of the semi-circularroom. As to the fa9ade, the stylobate offers some more definite information. The section across the front of the semi-circular room is wider than those across the rectangular rooms, and its inner edge is tangent to the completed circle of the floor of the central
0.78 m. square. That these are not square plinths for columns is indicated by the fact that there are dressed beddings against the end piers, facing the wings, for rectangular antae or the like; these would be almost impossible against columns. The two central supports could have been columns on square bases, but seem close together for a columnarorder. The interval between the central piers is ca. 1.30 m., between them and the end piers, 1.11 m. The stylobates for the wings are narrowerthan that in the center, and are drawn back slightly toward the comers of the building. At the cornersare setting lines for columns only 0.40 m. in diameter; the opening between the antae of the end piers and the corner columns is 2.72 m. These facts indicate a rather remarkable superstructure. The massive piers in the middle must have borne a considerableweight, and the interval may be too short for an architrave proportionatelyheavy. Possibly, therefore, they were spanned by arches, or, and perhaps preferably from the point of design, there may have been an arch in the center and flat lintels on the side openings. On the other hand, the interval between the end piers and the corner columns is much too great for an architrave which would be in proportionto the size of the column. An arch, too, would be impossible, for the relatively frail column would certainly have been unable to support the thrust of such an arch. Inevitably, therefore, it was a wooden architrave which stretched from the corner columns to the antae against the piers, and as the simplest scheme an architrave is restored across the center. It would seem probable that all of the superstructure, including the fa9ade of the building, was of poros (or wood), partly because of the fact that the stylobate is of limestone, which would be an unworthy base for a marble fa9ade. In addition the elements of the superstructuremust have had definite individuality and some bulk, so that some pieces would surely have been preserved. Since nothing has been found which can be identified as part of the superstructure,it seems likely that it was of poros and wood and has been so mutilated as to have escaped identification. In the absence of such identifiable members it is difficult to speak with any certainty of the interesting problem of the roofing. It would seem almost inevitable, in view of the inferencesmade above, that the entablatures over the wings were not of a piece with the entablature over the center, particularly since the stylobates of the wings are at an obtuse angle to the center. On the other hand, the piers before the semi-circularroom and the room, constituting an entity, were probably roofed as such, with a pediment over the piers and a half-dome covered by a conical tile roof over the rear half of the circle. This leaves the wing rooms, of course, but if our assumptions to this point have any validity, they must have had peak roofs on an east-west axis, covering also the porches of the wings. Admittedly this is a complex roof for so small a building, but a simpler one for the peculiar ground plan is difficult to imagine.
returning to the end of the east room, between the western column and the wall facing it, there is only a poros block, set as an orthostate. This must mean that when the building was erected, the ground to the west was higher than that in front, and a shield was put in instead of a stylobate, to protect the floor of the front corridorfrom wash. Altar The rectangular base in front, on the axis of the central room, obviously belongs to the building, and is almost certainly the foundation for an altar. Nothing has been found which can be identified as having stood on this foundation. E. THE BEMACOMPLEX Approximately in the center of the line of the terrace, but somewhat east of the center, stand the foundations of the Bema16 (Pls. 381.2; 391.2; Plans F, G). This was the
Corinthianversion of the imperial Rostra at Rome, in many details a conscious reproduction, in a more formal design, of the Rostra and some of its adjacent structures, built as a unit with architectural details inspired by the Erechtheum in Athens. In the center was a high, broad platform rising on two blue marble steps and an elaborate base moulding, probably with imitation beaks of ships attached to white marble orthostates surmounted by a crown moulding and a blue marble paving. Above this rose a superstructure enclosing a platform on the back and part way along the sides. It consisted of white marble piers with three doors or openings in the rear fa9ade, and L-shaped wings aroundthe ends of the rear fagade, and along the sides. Benches of blue marble ran along the inner edge of the L-shaped wings, and above the benches rose a wall of blue marble. Exactly how this structure was finished at the top is not definitely established, but probably with architrave and horizontal cornice. On either side of this central structure, but at the level of the Lower Agora, was an open rectangularexedra or schola reflecting the architecture of the L-shaped wings of the central part, with blue marble benches along the back and outer side. Above these, again, rose a wall of blue marble. At the back, the wall rose to the height of the Upper Agora. Along the sides four white marble piers divided the blue stone wall, which rose only to half the height of the piers, and left openings above. The piers were finished at the top with delicately carved capitals supporting an architrave. To the east and west of the scholae, respectively, were passages that gave access to the Upper Agora. The eastern stairs ran through a monumental gateway, probably an arch. In front of the Bema, almost in the center of the Agora, was a low platform. 16 The Bema was discovered in 1935-6 (Morgan,A. J. A., XL, 1936, pp. 471-4). Its identity was established by Broneer in the 'ApX. 'ET., 1937, pp. 125-8 (appeared in 1938). The building was finally cleared in 1936-7 (Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, pp. 542-3). Cf. also Morgan, A. J. A., XLII, 1938, pp. 364-7; XLIII, 1939, p. 262.
The foundations of the Bema itself (PI. 381) consist of a mass of rubble and concrete faced with large well-cut blocks of poros. A poros facing is gone from the two southern corners, apparently as a result of mediaeval construction in connection with the church which covered the Bema and the area to the south. The foundations project some five meters tothe north of the earlier Retaining Wall, where they now stand ca. 2.30 m. above the Lower Agora level; and three meters south of it, where they are just at the Upper Agora level. The poros-facedcore is 14.87 m. wide in front; the poros footing for the revetment projects ca. 0.60 m. on each side. Along the sides south of the Retaining Wall, where the poros blocks have disappeared, the concrete footing for the missing poros blocks extends well beyond the line of the preservedsides. North of the Retaining Wall the lowest course of foundation blocks in front, projecting beyond the poros-faced core to carry the marble revetment to be describedbelow, have been hacked away along the edges, presumably to receive the paving slabs of the Roman Agora under the lowest step of the marble facing. In back, where a large part of the stylobate is still in situ (P1. 461), the poros blocks extend some fifty centimeters south of the stylobate of the building, but there can be no question of a second step below the stylobate. Although the surface of the poros has been cut down as in front, this was apparently done to receive the paving slabs of the Upper Agora, and there is not sufficient difference in level to restore a whole step below the stylobate. It is odd that the foundations should have been constructed in this way behind. Perhaps it is because a change in plan was effected when the stylobate was laid, perhaps only to provide a solid approach to the stylobate in the period before the Agora was paved. The upper surface of the core (P1.382) is practically obliterated by the foundations of the church and the graves sunk in its floor. The graves were cut into the concrete, although they are so close together that the walls separating them are sometimes built of small stones. The church construction also accounts for the removal of both ends of the stylobate; indeed, a large grave was cut in the actual line of the stylobate at the west end, while at the east end the stylobate was underminedby still another grave, and the marble itself cut off under the wall of the apse of the church. There remain, however, small sections of a hard packing of earth and marble chips for the floor, some 0.10 m. below stylobate level. The foundations of the scholae on each side are much simpler. The base of the Retaining Wall serves as the backing for the rear wall of each exedra, and the side walls are supported on poros foundations set in bedrock. The mosaic floor of each schola was bedded on relatively loose fill of stones and earth, carrying a hard cement base for the tesserae themselves.
Reconstruction
the Scholae
Although the Bema itself is obviously the central and dominant feature of the complex, it will be convenient to considerthe details of restoration of the exedrae or scholae first (P1.8912; Plans F, G). They are clearly part of the same structure, and some of the less positive inferences concerningthe superstructureof the Bema depend on an understanding of the style and form of the scholae. Apart from the fact that the western schola is about a meter longer than the eastern, which involves some modification of the mosaic pattern on the floor, the two were apparently almost identical, and may be discussed together. They consist of uncovered rooms projecting from either side of the podium of the Bema, the rear wall coincident with the early Retaining Wall, and the side walls screening the rooms from the passage and stairs beyond. Both rooms were originally open on the front. Across the back, and along the sides away from the Bema ran a blue marble bench resting on a foot-rest block of the same material. Some of the foot-rests and benches were found in situ; most of the rest of the benchesare preserved,and are easily identified. Backing the foot-rest, on the street side, was a simple block of stone of somewhat lighter color. The top surface shows that it was covered by a block backing the seat and extending to a weather line ca. 0.04 m. from the edge of its support. No fragment of this backing block has been identified, but it was probably a simple, step-like member. All of these elements were fully fastened together by clamps and dowels. In the interior corner of the side and the rear benches a dolphin was carved (P1.401), head down; and at intervals along the side and back were lion's paws (P1. 402) on little square pedestals. In the east room along the back there was one in the center of the room, and another 0.50 m. in from the east end, indicated by weather lines and a matching seat block; possibly there was a third near the Bema podium, balancing the group. In the west roomthere was one next the Bema podium and another in the center, on blocks which can be almost certainly replaced in these positions, but none at the western end. On the block supportingthe end of the seats on the side of each room,0.08 m. from the end of the seat, are indications for the only paw on the sides. How the benches along the sides were finished at the front end is uncertain; no fragment of this end has been located, so that whether there was an arm of some sort, or whether the seat just came to an end, cannot be determinedpositively. Along the outer edges of the seats holes are bored at intervals, to allow water to escape from the hollow of the seat under the overhang, and lightly cut channels lead across the hollow to these holes, to collect the water. On one of the side benchesof the western room, almost at the northernend, is a curious inequality in the working(P1.403).The hollow has not been cut downuniformly,but a rectangularflat surfacehas been left projecting aboveit. Thereis no clueto the purposeforthis.
along the back of the block. Obviously, then, something rested upon them. The lines, moreover, indicate that the member above had projections of ca. 0.08 m. vals of about a meter. The width of the projection was about 0.35-0.40 m., dowel cuttings are coincident with the sides of the projection. Corresponding
weather at interand the to these
indications are some fragments of Ionic moulding 0.174 m. high. Two joining fragments (P1. 41, middle; Fig. 50a) show a projection of the moulding on one side of about 0.035 m., or the appropriateamount, and an originaljoint surfacejust beyond the point of projection, with dowel holes placed appropriatelyfor the cuttings on the benches. The other side has a projection of only 0.016 m. at the bottom. The width of the moulding at the top, before the projection, is 0.204 m.; afterthe projection, 0.268 m. There are two small clamps at the preservedjoint line.
.554
.
.
04l--"
I
.n
I
I
I
Mt F.* I
FIGURE
50. BASE
MOULDINGS
FROM SCHOLAE
l1o
a
20
40
H
60
80
I HCn.L
FIGURE 51. ORTHOSTATE FROM SCHOLA
OF BEMA. ABOVE, FOR PIER; BELOW, FOR REVETMENT ON REAR WALL
All the other fragments of this moulding are cut with only one moulded face, but with clamps to hold them to something behind. There are two kinds of these fragments. One (P1. 41., top, right) has a smooth, even top with a light weather line a fraction of a centimeter behind the edge. One of this group (P1.41l, bottom) also shows a projection at one end correspondingto the anta-like projection on the first block described. This projection, however, extends only about seven centimeters to a joint at a forty-five degree angle, indicating that it stood at a corer. The other type (P1. 411, top, left; Fig. 50b) is represented by a small fragment, different in that the top surface is cut down, with a flange about a centimeter wide along the edge. The first type may be assigned to the side wall; the second to the rear. These fragments indicate that on the
At the junction of the side wall with the rear wall there was a pilaster, the projection of which was based on the projection in the corner section of the base moulding, to which was then clamped a similar moulding running along the rear wall.
o
*to
...
/
'
I
2 0
T
C/
FIGURE 52. PIER, WITH ORTHOSTATEAND CROWN MOULDING, OF SCHOLA
On the base so formed rested blue marble orthostates, two of which were found in the immediate vicinity of the eastern schola (P1. 412; Figs. 51, 52). They are slabs finished on both sides, with a thickness of ca. 0.195 m. Their length is 1.16 m., or appropriate for the approximate spacing inferred from the weather lines for the base moulding, taking into account the thickness of the moulding. The orthostates show dowel cuttings on the top, but none on the bottom; presumably they were held at the ends by being let into slots in the piers between. Certainly they were fastened to the piers by dowels fitting into cuttings in the upper corners of the orthostates. One fragment of the upper corner of one orthostate seems to show that the dowel hole was cut in from the side, and was partially at least covered on the top. Presumably the device of
the light base moulding by too many cuttings. On the bottom surface of one orthostate, so interpreted, appears a graffito (P1. 421): cptot'AACoccEpocaLaocEppoao6vq - "Alizas and Sarapias are friends of Euphrosyne (or of festivity and fun)." The word 7&aLc, and the letters B and M are merely idle scratch-
ings. As this surface was covered during the time the block was in position, and as the letters are obviously not mediaeval or even late Roman, it must be inferred that the sentiment expressed was recordedby one of the workmen during a period of rest, while the building was under construction. It is barely possible that the orthostates are re-used and that the inscription comes from the earlieruse, but there is nothing on the blocks to suggest the nature of any such use. The crown moulding of the orthostates may be seen (PI. 431; Fig. 52) in some fragments of white marble with a simple cyma reversa overhang; its top had a gentle slope along the edges and a level surface over the center. One fragment is broken along the edge of a dowel cutting, showing that the dowel system corresponded to that of the orthostates. A fragment of the pier (Pls. 412, 422; Fig. 52) between the orthostates has been discovered. This representsthe upper part, and only near the breakat the bottom are the two opposite faces slightly dressed down for the joint with the members between. Actually this dressed surface must have fitted against the crown moulding over the orthostates, for, as explained above, the orthostates show dowel holes at either end, for pinning them at the top to the piers, and no trace of the dowel appears on the preserved part of the pier. The piers which rose above the orthostates, enclosing window-like openings, carried some exquisitely carved capitals, of which several fragments were found in the vicinity. These are not only finely cut, but of unusually beautiful design, recallingthe work of the Erechtheum (P. 423; Plan I). On two opposing faces are palmettes with thin leaves, well rounded. On the other two faces are anthemia, with the surfaces of the leaves sharply cut out in delicate grooves. That the latter faced the sides, and the former looked across the orthostates, is shown by the capital which clearly comes from the pilaster or three-quarterpier against the rear wall (PI. 423, bottom). On the capitals rested an architrave (PI. 432; Fig. 53), a section of which, from the eastern schola, is preserved, bearing the end of an inscription: ... VIR.Q. S.P.F.C. Probably the inscription faced toward the passage and stairs to the east, since the top of the architrave is finished like a roof (showing incidentally, that there was no cornice above), and the fasciae are cut around the end. This shows that it stood free at that end, whereasthe south end abutted, as we shall see, against a low sill at the top of the Retaining Wall. On top of the architrave is a rough cutting, possibly for the reception of a bronze anthemion or other decorative element.
eastern schola; material from the west wall of the western room is lacking, dowels and weather lines on the seat block of that wall we may infer that it was the same (Plan H).
1________________
._5
4,'3531
_ o 0.225
...... ... ...............:
cl~<.
294
!:....
1S FIGURE
53.
~,
~.i----.-
ARCHITRAVE
FROM EASTERN
-
cc.
SCHOLA
The wall at the rear of the scholae was differently treated. The base moulding across
the tops of the seats had the same profile, but instead of orthostates there were probably thin slabs let down behind the raised edge of the moulding. There is no indication of pilasters. The junction of the rear wall with the podium of the Bema constitutes a
problemwhich has not been solved. Most reasonablythere would have been an anta here, but how this could have been finished at the top escapes explanation. The solution
adopted in the drawing seems imperfect, but possible. Along the top, however, continuing the line of the architrave on the side, a low sill of
white marble probably ran, abutting against the stylobate of the Bema. One block of this stylobate, which can be identified as coming from a position over the pier between the rear wall of the schola and the Bema podium (below, p. 106), has a clamp cutting at
the outer edge, ca. 0.50 m. behind the rear wall of the schola, and weather marks, indicating that a block some 0.25 m. thick abutted against its face (P1.451; Fig. 54). The floors of the scholae are also worthy of note. They consist of a geometrical mosaic,
in roughly cut chips of white and black marble, laid on a bedding of hard cement. The western room, being larger,has an extra triangle at the ends of the hexagonal medallion. The technique of the mosaic17is not particularly fine, but in general effective. The tesserae are broken chips of marble mostly of random shape, with polished surface but 17 Other mosaics of this type have been found in early buildings at Corinth, as in the market north of the Basilica on the Lechaion Road (Broneer, "Area North of the Basilica," A. J. A., XXX, 1926, p. 53).
7
dual tesserae themselves contributes to the development of the pattern, in that the shapes are oblong and lie in the axis of the pattern. In some of the triangular spaces they are set to fan out from one of the angles, enlarging toward the opposite side. But this treatment is not consistent, and may result simply from the inclination of the particularworkman rather than from the purpose of the designer.
i o
FIGURE
54.
FLOOR
0
2o
40
SLAB FROM BEMA SHOWING
AND MARK OF JUNCTURE
OF SILL BEHIND
Reconstruction-the
CLAMP
SCHOLA
Bema
The general design of the scholae reflects that of the central structure of the Bema. The foundations of the Bema have already been described, and it remains to present a restoration of the superstructure.By good fortune, for so important a monument there exist fragments from almost all parts of the building, and a restoration that is fairly certain in all details except those of the crowning elements may be offered. The core of the podium describedabove (p. 92) was faced with a marble revetment of excellent quality (Pls. 441.2, 452; Figs. 55, 56; Plan H). The lowest element, of which
several fragments are preservedin situ, particularly along the west side (PI. 92), was a blue marble step 0.295 m. high, secured end to end with iron clamps. Above it rested a second step 0.227 m. high, set back 0.15 m. from the edge of the lower, as indicated by the smoother finish of the exposed part. On the second step, in turn, rested a base moulding 0.274 m. high (PI. 442; Fig. 55), consisting of a torus with elaborate guilloche, a cavetto, and a cyma reversa with a Lesbian leaf, done in white marble in a style harking back to the Erechtheum. These blocks, which were considerably wider than,
facing of the core. On the base moulding rested orthostates of white marble ca. 0.15 m. thick, with a light apophyge at the bottom. None of these is preservedentire, but the precise height can be ascertained by the fact that the top of the highest course of poros blocks behindwas trimmed down slightly along the edge to receive the crown moulding which rested upon them and on the orthostates, the height of which was, then, 1.55 m. 0.977
~I~~-"
] '
' .'
' a,-,~ri-,-,~i-,
k ,-
I-
.
to
width. Some
7*
of
the
Tr,
.
-___~
_:.
C/
.
6o
40
7o
| FIGURE
in
-
2o
-
h^7*|
Ti,Tr,r,
preserved
55.
BASE
fragments
MOULDING
have
OF BEMA PODIUM
dowel
holes
or
other
cuttings
on
their
attached, but it is not unreasonable to assume that rostra, or imitation beaks of ships, adorned the front of the structure, as on the Rostra18in Rome. The crown moulding, beautifully executed in the same style as that of the base, was 0.28 m. high (P1.441; Fig. 56). The Lesbian leaf and egg-and-dart were carved with remarkablesharpnessand
I
~
//
77
L.. co
'
' /. .,
.*
0.57
_____o.487
-
.
.
-
.
.
2o
FIGURE
56.
CROWN
MOULDING
40
OF BEMA PODIUM
precision. It rested partly on the orthostates, mostly o the porosblocks behind. Weather lines on the top indicate that the course above, the edge of the pavement of the Bema, was withdrawn ca. 0.11 m. from the tip of the overhang. On the end of one of the fragments of blocks from the crown moulding is cut a letter zeta; in the absence of other letters, the significance of this remains uncertain. Above the crown moulding came the pavement of the Bema, at the same level as the stylobate behind. All aroundthe edge it consisted of slabs about 0.30 m. thick. A number of these have been preservedin whole or in part (P1.453)and it is possible to distinguish two widths among them; one series is about 0.82 m. wide, the other 0.79 m. The former 18 This is perhaps substantiated by the phraseology of an inscription from Corinth (Broneer, Hesperia, VIII, 1939, pp. 181ff.); at the end of the text of the rescript is the notation that it was read "pro rostris." Of course the Bema might well have been called "rostra" without the actual beaks, but as Broneer observes, the term is rare outside of Rome. The term would, however, be natural if the beaks were actually employed in the design.
indicates that the narrowerblocks went along the sides. All of the blocks are adequately smoothed on the top, if not polished, and have anathyrosis along the top of the joint surfaces of both sides and the back. This indicates that the pavement was continuous over the Bema, but the concrete in the interior of the surface of the Bema is higherthan at the edges, and the main part of the floorwas thereforeof thinner slabs or even mosaic. This succession of elements was the facing of the Bema on the front and sides along the scholae (Plan H); from the line of the Retaining Wall back, the paving slabs or stylobate were the lowest elements. The stylobate, most of which is still preserved in situ (Pls. 382; 461) consists of blocks widerthan the edging slabs of the pavement, but of the same height. On the blocks in situ are dowel holes with pour channels, and pry-holes indicating that it bore a facade with a central opening some 2.30 m. wide, with piers separating it from smaller side openings about 1.10 m. wide. The weather marks for the bases of the piers by the central opening are ca. 1.00 m. long (east and west), and 0.90 m. wide (north and south). The eastern setting shows a pry-hole at the end of each pour channel, indicating that the base consisted of two pieces, an eastern and a western, with dowel for each, pushed together from the outside by crowbars.The arrangementof dowels for the western pier shows one dowel hole without a pour channel. Conceivablythis was set first, and leaded by a slight hollow in the stylobate extending from the joint, later covered by the second block. Extending from the smaller openingswere walls terminating in antae with a base indicated by a pair of dowel holes on the stylobate at the eastern opening; the correspondingblock of the stylobate from the other side has been found, but is not in situ. These bases must have been of a single piece, as they could
IL
I-- I.
.:
- I-
-.
- I
CWn.
FIGURE 57. CORNER STYLOBATE OF BEMA
west). Nevertheless, each has two dowel holes. The southwestern corner of the stylobate, not in situ, (P1. 462; Fig. 57), shows dowel cuttings for a base similar to those just described.No clear traces exist on the stylobate for what came between these piers, for the eastern half was worn smooth during the use of the structure as a church, and the western corner block is lightly roughed all over, as though it had been entirely covered. None of the well-preserved pavement blocks shows any indication of having borne anything structural, but one fragment is preservedwith a dowel hole similar to those on the stylobate, and another fairly large fragment (P1. 451; Fig. 54) is preserved with a pry-hole in it, indicating that something heavy was shifted across it. The position of these blocks, and the nature of the superstructurewill become clear below.
............ ..........
0.85
=.....
K^-' -, . '
1;
10
O22o
x
'
m
I
:.
40
/ ::
60
FIGURE 58. FRAGMENT OF BASE FOR PIER OF BEMA
One inference about the superstructure,however, is clear from the evidence reviewed above: it included a series of fairly massive piers or columnsresting on rectangularbases. One fragment comprisinga little more than half of a marble base has been found that in all probability belongsto the series in question. (P1.463; Fig. 58). The attribution derives from the similarity of the dowel holes to those on the stylobate, the scale, and the severe Ionic profile recalling the base moulding in the scholae. If restored symmetrically, it
white marble weathered to a rich golden color. The real clue to the restoration of the superstructurelies in a series of white marble piers, well, if not perfectly, smoothed. All show diminution. The first of these, A, is
6
o.779.
?_
.
A
d
4.^
a
.
^ ?
i
:_
'm0
I-
!
j
SP
100
T
e~
"p
:-.oo
40
FIGURE
59.
FRAGMENT
OF PIER A OF BEMA
representedby several fragments and one almost complete but battered section (PI. 471; Fig. 59) about 1.95 m. long; ca. 0.79 m. thick at one end and 0.75 m. at the other, and ca. 0.45 m. wide at one end, and 0.425 m. at the other. At the wider end of the block is preserved one dowel cutting, not in the center, but implying a correspondingdowel at
pier are dressedsmooth, but in one of the broad sides is a cutting ca. 0.31 m. wide at the bottom, 0.295 m. wide at the top, and 0.03 m. deep, constituting a broad shallow groove extending the whole height of the block. On two of the fragments which, because of the asymmetrical placing of the dowels may be taken as preserving the bottom end of another block, the whole bottom of the side has been cut back rather roughly, extending the groove, although not so deeply or so neatly, for the whole width of the block. This cutting could have existed on the complete example, but the surface is broken away at the critical point. The second type is representedby two fragments, neither completely preserved, of a pier B ca. 0.78 m. thick and 0.54 m. wide (P1. 472; Fig. 60). On the broad surface is a cutting correspondingexactly to the groove on pier A; on the other, narrow, side is a similar cutting whose width is not preserved, but which could not have exceeded
.?OO
................
o.o26
.0.A75
o.781
to
2o
0
FIGURE
60.
40
FRAGMENT
6o
7o
OF PIER B OF BEMA
0.25 m., as the surface from the edge of the cutting to the preserved corneris 0.285 m., leaving only 0.25 m. to the other (restored)comer. Presumably some dressedsurface lay between the other edge of the cutting and the adjoining corner,so the groove could not have been, in all probability, more than ca. 0.20 m. wide. The third pier, C, is representedby a single example (P1.473;Fig. 61), whoselowerend, bearing two dowels, is preserved.Its width is ca. 0.73 m. and its thickness 0.38 m. On the broad side, again, is a groove, this time ca. 0.19 m. wide, but showing some diminution, beginning about 0.06 m. from the nearest corner, and thus obviously correspondingto the second side of Pier B. In short, then, the three piers represent an L-shaped arrangement with thick slabs ca. 0.30 m. thick, extending between A and B, and thinner slabs ca. 0.19 m. thick extending between B and C.
described above. The dowels do not exactly fit in these two particular pieces, but the general arrangementis the same. It is also clear that pier A could rest on a base like the one described beside the side openings on the stylobate; pier B could rest at the corner, and pier C would stand somewherealong the flank of the building on a paving slab like that of which a fragment was noted above. This could not have been at the outer corner of the Bema, since a corner block of the pavement is preserved entire without cuttings of any kind; the other logical place would be immediately above the back of the schola.
aa_
a
M_
.a a. 729
VV
0.73
1/4.
~~1 *-~~
>
-:~~~~~**.'*;'**|
~~-
y~~1
_
IM L
_
0.733
to
o
,n ,m
11.......
_____ _
5o
loo
..... .
12o
C'I .
FIGURE 61. FRAGMENT OF PIER C OF BEMA
It will be noted that on pier C the surface of the lower end is cut back for the entire width in the same manner as the groove up the side. Significantly, too, this cutting is not in a straight line, but curves from the groove, and has a slight rise at the outer end. This cutting is 0.17 m. high, or with the height of the base beneath it (0.227 m.) its edge would be 0.39-0.40 m. above the floor of the Bema. To fit this cutting there is one of a pair of two sections of a blue marble bench (PI.481;Fig. 62), finished smooth on the rear surface, but rising behind the seat to a flat bedding 0.19-0.20 m. wide. At the joint is a
above the bottom is 0.38 m.; in other words, if the pier were set on the base, the seat would fit exactly into the cutting across the bottom, and project up into the groove. It is worth noting that the end of the seat shows a slightly different trim along a line 0.23 m. from the bottom, indicating special cutting to fit base and pier. The total length of the seat is 1.04 m. This is too short for the postulated distance between piers C and B, and furthermore,there is another complete example of the same size, and fragments of other similar blocks in addition to the two complete examples. The two complete blocks, however, each ca. 1.04 m. long, would neatly fit the postulated distance. 2,o X~~2p86
4T_1 *_-------------------
I
~
-
1.o46
--7 -------_-
r---
--
.o4
p6
^ol-'97
-
to
AA;
FIGURE
o
20 2o L?n
40
60?
c
62. SEAT BLOCKS FROM SIDE OF BEMA
The second complete example has a rather battered projection on the face at the end opposite its junction with the first. This projection indicates that some projecting mass occupied the corner with the pier. It should be noted of this second seat block that it must have been clamped somehow onto the face of pier B, because there is a clamp cutting in each end. The seats were decorated with some sort of sculptured lion's feet; these are too battered to reveal their originalform clearly. These seats, coming between the corner and the pier along the flank of the Bema, must have rested on a block like that describedabove (p. 102, PI. 451; Fig. 54). The pryhole on the block must represent approximately the end of one of the seats, thus giving the position of the block on one side or the other of the Bema floor. A fragment of another seat block with a similar profile (P1. 482; Fig. 63) shows a bearing surface 0.32 m. across the top; the back of this is not preserved, but it was evidently much thicker than the type already described, for a segment of the surface
back to back on the same block, or at least a high, step-like ledge. From this it appears that between piers A and B also ran a seat along the bottom, facing the interior of the Bema, on which rested a slab fitting into the grooves on the sides of the piers. Orthostates resting on the seats and between the grooves in the piers may be recognized in two types of fragments of blue marble (PI. 483; Fig. 64). A fragmentof one type ca. 0.19 m. thick, is preserved to a height of ca. 1.30 m., and another of the same type shows a width of ca. 0.97 m. The second is some 0.32 m. thick. Both have dowel cuttings, but they are too badly damaged to permit assignment to exact locations. All the
\r
I
"9
j^''
^
9'i
o.678
T%1\ ~"~*~-t~;~-+;;i~:"cm\
o.326
''o
'V
lo
0
20
40
4Jo
tao
FIGURE
63. SEAT BLOCK FROM REAR OF BEMA
FIGURE
64.
FRAGMENT
FROM SIDE
OF ORTHOSTATE
OF BEMA
orthostates of which fragments of any size exist show diminution. A peculiarity lies in the fact that some of the edges are rubbed down a little; correspondingto this the top edges of the seats are also rubbed down, as though when set the two did not join accurately but were trimmed to one even joint. We can, then, surely restore across the stylobate of the Bema three openings, flanked by walls of blue marble between white piers. The walls rest on blue marble seats, which, like the walls, returned part way along the sides. The principaldifficulty seems to be the manner in which the cornerwas turned. It must have been awkwardto have the corner of the pier project over the inside cornerof the seat. The junction of the faces of the seats themselves, as indicated by the projection on the block from the side and perhaps by a
may have been masked by a sculptured device like the dolphin on the corner of the scholae. So far, each point of the restorationhas been reasonably certain, and well attested by tangible evidence of joint and fit. Unfortunately, similar assurancecannot be displayed for the rest of the structure. Rather, a good deal of tentative association and speculative reasoning is involved. The first of the less certain attributions is a block of marble 0.775 m. by 0.445 m. in section, much battered, but apparently originally smooth on three sides, and with anathyrosis on one broad face (P1.491; Fig. 65). This may be suggested as half of one of o.7m
C\\ 2f^ "^ ^'/ /L
\ FIGURE
65.
FRAGMENT
/,
u
-
P. L~ OF PIER BY CENTRAL
-----
O2 ENTRANCE
-<:............ .
d2
c-tn.
TO BEMA
the piers by the central opening. Matched with another similar block, it would have formed a pier 0.78 m. by 0.89 m., or just about the size required. It has been objected that to have a joint on the front surface is undesirable, and this may militate against the suggestion. On the other hand, it has been observed that the base itself was so jointed, and the objection may be to some extent discounted. In any case, the question is not grave, for there can be little doubt that a pier of such dimensions flanked the central opening. The alternative would be a column, but no fragment of a shaft of appropriatedimensionhas been found, and the base for a column would almost certainly have been square, whereas the cuttings for the base on the stylobate indicate a base which was wider than deep. Even more serious is the lack of definite evidence for the superstructure above the arrangement of piers and orthostates established above. Certain inferences may, however, be made from the conclusions already drawn, and from the evidence at hand. In the first place, it would seem almost certain that the blue orthostates in the end bays on the stylobate reached to the top of the piers, and that they, with the piers A and A' which stood on the stylobate, were as high as the central piers. To restore the piers lower would leave the central piers standing high above, free of any contact on either side,
as high as the central piers, they could hardly have stood free in their upper reaches, for they are so narrow - 0.47 m. is only half the width of the central piers - that they would have presented inadequate flanks to a four-pier fa9ade. Their proportions are better - indeed, perfectly - adapted for antae or wall terminations flanking the central piers. That the piers and orthostates rose to a considerableheight, constituting more than a high balustrade, is suggested by the diminution. Hence, in all probability, the facade was a wall penetrated by three openings separated by the central piers. No elements of the upper superstructurecan be positively identified, but some fragments may be assigned with fair probability. First, there is a fragment of a Corinthian pier capital (P1.492) found in the vicinity and of appropriatescale. On the top is a dowel hole near the one preserved corer, suggesting that it was not square but a half capital, belonging, then, to one of Piers A, C, or possibly B. Another fragment of a capital of the same type is cut on a slab, and may represent one element of a capital composed of several pieces fitted together. The capital, however, is the most doubtful attribution. Second, there is a fragment of a frieze (P1. 493) presenting alternating leaves, of the appropriate scale. It is true that this is a common theme, but the fact that similar designs recur in the elements of the scholae may tend to support the attribution to the Bema. Finally, there are two fragments of a cornice (P1. 494) whose dentils suggest a building of some size, but whose overhang is so narrow as to indicate that they did not come from a normal structure. Moreover,the top surface is curiously treated; a narrow band along the edge slopes downward,and is much marked by rain, but the rest of the surfaceis flat, and less weathered. It is hard to imagine this combinationin a usual gable cornice with an appropriately deep pediment, or on a side cornice. In other words, it gives the appearanceof having come from a shallow facade of a large building. In fact, it would be appropriateto a building like the Bema. Finally should be mentioned the fragments of two caryatidlike figures carved against an acanthus column, which were found on the Bema and have been tentatively associated with it ever since their discovery.19In view of the fact that they were found on the ruins and obviously come from a building of unusual character,it is difficult to dismiss them entirely in any attempt to restore the superstructureof the building. But it has been found extremely difficult to place them on any of the piers indicated by the foundations and other remains described above. There remains a slight possibility that they represent a row of Caryatids across the building between the wings, or even a second storey of the facade, but no evidence for such arrangementshas been discovered, and these suggestions, like all others which have so far appearedin various discussions, remain purely speculative. 19
Morgan, A. J. A., XL, 1936, p. 473.
Before leaving the Bema, it is appropriate to refer here to certain modifications. Probably the earliest is the construction of a monument base against the front end of the screen side wall of the eastern schola (Plan F). Its exact size cannot be determined, for it was partly demolished in subsequent times. It projected, however, 1.75 m., and may have been square. It consisted of a base of shallow steps of limestone, and was probably surmounted by a statue. At some later date this was built over by a larger foundation of brick and hard concrete, of which only a small piece is preserved. The nature and purpose of this has not been ascertained. Moreinteresting is the fact that at some later period both scholae were converted into ornamentalfountains. Waterproofcement is still perceptible along many of the joints of the benches and foundations still in situ, and traces of a screen wall of poros, heavily coated with waterproof cement, still exist across the front (P1. 392). These walls cut across the front of the mosaic, thus obliterating any indications of how the front was originally treated. The blocks of poros are clamped together; they were, moreover, neatly clamped to the base blocks under the seats at the ends, and to the membersof the Bema podium opposite. In the western schola, the easternmostlowest block of the screen wall is still in sitt, clamped to the bottom step of the Bema podium. The new wall rose at least 0.75 m. above the schola floor, as indicated by a clamp cutting in the line of the wall on the base moulding of the Bema podium at that corer (P1. 442; Fig. 55). How much higher it stood is uncertain. Part of the reconstructionin connection with the fountain, however, is apparent in the loweringof the marbleAgora pavement in front, and the constructionof a small open drain around the corner of the Bema podium. Into this lowered area (whose original width has not been ascertained)the water basin built in the schola could be drained by a hole through the bottom of the new poros screen wall. In front of the western schola was also found a block of white marble (P1. 392, foreground), reused from some uncertain earlier position, as part of the draw basin for the fountain. The top was hollowed out, and within the trough-like hollow the upper edges of which have broken away, are three deeper hollows, cut or worn away by the vessels that were dipped into the trough. The precise position of the block in relation to the fountain has not been determined,but it undoubtedly lay along the front. In connection with the fountain system a number of water conduits were brought to the area. Remains of one line of terracotta pipes covered with marble slabs, approaching the western basin, are preserved southwest of the schola and in the line of the stairs to the west (P1.602); another, cut down along the south side of the Bema itself, probably brought water to the eastern basin. But most of these arrangementshave been so broken up by later construction that their details are lost.
Directly in front of the Bema, although ca. 15.50 m. distant, is a rectangularfoundation in the Agora, 8.50 m. square20(P1.50). It consists of a pavement of poros blocks, one course deep, and shows no indication of a superstructure, apart from a cutting 0.50 m. wide running around the entire perimeter of the square. The surface of the blocks is not smooth, as for a bedding surface, but roughly cut down, and holds traces of a coarse cement such as was used for the bedding of the marble slabs of the Agora pavement. The stratification, such as it is, at the sides of the foundationshows that the cutting on the edges once held a series of blocks, against which the original pavement was set, but that at a later period the blocks were removed and the pavement extended across the cutting. The inference is that the blocks within the cutting at the edges once stood higher, with a proper bedding surface, but that when the pavement was spread across the area they were hacked down and the cement bedding laid directly on them. In any case, it is difficult to imagine on the foundation any superstructure which would stand to any height. It lies directly over a drain which cuts diagonally under it, and this fact, together with the slight depth of the foundations, suggests that nothing heavy stood upon it. Furthermore, a series of seven roughly cut holes (ca. 0.15 m. in diameter) extends along the side toward the Bema, and seems to belong to the original monument. They seem cut with referenceto the sides of the square, which would have been only coincidence after the foundation was covered with the marble pavement. These holes are even now twenty to thirty centimeters deep, which would be adequate to support any sort of pole that could be set in them, and presumably the poros blocks inside were some centimeters higher before their top was cut down. If there had been any other courses of stone above them, it is difficult to see why they should have been cut so deep. On the other hand, the alignment of the holes, some 1.50 m. from the edge, suggests that their position was determined by some inner line, possibly a platform raised on a step above the broaderlevel, along the inside edge of the holes. The function of the holes might then be to support removable poles holding a rope or chain across the front of the inner area, which would then be assumed to have been enclosed on the other three sides by a parapet. In all probability, then, the foundation representsonly a square platform, surrounded by a step in the. cutting around the edges, with an inner enclosure raised a step higher. The original height of the preserved poros blocks would have been no more than ten or fifteen centimeters above their present level, and the whole was possibly covered with a thin paving of finer stone. 20
A. J. A., XLII, 1938, p. 367.
Extending between the CircularMonumentand the Bema on the east, and the Bema and the Dionysion on the west, ran the Central Shops (Pls. 29, 30, 31; Plan E). These shops were simple but well designed. In general, they provide continuity for the line accented by the Bema in the center, the Circular Monument to the east, and the Dionysion to the west, and they provide a functional as well as aesthetic character for the change in level from the Lower to the Upper Agora. The shops probably were small rooms, vaulted, completely open on the front, or closed with grilles, and with a flat roof accessible from the rear, marking a continuation of the Upper Agora. Undoubtedly a railing of some sort extended all along the length of the northern edge. The west Central Shops consisted of nothing else, although there were probably monuments arranged along the roof, as along the edge of a terrace. The east Central Shops (Plan J; P1. 502) had a more integrated design, for in the middle of the fourteen shops was a larger room with a tetrastyle porch, and probably a gabled roof. These shops completed the separation of the Lower from the Upper Agora. They were presumably the last of the early classical structures on the line, being clearly later than the Round Monument on the east, and possibly later than the Bema complex, as indicated by the arrangementsin the passages flanking the Bema (below, pp. 128ff.). Foundationsand Construction In construction, the two sections are similar, so far as can be determined. The eastern section was built in such a way as to employ the Retaining Wall as the rear wall of the series, except where it was broken through for the deeper central room. The partition walls were made of neatly built opus incertumfaced with small stones of light poros (P1.512). Each partition wall ended at the front with a block of poros, on which was cut a shallow anta, or door jamb (PI. 513). The end walls were made of heavy poros blocks, as were the side walls of the central room. The reason for this lies probably in the fact that the rooms were vaulted (fragmentsof the concrete vaulting were found in Shop I of the western section, P1. 521), which would require heavy end walls to resist the thrust. In all probability, again, the central room of the east Central Shops was not so vaulted, so that heavy walls between it and the adjoiningshops would be desirableto support the thrust from the vaults of the adjoining shops. The sill of the east Central Shops was level throughout in its original state, but at a later period, presumably when the marble pavement of the Agora was laid, the level of the Agora in front dropped0.15 m. from the eastern end to the western end, and the sill was cut down to the new level before all but Shop XII (PI. 522). The sill is almost completely gone from the western group of shops.
