DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0133
CHAP. VI.]
TOWN WALLS AND INTERNAL TOPOGRAPHY.
117
Of the remains in the stream bed, those marked ‘17’ and ‘18’ may very possibly date from a good
period.
‘ There is a gymnasium built contiguous to the Agora on its western side.’ Paus. viii, 31. 8,
Since the enclosure of the great goddesses lay west of the Agora and contiguous at any
rate to its southern portions, the gymnasium was doubtless placed north of the sacred enclosure.
Like the latter, it may well have extended across the stream. If so, some of the fragmentary
remains west of the stream may possibly belong to it.
If, as I have suggested, the sacred enclosure and the gymnasium extended right across
the stream, it is hardly possible that the stream was there in Pausanias’s time ; since, had it been
there, he could hardly have failed to have included it in his enumeration of the contents of the
former. The idea that the stream was not there in ancient times is strongly confirmed by the
presence of remains in its bed; and its absence is much more easily explained on the hypothesis
that some building or buildings extended across it than without that hypothesis; for while it is
hard to believe that the regions now drained by this stream were formerly drained in any other
direction, the amount of water flowing in it can never have been very great, and may well have
been either diverted or used up for the purposes of the gymnasium?68.
The gymnasium.
Probable absence
of stream on west
of Agora.
‘Behind the Stoa which they call after Philip of Macedon are two hills (λόφοι) of no great height. On .Paus. viii. 31. 6.
one of them are remains of a sanctuary37 (iepor) of Athena Polias; on the other is a shrine (i/αός) of Hera
Teleia, this likewise in ruins. Beneath the latter hill a spring (πγρ)) called Bathyllus contributes—like that which
flows from the hill Skoleitas 38—to the size of the Helisson.’
The identification of these two hills presents some difficulties. AU the ground behind the Hills (λόφοι) de-
Stoa Philippeios is rising ground, and there are no two parts of it which stand out unmistakably j^^gJo^Phn^'
from the rest. On first glancing at the site one naturally identifies with Pausanias’s λόφοι (1) peios’
the crown of hill immediately behind the Stoa Philippeios, and just west of the public road;
(2) a small plateau opposite this, and east of the road, separated from the former by a slight
dip through which (in a cutting) the road runs. But both these identifications are almost
certainly erroneous. At the first-named place I have been able to discover no remains in situ
with the exception of those marked ‘ 7 ’ and ‘ 8.’ The former of these belongs pro¬
bably to a hut of quite recent date, and certainly has nothing to do with any building of -good
period; while the latter is a very rough foundation, not on the crown but on the shoulder of the
hill, and on that part of it which is turned a way from the Agora. The summit of the hill has been
thoroughly trenched, but without result;—indeed the soil turned up has every appearance of being
virgin. The other point selected (Le. east of the road) contains the remains marked ‘ 45 ’ in my
map, which are probably identical with those indicated by the letters BB in the map published by the
members of the Expedition Scientifique de Moree,39 remains which they supposed to belong to one of the
two buildings mentioned by Pausanias upon the λόφοι, and which Curtius40 identified more particularly
with the sanctuary of Athena Polias. They were excavated by Mr. Richards and myself sufficiently
to prove that they belonged to a late building constructed of tiles, cobbles, and the like, the only
good work in it being a threshold of white limestone, probably transferred from some earlier
structure.41
Since the two points which answer best to Pausanias’s description have alike disappointed are probably only
us, we can only suppose that by two λόφοι he intended to designate two portions of the rising θ^θίη*
ground somewhat farther east: though it is difficult to find any portions sufficiently prominent ground.
36a y[r Richards, on the other hand, regards this
stream as obviously the Bathyllus of Paus, viii 31. 9
(u Chap. V.).
37 I have throughout this translation adopted the words
‘ sanctuary ’ for tepov, and ‘ shrine ’ for ναός, instead of
translating them both indifferently ‘temple.’ Though the
two Greek words may be often interchanged, their range
is entirely different, lepov designating a sacred place with
or without a covered building, while a ναός is necessarily a
covered building, but often so small a one as to be better
called a chapel than a temple.
3S και αντη, referring back to viii. 30. 7.
39 Cf. §. 1 (init.).
40 Peloponnesos, Vol. i. p. 288, and Pl. V.
41 It should be noted that Blouet (Exped. Sclent, de
Mor'ee, Vol. ii. p. 46), in describing the remains BB, which
I suppose to be identical with my ‘ 45 ’, mentions a
number of stones adjacent to them and approximately
in situ, and praises ‘le choix de ces pierres, la beaute de
leur taille et de leur arrangement.’ This statement has
been copied (with variations) by Curtius (Pelop. i. 288) and
in the Guide Joanne (p. 303). Wherever these remains
were situated at the time of the French Expedition
(whether near my ‘ 45 ’, or elsewhere), they seem to have
entirely disappeared.
