DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3332#0041
TEMPLE AND TEMENOS OF APHRODITE.
37
side of the gateway that led up to the temple
during this period.
(38) The third temple, which rested 2 upon
the walls of the second, differed in arrange-
ment from its two predecessors; it only
contained a single chamber, occupying the
whole space within the outer walls. Thus its
cella was larger than that of the two earlier
temples, though its entire measurements are
somewhat smaller than those of the second
one; it is, indeed, intermediate between the
second and first temples in size. Some pieces
of wall to the west of the sacred precinct seem
to belong to the same period as the third
temple, but they are hardly massive enough to
be a part of the boundary wall. At the back
of the temple it is hard to say whether that
boundary wall still existed, but on the north
and south the earliest wall still rises here and
there above the level of the ground on which
the third temple was built.
In the temenos were found fragments of a
plaster floor, some belonging, from their level,
to the period of the second temple, some to
that of the third. They seem to show that
the ground all round the temple rose gradually,
and that the floor of the temenos had to be
repeatedly renewed. A gradual accumulation
of the ground during the later period also is
unmistakably shown by the road, which appears
on the extreme east of the upper section in
PL III. It consists entirely of uniformly
stratified layers, and must constantly have been
raised, in order to be kept at the same level
as the district around it, which at every shower
received a fresh deposit of mud washed down
from the mud-brick walls of the houses.
(39) Now that we have reviewed successively
the three temples of Aphrodite and their
- On the N.E., the face of the wall of the third temple is
continued in front of that of the second temple, and appa-
rently helow what was then the ground level; it is not easy
to see the reason for this arrangement.
appurtenances, it remains for us briefly to
consider their relations to one another,
especially from the chronological point of view.
We have already seen reason for believing that
the first temple of Aphrodite was among the
earliest built at Naukratis. If we think of
other periods that we know to have been
marked by activity in the rebuilding of old
sanctuaries and the founding of new ones, two
occur apparently to us as the most prominent
—the close of the fifth century, when the
temple of Apollo was rebuilt and that of the
Dioscuri was probably constructed in its
present form; and the period of the earliest
Ptolemies, when the great repairs and altera-
tions in the Hellenion and its neigbourhood
were made. These dates would then at once
suggest themselves as probable for the founda-
tions of the second and third temples
respectively in the temenos of Aphrodite.
And the relation of the various levels is at
least not inconsistent with the suggestion.
Even if the rate of accumulation in the
temenos itself was not regular, that of the
district around may well have been so, as is
shown, for instance, by the road; and each
temple would in all probability be adapted to
the level of the ground around it at the time
when it was built. Now at a rate of accumu-
lation of about forty inches a century, we
obtain an interval of about 200 years between
the first and second temples, of 100
between the second and third. If, then, we
assign the foundation of the first temple to
about 600 b.o., that of the second to 400 B.C.,
and that of the third to 300 b.o., we shall
probably not be very far wrong. Of course
these dates must be regarded as only approxi-
mate ; there are not sufficient data to preserve
us from an error of a few years on the one side
or the other; but they will be a help to our
memory in the endeavour to realize the various
periods through which the city and its temples
have passed.
37
side of the gateway that led up to the temple
during this period.
(38) The third temple, which rested 2 upon
the walls of the second, differed in arrange-
ment from its two predecessors; it only
contained a single chamber, occupying the
whole space within the outer walls. Thus its
cella was larger than that of the two earlier
temples, though its entire measurements are
somewhat smaller than those of the second
one; it is, indeed, intermediate between the
second and first temples in size. Some pieces
of wall to the west of the sacred precinct seem
to belong to the same period as the third
temple, but they are hardly massive enough to
be a part of the boundary wall. At the back
of the temple it is hard to say whether that
boundary wall still existed, but on the north
and south the earliest wall still rises here and
there above the level of the ground on which
the third temple was built.
In the temenos were found fragments of a
plaster floor, some belonging, from their level,
to the period of the second temple, some to
that of the third. They seem to show that
the ground all round the temple rose gradually,
and that the floor of the temenos had to be
repeatedly renewed. A gradual accumulation
of the ground during the later period also is
unmistakably shown by the road, which appears
on the extreme east of the upper section in
PL III. It consists entirely of uniformly
stratified layers, and must constantly have been
raised, in order to be kept at the same level
as the district around it, which at every shower
received a fresh deposit of mud washed down
from the mud-brick walls of the houses.
(39) Now that we have reviewed successively
the three temples of Aphrodite and their
- On the N.E., the face of the wall of the third temple is
continued in front of that of the second temple, and appa-
rently helow what was then the ground level; it is not easy
to see the reason for this arrangement.
appurtenances, it remains for us briefly to
consider their relations to one another,
especially from the chronological point of view.
We have already seen reason for believing that
the first temple of Aphrodite was among the
earliest built at Naukratis. If we think of
other periods that we know to have been
marked by activity in the rebuilding of old
sanctuaries and the founding of new ones, two
occur apparently to us as the most prominent
—the close of the fifth century, when the
temple of Apollo was rebuilt and that of the
Dioscuri was probably constructed in its
present form; and the period of the earliest
Ptolemies, when the great repairs and altera-
tions in the Hellenion and its neigbourhood
were made. These dates would then at once
suggest themselves as probable for the founda-
tions of the second and third temples
respectively in the temenos of Aphrodite.
And the relation of the various levels is at
least not inconsistent with the suggestion.
Even if the rate of accumulation in the
temenos itself was not regular, that of the
district around may well have been so, as is
shown, for instance, by the road; and each
temple would in all probability be adapted to
the level of the ground around it at the time
when it was built. Now at a rate of accumu-
lation of about forty inches a century, we
obtain an interval of about 200 years between
the first and second temples, of 100
between the second and third. If, then, we
assign the foundation of the first temple to
about 600 b.o., that of the second to 400 B.C.,
and that of the third to 300 b.o., we shall
probably not be very far wrong. Of course
these dates must be regarded as only approxi-
mate ; there are not sufficient data to preserve
us from an error of a few years on the one side
or the other; but they will be a help to our
memory in the endeavour to realize the various
periods through which the city and its temples
have passed.