Bema, were similar to the eastern group. The others were deeper and wider. The reason for this apparently lies in the fact that the first two shops were built against the end of the Retaining Wall west of the Bema (PI. 381),just as the eastern group. The others, in the apparent absence of the Retaining Wall, were extended further southward, in line with the rear wall of the Dionysion. In the restoration the first three shops are shown like those of the eastern group, with the break coming between III and IV. The reason for this is that such an arrangementplaces the base behind Shop II symmetricallyin the recess so formed. This would possibly imply that the base is earlier than the shops. The base was presumably built at the end of the Retaining Wall, and when the shops were built, room was left for it on the west as well as on the east. Reconstruction- The Shops in General The front of the shops was apparently almost completely open. The sill shows no indications of having supported any wall apart from the antae at the ends of the partition walls, nor any cuttings for doors. It is, in fact, much foot-worn except under the antae. The entrancecould,however,have been closedwith light grillesfastened higherup. The not inconsiderablespan between the antae, some 2.20 m., would have requireda substantial beam as lintel, and it has not been possible to identify any such block. The lintel might have been wooden, but on the other hand, several pieces of a flat arch were found in the area of the shops. There are two types of block, both of keystone shape. One, the wider, would have been set over the anta with its narrow dimension at the top. The narrower,evidently recut from earlieruse, would have acted as the true keystone. This, with a voussoir on each side between it and the pieces set on the antae, would span the opening (Fig. 66). None of the voussoirs has been identified. Presumably, since the shops were vaulted, the roof was flat. This raises a difficult question in regard to the appearance of the building from behind. The roof must have
2.15 0.57
&57 .Ao o
FIGURE
8
66.
.5o
!
FLAT ARCH OVER DOOR OF SHOPS
2.50 m. high inside, the roof would have stood about 3.50 m. above the Lower Agora, whereas the Upper Agora pavement was only about 2.65 m. above, around the Bema. The pavement could have been graded up somewhat to the shops, so that their roof could have been reached by one or two steps, and have served as a promenade at the edge of the Upper Agora, overlooking the Lower. On the whole, it seems likely that it was accessible in certain places, but generally presented a low terrace front, toward the South. A considerablenumber of benches of simple profile and poor marble have been found throughout the Agora (P1. 523); these may have lined the terrace in much of its length. Some heavy monument bases, along the eastern section, behind the central room of the eastern section, and at the east end of the western section, were built against the wall, but no superstructurefor them has been found. Inside, the rooms seem to have been simple, but not without decoration. The walls were plastered, and the plaster in many of them, at least, was decorated in designs in color, of which much was preservedin east Central Shop V (P1.53). The dado was a dark slate blue, the panels yellow surroundedby maroon or Pompeiian red bands. The band in the center, dividing the panels, is almost black with dark green floral or leaf motives running up it. The floor, on the other hand, was of earth, possibly covered with a thin layer of white clay, of which numeroustraces have been found. Reconstruction-
The CentralRoom of the EasternGroup
The east Central Shops have the more articulated design, largely because of the central room. It marked the axis of these shops with its porch; inside it was adorned with a variegatedmarblefloorandwith wallsrevetted with marblepartway, and decorated with painted plaster above. A rectangular base at the rear, and one on each side, must have carriedstatues or other adornment (Pls. 54, 55). This room is solidly built of poros blocks, although the side walls rest on opus incertum. The stylobate of the porch is less neatly constructed of poros blocks resting on bed-rock. Along the west flank, it is deeply worn between the corner and the wall. The eastern flank shows the same condition less markedly, as well as the front, although this is much damaged by fire, so that the stone is pitted and rotten. The wear would indicate that something stood at the corners, protecting them, while people walked between the corners and the wall. Presumably columns stood on the corners, and hence two more columns are inferred for the middle of the facade. The resulting interaxial distance of 2.60 m. would correspondwell enough to the distance between the presumable axis of the cornercolumn and the wall - ca. 2.40 m. A further inference to be drawn from the wearing is significant for the history of the shops. The west flank stylobate is worn rather uniformly over its surface as far as the
pavement of the Agora was laid, for otherwise the edges next the pavement would have been protected. The floor of the porch was possibly earthen originally, although at a later time, at least, it seems to have been paved with thin slabs of blue marble. The room itself evidently had a wall on the front, with a door in the middle. Cuttings extending along the edge of the toichobate indicate that a marble revetment was set into it, and the space between shows a door some 2.00-2.10 m. wide. The interior of the room was paved with marble slabs of various colors, 0.03-0.07 m. thick, set on a well-prepared foundation of sand and broken stone, on which the bedding of cement was laid (P1. 55). Around the walls runs a base-revetment of marble, consisting of a blue marble-socle, surmounted by a simple white marble moulding the blocks of which were well fastened together by tiny clamps (P1.542). The revetment above this has not been identified, but must have continued up for about a meter in thin marbleslabs; the heavy coarse-plaster backing for this is preserved. Above the dado so formed, however, the room must have been decorated in plaster. Numerous small fragments of a fine, hard white plaster were found, some painted in various colors. In addition to fragments of smooth plaster there were many bits of moulded designs, too fragmentaryto reconstruct. In the middle of the back and towards the rear of each side wall were set bases incorporatedinto the construction and design of the wall; probably they went as high as the dado. They must have supported something heavy, as special foundations were dug for them, even below the foundation for the floor. The mannerin which the room was roofed cannot be determinedcertainly; it could, of course, have been vaulted like the shops, but the vault would have been a heavy one, of which fragments should have survived. Moreover,the porch implies a gable front, and the logical solution would be for the room to have a flat ceiling with a gable roof. This must have risen markedly above the Upper Agora behind. The front columns would have been about fifty centimeters in diameter, with a height of three to four and a half meters, depending on the order; the entablature and gable would then have risen above that. Thus, the rear wall must have had eaves two meters high, and a gable peak much higher, above the Upper Agora pavement. It is a question as to how awkward this would have been regarded by architects, but Corinth is a place of rapidly changing levels, and many buildings well designed from the front must have appeared strange from behind. In any case, a heavy foundation running south from the center of the rear wall probably supported a monument of considerablesize, masking the rear of the room to a great extent.
8*
The individual shops present many peculiarities,most of them of no great significance, so far as can be determined. The second shop in the eastern series (Plan J) has a line of re-used poros blocks set along its western wall, apparently added at a later date. It is hard to imagine the purpose of these blocks, unless they served as the support for a bench or shelf along the wall. Shop IV is interesting because it was reconstructedin mediaeval times as a wine press (PI. 561). Miscellaneousmarble blocks were assembled and laid as a floor. The front opening was walled up, and the whole liberally coated with plaster. A hole leads from the front wall into a pithos sunk in the ground in front to collect the juice as it was pressed. Number VI provided space for a group of Byzantine graves - a remarkableneighbor for the wine press, though perhaps not contemporary. Shop IX presents a problem in that the footing trench for the partition wall between it and Shop X is much wider than the others, but probably this was a mistake in construction. Shop XIII was at some secondary period of its use provided with a broad bench or shelf across the back ca. 0.70 m. high. The room was evidently revetted with marble at that time or later, for the edge of the ledge shows clearly in the line where the cement for the marble slabs joined it. The earlier, finer, plaster is preserved in spots that would have been covered by the ledge (P1. 562).
It is perhaps desirable to note here that some previously published photographs of Shop XIV show a marble statue base against the rear wall (Plan E). This is not original, but was set up there during the course of the excavations simply because it was found in the shop; there is no trace of a foundation for it. As to the shops of the western group, it has already been observed that Numbers I and II employ the end of the old Retaining Wall as their rear wall. The partition walls for the next two shops have disappeared, and can be restored only by conjecture. Particularly noteworthy, however, is Shop VI (P1.571).21 This was rebuilt at some late period, the walls being lined with brick, forming a room 2.55 m. wide and 4.25 m. deep. There was a rectangularniche in the back 1.35 m. wide and 0.25 m. deep. The floor was paved with similar tile-like brick. The purpose of this is uncertain; possibly it was some sort of small sanctuary or chapel. It is of significance here, however, that at present there is no indication to show that it ever served as a fountain, as was suggested in the preliminaryexcavation report. Shops VII and VIII were apparently originally connected by a door in the partition wall toward the rear. This door was filled up late in the use of the shop, after the floor had risen some twenty centimeters by a natural accumulation of earth. There is no 21
Morgen, A. J. A., XLIII,
939, p. 260 - then called "the seventh shop." But in the preliminary report the
arrangement of Shops I-VI was restored differently.
partition walls have completely disappearedmay have been. Shop IX shows remains of a crude mosaic floor at a level ca. 0.25 m. above the original floor. Shops X to XIV are almost completely obliterated. A problem of the western group in general arises from the fact that the Agora in front rises about a meter to the west in the length of the shops. Therefore, either the roof sloped evenly with the Lower Agora, which would have produced a curious effect from the south, or the roof was level, producingan even line in referenceto the terracebehind, but making the shops of different heights. The latter seems, in general, preferable. The westernmost shop, where the ground level in front was less than two meters below the level of the Upper Agora, must have risen well over a meter above the surface behind, and perhaps as much as a meter and a half. Under these circumstancesit must inevitably have presented a blank wall to the south. On the other hand, if the roof was level throughout, near the Bema the wall would have been unreasonablyhigh, and a break in the height must be postulated - probably the roof over the three "normal"shops next the Bema matched the eastern group. Later Reconstruction One of the more interesting aspects of the history of the Shops is the fact that in late classical or early Christiantimes they seem to have been completely demolished, and a tremendous flight of steps laid over their entire length, ascending from the lower to the upper levels. Remains of these steps (Plans E, J; PI. 571) exist in numerous places all along their length, even crossing both earlierpassagesflanking the Bema. The steps were cut down from marble architraves and cornices taken from some building or buildings of good size. Their blocks have been regarded as belonging to the shops themselves;22 actually, they vary appreciably in scale and design, so that they could hardly have come from a single building of a good period (e. g., that of the shops), although most of them might have come from a single late building, as might also be suggested by their inferior workmanship. In any case, the present arrangementof re-used cornices in the west and architraves on the east, would be hard to explain if they all came from the shops themselves. The steps must have risen the whole height from the Lower to Upper Agora, but the highest preservedsection lies in front of West ShopsVI and VII, where three treads are preserved, to a height of about a meter (PI. 571). The spectacle of this continuous flight of steps, cheaply built as it was, must have been a rather fine one, extending the whole length of the Agora with the Bema (perhaps at the time flanked by fountains) in the center. 22
Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, p. 262.
It has been observed that the top of the shops in their originalstate might have served as a promenade, and on this promenade monuments of various kinds may have been erected. Remains of several important structures have been found in the area of the shops, for which no built foundations have been discovered, and it is reasonable to assume that these were erected on top of the shops. Such a position, that is to say with a base-line at eye-level or above, is clearly indicated for a monument whose remains consist of a number of paving slabs on one edge of which is a long, finely-cut inscription (P1.572).The slabs are about 0.22 m. thick or high, 1.16 m. front to back, and 1.24 to over 1.50 m. wide, smoothly dressed on top, with anathyrosis on three sides, but with smooth finish on the front. The bottom of the blocks, whose front edge is preserved, shows a smooth finish for about 0.50 m. from the front, but a rough bearing surface for the rest of the area. Coincidingwith the smooth part of the bottom is anathyrosis extending along the lower edge of the side for about 0.50 m. Along the top, about 0.20 m. from theefront edge, is a series of cuttings for a grille or railing, for which the bronze studs still remain in some of the holes. Clearly, then, these blocks come from a position of some elevation, possibly overhanging a few centimeters, and with the edge protected by a railing. A cornerblock and one side block are preserved, indicating that the pavement faced in two directionsfrom its high position, but probably the elevation on one side was less great, or less dangerous,for the grille does not extend along the side. On some of the blocks a rough channel has been cut in the floor, leading off the side on the corner block. Not all of the blocks havee this channel, indicating that it ran only part of the length of the pavement. One fragment of a block, whether from the front or side is not clear, has a dressed bearing surface on the top, with a dowel hole and a pour channel wholly preserved, and the pour channel of another dowel. These indications, if we assume a symmetrical restoration, imply that an object some fifty by eighty centimetersstood upon it. Unfortunately the position of this block in relation to the others cannot be determined. One fragment of the corner block has a curious cutting at the inner corner, presumably for a patch to remedy a fault in the stone. The inscription on the front face of these blocks can be restoredin some parts, but not completely. On the corner block and fragments of the adjoining block occurs the beginning of the inscription: --- PU] BLILIUS TYRANNUS --No other letters seem to be preserved from the second block, nor, so far as can be determined, from the third, which is represented by a fragment showing the beginning of
which seems to have deepened uniformly along its length: on the first block it is much deeper than on the third. The fragment in question, moreover, comes from the right hand edge of the third block. Possibly the fourth block, although it cannot be demonstrated, is one representedby two adjoining fragments with the inscription: CN PUBLIL[IUS The other fragments consist of three left-hand corners, beginning respectively RE, AT and AL; two from mid-block have IAS or NAS - and one, ONIA; and one right-hand corner has parts of letters which may be I or N followed by F or E. These fragments have baffled repeated efforts at restoration; one of the more interesting and plausible suggestionsis to associate RE with CN PUBLIL -i. e., CN PUBLIL[IUS] RE[GULUS, which might serve to amend the acceptedname of one of the Corinthianduovirs usually given as Publicius Regulus, although on the coins the Cin "Publicius"looks rather more like an L. In any case, it seems clear that the blocks come from a series at least seven or eight in number, or with a total length of nine to fourteen or more meters. Various suggestions have been made as to their disposition, among others that they served as a central speaker'splatform on the floor of the Bema itself. Thereseems to be no architectural justification for this view, however, or traces on the other Bema paving blocks. It was also thought that they might in fact come from two identical or similar texts, standing above and behind the scholae by the Bema. The restoration of this section of the Bema complex, however, seems sure, and there is no place for the inscribed blocks. It has also been suggested that they ran for the whole length of the shops, providing a coping above the shops and a parapet along the edge. In general, in the absence of more definite indications, it seems inevitable that they did form at least part of thshops, perhapsof a restrictedarea delineated for some of the pavement of the roof the special purpose. Also found in the vicinity were fragments of two curved exedrae or small round buildings. One of these, A, is represented by several fragments of a stylobate 0.24 m. high (P1. 581), two fragments of a massive orthostate ca. 0.28 m. thick (P1. 582); one "anta" (P1.583),and two fragmentsof entablature (P1.584)0.29 m. high and 0.283 m. thick at the bottom, with overhang on both sides.23The orthostate was cut on a circleof about 5.20 m. That the stylobate and orthostates come from the same structureis indicated by the fact that one of the latter has been cut back to a straight line along the outer surface of the bottom, and traces of a similarmodificationappearin rough cuttings and weathering on one of the stylobates. The recutting has not been explained, but at least seems to connect the blocks. The "anta" consists of a vertical pillar with an L-shaped plan, which 23
One of these bears the letters D -S, all that remains of some text (West, Corinth, VIII, ii, no. 128).
across the front. The outer face, continuing the face of the orthostate, is curved, but the other surfaces are flat. The other exedra, B, is representedby four fragments of entablaturefacing both directions, 0.23 m. high and 0.21 m. wide at the bottom (Pl. 591). The arcs of the fragments vary, but they certainly belong to the same monument which, then, was not built on a true semicircle. The proofof the association is the series of letters cut on the interior cornersof the entablature.Onepreservedleft-hand cornerhas the letter B; one completeblock has I' on the left, A on the right; a third has 1 (all that shows could be interpreted as xi, but this is hardly possible) on the left. The fourth is broken at both ends. The alphabetical series, however, A-B, B-F, r-A, A-E, E-Z shows that there were at least five cornices. In calculating the approximatesize of the monument, on the rough assumption that is was nearly semi-circular,if there were five blocks each as long as the complete piece, or 0.78 m. on the interior chord, the interior arc would be about 4.00 m., which is half a circle of eight meters, the perimeter of a circle about two and a half meters in diameter. The approximate calculations of the various curves, however, suggest that the diameter was probably closer to four meteers,with a circumferenceof over twelve meters, implying that there would have been about eight entablatureblocksin the entire arc. This would bring the completely preservedblock r-A, to the position of third on the left-hand side. At the back, or outside, of this block the mouldings of the entablature are cut away for half the distance, on the right hand of the block (from the point of view of the observerwithin the circle)i. e., behind the delta. The overhang is cut at an angle, and a clamp cutting leads diagonally from the top of the block toward the cutting. This implies that something was attached to the entablature on the outside at this point. Presumably this was a pilaster of some sort. It will be observed that if a similarpilaster is postulated for the exterior of the beginning of the circle, behind the alpha on the first block, then half of the first, the whole of the second, and half the third, would separate the two pilasters, or a total of two block lengths. Two more block lengths A-E and E-Z from the pilasterbehind the A would reach to a position behind a zeta on the left hand of the sixth block from the beginning, or symmetrical on the circumferenceof the circle, with the pilaster behind the delta; two more block lengths (half the I-H, all of H-?, and half of 0-I, the last block) would reach a position at the front of the semicircle on the right hand end. In short, the exedra would be roughly semicircular,with a pilaster at each end and two symmetrically disposed behind. In all probability, each of these exedrae had benches running around the interior, but none of these is preserved. For the foundations behind the Shops, and that behind the west schola of the Bema, no superstructurehas been identified.
Access from the Lower to the Upper Agora was provided, in the fully developed period, by five passages: one east of the Circular Monument (A); one between the eastern group of Central Shops and eastern schola (B); one between the western schola of the Bema and the western range of shops (C); one between the western group of shops and the Dionysion (D); and one at the west end of the terrace (E). The principal facts about passage A (P1. 332; Fig. 46; Plan E) east of the Circular Monument have already been presented (pp. 78, 85). In the periodbeforethe Monument and the Retaining Wall it consisted of a road at a low level, ascendingtoward the southeast. On the construction of the Retaining Wall, the passage continued as a road, shifted slightly westward and elevated considerably to rise on a ramp supported by spurs of the Retaining Wall on east and west. The construction of the Monumentmay have involved a slight loweringof the level of the road; certainly the curve of the podium of the Monument encroached on the passage, making it extremely narrow. But at this time the eastern wall of the ramp may have been removed and the road moved further east. The reconstruction of the podium as a square does not seem to have affected the road, but at a late period a flight of shallow steps was put in, probably at the cost of the bulge of the curved wall of the podium still remaining. Passages B and C, flanking the Bema complex, have not been considered(Plans F, G; P1. 6012). It will be recalled, however, that there is some reason for believing that the terrace of the fourth-century Greek Agora was penetrated at approximately the region of passage B by a road leading south. There are also indications of a road leading diagonally across the Agora from the east end of the South Stoa to the northwest corner of the Agora, during the period of the ruin of the city between 146 and 44 B.C. This road may be recognized in a cobbled surface with wheel ruts directly south of Shop XIV of the eastern group of Central Shops. It is obviously earlier than the Shops, as one wheel rut would cross the rear corner of the Shops; and it is almost certainly earlier than the Retaining Wall, for it seems to have been cut by the foundations for that wall behind the eastern schola. The road may be recognizedagain in the remains of a cobbled surface in the middle of the Lower Agora north of passage C, continuing in the same direction to the northwest. On the other hand, the construction of the Retaining Wall must have blocked these early lines of traffic, which presumably were diverted to the west, passing around the end of the Retaining Wall west of the Bema. But upon the construction of the Bema. a passage was created on the eastern side at least. The east wall of the eastern schola (P1.601)is built so as to overlap a neatly cut gutter of marble which runs along the base of the wall to the east and disappearsin a channel under the north end of the screen wall. This does not at present continue to the extreme southern end of the euthynteria of
surface of the euthynteria is treated as an exposed surfaceup to the line of the Retaining vethis continued far. The gutter Wall, so that the gutter, too, may be assumed to have must have been intended to carry away the water coming down a passage through the terrace, for the schola had no roof and there would be no other reason for water to converge at that particular point. Indeed, two parallel heavy foundations continue south from the passage as it now exists, and seem certainly to have been designed to flank the original passage. They can scarcely be later than the schola, for a block of the rear wall of the schola rests on a projecting edge of the lowest foundation course of the flanking walls in question. They might, of course, be earlier, but it has seemed impossible to explain them functionally as earlier construction. Between these foundations, then, lay a passage which, for at least part of its length, descended to the level of the gutter beside the schola. The remains of marble steps which exist at present at the foot of this passage are probably not from the original construction, for in the first place they conceal part of the portions of the schola probably intended to be seen, and in the second place they rest on the marble paving slabs which are presumably to be associated with the marble pavement of the Agora in general, and this is later than the Bema (p. 149). Furthermore, the gutter along the schola wall suggests that the original passage was not paved, for if it had been there would have been little use for the gutter. On the other hand, there probably were steps, beginning at the line of the Retaining Wall. It would requiretwelve steps of 0.22 m. riser to make up the differencein level; the eleven treads of approximately thirty centimeterswould mean that half the distance between the ends of the flank foundations would be occupied by the flight of steps; a ramp would hardly have ascended so steeply, and it does not seem likely that the whole distance between the flanking foundations was devoted to the ascent.24 What superstructurestood on the foundations cannot be surely determined,25but it is almost certain, everything considered, that they carried an ornamental arch. A small fragment of a marble slab from the facing of an arch of ca. 3.00 m. span has been found near the Bema, supporting the hypothesis to a slight degree. 24
The restored drawings (Plans E, F, G and H) show the actually existing steps, rather than the hypothetical original flight. 25 Large fragments of a blue marble arch were found in the immediate vicinity, at first glance suggesting that they rested on the foundations, and spanned the passage. Unfortunately, the calculated inner diameter of the arch, ca. 1.40 m., is too little for the distance between the foundations (some 2.50 m.). It is, of course, possible that the arch was quadripartite - i. e., had four openings, one in each direction, although this would be surprising for an arch so small. In view of the lack of identified remains of the arch, the reconstruction in the drawings is, of course, wholly imaginative and the details were not seriously considered. When they had been completed, it was pointed out by H. A. Thompson that the type of arch represented was abnormal, in that a single order should carry the entablature over the vault, instead of reaching only to the impost. But it appears that the double arch at Saintes, dated 17 A. D., has exactly the treatment given to the arch by the Bema in our drawings, and we have left it unchanged. See Graef in Baumeister Denkmdlerdes Klassischen Altertums,Vol. III, 1888, p. 1884 and pl. LXXXI, 5; and Curtis, "Roman Monumental Arches," in Suppl. Papers of the American School in Rome, Vol. II, 1908, p. 46.
of the schola, creating a hall or corridorapproachingthe stairs, and still later the marble pavement was laid, for which the poros wall of the shop was slightly undercut. The drip from the edge of the shop roof has weathered the pavement along the edge quite severely, so severely, in fact, that it has been well suggested that the pitting of the marble is better explained as an indication that the wall was used as an impromptu urinal, a possibility which will come as no surpriseto thoe familiar with European, and especially Mediterraneanhabits. At this, or a still later date, the present marble stairs were set in, involving some further undercutting of the wall of the shop, and weather lines on the wall suggest that, further, at some advanced period, these stairs were covered with earth or gravel, to create a ramp or road some fifty centimeters higher. This may have occurredat the time when the rest of the line of the terrace was remodelled as a continuous flight of steps, for no traces of this reconstructionexist in this passageway, and it would be reasonable to suppose that some space was provided for wheeled traffic. Passage C (P1.602), to the west of the Bema, seems to have had a differenthistory. There are no traces of an ornamental gateway behind this passage. In fact, the lack of any trace of foundation at a high level implies rather definitely that there never was any. Furthermore, the absence of a gutter such as that beside the eastern schola rather indicates that in the original period there was no passage here at all. Actually, the proximity of the western end of the Retaining Wall would have renderedsuch a passage ornamentalrather than useful. There is, to be sure, a rather odd feature at the comer of the schola wall and the line of the Retaining Wall - a pithos or jar about 0.50 m. deep, sunk in the ground as though to collect water. But there is no outlet to the pithos, and so far the vessel remains unexplained. It would appear, then, that the first passage in this line was built when the western section of shops was built, renderingit necessary. Presumably light retaining walls for a flight of stairs were built at a high level behind the Retaining Wall. The marble steps now in situ seem to belong to a later reconstruction; here, indeed, behind these marble steps, are two poros blocks which look like steps, and which may have been the original stairs in the passage, from the period of the shops. Possibly they were sheathed with thin marble slabs, although there is no indication of this. In any case, it is clear that this passage was closed by the final grand staircase stretching the length of the Agora, for the entrance of the passage is now closed by the first risers of that series. Passage D (P1.371), east of the Dionysion, was probably originally a ramp. It did not come into being, of course, until the construction of the western section of the shops, for previously the two levels probably merged. The construction of the shops entailed the construction of a passage between the building and the shops, but the present stairs seem to be quite late; at least, the stratum of earth on which they rest seems to carry
coins. Passage E, at the extreme west, seems originally to have been a ramp whose rise began at the stylobate of the front of the building. There is no definite evidence for the date of the construction of the stairs now in position.
III. CHRONOLOGYAND IDENTIFICATION Some problems of identification and chronology have already been briefly discussed, or tacitly assumed. It remains now to consider the buildings as a whole - their history, and their significance. The date of the early stoa along the eastern line of the Central Terraceis a matter of some doubt, but it may be put, with some confidence, before the restoration of Corinth in 44 B.C. This follows primarilyfrom the probability that had the Retaining Wall been earlierthan the stoa, it would have been employed as the rear wall of the stoa, as it was, in fact, used as the rearwall of the Central Shops. It might further be argued that if the stoa had been in existence when the Retaining Wall was laid out, the rearwall of the stoa would have been used as a retaining wall. This implies that the stoa was in ruins when the Retaining Wall was built. In view of the fact, as will be demonstrated, that most of the buildings involved were erected before the middle of the first century after Christ, there is scarcely time for the stoa to have been built, fall in ruins, and then for the rest of the development to have occurredwithin that century. Thereforeit is probable that the stoa dates from before the destruction by Mummius. This dating is, to a slight degree, supported by the apparent fact that the road of the desertion period from the east corner of the South Stoa to the northwest corer of the Agora seems to deviate slightly to the south of the direct line, so as to avoid the cornerof the central stoa located just east of the western corner of the Shops. This deviation is slight, and possibly insignificant, but may be cited as in some degree corroboratingthe pre-destructiondate of the building. The question of how early the stoa actually is, can hardly be settled. It seems rather unlikely, in a way, that it should have been constructed after the South Stoa, projecting part way across the Agora in front of the larger building. Furthermore,the cobble pavement which is apparently associated with the South Stoa appears behind this central stoa at about the floor level of that building, and level - that is, not sloping down toward the north. This suggests that the pavement was laid out sloping down from the South Stoa, but leveled off with reference to the wall of the central stoa. All of these indications are minor, and inconclusive, but taken together they imply that the central stoa is earlierthan the South Stoa, and hence dated probably from the late fifth or early fourth century. This is not inconsistent with a general view of the development of the
final judgement must be reserveduntil after a thoroughinvestigation of the GreekAgora itself. Final judgement about the purpose of the building must also be reserved, but it may be suggested here that it had some connection with the race-trackin front of it. In any case, there can be little doubt that the Retaining Wall is Roman, and one of the earliest Roman structures in Corinth. The footing trench behind, where examined, produced only Hellenistic pottery, although some of it was as late as the first century B.C. The construction of such a terrace, moreover, is in keeping with the general problem of the earliest colonists, who would first of all need to clear the area for their Agora, removing the debris of destruction, decay, and erosion. The inclusion of quantities of re-used material in the wall is further in keeping with the general practice of that time. Probably of the same period, as has been explained, is the building with the semicircular room, called throughout the Dionysion, whose construction may be put in the exact period of the planning of the new Agora. Although the style of constructionof the building, with little obviously re-used material, and its close alignment with the Shops, suggest a date close to that of the Shops themselves, no pottery or coins necessarilylater than the first century B.C. was found in significant strata, and an early date is further suggested by the facts of the relation of the various levels of the buildings. These are, to summarize,the hard-packedsurface at the level of the top of the first foundation course, well below the preservedAgora pavement which in turn lies lower than its predecessors; the half-finish of the second course of blocks, and the floorlyingat the level of the top of these blocks; and the inadequate bedding of the stylobate and door walls of the wings on the first foundation course. It is indeed extraordinary that the building should have been erected in a pit, a pit, indeed, which must have been fairly deep, at the back at least, if the meter of accumulatedgravel above stylobate level at the southwesterncorner is recalled. It has been suggested that the buildingwas originallydesigned as a fountain house (with basins at a level lower than the surroundingsurface),and to this the extraordinary similarityof plan between it and the fountainin Tenos26lends plausibility,but there is no other indication that the buildingever served in this capacity, and another solution to the disparity of levels is possible. If the building itself be postulated as one of the earliest structuresprojectedon the refoundingof the city, at that time, quite obviously, a regrading of the Agora must have been undertaken. It might have been the understanding of the architects that the level of the new Agora was to be some fifty centimeters below what it actually proved to be, so that they preparedthe bedding for the floor of their structure at that level. Then it was decided not to make the Agora so low, and the architects were compelled during the course of work on the lower courses of the building to change the floor level to its present position. New fill was brought in, the 26
Orlandos, 'Apx. 'Ep., 1937, pp. 608-20 (appeared in 1938).
to enlarge the interior diameter of the central room, and work proceded to completion.
Admittedly this hypothesis assumes an unusual combination of circumstances, and available evidence is scant. But the problem is peculiar, and although another solution may be possible, it has as yet failed to appear. The purpose of this building, too, eludes final definition, although it seems clear that it had some cult significance,because of the altar in front of it.27In Pausanias' account of the sanctuaries "on the agora," he mentions first28"Artemis, surnamed Ephesian, and (two) xoana of Dionysos," whose history he gives in some detail. Then follows a list of cults which can be identified with the buildings on the West Terrace, beginning with temple F (which has been identified with his Temple of Tyche), just beside the building with the semi-circularroom. If the periegete'svisit to the city be reconstructed,he seems to have come up the road from Kenchreai, entering the Upper Agora either at the southwest corner, or west of the South Basilica and beside the Bouleuterion. Thence he seems to have gone immediately to the sanctuaries, which he would have reached most directly by crossing the Upper Agora toward the building with the semi-circularroom, and the West Terrace. The statue of Artemis cannot be localized other than generally, but the xoana of Dionysos might have stood in the semi-circularroom, one on each of the bases at the sides. Pausanias makes no mention of a building housing them, but they must have been sheltered somehow, since they were of wood, with faces painted red. He
does not specify a temple; this is not of decisive significance, but at least does not detract from the hypothesis that they stood in the building. Nor is it inappropriatethat one of the pre-Roman cults, which, from his account, the xoana represent, should have been one of the earliest housed. The question may indeed be raised as to how the xoana survived the century of desolation, but this need disturb the modem historian no more than it did Pausanias, at least in the problem of identifying the site of the sanctuary. Obviously Pausanias saw something that was regardedby the natives as of great antiquity; something must have been available to the colonists, either the original xoana or adequate substitutes, and 27 The original suggestion, that it was a guild-hall (Morgan,A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, p. 262) to which might be added the idea that it was the early curia and seat of the chief officials in the Roman colony, seems plausible from the shape of the rooms (compare the almost identical plan of the Bouleuterion at Eleusis - cf. Kourouniotes, Guide or Broneer's translation, on their large plan of the remains of the great sanctuary; also W. A. McDonald, The Political Meeting Places of the Greeks,[Baltimore, 1943], pp. 187-89, 285), and the fact that rooms for the Roman officials frequently appear in threes, although these seem rather small for any important civic function. Again, some similarity in the plan of the building and of the Sanctuary of the Standards, which appears in Roman camps might be considered significant, Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquit6s Grecques et Romaines, s. v. "Signa," Vol. IVB, p. 1324. Cf. plan of Lambaesis, ibid., Vol. IVA, p. 641, fig. 5791, room 4. Cf. also Palmyra - Wiegand and others, Palmyra (Berlin, 1932), p. 94ff., pls. 48-50, with plans of Lambaesis and Vetera ad Xante, on p. 104. It might be argued that such a sanctuary would be appropriate to the early settlers of a Roman colony. But this cult does not seem to have been particularly early, nor was Corinth a martial colony in any noteworthy sense, so perhaps the suggestion should not be given too much weight. 28 II, 2, 6.
attaches to all pre-destructioncults which were revived and practicedin Roman Corinth, and it really centers on the extent to which the city was depopulated. This, of course, is beyond the province of the present discussion. However preserved, the cult would have had a suitable home in the building with the semi-circular room, which may then, at least tentatively, be called the sanctuary of Dionysos Bakkheios and Dionysos Lysios, the particularnames of the xoana. The xoana, being light, would not have required massive supports, but could have stood on bases without special foundation; they could have received offerings on the table between them, and sacrifices on the altar in front, and their cult paraphernaliaand treasures, if any, could have been housed in their respective store-roomson either side. The CircularMonument, as has been shown, is earlier than the Shops. The date of these is well established, for in several locations below the floor level of the shops were found coins as late as the reign of Tiberius, so that they may be dated roughly in the second quarter of the first century after Christ (see p. 130). There can be little question but that the CircularMonument in its original form is very early; it employs re-used material from Greek buildings lavishly, and underwent several reconstructions before the Shops were built. If its periodswere spaced out evenly, the Retaining Wall being built about 40 B.C., the Monument would fall about 15 B.C.; the transformation into a rectangular podium ca. A.D. 15; the cutting of the niche on the west side, and the Shops, ca. A.D. 40-50. This may seem a brief time for so many changes, but twenty years of actual use is an appreciableperiod. The identification of the Monumenthas been consideredby Broneer,29who sees in it a successor to the curved terrace south of the fourth century B.C. race-course, and restores it on the basis of a series of coins of the second century after Christwhich show a high tapering column bearing a statue, and flanked by horsemen30(PI. 592). The manifold relationships considered in connection with the Monument in his discussion are largely beyond the scope of present considerations,but it is altogether probablethat the Monument is in some way the successor of the curved terrace. The fact that when the Retaining Wall was built, a ridge of ground was left extending northward along the road to the east suggests that originally there was a ridge between the road and the drain to the west, which was preservedby the curved terracein Greektimes, and which, on the refounding of the city, was somehow regarded as worthy of preservation, even when the rest of the area in front of the Retaining Wall was graded down. This ridge, or the remainingstub of it, was marked by the CircularMonument,whose function in short would seem to have been to perpetuate and monumentalizethe elevation. Furthermore, 29
Hesperia, XI, 1942, pp. 145, 153-4. Of other suggestions for the restoration of the superstructure, that of Gorham P. Stevens, that the base was support for a trophy or that of W. B. Dinsmoor that it held a group of statues seem most reasonable, but in view of the representation on the coin, the restoration with a column is preferredin this account. 30
of the curved terrace. Whether the cutting in the CircularMonument held a basin, and if so where the water to fill it came from, cannot be established, but it is nevertheless a feature of such remarkablecoincidence that it cannot be ignored. It has been suggested that the Monument constituted a meta, or turning post, for races held in the Agora, but this may be questioned, particularly in view of the narrow passage left by the Circular Monumentfor the road to the east. But that it marked a place of continuing significance in both Greek and Roman cult history seems inescapable. On the basis of present knowledge, the exact significance cannot be more closely defined. As to the identification of the Bema, there can be no doubt.31The form of the structure is adapted only to the functions of a public speaking platform, and the arrangementsare strikingly similar to those of the Rostra in Rome. The existence of such a building is attested by literature,in the passage(Acts, XVIII, 12-17) describingthe trial of St. Paul, which took place at the Bema in a public place large enough to accomodate a riotous crowd, showing that it could not have been inside another building, but must have been in the open, undoubtedly in the Agora.Moreover,an inscription32states (line 18) that the text had been read "before the rostra," again implying a speaking platform in a public place. Thus there need be no hesitation or reserve in the identification of the structure. The building is, nevertheless, almost unique in that it has no close parallels among other provincial rostra. Usually the latter are simply platforms in front of temples, like those before the temples of the Deified Caesar,and of Castor,in Rome, or the platform in front of the Temple of Jupiter at Pompeii and the rostra at Timgad, Gigthis (Boughara) and Fufitula (Sfeitla) ;33 or they were isolated but much simpler structures, as at Philippi.34 In view of the material and magnificence of the Bema, it must be later than the CircularMonument, and it is probably earlier than the Shops - i. e., it must date from the first half of the first century after Christ. The reasons for dating the Bema earlier than the Shops are perhaps tenuous and somewhat subjective, but the complete removal of classical fill from around the foundations has renderedany wholly objective dating impossible. The reasons are, however, as follows. In the first place, it seems clear that the Bema cannot be later than the Shops, for otherwise the gap between the eastern and western section would be extremely difficult to explain. It is barely possible that the east CentralShops were earlier,and that the Bema was built later, perhaps at the same time as the west CentralShops, or perhaps earlier than they. But the similarity of the construction of the two groups of shops 31 Brooneer, "The Topography of Corinth in the Time of St. Paul," 'ApX. 'Eq?.,1937, pp. 125-128 (appeared in 1938). 32 Broneer, "An Imperial Rescript from Corinth," Hesperia, VIII, 1939, pp. 181ff. 33 Cagnat and Chapot, Manuel d'archeologieRomaine, Vol. I (Paris, 1916), pp. 123-6. 34 Collart, Philippes ville de Macedoine (Paris, 1937), p. 332, pl. XLVI.
must be contemporarywith the shops or earlier. That it is not contemporary seems to follow from several considerations. First, the arrangement of the series of buildings as a whole seems to be striving toward balance and symmetry, but they are not actually symmetrical, for the Bema is not in the center. If the whole complex were of one period, or one design, it would have been more natural and perfectly easy to build them with real symmetry, with the Bema in the center, simply by locating the axis of the Bema about five meters farther west. On the other hand, if the Bema had been built as a free-standing monument, it is well enough located, approximately in the center of the line, and the problem of the builders of the Shops was simply to adjust their structures to the slight difference. The second point suggesting the earlier date of the Bema lies in the arrangement of the passages to the east and west (p. 121). It has been pointed out that along the outside of the east wall of the eastern schola is a marble gutter which implies a stairway or ramp through the terrace. This is, in fact, represented by the foundations for what has been interpreted as an arch behind, probably contemporary with the Bema. On the other hand, there is no such gutter outside the outer wall of the western schola, which may tend to indicate that when the western schola was built there was no passage through the terrace behind it, but that traffic simply passed around the end of the Retaining Wall not far to the west. If there is any force behind this argument, it shows that the passage to the west of the Bema did not come into existence until the construction of the west Central Shops, which must therefore be later. Furthermore,the absence of a gutter along the shop wall itself, in the passage east of the Bema, to correspondwith that below the schola wall, hints at the possibility at least that the east Central Shops were not in existence when the Bema and the original stairs were laid out, or there might naturally have been gutters on both sides of the passage. On the whole, the evidence is hardly conclusive, and it remains possible that the whole series of buildings was planned, or at least generally conceived as a unit, although the balance of probability tends to suggest that the Bema is earlier than the Shops. As we shall see, however, the actual differencein date must be slight, although the question is of some importance in consideringthe settings of the original designs. As to the absolute date, an interesting coincidence, possibly of some significance,may suggest a time after A.D. 16. This lies in the arrangement of the building, with the scholae on either side and the arch southeast of the eastern schola. It will be recalledthat the Rostra in Rome possibly had a small exedra-like room to the left (as one faced it), and to the left and rear of that rose the Arch of Tiberius, erected in A.D. 16.35 Of course, the CorinthianBema is laid out more formally than the Rostra in Rome, but there are so 36 Platner, Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome (Boston, 1911), pp. 220-228; 254; A. J. A., XIII, 1909, pp. 171-186; Lugli, G., Roma Antica, I1 CentroMonumentale, (Rome, 1946), pp. 140-4, 93, 95,152, pl. IV. 9
the conclusion that the Corinthians were consciously imitating the monument in the mother city. Both are flanked by stairs or passages, although in both, originally, there was a passage on the left only. In both, the left-hand passage was ornamented by a monumental gate (it is perhaps pressing coincidence too far to observe that the Arch of Tiberius also, apparently was penetrated by a passage rising on steps). The Corinthian Bema has scholae on both sides, the Roman on only one (in its earlier stages), but the latter developed by accretion; the formerwas built as a unit. In this interpretation, the rectangular platform before the Bema may have its Roman analogy in the so-called Graecostasis, a structure not so far identified in the ruins of Rome, but known from literature as a platform for the reception of ambassadors,as well as for the officersof the imperial legions when they appeared formally before the Rostra. The structure would have been particularly useful for this purpose before the Agora was paved with marble, for in wet weather the general surface may have been muddy, whereas distinguished visitors would have been assigned to a relatively dry place. The latter years of the period 15-44 after Christ is furthermorea probable period for a burst of building activity in Corinth,for during these years the province of Achaia was placed under the governor of Moesia.36This device of removing the provincialstatus of a region and having it governed with another, seems to have been adopted on various occasions purposely, to relieve the region from the financial drain of supporting its government alone. If the device was successful in Corinth,the period must have seen an increase in the amount of capital available for adorning the city. Possibly the construction of the Bema marked the return of the city, in A.D. 44, after its capital had been replenished, to its dignity as capital of Achaia, when the need of a place for public, official oratory would have become marked. The Shops, because of the coins of Tiberiusfound below the floor, were probably built in the second quarter of the first century after Christ, and if the arguments for the relative and absolute date of the Bema are correct, after A.D. 44. But the absence of later coins suggests that they were built soon after the Bema, probably not later than A.D. 50. With the Shops the architectural maturity of the area was reached. From the artistic point of view, the simple construction of the Shops tends to lull the perception of their real aesthetic success. Fulfilling a multiple practical function of providing space beneath for commercial activity, and room above, both for the prominent display of monuments, and for the creation of a place in which the populace might lounge and view the activity of the Lower Agora below (comparethe "Maeniana"of the Italian forum, Vitruvius, V ,1, 2), they also provide a simple but harmonious design to join the three taller buildings, the Round Monument at the east, the Bema in the center, and the 36 Tacitus Ann. I, 76, 4; I, 80, 1. Larsen, "Roman Greece" in Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, ed. Tenney Frank, Vol. IV, (Baltimore, 1935), p. 438. Stout, TheGovernorsof Moesia (Dissertation, Princeton, 1911), pp. ix, 3.
and make a base, so to speak, for the South Stoa beyond. From the South Stoa itself, on the other hand, they provide a light but sufficient delineation of the terrace of the Upper Agora, and at the same time avoid concealingthe architectureand the view to the north. On the whole, then, they represent a solution, perhaps unusual in Roman architecture, to the problem of combiningutility and simplicity, in favor of the view and the unity of the architectural concept of the entire Agora, at the expense of the classicistic monumentality which might easily have been adopted. The next recorded event in the history of the area would have been the dramatic appearanceof St. Paul before the governor, Gallio, as a result of differenceswhich broke out among the Jewish colony which Paul was trying to Christianize.This occurred in A.D. 51, and on the basis of the restoration it is possible to visualize quite clearly what happened. Paul and the other Jews appearedin the Lower Agora in front of the Bema, the governor having come from his office in one of the rooms of the South Stoa through the rear faade of the Bema to the platform above. His entourage sat on the benches of the Bema itself, while he stood in front, overlooking the throng. Possibly other people with business for the governor sat in one or both of the scholae; if the day were one of regularbusiness before the Bema, distinguishedor official guests would have been seated on chairs brought for them to the platform in the middle of the Agora. Paul was brought to, (or possibly onto), the Bema (efl Tr proc), and the charge was presented. According to the passage in Acts (XVIII, 12-17), even as Paul started to speak, Gallioexpressedhis personal indignation at the proceedings, and dismissed the crowd of Jews (&sboo70 3-taTro). Then a riot broke out; the Greek spectators in the Agora below seized Sosthenes, the chief of the synagogue, and beat him, at the foot of the Bema itself. "And Gallio cared for none of these things" - stalking off in irritation back to his room in the South Stoa. There seems to be no other particular incident which can be connected with these buildings; certain modifications, such as the construction of the chapel in Shop VI (p. 116) of the western group, must have occurredrather late, but probably before the end of the fourth century, which would appear to be the date of the destruction of the Shops, and the construction of a grand staircase over the ruins. A deposit of ash and other evidences of burning was found in many of the Shops; in Shop III of the eastern group were found, in this deposit, several coins dating to the first half of the fourth century after Christ, and it may well be that the shops were ruined by a violent earthquake which occurred in 365,37 or by one in 375,38 after which some reconstruction occurred, as attested by an inscription of Valentinian on the architrave of the West Shops. Or, although this seems rather late, the destruction might have occurredwhen 37 38
Am. Marc. XXVI, 10, 15-19; Loeb edition, Vol. I, p. xiii, gives 366. Cf. I. G., IV, 674; Broneer, A. J. A., XXXIX, 1935, p. 65; Meritt, Corinth,VIII, i, GreekInscriptions,no. 113. 9*
struction of the grand staircase, and probably the conversion of the scholae into fountains, in the latter part of the fourth century, or the beginning of the fifth. To this period, too, belongs the construction of the steps at the east end of the series, east of the CircularMonument. It may give some indication of the vitality of the city, and the scope of architecturalimagination at the time, to considerthe magnitude of the scale on which it was laid out again after the disaster. The fate of the Bema in this period is unattested. Presumably it was standing in essentially its original form down into Christiantimes, for there is a cross scratched on one of the piers (P1.593) beside the entrance. A small chapel may have been built on it at an early date, but it could not, while the rear fa9ade stood, have had the form of the existing church, for the stylobate of the Bema lies in the middle of that church. Undoubtedly, however, in the fourth or fifth century, legend was beginning to expand the association of Paul with the structure, and to become sufficiently attached to the site to survive the poverty-stricken days of the early middle ages. By the tenth century, although the superstructureof the Bema had then fallen, a church existed on the ruins.39 Its exact form cannot be describeduntil a generalsurvey of the Byzantine remainsof the area is undertaken, but eventually it expanded into the three-aisled building with narthex, whose remains are well preserved and which, judging from the number of burials beneath its floor in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries, was an important church of the mediaeval town. Even today, since its identification, the Bema survives in a larger realm than that of archaeology, and the annual festival of the Apostle Paul, celebrated in Athens on the Areopagus, the CorinthianBishop commemorateswith his people from the ruins of the building where Paul once stood facing the people of the city it adorned and served. 39 Morgan, A. J. A., XL, 1936, p. 474.
