Greek Agora PDF

TOWARDS AN AGORA:
THE SPATIAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK
COMMERCIAL AND CIVIC SPACE IN THE PELOPONNESE
by
Jamieson C. Donati
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Institute of Fine Arts
New York University
January, 2010
__________________________
Clemente Marconi
UMI Number: 3396724
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3396724
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 Jamieson C. Donati
All Rights Reserved, 2010

To my father and to the memory of my mother
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My interest in Peloponnesian agoras began at Corinth, while excavating there as a
2003-2004 Regular Member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. I
owe a special debt of gratitude to the scholars and staff at the Corinth Excavations, who
always encouraged me to pursue my ideas about the Corinthian agora in spite of the
challenges. In particular, I wish to thank the Director, Guy D.R. Sanders, the Curator,
Ioulia Tzonou-Herbst, and the architect, James Herbst. For helpful guidance on the initial
direction of this dissertation, I credit Christopher Ratté, who first suggested that I adopt a
regional study of the Greek agora and include other sites in the Peloponnese. For
invaluable advice over the past three years, I owe special thanks to my advisor at the
Institute of Fine Arts, Clemente Marconi. For lively discussion and debate about
Corinthian matters, I thank my colleague and friend Amelia R. Brown. Finally, I wish to
thank my wife, Amalia Avramidou, who has been a constant source of support and
encouragement ever since we first met while studying together in that same year at
Athens.
iv
PREFACE
In order to supplement the archaeological evidence, the present study makes
extensive use of the ancient literary and epigraphical testimonia. They are presented in
four separate appendices in the original Greek accompanied by an English translation.
Ancient references that appear in Appendix A are cited in the footnotes by their number
preceded by “A.” For example, Hdt. 7.148 appears as no. 19 in Appendix A, and as A19
in the footnotes. The final three appendices are extended passages taken from Pausanias’
description of Argos, Elis, and Megalopolis.
I use the Author Guidelines of Hesperia for my bibliography and footnote style
(see www.hesperiaonline.org/), and the American Journal of Archaeology for periodical
and series abbreviations (see www.ajaonline.org/). For ancient author abbreviations, I use
the guidelines of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (eds. S. Hornblower, and A. Spawforth
19963). All dates are B.C. unless otherwise noted.
v
ABSTRACT
Despite the presence of sufficient archaeological and literary evidence, the
Peloponnese is a region of the Ancient Mediterranean that is underrepresented in studies
on the Greek agora. Many scholars prefer to draw on the more familiar paradigms, such
as the Athenian agora or the impressive Hellenistic agoras of Asia Minor, rather than
incorporate other models to gain a more comprehensive perspective. This study changes
this circumstance by exploring the structure and mechanics of the Greek agora at Argos,
Corinth, Elis, and Megalopolis during the Archaic and Classical periods. Agoras in these
Peloponnesian settlements show great diversity in their architectural and spatial
development, which is a reflection of their (unique) urban and social realities. Taken
together the Peloponnesian experience allows us to adopt a more fluid and idiosyncratic
interpretation of the Greek agora, rather than base our assumptions on preconditions or
universal models.
Through a detailed examination of the archaeological and literary evidence, the
physical features and social framework of the agoras at Argos, Corinth, Elis, and
Megalopolis come into greater focus and help write a different history of the Greek
agora. Despite the disproportionate emphasis placed on the political underpinnings of the
agora, this study shows that political activity and civic buildings played a less
conspicuous role in the agora’s early development. There is also no measurable impact of
democracy on the agora’s physical composition at those Peloponnesian cities that
adopted democratic constitutions (Argos, Elis, and Megalopolis). Instead, the agoras at
vi
these centers were shaped by disparate factors, such as trade and commerce, urban cults
and religious festivals, and the means of transportation and communication. It is this
mixing of activities that characterizes the Greek agora, and marks its inherently diverse
role in the urban fabric of city.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
PREFACE v
ABSTRACT vi
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF TABLES xxi
LIST OF APPENDICES xxii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. The Greek Agora 1
1.2. Interpretations and Methodologies 4
1.3. Peloponnesian Models 17
1.4. Peloponnesian Agoras 20
CHAPTER 2. THE ARGIVE AGORA 25
2.1. Topography and Historiography of the Site 25
2.2. Shortcomings in Methodology and Identification 30
2.3. The Early Urban Context 37
2.4. Towards an Archaic Agora 47
2.5. Consolidation and Monumentalization: The Classical Period 58
CHAPTER 3. THE CORINTHIAN AGORA 90
3.1. The Problem of Locating the Corinthian Agora 90
viii
3.2. Urban Development of Early Corinth 93
3.3. Urban Development of Classical Corinth 108
3.4 The Corinthian Agora: The Ancient Testimonia 135
3.5. Corinthian Civic Structure: The Ancient Testimonia 140
3.6. Corinthian Civic Buildings: The Ancient Testimonia 150
3.7. Placing the Corinthian Agora 157
CHAPTER 4. THE ELEAN AGORA 169
4.1. The Historical Background 169
4.2. Topography and Archaeological Research 175
4.3. Description of the Site by Pausanias 179
4.4. Early Developments in the Elean Agora 194
4.5. The Archaic Period 196
4.6. The Elean Agora During the Classical Period 210
CHAPTER 5. THE MEGALOPOLITAN AGORA 226
5.1. The Historical Background 226
5.2. Archaeological Research 234
5.3. Monuments and the Description of Pausanias 237
5.4. The Late Classical Megalopolitan Agora 247
CONCLUSION 267
APPENDICES 274
TABLES 325
FIGURES 331
ix
BIBLIOGRAPHY 418
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1.1 331

The Greek agora is an urban venue where diverse occupations converge
Fig. 1.2 331

Where have we been looking? Standard models for the Greek agora
Fig. 1.3 332

Plan of Rhodes from Haus und Stadt in klassischen Griechenland (Hoepfner and
Schwandner 1994, fig. 43a)
Fig. 1.4 332

Typenhäuser from Piraeus (Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994, p. 41, fig. 33)
Fig. 1.5 333

Cover of The Archaeology of Athens and Attica Under the Democracy (1994), showing
the Old Bouleuterion in the Athenian agora
Fig. 1.6 334

Tentative location of the Spartan agora (Waywell 1999, p. 12, fig. 3)
Fig. 2.1 335

Plan of the Argolid (Piérart and Touchais 1996, p. 10)
Fig. 2.2 336

Plan of Argos with modern streets (Pariente and Touchais 1998, Pl. 4)
Fig. 2.3 337

Plan of the Argive agora (Marchetti 1994, p. 133, fig. 1)
Fig. 2.4 338

Plan of Argos showing the location of ancient roads (Marchetti 2000, p. 284, fig. 3)
Fig. 2.5 339

Plan of the Argive agora (Piérart and Touchais 1996, p. 45)
Fig. 2.6 340

Doric architrave block from the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios (Courtils 1981, p. 608, figs.
1-2)
Fig. 2.7 341
xi
Plan of Argos, ca. 1050-750 (Vink 2002, p. 55, fig. 1)
Fig. 2.8 342

Plan of Argos, ca. 750-690 (Vink 2002, p. 57, fig. 2)
Fig. 2.9 343

Monumental structure, ca. 700 (Bommelaer and Grandjean 1972, fig. 124)
Fig. 2.10 344

Plan of Argos, distribution of 7th century burials (Hall 1997, p. 98, fig. 6)
Fig. 2.11 345

Plan of Argos, Archaic period (Vink 2002, p. 60, fig. 4)
Fig. 2.12 346

Plan of the Argive agora, Archaic period (Pariente et al. 1998, p. 228, fig. 2)
Fig. 2.13 347

Archaic walls beneath the northern colonnade of the South Stoa. Towards the west
(Photograph by the author)
Fig. 2.14 347

Archaic structure with tortoise shells (Courbin 1980, p. 97, fig. 5)
Fig. 2.15 348

Findspot of Theban dedication within shaded area (Pariente 1992, p. 226, plan 1)
Fig. 2.16 349

Theban dedication, ca. 550-500 (Pariente 1992, Pl. 35, plan II)
Fig. 2.17 349

Theban dedication, ca. 550-500. Towards the east (Pariente 1992, Pl. 35, fig. 1)
Fig. 2.18 350

