DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47231#0015
EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES
THE ACROPOLIS.
I. References to the Numbers on the Plan of the Acropolis (PI. 1).
1. ‘ Beule’s Gate’; the Roman entrance, built out of marble blocks
from the Choragic Monument of Nikias.
2. Southern Gate-Chamber, built of poros blocks.
3. Northern Gate-Chamber, roofed with a Byzantine brick vault.
4. Altar of the sixth century B.C., which seems to be in situ.
5. 5. Fine wall of poros blocks set on raking bed.
6. 6. Rock-cut sloping bed to receive a similar wall to that on the north
side.
7. Original approach to the Acropolis, with holes cut in the rock to give
foot-hold, at the base of the bastion of Nike Apteros.
8. Fine piece of polygonal wall, which was part of the defences of this
entrance in early times.
1. Plan of the Acropolis.—-M.’s plan is based
upon an enlargement, to three times the scale,
of the small plan published by Kawerau in the
AeAn'or ’ApxaioAoyiKhr for 1889 ; in reproduc-
tion it has been reduced to about | of this new
scale. The copy of Kawerau’s plan from which
M. worked is still among his papers, as also is a
loose copy of Mr. Penrose’s plan. Both of these
are covered with notes by M. ; and his note-
books are also full of matter which has been
worked into the plan. The more important
details are recorded more fully in IV.-XXII.
Apart from the actual survey, there is evidence
that almost all details were added from M.’s
personal observations.
1. See Jfilth. Athen., 1885, pl. 7. M. worked
out the choragic monument of Nicias independ-
ently, but there is no evidence whether he
would have maintained his restoration of it
against Dbrpfeld’s. He expresses a doubt as to
its having stood on the foundation near the
Odeum of Herodes, and notes that there is a
similar foundation near the Theseum.
3. ‘ This gate-chamber has been partly rebuilt
and enlarged in Byzantine times. The other
chamber (2) on S. is unaltered. The N. cham-
ber has a brick vaulted roof, with three
Byzantine domes.’
4. ‘ Of Kara stone stuccoed.’
5. According to M., ‘fifth century Greek
wall ’ ; at the lower part is note, ‘ this part
seems rebuilt, where there is concrete. ’
8. ‘This is transitional between roughest
blocks as in Pelasgic Acropolis wall and neat
polygonal like Thcmistocles’ wall at Dipylon.
These blocks have their bed and joints dressed,
but not always quite smooth. In certain places
the jointing is very close, in others not.’ In a
sketch restoration, M. says it 1 seems mere re-
taining wall, perhaps to path leading to Acro-
polis gate. It is quite unlike the massive
circuit wall of Acropolis. ’
C
THE ACROPOLIS.
I. References to the Numbers on the Plan of the Acropolis (PI. 1).
1. ‘ Beule’s Gate’; the Roman entrance, built out of marble blocks
from the Choragic Monument of Nikias.
2. Southern Gate-Chamber, built of poros blocks.
3. Northern Gate-Chamber, roofed with a Byzantine brick vault.
4. Altar of the sixth century B.C., which seems to be in situ.
5. 5. Fine wall of poros blocks set on raking bed.
6. 6. Rock-cut sloping bed to receive a similar wall to that on the north
side.
7. Original approach to the Acropolis, with holes cut in the rock to give
foot-hold, at the base of the bastion of Nike Apteros.
8. Fine piece of polygonal wall, which was part of the defences of this
entrance in early times.
1. Plan of the Acropolis.—-M.’s plan is based
upon an enlargement, to three times the scale,
of the small plan published by Kawerau in the
AeAn'or ’ApxaioAoyiKhr for 1889 ; in reproduc-
tion it has been reduced to about | of this new
scale. The copy of Kawerau’s plan from which
M. worked is still among his papers, as also is a
loose copy of Mr. Penrose’s plan. Both of these
are covered with notes by M. ; and his note-
books are also full of matter which has been
worked into the plan. The more important
details are recorded more fully in IV.-XXII.
Apart from the actual survey, there is evidence
that almost all details were added from M.’s
personal observations.
1. See Jfilth. Athen., 1885, pl. 7. M. worked
out the choragic monument of Nicias independ-
ently, but there is no evidence whether he
would have maintained his restoration of it
against Dbrpfeld’s. He expresses a doubt as to
its having stood on the foundation near the
Odeum of Herodes, and notes that there is a
similar foundation near the Theseum.
3. ‘ This gate-chamber has been partly rebuilt
and enlarged in Byzantine times. The other
chamber (2) on S. is unaltered. The N. cham-
ber has a brick vaulted roof, with three
Byzantine domes.’
4. ‘ Of Kara stone stuccoed.’
5. According to M., ‘fifth century Greek
wall ’ ; at the lower part is note, ‘ this part
seems rebuilt, where there is concrete. ’
8. ‘This is transitional between roughest
blocks as in Pelasgic Acropolis wall and neat
polygonal like Thcmistocles’ wall at Dipylon.
These blocks have their bed and joints dressed,
but not always quite smooth. In certain places
the jointing is very close, in others not.’ In a
sketch restoration, M. says it 1 seems mere re-
taining wall, perhaps to path leading to Acro-
polis gate. It is quite unlike the massive
circuit wall of Acropolis. ’
C