CHAPTER
II
THE ROMANLOWER AGORA I. INTRODUCTION THE
LOWERAgora of the Roman period at Corinth, whose surroundingsare described
elsewhere, was in itself a monument of some significance, and in addition contained a number of small structures of particular interest. Over one hundred and sixty meters long, it was longer than the Forum Romanum in Rome, and may be counted among the largest agoras known anywhere. It is an irregularquadrangle,its long axis lying northeast by southwest with a straight north-south accent provided by the roads to Lechaion and Kenchreai; wider in the western part than in the eastern; with no two sides parallel. The reasons for these anomalies lie partly in the nature of the ground, partly in the history of the area, and one of the more interesting things about the site is the way in which attempts were made to minimize the irregularityof the space. In order to visualize the situation properlyit is necessary to have in mind something of the natural configuration of the area, and something of the pre-Roman dispositions (Fig. 1; Pls. 29, 30; Plan 0). The essential natural feature of the central area of Corinth is the hollow in which the Lechaion Road and Peirene lie. The Peirene hollow, for so it may be called, extends up from the north, and ends at the rock ledge from which the fountain issues, although a narrowervalley once ran up from the region of the Propylaea in a southwesterly direction, between rock outcrops from the westernmost of which poured the Sacred Spring. The Sacred Spring valley can be traced as far as the western end of the South Stoa. A slighter valley at a higher level seems to have run from the Propylaea southeastwardin the general direction of the Southeast Building, but it is of less significance among the determiningfeatures of the Agora. Although Peirene Hollow and the Sacred Spring Valley are basic to the location of Corinth,for from their sides came the water supply which has made Corintha favorable site for habitation throughout its history, the related features are also significant. Northwest of the juncture of the two rose the high hill on which the archaic temple stands; along the foot of this Temple Hill, about on the line of the Northwest Shops, ran a low swale connecting with a dip in the ridge between the Archaic Temple and Glauke, by which another road led off. West of the Sacred Springvalley the ground sloped up to the hill of Temple E. South of the valley the groundrose steadily and evenly; to the east
nature of the rise is difficult to determinein the present state of the excavations. Apart from prehistoricremains,1which seem most abundant on the hill of the Archaic Temple, and around Temple E, the earliest settlement was probably in the vicinity of Peirene. In geometric times, the region in front of the later South Stoa was remote enough to be used for a cemetery.2In all probability the early GreekAgora was north of Peirene and east of the Lechaion Road; the earliest monumental building of a purely secular nature is the presumably fifth century stoa facing east under the later Basilica.3 By the fourth century B.C., the Agora had begun to extend south, or rather was moved above Peirene to occupy the area now forming the site of the Roman Agora. Evidence for this is seen in the row of monuments extending westward from the brow of the Sacred Spring, and in the (so far not accurately dated) starting lines for a race track at the east end of the Agora.4At that period the southern boundary of the Agora was probably about the line of the Roman Central Shops - farther north at the east, farther south at the west (p. 75). Later a stoa was built in the line now occupied by the East Central Shops (p. 76). During the fifth and perhaps fourth centuries, the area to the south was used for residences or small commercialor industrial buildings.5 In the fourth and third centuries the construction of the South Stoa and the Northwest Stoa brought the space of the Agora to its fullest extent. The Northwest Stoa was probably oriented as it was because of the nature of the slope of the hill into which it was set, and because of the direction of the road in front of it. The South Stoa, laid out on the broad, even slope south of the early valley, was oriented apparently in accordancewith the Archaic Temple; in any case, from the time of its construction it dominated the whole center of the city, and everything built thereafter had to be related to it in one way or another. By the end of the Greek period the last vestige of the valleys south of the Propylaea had disappeared. The gulley in front of the rock ledge of the Sacred Spring was filled; the early natural undulations of the ground south of the fourth century Agora had been, in general, levelled into a continuous slope. The whole area from the South Stoa to the Northwest Stoa, and the ledge over Peirene had a relatively even surface, hollowing down at the focus provided by the Lechaion Road, but rising evenly from there in all directions, except for slight interruptions caused by occasional terraced areas for special purposes, and for the small stoa in the region of the East Central Shops. 1 Cf. Weinberg, Hesperia, VI, 1937, pp. 487ff. Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, pp. 543-5. 3 Stillwell, Corinth,I, i, pp. 212ff. 4 Morgan, A. J. A. XLI, 1937, pp. 549-51. 5 Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, p. 258. 2
1. THE AGORASURFACES
Above the GreekAgora of the latest period, at the eastern end, lies a deposit of several strata of fill totalling over a meter in depth in the deepest place. The same strata may be traced, with local variations, for almost the entire length of the Agora, except at the western end, where the latest stratum rests directly on bed-rock or prehistoric deposits, indicating that here the earlier strata, including the Greek levels, were cut away for the latest of the strata under consideration. The earliest stratum at the east is a deposit of sand and gravel, with some potsherds and other debris, about 0.20 m. thick. The surfaceof this is irregular,and the whole mass is fairly hard and firm. Above this is a deposit some 0.60 m. deep, consisting in some places of a lower stratum of white clay surmounted by a stratum predominantly of sand; locally this same stratum consists either of clay throughout, with only a thin layer of sand on top, or of sand throughout, but everywhereit comes to an even surface, fairly firm and hard, and readily identifiable. In some places it is penetrated by masses of poros chips and stone evidently belonging to the stratum above, suggesting holes which were filled by the later deposit. Above this level comes a stratum of broken stone, clay, sand, and sometimes coarse cement, brought to an even surface. In a very few places this remains the highest preserved stratum, but in most places another, similar, bedding has been laid over it. This bedding may be distinguishedby the slightly reddish color of some of the particlesin the cement, and by the even cleavage of the two layers. The last surface bore marble slabs of various sizes and shapes, many of which still exist, and the traces of others in the bedding are still visible. The paving slabs are mostly rectangular, varying from long thin ones some 1.80 by 0.58 m. to almost square ones up to ca. 1.25 by 1.30 m. in size. Others, particularly around the edges of the Agora, are smaller and of odd shapes, adapting the pavement to the irregular contours of the area. The slabs range from 0.05 m. to 0.10 m. in thickness, and are predominantly of white marble, although some limestone slabs may be found. This succession of levels: (1) the gravel deposit, (2) the sand and clay deposit, (3) the cement surfacelevel, and (4) the marble pavement, can be followed for most of the length of the Agora, although toward the west, as the Greek level rises, they become thinner. At the extreme west end only the last can be identified, resting directly on bedrock, or, at the southwest corner, on prehistoric fill. Presumably, though, the lower strata once existed in some form at the west, but were cut away for the final pavement of marble. Obviously the marble pavement and the surface beneath represent functional Agora
used as an Agora surface for long, but since in many places it is quite firm and practicable even today, it may be inferred that the softer places have deteriorated through ground-wateraction, and that this too constitutes one period of the Agora surface. The rough top of the gravel deposit at the bottom indicates that it did not long serve as a trodden surface, if at all, and hence must be explained as other than an Agora surface, although it must, and will, be explained as a significant element in the history of the Agora. There are, then, three distinct periods to the surfacing of the Roman market place, in addition to the cruder deposit at the bottom. AND OTHERSTRUCTURES WITHINTHEAREA OF THE LOWERAGORA 2. MONUMENTS
Morethan forty years of intermittent excavation in the area of the Lower Agora have produced almost countless fragments, large and small, of monuments of all sizes and shapes, and of statues of an almost infinite variety. Most of the fragmentswere found in the Byzantine and later walls which lay over the area of the Agora, and their original form and location, and even their original period of use, can no longer be determined. Some of them were re-cut and re-used more than once during the Roman period alone, so that they had, actually, several forms, dates, and locations. In spite of this mass of material, only a very few foundations or other indications of the original position of some large monuments, and fewer small ones, have been found. Under these conditions it is impossible to ascertain the full complement of monuments in the Agora at any one period. On te other hand, it is challeging to the imagination to bring into focus some sort of picture of the scene which presented itself to Strabo, St. Paul, Pausanias, or Apuleius' Lucius. For convenience in describing the remains, they may be divided into three groups: architecturalor quasi-architecturalremains in situ; other bases in situ, and monuments not in situ.
A. ArchitecturalRemains in Situ a. The Stoas above Peirene In orderto facilitate the exposition of the area above Peirene, it is desirableto preface it by a brief resume of the pertinent facts concerning the fountain Peirene and the Propylaea above it to the west. In the earliest Roman period6the fa9ade of Peirene spring was a simple affair facing on an open areato the north. By the end of the Augustan period it came to consist of a 6 Broneer, Guide to Excavations Ancient Corinth, ed. 4, 1947, pp. 31ff. of
engaged Ionic columns. This two-storey colonnade projected also along the sides, and returned along the north to enclose a quadrangularcourt before the draw-basins. The second storey of the fa9ade above the draw-basins probably reached approximately as high as the top of the second stratum of the Agora to the south. At one time a door led from the court at the west end of the facade, to a flight of steps along a heavy retaining wall in the line of the fagade to the region of the Propylaea. Behind (south of) this retaining wall is a short stretch of poros blocks of uncertain date. To the east there was a more or less independent structure, probably later in date, consisting of two rooms at the level of Peirene court, facing north; and of a second storey with a floor level about that of the cement pavement of the Agora. This consisted of two rooms over the two below, and two more on the ledge behind. The western second-storey rooms possibly opened on a gallery or corridoroverlookingthe court. Immediately behind the facade of Peirene and behind the rooms to the east are the remains of a concrete wall foundation earlierthan the rooms, and possibly later than the original two-story facade. In the second century after Christthis scene was radically remodelledby the substitution of a tri-apsidal court for the earlier quadrangularone. The effects of this reconstruction on the area above the fagade are not apparent, although surely by this time the stairs leading east from Peirene were closed. The history of the Propylaea is even more difficult to condense. The earliest Roman construction7 was a series of terrace walls, quickly replaced by a ramp and then, in Augustan times, by the poros Propylaea consisting of a large central arch, two flanking arches, and small openings through the piers of the central arch. This arch was damaged in the earthquake of A.D. 79 and replaced under Domitian by a more spacious single arch built on the foundations of the original central arch and pierced piers, and on foundations added along the south. About the middle of the second century the scheme was again revised; a subsidiary arch was added to the east on a special foundation built over the poros Propylaea foundation, and possibly a balancing arch was added to the west. With these facts in mind, it is possible to understandbetter the relations of the walls above Peirene (P1.61). Of these there are three;8 two buried by the third stratum, and another, later and apparently contemporary with the third strosis. Both of the earlier walls were set in cuttings into the gravel deposit on the Hellenistic surface, and the sand and clay deposit was filled in against their flanks. The southernmost of these early walls is ca. 0.75 m. thick, and has been exposed only in three small pits or trenches. Presumably, however, since the northern wall to which it is parallel extends east of the eastern boundary of the excavations, this did the same. Its western end is not preserved,but it 7 Stillwell, Corinth, I, i, pp. 189ff.
8
Morgan, A. J. A., XL, 1936, p. 467.
which its foundations were removed can be traced so far. Parallel to it runs the northern of the two walls, of about the same width, and about 3.90 m. distant. This is well preserved in its lower foundations at the east, and can be traced by the plundered foundation trench as far as the eastern edge of the Propylaea. The two give the impression of being the foundations of a simple stoa above the brow of Peirene, from whose fa9adethe northern wall is separated by about four meters. It is possible that the concrete foundation earlier than the rooms east of Peirene is a third, rear, wall for the stoa, or it may have supported only the edgee of a terrace between the stoa and the foundation. The later wall is clearly visible for most of its length, built as it was with referenceto the cement surface, and preserved throughout its eastern extent to the top of the foundations. It lies about 1.80 m. north of the souther of the earlier walls, and is parallel to it. It extends westward to a point directly in front of the eastern edge of the eastern central pier of the early poros Propylaea; at the western extremity it makes an acute angle and returns to the pier.9Very little of it is preservedin this area, but enough to show the corner clearly, and the poros blocks of its end, built as part of the pier of the Propylaea. This wall, too, gives the appearanceof having borne a colonnade, but to identify its northern counterpart in the maze of reconstructed and demolished walls above Peirene is difficult indeed. In all probabilitythe northernwall of the stoa was founded on whicheverearlierPeirene walls happenedto serve. The southernwall of the rooms east of Peirene could have served as the north wall of the stoa, and in fact it is probable that the rooms were entered through the stoa. East of this is the northernwall which was probably built on a heavy retainingwall whose beginning can be seen at the edge of the excavations. No restoration of the stoa is possible in the absenceof identifiable remains, but it may be conjectured that it presented a continuous row of columns to the Agora, and a colonnade partly closed by a balustrade above Peirene. The southwestern corner of this stoa, with its acute angle, must have been awkward; its justification is clear - to present an end at right angles to the Propylaea, and to have its axis parallel to the facade of Peirene. However, at a later period a massive L-shaped concrete foundation was poured against the end of the stoa and aroundits corner.10Over three meters wide and eleven meters long, this must have supported a ponderous structure indeed, but nothing of it survives in situ except for a few poros blocks of the underpinnings.The southwestern corner of this structure turns at a very slightly acute angle, masking the sharper angle of the stoa, which it hugs, but it extends only three meters east of the comer and then comes to an abrupt end. Along the south side lies a row of poros blocks, some 0.75 m. from the concrete, with a hard-packedmass of marble and poros chips between. This undoubtedly represents the bedding for the first of a 9 Stillwell, op. cit., p. 186.
10
Ibid.
tion is almost baffled in an attempt to restore the superstructurefor this foundation. It must have been heavy, to justify the foundation, but a powerful superstructurewould have marred the appearance of the Propylaea. No fragments from any superstructure have been identified, but in all probability it bore a gate-like fagade, leading to the stoa from the end. b. The Altar The most important structure in the area of the Lower Agora is represented by a foundation almost in the center of the space (P1.621; Fig. 67). It consisted in its original
_
_t
II V.,]
'^
ge ^^
''
'
0'
^ ^ ,?,,%, ' ,^
,*
o0
1
FIGURE
67.
-'
PLAN
~
e-
c..
1
OF EXISTING
L
REMAINS
3
4
6t
OF ALTAR IN LOWER AGORA
form of a massive concrete foundation with its longitudinal axis east and west, surrounded on the north, west and south by poros blocks. On the east end there are no such blocks, but the concreteprojects outside the line of foundation for the poros blocks by a few centimeters, continues 1.65 m. east, returns across the front 1.95 m., and returns westward some 0.67 m. to the main bedding. The concrete continues evenly over the area of the back part of the structure at about the height of the poros blocks as they are now preserved, i. e, flush with the marble pavement bedding, but four meters from the
(western) part of the floor was raised a step above the eastern part. A second period of this structure is indicated by its extension about a meter to the west by a slighter mass of concrete bounded by poros blocks, and the addition of rectangularfoundationsof poros on the north and south sides near the western end. These blockshave cuttings, indicating that each supporteda step some two meters long (Fig. 68).
1i
FIGURE
C
68. SUGGESTED
RESTORATION
OF ALTAR IN LOWER AGORA
Effective clues to the restoration of the superstructurehave been eliminated by the fact that the whole monument was razed and the higher parts cut down to the level of the marble pavement when the latter was laid. The bedding for the pavement extends over the poros blocks, which are hacked away to the proper level, so that the original surface is gone. However, the plan and arrangements of the foundations permit some inference as to the nature of the monument itself. In all probability it was an open enclosure of poros on all sides except the eastern front. Here may be postulated large anta-like structures, probably of marble, at the end of the poros walls. It is possible that a relief with dancing maenads ornamentedthe antae; a fragment of the relief (P1.622)was found near by.1l To say, as earlierpublicationsdo, that it was from a circular or even elliptical base is misleading, for the contours inside and out are quite irregular. It might, however, have had a roughly hexagonal or octagonal form, or even have been essentially square, with columns in relief markingthe corner. 11
Johnson, Corinth, IX, p. 131, no. 275.
The enclosurewas largely open at the east, with a front area lower than that at the rear, which could also be approachedby doors from each side. A large marble altar (P1. 63), which was found not far away bearing the name "Terentius"12may have stood on the inner, higher level, and the priests could have performedtheir functions looking over it through the open end to the east. c. Post-holes for Tents or Awnings Finally may be considered a set of phenomena represented among others by a block some 2.50 m. in front of the altar in the center of the Agora, which at first glance looks as though it had some functional relation with the altar (PI. 621).This is a block of poros about 1.00 by 0.80 m., with a square hole in the middle ca. 0.20 m. square. Another similar hole appears on one of the foundation blocks of the altar itself, in a place, however, where it could have had no functional relation to the altar, and a number of similar blocks have been found, but not in situ, throughout the Agora area. A hole some 0.13 m. in diameteris cut in the Agora pavement in front of the west schola of the Bema, numeroussimilar holes near the South Stoa, and other less neatly cut holes, suggest that this is but one of several. The significance of these holes is not altogether clear; it has been suggested that they were the supports for posts on which the public announcements were displayed, and this may be true of at least some of them. On the other hand, they may have supported poles for tents or awnings erected for market stalls or other purposes. To the latter explanation some support may be given by a curious structure in the middle of the western part of the Agora. It consists of a sloping path 9.00 m. long, and 2.60 m. wide, cut down into the Agora floor, and walled at its deeper, eastern, end by poros blocks (P1. 641.2). Near the bottom is a cutting on the south side, 0.55 m. from the end, to receive a block of wood some 0.15 m. square; opposite this is a groove or slot, so that the bar, 0.85 m. long, could be let into position. At the top is a cutting for another bar, above this. The whole arrangement is very curious, but is perhaps reasonably explained on the hypothesis that it was for the erection of a tall mast. The latter could be laid in the trench when not needed, but on occasion hoisted into position. The bars, inserted into their sockets, would keep it upright. The function of such a mast raises an interesting question. The first explanation to occur would be that it had some cult significance, but there is no evidence for such an hypothesis. On the other hand, it is known that the Forum in Rome was on occasion covered in whole or in part by awnings, and for the support of a large tent or awning on special occasions such a mast would be most appropriate. 12
Ibid., p. 138, no. 291; West, Corinth,VIII, ii, no. 8.
a. ConcreteFoundations near the Propylaea Against the pier flanking the central opening of the Propylaea on the west is a foundationconstructedof massive concrete,l3and triangularin shape. The reason for the shape will be considered below, but the fact of the shape renders it difficult to imagine the superstructure, if it was architectural; we may therefore presume that it bore a sculptural group. Southeast of the L-shaped foundation masking the western end of the later stoa above Peirene is another massive foundation measuring some 2.60 m. long (north and south) and 2.00 m. wide (east and west); east of this, and built directly against the front wall of this stoa is yet another concrete foundation 7.00 m. long and 2.00 m. wide, of which the poros beddings for surroundingsteps are preserved.Roughly parallelto the stoa foundation, runningfor most of the distance above Peirene itself, was found an irregulartrench in the pavement fill which is best explained by the assumption that a series of small foundations once lay along the line of the trench, which were later uprooted in the mediaeval period. On the basis of this evidence it is clear that in front of the stoa ran a series of bases supporting statues or groups of statues. b. The Augustales Base for the Statue of Athena Half-way between the stoa and the Central Shops, a little east of the line between the Propylaea and the stairway flanking the Bema complex to the east, is still preservedin situ the foundation and some fragments of the circular drum of a high statue base14 (P1.651).The sub-foundation of concrete supports a square shaft on which rested the circular drum; around the shaft was a square structure whose design can be inferredin some detail (Fig. 69). The lowest member is a blue marble step still in situ, marking a square 2.98 m. on each side. The step is much worn all along its edge, showing that the next element in the structure was a bench. Obviously it could not have been simply another step, for a flight of steps here would have led nowhere, but it must have been something to attract considerableuse. Indeed, the extraordinaryamount of wear on the step indicates that the bench was a popularone, and that the monument stood for a long period of time. It is built with reference to the third surface or the marble pavement, probably the former, which here lies very close below the pavement, and as the monument is still standing in its essential structural form, it must have stood throughout the entire classical period subsequent to the third surface. Above the bench we may confidently restore a rectangularbase with orthostates and a cornice, to a height of 1.75 m. above the surface of the Agora. Above this rises the 13
Stillwell, op. cit., p. 186.
14 Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, pp. 551-2.
the text cannot be restored; it seems to have contained the word "Augustales" in the singular or plural at least twice. The cuttings on the top of the base (P1. 652) indicate a
' f '
',,
;/
L_
./'
~,';
'
.
!\
'
'_ '_._','_ _ _'_
FIGURE
69.
ACTUAL
AND RESTORED
PLANS AND SECTIONS
OF AUGUSTALES
BASE
colossal bronze statue, facing west (the side on which the inscription occurs), resting its weight on the right foot, probably draped, and probably holding a spear or staff in the left hand; the spear or staff rested in a cutting at the left front of the base. c. Unidentified Base In front of the above base is preserved in situ a single block (0.91 m. wide, east and west, and 0.87 m. long, north and south) of a base built with referenceto the cement or
clamps preserved on the south side of the block in situ, and presented its broad front to the west. The foundation supported a rectangular base, for the attachment of which dowel holes exist along the edges of the preservedblock. Presumably, therefore, it consisted of a rectangularpedestal supportingtwo or more statues facing west. d. Unidentified Base near Bema. In front of the east wall of the eastern exedra of the Bema is a curious square base, consisting of a single block 0.81 m. by 0.85 m., set with referenceto the marble pavement. The cuttings on the top have not been explained, but precludethe restorationof a statue directly on the preservedbase (P1.663; Fig. 70).
I."
0
FIGURE
.
t
70.
410
20
30
40 c0
m.
SMALL BASE IN FRONT OF EAST SCHOLA OF BEMA
e. The Stepped Base Southwest of the Propylaea is a group of monuments which offer better possibilities for interpretation. The first of these is a large stepped pedestal which probablysupported a circular base for a tripod. The pedestal is constructed of massive blocks of limestone,
4.25 m. square and 0.46 m. high, carried a bench about 0.44 m. high, above which rose two more steps about 0.44 m. in height. The dimensionof the square at the top is reduced to about 2.25 m. The lowest step below the bench is not much worn, although slightly so,
0
1.l
:'
^1;;^'-
~ .A
, __P_ ,
FIGURE
10
71.
PLAN,
1-A
WITH
'-.
HALF-ELEVATION
AND
SECTION
OF
STEPPED
BASE
open so that the bench could be used, but later a fence or barricadewas erected around the edge, preventing access to the bench and higher steps. On the top probably rested a circular drum about 2.10 m. in diameter, of which a badly mutilated fragment is preserved (PI. 662). Near the break on one preserved end is a trace of a carving which may have represented a kantharos, and on the top a single dowel cutting is preserved. The latter is different from normal cuttings for bronze statues, and it is possible that the base supported a tripod. f. The Iustitius-Heliodoros Base A few meters southwest of the stepped base are the remains of a foundation whose original size may be restored to about 2.15 m. square. On this, above a suitable podium, of which no fragments have been identified, may have rested a circular drum ca. 1.40 m. in diameter and 0.89 m. high, which originally bore the name M. Iustitius--- Priscus,15 but which was later turned upside down and re-inscribed by one Heliodoros as a dedication to Zeus Ombrios.16The cuttings on the top for the original use are mutilated, but suggest two standing male figures of bronze; the top for the second use (PI. 671) probably carried a colossal bronze statue, with left foot advanced, facing somewhat to the right of the front. g. The Composite-CircleBase West of the last-mentioned monument is a foundation of concrete and poros blocks, originally some 3.00 m. square outside, but later expanded to form a rectangle about 3.60 m. by 4.70 m. On this, in the first stage at least, probably rested a ponderous circular base 2.40 m. in diameter and 0.57 m. high, constructed of several blocks of blue marble fitted together, and carrying a second circular drum of white marble about 1.60 m. in diameter and 0.79 m. high, composed of two blocks (PI. 672). The lower circle must have fitted fairly closely on its base, and near ground level, for it shows wear from having been used as a seat, and the wear is less at the corners of a square inscribed within the circle of the base. This indicates that the base rested low enough to be accessible as a seat; and in the second place that it fitted closely on a square foundation of such a height that at the points where the circle was tangent to the pedestal, it was inconveniently high for sitting; i. e., people could sit comfortably where the corners of the low square podium gave support to their feet. The drum on top of the circularbase has a group of cuttings whose explanation is not clear, but whose number suggests that more than one statue stood upon it. 15
West, op. cit., no. 117.
16 Meritt, Corinth,VIII, i, no. 102.
neighbor, but undoubtedly these represent an attempt to secure the two pieces after some disturbance, while it still stood more or less intact. Probably in the original construction the two members were not fastened together, but after some earthquake they separated and were secured by the clamps indicated on the side. h. CircularFoundations by Sacred Spring Two circular bases over the area of the Sacred Spring and Apsidal Temple probably have some connection with the cult in that area, and will be consideredelsewherein that connection. C. Bases and Statues not in Situ Among monuments for which no foundation has been identified, the most important to be consideredhere is a group of black limestone blocks originally used for the support of a bronze group, probably in Greek times, but re-used in Roman times (as indicated by the Roman numerals which occur on several of them), as the base for a sculptured group which cannot be restored. They were found in the western end of the Agora, and probably were erected somewherein that vicinity. Another monument of some interest is a small round altar found near the Bema (PI. 673). It is some 0.82 m. high and 0.39 m. in diameter, carved with mouldings of egg-and-dart at the top, and Lesbian leaf at the bottom. Around the shaft is carved a design of boukrania and wreathes. At some period it was re-used upside down, presumably for a statue, and an inscription (Inventory No. 2143) was carved on it in the new position: [NLx]7
The sculptural finds in the Agora have been numerous, on the whole, but it is a remarkablefact that with the exception of a few togati,by far the greatest numberwere found in the western end, and most of them in the northwesterncorner. Inferences will be drawn from this circumstancebelow (p. 153); for the present it is enough to summarize the finds. The only noteworthy figures at all well preserved from the vicinity of the Propylaea and the Sacred Spring were the relief from a high base with finely carved maenads, already mentioned (p. 140) in connection with the altar, a head of Dionysos,17a small figure of Melpomene,18a slightly larger Artemis,19and one of Marsyashanging.20 Johnson, Corinth, IX, 1931, no. 25. 19 Ibid., no. 34. 17
10*
18 Ibid., no. 14. 20 Ibid., no. 80.
as the Babbius Monument, came a number that may be classified in groups. The first group includes an Apollo in small scale,21 and two muses of similar scale,22two other statues of Apollo,23(not includinga fourth, which seems to have come from a pediment), an Artemis24and a Satyr.25To be associatedwith these types is a considerablenumber of fragments from small-scale statues of bucolic and Apolline type found at the bottom of the stairs in front of the Temple of Hermes. A second group includes fragments of five statues of men and women done in a style resemblingthat of Pergamon.26A third group includes several divinities: Athena,27Enyo,28Nike,29 Zeus Chthonios30and seven small figures of Cybele.31Farther south along the West Terrace was found an Artemis.32The fourth group includes a prayingwoman33and two male torsos34from the north end of the West Terrace, and perhaps the head of AntoninusPius35and two fragmentsof cuirassed figures36from the south end of the West Terraceitself. These are the most important figures from the Agora; numerous smaller fragments have been found, but they are too small to be consideredin the present context.
III. CHRONOLOGYAND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS It will be recalled that the stratification of the Roman Agora fill, where best preserved, indicates four periods. The first is represented by the gravel immediately over the Hellenistic pavement; the second by a fill of clay and sand up to a fairly even level; the third by a filling of miscellaneousmaterial with a thin cement-like surface, and the fourth by a bedding of stones and cement bearing the present marble pavement. With the second stratum seems to go the early stoa above Peirene; with the third or fourth (for the difference in level is too slight to allow any definite distinction) practically everything else that has been described. Some buildings were erected in relation to the third level, but covered by the marble slabs of the fourth (the same applies to the rectangularfoundation in front of the Bema, elsewhere discussed [p. 111] and identified as the Corinthianequivalent of the Roman Graecostasis).The Bema seems to have been built in relation to the third level, but to have been undercut to receive the marble slabs of the fourth period (p. 92). The East Central Shops, too, seem to have been built with relation to the third level, at a time when the Agora was not paved with marble,judging 21 Ibid., no. 12. 22 Ibid., nos. 13,15. 25 Ibid., no. 64. 24 Ibid., nos. 17, 19. Ibid., no. 8. 26 Ibid., nos. 110, 111, 115; Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, p. 542; Capps, Hesperia, VII, 1938, pp. 551-6.
23 27
Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, p. 542.
29 Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936, p. 41.
31 Ibid., nos. 55-59.
33 Johnson, op. cit., no. 10. 35 Broneer, A. J. A., XXXIX, 1935, p. 68, plate XIXB
28
Johnson, op. cit., no. 11.
32
Morgan, A. J. A., XLIII, 1939, p. 267.
s0 Johnson, op. cit., no. 23 where it is called Serapis.
34 Ibid., nos. 94 and 96. 36
Ibid., fig. 12; Stillwell, A. J. A., XL, 1936, p. 41.
marble pavement rides over the stylobate, although the stylobate seems to have been laid with referenceto a slightly lower level. Thus the date of the various levels may be approximated by their relation to the dated buildings; unfortunately the evidence from the fill of the pavements is of no assistance. The bedding for the marble pavement lies so closely on the third pavement, which seems to have been swept before the marble was laid, that no clear evidence for the date of the latest surface is available. On the other hand, the fill for both the third pavement and the second pavement below, although considerablequantities of it have been removed, have produced almost exclusively Greek and Hellenistic pottery and coins, with a very little of the earliest Roman pottery and a few very early Roman coins. In view of this situation it would seem that both the second and third pavements are quite early Roman,37but nothing more definite can be inferred. Some approximation may be reached by a general consideration of the whole set of circumstances. Almost certainly the uneven deposit of gravel on the Greek pavement is the accumulation from the period of desertion, when quantities of such material would have been washed down from the higher ground above. Not only is this perfectly reasonable, but similar deposits have been identified elsewhere. The clay and sand stratum, for the second level, must then representthe first grading of the Agora by the colonists. This follows largely from the fact that it was with reference to the third level that most of the dated buildings and most of the monuments were erected; and this third pavement, too, from the character of the fill, cannot be later than the Augustan age. The final, marble pavement, must on the other hand be dated at least as late as the end of the first century.38Not only is it later than such monuments as the Bema and the Central Shops, independently dated fromjust before the middle of the first century, but it is clearly later than the Northwest Shops, dating from the end of the first century.39 Whether it falls much later, i. e., sometime during the advancing second century, cannot yet be determined. The general history of the Lower Agora in Roman times may now be summarizedon the basis of the evidence discussed above and elsewhere (Plan 0). The early colonists found the Agora ungraded and rough. There was a road leading from the LechaionRoad and crossingthe area to the south (p. 133); probably a branch of this led southwestward toward the corner of the South Stoa, indicated by wheel marks in the area of the Sacred Spring and at the end of the South Stoa. Another road wander37 Morgan, A. J. A., XLI, 1937, p. 551. 38 In certain places where the fill under the marble pavement is a little deeper than normal, very slight evidence suggesting such a date has been found, but not enough to inspire confidence (Morgan,A. J. A., XL, 1936, p. 467). 39 Stillwell, CorinthI, ii, pp. 110, 129.
the east end of the South Stoa, and elsewhere along the line (p. 121). Along the north side, west of the Lechaion Road, were the ruins of the Northwest Stoa, and along the south, the ruins of the South Stoa. There may have been other more or less ruined buildings on the east and west, but these have since disappeared. The first activity of the new colonists, terminating perhapsin the middle of the reign of Augustus, was to recondition some of the ruined buildings such as the Northwest and South Stoas, and to grade the Agora area itself. In this process they constructed retaining walls along the west (p. 64) and down the center of the space between the Northwest and South Stoas (p. 125) thus creating the Lower Agora. They erected the Dionysion (p. 125) at the southwest of the area, built the Round Monument at the southeast (p. 127), the early stoa above Peirene, and probably the temple to Hermes and the Pantheon on the West Terrace (p. 64). They may have erected other monuments whose foundations have since disappeared or have not yet been discovered. To this period, perhaps, may be assigned the base of blocks of black limestone, re-used from some Greek monument, at the western end of the area (p. 147). From the mid-years of Augustus to the end of the first century after Christ seems to have been an era of great building activity. Probably, however, the growth of the city during this period is to be divided into two parts - one of about twenty years, ending around A.D. 15, and another of perhaps similar duration beginning about A.D. 30. At least, this is suggested by the removal of the provincial governor from the city during the years 15-44 after Christ, if that event is properly interpreted as having been occasioned by the temporary inability of the city to support the government (p. 130). In the earlier part of the period appeared the great Basilica above the Lechaion Road,40the first, five-arch, Propylaea,41 and the second stoa above Peirene. At this time, too, the Agora was regraded. During the latter part of the period (although to be sure, there may have been some buildings erected between) the Babbius Monument, the Temple of Tyche, and the Fountain of Poseidon (p. 66), the Julian Basilica, the Bema and the Central Shops were built. At intervals throughout the whole period most of the principalmonuments describedin the middle of the Agora were raised. Of these, the altar and the stepped base for the tripod, to judge from the material, may have been the earliest; not much later, surely, the Augustales base dominating the eastern section of the market place. On this, indeed, must have stood the bronze statue of Athena mentioned by Pausanias (II, 3, 1). It is the only base with cuttings which could fit such a statue, and it definitely stands "in the middle of the Agora." The figures of the muses, mentioned by Pausanias, may have been engraved or attached to the square pedestal below the drum. Probably in this half century, although it would be impossible to say whether early or 40
Stillwell, Corinth, I, i, p. 211.