Inscription on the Theban dedication, ca. 550-500 (Pariente 1992, p. 228, fig. 3)
Fig. 2.19 351

Argive agora, second-half of 5th century (Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, p. 457, fig. 12)
Fig. 2.20 352

Argive agora, Classical and Hellenistic periods (Pariente et al, 1998, p. 229, fig. 3)
Fig. 2.21 353
xii
Alignment of the South Stoa with the Hypostyle Hall (Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, p.
466, fig. 17)
Fig. 2.22 353

Reconstruction of the Hypostyle Hall (Bommelaer and des Courtils 1994, p. 35, fig. 19)
Fig. 2.23 354

Ionic column bases (from the Hypostyle Hall?) (Bommelaer and des Courtils 1994, p. 33,
fig. 15)
Fig. 2.24 354

Southeast corner of the Hypostyle Hall (Bommelaer and des Courtils 1994, Pl. VIb)
Fig. 2.25 355

Telesterion at Eleusis, 5th through 4th century (Camp 2001, p. 107, fig. 98)
Fig. 2.26 355

Odeion of Perikles at Athens, ca. 440s (Travlos 1971, p. 389, fig. 502)
Fig. 2.27 356

Bouleuterion at Sikyon, after 303 (Papachatzis 1976, p. 105, fig. 98)
Fig. 2.28 356

East wing of the South Stoa, ca. 450-425 (Roux 1953, Pl. 37)
Fig. 2.29 357

Athenian agora, ca. 400 (Rotroff and Oakley 1992, Pl. 64)
Fig. 2.30 358

Semicircular orchestra, 4th century or later (Moretti 1993, p. 5, fig. 3)
Fig. 2.31 358

Semicircular orchestra and krepidoma. Towards the northeast (Photograph by the author)
Fig. 2.32 359

Starting line of the racetrack, Late Hellenistic or 1st century A.D. (BCH 111 [1987], p.
588, fig. 2)
Fig. 2.33 359

Pre-Roman nymphaeum, Classical or Hellenistic period (Marchetti et al. 1995, p. 45, fig.
12)
Fig. 2.34 360

Southeast temple (Consolaki and Hackens 1980, p. 280, fig. 1)
xiii
Fig. 2.35 361
State plan of the Stepped Theatron, 5th century (Ginouvès 1972, Pl. 1)
Fig. 2.36 362

Reconstruction of the Stepped Theatron, 5th century (Ginouvès 1972, Pl. 5)
Fig. 3.1 363

Roman Forum at Corinth, mid-2nd century A.D. (after Corinth XX, Pl. 4)
Fig. 3.2 364

Corinthian agora, ca. 400 (Williams 1980, p. 112, fig. 2)
Fig. 3.3 365

Corinthian agora, ca. 200-150 (after Corinth XX, Pl. 3)
Fig. 3.4 366

Plan of Corinth (Courtesy of Corinth Excavations)
Fig. 3.5 367

Geometric burials and wells around Temple Hill (Pfaff 2007, p. 445, fig. 1)
Fig. 3.6 368

Potters’ Quarter (Corinth XV.1, pl. 51)
Fig. 3.7 369

Corinthian agora, ca. 650 (Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 146, fig. 2)
Fig. 3.8 369

Remains of Protocorinthian House 2 beneath Building II. Its rubble walls are
distinguished from the ashlar blocks of the later classical structure. Towards the north
(Williams and Fisher 1972, Pl. 21a)
Fig. 3.9 370

Corinthian agora, ca. 600-575 (Williams et al. 1974, p. 15, fig. 4)
Fig. 3.10 370

Remains of Protocorinthian House 1 near the Sacred Spring. Towards the northeast
(Williams and Fisher 1971, Pl. 2b)
Fig. 3.11 371

Corinthian agora, 450-400 (Corinth XX, Pl. 2)
Fig. 3.12 372
xiv
Stepped ramp leading down the southeast corner of Temple Hill (Photograph by the
author)
Fig. 3.13 372

Classical house (“Terracotta Factory”) in the Potters’ Quarter (Corinth XV.1, pl. 52)
Fig. 3.14 373

Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, ca. 400 (Corinth XVIII.3, Pl. 4)
Fig. 3.15 374

Punic Amphora Building, ca. 360s-420s (Williams 1980, p. 109, fig. 1)
Fig. 3.16 375

Racetrack and circular platform (Williams and Russell 1981, p. 4, fig. 2)
Fig. 3.17 376

Classical and Hellenistic racetracks (Romano 1993, p. 52, fig. 31)
Fig. 3.18 377

Curved starting line of classical racetrack, ca. 500-450 (Romano 1993, p. 50, fig. 28)
Fig. 3.19 377

Circular platform, late 5th century (Photograph by the author)
Fig. 3.20 378

Buildings I-IV, ca. 400 (Courtesy of Corinth Excavations)
Fig. 3.21 379

Classical structures along the southern side of the upper Lechaion valley that preceded
the Hellenistic South Stoa. Building I and Building II are in the foreground. Towards the
west (Williams and Fisher 1972, Pl. 19a)
Fig. 3.22 379

Eastern wall of Building II. Towards the northwest (Photograph by the author)
Fig. 3.23 380

Buildings I-III, ca. 400 (Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 166, fig. 5)
Fig. 3.24 381

Typenhäuser at Priene (Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994, p. 214, fig. 208)
Fig. 3.25 382

Plan of Thorikos. House 2 left of the theater (Thorikos III, p. 249, plan 3)
xv
Fig. 3.26 383
House IV at Kallipolis (Themelis 1999, p. 432)
Fig. 3.27 384

MF-71-48. Semicircular bronze weight marked δαµόσιον Κορι(νθί)ων ἡµιµνάον
(Courtesy of Corinth Excavations)
Fig. 3.28 384

C-71-335. Corinthian dry measure stamped δαµόσιον (Courtesy of Corinth Excavations)
Fig. 3.29 385

Buildings III (Williams et al. 1973, p. 20, fig. 5)
Fig. 3.30 385

Well room in Building III. Towards the southwest (Williams et al. 1973, Pl. 7a)
Fig. 3.31 386

Buildings IV (Williams 1980, p. 113, fig. 3)
Fig. 3.32 386

Central cellar in Building IV. Towards the south (Williams 1979, Pl. 48)
Fig. 3.33 387

Site of the Punic Amphora Building and the Centaur Bath (Williams 1978, p. 12, fig. 3)
Fig. 3.34 388

Centaur Bath, Building V, and the Pentagonal Building (Williams 1977, p. 43, fig. 2)
Fig. 3.35 389

Rooms 3 and 4 of the Centaur Bath. Note the plastered floor with the raised plinth in the
foreground for the accommodation of dining couches. Towards the north (Williams 1977,
Pl. 21f)
Fig. 3.36 389

View of the Centaur Bath from the west. The large construction in the center dates to the
Roman Imperial period (Williams 1977, Pl. 19)
Fig. 3.37 390

I-1206. Inscribed marble counting table from the Columned Hall, probably second-half of
5th century (Photograph by the author)
Fig. 3.38 391

I-76-5. Inscribed marble counting table from the Columned Hall, second-half of 5th
century (Photograph by the author)
xvi
Fig. 3.39 391
Inscription on the marble counting table (I-76-5) from the Columned Hall, στρατα[γίον
Κορινθίων] (Courtesy of Corinth Excavations)
Fig. 4.1 392

Map of Eleia and surrounding territories (Yalouris 1996, p. 8)
Fig. 4.2 393

Plan of the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia (Hitzl 1996, Pl. 43)
Fig. 4.3 394

Plan of Elis (Eder 2001, p. 238, fig. 2)
Fig. 4.4 395

View of the level fertile plane of Elis from the acropolis. Towards the north (Photograph
by the author)
Fig. 4.5 395

Plan of the Elean agora (Heiden 2006, p. 54, fig. 1)
Fig. 4.6 396

Southwest road leading out of the Elean agora. The foundations of several Greek and
Roman structures have been excavated along the right side of the road. Towards the north
Fig. 4.7 396

