DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0120
104
THE AGORA.
[chap. V.
with the others. Inscription No. IV. was found against the outer wall of the stoa but affords
no evidence to show that our identification is wrong.—With reference to the date of the
temple, Mr. Schultz has left the question more or less open, as was to be expected from
the paucity of the architectural remains. The only literary evidence is the mention of
Kephisodotos and Xenophon as the sculptors of the temple-statues. This would seem to imply
the earliest date possible for Megalopolis, as the activity of the father of Praxiteles cannot be
supposed to extend to a much later date than the foundation of the city, though Pliny, it
is true, sets his ‘ floruit ’ at that time, 01. cn. There is apparently no sign of rebuilding, and it
is quite likely that these are remains of a fourth century temple. The inscriptions C.I.Gr. 1536
and Inscriptions Will. B seem to show that the building existed in the second century, and it is
quite likely that it dates from the fourth. It is unfortunate that we were unable, owing to
the same difficulty about the crops, to follow up excavation through the entrance (or exedra ?)
in the north wall of the stoa, and thereby ascertain whether any further construction begins
where the gutter runs into the Temenos ; but the accumulation of earth is very great here,
so that satisfactory results could hardly be obtained without great and possibly unremunera-
tive expense. East of the Temenos the ground begins to slope away to the river and the
bank is less steep. Trial digging here showed remains of houses, of Roman period probably,
but nothing to repay much labour. At a considerable distance N.N.E. of the Temenos is a
corner, at which a long foundation wall running north and south makes a return. This
foundation was easily cleared as far as the high-road, which cuts across it; and just at that
point a bewildering mass of architectural fragments is collected together and cemented into
rough walls by mortar, and tile tombs were plentiful here, as in most parts of the site. An isolated
limestone basis was here discovered in front of the wall, but nothing else that certainly belonged to
the building of classical times. North of the road the foundations lie very deep and could not be
cleared. It remains for further excavation to elucidate the plan of this building, but it seems, as
far as one can at present tell, to have been a long stoa approximately 300 feet in length facing the
Agora on the east side. In this case it can only have been the Stoa Myropolis, erected out of the
spoils gained in the victory over Akrotatos in 265 B.c., when Aristodemos was tyrant of
Megalopolis.2 Its northernmost end seems to have been in the same straight line with the back wall
of the Stoa of Philip. Between this point and the end of that stoa, after a small interval, excava-
tions in October 1891 have shown remains of the Archeia mentioned by Pausanias. It is inter-
sected by the road and not much of it seems to be left. It seems clear that there was a small open
space giving access to the Agora on either side, separating it off from the Stoa Myropolis and the
Stoa of Philip. The latter building is the chief remaining one to be dealt with in the Agora and the
best preserved. Its identification has been confirmed by the discovery of inscribed tiles, though
unless doubt were cast on Pausanias there was little reason to question the view before. Though
the area has not been completely cleared, enough has been done to show the plan in all the detail
possible. Only it is difficult to reconcile the style of its architecture with the date given by
Pausanias. It is hardly to be supposed that the extant remains are those of the building erected
and named in honour of Philip of Macedon; and, as elsewfliere stated, it is perhaps the best view
that this is the stoa restored under Philopoemen, which is adopted by Mr. Schultz as the one that fits
the architectural evidence best, since it seems impossible to date the building either as early as
the fourth century B.c. or as late as the first century A.D., when Domitian restored a stoa at
Megalopolis. Some will perhaps hold that, as Pausanias apparently made a mistake over the date of
the Philippeion at Olympia, so here he substituted the name of the great Philip for that of perhaps
Philip V. through confusion or misinformation ; but this is an expedient one is loath to adopt.
The double row of columns and the stylobate built up out of the remains of the Stoa
of Philip at a lower level in the south-west corner need not detain us; but the rectangular
building adjoining, though obviously in its present form of late date, may be on the lines of
an earlier building, which, if this be so, probably formed part of the Gymnasium.
Repeated trenching on the ground south of the Stoa of Philip failed to produce
anything but tile-tombs and detached architectural fragments. Few remains of buildings
2 Pausanias (viii. 30, 7) calls the Akrotatos who was
defeated and killed in an engagement with Aristodemos
son of Kleomenes. In this he disagrees with Plutarch,
who (Wi. Agis iii.) distinguishes Akrotatos son of Areus,
whose reign was thus cut short, from his grandfather*
Akrotatos, who died in the lifetime of his father
Kleomenes II. Probably this is a mere slip on the part
of Pausanias, and no evidence for dating this battle earlier
in the century.