41
Ibid., p. 190.
and the small altar near the Bema, and a considerablenumber of the statues mentioned above (pp. 116ff.). The second half of the first century after Christseems to have seen few majorchanges, although some monuments and small buildings made their appearance.The earthquake of A.D. 79, however, necessitated a certain amount of reconstruction, such as the remodellingof the Propylaea into a single colossal arch,42and most of all the construction of the Northwest Shops,43possibly occasioned by damage to the old Stoa behind. The actual construction of the Shops may have been delayed until the end of the century, and at the same time the northern end of the west terrace was extensively remodelled (p. 11). Probably very soon thereafter, early in the second century, the appearance of the area was radically changed by the laying of the marble pavement, which involved the destruction of the altar and the platform in front of the Bema. It was probably this Agora which Pausanias saw and described, however inadequately. By tha time there must have been a considerable accumulation of statuary in front of the Northwest Shops and above and below the line of the West Terrace.The Marsyas,with which may be associated the Apollo, and possibly the Satyr, may have stood near, or in front of, the Basilica. Near the Temple of Hermes must have been a group of Apollo and the muses, on the base in front of the temple, and near by, perhaps above the stairs leading to the north, as suggested elsewhere (p. 15), the "Pergamene group." The statues of other divinities may have been ranged in front of the temples, monuments and fountains of the West Terrace (p. 148); unfortunately the pavement in this region is much cut up - perhaps for the very reason that so many small foundations had been let into it. It must have been just about the time of Pausanias' visit, although it is a question whether he arrived in time to see it,44 that the Propylaea was again remodelled with three arches,45and the Captives Fa9ade was built.46Probably only a little later than this are the L-shaped foundation which carried a false front to the end of the stoa above Peirene, and the triangularfoundation against the eastern pier of the central arch of the Propylaea.47All these structures are in keeping with the same generalidea - the attempt to adjust the market place for various scenic effects, and by the end of the second century they were completed (Fig. 1). The structures in front of the Propylaea, for example, are designed in such a way as to frame the Bema and its scholae in the view of a person ascending from the LechaionRoad; the CaptivesFacade masked the awkward court between the Propylaea and the Northwest Shops in front of the Basilica, and the L-shaped foundation concealed the acute angle of the stoa above Peirene. The base to 42
43 Stillwell, CorinthI, ii, pp. 110, 129. Loc. cit. Between A. D. 160 and 174? Cf. Frazer, Pausanias' Description of Greece,Vol. I, pp. xv-xviii; Broneer, Corinth,X, pp. 145-6. 45 Stillwell, Corinth,I, i, p. 191. 46 Stillwell, Corinth,I, ii, p. 87. 47 Stillwell, Corinth, I, i, p. 186. 44
to the east arch of the new Propylaea, and may in fact have provided a new position for whatever monument stood on the heavy foundation just southeast of the L-shaped foundation, which would otherwisehave blocked the entrance to the side arch. The later days of the Lower Agora saw the replacementof the fountain of Poseidon on the West Terrace by two temples built by Commodus (p. 66), but the only major alteration in the general scheme of things, however, did not come until the very end of classical times. Then, probably at the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth, the whole line of Central Shops was demolished and replaced by a monumental staircase joining the Upper and Lower Agoras once more, on each side of an elaborate arrangementof open fountains established in the scholae flanking the Bema (p. 132) a conception of spatial design which, while it marks the end of the classical period of Corinth, foreshadowsin spirit an era not to dawn for another thousand years. In conclusion, it is perhaps appropriate to dwell for a short space on the broader significance of the architectural development of the Roman Agora at Corinth as it is known through this and earlier publications. In view of its historical position, Corinth should provide important information on the character of a Roman provincial capital, and the basis for a general estimate of a fairly high level of Roman provincial art. It is still too early to offer final statements on these subjects, as the study of the Upper Agora, including most of the important administrative offices, has not been completed; complete information even on the Julian Basilica occupying the entire eastern end of the Lower Agora itself is not yet available; and material inseparable from the subject is to be found in unpublished areas outside the Agora. Nevertheless, the unit of the Lower Agora is substantially published, and this is an appropriate place for provisional generalizations. The most striking feature of the ensemble is its organization - not only functional but aesthetic, and aesthetic in the complete sense of fusing functional and artistic ends. Laid out on an area of irregular shape, the Agora is divided into two important subareas, the Upper predominantly official and administrative, the Lower predominantly devoted to the various needs of the people at large. In spite of this division, the Agora as a whole has a functional and aesthetic unity, for the division is effected by the Central Terrace, whose buildings serve each division. The shops are entered and used from the Lower Agora, but their roof is entered from the Upper Agora and allowed people from above to watch what went on below without preventing people from below from seeing the buildings beyond. The Bema was entered and used by those from the Upper Agora, but its purpose was to provide a place to address the people in the Lower Agora. The whole line of the Central Terracewas carefully worked out with the Bema providing a not too precisely centered accent near the middle; the Circular Monument and the Dionysion establishing precise but various terminations, and the shops themselves a
administrative, commercial, and religious function, to say nothing of the statues which must have representedthe people by their abundance, form, scale, and diversity of purpose, and by the fact that they were erected by numerous and various individuals. Responding to this on the north were the commercial Northwest Shops, the judicial Basilica, the monumental Propylaea leading to the Lechaion Road and the harbor below, and the restful stoa,s above Peirene. The same general design is repeated, with a near-central accent afforded by the Propylaea, flanked by rows of columns reflecting but not imitating the rows of shop-entrancesof the Central Shops. A wholly different prospect was afforded by the massive Julian Basilica at the east, where one building dominated and indeed closed the whole end of the space, and in contrast to this the West Terrace closed the other end with a phalanx of small buildings, most of them very much alike in general characterand purposeso that their multiplicity was unified by their similarity. Here, too, was focused an important interest represented only sparsely elsewherein the area, the religion of the people. Throughout the heterogeneouscollection of buildings the striking thing is the success with which they were combined without the complete loss of identity of any part, but with numerous details and contrivancesto suggest balance and order without introducing rigid symmetry -- indeed, consciously avoiding such ponderousbalance as might perhaps have been expected - and in general with a manipulation by which the often discordant axes of topographyand earlier constructionwere compromisedand exploited to produce a unity. Viewed in closer focus, the individual buildings are not, perhaps, so impressive. The Bema is an interesting and originalcreation, and in its details, like the Temple of Tyche, the Babbius Monument,and to a lesser degree some other buildings,it reveals an interest in and imitation of Greek buildings of the later fifth century B.C. But most of the buildings are relatively unimaginative and careless in detail. The temples differ slightly in plan and other aspects of design; the other buildings are practically built for the most part, although some have rather fine decoration on the interior. In short, it is clear that aesthetically speaking it was not the quality of the individual buildings which was important, but the total effect. Here, perhaps, we come close to the deeper significance of the whole area and its buildings. In them we must recognizethe outward sign of the aspirations of the successful citizens who dedicated them, or of the body politic who provided them. The relatively small and uniform scale and quality of the structures suggest something of what such people might consider worthy memorials of their name. As some individuals, like Babbius, made more than one donation, it is apparent that had he chosen he could have concentrated his resources in one superlative monument, but he did not. He favored quantity and diversity of type, and perhaps recognized the psychological value of
taste, both compromised; providing for various needs in various ways in an organized pattern; never achieving a truly high order of technical or artistic excellence in detail, and never distinguishing any one man or god in an essentially remarkable way, but achieving richness, color, and impressiveness in the cumulative, mass effect. In these qualities the Agora representsthe city, the all but anonymousmass of ordinarymen and women whose historical achievement was to make up the Roman Empire.
CHAPTER
IV
BUILDINGS NORTH OF THE ARCHAIC TEMPLE Below the crown of the hill on which stands the great archaic temple commonly attributed to Apollo, looking out across the broad natural terrace bearing the gymnasium, the Asklepieion, and houses and monuments yet undiscovered, and beyond them across the wide coastal plain leading to the sea, there lay in Greek and Roman times a series of buildings. Their site is properlybounded on the east by structuresborderingthe west side of the road to Lechaion, and on the west by those lining the east side of the Theatre Street leading to Sikyon. The full area has not, unfortunately, been entirely excavated. Modem buildings still cover the eastern boundary of the area; a modem road crosses it in the middle, running east and west, while the excavation dump and modem dwellings cover the region north of the road; and only occasional testing has been possible to the west. Nevertheless, within the area completely excavated (Plan K; Pls. 68, 69) there is a moderately extensive array of remains: at the southeastern corner are informative traces of an archaic road; just west of this are remains of a structure which for convenience we shall call the Painted Building, dating from perhaps the fifth century B.C.; still further west are foundations and other remains of a series of stoas ranging from the fifth through the fourth centuries B.C.; and part of a peristyle market of Roman times occupies most of the eastern half of the area. The area excavated includes, indeed, parts of other buildings which cannot yet be studied, since an undetermined proportion of them still lies covered by earth. At the eastern end, covering the easternmost wall of the Roman Market,is the western wall of a late-Roman brick building of considerable extent. Its remains have been detected several meters to the east and north in cellars of modern buildings, and they probably represent a bath or Nymphaeum. At the southwestern corner of the excavated area are walls belonging to two or more structures of Greek date - perhaps early - and important deposits of early Greek pottery have been found among them. They cannot, however, be understood at present, and will be substantially ignored in the present account, which will confine itself to those structures appearing wholly between the "nymphaeum" and the wall of a Roman road cutting across the western end of the area.1 1 The history of the excavation is brief. One of the early trenches at Corinth extended from the archaic temple northwards across the area at about its middle, but failed to reveal in any impressive way remains of the structures under consideration (A. J. A., I, 1897, pp. 475ff). The next stage was the general excavation, under F. J.
The natural physiography of the site is of some interest and importance in understanding the history of the buildings. It will be recalled that the archaic temple stands on a prominenceat the end of a rock ridge, constituting the focus of the ancient monuments of Corinthso far uncovered. The ridge originally was terminated on the east by a deep valley, opening from the great terrace to the north, later occupied by the Lechaion Road. This valley ascended southward and then branched southwestward forming a hollow south of the temple ridge, occupied by the Sacred Spring and later by the Hellenic and Roman agora. A slighter hollow separated the position of the temple from the rock-cut fountain of Glauke to the west, and through this hollow emerged from the agora the road leading toward Sikyon. The northern slope of the hill fell away increasingly to what must have been a fairly precipitous drop to the terrace of the Theatre and the Gymnasium,but some fifty meters north of the temple it had fallen only six or seven meters. On the crest of the hill there appear extensive neolithic deposits,2 presupposing a fairly important settlement on the site, but on the slope now under consideration only slight and occasionalpockets of neolithic sherdswere found on the rock. This implies that the hillside was relatively barrenat that period, or at least that there has been extensive wash subsequently, for the thin layer of earth which commonly covers the rock throughout the undisturbed parts of the area contains almost exclusively proto-Corinthianand Corinthianpottery, coming down to the middle of the sixth century B.C. The earliest sign of structural activity by man identified in the region to be considered is at the southeastern corner. Here the shoulder of the hill was hewn down to provide a grade and level bed for a road coming up to the position of the temple from the north east (P1.711). The rock on the upper side was cut down in places to a depth of more than a meter and a half, and the whole passage measures some 3.00 m. in width. Two blocks of a retaining wall on the up-hill side remain in situ. The road shows considerableuse, as the bed is well worn, and ruts three or four centimeters deep appearin places. Along the edge of the scarp of the excavations, west of where the road disappears under the unexcavated earth, the rock has been cut away to form a fairly smooth but not level surface, possibly implying the presence of a building or enclosure of some sort, but there is no clue as to its nature. de Waele, of the Roman Market in 1929 (A. J. A., XXXIV, 1930, pp. 432-454) and of the stoa and other structures to the east in 1930 (A. J. A., XXXV, 1931, pp. 394-423). Preparatory to the present publication, brief investigations were made in the summer of 1949 by the writer. This final publication of the discoveries is in a sense delayed, considering the date of the general excavation, and in a sense premature, considering the fact that the Market particularly is only half uncovered. But it seems highly improbable that a full excavation can take place in the predictable future, or that it would reveal any substantial part of the building surviving from Byzantine destruction, so that the publication is offered as an account of what is actually known, for the contribution it may make to the understanding of the topography and architecture of Corinth. 2 Weinberg, Hesperia, VI, 1937, pp. 487-524.
between the tenth and eleventh columns of the archaic temple (counting from the west) on the north side, showing that the road, having ascended the ridge to its crest, probably continued on in a southwesterly direction. These last mentioned traces also show conclusively that the road was earlier than the archaic temple, or earlierthan about 550 B.C.; and judging from the amount of wear on the rock it must be considerably older. Pottery found in the earth packed into the hollows of the road is similar to that associated with the construction of the temple itself,3 providing another clue as to the period of its use.
II. BUILDINGS OF THE FIFTH TO THE THIRD CENTURIES B.C. A. THE PAINTED BUILDING
Apart from certain archaic deposits and other features4which for practical reasons have been ruled out of our considerationhere, the Greek remains on the site include a complex of rock-cuttings and associated material in the western part of the area, belonging to a series of stoas which will be consideredtogether below; and a peculiar structure represented by a rock-cutting along the eastern end of the south side of the area. This cutting was originallythought to representthe eastern end of one of the stoas mentioned above,5 but it is now clear that in spite of the fact that the south wall of the structure is almost exactly in line with the south wall of one of the stoas, actually two distinct buildings are involved. A completely satisfactory dating and interpretation of this eastern building may never be achieved, although certain suggestions will be made below, and for convenience we may designate it as the Painted Building from the fact that painted plaster still adheres to the rock-cutting constituting its southern wall, and blocks with painted plaster found in the vicinity may probably be assigned to other parts of its walls. An undeterminablepart of the building has been removed by the quarryingperformed preparatory to the construction of the Roman Market which lies to the north, and the remains in situ consist only of a part of its southern side (Plan K; PI. 701 2). This is represented by the bedding for the wall, the cutting below natural rock level for the floor, a series of cuttings in the floor, and certain other traces. The cuttings for the wall and the floor bed show that the structure measured a total of 20.90 m. within the walls along the south side; the cutting for the east wall is preservedto a total length of about 4.50 m., and that for the west wall, about 0.60 m. Within these boundariesis the floor, 3 Weinberg, Hesperia, VIII, 1939, pp. 195ff. especially p. 199. 4 A. J. A., XXXV, 1931, pp. 400, 413. 6 Actually the Painted Building was discovered first (A. J. A., XXXIV, 1930, pp. 448-9); but was later regarded as part of the North Stoa (A. J. A., XXXV, 1931, p. 402).
0.65 m. thick. Only one block of this superstructureis in situ, at the southeast corner, where the cutting intersects the line of the archaic road. The building evidently had two major periods. This is indicated by the fact that the rock wall of the eastern section was covered with a coating of waterproof plaster, on which was later overlaid a coating of plaster with a colored surface; whereas the western part of the building has no trace of the waterproofplaster, but preserveslarge quantities of the colored plaster. Furthermore, the rock floor of the western part is 0.60 m. to 0.80 m. higher than that in the eastern part. In view of these circumstances and of others to appear below we shall assume that the building did in fact have two periods and that the eastern part is earlier. The original part of the structure, which measures 14.60 m. along the south wall on the interior, provides a few indications of its form. In the first place, the surface of the wall was covered, as has been mentioned, with a heavy coarse waterproof cement with a fairly smooth surface, resembling that used in the interior of the fountains of Peirene and Glauke. The same material was also used on the walls of the North Building under the Basilica on the Lechaion Road and other Greek structures at Corinth.At two points along the south wall the stucco shows projections where it had returned along interior walls since removed; traces of these walls may also be detected on the rock floor, showing that they were -probablyin some part hewn out of the living rock. The traces of the easternmost of these walls show that it extended through the building for a distance of at least three meters. We seem, then, to have to do with a building divided into rooms, although whether the rooms were completely enclosed or open on the north side is hardly to be determined. In addition to these indications of walls there is a series of curious phenomena less easy to explain. First, there are several discolorationsalong the rock-cut wall (indicated on Plan K by heavy lines along the wall). These begin a few centimeters above the present floor level, and are forty to fifty centimeters wide, widening toward the top. The discoloration is such as might have been made by fire, and in confirmation of this the rock surface is in most instances somewhat crumbled and less smooth than elsewhere along the face. Two of the discolorations, however, present a smooth, almost rubbed surface, slightly concave, as though an effort had been made to improve the surface. There are two of these discolorations on the east wall and two on the south wall of the easternmost room; and one each on the south wall of the other rooms. Other traces may be seen on the floor. This was evidently originally covered with the same stucco as that applied to the walls, as indicated by ragged edges of stucco at the base of the walls, but none has been preserved on the floor itself. Rather, the floor presents an array of cuttings of various kinds, and in places traces of burning. These traces of burning consist of blackenedareas extending toward the interior of the building
evidence, however, that the building underwent certain modifications which may have removed some of the traces of burning on the floor. For example, the northernmost of the discolorationson the east wall is matched by a line of burningon the floor, which has obviously been partially removed by one small rectangular cutting and one large rectangular cutting made on its path. It must also be recalled that the floor was originally covered with plaster, so that where the burning appears on the rock at all it implies a long use - sufficient to have destroyed the stucco. We may therefore assume that each wall discolorationwas once matched by a floor discoloration. In addition to the floor discolorations,there are three or perhapsfour types of cuttings in the floor. One type consists of more or less irregularholes chopped out of the bed-rock, twenty to forty centimeters in diameter, and ten to twenty centimeters deep; in these were discovered heavy deposits of ash. One of these lies opposite the wall discoloration in the central room of the series; in the eastern room there is another opposite the easternmost along the south wall and there is a trace of a third opposite the other mark on the south wall of the same room. Another group of small cuttings, i. e., about twenty centimeters across, both square and circular,may be detected in the floor, with no prominent indication of burning. The third (and fourth, if the distinction be made) series of cuttings comprisesa group some fifty centimeters wide and seventy or eighty long, rectangular in shape and of various depths. One of these, nearest the southeastern corner, also contained a very heavy deposit of ash and carbonized material; it lies just opposite the southern wall discolorationon the east wall. The other larger cuttings contained earth which included some amount of blackenedmaterial, but not enough, perhaps,to imply actual fire on the spot. The explanation of these phenomena is in considerabledegree a speculative matter, but in general some of the circumstancesare such as to indicate that stoves of a sort had been constructed within the building at various times (Plan M). These stoves would have had a form not unfamiliar today: a fire basin set at some distance from the wall, a low double wall extending thence to the wall of the building, on which vessels might be set over the flames carried by the draft to a flue running up the side of the wall.6 This accounts for the general pattern of a hole in the floor with ash, a discolorationthence to the wall on which another discoloration ascends. It does not account for all of the cuttings, particularly the smaller ones without ash, which have the appearanceof conventional footings for vertical wooden poles or posts. Nor does it account for all of the largerrectangularcuttings, although we have seen that one may be associated with such a stove; the others, particularly those which seem without trace of burning, give the appearance of beddings for rectangular bases of some sort. We should also note that 6
Peschke points out that exactly similar stoves are made by soldiers in camp in Greece today.
matters may be reservedfor the summary of the building (pp. 177-178). This account does not exhaust the peculiarities of the Painted Building. At the
western end of the original structure a small cistern has been constructed by erecting a slab of poros about 0.20 m. thick and 0.65 m. high against the south wall, to form a basin 0.70 m. wide along the western wall of the original building. (The basin has been filled and covered by the masonry of a Roman wall, so that it does not show clearly on the
plan.) The slab abuts against the stucco of the south wall and is hence obviously a later addition; but it is itself covered with stucco and the joints are carefully sealed with the same material. The length of the basin north and south cannot be ascertainedbecause it has been cut away by the quarryfor the Roman Market,but it is preservedfor a length of 1.80 m. Its originalheight may be indicated by a dowel cutting in the rock wall to the south, just above the top of the slab, evidently designed to hold a coping on the slab some 0.70 m. from the floor. On the west, is another dowel hole suggesting that a narrow shelf overhung the basin about a meter from the floor. It is not clear from this evidence, however, whether the basin is earlier than the second period extension and was remodeled when that extension was carried out, or whether it is later than or perhaps contemporarywith the extension. In the section of the building representingthe second period enlargement to the west, there are two phenomena of note. One of these is the plaster on the wall, which, as has been mentioned, is colored. The plaster itself is relatively coarse, compared with the normal finishing stucco of Greek work at Corinth, but it is made of marble dust rather than burnt lime7 and actually does resemble plaster found elsewhere at Corinth and Athens presumably of Greek date. The similarity to Roman plaster, however, is sufficient to prevent any categorical assertion of date. The color on the plaster actually preserved on the rock wall is a Pompeian red; but on blocks built into the Roman retaining wall crossingthe site, presumably belonging to the upper reaches of the building, is preserved plaster with other coloring: basically, a slate blue and a dark green with yellow bands and occasionally curved lines possibly from some floral pattern. The most significant feature of the western enlargement, however, is its relation to a cistern which lies below in the rock of the temple hill. In order to understand the situation, it will be necessary to visualize the cistern in some detail (Plan L, Section A). It consists essentially of a long tunnel running approximately north and south, its north end at present opening in the quarry scarp of the Roman Market, and its south end terminating some 17.50 m. southward in a vertical shaft opening on the summit of the temple hill. This shaft lies some 12 m. north of the temple; it is approximately elliptical in plan, measuringsome 1.00 m. by 0.60 m. The originalbottom of the shaft, represented by traces of the floor of the cistern around the edges, lay some 5.60 m. below the mouth, 7
This detail was pointed out to me by Rodney Young.
The tunnel itself is about 1.80 m. high and 1.45 m. wide, arched at the top 0.75 and with a slightly hollowed floor. It slopes down slightly to the north, showing that it was to be used from that end. The whole of the tunnel was lined on the interior with waterproofstucco, resemblingthe original lining of the Painted Building. The northern end of the system is fairly complicated (Plan L, Section A; Pl. 713). The tunnel proper ends now about 1.50 m. from the face of the Roman quarry scarp. North of this ending it opens into a sort of anteroom carved in the rock, distinguished by a higher ceiling with a more nearly rectangular section. Along the face of the rock above the entrance to the tunnel and in the corners where this face meets the walls of the anteroom are cuttings which may have been for bars closing the tunnel from the anteroom, but there is no indication of the date of these cuttings. The same stucco as appears within the tunnel once lined the whole of the anteroom, although only stray fragments are preserved. The anteroom was closed at the point now cut through by the quarry scarp by a natural rock ledge or sill some 0.50 m. high and now 0.50 m. thick. This has been partly cut away in Roman or Byzantine times, but it originally extended the entire width of the room. On the walls of the anteroom above the inner half of this sill are vertical slots cut into the rock, designed to hold a vertical slab. Small fragments of the slab are still in place on the west side, held there by the cement in which it was set; and the stucco lining of the anteroomis broken along this edge in such a way as to show that it was once continued across the inner face of the slab. The original form of the northern extremity of the system cannot be determined precisely. Probably there was no opening to the exterior at any level approximating that of the floor of the anteroom or sill, but the whole system was completely subterranean. This follows from the presumptionthat the rock level sloped down gradually northwardabove and beyond the anteroom - a presumption derived from the presence of a well cut in the rock just east of the anteroom. It seems hardly likely that a well would have been sunk on the edge of a precipice such as would have to be imagined in order to make the anteroom available from anything approximatingits own floor level. Rather we must assume that the rock mass continued its gentle slope northward, and that carved within the rock, north of the slab closing the anteroom at the level of the top of the sill, there was another small chamberin which people could stand, drawing water from the cistern over the edge of the slab. This outer chamber was accessible from the interior of the western enlargementof the Painted Building by a crude flight of steps cut in the rock, descendingthrough a tunnel. All or at least most of the first step above the sill is preserved, and traces of others may be seen in the rock above and to the east. They appear simply as notches or slight ledges on the edge of the well, which they cross, or of the quarry scarp, which has 11
apparent in the edge of the quarry scarp, although it too has been almost completely removed. Certainproblemsin relative chronology arise in connection with the steps. In the first place, it might appear to be an important question whether the steps are earlier or later than the well. To this a definite answermay be given; the steps are later than the well, for the curved side of the well is visible all along the southern face of the stair-tunnel, whereas if the tunnel had been there when the well was cut, the excavation for the well would have begun at the floor of the stair-tunnel. Unfortunately this offers no clue to the positive date of the stairs, for the well contained only poros chips and earth and was presumably filled with debris from the construction of the cistern. A more difficult problemis the relation of the steps to the poros slab closing the north end of the antechamberof the cistern. Here the position of the slab is such that it blocks off the south end of the first step above the sill, and it is hardly credible that the step would have been cut down behind the edge of the slab in such a manner. The only solution is that there were two periods involved in this relationship. The steps were part of the original system, perhaps cut partly to facilitate construction; and at first descended full into the water of the cistern, so that anyone wanting to use the water would stand on the step just above water level, whereverthat happened to be at the time, and dip directly into it. The inconvenience of this arrangement is obvious, and we may suppose that the poros slab and possibly the northern outer chamber were built later purposely to remedy the difficulty, so that users could stand on a safe surface, drawing water over the slab. One further point about the steps needs to be observed. This is the fact that the topmost preserved step shows only as a slight depression in the floor of the room of the second period enlargement of the Painted Building. From this it is clear that the steps are earlier than the enlargement, which was cut down over the area to which the steps ascended, to approximately the level of the highest preservedstep. Further usable evidence for the nature of the Painted Building has not been identified. There are several blocks from the walls of the superstructure, recognized by their presencein the Roman retaining wall crossing the site and by the nature of the plaster on their surfaces, but they are devoid of special form or cuttings that might contribute additional information about the building. Only one has a cutting of any sort on it; this, while a little peculiar,may well be interpreted simply as a bedding for a beam. One point, however, may be made in final inference. The arrangementof the cuttings on the floor, with relation to boththe east and the south walls, implies that the structure had a central focus; i. e., it approached a square in plan rather than being long and narrow. The restoration in Plan M is intended to be suggestive more than anything else; some
actually available is fairly impressive, however definitive it may or may not be. The original version of the Painted Building consisted of a structure divided into rooms, in which were arrangementswhich we have interpreted as stoves of a sort, vertical poles, and bases or pedestals for some objects. Not all of these arrangementsare of one period. The building was also characterizedby walls covered with hard stucco. To the west was access to a cistern. There was a second major period to the building, in which a room was added to the west encompassingthe cistern; and other slighter modificationsin the arrangements were made from time to time, particularly the introduction of a water basin along the west wall of the original part of the building. This summary probably comprises all that may be ascertained or conjectured from an examination of the remains in situ; further interpretation and restoration on other evidence may be reserved for a summary of the buildings of the Greek period. B. THE NORTHSTOA
The quarryingfor the Roman Market, laid out at an angle to the axis of the Painted Building, has removed all traces of any construction with a small exception to be noted later, for a distance of 25 meters to the west. Beyond this point, the western edge of the Roman Market, the original slope of the hill is revealed plainly, slightly modified by cuttings for the foundation beddings of a series of three buildings (Plans K, M; Pls. 68, 69, 72). These three structures seem to have been similar, and indeed probably successive stages in the history of a single structure, which has been named the North Stoa. The earliest of these is represented by a group of rock cuttings oriented in a line almost exactly parallel with the axis of the archaic temple. The preservedtraces stretch westward from a point about seven meters west of the western edge of the Roman Market. They consist most obviously of four8 cuttings measuring approximately 1.00 by 1.20 m. with an interaxial distance of about 3.70 m. About 2.00 m. south of the axial line of these beddings is a continuous bedding about 1.30 m. wide. Nothing else is preserved of the structure, which might have remained anonymous and unexplained, except for the obvious similarity of its arrangementsto those of the third structure on the site. Between the first and the third, however, an attempt at least was made to lay out a second building. This is representedby the edges of rock cuttings crossing the beddings for the third building at a slight angle just north of the remainsjust described.The lines representthe southern edges of two walls and are about 5.00 m. apart. No further traces 8 Not five (cf. A. J. A., XXXV, 1931, p. 398); the easternmost cutting is incidental to the bedding for the Third Stoa.
11*
excavation it appeared that a layer of trodden earth represented the surface on which work was carried out and probably the proposed ground and floor level. There is no indication of the ground plan of the building, beyond what one may choose to infer from the probabilitiesof its resemblingits predecessorand successor on the same site. Of the third period of the building, or series of buildings, the remains are relatively abundant. They consist first of the beddings for two parallel walls, the northern with a maximum width of 0.80 m., and the southern about 0.60 m. wide, separated by an interval of 4.50 m. The actual width of the north wall is more clearly suggested by a line of stylobate blocks preserved along part of its extent, with a minimum width of 0.50 m. The overall width of the building of this stylobate ledge measured from the would be 5.85 m. Between these beddings extends a row of rectangular cuttings at intervals of 2.25 m. on the axis, rangingfrom 0.70 m. to 0.90 m. on a side. In the second, fourth, and sixth positions from the western end of the line are still standing stone piers of which one is about 0.59 m. square, although they are not regular - one is 0.53 by 0.67, the third 0.58 by 0.61 m. The axis of this line lies 2.70 m. from the front of the stylobate, or a little north of the true central axis of the building. These beddings extend some 46 m. to the western scarp of the quarry for the Roman Market. For the restoration of this third North Stoa enough is preservedto provide a general idea of its appearance, but not enough to give much detail. We may begin with the observation that the ground rises to the southward, so that on the ground floor at least there could have been only one facade, toward the north. An examination of the preserved stylobate on this side reveals a series of lightly dressed beddings, occasionally accompaniedby pry-holes and weather lines. These traces are not very distinct, but in certain cases it appears evident that they represent rectangular piers faced by halfcolumns on the north. Not all of the beddings show clear signs of the half-column, and some show none, but there can be no question about several. The pier indicated by them would have a maximum width of about 0.35 m., and a thickness front to back of not more than 0.45 m.; and the interaxial spacing would be about 1.51 m. Correspondingto these indications is a fragment of a pier faced on one narrowside by an unfluted half-column (Fig. 72). The pier is about 0.325 m. wide and 0.45 m. deep; it is clearly a match for the marks on the stylobate. Nothing has been identified as the capital for these piers, or for an epistyle or other crowning member, but a characteristic and informative survival may be seen in one complete block and several fragments of cornice, which evidently marked the transition between the first and second stories of some building, in all probability the third North Stoa. They are well carved, with a simple overhang and moldings (Fig. 73; PI. 714). On the upper surface are sunken cuttings 0.21 m. wide intended to receive slabs or wooden sills for gratings to serve as balustrades for the second story fa9ade. These cuttings are
of the cornice on which are cut dowel holes. These evidently bore posts or piers supporting the balustrade. One of the cornices bears the inscribed letter koppa on its under surface. The posts may be identified in a series of two types of block, both rectangularin plan. One type measures 0.235 by 0.42 m., and bears a deep slot on each of the broad sides equal in width to that on the top of the cornice; these were evidently intended to receive the ends of the slabs (Fig. 74). The two best preservedfragments show that this slot did not ascend the whole height of the post, but was cut off square at the top. This does not
1FIGURE 73.
SEC0IFF a +vr
I --------
FIGURE
73.
-
--------
OF CORNICE FROM LOWER STORY
SECTION FA(ADE
OF NORTH STOA
f,
O
FIGURE STOA STOA
74.
20
'0
BALUSTRADE-PIER
OF SECOND
30 cm
FROM NORTH FACADE
STORY OF NORTH STOA
member. The blocks of this type show dowel holes on the top surface; one bears the inscribed letter koppa on its face. The other type (Fig. 75) to be associated with the posts has the same dimensions in plan, or very slightly less indicating some diminution (the blocks are not clean-cut and dimensions vary on each block; presumably the true surface was produced by stucco), but they lack the slot. They have dowel holes of appropriatesize and arrangement;one bears the inscribed letter koppa. They must have rested on top of the blocks of the first type, and continued the post to an undeterminedheight. Several fragments and two complete specimens of the balustrade slabs are preserved. These measure about 0.205 m. in thickness, and 0.92 m. in height; the length of the two complete slabs differs slightly -1.32 m. and 1.285 m. If we add to these the thickness of the posts, we get a total of 1.555 m. in one case, 1.52 m. in the other, which is enough to indicate that if the slabs were set properly in the slots of the posts, the interaxial distance of the posts could fall at intervals of 1.51 m. or just above the half-columns of the lower story. In regard to these slabs, however, it should be noted that the cutting on some of the long edges of some of them actually seems more appropriateto a paving slab than to a vertical member; this may be due to recutting for later use, or to some special adaptation for fitting a coping. But the possibility remains that the blocks so characterized belong to a heavy paving and fit the specifications for the balustrade by pure coincidence. It is an important question, which cannot be answered, whether the fa9ade of the second story consisted solely of these posts with balustrade between, or whether there were columns at intervals. No indication of the existence of such columns survives, and we have no justification for restoring them even by hypothesis, but the possibility remains that some arrangementof this type was carriedout. On the other hand, several fragments of a small, delicately cut Doric cornice were found on the site. The mutule measures about 0.21 m. in length, the via at least 0.05 m. (no complete via is preserved). On such a cornice the axial spacing of six mutules (five plus two halves plus six via) would be 1.56 m. This is slightly greater than the 1.51 m. axial spacing inferredabove, but it is quite close, and measurementsof a single mutule in poros cannot be expanded for a whole range of cornice with purely mechanical mathematics. We may, therefore, accept the hypothesis that there was a Doric entablature around the top of the building, with every fourth triglyph over a support. The restoration of the north elevation then seems fairly assured: it was two stories high, the first open except for supports consisting of half-columns on piers; the second open except for a balustradebetween rectangularposts; a plain cornice between the two stories and a Doric entablature above. Two important questions need to be considered- the length of the building, and the
absolute certainty; it must have been longer than the parts preserved, and it could not have been so long as to block the ascent to the archaic temple, to be describedbelow. If we assume that the lower fagade terminated at each end in a blank wall with an anta on the axis of the end interior pier, the projection of this arrangementto an east end within the limit suggested would give a probablelength of 54.40 m.
0
FIGURE
0
_ 75.
UPPER
30 cn
SECTION
OF PIER
FROM NORTH FACADE OF SECOND STORY OF NORTH STOA
FIGURE
76. FRAGMENT POSSIBLY
OF DORIC CAPITAL, FROM NORTH STOA
As to the height of the lower story, however, we may arrive at a closerapproximation. It is clear of course that the ground floor did not open toward the south, for the rock stands at least 1.50 m. higher on this side, in places (Plans K, L, Section B). On the other
end of the south side of the Stoa. It extends diagonally southeast from the southwest corner of the building for a distance of some 21 meters. The wall, itself, is partially preservedin places and can be traced elsewhere by rock-cut beddings. It contains some re-used material, but is none the less possibly contemporary with the Stoa. In the original excavation report it was suggested that the wall is earlierthan the stoa and was cut away at its northwestern end when the south wall of the Stoa was built. A cutting which continues the line of the retaining wall across the south foundation of the Stoa would support this view, but on the other hand the lower courses of the retaining wall at the point of abutment with the line of the stoa are laid parallel to the Stoa and not to the line of the wall. This suggests that the Stoa was in position when they were laid. It is likely that the Stoa and wall are contemporary,and that the diagonal representssome change in plan in their mutual relationship made during construction. In any case, it is clear that a road led up from the west of the Stoa toward the archaic temple below this wall, but that a terrace supported by the wall provided an esplanade along the west end of the Stoa probably continuing the general ground level to the south in front of the center of the building. The highest preserved level of the top of the retaining wall is 1.75 m. above the floor of the building, but the stratification of earth to the south shows that the ground level south of the east end of the wall was at least 2.25 m. above the lower floor of the Stoa. Thus the terrace must be restored to at least that height, and so also the second floor of the Stoa itself. For the second story there is no evidence by which to estimate its height, other than "normal"proportions. As to the southern fa9ade, opening on to this terrace, we have unfortunately no evidence whatsoever. The natural assumption would be that it consisted of a row of columns - Doric, in view of the cornice previously associated with the building - but no remains of stylobate or columns have been identified. A fragment of a Doric capital (Fig. 76), with an upper column-diameterof about 0.26 m., has been found; this seems about right in scale, and may be associated tentatively with this fagade. One peculiarity of the arrangement would be that there was no step below the stylobate: this follows from the fact that the foundation is only 0.60 m. wide, which hardly allows for the stylobate itself, much less a step below. However, other stoas at Corinth lack the canonical three-step arrangementand we need not considerthe difficulty great. As to the interior of the building, our informationis more definite but serves only to emphasize the essential simplicity of the structure. In regard to the ground floor, the floor was of trodden earth, the same floor, indeed, associated with the second North Stoa. Through this level the foundations for the building were cut and no other floor appears above it. In the lower story there could have been little decoration. The range of rectangularpiers through the middle, rough in finish, and irregularin plan, would be
face below the bedding for the masonry of the south wall. The interior of the second story may be reconstructedas almost equally simple. Two blocks, one 0.305 m. high, and 0.575 by 0.60 m. in plan, the other 0.32 m. high and 0.59 by 0.63 m. in plan (although all edges are rough and the dimensions are only approximate) have been preserved,with dowel holes and pry-holes on the top. One has only two dowel holes 0.30 m. apart, and the pry-hole is 0.15 m. from the axis of these; the other (Fig. 77) has two sets of dowel holes. The outer set is 0.325 m. apart, the other set inside
O
FIGURE
77.
BEDDING
10
2
FOR INTERIOR
o0
40
PIER FROM SECOND
5
,
STORY
OF NORTH STOA
of these 0.285 m. apart; presumablythe closer set pairwere cut by mistake. In any case, the suggestion is that on these blocks rested rectangular piers not more than about 0.30 m. wide and more than 0.33 m. long. The blocks themselves are approximately the size to rest on the tops of the basement piers, and their rough faces must have been obscured by the flooring of the second story. Correspondingto these is a set of rectangular piers. One (Fig. 78) has dowel cuttings at both ends: it is 1.25 m. long, and 0.30 m. by 0.43 m. at the top and 0.30 m. by 0.44 m. at the bottom. The bottom is recognized by the fact that the dowel holes at this end
one of these pour channels the lead is still preserved. The dowels here are about 0.32 m. apart. Two other blocks, with no dowel holes on the top but two on the bottom (recognized by the pour channel) have approximately the same measurementsin plan but are shorter in length. These piers could perfectly well fit the blocks we have assigned to rest on top of the first floor piers, and probably represent the interior supports for the second story of the building. It might seem superfluous to have interior supports in a building so narrow, but in view of the fact that the northern fa9ade at least was carried solely on narrow piers (accordingto our hypothesis) the interior supports might have been felt desirable. This is all that can be said about the architectureof the Stoa,9with any confidence, on the basis of remains identified: on the south, a Doric fa9ade facing the archaic temple; on the north, a two story fagade, the lower consisting of half columns, the upper of posts partially enclosed by a balustrade; inside, interior supports of rectangular piers. The building as visualized was plain to an extreme, with few embellishmentsfrom the normal repertoireof Greek architectural design; as such it goes with the North Building under the Roman Basilica on the Lechaion Road, the two together suggesting the possibility that classical Corinth may have had something of an architectural style of its own characterizedby rectangular rather than cylindrical supports, and severe, simple lines. The piers and posts, with their narrow faces toward the observer on the outside, would make the building lighter in impression than it would have been had supports of equal strength, but square or circularin plan, been used - a feature common enough in the upper levels of Hellenistic buildings, but here apparent on the first floor as well. The interior would have been more open than the conventional stoa, airy and even windy. Lacking any information on details of capitals and so forth, we can hardly go further in analysing the style of the structure, although the preserved cornices show that these other details, too, would have been firm and precise, but probably not fluent and graceful. Turningnow from the Stoa proper,we may considera feature which may probably be associated intimately with the Stoa and considered part of an architectural complex including the Stoa. This is what has been described, in the original excavation report, as a street running along the northern fagade of the Stoa, but which, from a different 9 Two blocks presenting unusual features were found in the area and may conceivably have had a place in the Stoa. One (Fig.79) represents a quarter-column on the inside corner of a building or room in a building. The other (Fig. 80) represents a sort of anta with a projecting section off one side having a slightly incurved end at an acute angle to the face; the broad face of the anta is cut to receive a narrow slab or parapet. Neither finds a place in the North Stoa as we have felt compelled to restore it, unless the "anta" is actually part of some small structure within the building, and it is probable that they belong to some other building near by. The quality of workmanship, the excellent stucco, and the peculiarity of the pieces, however, suggest that their publication may be of interest. It should also be added that numerous roof tiles were found in the debris on the site of the Stoa, and may conceivably have been used on it. But they seem to come from a larger building, of the fifth century, and their publication may be anticipated in a general account of the architectural terracottas soon to appear.
[A
/
A"
FIGURE
79.
7
o.
f-------c. c HORIZONTAL
MEMBER
---
SECTION
FOUND
OF ARCHITECTURAL
NEAR NORTH STOA
-I'
i~c~ r-
)
/
'
W
=
0
20
10
_
-,'
GUR 80. ~
,
/
.., 1
/
(/''
/
, ,
AND
-
( ,
. , ! /,
? /.
/ ,
,r
''
?
0
30
FIGURE
78,
10 INTERIOR
S PIER
OF NORTI
40
5Q c
FROM SECOND STOA
STORY
/
ECTION
(
! -/
I
^ // ?
'I ] /
t '
t
I
/
-
/
FIGURE
.
HORIZONTAL I'
,-
./ ..
'
-
ELEVATION/
50 c
40
30
80.
ELEVATION
OF ANTA FOUND
AND HORIZONTAL
SECTION
NEAR NORTH STOA
171 [[171]
parallel to it, runs a poros sill some 0.48 m. wide and 0.28 m. high, resting on a packing of poros chips on earth, at about the same level as the stylobate. On top of this sill is a groove 0.16 m. wide, to receive a parapet consisting of stone slabs. Part of one of these slabs is still in situ, and most of the rest was found lying intact on the ground in front of it. The entire slab was 2.00 m. high, 0.90 m. wide, and 0.155 m. thick; the surface was finished with hard, thin, white stucco. On one vertical edge it has normal anathyrosis, but on the other it is cut out deeply in a circulargroove; at one point in the face of this groove is a dowel hole. The groove was evidently intended to receive a convexly circular edge on a neighbouringpost standing on the sill just to the west, where there is no slot on the sill. Just to the east of the slab the line of the groove is broken and the surface of the sill seems foot-worn on the edge; this must mean that there was a gate through the parapet here, but its width cannot be ascertained. (The gate is omitted on plan M). The use of the tongue-and-groovearrangementsuggests that several slabs might have been joined vertically to present a continuous even surface, but a bedding for a post may be seen farther to the west, and we may suppose that there was a series of them to strengthen the line of the barrier. At the western end of the sill as exposed there is another worn place, suggesting another gate. It has not been found possible to suggest any arrangementof posts beyond these, and in the restoration (Plan M) the placing of the posts is purely arbitrary. The Area between this fence and the Stoa, throughout the western part of its extent, was paved with a surface of poros chips beaten and worn hard and smooth. This surface extended also around the western end of the Stoa; its extent eastward was not clearly apparent. However, if our inferences as to the shape of the Painted Building are correct it may well have continued the full length of the Stoa and beyond to the fagade of the Painted Building. Within the Area, in front of the western end of the Stoa, are a few stones which demand notice though they defy definite interpretation. A short line of wall close to the Stoa near its end is composed of poros blocks and re-used Greek architecturalmembers from a tiny shrine, or house, and is probably Roman as it is set down through earth which accumulated after the destruction of Corinth. But in the same area, its borders broken by this Roman work, is a cutting through the Area surface which probably represents the plundered foundation for a monument. A small block standing through the surface of the Area north east of this, with two cuttings resembling small stele beddings on the top, may be of Greek date; whether it actually bore stelae or had some other use has not been determined. In connection with the Area should be noticed a large poros waterbasin, a meter square and 0.45 m. high, set against the sill (P1.712). Its top lies about 0.10 m. above the road surface. A channel leads from the north across the sill to a point just west of the
from this channel. On the south side of the basin is an outlet, emptying into a rock-cut channel which leads southward across the street, under the stylobate of the Stoa, to empty into a square shaft in the interior of the Stoa. The channel was originally covered with poros slabs, some of which were replaced, probably in Roman times, by marble slabs. But the channel is certainly earlier than the stoa, for one of the interior piers was bedded on its cover slabs. From the bottom of the shaft a passage leads westward for about 23 meters, ending as a kind of cistern. Another, less well cut channel, approaches the shaft from the south. The basin against the sill in the open area was probably primarily a settling basin; the level of the outlet, 0.14 m. above the floor, is quite appropriatefor such a use. But it may also have functioned to provide water for persons in the Area. A final point about the Stoa complex must be indicated. Some 34 meters from the western end a cross wall is preserved, and continuing northward from this to a line meeting the extended line of the sill for the Stoa Area is a rock cut bedding. This arrangement presumably belongs to a fourth stage in the history of the complex, probably Roman, for the chisel tooling on some blocks is of a type characteristic of Roman work at Corinth.But attempts to develop any reconstructionof the architectural nature or function of this fourth period have been fruitless. C. THE ASCENT TO THE ARCHAIC TEMPLE
Between the Painted Building on the east, and the presumed end of the North Stoa on the west, are some rock-cut beddings on the hillside which probably belong to a road or flight of steps leading to the summit of the temple hill from the Stoa Area on the north. The most clearly defined of these is a line of cuttings some 7.50 m. from the inside corner of the west wall of the Painted Building; a corner of a deep bedding is preserved in the Roman quarry scarp, and thence the line leads three meters south where two blocks still in situ disappearunder the unexcavated earth. Another line is visible to the west of this, indicating a structure of some sort with an overall width east and west of about 5.90 m. It is barely possible that these represent the walls of a building whose northern part was removed by the quarry and whose southern part is still buried, but consideringthe general position it seems reasonableto suppose that they belong rather to some sort of ascent leading between the Painted Building and the Stoa, from the Stoa Area to the temple.