Route of Pausanias through Elis (Tritsch 1932, p. 68, fig. 77)
Fig. 4.8 397

Domestic quarter of Elis southwest of the agora. A temple to the Roman emperors stands
in the foreground. Towards the south (Photograph by the author)
Fig. 4.9 397

Theater at Elis with a simple earthen cavea. Towards the east (Photograph by the author)
Fig. 4.10 398

Geometric bronze bull and horse from Elis (Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 15-16,
figs. 7-8)
Fig. 4.11 398

Archaic bronze lion head’s protome from Elis (Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 21-
22, fig. 11)
xvii
Fig. 4.12 399
Archaic terracotta simas from Elis, ca. 580-560. a., b. A120, c. 1972 (Eder and
Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 27-28, fig. 14)
Fig. 4.13 400

Archaic terracotta simas from Elis, ca. 500. a. A37, b. A38, c. A39 (Eder and
Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 31-32, fig. 15)
Fig. 4.14 401

Archaic bronze judicial inscription from Elis, ca. 600-550 (Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon
1999, p. 25, fig. 13)
Fig. 4.15 401

Archaic bronze judicial inscription from Elis, ca. 600-550 (Siewert 2001, p. 245)
Fig. 4.16 402

West-facing temple, first-half of 5th century (Walter 1913, p. 147, fig. 41)
Fig. 4.17 402

Remains of the west-facing temple, first-half of 5th century. Towards the east
Fig. 4.18 403

Foundations south of the west-facing temple (Prakt 1983, p. 164, fig. 1)
Fig. 4.19 403

West Stoa, 4th century (Walter 1913, p. 147, fig. 40)
Fig. 4.20 404

Foundations blocks from the eastern colonnade of the West Stoa. Towards the north
Fig. 4.21 404

South Stoa, Augustan period (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1983, Pl. 1)
Fig. 4.22 405

Internal pier supports from the northern hall of the South Stoa. Towards the east
Fig. 5.1 405

Map of the Megalopolis basin (Roy 2007, p. 293, fig. 31.2)
Fig. 5.2 406

Plan of Megalopolis (Petronotis 1973, fig. 7)
xviii
Fig. 5.3 407
1851 Reconstruction of the Megalopolitan agora by E. Curtius (Papachatzis 1980, p. 310,
fig. 306)
Fig. 5.4 408

Plan of Megalopolis (Roy 2007, p. 290, fig. 31.1)
Fig. 5.5 409

This 1900 photograph shows the theater and Thersilion south of the Helisson river. The
remains of the sanctuary of Zeus Soter are visible across the river on the far left. Towards
the north (Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004, p. 136, fig. 1)
Fig. 5.6 409

Plan of the Megalopolitan agora (Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, p. 416, fig. 1)
Fig. 5.7 410

Plan of the Megalopolitan agora (AR 50 [2003-2004], p. 27, fig. 34)
Fig. 5.8 411

Hellenistic dedicatory bases in front of the Stoa of Philip and the Archive Building.
Towards the northwest (Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, p. 439, fig. 32)
Fig. 5.9 411

Structures along the western side of the Megalopolitan agora thought to be civic offices
(demosia oikia) and religious buildings (Lauter 2002, p. 380, fig. 6)
Fig. 5.10 412

Plan of the so-called demosia oikia on the western side of the Megalopolitan agora
(Lauter 2002, 379, fig. 5)
Fig. 5.11 413

Plan of the hypostyle hall (bouleuterion) (Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, p. 428, fig. 15)
Fig. 5.12 413

Elevation of the hypostyle hall (bouleuterion) (Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, p. 430, fig.
17)
Fig. 5.13 414

Bouleuterion in the Athenian agora, ca. 500? (Camp 1986, p. 52, fig. 31)
Fig. 5.14 414

Plan of the Thersilion (Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004, p. 160, fig. 19)
Fig. 5.15 415
xix
Hellenistic roof tile from the southwest sanctuary stamped as Ὁµίλου δαµόσιοι /
Πολύβιος ἀνέθηκε (Lauter 2002, p. 385, fig. 12b)
Fig. 5.16 415

Dedication by Damophon to Poseidon Asphaleios (Papachatzis 1980, p. 312, fig. 308)
Fig. 5.17 416

Two rows of Ionic columns inside the Stoa of Philip. Towards the southeast (Photograph
by the author)
Fig. 5.18 416

Eastern exedra of the Stoa of Philip. Towards the northeast (Spyropoulos et al. 1995, p.
126, fig. 10)
Fig. 5.19 417