THE AGORA.
[chap. V.
with the others. Inscription No. IV. was found against the outer wall of the stoa but affords
no evidence to show that our identification is wrong.—With reference to the date of the
temple, Mr. Schultz has left the question more or less open, as was to be expected from
the paucity of the architectural remains. The only literary evidence is the mention of
Kephisodotos and Xenophon as the sculptors of the temple-statues. This would seem to imply
the earliest date possible for Megalopolis, as the activity of the father of Praxiteles cannot be
supposed to extend to a much later date than the foundation of the city, though Pliny, it
is true, sets his ‘ floruit ’ at that time, 01. cn. There is apparently no sign of rebuilding, and it
is quite likely that these are remains of a fourth century temple. The inscriptions C.I.Gr. 1536
and Inscriptions Will. B seem to show that the building existed in the second century, and it is
quite likely that it dates from the fourth. It is unfortunate that we were unable, owing to
the same difficulty about the crops, to follow up excavation through the entrance (or exedra ?)
in the north wall of the stoa, and thereby ascertain whether any further construction begins
where the gutter runs into the Temenos ; but the accumulation of earth is very great here,
so that satisfactory results could hardly be obtained without great and possibly unremunera-
tive expense. East of the Temenos the ground begins to slope away to the river and the
bank is less steep. Trial digging here showed remains of houses, of Roman period probably,
but nothing to repay much labour. At a considerable distance N.N.E. of the Temenos is a
corner, at which a long foundation wall running north and south makes a return. This
foundation was easily cleared as far as the high-road, which cuts across it; and just at that
point a bewildering mass of architectural fragments is collected together and cemented into
rough walls by mortar, and tile tombs were plentiful here, as in most parts of the site. An isolated
limestone basis was here discovered in front of the wall, but nothing else that certainly belonged to
the building of classical times. North of the road the foundations lie very deep and could not be
cleared. It remains for further excavation to elucidate the plan of this building, but it seems, as
far as one can at present tell, to have been a long stoa approximately 300 feet in length facing the
Agora on the east side. In this case it can only have been the Stoa Myropolis, erected out of the
spoils gained in the victory over Akrotatos in 265 B.c., when Aristodemos was tyrant of
Megalopolis.2 Its northernmost end seems to have been in the same straight line with the back wall
of the Stoa of Philip. Between this point and the end of that stoa, after a small interval, excava-
tions in October 1891 have shown remains of the Archeia mentioned by Pausanias. It is inter-
sected by the road and not much of it seems to be left. It seems clear that there was a small open
space giving access to the Agora on either side, separating it off from the Stoa Myropolis and the
Stoa of Philip. The latter building is the chief remaining one to be dealt with in the Agora and the
best preserved. Its identification has been confirmed by the discovery of inscribed tiles, though
unless doubt were cast on Pausanias there was little reason to question the view before. Though
the area has not been completely cleared, enough has been done to show the plan in all the detail
possible. Only it is difficult to reconcile the style of its architecture with the date given by
Pausanias. It is hardly to be supposed that the extant remains are those of the building erected
and named in honour of Philip of Macedon; and, as elsewfliere stated, it is perhaps the best view
that this is the stoa restored under Philopoemen, which is adopted by Mr. Schultz as the one that fits
the architectural evidence best, since it seems impossible to date the building either as early as
the fourth century B.c. or as late as the first century A.D., when Domitian restored a stoa at
Megalopolis. Some will perhaps hold that, as Pausanias apparently made a mistake over the date of
the Philippeion at Olympia, so here he substituted the name of the great Philip for that of perhaps
Philip V. through confusion or misinformation ; but this is an expedient one is loath to adopt.
The double row of columns and the stylobate built up out of the remains of the Stoa
of Philip at a lower level in the south-west corner need not detain us; but the rectangular
building adjoining, though obviously in its present form of late date, may be on the lines of
an earlier building, which, if this be so, probably formed part of the Gymnasium.
Repeated trenching on the ground south of the Stoa of Philip failed to produce
anything but tile-tombs and detached architectural fragments. Few remains of buildings
2 Pausanias (viii. 30, 7) calls the Akrotatos who was
defeated and killed in an engagement with Aristodemos
son of Kleomenes. In this he disagrees with Plutarch,
who (Wi. Agis iii.) distinguishes Akrotatos son of Areus,
whose reign was thus cut short, from his grandfather*
Akrotatos, who died in the lifetime of his father
Kleomenes II. Probably this is a mere slip on the part
of Pausanias, and no evidence for dating this battle earlier
in the century.