D. CHRONOLOGYAND INTERPRETATION For the history of these buildings which we have tacitly assumed to date generally from the fifth to the third centuries B.C., there are two fairly definitely dated points.
working floor of the second Stoa and into which the foundations of the third Stoa were set. The other is the year 146 B.C., when the third Stoa was destroyed so that its debris was found in a deposit of brownishearth and sand representingthe accumulation during the period of the abandonment of Corinth. The pottery beneath the working surface of the second Stoa included specimens from all early periods at Corinth,up to the middle or third quarter of the fifth century B.C., and similar pottery was associated with the surface of poros chips belonging to the sill and the Stoa Area.10Thus the Area itself, the sill, and the second Stoa, probably date from the third quarter of the fifth century. The first Stoa would be earlier, how much can hardly be said; and the third Stoa must be later. Thereis some further evidence for defining the date of the third Stoa. One point is its relation to the drain running from the sill to the shaft within the Stoa. One of the piers was set over the cover slabs of the drain channel, and is therefore later; over these cover slabs were found fragments of pottery dating from as late as the middle of the fourth century B.C.11Anotherindicationis a hoard of coins found beneath the floor of the Stoa'2 (Pl. 73). It is true that the floor of the third Stoa seems to have been indistinguishable from that of the second, but special considerations may be brought to bear to narrowthe issue. If the hoard had been buried before the construction of the third Stoa, there might seem to have been considerable likelihood that it would have been discovered during the operation, for the deposit of earth is very thin and the coins were just under the surface, under a coarse plate. The balance of probability, then, would be that the coins were buried after the third Stoa was finished and in use. The hoard consisted of forty-one gold staters of Philip and ten of Alexander; the proportion would indicate that the collection was made during the lifetime of Alexander, and very likely the burial occurred during the same general period. This evidence of course is far from decisive, but taken with the rest it fits well enough with the general supposition that the third Stoa was built toward the end of the third quarter of the fourth century B.C. For the further history of the Stoa there are no definite points until its destruction in 146. For this there is abundant and interesting evidence.13Over the originalsurfacingof the area north of the Stoa lies a layer of reddish clay some 0.05 to 0.10 m. thick, and above this a heap of debris from the Stoa and other ruined buildings. On the floor of the Stoa were quantities of ash and burned wood, fire damaged roof tiles, some sling bullets and spearheads,and numbersof stone balls from catapults. Here and there were more or less orderly heaps of debris from the building, broken blocks and chips of poros, and numerous Corinthian and Sikyonian coins. Over and around all this lay a deposit of earth and gravel 0.60 m. to 1.00 m. in depth. The picture, then, is fairly clear. The 10 12
A. J. A., XXXV, 1931, p. 399. Ibid., pp. 405, 418.
11 Ibid., p. 404. 13 Ibid., pp. 408-411.
after someone came in to clean things up, and may even have undertaken some degree of restoration, although it is more likely that the operation was primarily one of removing stone for other purposes. In the meantime and later, unretarded wash from higher ground brought in quantities of earth, covering the entire site. The fact that this earth included only Greek pottery and other objects of similar date is the final clue needed to establish what in any case would be fairly obvious, that the building was destroyed by Mummius. Under the circumstances, the signs of work among the ruins are to be ascribed to the Sikyonians to whom Corinth was assigned during its period of desertion. In all this the relation of the Painted Building to the various periods mentioned is obscure. No pottery was found in such relation to the structure as to give the date of the building; the only datable material was found in the earth with which it was filled when a Roman retaining wall was built across its floor. The pottery, although it included some Arretine ware, was essentially Greek in character and undoubtedly represents an activity of an epoch little, if any, later than the time of Christ. The painted plaster on the second period of the building is, as we have seen, perhaps equivocal in character. It could, possibly, date from the first years of the newly founded city, but with equal if not greater likelihood, it could date from the period before the destruction. On the whole, we may be safe in saying that the originalstructure belongs full in the Greekera, and the enlargement late in the same period. Less objective than the slight evidence discussed above, and hardly more definitive, is an inference that might be made from the orientation of the building. This is, as we have seen, precisely parallel to the axis of the third period of the North Stoa. From this it might be inferred that the two are contemporary, but the situation is not quite so simple, for we may rememberthat the parapet bounding the area north of the Stoa is also parallel to the Stoa, and perhaps a hundred years earlier. Thus it might be argued that the orientation of the Stoa was determined by the parapet, and in this light it is equally reasonable to imagine that the Painted Building was oriented with relation to the parapet and its area, independently of the Stoa. From this point of view the Painted Building might be as early as the third quarter of the fifth century. It need not be emphasizedthat this remains only a possibility, and that in point of fact there is no real evidence as yet for its absolute date. To that dating we shall returnyet again, if briefly, but first it is desirableto undertake a consideration of the functional significance of the buildings in question. In so doing, we may consider their most peculiar features, in an attempt to distinguish them from similar structures of different use. In regard, then, to the North Stoa, there are three features which may strike the attention. First is the extreme simplicity of the design, and also, perhaps, the relatively small size. Second is its close association with the
ruins were numbers of stone balls from catapults. So far as the architectural form of the building is concerned, an examination of parallels offers no suggestion for the definition of its use. The general type is familiar among Hellenistic stoas, particularly in Asia Minor,14but one of the closest parallels in many details is the fifth century North Buildingat Corinthitself.15Among these buildings there is no demonstrable community of purpose which would be useful in establishing the particularpurpose of the North Stoa. The enclosed Area on the north implies that the building required some privacy, and an open-airenclosureof its own. True, the originalhypothesis of the excavators was that the parapet was intended to prevent people in front of the Stoa from seeing whatever there was on the northern side of the parapet, but this purpose would have been easily defeated by anyone sufficiently interested to ascend to the second story of the Stoa. Furthermore, the paving or surfacing of the area returns around the west end of the Stoa, implying that its specific association is with the Stoa. These are nebulous points, but they may have some validity taken together with the rest of the picture when it has been assembled. The final point, regarding the catapult balls, is more objective and definite. About thirty of these balls were found, in various sizes (PI. 722). The diameters range from 0.09 m. to 0.83 m.; there seem to be four or five "calibers"represented (ca. 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 cm. respectively), but the balls are not very true in shape, and there seem to be intermediate sizes. Some bore inscribed letters: Ir, N, NH,P (or koppa ). They are made of various materials, including marble, and hard and soft limestones. The quality of the workmanshipvaries considerably.16 The question arises, how did these balls happen to be assembled around the Stoa ? Of several answers, three emerge as possible: that they were hurled into the area by besieging Romans during the final siege; that they were brought here at the same time by the Corinthiansfor a defense battery; or that they were stored here as in an arsenal. Of these, the first is hardly credible. The normalfunction for artillery in Hellenistic days was to support an assault on a fortified position; the nearest fortified position, the city walls near the Asklepieion, is over 500 meters away. This, incidentally, is a final argument against any theory that the balls were shot into the city by the besiegers,for range 14 Aegae: Bohn, R. Altertumervon Aegae, Jahrb., Erganzungsheft 2, 1889, pp. 14ff. en Graceet Asie Mineure Sous la direction de Alinda: Ibid., pp. 29ff.; also S. Reinach, Voyage ArchMologique M. Philippe Le Bas, (Paris, 1888), II, pls. 4, 5. Assos: Clarke, Bacon, Koldewey, Investigationsat Assos, (Boston 1902), pp. 25, 75-108. Pergamon: Theatre terrace, Bohn, Altertiimervon Pergamon, IV, (Berlin, 1896), pp. 21-40; Gymnasium terraces, Schazmann, Pergamon, VI (Berlin, 1923). 16 Stillwell, Corinth, I, i, pp. 212-228. 16 For comparative material, see von Szalay and Boehringer, Pergamon, X, (Berlin, 1937), pp. 48-54, pl. 31; Karo, Arch. Anz., 1930, col. 98, fig. 4.
were Stoa, army dislodged by the Romans only after the latter had brought up heavy artillery. This is possible, but not likely, consideringthe open position of the Stoa. The distance, furthermore, argues against the supposition that the Corinthians themselves had a defense battery in this position, for the range of five hundred meters to the walls is too far, even though it is down hill. The third possibility remains, that the Stoa was an Arsenal. This concept is born out by the discovery in the debris of fragments of sling bullets and other weapons and indeed by the particular ferocity of the demolition. Few other buildings at Corinthfared so ill. The structure was, moreover,probably a public building as the letter koppaon two of the blocks is most naturally interpreted, particularlyat this date, as the initial letter of 9opLvOiov.As an arsenal, there is much to be said for the arrangement of the complex and its location. It is simple and even rough in places, adapted to storage better than to display. It is centrally located, with particularly easy access to the walls toward the gulf. It is provided with an enclosed area in front, which could be used to expand the storage space or to serve as a parade for the garrison guarding the supplies. It differs, of course, from the normal type of arsenal exemplified at Pergamon,18but the form of the building as a Stoa does not rule it out of consideration, for Aeneas Tacticus (XI,3) in one passage uses the word "stoa" where he clearly means an arsenal. The building is not, furthermore,too unlike the Arsenalof Philo in the Peiraeus, although on a much smaller scale, of course, and it is essentially similar, both in interior design and location, to the Chalkothekeon the Acropolis in Athens.19 We shall have more to say about the function of the Stoa, but first it will be convenient to considerthe Painted Building. Here the peculiaritiesare marked: the arrangements for water supply; the hypothetical arrangementsfor stoves; the probable placements for wooden posts and stone pedestals. These peculiarities, in sum, point rather directly to the possibility that the building was a bath, specifically one devoted to washing in hot water. The basic supply of water was the cistern; from this, water was brought to the immediate supply-sourcein the basin along the west side of the original building. The water would be heated in vessels on the stoves; the bathers would hang their clothes and utensils on the posts, and wash out of large bowls resting on the pedestals. It is true that these arrangementsdo not resemble closely those of other Greek baths 17 Schramm, in Kromayer-Veith, Heerwesenund Kriegfiihrungder Griechenund Romer, (Muller,Handbuchder Altertumswissenschaft,IV, 3, 2), (Munich, 1928), p. 241. 18 von Szalay and Boehringer, op. cit., especially pp. 25-28. 19 G. P. Stevens, Hesperia, Supplement III, 1940, pp. 7-19. Note also the similarity in plan to the Warehouse at Miletos (Knackfuss, Milet, I, 7, [Berlin, 1924], pp. 156-177; this was not probably an arsenal but primarily a functional building with good workmanship, designed for storage).
12
ized by rectangular tubs, larger than a wash-basin but smaller than a modern tub; at Olympia and Delos there was also a single stove to heat water for all the tubs. Another is characterized by the plunge, a pool large enough for several people to immerse themselves, if not actually to swim. A third is characterized by rooms, usually circular, so arranged as to be heated as a whole, in which people could sit as in a Turkish bath or Roman caldarium.None of these features is characteristicof the Painted Building. On the other hand, some of the peculiarities of the Painted Building have good parallels in vase paintings.21(P1. 76). The common type of bath scene on vases shows the bather standing under a spout on a wall, higher than his head, in shower-bath fashion; or, standing around a large bowl on a pedestal, washing out of it. In the latter type a well-head is usually representedclose by, from which someone is usually drawing water for the bowl. In both cases there are posts or columns with arrangementsfor hanging the bather's clothing and appurtenances. These features we have inferred for the Painted Building, with the exception of the wall-spouts. As to the other peculiarity, the stoves, we have observed that there was a common stove in the bath at Olympia and one in Delos, and there is evidence for individual stoves, in Plutarch's Life of Demetrius (Chap.24). Plutarch tells of Demetrius making advances to a youth while in an individual room of a bath apparently operated privately for public use. The youth, desperate to avoid the unwanted attention, took the lid from a kettle of water heating in the room, jumped into the water, and scalded himself to death. Whatever other interest may attach to this passage, it seems to indicate that some baths at least had arrangementsfor heating water in private wash-rooms. In short, limited and inferential though the argument is, it points directly and reasonably to the supposition that the Painted Building was a balaneion, or hot bath. One further point derives from this argument. If the supposition is correct, and the parallelsto the vases are properly taken, the differencefrom the commonly known Greek baths may be explained by a differencein date. The vases are from the fifth century (it is true that Plutarch's hot bath is fourth, but there is ample evidence for hot baths in the fifth22) and the fact that our bath resembles the vases more than it does the known 20 Type I: Eretria (A. J. A., Series I, XI, 1896, pp. 152-165); Nemea (Art and Archaeology, XIX, 1925, pp. 176-9, and A. J. A., XXXI, 1927, pp. 430ff. Mr. Hill has also shown me drawings); Olympia (H. Schleif, Neuen Ausgrabungenin Olympia, [Berlin, 1943], pp. 12-15, pls. 2, 7-11. Schleif also refers to a similar bath at Delos in House N, Insula III. I owe this reference to D. M. Robinson); Priene (Priene, [Berlin, 1904], pp. 266, 269-71). Type II: Delphi (E. N. Gardiner, GreekAthletic Sports and Festivals, [London, 1910], pp. 483-5); cf. Olympia above. Type III: Athens (Arch. Anz., 1936, col. 208-213; 1937, col. 184-195; 1938, col. 607-610); Oeniadae (A. J. A., VIII, 1904, pp. 216-226); cf. Olympia above. 21 Sudhoff, Karl, Aus dem Antiken Badewesen,(Berlin, 1910); Gardiner, op. cit., pp. 480-482. See also "Bader" (Mau, in Pauly-Wissowa, BE) and "Balneum" (Saglio in Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquites). 22 Aristophanes, Knights, 1060; Clouds, 837, 991, 1045; Herodotus, IV, 75. The bath at Olympia (note 20) had a stove about 400 B. C.
early date for the original form of the building. But to return to the problem of function, we may now consider the group as a whole: the Stoa, about which we have seen some reason to believe that it may have served as an arsenal, the Area in front of it, and the bath in the Painted Building (Plan M). We may recall that the Stoa in which the catapult balls were found was built in the fourth century, and the balls date from the second, so it might seem unsafe to argue from the catapult balls that a building erected two hundred years earlier was intended to house them, still less that two predecessorsof the building were so intended. This is reasonable enough, but all we need maintain is that the balls were stored in the Stoa because the Stoa had always been used to store arms, or had military associations which made its use as an arsenal appropriate. Furthermore, the complex, whose different parts were built at different times, dates as a whole from an early date and the third Stoa is simply one element in it. As a complex, it has a generalizedparallelin the gymnasium at Delphi23 which also consisted of a stoa, an open area for running, and a bath (of a different type). But the concept of gymnasium combined with military associations is a normal element in Greek life, and means simply the ephebate. Although there is no specific record of this institution at Corinth we may confidently assume that it existed in some form, and suppose that the complex as a whole was devoted to the use, training, and equipment of the young Corinthianmen undergoing training at arms. The Area would serve as a ground for exercise, the bath for its own purpose, the Stoa for storage and shelter for any permanent or semi-permanentguard. It is true that the Area is not long enough for a full stadium course, by a good deal, but it is large enough for gymnastic practise in general, as in an ordinary palaestra. The location so close to what must have been one of the most distinguished temples of ancient Corinth need not militate against the interpretation for we may recall that the Chalkothekebehind the Parthenon also served as an arsenal. We also know from ancient writers on tactics that centralized posts for defense were recommended and doubtless developed in the Hellenistic period, and that the city's defendershad regular assembly points in case of emergency. Aeneas Tacticus (I; 111,4) specifies such points near the market and theatre, and in XXII he says that the general's headquartersshould be in the city-hall or market, if defensible. There is nothing inherently unreasonable or implausible about the idea. The defect is the scantiness of the evidence; the other side of the picture is that the evidence which is available points in this direction. 23
Gardiner,op. cit., pp. 483-6; idem, Athletics of the Ancient World, (Oxford, 1930), pp. 72-90.
12*
Roman activity in the excavated area is representedmost impressively by the Market building established in the eastern part of the area; less noticeably by a retaining wall which may be traced for the entire length of the site along the southern side; and by certain minor features to be noticed collectively. A. THE ROMAN MARKET The Roman Market (Plans K, N; Plates 68, 69, 74) lies partly on the bed of a quarry cut along the east end of the northern slope of the hill, for a distance of some 58 meters, and partly on earth filled onto the natural rock slope north of this quarry bed. The south wall of the quarry is almost exactly parallel with the axis of the archaic temple. The rock floor, which lies some five meters below the natural rock on the south, extends some 30 meters north along the west, and 15 meters along the east side of the Market area, before the natural slope drops below the floor of the quarry and filling is needed to complete the area required, some 58 meters east and west and 46.50 meters north and south. The Market laid out in this terrace was rectangular,with fifteen shop spaces along the south and north sides, and ten shop spaces along the east and west sides. Within the rectangle so formed was a colonnade, forming a peristyle corridorin front of the shops and an open court in the center. This was the general arrangement of the building, a picture which it is possible to fill out in general, although some important points remain obscure. We may take for a point of departure an examination of the walls of the building along the south, where they are best preserved (PI. 742). Here the bedding course, 0.66 m. wide, is set into a trench cut into the rock floor of the quarry, and on it rise the walls, some 0.61 m. thick. The masonry throughoutis good: well squared blocks presumably taken from the quarry itself, although the tooling in some cases gives rise to the suspicion that some of the blocks at least may have been taken from Greek buildings without, however, having left any trace of their original function. The rear wall is best preserved, and rises quite generally to include the seventh course above the foundation course, or 3.80 m. above the presumedlevel of the floor. The indications are that there never was any ashlar masonry above this level, for on the outer wall, as on the few blocks of the partitions which are preservedof this course, there are no pry-holesor other suggestions of heavy stones rising above, but on the contrary there are frequent traces of a fairly hard cement which in one place still holds two or three small stones to the top of the wall. From this the inference is that the masonry above this level was of small stones and concrete. The partition walls between the shops are coursed with the back wall, and where the
through to abut against the rock face. In some, but not all, of the coursesof the sidewalls appear cuttings for swallow-tail clamps varying from 0.25 to 0.38 m. in length. These occur in the first course, where it can be observed, occasionally in the second, and frequently but not always in the third and fifth courses. Usually they are found only at the outer ends of the walls and not toward the rear. The front wall of the shops amounts simply to a jamb projecting about 0.30 m. from the side of the partition at each end (P1. 751). In the first course this jamb is a slab of stone set as an orthostate; in the second it is a long block set crosswise to the partition for the full length, bonding both jambs into position; and so, presumably,alternately on up the wall. Between these jambs there must have been a low sill, for the foundation course where preserved is about 0.25 m. below the presumed floor level and shows no sign of wear; furthermore,in every case at least one rough channel has been cut through it presumably to carry a drain pipe under the sill from the interior of the shop to a drain that ran along the front of all the shops. No fragment of the sill, however, has been found in situ or identified, so there is no way of telling its nature or whether there were any arrangements for closing the doors. The probability is that there were not, for an examination of the jambs where preserved shows no trace of any arrangementfor this purpose. The top of the doors was probably formed by a flat arch rather than a lintel. This is simply an hypothesis, for although one good example of a block from a flat arch 0.46 m. high has been found, and some fragments tentatively identified, there is no other evidence for the assumption. Voussoirs from one or more round arches or vaults were found in some number in the area, but their arc does not fit any of the spaces in the shops. Conceivably, of course, the door was covered by a segmental arch. Inside, the shops measurenormally 2.92 m. wide and 4.40 m. deep, although there are a number of exceptions, especially near the corners. The floor was originally formed of flat or split pebbles and small stones set in cement usually directly on the rock floor of the quarry. At some later period another floor was laid over this, consisting of diamond shaped tiles set in cement. It is sure that the tile pavement representsa later period, for in at least one place it is laid across a break in the pebble floor. On the walls of the rooms there may have been some surface finish, but no clear trace of any such is preserved. The masonry is quite well enough finished to have been left bare. In any case, on the walls of the second and third shops from the east on the south side are numerous traces of letters lightly scratched on the stone. Some of these are clearly graffiti, including the only complete word which has been deciphered: YTTTXIA, but others seem sufficiently regular to suggest that the blocks on which they appear came from some large inscribedwall. If so, the letters were dressed off very successfully, and it is rather probable that these too are simply fragmentarygraffiti.
the sixth course of the partitions as remain in situ, ranging from 0.12 to 0.22 m. in width and 0.14 to 0.19 m. in height, 2.85 m. from the floor. These represent the beams to support the ceiling. They are spaced 0.50 m. to 0.60 m. apart. The walls are spotted with numerousbeam cuttings from later use, but the uniformity of this set identifies them as the original ceiling beam sockets. The beams supported, beyond doubt, a wooden floor, and above this the masonry rises another course in height. On the seventh course, as we have seen, rested a superstructure of rubble concrete. As the varying width of the rooms below makes it improbable that the upper rooms were vaulted, we must assume that there were plain walls in the second story, of undetermined height. The rooms could not have been entered conveniently from the south, for the top of the retaining wall behind the shops must have been at least 2.50 m. above the second floor level. It is possible, but not likely as we shall see, that there was a second story gallery of some sort within the peristyle corridor. Perhaps the balance of probabilityis that the roomswere simply storage rooms, and that they could be entered by trap doors and ladders from the shops below; perhaps, too, they were interconnected by doors (Fig. 83). There was a stairway from the level of the peristyle corridorfloor to the level of the second story shops, in the shop space at the southwestern corner (P1. 723). This is indicated by the fact that the shop space was never fully quarriedout, and by the fact that the part which was cut out was filled almost immediately with debris from the quarrying operation itself to a height of at least a meter above the shop floors. The fill consists of layers of broken stone and smaller quarry chips, and sand, and is perfectly clean and systematically laid. The surface has been disturbed to an unknown extent by mediaeval workings, but it seems highly probable that a flight of stairs entered from below through a door in the wall of the end shop on the west side, and wound thence up to the level of the second story, where the natural rock is at the same level. Presumably there was a door leading to the exterior at this point, affordingingress and egress from the southwest; and very possibly there was access from the same level to the second story rooms of the shops. The central shop along the south side was arrangedfrom the beginningto have access to the cistern extending under the hill. The original masonry is laid to form a door with sidewalls for the entrance to the cistern. The natural rock sill, which once marked the northern extremity of the water basin, is hacked through for part of its length, for easier access at a lower level, but this may be taken as a later adaptation, in view of its roughness. The interior of the cistern is much mutilated with various cuttings, which may also date from the Roman period and represent various arrangementsfor storage adapted by the occupant of the shop. At the inner end of the cistern is a shallow basin, built of tiles but lined with cement; along the west side of this a channel built in similar
manhole. This, again, probably represents the activity of a shopkeeper, although its purpose is obscure. Perhaps the excavation was intended to find water, and was partially successful, so that the basin built in the floor of the tunnel could be kept full or used for some washing purpose. As to the shops along the western side, little can be said, for they are thoroughly demolished. A significant point, however, was established in an exploratory trench north of the generally excavated area. Here, in the position which would have been occupied by the eighth shop from the south, a road cuts through the building. It is paved with limestone slabs, and evidently representsthe main entrance on the west. No details of the entrance could be ascertained. Of the shops along the east side, even less is known. The line of the front wall of the series is preserved only by the plundered footing trench for the foundation, which had been filled in at some later period after the whole section of the building had been removed. The bedding for the first partition wall also still exists, in the same condition, and the bedding for a short section of the exterior eastern wall. This, however, is all that has been ascertained.North of this point the rock level falls off, and a very solid packing of poros quarry material was thrown in. This could easily support the walls of the building, but mediaeval intrusions have removed any tangible sign of their position. All that may be said is that presumably there was an entrance on the east side to match that on the west, although its location and form remain purely speculative. It should, perhaps, be noted that the slabs of marble along the line of front wall of the eastern row of shops near the southern end are clearly not part of the Market, for they rest on the fill in the plundered footing trench for the wall. They belong, probably, to the Nymphaeum to the east. For the arrangementof the shops along the north side of the Market our evidence is extremely limited but fortunately quite clear so far as it goes. Numerous attempts to locate the northern boundary of the building by exploratory pits have revealed that the whole area is much disturbed by mediaeval working, and the only definite point is at the northeastern corner, along the line of the stylobate of the peristyle court. Here a trench showed the foundations for the colonnade and the gutter in front of it, the foundation for the front wall of the shops and parts of two partition walls, and the foundation for the northern wall of the shops. The points so ascertained demonstrate that the Marketwas a rectangle and that the northern side, in every detail revealed by the trench, had the same plan as the southern side (Plans K, L, Section A). The manner of construction of the foundations, however, is quite different. They consist of deep footings of rubble concrete resting at the bottom on a strong macadam pavement of the Greek period. Above this pavement are some 0.50 m. of deposit of Greek date, but to bring the level up to that of the floor of the shops and peristyle
preservedin the area investigated. It consisted of masses of debris of all sorts: quantities of broken pottery, refuse from a tile factory, a profusion of bones, and earth of many kinds. From the nature of the contact of this earth with the rubble foundation walls, it seems that the fill was brought in first, and then trenches sunk through it along the lines of the walls. The rubble was then pouredinto the trenches, filling them completely. As to the topographynorth of the Market,evidence is insufficient even for speculation. One might suppose that there was a road or terrace on this side, and a monumental entrance of some sort, but nothing of any of these features has been identified. Of the peristyle corridoralmost nothing is preservedin situ excepting fragments of the mosaics of the floor. There was, however, a drain along the front of the west and south shop walls, sunk in a rock-cut channel some 0.80 m. wide and about as deep. In the bottom of this are preservedin places a lining of poros chips and small stones set in lime mortar, forming a channel about 0.30 m. wide, with a floor marked by a light surfacing of yellow green clay. Tile pipes, of which fragments have been found in the system, probably lay on this. The drain apparently carried water from the shops within the quarriedarea to a common disposal point. On the east side, a channel cuts through the line of the front wall of the shops, just north of the south row of shops, and thence northward there is no channel in front of the shops. This cross channel connects with another running off under the east shops to the north east, but at least some of this latter section was modified and used by a still later system and it is not certain how much is original. As to the covering of the channel, there is no definite evidence but it was probably covered with plain slabs providing a borderalong the shop walls. At the outer edge of the corridorwas the stylobate, composed of blocks of limestone. Three blocks of this are preserved completely or almost completely. They show a natural quarry surface on the bottom, with a dressed bearing surface where the edge of the slab rested on the lip of the gutter running around the court. The height above this gutter would be 0.24 m., and the original depth of the course was about 0.735 m. A band is worked down along the bottom of the face of the block. One of the blocks (Fig. 81) has a smooth round hole on its surface, evidently not a normal dowel hole for there is no pour channel, but one which may well mark the center of a column. Perhaps the column had a plug in the bottom which fitted into the hole on the stylobate without being leaded. In any case there is a pry-hole 0.33 m. from the center of this hole, suggesting a column not more than 0.66 m. in diameter. These blocks were evidently laid on a leveling course set in a trench cut for the purpose. The trench is 0.50 m. deep and 0.90 m. wide, the excessive width suggesting that some of the blocks may have been larger than others. In any case nothing is preservedof this footing course. In the exploratory trench at the northeast comer of the stylobate, the regular rubble concrete foundation was found, cut away by modern
large block of poros set in the rubble. The suggestion is that the poros block is the special bedding for the stylobate block bearing the column next to the corner.
I
I
I
0
FIGURE
10
81.
BLOCK
20
50
FROM STYLOBATE
40
50
cn
OF NORTH MARKET
For the restoration of the order of the peristyle, the most important piece of evidence is to be seen in several fragments of Doric cornice, with mutules about 0.315 m. wide and viae 0.065 m. wide, or an approximate total of 0.38 m. (Fig. 82). If these were arranged over a frieze supported by columns under every fourth triglyph, the interaxial spacing of the columns would be 2.28 m. The axis of the corner column would fall about 0.33 m. inside the comer, so that we subtract 0.66 m. from the total length of the stylobate to obtain the total of all the interaxial distances. The intercolumniation next the corner
and allow for a half-triglyph on each end of the frieze next the corner. Calculationson the basis of the length of the south stylobate, 37.90 m. overall, and of the east stylobate. 26.31 m. overall, show that if we take a figure of 2.52 m. for this corner interaxial
ooo000oo000
0
1a0
0
30
40
50
FIGURE 82. CORNICE FROM NORTH MARKET
distance, and 2.29 m. for the normal interaxial distance, the southern colonnade would fall out with seventeen columns (includingthe corners)and an overall length of 37.76 m.; while the east stylobate would come to twelve columns (including the comers) with an overall length of 26.31 m. These figures are close enough to the measuredstylobate to be easily acceptable, considering the fact that Roman workmanship in poros is never precise in the architecture at Corinth. No fragment of a column for the order has been identified, but if we take a lower diameter of 0.65 m., derived from the cuttings on the stylobate, we would get a reasonable proportion of about 3.70 m. or a little more for the height of the column and 4.70 m. or a little more for the height of the top of the frieze, and hence the ceiling of the peristyle. This calculation, rough and general as it is, is none the less important, because it shows clearly that there was only one tier of columns in the peristyle. If there had been a two-story colonnade, the division would certainly have come at the level of the second floor of the shops, which was about 3.10 m. above the ground floor (allowing some 0.25 m. for beams and flooring above the level of the ceiling of the first floor). On the other hand, the figure of 4.70 m. for the height of the ceiling of the peristyle corridor, 24
de Delos, Comparethe colonnade in the Agora of the Italians at Delos. Lapalus, in Exploration Arche'ologique XIX, (Paris, 1939), pp. 10-41, fig. 25.
the shops could not have been very high - if 4.70 is correct, it would have been only 1.60 m. high, which actually seems rather too low. Thus we have further confirmationof the supposition that the second floor rooms were useful only as storage lofts, and probably had no special balcony or formal design. They probably did have windows, opening into the peristyle corridor.25 The roof of the peristyle corridor,as indicated by the slope of the top of the cornice block, was slanting. We have no sure evidence of how it was treated, but may suppose that it rose to a ridge over the line of the front wall of the shops and sloped down thence to the outer walls. A single slope up from the interior would bring the roof to an unreasonableheight on the exterior (Fig. 83). The most important feature of the peristyle corridoris its floor, on which are preserved fragments of mosaic (P1. 752). It has proved impossible to demonstrate whether the mosaics belong with the originalconstructionof the building or were added later, for they rest on a bedding of cement which in turn rests on a pebble paving that could have been an earlier floor, or could have been a special preparatorybedding for the mosaics. From the fact, however, that the interior of the shops also had a pebble floor in the first period, it may be surmised that the mosaics belong to a later date than the original construction of the Market. The design of the mosaics is worked out in tesserae of white marble, blue limestone, and a soft red stone. In both east and south corridorsthere seems to have been a border along the wall and next to the stylobate of the peristyle, consisting of a broad red band 0.45 m. to 0.50 m. wide, bordereditself by a narrowband of blue and white on each side. This border crosses the south corridorin line with the west wall of the second shop, or just behind the east stylobate. In the east corridor(P1.753), the main pattern is of blue squares and red diamonds, both lined with white. In the south corridora single pattern seems to have extended as far as the ninth shop, consisting of an inner borderof blue and white interlocking square maeanders, around a pattern of red rectangles borderedwith white, set end to side and separated by blue and white maeanders.In the western end of the south corridor(P1.753) there is a special, more intricate design, of circularand square panels and intersecting arcs within circles. The remains in the west corridor are too fragmentary to decipher. Turning now finally to the central court, there is little to remark save it was paved with thin marble slabs resting almost directly on the floor of the quarry. Around the edge was a gutter of limestone blocks, to carry off the water from the court and the eaves of the roof. Near the southeast cornersome of the slabs show special dressing for the mounting of monument bases, so that we may imagine the court embellished with statues and monuments of various kinds. 25
Comparethe Maeellum at Pompeii; Mau-Kelsey, Pompeii, its Life and Art, (New York, 1899), pp. 94-101.
unable though we may be to fill in details of some importance (Plan N; Fig. 83). It was a rectangularbuilding, longer than wide, centering on a courtyard paved with marble and surroundedby Doric columns. Behind the columns was a broad corridor,paved in the early period with pebbles, in the later with mosaic; and from this corridor there was access through broad doors to shops on all sides. Near the middle of the western side, probably also on the east, and perhaps on the north, there were entrances, probably of some formal character, allowing ingress and egress, and transit from the Lechaion Road to the Theatre Street. The building was two stories high, although the second floor was composed of storage rooms only, and it could be entered at the southwest corner from the upper level. It must have been a fairly impressive and useable building, protected on all sides from heat and wind, and well adapted to the transaction of business. B. THE ROMANRETAININGWALL
Stretching the entire length of the excavated area, and disappearinginto unexcavated ground at the east end, are traces of a retaining wall almost exactly parallel to the archaic temple and probably to be consideredas designed in relation to it (PlanK). The wall is best preserved near the west end where one continuous section over 16 meters long is preserved; and on the floor of the Painted Building behind the sixth to eighth shops of the Roman Market, about nine meters are preserved. The highest section lies behind the west end of the Market. Elsewhere its line can be traced by characteristic workings in the rock and by occasional bits of masonry in situ. It is founded normally on the bed rock, although packing is used freely under hollows, and at the west end considerablesections rest on a filling of soft rubble concrete. Re-used material is freely employed. The.groundlevel on the north can be estimated at several points. In the well preserved section at the west, behind the center of the North Stoa, the masonry is all random and was never intended to be seen on either side, but weatheringon the northernedges of the highest preserved course seems to suggest that the ground level on that side did not quite cover the top of the course. This level, furthermore,correspondsroughly to that previously calculated for the Greek level south of the Stoa. In the section preserved behind the west end of the Market, the top of the preserved masonry is 0.50 m. higher than that in the section just considered. At this point, however, the uppermostpreservedcourseis of well set masonry, which might well have been visible, but the weathering, again, suggests that only the top of the course was visible along the north side, so that the groundlevel was higher here than it was further west. As to the ground level on the south, it is impossible to make a convincing estimate. The stratification south of the wall shows Roman earth not much higher than the top of
I
I
FIGURE
c.OSgN
ooi c:i
-I 110
83.