Plan of the sanctuary of Zeus Soter, ca. 330-320 (Lauter 2005, p. 247, fig. 4)
xx
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 325
Timeline of Building Activity in and around the Argive Agora
TABLE 2 326
Timeline of Building Activity at Corinth
TABLE 3 327
Ancient Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia concerning the Corinthian Agora.
TABLE 4 327
Ancient Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia concerning Corinthian Civic Officials
TABLE 5 328
Ancient Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia concerning Corinthian Civic Buildings
TABLE 6 329
Timeline of Building Activity in and around the Elean Agora
TABLE 7 330
Timeline of Building Activity at Megalopolis
xxi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A 274
Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia
APPENDIX B 299
Pausanias 2.19.3-2.22.9: Description of Argos
APPENDIX C 310
Pausanias 6.23.1-6.26.3: Description of Elis
APPENDIX D 317
Pausanias 8.30.1-8.33.4: Description of Megalopolis
xxii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Greek Agora
The basic characteristics and mechanics of the Greek agora have long been
familiar to ancient historians and Mediterranean archaeologists. As a physical entity the
agora was the nodal center of an ancient Greek city. Important roads converged here from
various directions, and the agora became a distribution point in the constant movement of
people, money, goods, and ideas. Traffic circulated into and out from a harbor or perhaps
an extra-mural sanctuary. Oftentimes a sacred or processional way crossed right through.
In plan the agora could be quite simple, essentially consisting of a flat, open space
surrounded by various administrative, religious, and commercial structures. Sometimes
its spatial limits were well-defined, maybe with stoas formally enclosing the central area
or boundary markers that clearly indicated what elements stood inside and outside the
agora. But other times the built environment was rather fragmentary, consisting of a
scattering of buildings here and there that provided no sense of an architectural ensemble.
As a social entity the Greek agora was a venue where a community of citizens
could assemble together. It was the political heart of a city. Here, people could discuss
affairs of the state within civic structures, such as a bouleuterion (senate house) or
ekklēsiasterion (meeting venue of the popular assembly). Lawcodes and public decrees
were put on display and judicial proceedings were held in courthouses. Also conspicuous
were various cults and sanctuaries. A large urban temple might be nearby, a heroon might
honor a legendary city-founder or law-giver, and religious festivals with athletic and
1
dramatic events took place here throughout the year. Finally, the agora was a vital center
for trade and commerce. Open space and commercial buildings, especially stoas,
provided retail space for sellers and workers of various trades.
These are the basic components typically associated with the Greek agora. Yet
while all of these are certainly true in one way or another, they paint a rather incomplete
picture with no clear sense of development. None of these components as a whole are
necessarily specific to any one agora in particular, nor can we expect to find all or most
of these components in every city throughout every period. The Greek agora was in
reality a much more complex social and physical entity within a city. While it is true that
certain trends can be identified over time, the agora was inherently heterogeneous and
evolved under different circumstances unique to a particular city. Elements which
characterized certain agoras might have been radically different elsewhere. This is
because, like all spatial elements within an urban context, the Greek agora responded and
interacted with a unique ensemble of social, political, religious, and economic needs. The
factors that contributed to its structure and mechanics were distinctive, and its
organization and use never reappeared exactly the same way in another urban context.
For this reason the architectural and spatial development of the agora must be
assessed individually without the influence of universal models and cursory definitions
that restrict our perception of Greek commercial and civic space. Such an approach
remains a fundamental principle throughout the present study, where I argue instead for a
more fluid and idiosyncratic interpretation of the Greek agora. It is only by
2
contextualizing the Greek agora within its own urban environment that we can begin to
understand its spatial elements and acknowledge its inherently diverse role.
The Greek agora does, in fact, exhibit one unifying characteristic that remains
consistent over the course of several centuries from city to city and from region to region.
This is the capacity for the agora to become an urban venue characterized by a mixing of
occupations.1 Within the Greek agora we find a venue that often blends together sacred
space, commercial space, and civic space (fig. 1.1). Nowhere else in the Greek urban
environment do these three domains converge with one another. Certainly there were
cities in which these various functions were distributed individually over different public
areas, but only in the Greek agora did all three have the potential to coexist. An urban
temple in an agora, besides its sacred value, could also be used for political gatherings,
for the publication of official laws and decrees, and even as a treasury of state funds. The
colonnaded stoa, without a doubt the most symptomatic architectural feature of an agora,
is a classic example of this phenomenon, being at the same time a venue for commercial
business, civic gatherings, judicial proceedings, political statements, and casual meetings.
Unless indicated by an ancient author or inscription it is often impossible to pinpoint a
precise function for stoas, because they could be used for so many different purposes.
Even the open space of the agora itself epitomizes its intrinsic flexibility as a place for
fusing together activities that usually diverge from one another. Buyers and sellers of
1
As Millett (1998, p. 215) aptly puts it when describing the Athenian agora during the Classical period:
“the (Greek) Agora was the setting for administration, publicity, justice, ostracism, imprisonment, religion,
processions, dancing, athletics and equestrian displays… Individuals might go there to get information
(official or otherwise), gather a crowd, gamble, torture a slave, get hired as laborers, bid for contracts,
accost a prostitute, seek asylum, have a haircut, beg for money or food, fetch water, watch a cock-fight and
find out the time…And going on all around was the business of buying and selling.”
3
commercial merchandise gather around temporary stalls on the same spot where religious
festivals, horse training, and athletic events are held. As we explore the dynamics of the
Greek agora in the present study, it is important to recognize that the combination of
these diverse activities dictated the form and everyday use of the agora in antiquity.
1.2. Interpretations and Methodologies
The study of the Greek agora is intimately tied to the urban history of Greek cities
and the social and political institution of the Greek polis. And like most every element of
ancient Mediterranean civilization, how we come to understand the Greek city is
constantly dictated and altered depending on our source material and the changing
attitudes of scholarship. The Greek agora, for example, has largely been viewed through
the prism of select examples, and a devoted interest in its political (often Athenian
democratic) underpinnings. Over the years these factors have continued to shape our
vantage point(s), and it becomes challenging to integrate new models into the equation,
because we remain content in recycling the more familiar history.
When looking at the history of the Greek agora from an archaeological
perspective, scholarship predominantly works within the boundaries of three main
spheres: (a) the Greek colonies in South Italy and Sicily, (b) the Hellenistic cities of
Ionia, and (c) the Athenian agora (fig. 1.2). Although there is much to be learned from
these regions, on the whole they provide us with a surprisingly unbalanced view of the
Greek agora. For one thing there are rigid chronological gaps from west to east. The
South Italian and Sicilian Greek cities, such as Megara Hyblaia and Naxos, are primarily
4
cited for their archaic and Early Classical phases, while those in Asia Minor, such as
Pergamon and Aphrodisias, are mainly informative for their Hellenistic and Roman
Imperial phases. This circumstance is largely the result of the fortunes of history and
archaeological preservation, rather than scholarly bias. Nonetheless, it hinders our ability
to formulate comprehensive models of the growth and modification of the Greek agora
over several centuries and under changing political and social conditions.
During the early years of archaeological fieldwork in the late 19th century and
early 20th century, the notion that the Greek agora, like the central square of a modern
European capital, must lie at the heart of an ancient city compelled excavators to actively
search for its remains. Its discovery often became a primary objective, because they
believed that the agora’s impressive collection of public buildings would provide a firm
foothold on the topography of an ancient city. In several instances, such as Corinth and
Priene, these convictions proved to be true. Yet at the same time, beyond simply
revealing and unearthing, there was little progress during these early years to advance a
more nuanced understanding of Greek commercial and civic space. Buildings from
different periods were often grouped together and presented as a composite model of the
Greek agora, usually to the detriment of earlier phases which in general preserved fewer
monumental structures.
The Athenian Agora and the Athenian Democratic Model
A breakthrough in the study of the Greek agora occurred in the 1930s, when the
American School of Classical Studies at Athens initiated large scale excavations in the
5
Athenian agora that continue to the present (fig. 2.29). The results provided a wealth of
information about the early development and subsequent Greek and Roman phases of the
agora in one of most important Greek urban centers of the Ancient Mediterranean.
Besides offering valuable insights into the architectural and spatial growth of the agora,
the rich epigraphical testimonia, pottery, and other small finds such as weights and