Η H
TOWN WALLS AND INTERNAL TOPOGRAPHY.
117
Of the remains in the stream bed, those marked ‘17’ and ‘18’ may very possibly date from a good
period.
‘ There is a gymnasium built contiguous to the Agora on its western side.’ Paus. viii, 31. 8,
Since the enclosure of the great goddesses lay west of the Agora and contiguous at any
rate to its southern portions, the gymnasium was doubtless placed north of the sacred enclosure.
Like the latter, it may well have extended across the stream. If so, some of the fragmentary
remains west of the stream may possibly belong to it.
If, as I have suggested, the sacred enclosure and the gymnasium extended right across
the stream, it is hardly possible that the stream was there in Pausanias’s time ; since, had it been
there, he could hardly have failed to have included it in his enumeration of the contents of the
former. The idea that the stream was not there in ancient times is strongly confirmed by the
presence of remains in its bed; and its absence is much more easily explained on the hypothesis
that some building or buildings extended across it than without that hypothesis; for while it is
hard to believe that the regions now drained by this stream were formerly drained in any other
direction, the amount of water flowing in it can never have been very great, and may well have
been either diverted or used up for the purposes of the gymnasium?68.
The gymnasium.
Probable absence
of stream on west
of Agora.
‘Behind the Stoa which they call after Philip of Macedon are two hills (λόφοι) of no great height. On .Paus. viii. 31. 6.
one of them are remains of a sanctuary37 (iepor) of Athena Polias; on the other is a shrine (i/αός) of Hera
Teleia, this likewise in ruins. Beneath the latter hill a spring (πγρ)) called Bathyllus contributes—like that which
flows from the hill Skoleitas 38—to the size of the Helisson.’
The identification of these two hills presents some difficulties. AU the ground behind the Hills (λόφοι) de-
Stoa Philippeios is rising ground, and there are no two parts of it which stand out unmistakably j^^gJo^Phn^'
from the rest. On first glancing at the site one naturally identifies with Pausanias’s λόφοι (1) peios’
the crown of hill immediately behind the Stoa Philippeios, and just west of the public road;
(2) a small plateau opposite this, and east of the road, separated from the former by a slight
dip through which (in a cutting) the road runs. But both these identifications are almost
certainly erroneous. At the first-named place I have been able to discover no remains in situ
with the exception of those marked ‘ 7 ’ and ‘ 8.’ The former of these belongs pro¬
bably to a hut of quite recent date, and certainly has nothing to do with any building of -good
period; while the latter is a very rough foundation, not on the crown but on the shoulder of the
hill, and on that part of it which is turned a way from the Agora. The summit of the hill has been
thoroughly trenched, but without result;—indeed the soil turned up has every appearance of being
virgin. The other point selected (Le. east of the road) contains the remains marked ‘ 45 ’ in my
map, which are probably identical with those indicated by the letters BB in the map published by the
members of the Expedition Scientifique de Moree,39 remains which they supposed to belong to one of the
two buildings mentioned by Pausanias upon the λόφοι, and which Curtius40 identified more particularly
with the sanctuary of Athena Polias. They were excavated by Mr. Richards and myself sufficiently
to prove that they belonged to a late building constructed of tiles, cobbles, and the like, the only
good work in it being a threshold of white limestone, probably transferred from some earlier
structure.41
Since the two points which answer best to Pausanias’s description have alike disappointed are probably only
us, we can only suppose that by two λόφοι he intended to designate two portions of the rising θ^θίη*
ground somewhat farther east: though it is difficult to find any portions sufficiently prominent ground.
36a y[r Richards, on the other hand, regards this
stream as obviously the Bathyllus of Paus, viii 31. 9
(u Chap. V.).
37 I have throughout this translation adopted the words
‘ sanctuary ’ for tepov, and ‘ shrine ’ for ναός, instead of
translating them both indifferently ‘temple.’ Though the
two Greek words may be often interchanged, their range
is entirely different, lepov designating a sacred place with
or without a covered building, while a ναός is necessarily a
covered building, but often so small a one as to be better
called a chapel than a temple.
3S και αντη, referring back to viii. 30. 7.
39 Cf. §. 1 (init.).
40 Peloponnesos, Vol. i. p. 288, and Pl. V.
41 It should be noted that Blouet (Exped. Sclent, de
Mor'ee, Vol. ii. p. 46), in describing the remains BB, which
I suppose to be identical with my ‘ 45 ’, mentions a
number of stones adjacent to them and approximately
in situ, and praises ‘le choix de ces pierres, la beaute de
leur taille et de leur arrangement.’ This statement has
been copied (with variations) by Curtius (Pelop. i. 288) and
in the Guide Joanne (p. 303). Wherever these remains
were situated at the time of the French Expedition
(whether near my ‘ 45 ’, or elsewhere), they seem to have
entirely disappeared.
Η H