I
RESTORED
SECTION
AND
OF
ELEVATION
I
SOUTHEASTERN
I
CORNER
OF
NORTH
MARKET,
VIEWED
performedother than sturdy duty, and we may reasonably suppose that it rose at least a meter in height above the ground to the north, although whether it stood high enough to produce a level equal to that close around the temple may perhaps be questioned. C. OTHER ROMAN CONSTRUCTION
Probably dating from the Roman period, as we have observed, is the course of masonry crossing the North Stoa near its center (Plan K). It is difficult to imagine the purpose of this masonry, since the foundations of the Stoa to the west were apparently covered by the debris of the period of abandonment,and there is no preservedindication of any revision or reconstruction of the Stoa east of the Wall. The wall may, therefore, represent an abortive building program,which was never carriedout. There are, to be sure, two rectangular foundations of Roman date south of the west end of the Stoa, and at least one small foundation north of the west end, but these cannot representa building of any magnitude as there seems to be no possible connection among them. They were rather probably foundations for isolated monuments of some sort, such as statues, altars, or other dedications. We may, then, suppose that in general throughout the Roman period the area between the Roman Market and the West Road was left open and unformed by any systematic architecturalconstruction. The West Road itself properly lies outside the sphere of this study, for most of it is involved with earlier construction and relatively little has been exposed. It is clear, in general, that it functioned as a road from early Roman times through the fourth century after Christ and later. It was surfaced with ordinary road metal of gravel and sand, and is notable particularly for the shallow tile gutter running along the west side. So far as our immediate problems are concerned, its most significant feature was the wall which enclosed it on the east. The foundations of this wall, well laid and made of re-used material, run across the entire end of the excavated area, and the implication is that a solid continuous wall separated the road from the area over the ruins of the North Stoa. D. CHRONOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION
For the chronology of these buildings we have fairly good evidence. The Roman retaining wall is probably the earlier, dating perhaps from the beginning of the first century after Christ; and the Market dates probably from shortly before the middle of the century. The evidence for the date of the retaining wall comes largely from the debris in the Painted Building. This was already in ruins when the wall was built, or if not it was
$truction of the wall in which blocks of its superstructurewere employed. In the earth filled in around and behind the wall on the floor of the Painted Building the pottery was largely Greek; indeed only a few sherds of Samian and early Arretine ware were discovered. Some Greek coins were found, but no Roman. Consideringthese facts it would be safe to say that the retaining wall was built well before the middle of the first century after Christ, and perhaps before the end of the first century B.C. In any case, the retaining wall is clearly earlier than the Market. We have observed that the weathering indicates a ground level north of the retaining wall behind the western end of the Market. This would suggest that the wall was constructed and open for a while, before the Market was built, for the rear wall of the Market would have sheltered the lower part of the masonry of the retaining wall at this point. Furthermore, the Marketis exactly parallel to the wall, and the wall to the archaic temple. It is easy enough to suppose that the wall was oriented with the temple and the Marketwith the wall, but not so plausible to suppose that by design or accident the Marketwas oriented with the temple and the wall with one or the other or both. Hence it seems clear that the Marketis later than the wall. For the Market itself, we have a fairly substantial amount of evidence, mostly derived from fill thrown in on the slope of the hill north of and below the bed of the quarry. This fill, as we have observed, consisted of various kinds of trash collected for the purpose from different places. In the debris, the vast majority of the potsherds were Greek, with only a few specimens of characteristicearly Roman ware like Arretine. The presumption based on a general and detailed analysis of this pottery, is that the building was erected no later than the middle of the first century after Christ,and so far as the evidence now available is concerned,it could date from the first quarter of that century. The fate of the Market is easily read, in general terms, on its walls and floors. We have observed that sometime after its original construction, perhaps early in the second century after Christ, judging from similarities in style and construction with other mosaics at Corinth,26the peristyle corridorwas ornamentedwith mosaics. Possibly at this date, possibly later, the floors of the shops were renewed with the diamond tiles. The walls of the shops are profusely scarred with cuttings of various kinds, implying a long series of special adaptations for many different purposes, which it would be difficult or impossible to trace in detail, and which probably continued on into the mediaeval period. At a date which cannot now be determined,but may fall between the third and fifth century after Christ, the entire eastern section seems to have been 26 Similar mosaics in Corinth are found in the Odeum dating from the fourth quarter of the second century after Christ (Broneer, Corinth,X, pp. 67-69 and 145-6); in the Peribolos of Apollo, dating from earlier in the same century (Stillwell, Corinth, I, ii, pp. 52-54, 38); and in the Market North of the Basilica, dating from early in the century (Stillwell, Corinth,I, i, p. 146).
may be that at that time the peristyle court became a part of this structure. In any case, the second shop from the east on the southern side was repaved at some time with large square tiles, and we may tentatively associate this with the laying of the marble sill on the line of the plundered footing trench for the front wall of the eastern range of shops andcertainreadjustmentsof the drainagein this area,that seem to go with theNymphaeum. However this may be, the market seems to have incurred disaster during the later years of the fourth century after Christ, for signs of burningon the floor accompaniedby coins of that period suggest some disaster, possibly the earthquake of 875 or more probably the sack of Alaric in 895. After this period the shops continued in use in one form or another, and were incorporated as rooms or cellars into mediaval structures. The floors of some of the shops were patched or renewed with irregularly laid slabs of marble and other stones; the original doors were partially or completely closed at the original floor level; other doors were cut through the partition walls. During the course of all this the walls were frequently scarred and eaten by fires; one striking instance of this is in the original stairwell at the southeastern corner, and the partition between shops 18 and 14 has been almost completely disintegrated. The southwest corner,indeed, seems to have been the focus for lime burning through a considerable period, for several traces of such operations, not all mutually reconcilableas of one period, are well preserved.With one period we might associate the remains of a kiln in the south shop next the stair-well, and a water-basin built of tiles inthe stair-well, draininginto the west shop adjoining, wdhose walls in turn are smearedwith lime, as though this room had been converted to a slaking pit. However, the walls of the stair-well themselves also show both burning and flakes of slaked lime adhering to the stone, and the precise chronology of this cannot be worked out until a study of Byzantine Corinthas such can be made. As to the function of the buildings of the Roman period, the Marketand the retaining wall, little need be said. It would seem clear that the retaining wall was intended to provide a northern boundary of the precinct of the archaic temple, although in the present state of the excavations even this must remain tentative. It would seem to have stretched all the way from the buildings along the Lechaion Road to the buildings along the Theatre Street, affording a continuous boundary to the temple area. Doubtless it supported monuments of various kinds. The Markethas been so designatedwithout hesitation from its first discovery. Its plan (Plan N) is obviously similar to that of the Roman macellum as it appearsin the handbooks27and can be observed, with minor peculiarities, throughout the Roman world: a peristyle court surrounded by shops. Furthermore, we may be sure that Corinth had many markets of purely utilitarian commercial nature - meat, vegetables, clothing, 27
e. g. Cagnat-Chapot, Manuel d'archdologieRomaine, (Paris, 1916), vol. I, pp. 227-282.
local consumption alone, to say nothing of the commercein products from all over the world which changed hands in the city in its capacity as a center for internationaltrade. Among the excavated remains of Roman Corinth, so far, by no means sufficient space for these transactions has been discovered; the Central Shops and the Northwest Stoa in the Lower Agora seem inappropriatefor handling prosaic needs of everyday life; the West Shops, the Lechaion Road Shops and the Marketnorth of the Basilica are perhaps more easily associated with meat, vegetables, and shoes, but even their location seems more appropriate to other use. On the other hand, the North Market, completely enclosed and off the line of monumental construction and the main highways and centers, but conveniently located nevertheless, would be well located for the purveyance of food stuffs. We may perhaps also recall the drainagefrom each shop to the capacious drain leading out of the building, and see in this an adaptation desirablein a market for meat, or vegetables, or fish, which requirewater for cleansing. If our earlier interpretation of the Roman state of the region west of the Market is correct - that it remainedan open place hidden by walls but unadornedby architecture - this area would be suitable for leaving pack animals and carts, which would be a feature desirable to have in proximity to such a market. An objection, of course, might be seen in its location just below the terraceof the great temple, but it may be questioned whether ancient taste would be impressedby this as much as our own. IV. SUMMARY Seen as a whole, the buildings we have considered present a picture of the development of the city in a pocket just off the main thoroughfaresof the ancient city, although they occupy perhaps the finest site the place afforded. With the main centers sheltered in hollows east and south of the Temple Hill; the chief commercialthoroughfaredescending to the east; and to the west the important monumentalroad linking the Agora to the Theatre District, the gymnasium, the Asklepieion, the north cemetery, and the country to the northwest - all dominated by the great archaic temple - our buildings lie on a cross street, but facing out across the great panorama of city, plain, sea and mountain to the north. On this site, windy and exposed to the winter weather in particularthough relatively sheltered from the sun in summer, the early years of the settlement made little impression. The first sign of activity is the archaicroad, ascendingthe northeast shoulderof the hill, crossing the crest beside the primitivesanctuary and proceedingon southeastward. There were, also, some buildings of the archaic or shortly subsequent period in the western part of the region, which we have been unable to examine. The first monumental construction appears possibly in the early fifth century, with 13
and which was succeededin the third or fourth quarterof the fifth century by the second North Stoa, with the presumably associated Stoa Area, and possibly the original stage of the bath in the Painted Building. This complex, as we have chosen to view it, we may imagine with some justification if not with certainty as the center of the Corinthian ephebes, where they could exercise, keep their equipment, and perhaps stand duty. It was altered somewhat by the substitution of the third for the second North Stoa around the end of the third quarter of the fourth century - a period in which we can visualize the scene with some degree of completeness if not in detail. We can imagine the Stoa facing on the Area, its ground floor accessible from that level through its fagade of columns, simple and unadornedbut cool and adapted to storage; while the upper story would have been accessiblefrom the temple temenos through a presumablynormal stoa facade, open and perhaps windy, but affording through its balustraded north fa9ade a point of vantage from which to inspect activity below and to look out into the magnificent view beyond. Sometime, perhaps before the middle of the second century, the Painted Building was enlarged. The triumph of Rome over the Achaean League and the destruction of Corinth in 146 brought catastrophic ruin to this scene, and the debris for a short while lay in confusion over the floor, but very soon neighbouringpeoples undertookto utilize such of the material as they could, and created some kind of order among the ruins. They departed before removing all of the material, which in the succeeding century became covered by wash from the hill above. After the refoundingof the city in 43, the site lay neglected, or almost so; but soon the colonists undertook to add form to the precinct of the archaic temple, and erected a retaining wall along its northern boundary. Soon after, still within the first half of the first century after Christ,they assumed the greater task of establishing a food market in the eastern part of the area, and built the commodiousand comfortableMarket,with its peristyle and shops. This too came to its end, although not so completely; it suffered some modification when the brick building we call the Nymphaeum was built encroaching on its eastern range of shops, late in the Roman period, and it was severely damaged in the sack of Alaric in 395. It was not useless, however, nor abandoned, for succeeding generations with fewer resources than their predecessorsand less care, adapted the shops to their own purposes in bewilderingfashion, on the whole destroying more than they created. In later mediaeval times, the whole area was largely buried, and roads, industrial establishments, and houses came to occupy the scene. This was the era of the final spoiling of the buildings, when furnaces for lime burning and quarryingfor small stones for slighter buildings finally gutted the massive masonry of the ancient market and broke up the well cut blocks of the still more ancient stoas.
INDEX ACHAIA,130.
AcropolisinAthens, seeChalkotheke,Erechtheum. Acrocorinth, Aphrodite on, 68. Acts of the Apostles, 128, 131. Aegae, stoa at, 17614. Aeneas Tacticus, 179. Agora at Corinth, v, 74, 130-31, 152-53, 156; Greek periods: Fifth century, 134, Fourth century, 74-75, 125, 134, Hellenistic, 52, 69-70, 75-76, 135, 137, see also Cobble pavement, Macadam pavement; Roman period: 3, 7, 32, 64-65, 74, 150, pavements: cement, 135-36, 142, 148-49, marble, 92, 110, 112, 115, 122, 125, 135, 142, 148-49, 151, sand and clay, 135-36, 148-49, see also Gravel deposit; Lower Agora, v, 3, 74, 86, 117, 121, 133-54; Upper Agora, v, 74, 83-84, 86-87, 117, 121, 126, 152; "forum transitorium", 3, 74. Agora of Italians, at Delos, 18624. Agrippa: L. Caninius Agrippa, 70; P. Vipsanius Agrippa, 69-70. Aigeria, Tyche and Eros at, 6845. Akroterion, 12, 14, 30, 44, 61. Alaric, 132, 194. Alexander, 174. Alinda, stoa at, 17614. Alizas, 96. Altar: in center of Lower Agora, 139-141, 150; in front of Dionysion, 91; round, 147, 151. Ammianus Marcellinus, 13137. Anaxilaus: Ti. Claudius Anaxilaus, 70. Announcement boards, 141. Anta capitals, 50, 53. Antoninus Pius, statue of, 70, 148. Aphrodite: on Acrocorinth, 68; Euploia, 69; statue by Hermogenes of Kythera, 67, 71. Apollo: Klarios, 67, 71-72; Peribolos of, 19126; statues of, 70, 148, 151; temple of, = archaic temple, 3, 72, 133-34, 155, 157, 160, 163, 167, 180, 191. Apsidal temple, 147. Apuleius, 136. Aqueduct, 7-8, 36, 63, 87. Ara Pacis. 141. 13*
Arch, 90, 113, 122, 137, 181; of Tiberius in Rome, 129-30. Archaic temple, see Temple of Apollo. Architectural design, 152, 170. Architrave, 96, 120. Architrave-frieze, 11, 27-28, 42ff., 48ff., 56-57, 60-61, 117. Area of North Stoa, see North Stoa. Arsenal, 177. Art, see Provincial art. Artemis: statues of, 69, 70, 147, 148; Ephesiana, 67, 126. Ascent to Archaic temple from the north, 167,173. Asia Minor, stoas in, 176. Asklepieion, in Corinth, 155, 193. Assos, stoa at, 17614. Athena, statues of, 70, 148, 150. Athenaeus, 6946. Athens: bath, 17820; buildings in, see names of particular buildings. Atticus, Herodes, see Herodes Atticus. 'Atil, temples at, 50. Augustales monument, 142-43, 150. Augustus, 66, 136-37, 150. M. Aurelius, column of, 83. Awnings, 141. CN.BABBIUSPHILINUS,16, 17, 22, 34, 64ff., 72, 153-54; monument of, 3, 7-8, 15, 16, 17-32, 64ff., 148, 150, 153. Bacon, F. H., 17614. Baebia: Cornelia Baebia, 50-51. Balaneion, 178. Balustrade: posts for, 165-66; slabs for, 166; see also Parapet. Base moulding, 19-20, 59, 81, 84, 94, 98-99. Bases: for columns, Ionic, 25-26, 41, 56, 60, Tuscan, 10; for pier, 102; for statues, 15, 16, 34, 35; naturalistic, from Fountain of Poseidon, 35-36; see also Monuments. Basilica: above Lechaion Road, 3, 74, 134, 150-51, 153, 158; see also Julian Basilica, South Basilica. Bath, 177ff.
Beddings, M. Bellius Proculus, 69-70. Bema, 3, 74-75, 78, 91-111, 112, 117, 119, 120, 121ff., 128-29, 132, 142, 144, 147, 148-49, 150, 151, 152; platform in front of, 111, 130, 148, 151; scholae of, 77, 93-98, 129, 132, 152. Benches, 93, 105ff., 114, 142, 146. Bernoulli, 6838,40, 6947. Boehringer, E., 17616,17718. Bohn, R., 17614. Boughara, bema at, 128. Boukrania, 147. Bouleuterion, 126. Bowls, marble, 177. Breccia, column shafts of, 41. Brick, 7, 63, 116,155; see also Nymphaeum. Broneer, 0., v, vi, 31, and following, passim. Bronze statues, 143, 146, 147. Bucolic statues, 148. Butler, H. C., 5027. Byzantine construction, 17, 38, 73, 92, 116, 132, 136, 161, 192. CAESAR,Temple of, in Rome, 128. Cagnat, R., 12833, 19227. Campbell, M., vi. L. Caninius Agrippa, 70. Cannon balls, stone, 174, 176ff. Capitals: anta, 50, 53; Corinthian, 26, 41-42, 50, 55-56, 109; Doric, 168; Ionic, 11, 60, 96; Tuscan, 10, 64. Captives Fa9ade, v, 3, 3823,151. Caryatid, possibly from Bema, 109. Caskey, J. L., vi. Castor, Temple of, in Rome, 128. Catapults, 174, 176-77. Ceiling beams, 182. Central Shops, 3, 7, 74ff., 112-120, 124ff., 128ff. 134, 142, 148-49, 150, 152. Central Stoa, see Early Stoa along Central Terrace. Central Terrace, v, vi, 74, 77-80, 82, 92, 113, 121, 124-25, 127-28, 150, 152-53. Chalkotheke in Athens, 177, 179. Chapel in Central Shop, 116, 131. Chapot, V., 12833,19227. Church on Bema, 92, 132. Circular Monument, 74ff., 80-85, 112, 127, 150, 152-53.
large, Terrace,5, 21. Clamps:double-T,38, 39; hook, 9, 11, 14, 18ff., 25, 29, 35, 40, 45, 54, 56, 61, 81, 94ff., 98ff., 110, 115, 14647; swallowtail, 181. Clarke,J. T., 17614. Claudius,67. Ti. ClaudiusAnaxilaus,70. Cobblepavement,74, 86ff., 124. Coins,gold, 174. Collart,P., 12834. Column, of Marcus Aurelius in Rome, 83; of Trajanin Rome, 83. Commodus,8, 42, 49ff. Concrete,9, 17, 32, 37, 52-53, 57, 84, 92, 137, 138, 139, 142, 146, 180, 182, 188. Constans:T. Flavius Constans,147. Corinth,destructionof, 174, 194. Corinthian style, 170; see also Design, Order, and
names of individualarchitecturalmembers. CorneliaBaebia, 50-51. Cornice:Doric, 166, 185; Ionic, 11, 22, 28-29, 43ff., 49, 54, 109, 117, 142; plain, 164. Councilhouse, 12627. Crownmoulding,22, 59, 96, 100. Cuirassedfigures, statues of, 148. Cul-de-sacat west end of NorthwestStoa, 6ff., 11, 14, 16. Curia,12627. Curtis,D., 12225. Cybele,statue of, 71, 148. G. R., V. DAVIDSON, Delos: Agoraof Italians, 18624;bath, 1782?. Delphi: bath, 17820;gymnasium,179. Demetrius,178. Design, architectural,152, 170. Destructionof Corinth,174, 194. 809,82-83, 127-30. Dinsmoor,W.B., 2619,50,6335, Dionysion, 74, 85-91, 112-13, 123-24, 125ff., 150, 152-53. Dionysos:head of, 147; xoana of, 67, 126; Bakkheios, 127; Lysios, 127. Dipylon in Athens, 3823.
Dolphins,marblebases for, 34, 36. Domitian, 137. Doors, 113, 181. Doric,see individualarchitecturalmembers,and Order.
Douglas, L.C., Dowels,square,19ff., 29, 41, 43, 63, 94ff., 99ff., 118, 146, 169; with pour channels at top, 169-70. Drains, 6, 74-75, 77, 87, 111, 121-22, 123, 124, 178, 174ff., 181, 184, 190.
deposits,86-87, 125, 135, 148-49, Graves:Byzantine,17, 92, 116; geometric,5, 75, 134. Grille,41, 48, 113. Guildhall, 12627. Gymnasium:above Asklepieion,155, 156, 193; North Stoa complex,179.
statues, 73. Greek buildingsnear North Stoa, 155, 193. HADRIAN,Library of, in Athens, 3823. Early Stoa along Centralterrace,76-77, 124-25, Harissiades,vi. Early 134. Hauran, see 'Atil. T. W., 56, 8514. 151. Heermance, Earthquakes,131, monument and of, 146. Heliodorus, Edwards, K.M., 6952, following, passim. 5. Hellenistic 12627. council house, Eleusis, deposits, "Herakles,"Templeof, 3, 7-8, 32, 36-52, 66ff., Elgin, Lord, 809,82. 152. Enyo, statue of, 148. Hermes: 194. 179, precinctof, 3, 8-16, 24; statues of, 3, Ephebes, 70; temple of, v, 3, 5, 7, 8-16, 17-18, 64ff., Erechtheum,2619,91, 98. 150-51. Eretria, bath at, 17820. Eros with Tyche, at Aigeria,6845. Hermogenesof Kythera, 67, 71. Hero cult, 5. Euphrosyne,96. HerodesAtticus, 69. Exedra, see Monuments. EARLY CHRISTIAN
Hill, B. H., vi, FACADE
of Colossal Figures, see Captives Fagade
Figurines,5. Fire, discolorationsfrom, 158-59. T. Flavius Constans,147. Floors, 114, 115; see also Marblefloors, Pebble floors, Tiles. Folse, M., vi. Fortuna, 68ff. ForumRomanum,133, 141. "Forumtransitorium"at Corinth,see Agora. Foundationsfor monuments,see Monuments. Fountains:in CentralShop, 116; of Poseidon,3, 32-36, 63, 64ff., 150, statue from, 34; in scholaeby Bema, 110, 117, 132, 152; at Tenos, 125; see also Glauke,Peirene, Sacred Spring. Freeman, S. E., 4724.
17820.
Holland,L. B., vi. Householder,F. W., 4725. Houses, in agoraarea, 76, 88, 134. Howland,R., v. 6844. IMHOOF-BLUMER,
Inscriptions,21-22, 30-31, 42, 49-51, 62, 6949, 96, 118-19, 120, 141, 143, 181. Ionic, see individual architectural members; see also Order.
Ittar, 82-83. Ivory, Hellenistic,5. M. Iustitius Priscus,monumentof, 146. F. P., 6948and following, passim; 14011 and following, passim.
JOHNSON,
Fronto: P. VentidiusFronto, 70. Fufitula (Sfeitla), bema at, 128.
Julian Basicilica,v, 3, 53, 78, 134, 150, 152, 153. Jupiter, temple of, at Pompeii, 128.
GALLIO,131.
KANTHAROSornament, 146.
Gardiner, E. N., 17820,21, 17923.
Karo, G., 17616.
Gigthis,see Boughara. Glauke,fountain of, 67, 71, 133, 156, 158. Gold coins, 174. Graecostasisin Rome, 130, 148. Graef,B., 12225.
Kelsey, F. W., 6838,18725. Kenchreai,126, 133. Keune, 6843. Knackful, H., 17719.
Koldewey,R., 17614.
Kythera, Hermogenes LABEO:A. Vatronius Labeo, 69-70. Lambaesis, sanctuary of, standards at, 12627. Lapalus, P., 18624. Larsen, J. A. 0., 1306. Latte, 6843. Lechaion, 133. Lechaion Road, 71, 133-34, 149ff., 155-56, 158, 192. Lekkas, E., vi. Lewis holes, 14, 43, 45, 47. Library, see Hadrian, Pantainos. Lifting holes, Greek, 81. Limekilns, 192. Limestone, black, statue bases of, 147, 150; structural members, 16, 88, 144, 183, 184. Lintel, 47. Lokri, grotto at, 3531. Lower Agora, see Agora. Lugli, G., 12935.
142, 152; trench,plundered,beforeStoa above Peirene, 142; triangular, in front of Propylaea, 142, 151; West Terrace,in centralpassage of, 52, north end of, 15, 16, 67, 151, south end of, 63; seealsoAugustales,CircularMonument, Victoria,and names of divinities. Morgan,C. H., v, vi, 31, and following,passim. Mosaics,24, 93, 97, 184, 187, 191. Moulding,see Architrave-frieze,Base moulding, Cornice,Crownmoulding. Mummius,175. Muses,statues of, 70, 148, 150. NATURALISTICbases from fountain, 35-36.
Nemea, bath at, 17820. Nemesis,statue of, 69. Nero, 70. Nike, statue of, 148. North Building, 184, 158, 170, 176. North Market,155, 163, 180-89, 191-92, 194. North Stoa, 155, 163-73; 1st, 163, 174, 194; 2nd, 163-64, 174, 194; 3rd, 164-76, 188, 190, 194; Roman foundationin, 173, 190. North Stoa Area, 170, 172-73, 174ff., 194. NorthwestShops,v, 3, 6, 15-16, 149, 151ff. NorthwestStoa, v, 6, 8, 11, 14, 64, 134, 150-51. Nymphaeum,155, 183, 192, 194.
MACADAM pavement, 75, 85ff., 183. McDonald, W. A., 12627. Macellum, 192; at Pompeii, 18725. Maenads, marble relief of, 140, 147. Maeniana, 130. Male torsos, statues, 148. Marble, blue, 10, 15, 18-19, 20-21, 24, 34, 84, 93, 95, 98, 105-07, 115, 118 (though not ODELBERG, P., 6946. Odeion, 5, 19126. specified in text), 142, 146. Marble floors, 89, 115. Oiniadai,bath at, 17820. see also North North of Basilica, 19126; Market, Olympia,bath at, 17820. Market. Opusincertum,112, 114. 151. statue Order;Doric, 137, 166, 168, 170, 185-86; Corin147, of, Marsyas, 141. ian, 17, 26, 41-42, 55-56; Ionic, 11, 57, 137; Mast, 18725. 17821, 6838, Tuscan,10, 14, 64; seealsonamesof individual Mau, A., architectural members. 147. statue of, Melpomene, Orlandos, A. K., 12526. Meritt, B. D., 13138, 14616. Orthostates,20-21, 81-82, 95-96, 99-100, 107, Meta, 128. 119-20, 142. Moesia, 130. Monuments and foundations: acanthus column, Otto, W., 6845. 63; around Bema, 110, 111, 143-44; see also Platform in front of Bema; black limestone PACKING,for foundations, 18. base, 147, 150; Central Shops, above, 118, Painted Building, 155, 157-63, 175, 177ff., 188, 194. behind, 115, 120, inside, 116; circular, composite circle, 146, 151, in precinct of Hermes, 15, Painting, 114, 157ff. 67, by Sacred Spring, 147; beside Circular Palaestra,179. Monument, 83; exedrae, 119ff.; L-shaped, by Palmyra,sanctuaryof, standardsat, 12627.
Pantheon, 3, 7-8, 52-57, 64ff., Parapet, 33-34, 119, 146, 172, 175. Passage, through Central Terrace, A, 75, 78ff., 85, 121, 127-28, B, 74, 121-22, 129, C, 74, 121, 123, 129, D, 86, 121, 123-24, E, 121, 124; through West Terrace, 3, 7-8, 52, 64-65; see also Stairs. Paul, the Apostle, 128ff., 136. Pausanias, 3, 36, 67ff., 126, 136, 150-51. Pavement, see Agora, Cobble, Macadam. Paving slabs, 100ff., 119, 166. Pebble floors, 181, 187-88. Peiraeus, Arsenal at, 177. Peirene, 3, 74, 133-34, 136ff., 142, 150, 158; stoas above, see Stoas. Pergamene style, statues of warriors, 71, 148, 151. Pergamon: arsenals at, 17616;gymnasium terrace, 17614; theatre terrace, 17614. Peschke, G. V., vi. Philip, of Macedon, 174. Philippi, bema at, 128. Philo, Arsenal of, 177. Piers, 90, 96, 101ff.; with half-column, 164; interior, 164, 169. Pindar, scholiast on, 6946. Pipes, tile, 184. Plancus: L. Rutilius Plancus, 69-70. Plaster, 81, 114, 115, 116, 157ff., 175. Platform in front of Bema, 111, 130, 148, 151. Platner, S. B., 12935. Plutarch, 6946, 178. Pompeii: cult of Venus at, 68; macellum at, 18725; Temple of Jupiter at, 128. Poros architectural members, 39, 46-47, 53, 54. Poseidon, Fountain of, 3, 32-36, 86-52, 64ff., 70, 152; statue of, 70; Temple of, 3,36-52, 53,66 ff. Post holes, 111, 141-42, 159, 177. Pottery: prehistoric, 5, 86, 134, 135, 156; geometric, 5; archaic, 155, 156, 174; fifth century B. C., 174, 178; fourth century B. C., 149, 174; Hellenistic, 125, 149, 175, 191; Roman, 149, 175, 191. Praying woman, statue of, 148. Prehistoric deposits, 5, 86, 134, 135, 156. Priene, bath at, 17820. Priscus: M. Iustitius Priscus, 146. Propylaea, v, 3,74,133ff., 137ff., 144,150-51,153. Provincial art, 152.
Regulus, 118-19. Publilius Tyrannus, 118-19. QUARRYING,
157, 158, 161, 180ff.
RACE-TRACK,
in Greekagora,74, 125, 134.
Regilla, 69. Regulus: Cn. Publilius Regulus, 118-19. Reinach, S., 17614. Retaining walls, 113, 116, 168, 188-89, 191-92; see also Central Terrace, West Terrace, Terraces. Revetment, marble, 9, 20ff., 84, 89, 97, 98, 115, 116. Richardson, R. B., 809, 82. Roads: in agora, east end, 75, 78ff., 149, west end, 5-6, 15, 64, 88, 149; of period of abandonment, 121, 124, 149-50; archaic, 155, 156-57, 193; in North Market, 183; north of North Market, 184; west of North Stoa, 155, 190. Robert, F., 72. Robertson, D. S., 5027. Robinson, D. M., 56, 1717, 17820. Roof tiles, 14, 29-30, 54, 174. Rostra, 128. Rostra, in Rome, 91, 128ff. Royal Stoa in Athens, 7266. L. Rutilius Plancus, 69-70. SACREDSPRING, v, 133-34, 147, 148, 149, 156.
St. John, church of, 17, 6949,73. Saintes, arch at, 12225. Sanctuary of standards, 12627. Sarapias, 96. Satyr, statue of, 148, 151. Schazmann, P., 17614. Schleif, H., 17820. Scholae of Bema, see Bema. Schramm, E., 17717. Sewer, 7-8. Sfeitla (Fufitula), bema at, 128. Shaefer, W., v. Shafts of columns, 25, 41. Shops, see Central Shops, North Market, Northwest Shops. Sikyon, 5, 67, 71, 155, 175. Sills, 16, 47, 112, 113, 172, 181, 192. Skias, A. N., 809. Skroubelos, E., v, vi.
South Basilica, 53, 126. South Stoa, v, 7, 124, 131, 133, 149-50. SoutheastBuilding,78. Spearheads, 174. Stadium, 179. Stairs: in CentralTerrace,85, 121-22, 123, 130; late grand staircase, 117, 131, 152; in North Market,182; in West Terrace,6, 7, 14-15, 17, 64, 85; see also Steps, Passages. Statues,seenamesof divinitiesorpersons,Bronze statues, Bucolic statues, Monuments,Togati, Warriors.
161. Trajan,columnof, in Rome, 88. Travlos,J., v, vi. Tripod,146. Tuscancapital and base, 10, 14, 64. Tyche,68; templeof, v, 3, 5, 7, 57-63, 64ff., 150, 153. Tyche and Eros at Aigeria,6845. Tympanum,45, 61-62. Tyrannus:PubliliusTyrannus,118-19. UPPER Agora,see Agora.
Steps, 10, 14-15, 38, 51, 53, 57, 117, 122-23, 145, VALENTINIAN,131. 168; rock-cut,in Painted Building, 161-62. A. VatroniusLabeo, 69-70. Stevens, G. P., 17719. Vault, 112, 182. Stillwell,R., v, vi, 31:andfollowing,passim. P. VentidiusFronto, 70. Stoas: early,on CentralTerrace,76-77, 124, 134; Venus: Genetrix,68; Pompeiana,68; Tyche of above Peirene, 3, 136-39, 142, 148; see also Corinth,68ff.; Victrix, 68. Aegae, Alinda,Asia Minor,Assos, North Stoa, Vetera ad Xante, sanctuary of standards at, Northwest Stoa, South Stoa, Pergamon. 12627. Stout, 13036. Victoria,68. Stoves, 159, 177. P. VipsaniusAgrippa,69-70. Strabo, 136. Vitruvius, 130. Stylobate, 24-25, 40, 89-90, 101, 114, 119-20, DE WAELE, F. J., vi, 1551. 164, 184. 17821. Wagner,H., vi. Sudhof, K., Swallow-tailclamps, 181. Warriors,statues of, in Pergamenestyle, 71, 148, 151. M. 6838. Swindler, H., von Szalay, A., 17616,17718. Waser,6845. Water basins: in North Stoa Area, poros, 172; in West Terrace,brick,7-8, 63. TACITUS,13036. see Water 5, 3, 147; conduit, 110. Hermes; E, D, Temple: apsidal, 4724, 133-34; F, see Tyche; G, see Pantheon; H, Weinberg,S. S., vi, 1841,1562. see"Herakles";J, seePoseidon;K, 3, 5, 51-52, Well, in North Market,161-62. West, A. B., 1616,2218,646, 6841,14112,14615. 64ff.; see also namesof other divinities. West 125. fountain at, Tenos, Shops, 3. West 141. Terrace,v, 3, 5, 6-8, 52, 64ff., 73, 74, 87, Tents, 126, 151, 153. Terentius,141. Terraces, 18ff.; 74, 114, 127; see also Central Wiegand,T., 12627. Wine press, 116. Terrace,Retaining Walls, West Terrace. Wissowa, G., 6838, 39, 40. Theatre,5, 156. Theseumarchitect,50. Wood,H. D., 717. Woodconstruction,90, 113. Thompson,H. A., 12225. Tiberius,66, 127, 129-30; arch of, 129-80. Tile, 116, 181, 182, 184; pipes, 184; see also Roof YOUNG,R. S. 1607. tiles. ZEUS,5, 71; Chthonios,67, 71, 148; Hypsistos, Timgad, bema at, 128. 67; Ombrios,146. Togati,147.
"'-?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,~,~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?I
o.-.
-
?- ?
'
'
'-
.;~,,,-..;.
.
~,~
1~? .-......''~ '
.
~~
~
~~~~~~J~~~~~?
'l
~
.
: '. , ?;; ;. . t
?? . '"..
' ......e~ . Northl)r Let.cr C... Z-thDinso;B-tcBbisM of t'hcWcstnmn;Oh Terraccfrom the N..... General Vicw "~.'.: .":'.i I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~''
.L'-
'
-?
.
. . -~~~; ?~~~~";,d-,r.~,~' ~i'~ i. -.I.~---'
:.,,~
.r
.
'1
''.~ '''~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' nl-~~~~~~~~l.
; ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~.:.~'.<,"? ~~ ~ ~,.? :: ~ ~ ~ '?~~~~~~~I
~ ~.. ,.... ,...;:,:... ...., :1~ ?~ -... .:4.. ;..,. .._ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:.,, ;..".>_./,'
th -s~~Gnea View of ~~~~~~~* (Z-~ Dins B-.h Babu t ouet
e WestTrc etes in f oe2
'
~.~,
r........,.;+:
~~~~~~ *~~~
he te
~
Ad
L~
i
-?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
%S
..
-'*?.ne
kli
~~_
Viwfth
.I
?-I
~~
io??;:ll
~ ~
r-tl
~ ~
!krd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~L~~~Z~~ ?.'C~~~~~-~~ rt,l -?
t
t
?*
??
,r
~~~
J
uWM
?
Ws Trrc
fo
te
oth(B-BabusMouen;
terLttrs
f.No
2;'L; ' :?irc:U??L ?I
*.
1:.?9.c. ;? ?ej
.Lr.?;
.,
;iF?s
C11.1.'
'' ?'
''
""' r ??
W?-3Lsjrlqgj2Law6n 1? ,!... I
?II
t.
i, ;"
a
-?'
: '' .?.?
?:'?. rr.. ?- -
"Tr r ..-.?
r
E
??? ;i;
i.?-,
-.???-
?C' ?IEEtiiIICLi:PILs'?*'L;: ?' :-2?lqle.'L :?;. r * 4?. ir ...
t?, j
.. 1.,???i;
_?
;c?i',1 ib;
116?7 fIr?
;n3;1;
''
??
I?
c, '.?c
lli?.? ?,
r
:::.
e
-'f
:? ?sc* ;+' 1 "'''' ??????.?.5 r?? +.I
,? ??
?'
3I ??
c??i;
*P. 1.. fil
r?
i,
I
:r.i
.i,L?
.13 ?,:I ??
i, r?
i :.r?1.r
r
Pe?PL?RL ""
'S
?-
''
i.
? ?; r,
=.1
?.'
r:
.I*I
C\
,,
10 j?
: i'
d * 1.
CI?,
I
?: 6?
i I
'
'
.+
, 9r Ii
'
f
.e '?
13?
?'???, ii: .:
?I r? L'
?; .,.. .???. i ?.?*?:. ?.f? ? ?,1. ,?r
r
I' .I-
r I%
i
'?
i L ..I.:? .--:??5.?1 (? .??: !? t? ?
j. IiC.
ti
.;r tb I?? i...l I-), ..!.,-? ?.
5
r? .?? ?r Irc.:?I!
: f:
?\e ?
?,. ?
c
a ?i
, J.-:??l
i
C"I
-e ?,*!
t; Z 'i
,. r
?r ;?
:I'r???; C
?c: i??
?,
r
r ?
-IT
?;
' ?i
.I r?, ?? c
r II( :1
iiit
'o: :? -*?
i. .' ?,
:?
'I
?? .I
I
ij.? .
r "
11: :?
'':I;
"5.:?
I , I
.I ??1 !..?-.'' ......
c,
'' .. .J;
r
;3?L1?I*?
r?
r
I
\"Y`
?;
r..
-
c ?.?
.J?',
'''iI,
? g
?...
i' I
t?6
i' 'i. ? '
?j !:? ?Titi:
A
1?
I i
I
Ii
?;1
,
i ?r ;r?r ;G I'
i
1 ? I!
. ?'?
!e -.r?u
t
) v. 1.;
.??
?5
iY
iI rl'
v:
?;
r.
:"
?.'
''
1
:..n
. ;
:
f I' r ''
?? -x?,;
?i '?;
"
I:t-i; ?-: 2_
r
if ?
r
:?
PCFC
f' "
'b '?
1
.,3-
L? ?:
??;
rI ??
YI)liijL'
..
*
jii
I
Tfench Showing Stratication South of Temple of Hermcs
ili~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
i~' ....~.....
..~.C
~..'7~.
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~~~ ~ , *. ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~~~~~~. ? ~L?:I;I. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.:~ ??
Cor nFoto heTml fHre
L
-e i---i-?
.I
II
1.
--
r" -C ?r.?*lr.r*?E c? ??s .;n;;lFI.P,,pc;-
.....
~TZs
d.
*
1
1-
C
lir
?i
,--rr .-~?14i
f-7 ,
r
ay
L
'''
"-?.;
??j; -r.-
--
?IJrr.
Li
??
--- ---.-' ?FIC ?:lrC?ZiYYCIC
.?.? E*r
rri
*-
-
-CTA1~C'-Cb?b?
-.1? " +e -"
-r.
rL
??
IC-
CUI"1(BL
I. 'CP
Ir
r-
y L\
.
1E-_ i
r"
''
I .:
--?-?
-~?? :T -?-.
:
?
?: ?ri
J*I '
isjirr
e
b
r - -I.--
.
? -c?i
.?.
' ?..?: ?-' r?l
.i.. ... i'' "'
r
?? ,,.,,r
::
i:
r
I??
?.?:
?-
'' .'I .:I
-?
i ?,
i?
c?, !I
.,,?
"
,, j??,ra;?:r?':
.. D"1''" T?s C;'ir ??i:nc r ,??
tI r.b'r; ??I. ?TQ?r ... . a*? :.
1??1 ;r:
ilE
8 ?f? .. ,?r
:"?'
?:
v*?.. ?* ;jsJi `*?? '''- *rJ`?-t -i ' ??1
??*i J?
.??(..?f?.;_ .;.1. I c'???r .
ial ..:: ..
L'k
??53 I:_
?:?'Z
View of Foundations of Temple of Hermes (a - Foundation of Terrace Wall of Cul-de-Sac B - Foundation of Late Propy
PLATE6 dP'-??-- f:
iF:
Ct
r ?;e
..,::??--?ur
,?
??-:? ?k:
'....
r'
?-? -y??I.i-?;
I I:
?;r I.??L? j*
IC .?;?.
''
rl-
?':;. ? ,r
;?i
;pSI Eil?A f?-.: ??= -?
h?-'
irlirs iu* ii.
r
?,?
..?..-. :--1? =:?
.-r t-
?
,_-
??;'
E*j? L;i'rb-"jF3le?.:
`rF
I CifSAj4
?;* ?r
?e-'? r.
-r?*:
?:Lf:
.
J ?s';
i.??-
FF ?I:
:I
.??;
??:
??;??.'?'?:
?..i?
c:
"
T?YI:
.I.?.-?i?
?--?ii
aji
?-.? ;?I'-i,"';P????: 'tj!
???-:C-N.Aq r?i:_? I
r
.... 1.?
8,4T
,
,?,
-? ?-
i-?
'._??? i?..'...?j2r
L.L
i ?
*
I ---r.??
;
'r
S;'7
ji; cqqgie
e'
..., d r. lt:?
?f
= I
r,?
r?
'"' t ,i1
I
?,
-?I;? ?-.; .I??r 'I:-?'?,-?'C
r
g
I*,
,,.,..1
,?? ::
a
;*3 ;r
C:
Bcl-s
Y?.
,sl
;? -i? r?* ;:?-C=?-Li
5 je
;?:'7.92r?5 ji?iL;;4Y I?J.:f;1
'I
'5? !??$?
?c
i
;r: b
..cl
t-,c: -xi
.?.-.,.
.t.
?12
?xU *c .r +=1 . .
1??#'.Lc .i f. isa. u-
c r
:!
?rc-tf
?i? :
,, .;.
i?i?i?i?i?i?i?i?i?i?i?i?i?i .r?
jr,
r--cae
????I
r
-??.
i ; r:?
:S' C :' *
iZ
??;?:... ??r: :-?
w
1. South End of West Terrace ....
a-
,~ ,l
*i
.
a' - Line of Early Terrace Wall in Second Period
?
',
?Je.,
'
.
'l.
Block of Early Terrace Wall of First Period
- Corner of Pit for Foundation of Unknown Monument - Late Foundation Closing Early Stairs - Foundation for Water Reservoir
~ ?
.
i~l.
- - C_ I o-
II
?
- Fragments of Reservoir
..~~~~~~*1
:
' '~ ~i~
~b~i~~
~ y~
..
-
~l~ ~
I~t
~ '~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ S' ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.2 1-?
-
'P
9
'
's''
2. Fragments of Tuscan Capital and Base
*~~~ s
- 'XK;s;
$^t_ie-
L
'
"'
. -Blo of--m Block Pc~dcofG~tb]c 7.?z'om I~~~~~~~~ ."'
-'
I?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,...., .
?rl
Blc
rmPeko
al
4.'
1. Ionic Capital
2~C~ 5.MarArc:avArcC*thitaeFi ble~ Frez 2,Mab.l?
'..
'?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' , , J ,iS'';,~ , ~'~ ~
.-
-
-
~,-..
?
2. MarbleArchitave-Friete
TEMPLE OF HERMES
< -'- 9: .
Fre... .
.- - >.jv... .
, r, ,....
T o ~~~.
PLATE8
~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~.....~ .
-
.? -..:-.,?
~
.
?
. ....~~~~~???'~ . . . .. .l '*
.,.,:'-~.LY`~~','i';I~
~:~'' _s_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_
_M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a
_
_a_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~? ~
:-~ -- .
:.,..
.
..
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i?A ,,. 'Ipi, *jg?~:_.?.:~:.. i:?--.:~~'.~:' ~ '
.}
s;~~~~
.
,~.
~~~-I
?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ..
..,~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,....:,.? _
.,.:'.-,"
~
..
-.l-.?.-:.,~'
:"
::~~~~~~~~~~~~;;'-'~ ---
r
'
?'
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~'*'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~. ~ ~~_i -'"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' R
/'ii_'''~i'-. :?
?L.
1:i~' '~' 'p~ ~,':',..
"
~ '~!z~j~
i;k~cb~.l i;;"~~?rI
'-:
v
~;l;_
*2~,
;~,~ r,~j?r~o-.La~-..
a
..,,.
..
I
.
:%'~!
?? u,~~"'
.
~
~
h~~ll*.
. .? .. Y.:.....[
'
..'?
:
."~...
-.~~~~~~~~~
....
.
_.
.
%-i
-...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'-?? 1'5."[:'
alyTraeWl;/-Bokfm 2.Funaion ~Fonaino of biusMnmn FoigoReangWllndevtntoBbiu of~?Stai..rs Cheek :.... .. .... :i...:-..:...,. Wall .. :'aiin .otn .erc;Stir in .al of ~~~,?-??onmet Cheek~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"" .of.,:
B eemnto
.... '...
Ei
arl Terc; abu
PLATE 9
-i
W
....
....
I
t ^t
.
~~~~~~
:-
''
!',
, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,....~?'
a
t
.
,,
, .
n?-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ?~
". .
;.
.'~.,
!, Fondaton Cre of o ~Babb~~iuMometShowingI~Pmpit / ~_~
s.-i
i_
Blocks
2.~ ~?
*,
~Plan ~rmor k
.
--,,.-
from
Revetment ,'7 ~."": .
of ,
.
Podium ..~.~
of .
';
BabbiusMonument .
.
r
'* . . . ~,~:~~~~~~~~~~~''
.....~~~.. '~"-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-? ~'r....,.
....
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
of Babbius t eo Piu hwn Monument 2. Blndtock foromee
mrt
Pak
o
Fm
PLATE 10
/--." |1
v" ::-.- '.' l
.
9
v
"~.
..
.-? .
-.
'
'
-
4
' r
*
.
j
'
,~ .~.'?:',-'... ./,.. .'~. , ?rl -':':.:t. ?. ..
'..~'
...'...
Pd
:
..
''1~~~~~~~~~~'
I J
....~...~.~:'
. . ;.~ ....'"' -..
L_
'i..'
m
?pl;?:?r
1~~~~~~~.,
?.
Stloat 2 .Sty;lobate Blckv 4:-?.
2 ?I?:~~~~~~~"~~~.~??;~ Block; c~~~Ys;zr:y.:;.
2.Stloat.Boc
1>.Inscrpto on Orhstt
from
1. Inscription on Orthostate from Podium
T
'~~~ ~-~i'~~'L ?:r~urLI?L
3. Column Shaft BABBIUS MONUMENT
?~~~~~~'.?. ::'!..'...: ~,,~i' _ .~,~
;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
.
.i
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
il?
~~~~ -''"" ""~': i'"r,",~:,'~"
'"'
"""
'
I
";;:"''':"::-'""
'~: 1i ~ ''?:"m ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:"??