measures provided tangible evidence for how the Athenians used their commercial and
civic space on a daily basis. There was also great interest among historians and
archaeologists in drawing parallels between the initial manifestation of the Athenian
agora and Athenian democracy.2 Many public buildings in the agora were dated to the
period immediately following the 508/7 democratic reforms of Cleisthenes, and several
of these structures, such as the Old Bouleuterion with its hypostyle hall form, became
prototypes for our understanding of Greek civic buildings.
While the Athenian agora will always remain indispensible to any study of the
Greek agora, it has projected an image that potentially deters a more nuanced
appreciation of the Greek agora, not only in Athens but elsewhere. This has led to the
inevitable result that our conception of the Greek agora often places excessive emphasis
on the Athenian agora and what I like to call the Athenian Democratic Model. This may
have been necessary a half-century ago, when excavations in the Athenian agora and the
publication of the material still dominated our understanding of Greek commercial and
civic space. However, we now have at our disposal a much more diverse body of source
material at such places as Thasos, Kassope, and Argos, and there is greater interest – at
2
See, e.g., Camp 1986; Coulsen et al. 1994.
6
least among ancient historians – in exploring alternatives to Athens and Athenian
democracy.3 Yet with few exceptions these changing attitudes and a wider archaeological
sample have not sparked a reassessment of the Greek agora. The impact of Athens cannot
be underestimated, and the Athenian agora continues to influence how we perceive less
well-preserved agoras.
One noticeable side effect of this circumstance is that democracy is often assumed
to be concurrent with the agora’s development, and certain public buildings are thought
to be manifestations of democracy. No doubt this sentiment is greatly influenced by the
Athenian agora, as well as broad studies on Greek urbanism such as Wolfram Hoepfner
and Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner’s Haus und Stadt in klassischen Griechenland (1986, rev.
ed. 1994) which exaggerate the impact of democracy and concepts isonomia (equality
before the law) on urban form (figs. 1.3; 1.4). As we shall see in the present study, the
presumed relationship between democracy and the Greek agora has impacted how
scholarship interprets the formative stages and spatial parameters of other agoras, such as
the Argive agora. Even at Athens there is a tendency to over-interpret the role of
democracy. Public buildings in the Athenian agora that probably date to the Classical
period are instead dated to the Late Archaic period – in other words, immediately
following the democratic reforms of Cleisthenes in 508/7.4 The early date, and even the
identification of some of these buildings as civic structures, is partly influenced by an
3
See, e.g., Brock and Hodkinson 2000; Hansen 2000; Hansen and Nielsen 2004; Nielsen 2007.
4
E.g. the Old Bouleuterion. For the traditional chronology of ca. 500, see Camp 1986, pp. 52-53; Shear
1993, pp. 418-429; Shear 1994, pp. 231-236. More recently, some scholars have begun to question the Late
Archaic date; see, e.g., Miller 1995a; Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 289-297.
7
eagerness to see an immediate and monumental impact on the agora’s built environment
following democratic reforms (fig. 1.5).
Another related concern is the impression that certain civic institutions were not
only ubiquitous features of the Greek agora, but that their architectural form was
standardized, and even monumentalized, at an early period. During the early years of
fieldwork in the Athenian agora, a series of classical civic buildings came to light along
the western side of the public square (Old Bouleuterion, New Bouleuterion, Tholos, and
Metroon), and subsequent excavations revealed lawcourts at the northeast corner and
large stoas used in part by civic officials and judicial bodies (fig. 2.29). The overall
impression is that important administrative structures formed the backbone of the
Athenian agora during the Classical period. This point of view frequently percolates
down to other agoras, where we expect to find a similar hierarchical arrangement of
classical civic structures.
An excellent case in point of this phenomenon are the long-standing problems
surrounding the identification of the Corinthian agora. Despite positive evidence to the
contrary, many historians and archaeologists have been unwilling to recognize the large
valley south of the Archaic temple of Apollo as the Corinthian agora, because, as they
argue, it lacks the prerequisite civic buildings.5 What exactly these prerequisite civic
buildings should look like in the archaeological record, and the extent to which Corinth
as a conservative oligarchy required such institutions on the same scale as Athens, are
issues that remain unanswered.
5
See infra Chapter 3; Donati 2010.
8
Recent research into the frequency and appearance of Greek civic buildings
shows that only a handful of such buildings in the archaeological record date before the
Hellenistic period.6 Therefore, any attempt to gain an understanding of the form and
context of the various building types that constitute “civic architecture” must work within
a very limited framework. For the Archaic and Classical periods not one prytaneion has
been identified with certainty,7 less than five bouleuteria are known (Olympia, the Old
and New Bouleuteria at Athens, and perhaps Megalopolis),8 the Pnyx at Athens is the
only secure example of an ekklēsiasterion as an architectural entity separate from a
theater,9 and with the exception of a few examples at Athens, we know next to nothing
about the architectural form of dikasteria (lawcourts), desmoteria (prisons), and other
6
Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) assemble the evidence. A revised list is found in Hansen and Nielsen
2004, pp. 1367-1377, Index 24.
7
Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (ibid, p. 34) state that Delos, Lato, and Olympia are the only prytaneia that
can be identified with “a probability amounting to certainty.” Yet a more stringent assessment of these
buildings shows that we cannot be sure of the identification of the prytaneion at Olympia during the
Classical period (see infra Chapter 4.5), the one at Delos cannot be proven to date earlier than the second-
half of the 4th century (Étienne 1997), and the prytaneion at Lato dates to the Early Hellenistic period.
Note the recent article by Schmalz (2006), who presents evidence for identifying the prytaneion at Athens
with the remains that are visible near the Ayia Aikaterina church, and a suggested archaic prytaneion at
Koukounaries on Paros (Schilardi 2002, p. 232).
8
Bouleuteria that are suggested but uncertain are Building Δ at Delos (Bruneau and Ducat 2005, p. 189,
no. 21; Gneisz 1990, p. 315, no. 17; Étienne 2007), a long rectangular building near the Treasury of the
Athenians at Delphi (Gneisz 1990, p. 316, no. 18; Bommelaer 1991, p. 144, no. 221), a structure at
Olynthos on the southern hill (Gneisz 1990, p. 342, no. 49), a long stoa on the acropolis at Orchomenos in
Arcadia (Winter 1987, pp. 235-239; Gneisz 1990, pp. 342-343, no. 50), a stoa-like building in the agora at
Mantinea (Winter 1987, pp. 239-244), and a building at Stratos (Lang 1994, p. 243). At present the only
basis for identifying the Hypostyle Hall at Argos as the bouleuterion is its proximity to the agora; see infra
Chapter 2.5. The Copenhagen Polis Center list Ayia Palagia (Apellonia) as having a bouleuterion, but
recent research suggests that it may be a prytaneion instead; see Vivier 1994, 245.
9
Frank Kolb (1981) argues that the popular assembly gathered in the theater, since very few poleis had a
separate ekklēsiasterion. For the Archaic and Classical periods there are only four references in the literary
testimonia to a city’s ekklēsia holding meetings in a theater: Katane in Sicily, Skotoussa in Thessaly,
Syracuse, and Thebes; see Hansen and Fischer-Hansen 1994, p. 49. Three circular buildings at
Metapontum, Akragas, and Poseidonia could have accommodated the ekklēsia, and their circular shape has
often been cited as being a regional characteristic of ekklēsiasteria in the Greek West. There is, however,
little evidence to identify them specifically as ekklēsiasteria. The large structure at Metapontum, for
example, is adjacent to the agora and a temenos to Zeus Agoraios, but its large size is perhaps suggestive of
a function beyond just the political, and we might suspect that it was also used for religious and dramatic
purposes; see Mertens 1982; Hansen and Fischer-Hansen 1994, pp. 65-67.
9
archeia (civic offices), all of which may have existed in Greek cities. Not only does this
circumstance present challenges for anyone trying to gain an understanding of pre-
Hellenistic civic institutions, but it questions our methodology as we go about looking for
them in the archaeological record.
If an urban center did have separate, purpose-built civic buildings, then they were
not prominent features before the Hellenistic period. As we shall see in the present study,
some civic bodies met outside in the open, others met within a sanctuary, and still others
in less obtrusive mudbrick structures that looked nothing like large square auditoriums. It
would be preferable to leave aside any preconceptions about the architectural form of
Greek civic buildings, and their frequency and prominence in the Greek agora.
Roland Martin and the Greek Agora
In addition to the Athenian agora, an important source for the Greek agora is
Roland Martin’s still influential Recherches sur l’agora grecque (1951). Previous to this
ground-breaking study few scholars had attempted a broad synthesis of the
archaeological and literary evidence related to the Greek agora.10 None could be
compared to the large corpus of material presented by Martin, who traced the
development of the agora from Homer to the Hellenistic period. His history was
masterfully arranged, almost reading as a novel that described the agora’s humble origins,
to its classical apex corresponding with Ionian innovations in Greek town planning, and
ultimately to its decline and folly during the Hellenistic period. Beyond the twists and
10
Tritsch 1932; Wycherley 1942.
10
turns of his calculated narrative, Martin laid the foundations for an appreciation of the
mechanics of the Greek agora, and his conclusions are still valid today.
Martin’s conception of the formative stages of the Greek agora was greatly
influenced by a Homeric model.11 Lacking any early archaeological source material, he
believed that a systematic study of the agora could only begin with the evidence of the
Homeric epics, composed sometime by the end of the 8th century. The etymological use
of the term agorē in the Iliad and Odyssey, as well as Homer’s description of the city of
the Phaeacians, showed that the Greek agora was a tangible and significant element
within the early Greek city.12 The agora became a daily gathering venue of a community
of citizens, often for political and judicial meetings, but also for religious events and
athletic contests (agōnes). The combination of political and administrative functions
along with the cultic and agonistic needs of daily life materialized in the Homeric agora.
Martin was also careful to stress that commercial and industrial activity played no role in
the agora during this early period.13
Although Martin explored possible Near Eastern and Aegean Bronze Age
influences,14 he ultimately concluded that the Greek agora was an original creation of
Greek urbanism.15 Its manifestation, utilization, and representation within the Greek city
were closely intertwined with Greek urban practices. As Martin showed, the agora during
the Archaic period was characterized by its spatial irregularity: buildings were few and
11
Martin 1951, pp. 17-62.
12
Cf. Hölkeskamp 1997.
13
Martin 1951, pp. 274, 279-287. Cf. Miller (1995b, pp. 219-223), who argues that marketing came first in
the creation of the agora. Millett (1998) wants to see the exchange of goods and services as one aspect that
gave rise to agora-areas.
14
Martin 1951, pp. 63-144.
15
Ibid, p. 543.
11
lacked any sense of forming an architectural ensemble, while open space provided the
community with an easily accessible gathering venue.16 Despite its rather modest form,
especially compared to contemporary sanctuaries, Martin argued through a skillful
dissection of the literary and archaeological evidence that the archaic agora was a critical
component of Greek political, judicial, religious, and agonistic livelihood, just as it had
been in the Homeric epics.
According to Martin, the turning point for a new conception of the Greek agora
had its origins in the aftermath of the Persian Wars with the innovations of the 5th
century town-planner and theoretician Hippodamos of Miletus.17 It was in the Ionian
Greek cities of Asia Minor that new aesthetics in urban planning and architectural forms
were fully realized and then applied. Rational forms were now preferred over the
irrational, and the Greek agora became integrated into the urban fabric of the city at a
privileged location. The built environment of the agora itself took on a more complex
appearance during the Classical period, and its architectural form and overall expression
were closely crystallized with its diverse functions. In Martin’s model the diffusion of a
more structured ensemble finally reached Mainland Greece from Asia Minor by the end
of the 5th century and achieved maturity during the 4th century.
The centuries that followed the military conquests of Alexander the Great marked
the final stages in the evolution of the agora.18 Martin rather negatively characterized this
era as the deterioration of the Greek polis as an institution: a period when Hellenistic
16
Ibid, pp. 149-274.
17
Ibid, pp. 277-417.
18
Ibid, pp. 418-446.
12
dynasts and commercial pursuits necessitated changes to the structure and use of the
agora. Instead of being a venue that was dominated by communal political and religious
needs, the agora was more frequently used as a commercial marketplace. Most
representative of this transformation was the insertion of colonnaded stoas that radically
demarcated the public square from the rest of the city. Martin perceived this as a great
error in design, because the agora closed itself off from the rest of the urban fabric and
ignored its traditional role. While historians and archaeologists today would refrain from
categorizing the Hellenistic period as one of aesthetic decline, Martin was correct in his
basic image of the Hellenistic agora as a more controlled and compressed public venue.
Not withstanding its positive impact on Greek urban studies and its influential
presentation of the dynamics and morphology of the Greek agora in a comprehensive
history, there are nonetheless shortcomings in Recherches sur l’agora grecque. One is
struck by the inherent limitations of undertaking such a massive study. This is especially
apparent in the chapters that explore the archaeological evidence for archaic and classical
agoras by region. A full treatment of the material at each site was not possible, and in
most instances Martin could only offer abridged summaries that fit into his narrative
when convenient. In addition, the limited archaeological material available in the period
following the Second World War is noticeable. Martin relied on the Athenian agora, and
an archaeological sample that favored the monumental Hellenistic cities of Asia Minor.19
19
E.g., more than one-third of the chapter on the archaic agora (ibid, pp. 224-274) is taken up by a
discussion of the Athenian agora, and an astounding two-thirds of the chapter on the classical agora in
Mainland Greece (ibid, pp. 309-345). No other agora receives more than a few pages of summary.
13
These shortcomings were partially alleviated by Ulf Kenzler’s Studien zur
Entwicklung und Struktur der griechischen Agora in archaischer und klassischer Zeit
(1999), which to date remains the only other monograph on the history of the Greek
agora. In his study Kenzler adopted a more sober and pragmatic approach, distinct from
Martin’s ambitious vision of placing the agora in the context of contemporary urban
practices and aesthetics. Kenzler began with the Homeric epics and built an image of the
agora that highlighted its political, religious, and agonistic affiliations up through the
Classical period; trade and industry played no significant role in the agora’s development.
For the most part, his presentation and conclusions were faithfully adapted from the
model already established by Martin, which if anything shows the durability of
Recherches sur l’agora grecque in Greek urban studies.
The main contribution of Kenzler’s study was that recent archaeological material
was integrated into our historical perspective of the Greek agora, such as the important
archaic agora at Megara Hyblaia. He also gave fuller treatment to the early stages of the
Athenian agora, and considered the reasons for the location of the agora within the Greek
city. However, Kenzler was unable to resolve the same weaknesses of such a far-
reaching, all-inclusive survey. Like Martin, he only provided brief synopses of each
agora, focusing instead on thematic topics (cults, hero shrines, politics) that seemed most
significant. This resulted in a system of prioritization, where political and cultic activity
were brought to the forefront and commercial and industrial activity were pushed to the
14
background.20 A more complete and diachronic history of the agora was lacking,
especially at places like Corinth and Thasos where such an exploration was possible.21
The present study seeks to recalibrate some of the views advocated by Martin and
Kenzler. One critical issue is their conviction that the political role of the Greek agora
was a defining feature during its formative stages. Beginning with the Homeric epics and
continuing down to the Classical period, each author built up the political and
administrative image of the Greek agora, often with lengthy digressions on the Athenian
agora.22 Under these circumstances the Greek agora, almost by default, has become
synonymous with “civic space.” While Martin and Kenzler were not incorrect to set their
sights on political activity, their model does not agree with the archaeological evidence in
every instance. Some of the earliest structures in the Corinthian and Argive agoras, for
example, were used for trade, industry, and the regulation of commercial goods, while
contemporary political structures were lacking. In general, the impact of political activity
on the early built environment of the Greek agora is ambiguous, even in those cities that
adopted democratic constitutions.
The idea that commerce and industry had little or no presence in the Greek agora
before the Late Classical period is no longer tenable, especially in light of recent research
into the mechanics of the ancient economy.23 Alain Bresson has recently demonstrated
20
Like Martin, Kenzler (1999) also gives preference to the Athenian agora. E.g., his chapter (pp. 270-303)
entitled “Die agora als politisches Zentrum” deals almost exclusively with Athens.
21
The selective thematic arrangement of the study results in the reader lacking a thorough understanding of
the built environment of each agora; e.g., only some of the buildings and venues in the Corinthian agora are
highlighted (ibid, pp. 93-94, 108-109; 150-158; 213-216).
22
Cf., e.g., Hölscher 1998.
23
Some of the more important studies include Millett 1998; Bresson 2000; Andreau and Chankowski 2007;
Bresson 2007; Bresson 2008.
15
that a city encouraged the buying and selling of commercial products in the agora,
because it was economically beneficial to all parties involved.24 For the merchant, the
agora provided a place where he could easily find clients, and so his transportation costs
were minimized. For the buyer, the agora was a place where he could easily obtain the
products that he wanted at the best prices; he could also be confident that he would not be
cheated, since the weight and capacity of products were legally certified by official
standards. In all transactions, the state was compensated for their output expenses (i.e.
providing and maintaining an agora, paying officials to monitor trade) by levying a tax on
the sale of goods (epōnion).25 To manage income, the state made the transaction of
certain commercial products and services in the agora obligatory, such as grain, other
food products, and even slaves. There is ample evidence from classical and Hellenistic
sources that attests to the sale of such products in specific areas of the agora, well before
large stoas provided more permanent retail space.26
Although there has never been a study that synthesizes the material evidence for
archaic and classical commercial structures and workshops in the Greek agora, these
kinds of complexes do appear in the archaeological record.27 In many instances they were