~~~f '
~
?
b""""L~
~
;
.....'
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~ ~ ~~~ c~~r
':....
I
,
:,
.
L~~r~~-
?
8~i~~--??
.
,,
:~
r
r*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,.."-5?.., ?~~~-.Acirv-ree an C apita fr
.
~~~~t~~3~~
o
m
B
a
~~~~~~~~~~
,~~~~~~~~~~~
bisMoumn
~~~~~~
'~ -
~~~~~~~~~~ 1,8'~~~
PLATE 12
tt.. ?'
?:
;.~..
il~
.. ..
At~~~~~~~~t ? .,,.. '.1?1,?':.,....
'.~......
.~'.:~ ~.. ; :. .:,,, ( "/"~": ,7.1
-
'. ~~~~~
4.-.,
..:.,:. .~~ 2'3., .Cin
.~
.... n
Et..ro
r
nci
~~~~~~~~-1 ~~~~~~ A~~~~~~~~4 ,]~~~~~~~~~~~~?
? '..,
.
.
.
?*
.
,p-
i
'
'"?C:
~ irjish''i~~~~~~~~
''
.
1
4. Pine Cone, Possibly from Finial
p..
..~.... :!~.k
?!~ 'L~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ,:~,.
, .~~ .~~.,'.,.' ; . ....,. , "~. :'.'
;Dl;ytii~~~~~~~'Ca , . ....;~ .
': ?::i~
c.?~t~'l' ....'.: I~-..? '
~-)?.i? C.iling'
~. ~.",". ?-
?h
E ro ~ ntro Ce ln,? .-.
-,
"
4
i_ .
.'
En
1. Cornice
BABBIUS MONUMENT
r
?i
;a ?~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~.:~~~~~~~~~~~~~? "'".-....~ -~.. *..~.1~ :~;-' ~~ :..~-.,~,.:. ~?~~~~~- ~ k, r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
:ki
,
,?
~
~
~
'
.
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.;~ "~":~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' .: ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:.-( ...,. ., ?~~~~~~~~~Y ?~~,c~ "? 'i?~
I
,
? ':a.'.;-~ 1?~~~~~~~' ',: ,.,
~ri.;I! ' ......,
:.,. ,...,..
.
',.'
.-
?II
t,'
. '
~.:.,
:;~-X ?'
~
?'":'???
?i
' ...."."
....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '?? ' ?? i;":r.....'': ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ c: ~~~~ ""X ~~ :~ '""' ";" r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ii
*'.~' ~.,~., ~
?,
'7?~ ~~~~~~~? : ?r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,.
''
?~~..iY
,
:!
'
?I::'"
,,
.1
r . ,.
N
A4,
? -2
'I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.:?" .,:.
,.'
',
'.
:",~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i"~
I?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' ..:.i""
on Ruins to Indicate Position of Stylobate and Side of Temple of P Arbitrarily Aligned
"'"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"N "";
Remains
of Basin
of Fountain
of Poseidon
(a
-
Later
Rubble
Foundation;
Reused
Blocks
in Later
Fou
PLATE 14
'
'_-"d l--.
,
.?
?? ~~~~~~. ~
~"
~
. ".--~*...
-i - ;.
,%2
".i'-':-
..-
-;~
'.;k,z"-
??.?. 'i'I.~~. . : ~ '~ -??'3: .':,. ~n. ,i;. ,~ .--.. '..,"-.7:,, "" '-j. , ...?. , .~* ...,<
~L~' ~'..~ :?
. ~ ~_: ~,..'
. ..~
..
?....... ,~.'~,.. ~.~:~?.,.,.., .*~'~... _...~.'. .,. ,
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?) )~~~~~~~~~'~ .:
~..
.
...
'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.?~~~~~~~~-..,
;* .
*
i
,~*'~.. ,.,,..
.. ~.. .
,~... ;.
o
....
-
?-
.,~,.
. _;:. ~~~~~~~~~.,-
...
-?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~.y . ';?
-1~
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..'i~':!;~!,~R
N~uI rbbyfro itclyCrvdBs
onan
fPsio
~
...
:1'
.Ji
9 "-" '~~. A~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"':' ': --,-"':' "' :" .. , ,...,4k.,,,,;-:?
". .s .'
?I '~~ """.
~~~~ "o?: ~ ~~~~ C*. ~ V:?b;l~?r a.
r?? "1~'' '-
-'.'..... " '; .... ~'? '"r'" '"?
. ~,,
.*.L
.
....,.-,.? .....,..,.,-....~,~.,-'.c' ? ~. ," K'-,. . . , ', ?~CL '
'.-,'.~;~ ''?':.-,.~~.' :
... ~ ... .~..-, ..... ...~t~c?*. ~ .''r* .Y .:.... :.~?:~:~: ,i ~. r?~~~?:,., ,',..:i . I....: , i''~. :' ? : ~u:,,d ,
..
44
*
:.
.~....':.,:....,...,.,; '..,. .,, ',.',,~'"?."' .,.... ''
;~
W,~~~~~~~~~~~~' Z'~:'
5"
-
1
*
44
lexi
..,:~[~ S. "1?:~ :,..,i.:,~.:~i~ '1
' '" ?-',''i ~.'~~
,~-.
*a*.~~~~~~~~~
?
'
iJ,
. . !.,., . ...: .... :.~~~~~~~~~~~~~?. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~? ,:
a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T
~
:.~.
-
~~"-
:.
".
:~~~~~~~~~~ i~:i? , ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~h
-.i?
:.::''.. ~.
: '
'
?.
':,
.
C.
. -:..,. r?;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,;~. :::". ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,, ~?
?
.?
r~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.,~~~~. ' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?','""
;. "
~
..";,
~'~~;
- ~. F:-. ~~~~~~~~~~ .. ' .
'
a:'
;
Ni.-' I', .. ~,
~, 1
'
I? ., .?
l.
..-,-~
1~C
Marble Dolph~~~~~~~~~~in
.
, ~...
.
ndBse ihDdcto
...
1Marble Dolphin and Base with Dedication
2. Aph
!i~~~aWPCI~.~ef''
W.m -....
.~:~ l,mli-'"
__"
"
'
'
i-
-?
.
. ....
s
':'
,
:
~",~....tal~2E /~ ~ ~.
"
'-4
.~~~~e??? ._
-,:_.. _:-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.r...:, ., -~?i '. ~ 1? :~ i.,-_;' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .....,,: , ,.-?.::'~ ~ ~ %:~
? ..
r
...%
C
2..'
'''
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4~~~~~~~~~~e.?. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Js d(~~~~~~ '00,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i.- ' "tE ~~~~~~~~~~A ....
?
.,...
S?'?:-.,,,
.
~
ri~
2
;
.
~
:
'
'
i
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
::t
I
.r: ;;e ' '~"~'"~.1 '" : od~e ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.Ji~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f.?~~~~~~~~~~~' :; .-i?'.'' ~ "" tt~~~~~~~~~~~~~'L''" :~ ~ . ~ . ""~. T~L~~ .' '.' .', . :'T'.
~ ?f
"
5L
gr
A ?rb ?
i
,,~'.'
.;,",.
L~~~~~~~~ ??~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~. ~.
.
..i
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z .? ~.":
--?-is~?
,-.'. -.?s,; : (,
~ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ .. ~ ,.'' ir'" .,?:' -?. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... ,:. .-'~ ?/"~i 3j'!?. Tr"'~~~~~~~~~~. ,,.-, :.',: :. :" ?
.
-
:~~ ~~~~.?
~
.~
~
_.
,;~
-~.~
?.
. . . ,~.B .
.
,
o~,
..:
."'
.",,JB~
.
..,
.~,::~:.:-:
'':'' .?:.:~;~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~: '::'.:j :" ~~~~~~~~~~~~'~i' r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,, ?' ~t i': ': "~'~'i? .-':
l
uf......... Foundat~~II!gPs:-/.
,f'eals
.n
,oeio
.-,:',
J,.C,
.'t
;,
....,' --LoeBok
rirrl
Foundations of Temples of "Herakles" and Poseidon (G, H, J, Cf. Note 2, p- 3; a- Loose Blocks Arbitrari Drain) Early Drain) O,-- Early
~ r.:i _' .~.....
C~~....
;?
t-l.?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"" . .
.
-?
=
....
~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~~~~ . ;~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . B .
?,
~~~~~~~~~~~'C
??
,?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~
~/~..~.~.~~ ;?
~
~
~~~~~~";
B
.
.
.
=..'...../ ... ..,.;: ~
;'~l ~~?-
B~
_'~j~;:'~:ll~
~~~~~~~~~~~~i',~11i
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..?;.
:i r".''~.;.rr~
.; Tepeo 1.Y Hrke,"VrsOtott Tep
o
l
I~~~~'~~~?~~~~~w
"Hrke,"MrlStobeBoc
??''~~~~~~~~'~~~f
i.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, ...."7. . ? ,, .''ri~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ::''i.,,,', i-~~
??
,,
-i.:
.
-
'..
''.
%: . "Fr.. :..... Column,~~~~~~~4~~~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,
'OVA
.
'-~
''
I
~
3
.,epl!o
'Herkles ..... Tepl of Poeio,4. Tepeo'..als.o r?-~~ -.-
3. Temple of "Herakles"or Temple of Poseidon, Column Fragment
e ?
'.~~
4. Temple of "Herakles"or Tem
PLATE 18
:vI; ;Ki.
_..ss.-.
?
~
.
__
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .:
..,;.
_
"'_ ,~._ -
_L||i
?
?
i
~' .i'.
__.~ ? ?
.'
~[:' ~
., ?.?...
.:~.
.:(.m.
' ?*~:S
~:
:.~;~,~:',..':~i.;:,ii', !. Inscromom ablatre
.n '. Temples o f ''"Hcrakles'"
~~~~~~~~~?~~~~~~.
.,r
!~ t
?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~.'
?;~-
...
'..:j ;.
.
..
. ..
''' :-'~
."~i':~"":~ .... ;
~
:
and Posid
,!i ~ : t,..... ...
,
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ,:,.':
2 . Blocksbe f romEnablaturie fof
?
r?
?
, .~,; Sn ~,/'~~~
I....
Temples of Herakles" " adPsio
Poros.Architrave-Frieze ' a r Poo
2! .
fo,: m Rear fo R
r
,':';' ? .' .' ~',''
.4.
' ....... ..'
~~~~~~~~~~~,;:
Co . . C
' ,""~'.' -.,.
i. Poros Horizontal Cornice from Rear Gable
~~~~~~~~
3. Marble Lintel ?'-
"
r~~~~~~~~~~'
k'
'
~~ ~ ~ ~
Ju
-~."',-~~~'" :-r...-- ..il-.: / .~ri
: .?i:
.
r _'' =.
?-
.;',.r. ~ ~...i:~'~ -':",-"!A~,"'~",
2?
.
r.
r
J',"'--? :. .I~ ......:~ ...,,.. I?d'~~~~~~~,.' :7 ~
?
.
-
,
.
.
r,
d
':'..,.
.r;. -.. .L..!.jf: ,~!~-~~?I
'
~~~~~~~~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
$i':.,~..:,. ,"',,':?,'
o,
Marble 4. .:':
.
,,
..'..
..,
,
~~
Thrcshold
4. Marble Thresh
.j~_ ?
,
.
roerCre .PooAchtraeFiz
TEMPLE OF "HERAKLES"
'4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SI~.
-
'4
I
4r
"~~~~~~ *
*1
'
h?...P
:
*.
1.Criefo
--
;C:
Pa
onc
fGbe2
M ~ ~ ?? ?1-. rW-PI ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WW~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cc.~
~~,C.~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .
:
t-3-
Inscribe Architrve-Friez
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;
TEMPLE OF POSEIDON
-07~~~~~~~~~~-
~~~~~~~~~~~ ZT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'r~~
i
va rr ? .*~~~~~~~~~~~~~?
_.1~~~~~~~~~~J
Founatins f TepleK (, J,K, f.
I??-
otc2, P 3;a -Blocs Abitariy Algnc inP
NorthwesCornerof Founain of oseidon
PLATE 22
%...
~
?,~~ .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '.
.
Tj~~
1
1 ,~~~~r.
. Poos
, ,:.
._; ........" .....-..~J-~- ......
.
.
I~d~I~:-i~i~i~i~i~i~i~,
~
Anta ~'.
~
Caia
-
~ o?rosAt ~ d
Posblro
aptlPssbyfomPnho
anho
~~~~~~i.4
.
?,,.
*
? :.,
.A.
_..._
..._
-_
-
3. Frieze Slab, Possibly from Pantheon 2. Marble Cornice from Pantheon
~ ~
!L.~~~ ~~?
L~~L~~ih*: 4-?
-~~?
'-:
h.~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"i
4. Marble Capitals from Pantheon
PLATE 23
a_w.
2. Crown Moulding from Niche
' ~ ;;...
--.
j,
:-'"'
"j.'
^3.1
--
.
~
x
.
.ro
Iner
.
3. Base Moulding from Interior
?~i~.-'~ ,..'-
.. ..'.''.
.
..
.'
;
maP=
,. -.:. .?-;~
.' '~~.
?..:.'.
2
~
.~~
4. Architrave-Frieze, Possibly from North Wall 1.
ragment of Step Block
TEMPLE OF TYCHE
,?
-
4. Cornice
~?
-...
?
from
.~ ~:
2. Capital )
,;-/..~.)
-
..
"'~~..
, :.:~,
., ~'-
'
..
.
..
'-
.~w~' F?
"'"*.
'''
?.
. 2~~~~~~~~~~. ; -:.o.. ~", ;~~~~~~~~.> / %i . C. ?
-i' "'i
~~~~~~~~ ,?~i~. i,~'t:~ ~.~.~..
?
,
'~;.
,,
?
.
.
.
.
? .,,,,,..
1.Column?. Bas
TEMPLE OF TYCHE
4. Central Block fr
PLATE 26
b
.'. _
.
,;:
,
' t~~~~~~ i'
-
8
.
>
.
. ,f , \'
? I..--~
F
si
le
ix
1
tt~~~ ,''1.
_
,, ,
af~
_7
.
..
>~P,]4'
'
\C
.
.. ?
~
.-;'I(
f ~~~~~'.'
;
i.
a..t">l\G
d
S-Wa J
!. Coins Referring to Cult of Tyche Bs and 2. (a) Labeo f. Plancus (c) Anaxilaus and Fronto ' , ~~~~~~~~~~~T , ?? . r: "~,~~ ,C ~ '
%
~~~~~~~~~~~..
(b) Agrippa and Proculus . (d) Agrippa
y-h
' ,'
?
?.,._..-...'~ ... ,
,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,.
,
,
;..
'
.;
.,.:~'..,--~. . .;,.:.',,~?~. . ? , ..~I
... ,, I~'.?/: ,.~ Lt3~ r ~ '~.~~~~~~~~~ '' ,'"''."'':?
/
l c,.","'' .-..,(' ' ~
i,,5',*.
,,,,
;
~ ~ ::4~,
?
, ~.
~,-~i:
.
'
NI . , .".t-...-.'., ." ,
J.
r; ,. -- r?
2.BsefrStteofRgll,DsgaeTyh :~:t-.'~. "':;,~;~' ";-".! "-'. .';."..'..'..
?'..." .,
...:,-
,.
%,
?
..'" \;':
... .
~~~~1i~~~~:.
".) ? q '" ':' - ?12"?A' 1'~...
1i; ..:,
;
. :."
?.
~~~~~.':\
'
?
t,
t,.,
','''... ' ..,
,
.~~?
'
',.,
":
.
.r......
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
I,
:
'1
AM
-
I
i
i
.. i,
i~
~' .
,~~
I'
,
'I
1.
'I
taueof Fou e
n
'''"..
., ~'?....' rPnho phodter rtmi d
-116
Found NcearPantheon
2. Statue of Athena Found Near Pantheon
PL;ATE28 1. Apollo and Muse STATUES FROM NORTH END OF TERRACE
~~~~~~~~.. 3, Zeus Chthonios ?
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
?
.,
.-.e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r .!1
'
??~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .,%
?
'~;
i
/l :" ,
":i
r?~~~
?
;I~~~~~
'
-!,-;'.,:,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.i; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....
i
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
6??? 5
..
' .-", '~~~~~~~~..
.
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?,
~
,~... .~ ".~
~'t~~s'.:'."-: ' ~~~~~'.."
':'-..'..
..~, L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.:: .'~,.-..~ '. .
~~.?..,. ~ : '~!..~P~4 ! ~-.:.-.'"'!~:":."'~~ f'X~'..'.,'.,~'-;~' ~ ~ ?~~ :'
?. '!X.'
~~ ~ ~ ~
~I.
--:::.;A'
~' Y~ :".;-".
??"'?2. Fraget from
.r-.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~, '
:
'
Gru
.
?n1 II
oarir
fc~~ ;?
~
~
~
View of Agora from West (B -
j~iii
?,
Babbius Monument; F-J, Cf. Note 2, p. 3; X -
Circular Monument; Y
a - Propylaea; fl - Northwest Shops)
21-boo
-?? i
-
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~" ~n"ir;.?s-:
-
z
--yi
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ?
v
~
~
ls-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
;HL' ,?
?
r+
emaZ Donsio;G irclaronuen;Y VieofAoraromas(X wthPirneBlo,RihtFreron; Ln fr ae rak ,-Poyle ff-HlenstcStrtn
anteonBy-oan
View of Agora from East (X - Circular Monument; Y - Bema; Z - Dionysion; G - Pantheon; B Ro Starting Line for Race Track; fi- Propylaca with Peirene Below, Right Foreground;-
a-Hellenistic
M
-I
-0~'
MIF~~~~~~~~?W,t~:.I1
'1L:
WcstcrnPartofCcntral Teffacc from North (Y - Bcma; Z - Dionysion- F-G, Cf. No ;l';~~:~; 2.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?? a in Front of Bema; flFoundation ltar; y - Fgadc of Colossal Figur
PLATE 32
?~~~- .
f":..::7.!
?'-~
~ ..~~~~~~ i. i. 7_.".4'
....., ~~~~.
P ',? :;;.r'-: .. "' . .
'~
r ,c-. " ?'~i?---
-.,:.?; , .:." . !,. ?....
,; "'....
~,
i ?
~ .-~: -~.-3"'"
....
!,.~~?::.~:
1-4~~~~~~~~~i
?,.--. :JS ~
~., :"''-' ~.,~ '~~~~~ ....s-,"-..~ ~ ~~~
,;: i~.i""
".
.- Cutn fo Styobte....:" (a'~.:, ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?T-
?.
....
Soa
. Cuttings East Before Central Shops VIIIw.~ - Cutting for Stylobate of Early So;/ Plundered Trench of Sillof Central Shops) ..,.
P*-~.
?
,
'
~/,~I
?
,~ ..,i
?~- '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... L:~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~...~~~~~~.%"., ... ?r.ll .::'"c~
?
._
Y.
~,~:I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-A,
,
c ?
dit5c~~~~ ... .... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .~.. " ,.':?
?
.: ;nr
-,
:?,. ...;...:;i_....... .' ,.
'.~,:'~'t .,'..,..,.'., ":.~ ~.,./.~~~~~y..i ~i..:llIll~~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i..---
.~!
,.,... Central Shops Iand ,i"i I~~~~~~~~~~IwihErlirCtig() rmWs 2.East
PLATE 33
? ,.~ , ?.? -
?
7.-
' ~ I! ,~['l ~ ;"t
.
~
~
~
,...
i
:~r
.
I-.
~
."4:
!
I;
j
~
. ,.
.
.
3 .:~ iii!~"1~."/~'"". : - :.?~ :. :,~,.-~
'
.
[ 1" ~ ,..~ . .... . -l~"'-.,'
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
~
"... '."'--.,.,,: ~
~ ...T~
. ~
:
.
'",',-"',?~
. ~..~_~'"~ :
= "':-7~ ~. .:~ Y~ :.'.:'..:i "':~-~.: ~~l ?,I ,=~:~ -,:~.::-,~ :". ?
:~.... :
? ,
.
,
....
.
. ?- ~-_ .....-' .:-.. , ~.. ,u~ ,~.~ --. ''' -"~":~~';";....'-~ '--''' '' '., . . ~V';~ ''' ~ ' "'-~~
~" ~.~.-~....~""~".--~,.~'~~-::~
.
..~'-'?
~-........... -
- -
~ ?
5:""
'.ii
'T . .i-~". . :,,r
~... '" ,
~i ~
~tf~
". -.,-. -,~
..'.,.--,.:' .,.:''',. 5 ~~
. .
.
~ ~ ~ ~
...~:' :'~-
.
.
,
~ .~~~,;.~
.
~~~".,.
~~~~~~~:~~~ ".:~'
. -
. :
'?
:.~.~.
.
,,,
"!-~,-'~.-
.
.
.
"''
..
.
' '~'
~....--.;.
-
....~~~~~~? ,~
,~ .
. .
~:~~z.
~' -' ~~, ',~ ~, '.~.LT_ . "..' _ .,, ......,~ ~ .... ........ '-. ,
.
.
-,...~..''~g
I.~:,...,..
?
~ ,~ , ~ ....
.? :."~~., : . . . . ''-'r...... .. .."'t~..'~'~-CA~lka~~~ ;I.... ..(. ~. ? . ,..._.: .
.:..., , ~ . ..,.~..:",o_..,,f
,:
..--
.... " ?'"
-i~,~. .~
',
'-~, .-.. 5~ ' , ~ . ~:.'~.~.:- ~,'. . .. . ".":,E" ? - - ---I_ ~,,~ . ._~ -:'.? -~~-, -'.. , ,:~i..Y . . . . ~ ~YEW~,-~~I~ ~ ~~: ; ,.,'~_';~, :.-".', ~,. " , ~ -- ..,~ ~ -~. ~.vtt? ..... -.~~'"'' '-"~ - "~ . - ~~.~ .-[-~i~l~.: -''~~.
?
.- . '... . - '
"'~--'' ......:
. '"~ ~'-::''~'~ "'~--''-' .? ,'_,
~
. B~, ..... ~~~_
,'~ '-:'-.: ' .:i?~ ,~ ~:':; '~ ?. 14~_~ .;~:;~~ _ .~,~
'':''~.~.' i....... ..~l":-f ~~~~"-~. '- .,? , ,k4-.,~~'.fS,~= " ?:,: -.' "-.. '"' ,E . ".
.
-
,
,
~.-....
~_~'~~~~~~~s~?? ?..',"~'q~-.~-' . .
-
~
,
..
.
~ ,,~ - .... ~- ..:,~ . ~ .. .~:, ~, ;~ ., . , ~.
.
.
-
-'
-
:~.?'":
:.-E.
PLATE34
.
%,
MU
I~j~ ? 1*i~~~~~~~~~~~l
'.
.i'~~. ....~. r
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..,....'',~?..
''.
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... ,
-.z
I
:
.:...~"
..??
' ....'
~~~~....d
?
~
~
~?: ' "~?
i
~'C ,
.
?C
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Circular MonumentfromNorth
'~
! ..
~
,J
r Lur
? ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A7 ?~ -.~-CC '?3~"~.a r ."-,:-', ' ?*, ... . . ?.~}~~. " ~.,? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..,.',: ,, ,? .~~~: ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1r -:.'-,:' ?,~.: ~:,~, . ~ ~~ '~~~~~~~.
'.:
3,
.
t~,.,'~.,..
~~~~~~~~~~~'....r
.
:,-' ',
iii5 .!: .
~..?
.~
.,.
'
,.,..
:.I
~~~~~t~~ ~ '
" ,:
..
..~.:, ?I'
~~~~~~~~? .~
'"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ,_.,,. ~ ~ *s~~~
......
,.,! .
,.,~.{~~
.
'.
.,?-ic.
?
.?.-
?
.:,' ??. r
?. '
I~I~ 1.?
.
'". ' :..,.?:E;.,.., ?r:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "'~~ ..~~...-:;...... &i... ,.~:
j?~~~~~~~~~~~-,
..... .... r ?~~?,,*
~~~~~~~~.ii
~~1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :.'%
:..
o
i
~?. ::;,~.....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .,~.~,,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'?eigci o.
,~ ".,.?
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:.,.~~~~~~~~~~~~?I-
~~?
~
?. ,
:
2, Juncture of Base Moulding or Circular Monumcnt and Retaining Wall
Ittar's Drawing. of: Nj~:~*;~L~:~?~~QI?ii;:j bba~i~~4
A~
Circular
Monument
(Courtesy
ofBritishMuseum)
K
~~ ~ ~ ~~~-?l:???: Ik:?:ss:.:.?4
r gYZ
?:?.:
..:r
-.-;
?
Q"r:ll~
R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t11(TO 0:...?I
U?;-_=-iMi--_?~~~~~~i-
--:::__-.-;-ERNAm
S
' :;;:??' Ittar's Drawing of Circular ns~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n Monument (Courtesy of British M U
.
PLATE36
*i ~ '-
.~ c,rJ-..
-:*r,
:.
-.
:~-
,-,~~~~~~~r
3. MouldingfromSecondPeriod
.
i.r
1. Cuttings for Base Moulding East Side
2. Foundations Foundations on on West 2. West
*~~~~~~~~~?
I
, . .,; i~ ':.:~,~':.. ,,:~~~~~~~~~~~~C ;~t :..~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'.'.~ s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ii ..i
iir:
....
ifl?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:. -,~~~??"'., ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. e,pc-~ ~~~~?~~~~~f~~~~~~;~~ .."' ,
?
? .
'L.,~....-
.
'~'jY
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
".,,
t.'.".,
'~~~~~~~~'
A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..' E' -?.... t?~ ' ~ -...-...,Z\?-., ?;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .i. ? ; !....'? ;:~1~i~ LEp~~:?~. rl,:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
?;.?:
?... ~~.
~ .-
.
I
\
~,t~,
...,
,".i?
: .-..
.
~ ,1,
.
-
~
~
:.%,1E
i
.,.
.-.,u..
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~..-'"~:. .... ?~~~~~~~~~~~,''~.';*~ q~? ;,,:,~.~]'
'?1
,.
,,
~~~~~~~~~',, ~
'~
s
.
?....
.l~
--
'
:
,,.
...~
-,.
CIRCULAR MONUMENT CIRCULAR MU1ONUMENT
.?a:
......;LT
PLATE 37
3
.,
_L
'. .--;.
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
_..-
..:_ .... .-~
_
.'
~'
?
':
~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~'
vr-'t~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ik " -,'-?;DION LY'' ?,...,. N
. ?.~~~~~~~~~~~ ?.~~
~
.?.,. .i
?~~~~~~~~1
.
-'~-;
Viewfo ~ ~"'"'ii~
' E"4w, ?~~~~~~ ~~~ 1.-:cE ~ :,,,". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :s'
''
3 .
'."
.!,
~;! :. .?b
"
..i.?
?. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~":".'::"?:'
...
,..., .,,,
,,.
..'~ .: ?r.'i ,,t Lr.'.t ,i~tio fir,'""& ... ..:......., .................:.,' ' ~ '~ ,?, ' ~$ t :'..'...-."::.,f.-,,.',,,. ~:':?'~',
"'.,-,.;'''
"~"":
~"'[~'
~
~
~~~~~: ~ ,. ~
':" : '~"'"' '.?:~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"".,.'.X(' Lr"
:'.~
'""
-':"--'i" :;" ' .'...,''
i;i:.! !...
[.~" ~; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~~. ""' ''
i5
, .e
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/. .
?-..m;?,t, ..
~.,..~~~
?
'&..':, ~
:'..:.? .
~~~~~~~~.o...',~ ,,.a
~~~~~?~~~~~~~~~
'
.... ~
~
? ?'
DION
u-Bok
-t 2. Rar Wall blow Floor Level
h.'.~ %.
: ~.,? k?.
;,
.
~"*?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.t.:
,'-.A
'~~~~~~~~ j~~~p ~ ~ ~~~~~~ :". ... : i''".,:,' ~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '
~~~~~~~~~
.:'"?
"~'*
4
'"
~
ot
:r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
~~~~~~~~~~.t7
~:'f~~~~
,
.
,''
. ...,
?~ .?
...~~ ''
SIO
PLATE 38
a_s
r-2 _j.
._
' '
.Y
: .?.? I? .... ~~~~~.:_*
. ....?? ........
?
~~~--'~
~
?
1. The Bema from the North t
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
?-
.~ ~?.'
?
'
.'
6r~~~~~~~~~~~~r?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..3 ;^
;t:.
i.
,#
_
2.il Th
eaad
hrhfomteWs -711~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i ?~?~L*~=
?7 ]r9
iX_
2. The
adCuc Bema from the Westh
:E'.
''-M-3 *ili
PLATE 39 ~~~~~~~~,, :::..:
.~.~,.~~~.~.~
~:;#-
t:- .~~.z.~.
1-,...~ ? " ?I
:.-
..
":~",;J~l
.
;',1...
~'-:
- ~~~~~~~~~~~...
~.
...-~-,.i.-.
.
i"''~~
~,~..... '
.d~
~~~~~.~'
"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'' "';` -~.. '
'
1?i? .LT? ,,!'•:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?r_r%:~~~~~~~~~~~h ;i~~~~~~~~~~~ ... ~:P?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "-• ?.c. r:V\:,e !~:. ~ ~~~~~... -P-~~~~
?--
.
. .?'C?~.:.i .
.
.
r
:,.-?~; : ?1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~._?.?..,
:~~ .~.?.)f.:
''~Ish~ ''-:?'' .!'...
.?I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.
.'.
1''.?
-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.-.. ~ ~ ~.
..
,' ',~ ' ~~~~~I%~~~~~~~ ~?.,~-: C:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
~
~.
~
-".~ Zd,'.;
,
,,r;
.
-
. ...
.
,~ .
.-.
,,, ~ ~~ :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.,. . . .--a . ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -L?*?
???
J~.
"", ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' .. . .
.
.
..,hl
~
:
.:" 'k;
-,.~aa~u
.'.P,;:~,~..,~_p w,.s) ?,.~-?,~:..
~,r
;?:?u;~ b19a~a~mF~~~~-~'
-
-IP?:"~.~I
,~?*
[?:~,:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,:, ~.~~ ~ .:., ~~?-:. ?..
"'
',
?*~~2.
-,
'~
' ~-.,..~ :.:'~3:
~"' .
.....
.
Th
Wser
chl
?..'*- . ?
..
* ..
,
.
,t... - i,,, ,,' .....
..
_._.:.
:
.-
...
?E.
?
3. Seat Block from End of West
1. Seat Block with Dolphin, Corner of Western Schola
?~,?
' .
~~~~~
...,
;~
~
..... ?;1
~ :
'*
F,
.....
.
......
'-:.
?
:
.
?.............
.
..~.
........L~-
2. Lion'sPawfromSeatBlockat Rearof Western Schola
PLATE 41
....... :,-_~:
.......... .-~ .......... ,... .......... L_. .,?.... -.-.. ,.,,-.....-
,
..-~-
I *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'';1~~~~~~~~ ?J _
?~,
.
..o_
i
-
.:
,.
-
-
.,,4.
.
''
wZ
'
!
'U}'.'
,
,
....
.......,'.
.:.
:','
.
~~~~~~.
? % ; '',~---iJ[
. ..
~
I
.
~ '~
.~
1. Base Mouldings from Scholae
~
-,.
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ,
....~~~~~~~~~~~~'" ~
?
.
'5:i~~?-
". ' ~'
, o
,
_f_~~~~~~~~C?__ .'':' ?~~~~~~~~~~. ....~-
..'
~ u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. rl
'
'
,".
iea?
:.
, , . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:' j::;'' ,
~';.~ ..........I ....
~ '.~
.
.
. " ,
'
..
..
?
*~~
~'T; .~
k'.'
.?
i~ .
Zi???:
-'
'.'
,
'..:,
~
..~;~
..
_ ', ..,
~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. rthstaes romEas Wall Mof Esteng Schola with PeadBseMulig '?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, * '
i?
':I*'"r
.9'
i
.-
:'?.
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~., ? ?
"'*;';~~~~~~~ ". 2.Orthosates fromEast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......
i11J itPiradBsMolng WallofEaster Schola,
,
~~
,
PLATE 42
.;. .?.
," ..,
?~
:?? ..:.[''. ..'~:, ....;~':'~'7.~ ~. ' -''/A.'........"-':-"'-': .....:~' ' ? f ..i..;t-? . ..~. . . ? :~,, .'~?~~i ~~ ~ ~ ~ .
' ~
-' .. :'..'':.-.,..' ?? :'.": .......".-'~:?,;,,-. ; ? ' ... .....1i,,...
,~.
v: -
.
[?/~;:~
.':~;
.
.
.
p..
:;
A.
"..
...
. :'.2
..~ .
"
:
~~;i ~~~~i ..~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
-,
~
;~
-':. ,,
':
? t.'. .;:'d,;5 :c? ; ;;.......~ '.,: ;..:....Y
i
....
.'
..j.;,. . ..,.. ' ';~....i$:~
" '~'Y .... "~"
'-,
......
,~,,~?.;
..
,,I,.,.....?i :' ~';,:,.
,.~
~,'Yl~'" 1:-
.. ;
Gai
:~?
"U
L,I:I:IIi' ;~r
?
;.
I~: .
.
..
i
II
,!'
on
B
o .f.Oth
.o,stat
:I ??I%
e;"
i~?.
II
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:. . ,~ 2 ~,~ Pirfo ~..'.:,.l~.. ~as alo ? ...III''
''
t~ii~pe
1.'
I
,.I
'11'I'....~~~~~~~~~ 4*;
I : IIi~
~:,...;? ~? V~ 1,
'
'..'
'? ," '~. ~,~,s~.~~~
:';.~..'?'
F:. c? . ?
'?
'
":
~
, ...:/..,
?.~..)t.
~ ....
Yk',.e~ ';~'5
-;...
G
.~
asenShl
r.,:
rfii nBtomo rtott 2.irfo
-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ir of Capitalsfor Piersof Schola 3. Fragments -
as aloasen$hl
..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.7
s.
?.
c-
.......
1)'
I?
"'
.Cro
..
n
oulins
fomSchla
1-
isr~~~~~ '
PLATE44
" -'i
'
.
_......?..-"'9':."'"-'?"
..
~~~~~~~-?"
.
.,-
,.! .'.
_
.i .
.-
2.
. ....;- .
.
ofBcma Podium
Crown Moulding
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .;...._
:
t A
i~j;7~n'?_ 'd-':4-
r. ?
'hX~~~~~~"
~~~~~i~ ?~? ~ : :?:'" :" : "~~~~~" :;,:.
.
?' ?
"
"
: ,
X
* j'
~
:i ;?" , ,
:~~~~~~~.t
~;?
j-,:.I...
..
...... /~ :~:,.,'-':.,~.,i::i~~~~~~. .?:6
,<.:,.
2
.Bs oing
.
;"'
and?OrhsaeofBm
?
.
."
~
oim
PLATE 45
'A
1?-
L-Y.~~~~
rl;;: -?-~~~?(s --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,|.-"
,,~:-
;......... E
b.~
1. Floor Slab from Bema at Point of Juncture with Sill Behind Schola
3. Slabs from Edge of Bema Floor
;I
,,S. 2. Fragments of Orthostates from Bema Podium Revetment with Cuttings for Attachment of Rostra
PLATE 46
?~~~~~~~~~~,."5f~~
.-
:..
' ' '"'::..~ . '~~~~~~~~?.~ -{~ ~ ;= ?~~~~~~~~~~~~: i, .,' c ~ ,c~~ (q~:I:,., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.
"~/
' ??
i'Lc;
''
'"'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e
~:.~~ ~~,.~, ~,,~ ~~~~~~,~" ~"
~
e'/~"?;' b'
~ ~ F3?~~~~~'
~
,.:.~ z."-''~'~}
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.' ,tlbt
?n
Fonao
:
~ ;. ,.i... . . .~ >~ .7~~~~~~~~~~~! r ..~ ... :~.?: j .:.X?~;C ~ ~ .~T: -i???~? s*:~,:~:, "
~~: ?:?
~
j
. :a'."~;..
' ~~.'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~? ....~
-:$i' ' i~ . .- . .~. o-?.. of..em .-''.-~. .n :~bl e:
-
,8 - evel
?
...........:',E
:
;".
. ....." ...... ,f :'-~~ ;lo H~'.". .~ /J....:
f Flor
of
.
~.. .~.....crt '":'-
hurch
A~~~~~~~~~
sW? ....
?~~~ -i -4
3. Fragment of Base from Pier of Bema
2. Corner Stylobate of Bema
PLATE 47
.?-?-
~-.
_~.
?ie
:?=?
.~~~~~i~~z?21~~~r?
.
.; ?.;, ,~~~~~~"'~~~~.' I
'
_r,~~~~~~, 1 Pier .A from Beside Entrance to Bema
I-~~~`F
?-
F
S,!-~~~~~~~Y:'?'?-
2. Per Bfro
-,L~~~~~~~~~~~~~0,
,~
Corne fBm
1.~~~
PirCfomEdo 3.~r~
,
Sd
al fBm
PLATE 48
: ~.,,
...
'
7
??.~-")'."
'.
.. ~ ~'~.~-, -,,
"
,
'
.
. :
.
.
~
?
?
'
'
.
.... ~~~~~?_.?.~ :.: QO--
,,,~,~~.~I~'~ ~%~''
. .-' ~ ?~': Blocks from Sidc of Bema 1.Seat
..
.......
. ?
::?1?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
?-
..., ~~~. '
...
1
~r?:~?
, ",.?'.,.....
::~
' ..
J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
,._..:.~
' : --'":? ?:' ' I ' of SetBokfomRa.fBm Fragment 2~-. .r... ,:~ ..
"~~~~~~~~~
'~I'
3.
._5
~
..
Frgentts Bofrhotts from AoeSieat on Bema
.-
*'%.
'
-
:s
--l.b
-:
.c.
,. . ..
.
..~ ..
L
-
'
'". ?F '-r.'x
Z.- ~
..''eo: .
""'5"'i'J'
2
.
A
"'
.
.
~
?;
?~~~~~~~~?*
,..
~~~~~~~--,'?.."'
In .
..-? ~
?1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. I
'-,':' ... . . .
r;.
'" ~~r??a,~~~~~ ...\~.
??
.-.
' Anta
P
Capias 2-i.v~I s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ b.~
1. Fragmentof Pierby CentralEntranceof Bema ... . .
*~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ?'
.i
;.
,
>*.e,,
+;
~
???? i~
J t:4? ie .r
..i?:
>|*X
m
F
-
f
t-4
ib) s
,;
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a r
I 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I?
_~~~i 4. Cornice I Blck Posibl frmem
j?d~r?r:*Y,
..~~.Cre
:
ree,Psil
PLATE 50
/3 ~~~iPA~rBs .. ~
.
.
?,
.
... ......
z
.
<"
... -.... 't:,
-r:t..
-"
[ ".
....
.
'7':?
_i
..
a;
o
P.
a'
.
1R-sa
-w-.. ??-.;.:
~~
j
iF
21~,,?~~g;,
,
s~~~~
,~.. ?~~~~?
-.
~L ,,L.Uh
.......... ~~~~~:? ?~
r;~~~~ ~~~~~~~~.
~
~
1.
..~_~..
.*...
~
...
........
.JJ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At
i_L_La x-,.
.
'
,
?
- ~~~~~~~acr~~~~~~s~.. ~~~~~~~ i.;'~~~~~~~~ ~~~~Zs~~~~~a-for
Foundation
i.
Platform
in
Front
of
*kt.:...ca Bema
Ca
-
of
FaFade
X rmBm ?hp Ceta ~~~. 'ast X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Colossal
ouet
Crua
I
Figure.
. t LI~ni?PL.. ~, - ~...:,~ ,:a.
~."~;'::._~,<.:~,~
. ?
.
?
-
. ,.:
;, .*'.:::.;;.~:::~ 7 . ...,,,""".
~
' ." ' .... "-" :" '
~~~~:;'-' ~- .'""'"? ,.:*''*:''
'' :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::,:'.~.'::i::'i' ~': .-'?7.
..'L-~;
.
F U~~~~'"' !'~a~i,:ICst
? nc',l? ??
r~~~~~~~~~~.. . ....,.,:,~..f.
.
'
'
":' ' ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~?
~ Pasg
?.;...?
:
ii.>~.._~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~: as 2.
:'"" i' '
Ceta SosfrmBma(X CruaMomet ~Bs ato rcteea
? yEcaaos
PLATE 51
Ir-
~
i ?-
-=
4.....
* . ,-z.~..~~-Y; ..I ~ .~;~ c~U?U _I.': ;KV~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t? 1?'~ '~:
~~
~'?--
,-) .~
5
-*Z-*YL'-.
4i~lA-
;?..
.
?.,
....
.
,-,...
? e..;,
~"
'"'"~" '~~
;~~!~i"
i~
['7
.
'....
? '.:"
~" ':
;'
~
,
'
r?
; Y?~~~~~~~. . ?
::~~~~~-
';~~~ .5:~'
~
''r
...... .;,,.y......~ ... -:,~~..:.,...::;.; :.!,~.~
'.' i.:'" ~~~~~~~~"
m Ci
,
..,...
?~~J'', .l"-?,'~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:.'.__.,,',_ ?.: .'
:.~ .z~l:..."
.-,?-?"*'..''