modest architectural structures built of mudbrick on a stone socle that could double as
domestic quarters.28 A number of classical commercial buildings have been found around
24
Ibid, pp. 17-34.
25
The presence of such taxes is attested, for example, at Corinth during the Archaic period, where a
fragment of Aristotle (F 611.20, apud Heraclid. Lem. 20 [A16]) indicates that there were harbor and agora
taxes during the tyranny of Periander.
26
Harris 2002; Karvonis 2007; Karvonis 2008; Bresson 2008, p. 19.
27
See, e.g., Fisher-Hansen 2000; Karvonis 2008.
28
E.g., the late 7th century Trader’s Complex and the 5th century Punic Amphora Building in the
Corinthian agora; see infra Chapters 3.2 and 3.3.
16
the perimeter of the Athenian agora,29 and there is growing consensus that the 7th century
“houses” in the area of the classical agora, known predominantly from wells, were in fact
workshops.30 We must also be aware that trade and commerce did not necessarily require
an architectural setting, but simply took place in temporary stalls scattered around the
open area of the agora.31 Finally, the relationship between agora and commerce is
apparent in the location of agoras, which are usually found near a commercial harbor in a
port city (Thasos, Miletus, Piraeus), or along an important crossroads where goods and
people could easily circulate (Corinth, Megara Hyblaia, Athens).32
1.3. Peloponnesian Models
What this study offers is a new perspective on the Greek agora by focusing on
four cities in the Peloponnese (Argos, Corinth, Elis, and Megalopolis) during the Archaic
and Classical periods. The Peloponnese is a region of the Ancient Mediterranean that is
often neglected by those interested in Greek urban practices. In fact, the most influential
surveys on Greek urbanism over the past 50 years either ignore the Peloponnese
altogether, or at best give it cursory attention. Everything from Martin’s landmark study,
L’urbanisme dans la Grèce antique (1956, rev. ed. 1974), to Hoepfner and Schwandner’s
polemical survey of the Greek city and democratic ideals, Haus und Staat in klassischen
29
For the classical commercial building at the northwest corner of the Athenian agora, see Camp 1999, pp.
274-281; Camp 2003, pp. 247-249. For one at the northeast corner, see Milbank 2002. For others at the
southeast corner, see Shear 1975, pp. 346-361. Recent excavations at the southwest corner imply that the
5th century “stratēgeion” was not a civic structure, but perhaps a commercial complex; see Camp 2007, pp.
657-660.
30
Papadopoulos 2003, pp. 272-279.
31
For some of the evidence, see Karvonis 2008, pp. 58-61.
32
Polignac 2005.
17
Griechenland, refrain from integrating Peloponnesian settlements into their historical
perspectives. Numerous studies on Greek urbanism could be added to this list, all with
similar results.33 The same goes for recent surveys on the Greek agora, which, in general,
are interested in exploring and modifying the already familiar models, rather than seeking
new horizons.34
Despite the minor role that the Peloponnese has played in Greek urban studies up
to the present, we stand to gain a great deal by investigating its urban history. For one
thing, the urban landscape of the Peloponnese was distinguished by diverse patterns of
habitation, all clustered within a single region of the Ancient Mediterranean. Urban
centers with an extensive history of occupation, such as Argos, Corinth, and Sparta, do
not conform to a simple model of progression from small village into large city, but were
characterized instead by fragmented communities that took centuries to materialize into
larger settlements. On the other hand, places like Megalopolis and Messene, which were
established after a synoicism of surrounding communities, were entirely new urban
experiments of the Late Classical period that had to accommodate a new population
where none had existed before. Still other centers had distinctive settlement patterns not
duplicated elsewhere. Elis was a bi-polar state sharing administrative and religious
33
E.g., Greco and Torelli (1983) is an excellent sourcebook, but there is little specific to the Peloponnese.
Sparta and Corinth are only encountered in the chapter on the archaic city, while Argos and Elis do not
appear at all. Similarly, Murray and Price (1990) only make brief mention here and there of some cities in
the Peloponnese. Greco (1999) includes a chapter on the “Peloponnese” (M. Osanna), but it is limited to
general summaries of Argos, Corinth, and Sparta. A more recent volume by Greco (2001) has nothing at all
about the Peloponnese. Two notable exceptions include Polignac (1995) and Hölscher (1998), which both
synthesize the Peloponnesian experience into a more comprehensive history of Greek urban practices.
34
E.g., Hoepfner 2006; Hoepfner and Lehmann 2006 (Heiden’s brief article is an exception in this edited
volume). Kenzler (1999), like Martin (1951) 50 years before, offers a more broad, thematically arranged
perspective, but even here the focus tilts towards the Athenian agora; e.g., the chapter entitled “Die agora
als politisches Zentrum” deals almost exclusively with Athens.
18
responsibilities with the nearby sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia, while Mantinea
experienced a forced depopulation before its inhabitants returned to rebuild their city.
Taken together the Peloponnesian experience allows us to acknowledge that
patterns of urbanism are irregular and varied, having the capacity to show great variation
even between neighboring cities. The Peloponnese creates an interesting sample, where
“old vs. new” and “de-nucleated vs. nucleated” settlements can be analyzed jointly to see
what effects these circumstances have on the physical form of each city. Furthermore, the
diverse urban landscape here should caution us not to form generalizations about Greek
urbanism based only on the traditional models. Failure to understand the Greek city
within its context risks a misguided interpretation of its spatial setting, best exemplified
in trying to understand the Greek agora through the prism of an Athenian perspective.
The Peloponnese also enables us to consider more extensively the relationship
between the social and political structure of a city to its physical arrangement. Again
there are potentially significant variables. For example, Corinth was a conservative and
relatively stable oligarchy throughout much of its history, but Argos and Elis adopted
democratic constitutions in the 5th century after first being oligarchies. Likewise, Sparta
had a unique, albeit complex social system consisting of two kings and a citizen body of
unequal “Peers,” while nearby Megalopolis was a democracy and participated in the
politics and military activities of the Arcadian League. What sort of form the urban
environment adopts, and what sort of buildings over time encompass this area based upon
divergent socio-political conditions are important issues to consider.
19
Disparate economic conditions within the Peloponnese also had an impact on the
development of the urban environment. This was especially true for a city like Corinth,
which was a major center for trade, commerce, and the production of goods (especially
ceramics). Corinth was in an advantageous position at the northeast corner of the
Peloponnese for the exchange of merchandise. It had harbors on either side of the narrow
Isthmus of Corinth, and controlled the land causeway (diolkos) where merchandise could
be transported between the Adriatic and Aegean seas. These economic undercurrents had
a conspicuous impact on the spatial and architectural structure of the city. Specific
regions of Corinth were reserved for industrial activity, an important road from the
commercial harbor led straight to the Corinthian agora (not by accident), and some of the
earliest structures in the agora were used for commerce and industry.
1.4. Peloponnesian Agoras
From the approximately 131 Greek poleis that existed in the Peloponnese during
the Archaic and Classical periods (ca. 650-323),35 the literary and archaeological
evidence confirm nearly 20 different agoras.36 In the majority of instances, however,
knowledge of these agoras is limited to snippets of information from an ancient author or
inscription. For example, the 2nd century A.D. traveler Pausanias mentions that the agora
in the Achaian city of Aigion had a grave monument of a certain Talthybios, and that the
35
This number is based on the poleis tallied by the Copenhagen Polis Center and listed in Hansen and
Nielsen 2004. For an explanation of what constitutes an archaic and classical polis, see ibid, pp. 3-11.
36
Aigion, Argos, Corinth, Epidauros, Elis, Lepreon, Mantinea, Megalopolis, Messene, Oitylos,
Orchomenos, Pharai, Phigaleia, Phleious, Sikyon, Sparta, Tegea, Thelphousa, and Troizen.
20
agora in the southern Laconian city of Oitylos had a wooden image of Apollo Karneios.37
Similarly, excavations near the theater at the settlement of Epidauros in the Argolid
revealed a boundary stone inscribed “boundary of the agora.”38 These references are the
only mention of an agora at these three sites, and without the archaeological evidence –
for the location of the agora is unknown – none are helpful in formulating comprehensive
models of the Greek agora.39
It is with great disappointment that the Spartan agora remains more or less
indefinable. Even though Pausanias gives a detailed description of the monuments, civic
buildings, and sanctuaries in the Spartan agora, as it existed in his time, sporadic
excavations over the past century have been unable to resolve its identification. Within
the agora, Pausanias encountered more than 10 sanctuaries, a heroon dedicated to
Orestes, four civic buildings, the so-called Persian Stoa built from the spoils won in the
Persian Wars, a place called the Chorus where the famous Gymnopaidiai festival in honor
of Apollo was held, and a colossal statue of the Spartan people.40 Not one of these
structures has been securely identified.
37
Paus. 3.12.7; 3.25.10.
38
SEG 26, 452.
39
Other sites with little archaeological evidence for an agora, but with some literary and epigraphical
evidence, include the following: (a) Lepreon: an agora is referred to by Heracleides Lembos (42); (b)
Pherai: Pausanias (7.22.2) notes the wide extent of the agora and a statue of Hermes in the middle; (c)
Phigaleia: an agora is mentioned in an undated inscription (IG V.2, 421.7), Pausanias (8.40.1-3) comments
on a statue and heroon in the agora, and, although not specified as being in the agora, Polybios (4.79.5)
refers to a polemarcheion; (d) Sikyon: regarding the classical agora, Herodotus (5.67.1) notes a heroon, and