Sosfro enral 1.Eat
:AU:
.
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,?
'../.
';i~
'~'
?'"~
~.. .
,
r
M u
j
: ,
-~,
..
Jr"''~~~
.
/,.i
..fifl
oumn la
.
.
-...
1.,EastCentral Shops from Circular Monument '.??IN-nr'?-isl.l'
?;m;:------C ci?.?lii-Y (?
ILCY; ?4?L-
?" --?-." ' ' - ?C''7 ?If_??i?r:C ?..;CfrrirYICY:.I
r-a?.r,
??
--1E.j
..1:
Li ?9CIP:
-'
:8 ii
T~ ~~~~~
;'' ??: ?
~
13 ....
.?: J
?
.
Ant Rema Entraaf-
Flanking inof
.
.?.* .i?'51;Y;LRCirr&81LC'?f :i-
r r
"r??:?l: e '''-?-7$! at'P ??-?
,;?? t L-
..
.?
???lt:?;-;\-
2. OpusInccrtumof Walls of Shops
3. Remains of Anta Flanking Entrance to Shops
PLATE 52
4 1
~-,~ .... ~..:.-:-.... u, .... ... .. q , ~ , . , .. . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N. . *,il? ..~.-b.
r
,
F
i
:
L1?..ILC ..
;"st;:i '''
?:
i ?-? ;
?
v?;?
'r.
ir7CLCII?: '' ..Y4; -?-- ?? ?--, CiccelS;-d- r. 3?J p-t k ?i;. Z - Shl' r i "' ???? ,.aL1? ?i' 'i; ?? .1. r, _,,,,,. /-
?c-? ?I? r;;f '''
'r c:
1-.
F
fromShop
h:_
?i ?? ?;
of Concrete~~~~~I 1. Fragment Valtin rgeto ain onrt
" 'e 'f. ?-: *ct '? -"S-?ijZ ,..'il ?:" .... 1 p:
.? ?
??-?**..?6 piS?"dW"'
'?
3-'";' ?;
I ??
I?
?*?
.,,~~~~~~~~? r. t
,.-
..
1
:
?4
.i
1?-e
? ''
.c:
Ir?
Y7!. ;X*L1' 4
rsirr .?
.
'
... fln? ;
-c, II?.?--, ;?,
1.. '?
-?:
? '???I=''
,
s:: b
irr"lBLsa.?.f:
.?
r ..
:
?,
?.?.,r
rJr
i!1??
r
'iu?
Ci: "'-
L? ?, r ?? :-?
.,....j?l?: c .,
2. Sill of East Central Shops XII-XIV, Showing Worn Surface and Recutting
.:?.. p.
-w '*
" 'F?TPILTkr c -* Etrli;iF;"Tl;e#si;ui3c1
: i?
CT'.-Pi`j.: ?? ?.? -?1
?
.
.,,
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
?.:.
~
,
. :.-~..-~..~,-~;.~... i
. ;"...~
3.Bnhfo
~~~~~~~''?t
',Ek
~~~~~. q3h
'~'~~~~~~~~~~~AZ
l}i
~
./
Bc fSos Fain o;i.:..
p
t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~""'-.~i ??
--"
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
3.
"'Benh fo
Bc
f r
~(
~
'Ii?(
f ..
5 -,. '.'r"? :"?
??" ,?
iLfo
s
iLj
, r.r ??r.I:iif
.-.r -
??
v'~''~ .:.,
*
''
erAor
NZ.-Ao
.4,: f7::
-
.?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ u-~~~~~iT? ,U - Li? r. ~ ~ ? . 1AZZ15 ;
???~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
?:
.?
q
?-I~~~~~aitd
latr
n
alsofShp
PLATE 54
t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?.?
.
-
*
-.
?'..Y:'"
_~
.-
~Sr
,.
?
;
..:,,
..
-;-';"~
i
',
"
~~,"'',.-;,."'
;~~~
';,
....
....
_l
'
-, '
_!
: , '~?' 1~.::_ .... :,~i ':i~ :, ~~;"~~' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"
'
~~~~~~~~~~~~-
1. CentralRoom of East CentralShops '~-',%!~~:? ~~~~"'", ;~'"ki. ,,.~,~i-.;!~
R._
'"-.'
.
?'"" "'vi:,,",~":~,' '-" '"'~ ...... ..~,,; ....... ' '":' ':"Z,
.-
?.i:
.:.. ---
?
-.
" %::. ~,....!~ '~t-'. ? "",~,,"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A
.BseMudigi CnralRo
fEs eta hp
&
Base Moulding in Central Room of East Central ~~~~~~.2. Shops':
PLATE55
:i
f:-t??:''?;?*-'?;;sl ? ? i
??
?;.e
::??;y;r,?::-lc;.I.j?:?.? L t:f 3.2?r?j r* ?,s-? ?--:. 4t ?.?i.S?? k:-?-
-?
."_"'lb?f :i '?i?L?:??:.iill; ???;1 3;? _ i?.? ?.;?:.
;r .? :
:?? .?-_: i i. ?.cs..'.I
: ?j.a a:5
::rj ?C: :
'$I;??;. iiir: .:-i?"''3"'?2'' -
?'
.!..I
r
I??
:
ri"
I
?
_T
;1:I
I
?:
:: .. i
I
-C?c--------- I IC9eLI
-
. ....-:
cllrrBs"'l?i:.? rYZZL?'f"lGBPI.?i:':
:i'
:? ? ;
??-: .???.; ? ?.''
*
Y
"'
1Crb?dYK11117-9eype;t?i?l'i;c
? I??
?? !C :: i?-?si??-;--
.'.':? .?n
?.. . ?
.1. ,-,,?
??-:.?.;6.
?'bpi
?:r::1
?:.? I
:'.a''u
5-
'I;?:?? -*??i"
:li?
! T. :?:
'
.. :F
?
' ?.; ?.??l.a
:?r??
;IB''''';. ,P ? ??i
? :"?:
:?.:?.; ;1.. ??: ??
;?
r
.?
?:
::
i.-
I
IC
I
B
Sllglnhj--psieiP:.l:
:
; I.':?-.';;? ??4Si.' '1*:.;" ':''' ??I...?I ';'??; :*:l':.?F "'
? ?'
:'
?i??s ?:i;L?I ''r-?:?i ?"=?i ?:?::! :
t:,?;:c,: ?I??:rmi3E?2;-urpl
?
;?),u--r.?. ?: J1
fl::i?-5.? ''*X,:L
r
??
*'
; 3
:
,:?
1
R';i
""' * :?.:.-????;??-???:
Er;
:17:: : ?: ?:?1:
:??i:i
..f '',....
:;"7 'b?i ':''It' i(,t
81::::S'? ?:J'%.jC?'??i? !?'-*:l?.X;? '?-i'?t?'- ?;* :P:,..... ......,;.i 'i'.''-" 'j:???.*.I?:.'?;'?:I?
:'-'?% :?: ? .E.?if ''3:?,.:'':??:t? '? I .?:i?.., ?"'?
?: I
i I
'* o
Tlr
I i.?:-
i
;:::. ;I::*.-2.
;? *
.S I
r ?i
i.-'?" ::
::
~
'9
r
t""
r;. ?1.?? :1
??:1:: ::-?
B Iba
':'
rce? ';
::
i:;F :e
:BL:?AI?:!,,(.z
i
..I,?c.?
B
::
1.r d'i
i
:?
?:
"' .?
: : . ? :? .
?.`. ??:;?.?'
:-I
??r
:: : . ,.
:: :-?::
r.
I.?L -??...? ,?-? i ;?
*T.?1
' ::
5?''
:'' r?
??ri
i.. :. 1.
??
.? r :
d?. ???-??? ?:? .I f,_u?+l
??
.
..?.? il?P ";I 9i rl?.I;
.i. ??: I: '
-I?i?
-;?
r
ii-rI('i-,
;HP .... .?;
i,?
t -
I-;r?.? :? ?-
.F.
?
n*--?? -- :!L -r' 5??i;.:l?''?'
?. ??lr':
i
; :
.?;?
rg "
:?"T
?;;??' :1'
''? "
;
2
??
XT:!': !:-"j; 4 ::
I?. 1
?* fl.?? :x
Marble Floor of Central Room of East Central Shops
:.S!?:
. I"
i :
-":: :;"tr.
?'i ? c.:
j-9 ?;. ;.r???? ??:? :?..?i
?:.? '?:
-
I
a'
~~~~~~i
v,I: '4h
I
.~~~~~
.-o
*s
,
-
2X;st*l h
'"''
i ~' Z"
W, ":' -s
N1?
id
h
_
S
~ ~.
-f'h
~~ ~ ~
....
XS enhAgisRerWlofE Tacs fLae
?.,
~,~
~~~~~~~~~~r~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~i ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ x
ly
,, .~,:l ... i "-
:
.
~'i~ .'...,: j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..%.,,, iL
~'?
?i
-^
!?*~~~. "?'*.?~? ~~~~~?.~~~~~~~ ?;C."L;.... .~~~:.?' I,~-
'x'
-.
Lae
C
... , :/."L"~ !:r 1. LateConstructionin
1: L
n
o
, ... , ?
i
i
'
~ I Shop Central?-
East
s
a
A.
IV.
~-:
PLATE 57
*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?-C1~~
~
~
~~~~~~~~ ~ ?1?
~~~ ,',:
'~
?'
,
? .?
. C,/.t'
;I
'?
~
I.-'.z.. t:-
!{
4'.
~~..'.:. I?
F,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r 4..1
:~~
~
?C
~
~
,?A
i
~~~~~~~~ r '.%? ~ ~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .c, ~~~~~~ ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -??i~
-:
.i
?
,~
..
~
~
..:?
,
1~~~~~~~~~~~~~
?-
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -?
;.'*;
,-j~
,
:L"
%
,t"',
Buit oer i~~ ~. '.
hol Rage
~~
f Sop
? ~-L,''
o
-*
.
Shp
... .,
?v
..,..
.... . ~:
-74-~
W hol Rane M.
?:.;I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. '... '";?
r
.a I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d0
:
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
'~
.
Built over ?;?? L ,;7. C7; .............
.
~.,
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,':,;a
.
. ~'4-~" .~''
I -.:'.:":
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~? '
,-
~
.
.
r i~ ~ ~~~~~i" J ,., t. ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.-,..~~:, ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~-.. _ ?L i. I ]L-S,?,,~:.r '..c?.~'? ~5-~a "~~~!i~ . ?'t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i' 2 . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' e Insc?. 3: ri bPainSlbfrmOeShp
PLATE 58
r
'
~ ~ ~ ~
)' .?rt '
J.~~~~~~~
a's.'
p
r~?~ lr
5
mLa , ,,o; .,,
otw
., ' ' :e
v
.
4
-^
tylt..... . *_.. .1StylobPte .'
'
.S
:
.._
.
,~-
,. -.
.
4 Entablature~ 1 Stylobate. -.
*:
::E
?-.-:~5'?.... r;?.?i.-....,~!' '
Orho,.. 2:
:E~
.:.
... 3. Anta?
?~~~~.
O
rhstt
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ......
FRAGMENTS FROM HEAVY EXEDRA
~
-.
PLATE59
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
,?
F
=
rrIi
~~~~~~~~~~~~I
,'
.Li~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Entablature from Light Exedra
1~~~ifir~R~4ljj$r?~)1Er: L ;;:': :2I!lr .
"3
i '
'~
is(C~~~~~"~~i:
,t,;,
r'
.,
~~~~~,.?'?.' ~" ., '? t~~~~~~~~i,"' :;
r.
F..~~?''.,' ; ,
?? :1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.4.,i$j
'
?: ."
3. Crosson Pier by Entranceto Bema
.
...,
,.;, ..
?
.
t:, ',~.
2. Coin of Lucius Verus Showing Circular Monument I.
I- --
--r
?? A.A
A.L
'
-a
~' ?? r-----fru
V
iI/
~~~~~~~~~~~
I
ALC ?
~-h
/L
1.Pssg
,
*
atofBm
~
~~~ VL
.1' .
-
_
2. Passage C
PLATE 61
?, ~;-.?,.. ,?2"
r. .'....
.
... -g im;
jf[ltl
. ~ ::-?~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~;.~!;:r,
'
...~~~~~" ..',~
Wll)
.,.a..-.-
....
'I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, .i
..,. ... 4~ ~ , :i.....-
:i~
' ~~~~~~~~~~":~;; ~~~~~~~~~~~.?
-'L*l-?-; y
':? (?"..
?:i:?: ~-'~'~'
.: ?~~~~~ .:. i...::,...~;,
X
?
?
~.,...
'' '"~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~
.
:' 2'?.
.' .
..
;.
,' -
.'.
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .... ..~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ !~~'?"~~?:7!:
:,'.'..::... ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i ~~~~~~ --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?.: .:;! ,,: ..-.i
,~.,., ?
os-
~ix
a'NothrnEal -,?.-', ' ?~?
.~,?,,,
'' ~~'
"i.~?'
~~7p
,~ t?
~
? ~.
Y...
*...?..4:~.
'.-' "~:. Wal
',8
'.WC-~'~ZalC~ll i"Buit ., Ovr~'` :?6 WYi.Qal;Sy Moder Late ~ej-? .
"!'?
,
.-" ,
?=:
.r . **
%
?
::;''
.
?
i!
~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.'-. ..?
alsAbv Pien ~-PinsWhr SuhenEal Wli xpsd ~ Norther Th Wall ?~: Lae al r W Early ?*~~~~~~o Earl r h ra l l )
oenWllBitOe
F
I
Y >...,r
,.....:..:. . & ..--...:... . '~.:.,. ?~ .:...:''-..,i
~-'~~~~~~~~~~~~~"r -~
I..
)..
.,L.''
...',.-
.\
-~~~~~~~-
I..
I rI~
;??
6'
i?
;.?
.,..
1,?
: '?~:~ -'i
.,.Xl
~ ~ ~ ' ..~ '~'~," :'.' ";': .'d? ,:~ .'~:.'
... ?-,~.
'.
":" l ~?i( ';'/"'" "i.-Y~? ~'q .,:~"; 2.
Babbius Monument; L. Foundations of Altar in Lower Agora (B F, G, H, J, Cf. Note 2, p. 3; a Base of Greek Period; f3 Water Conduit of Greek Period)
.f,r_ .
M?na
Relief,
.,,'.,'
1:;'; ., . /;,.", :~-... ~~~~~~~?,./~'J~!., .:.,,l.. 2
Posi
,.,.:;-
.Mea ele,Psi
!
~ ~ AI
? rr?
;?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .s~~~~~~gJ
00li
'II'
AID
~
~ ~ ~ ~ o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A~~~~~~~~~~ 44?
;?5?.r,
-4~
?~~~~~~~~~~ I:'
r-
-???
u~aw;1;3~2~L
-.
.2~~~~~~~~~~~2 ~
The Terentius Altar-~.
:xvx
w?w
TI~Pb?~
'
,'~~~~~~'.'-'...' ...-,. ~,'.~' .~ .-- . ....~:.i'.:,'. "
?e
"'~' ? "';'""''
?r '.; ~'~,,~.'~:::
'' '" .~"? ,i~--, '"~ ~-.'~'.~'~.~'.'
?~ ~~~~? ~ -" :,jA!~. :~,~~
., .
.
'
~ . ....
. .?
-
r
.
,aa; r..--..' ?
L4~;'',:-~..?r ,,'~? :
".
...-. . ' -.-~
....
[,-5',,,,,
, ..~.,.~ .~
,/ '~'t . ~ ~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~ .~? . .. . .~'. ~ . ~....... ~~~ ~?~,' ~ ~ ~ . : ?
., ~,_,.: ~~~.:~.
.?.,. ~
'1,.,,,,-..: -).,??
:-:7?"':'. , :
?'"
. ..;~:,;~:
i .% ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '"' ,~...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.44'
~ .,'?~, ? .~~~~,,,. ...--.~
. ;~
~', '~: i~-;~.}:~'"~' . -'-~ ~ :tt~ :,~ 'a~~.?.;
,=,;?..
a~li4_ ..:..j
1.,
;~"11l--' ?'L?h?.M..'
..-.-
....
,-
: ....,
~..?~a~.~?
,-1
~'~-i~:,:' .:-..-, ,.''ei'., :t. : ,. .,
.~,..;
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-.:v ..:':, ; . '.~
..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,_
~~.... .- .,...' .
'
~
......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .??
... .;. ..
..~j'.:~- ..:.,,.
~
~.. 2.Bto
1. Mast Emaplacement,from West
.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ 'C1
.,
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' . .. ? . . ......,~. .. ..
"~~~~~
2 T.,op of Augu .l~.ii~~~~~~r i!u~
~ 1. Augustales~:
i
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~p
?
Bas fo
tte
fAhn
~
IC;~~~~~~~~~~ I.:*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
~~.;r ?~~~ ..... 1'
Top .f Auu
..
L.??
To.f..u.aesBs
~~~7r~~~~L~~' .:.-~ .,!~..'
I/:
-
.'
.-*,
'1 :.:
-'
' --, :
-r.
-
"
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~ . 2. The Kan 1. The SteppedBase in Front of the Fa.ade of the Colossal Figures ..
.'
.
~~~~~~~ nF '.~~~~~~~~~ ':/I"' r,
'
. fBm,.SalBs
3.Sa iFrt. .. Ba
'/4"~~' :~.~i~'~1
3. S
.
mllae iCnF
;;iiu~
PLATE 67
I
I.-:
It' ,
V
?C~~*1A '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'V~~~~~; ,....~
'"'~~ -?
1U
1 Th lutiu
~ ~
?;. -?.;~4
Heidoo
t
U
Bs Ron
3i?C
la
X.
e
'~
'.-
......r
: ...
-. ~ ~..~ c~...-~''.? ~',,~~~~ Al .
:?.
........
~ ...... '' ?j?ri4
, ., ,~-.... .-:
1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~-.,~;1 .:
L
rl, - ..
" ':
-;:,.
. The Composite-Circle Base-' ..
psi?Cr]
. ? ''IX;k ' 'm...~." "
I '~':
,~~~~~~r ;.
.
.
:'~
. I.
..-.
.
,
,.
?.; ?
.~-~!~L?
.
,,.
',.' .,
:.._:,.~ ..''
ifSY", ~~~~~~~~~:,.:
~..,
'.~': ?r~ ''.'
.
.,..
??lj
~~~~~~~. h o
B~s
-i-,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~
It~~~~~~~
pj~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d w.
VW.~ 4?'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ir
WI
?,Y P%Mlk-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~N-G R
?-li
AS'i-~.T?~ ' d ??
h Nrt
Soaad
heRoanMrkt
ro
teWet,son
fcrexavtin
4
~~~?sI
W
;r-wtipm~~~~~~~~~~~t
0~~~~~~~~;_CI
fjA
-!:.-,--k: Ir SYC?
Ik~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~u
j1.~
~~
an'
*.?? :;; ?-L..
r
~
T?a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *~~~yrn-?ns'~~~~~~~~r; ~ Af*~ :~;;~~~;;~~;;~~~:~:? ~ '! .
.;*i;4~"
????A
RM'";
~
;
~
C?
-
~ ~
r
?-
~
??-?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L-?*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Mw
Z--~C-
The Roman Marketand the North Stoa from the East, soon after excavation
PLATE70 ??? ,-"?''.: ~
.:~
~
f:1
~
'
~-. "
":-
.
~ i~r?~ ~
....... '~
-
~
...... ?" ':'= ::'.~. I
rrrrp~~-
rr
~
?
--
-s
? 7
r
r. .?:J c~
:;L
-1
I
,.'
L
.. ,.
'"
. ili0r~~~~~ _-l
.-~
~-.
|
"
. .
'-''''
'
~
,
~
.~
,,
H.":
;
~ -s-_ ~ ~.'
-
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "'
_.
I'~'b.i.' .
-..
t:
_2.,-.
"
.?
C
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
.--r.
~- ~~~
'''' I...,---
~
~~.1. . .~-??-,.
.
'~--'
, -~;1C ' _a. :::..--. ,-." ~.-.'
R
~ ~ ~~. ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
. #' -,
2.CThEatedo
'
~-
~'
~~~~~~~~~' --
;. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
h PitdBidngrmteWs
of the Painted Building, from the Weast 1. ThemEastind
1
,?-...;r?.
_*
.
.;.
.'
,r,
t
. ...
1. The Archaic Road on the Northeast Shoulder of the Temple Hill, from the east
3. The entranceto the ;
....
?
-{~.4-. -.
..,
o --.:~ ?-
~,~ v
5:
.~,
.
. ' ~ -
.
.
---
-
2. The Stylobateof the North Stoa with the Sill of the Stoa Areain the backgroundand the Drainon the right
4. Cornice from be
floors o
PLATE 72
1. The North Stoa from the West. The blocks marking the position of the half column piers on the stylobate actually belong to the row of interior piers of the second story. The row of blocks on the left marks the line of the Barrierof the Stoa Area.
-vw
=tAk
2. Some of the stone catapult balls
3. The southwest cornerroom of the Roman Market, designed for a stairway, with remains of lime-slaking basin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~; I
r
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
: p
I~~4
}FX The Gold Coinfoundunderhe Floor of te n$% North Stoa
PLATE 74
_S,i LZ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~
~~~~~~
.II .
~~~~~~~~~
-
-Ab
~_~
? .iw
-
f
~
rn ..
: Ci ' -
~
?'
' ' "*:--.*_
'_
, ..... .?
.. ....o ?-'.,~,~.~.,~~..:..
:
I..'
~
'
~ ~~~~~~. '='
::
~ . ::,:::-'',:'.L
~ .......
i::-::~7 ~~:''.~: .. :.,.:::?
~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'"~L :'.:' ' ~.'.:,.;.:'':": - '"
......... '
..
'
?~..':.'71 -:'~'.'~~"?:
'.
..
..v. .:::
';~-'.~.:~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~.
".?.
'. C.~ "t <: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ '~'
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
z r
w S |
_
w
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ v
-
'
,
,
F
S
S
_~
~~~~~~~~~~.,;w
c~?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~? .
;
:
. .~~?.~
.-.' '.,....
. -_
.:? ?':.~-? .;~......
h WEnt et felyatn Roman Market,fo TeCetrlSosothSotSiefthe 2. 2. The fteRoman Ceta Market, hp nteSuhSd showin the ter l yancie
.-,.
.
~.
.:~,. o~,
.~, .
additions were EnracmoedtteGra adtion the Greated
Ciste~~~~~~~.? ;rn. -
PLATE 75
r
showin
teirof
a
-ma
door of Shop with mosaic in corridor in front. 2L. showing
...:... :' ?~~-"':,,.-....'? ~~.., ~"' '''~.' .'',_"~ ? . , ~ .?. . .... ~~~~.,:?' ..... ,,~'~::...
..
.
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~?,~ ~~~ ?
.,.
'
:i-..;..."." ?i'.*'. ~-
.:-
-,
,,,r
~ ',
?,,.
* ;.P~.:.
-,
~
...
,
-?
~.'"
.
,;~~~~, ....
"' ~ ~ ~"~~~~~~
~
.
:
'
.'""....._~~; :?;rC-L - --~-?Y L~il~? ??~L-~C:R mC-?RI?Z C ?YlsU LII1~ CW~U C~I ~C~I~I C .r ? ????
I-*
.,
i
,
? ....',,
;
T Soth oriof hoanMre mosaics as preserved, from the East.~~~~-
.-.
--?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -' . i~~; *
..'.
~
~
~
~
,--,-
~
~
~
~
~
-..
t. .,,..;; , - ~. , ,~:L.. ,~..,,
~~~*
.r
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..ls. '.'".;~,-4': -t
-
-7
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'. r
-'
7-
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~-: '.... ........,'
'C"'_ .
3. Details of mosaics: top, at east end of south corridor bottom, near west end of south corridor.
PLATE 76 .
'~:'"~'~".~ ;,,~-
'~:
E
.~ -
_._
-atin ..............Vas ...n ,.~ Scene~ ~~~~~~~~
n
"
Batin .,n o e-Fiue Vas 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
3. BathingSceneon Red-Figured Vase FromE. N. Gardiner, Greek Athletic Sports andFestivals, pp.480-482 Courtesy of Macmillan andCo., Ltd.
80.95
80.94
o
5
lo
15
2o
8o.79
79.84
81.97
79,48~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r (
80.98
80.94
80.
C4 ?80o53
79.8~80.97I/ 2
'
/^
i6^
^My^
a
II.
1l*
::
5
7<0
7.' o
IP80'58
7'9.97
~
IrW~~~~~~~?~ ~ it. "
^
j
.
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' DDDo
i')J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~788
7'8.5
1 B?t.5
o 81.o6
80.80
,
7
x
q {
c;
.
8o.o8
7847
d',
=.
o
W
77909
\
l
i
I lo
o
15
2o
80.79
79.88
79.
------79
.
KU,
~
~"
__
80.94
C
79.84
/7/S:...
L
719.97
7
-'-~ GENERAL PLAN
GENERAL
PLAN
OF WEST
TERRACE ........
SHOWING c
EXISTING .
REMAINS
OF WEST
TERRACE
SHOWING
EXISTING
REMAINS
o 81.o6
80.94
-
8o.E
1 .~
.-----~. -
8
80.96:
~0
~ ~
cl
<71~~~~c
~ ~ 82
W.
owiiiml~~~~~~~~~~~/;////~'/,%////////Z 78.64~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| C,7790 " PA 3:
r~~~8.5
80.1(
=3~~~~~
~~i~~j~S~~~~\~ n f \ o8t0.32PALO. ~~~?I II*
kINS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E
I4R~?~;~~\l')?
00
do'.I
O|
j~~~~~~~~~14 "
t
o
1o
IIeM =
n1
n
n
~
l
i
0
~
~
~
Si
iI
/II I
f
fHilir~i
I.
n_Fl_^_^ O_^_^_-H Do
E=3
.
_______
I
I,,-n
-
?
??
1
J.T AVLO,S 407
t
o
i-F=10__
lo
IM
5---^.-'
?
^
i,
?0
nX
RESTORED PLAN AND
Si
fHC
o II
I
/II RETOE
PA
OF-=-L' =DLVTO
RESTORED PLAN AND ELEVATION
Q
WSTRAEABUAD20m0
OF WEST TERRACE,
ABOUT A.D.
200
If
?
I--1
T
l-^
L~ '
J.TPAVLO,S
LACE,ABOUT A.D.
200
w
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
F~
~
}0l4lL')I
L
--
I
IvCfa '
I
i'
I /
'
\
?:
/II YI\?
??
i\
i
P
7rl#7r-
.lo
0
.5o
RESTOREDORDER OF THE BABBIUS MONUMENT
<(
I_____
\
,
m ),
^^^^^^^^i
I
X)(A
D U>ttttt~~~}0
KI
v A
I
)
UU
-----^~?-
r /
_________f I
.
^Zity
\
'
?:
/I 7'I\?ij
,
\
.50
.lo HH--j HHH
i
RE.SIRORR.
RESTORED
ORDER
--
i
15-H-47
OF THE
BABBIUS
MONUMENT
~~~~~~? :~
~]DEMCLVE ~ ~~~~~~~?. ll,]
CN.BABtVSPHlLINVS.AED'PO0TE
D'SPFC]ID'
.
~
-,
CE 1VR
CNBABBlVS-PHILlNVS-AED-PONlF D-S-P-F?CIDEMOVE fTVIR-P-
i I
.5Ro 1;
^
E 0-4-
RESTORfiD
i
2
-
ELEVATION
| OF THE
BABBIUS
4M
3 |
MONUMENT
M-
.
sl _ CNBABBIVSPHILINVSAED'PONIF D-S PFC
-,-------------U
.
~
11,VIR .P' IDEMCLVE
_
CNBABBIVS-PHILINVS-AED-PONIF D-S-P-F?CIDEMOVE fTVIR-P-
i I
.5o 1;
^
o 0-4-
RESTORtD
i
2
3
-|I
ELEVATION
OF THE
BABBIUS
MONUMENT
IIIIIi I I
I
PLANOFE
l 2 11
REMAI, R
D PN
AD
PLAN OF EXISTING REMAINS, RESTOREDPLAN, AND REs
I
I i i
I I
1
I
11
1
I
I
I
=
1
1
1
.
PLA
S R
F
I ,o PLAN
P
O__.
I_
:N
zo
E
to
F
TM.
OF EXISTING
1
REMAINS,
r
RESTORED
PLAN,
AND
RESTORED
ELEVATION
OF BUILDINGS
ALONG
THE CENTRAL
TERRACE
?1111 1
111C
]DE
J T RAV LOS
4947 LEVATION
OF BUILDINGS
ALONG
THE CENTRAL
TERRACE
~ ~
W//r11
-I//.
~ l-ll
~
I
>\>\\>+ =~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....,..,-.,. i, $ .,......w>,,zz, r-- . . ~
W
0 ,, ~~~~"0
|
S
.'
O
:~~~~~It ;7
S
f
;:.-
'' :?:
i::
!i: 77<7/7)
~~~~ ~.... ~ 6:
.. .,:s?~
??'I?'; ,.:,, tHi 1)
779>
~
rx
W
~~o~
o
KZX <
79 <S
[ff( VXV WmW/'W5lls ld]ltslWllXltffD I l
' C~~~~~~~~~~~(C LX9c .?~
b
~
i
~676 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3> ~ 1,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ a,~~
"%~
~~
"'
>77
__
i...
g~
(7
70)60 >
~o, J_ I
I
19
"I
6i
c
v** ..
Ill
8x7,zyo
7
_
;I:_
3 9o
,
7
o
4k 9
lA.
p
.
u
o
79
197 7&i6
9
7
00
1
i
I
O
I _
__
I / II
%" ....
.
4
....~I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..~.
j~
,
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3 U:3^ S ' Otr i i. I 7, D"aOu~~~~~~~~7 ~~~~o" 0~~~~~~-;~~~~-i?C '>-
<'2
D0
o.C37
~oa~02t 76
*.
o
LLD V4i3
~~~~~~~~7
,
C
*
7
=
"
-
" ,I
::g -
0,fZ) 'D
(79~~~~~~~~~~
DOC
*
Q~~~~~~~~~z
, 0C
OD I.
:5I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .... r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~82
10
3.
i
ul
o
S
o ,3ID 6U
?.~.~
-:,
O
1 ,,,O
,
PLAN
OFEXISTING
REMAINS
OF BEMA
AND
" Ir-
T-
1"^0I--^.C^K .
.*...:
'
*;
^^
^o
": .^.6FF'! Cp
81o
-
E
--Ei?, ^^ i/
^o
_p
| u
o
~ ^
c7
!
I
:IAD
PLANOF EXSTN
RMISOBEAADRSOEELVTOALNLNGUIALECIO
PT
REAIN
oFITN
OAo RoT
A
ATN
AN
A
CTN
-
,,_
V
::-..'
'
=iI :3L
::::.'."-,I
'
A-
z
o Z7,,
____
78.23
J T. 9
o
L
ALN
-
I46
LEVATION ALONG LONGITUDINAL
SECTION
r?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1
5 Illllllllli--
t
I
I
I
I
I
1
- III
iao
15 .
..............
.
...
.
.
.
Lc2 % WOD0
15
lo II
I
.
I on.
..
......
i
COICL? C- ? .;L~~~~~~-~ -?.?'C-1CCL ??q19^
1^" 31-C) FV--VVA
i9
P31
946
Ill
o
t I
l I
II
I
1R I
oRE 15 I I o n. 7I
I
RESTORED PLANS OF LOWEI
L
..,,~.,.,
........ d
.. .
4F
Z
.
.
4 :.., ,,
x
. 1 1..
1*. ......... , ,,
. Eo
.
17
.1
111
-.
,_
c;...'....k
" _......
..../... .
O~~~~~~~.T.
I-.?--~;
???
:
.'
:
I
,*'
?.
I
.
=
.
1946 LEVELS OF BEMA COMPLEX
V
71
X1
iW
; 1
X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'tI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~li
|,,,,,,,,,^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c Ot SECTIONSMIPM
A EATR
||^I
ri4 WAL IUMIr OF
6 ISII
BEMA
1
100
SECTIONS
OF EASTERN
c-, d POD
2
WALL
OF SCHOLA
AND
REVETMENT
OF BEMA
PODIUM
L d
I
X
I I
I(iri~~rlll hl(rrr i
II
ill'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7
1
10o o
SECTIONS
OF EASTERN
2
WALL
OF SCHOLA
AND
REVETMENT
OF BEMA
PODIUM
5 _^
>
1
^^
^
o ^
^
*
l I
2o
-
cm.
E $I .
R. 1947
CAPITALS FROM THE SCHOLAE
_
_______
______^y_____:-
-
---
, --._-.......-_---...____________----
o
.::.... ;^ t E l.
*
o
I~cm-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
I;
~2,
lo . ESKI.
947
CAPITALS THE SCI-IOLAE FROM THE CAPITALS FROM SCHOLAE
~
.
...
..
~~ I ?^1 i
CIII,.
......
.
................
1^~^ ^ ^ ^4
5
...
H H
_
cm .
,
, ,__
?.,-
--
=-'^....... -j-J Z
?. _J:
0
I |IHHl|^|I
tI
I
*
|m
. PLAN OF EXISTING I
* *
??p,
ii 11 40 PL
oF
*
? a^-
*
O7
'
/
:-:
g
g'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'. r-'
**"l lI Ii I
ar<
~ii~
/y'-7"_
^,"/////
1,
/
___
........ _
_ _ *>*
I^-'i -
_________
f"/I/,
.r
E. SR.
ND RESTORED PLAN
1947
CORINTH BUILINEri15 1
THE
NORTH
OF
THE
TEMPLE
10
O^s
5LOPE HILL 30
20
- - - -
/'I
ff6^
4I
-/
j
f
t'^ ff Xi i'v_-i \
~/ I/
fj
C
1^I,
\f~~~~~~~~3
/-",
tJ
II ,
,
Z
j
M
]PE
|
ILL 30 M
,;*'LI
Iw
-^~~~~~I
(^~
,
<
-
-
^M
^S*^ ^ -
i1 -
^ \
C;c
-
i'' ^ ' ^ '
-
-
-
-
-
^ ' " ^' ^ ^ -
-
^
^ .^ , ^ .
^
1
PLAN K
,
;A
-5
l
iL i
,
F----
i
:i
i
T
OF
- -
A
:_
\
/ /
---?---?---------- --.
-i
30
20
10
O^s
HILL
TEMPLE
THE
I--.
,
O--',
-
L
/ XjXrS' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,.
C_
f6
,I
M
o-;'
30 M
AUI
_
-
ICMe -AA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~Ii ~~~~~~~~''*' ' I Ii~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_9-<
U
C
- -t
- --
' --
^''"
J'-
-
THE NORTH STOA AND MARKET, ACTUAL STATE
-I-
iS
l
'LA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
l
I
iGi
5EETIOHNDRTH-D5UTH 0
THROUGHTHE 10
S
G.V.'pe5c
lF,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
5ECTIO1 NORTH-SOUT
!j;~
A_BOF/,~
A-ABove
SeA
.VL]BVZA
LeVCL
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...
.
NTIN 0
H THROUGHTHE NORTH MRRHET 10
20/
/'
-
G. v.Pe5cKe iCiH
,^^*s" __
_
__
__
' 1^1 '
'1~
_
_ TH
o71NRT-4,7TH
ON
,,---
THROUH NOiRTH-50UTH
THE
NMRTH
5TOrl 20
1949
B--4
--"^-Z-^
^
lCILVZANTINF5? AL ,,,5
I CfL
MA
BeD R.OCtK AT THE MiDDLE TEMPLeSA. LLr ,C
o0STHe AABvC
STYLOBATe OF TeMPL.C L 8/'
r
~~~~~___
~~
~
rl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
~
~ ~ ~ ~
ABw
sSALe
.5
IORTH 5TOrl 20
/L
o...,.,esc..n.
STY LOBATe ,.Se:A
ABOVf
Of TCM/PLL-eV
L-
850
5EETIOHNDRTH-5DUTH o
s
*
THROUGHTHE 10
I
5ECT1IO NORTH-S50UTt
!j
AABOv
S5A
LeVeL
L
I
SECT
'H THROUGHTHE NORTH MfRHET -'
/
20'
-
G. V.PIE5CH K
-Aov~
L,V eL 74, 755
-10-20--
---
--
SECTIONS: ABOVE,
THROUGH THE NORTH MARKET AT A
ATRTH THE THROUGH STOA B BELOW, NORTH AT STOA NORTH THE THROUGH BELOW,
_---.
.-0?---
r
NORTH 5TOR 20
G.,v.eacHKe
^A
OF TCMPLe
STYLOBATE A ABOV
s5eA
84,
IARKET AT A 'TOA AT B
L
Le.Ve
4
50o
'/////////f/-/
*-
a
a
^
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GYE'~IE a
a~~~~~~~~~~~y5
NORTM
TME IN
STOD
MELENISTI
THEI
0?
COMPLEX PERID 2O
'_10 _S_
-kw
M
:DMPLEX
:RI0D 20
G.v.'- Ec
F KaE
4y.a, ?
a
y
r- -I r-I I
I I
*
I
*. */. I
I
II I II II
-I~~~~
/
/
I
I
PLAN M
I.--
.
I I 1
,I
I
,
II
J
/
r j I, I,,,
--'
'-0
:22
'
0/;
'-^-it) Irt
I
-
I
'
--.
iI
L
I1
I /
c-.
II
I
III
I I
n ., ?
,--
.
.
' "
!ItIiL "'IIt
'I /,
I
II
r| I| '
I
i
-I
X?III
?
/
0/~?
0
-
aa
NORTI
TME IN
5TDIM
MEILENISTI
THEI
0 6EEHN
PERLID
10o
S._5
i
COMPLEX
.
-M~
~ ~ ~iI ~~~~~~~~~~
M20
~IK-,EI FKc G.v.-Pe5c-C
,t
:DMPLEX
,
I
THE
NORTH
STOA
RESTORED
II
II-~~~~I
II
I
-!
I
I,
III
i
I
TEMPLE
i I/////I///////
.
///
//// /// /
,/,
.
///// //.////
/. //777,r
./)-,,7/,7,,/-7/
/ ^/77
/////77/-./7/.,
1-7,71 /11
TELMPLEOF fPOfLDO
, -..',tLj.....
j
I
II
0, -
"b
'-'
I!
IO II
, LL
'111 T /iN
II
ii
Ig II
r-'
'I
I^tl)
"////
'OI /oe
rL.': '
/'//////
/////////////'//////
" -.. C
X
'
I I
'I
II
'r
...
I Ij
I
0
LI
0 ?
'
II
:
I
(
.
IOLI
~'/7////?/////
--
:
II I
'
r -,I
r--
r----
I"i
11I
L. _
-
//
II
I
MtlRhI[T T
CEMrTURY 0
?
r1.L. 10
5
..e.....
*
0
0
I
*9*@
@ @@00 @
*@.@
@
@
I I
I
0.0
0.000
00
0
0
0
0
0
:
**
*
*
e.g....
.
*
mMPLEOF APDLLO I
I THE NORTH MARKET RESTORED
TH[
IN
CEMTURY
FIR5T
0
^
^^"1
L^-^i
*
~
*
5
*
I*e0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *
r1.L.
^
10
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
**
0
I
*
**********
0.
0
0
^?^1
Ie
^^^^*1
e
7/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /
:CII
/
L
77
/
77,177777
TEMPLE OF APDLLO
MR~ARKR ]~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE NORTH MARKET R
APEA CLHPTIAL
'.??
1. ....7r
O
d~~~~
l:::x~x/'%"
0 ........Q
o
ir
---r I
431DbATrj35
~~~~~~~~~------ -
*pP~
iVP
ua
~
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 0
~~
~
~
~
~~I-*
e,IOL.0
*OF APO 0O O
~
0
I
?
:
4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mc
o o
~
Od~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ?O
o
am ,
5~'10 Es~~~~~~~~~~~~
Od
~~~GJ_
o O
o
A ADEP P ,~~~,~-~~,5~~-~~?v=E~~irFAC
~~ ~~J
09sp,csL, O
rD r*\O~~~~~~~~~w rCP ~~~~2~53 c~~-~~por
u> 0-
O
O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9
o\UUuY\
BF;
5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LL1
o
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~E
I
Z
~~~~SEUM
Q
ioo~~~~~~~~~~~
V
O~~~~~~~~~~O KEY PLA'OFTHECENTRALAREA
(Parialy rvise thoug
199
frm pan
OFCORINT
y J Tralosin
947
A CLHTPAR
~
.
L
fl
AT H FNA CHALINITIC
3d~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OdD
FI-- I
\_U0 B I
.,~LJlmr~
I? o
LLJ
0~~~~~~~
Z F--
tLJ
IYI 2:
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~~pr~~~'~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ Bo~ I ~~~~~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I
O
rT`:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5' D~~~~~~~~0
0
O~~~~~~~~
~
rQL
~ ~
~
~
~
~
0*~~~
o~~~~~~~~~~ \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~? Od~~~~~~~~~~~~~
s~~~~~~~2
0~~~~~~~~~~ KE
(Patill
PA
O
rviedthouh
KEYPLANOFTHE
HECETALAEAOFCRIT
94
fompln
CENTRAL AREA
y
.
ralo
OrFAP CORINT
(Partially revised through 1949 fromplan by J. Travio