Xenophon (Hell. 7.1.45) recounts a gathering of the damos. The city was relocated in the Early Hellenistic
period, and excavations have identified a bouleuterion and a long stoa in the Hellenistic agora; (e) Sparta:
literary and epigraphical sources that mention the Spartan agora are numerous, but its identification is still
pending (see below). (f) Tegea: the agora is mentioned in a 3rd century inscription (SEG 22, 280.24), and
Xenophon (Hell. 7.4.36) refers to a desmoterion and a demosia oikia (not necessarily in the agora).
Troizen: the location of the agora has apparently been identified. For a description, see Paus. 2.31.1-11.
The periēgētēs remarks that a temple of Apollo Thearios in the agora was the oldest temple he knew.
40
Paus. 3.11.2-11.
21
One possible location for the Spartan agora is on the Palaiokastro hill,
approximately 200 m east of the monumental stone theater and urban sanctuary of
Athena Chalkioikos (Bronze House). Here, excavations have brought to light a large
circular platform of uncertain function dating to the Hellenistic period, a long Roman
Stoa towards the east, and what appears to be the southern end of another monumental
Roman stoa north of the circular platform (fig. 1.6). Some scholars believe that the two
stoas defined the southern and western sides of the Spartan agora, which they estimate to
have been around 200 m2 (4 ha) in size.41 It has even been suggested that the circular
monument should be identified as the Chorus, where, according to Pausanias, dances
took place in honor of Apollo during the Gymnopaidiai festival.42
Even if the Palaiokastro hill is the correct location of the Spartan agora – so far
only a tentative suggestion – there are far too many uncertainties to include the city in the
present study. Only a few structures have been found in the putative Spartan agora, and
nothing dates earlier than the Hellenistic period. In addition, while the literary sources are
useful, including the lengthy description of the site by Pausanias, it is impractical to grasp
the spatial and architectural elements of the Spartan agora without hard archaeological
proof.
For the present study I focus on four Peloponnesian cities during the Archaic and
Classical periods (Argos, Corinth, Elis, and Megalopolis), whose urban apparatus comes
41
Waywell 1999, pp. 1-14; Kourinou 2000, pp. 97-129. If the Spartan agora was 4 ha in size, it was
noticeably larger than the Argive agora (ca. 2 ha), and the Corinthian agora (ca. 2.5 ha), but similar to the
Athenian agora (ca. 3.5 ha), the Megalopolitan agora (ca. 3.6 ha), and the Elean agora (ca. 4 ha). Excluding
Sparta, these size calculations are my own estimates.
42
Ibid., pp. 114-127.
22
to light from the archaeological and literary evidence.43 This means that we are in a
position to draw tangible conclusions about the structure and development of each agora,
and how Greek commercial and civic space ties in with the broader patterns of urban
history at each site. Time plays an important role in my study. In each city we must
consider how elements change over time, and what factors, either internal or external,
contribute to these changes. The Argive and Corinthian agoras are tremendously
instructive in this respect, because, as old Peloponnesian settlements with rich histories,
we can trace their development from the Geometric and Archaic periods to the Classical
and Hellenistic periods. At present, they are the only Peloponnesian urban centers where
the archaeological material permits such an extensive exploration over a wide time span.
The two other cities, Elis and Megalopolis, offer an interesting contrast to the
conventional sequence of gradual Peloponnesian urban development. Since both were
established following a synoicism in the Classical and Late Classical periods
respectively, the agoras at these sites serve as alternative models. Without the influence
of any significant prior occupation, Elis and Megalopolis adapted to the needs of a
population at a specific point in time. This provides a unique opportunity to observe how
the Greek agora responded to such conditions, while offering valuable insights into the
urban integration and manifestation of the classical agora. The classical context of the
Elean and Megalopolitan agoras is critical for a more balanced understanding of Greek
43
Besides Argos, Corinth, Elis, and Megalopolis, five other Peloponnesian cities have sufficient
archaeological evidence in their respective agoras to include them as individual case-studies. These are
Mantinea, Messene, Orchomenos, Phleious, and Thelpousa. However, in the interests of length and to
avoid chronological overlaps, I have chosen not to incorporate them in the present study. With the
exception of the agora at Phleious, which does have a 5th century phase, the agoras at all the other sites
date predominantly, if not exclusively, to the 4th century. This is the same period that the Megalopolitan
agora was constructed ex novo, making it unnecessary to include additional Late Classical case-studies.
23
commercial and civic space of the Classical period. The spatial and architectural
dynamics of the agora at these sites diverge considerably from the Athenian agora, as
well as from each other, demonstrating that the classical Greek agora cannot be defined
in one way.
24
CHAPTER TWO: THE ARGIVE AGORA
2.1. Topography and Historiography of the Site
The city of Argos lies along the western side of a large fertile plain covering an
area of approximately 275 km2 (fig. 2.1). Steep terrain surrounds the valley on three
sides, of which the most imposing are the western mountains leading into Arcadia.
Towards the south the plain ends at the Argolid Gulf, roughly 6 km away from the city.
The Argive Heraion, the most important extra-mural sanctuary in the territory, lies about
7.5 km to the northeast. The local topography closer to the city is dominated by the
Larissa (290 masl) and the Aspis (90 masl) hills (fig. 2.2). The Deiras ridge stands
between the two, and provides the city with a western access route into Arcadia. The
ancient city of Argos, like the modern town directly above it, was positioned directly
below the southeastern slopes of the Larissa and Aspis hills. The northern and eastern
boundaries of the city are defined by the Xerias River, which was known in antiquity as
the Charadros.
The Argive agora lies at the southwest corner of the modern town, just below the
foot of the Larissa hill (fig. 2.3). Here, an irregular area approximately 150 m x 80 m (=
1.2 ha) has been the focus of systematic excavations by the French School at Athens for
more than 100 years.44 The current boundaries of the agora are artificially defined by
44
Wilhelm Vollgraff carried out initial excavations between 1902-1930. These were continued in 1952 by
Georges Daux, Paul Courbin, and Georges Roux, and have continued up to the present under the direction
of Marcel Piérart and Ann Pariente. Besides the agora, French excavations have included the theater, the
Roman odeion, an imperial bath complex, the sanctuary of Aphrodite, the sanctuaries of Apollo Pythios
25
features of the modern town: Tripolis Street marks the western border of the excavated
area, Theater Street and Ancient Boule Street the northern border, and modern fields and
housing blocks define the eastern and southern sides. Argos is a classic example of the
challenges that archaeologists face as they conduct large scale excavations in a modern
town. Because property lines limit the amount of fieldwork, it is simply not possible to
reveal the entire extent of the agora. Some ancient buildings are only partially cleared,
while others are known to exist in the literary and epigraphical testimonia but remain
unexcavated. Any study that seeks to understand in a cohesive manner the built
environment of the Argive agora must deal with these shortcomings.
Important rescue operations have been carried out by the Greek Archaeological
Service all over the modern town. In particular, their work contributes greatly to our
understanding of the system of ancient roads (fig. 2.4).45 A number roads align with
buildings in the agora, and even more significant is that some predate construction in the
agora, meaning that these ancient thoroughfares helped determine its spatial framework
during the formative years. The Greek Archaeological Service has identified a region of
the city, northeast of the agora, that was aligned according to an orthogonal grid plan,
perhaps as early as the Classical period.46 Other rescue excavations have revealed a
number of structures that lie outside the modern archaeological site of the Argive agora,
but nonetheless fall within the ancient parameters of the agora.47
and Athena Oxyderkas on the Aspis hill, Mycenaean tombs on the Deiras ridge, and the sanctuaries of Zeus
Larisaios and Athena Polias on the Larissa hill.
45
Marchetti (2000, pp. 278-286) provides a good summary of the roads excavated by the Greek
Archaeological Service.
46
Ibid, pp. 285-286.
47
E.g., the northern continuation of the East Stoa; see Pariente et al. 1998, p. 215.
26
The basic structure of the Argive agora consists of a natural ridge along the
southern and western sides that rises a few meters above the surrounding topography.
This ridge is an eastern continuation of the Larissa hill and eventually formed the
southern boundary of the agora. During the Classical period, a north-facing stoa (South
Stoa) was built on top (fig. 2.3, K).48 The western boundary of the agora was defined by
the western arm of the same ridge. A large square structure (Hypostyle Hall) was built
here during the Classical period (fig. 2.3, E). Since the monumental facade of this
building faced east, it likely marked the agora’s western border. Nevertheless, some
scholars would like to place the western boundary of the agora along the slopes of the
Larissa hill, near a classical rock-cut auditorium (Stepped Theatron, fig. 2.3, C), a
sanctuary of Aphrodite (fig. 2.3, D), and the Hellenistic theater (fig. 2.3, A).49
The flat lowlands to the north of the South Stoa, and east of the Hypostyle Hall,
were susceptible to annual flooding and required proper draining facilities throughout the
history of the site.50 Beginning in the Late Archaic period, and with significant additions
up through the Roman period, a large collection channel and conduit for water (Cephisos
canal) was built to carry excess water through the agora in a N-S direction. Once the
drainage channels passed the eastern side of the South Stoa, the water was redirected
around the building’s southern side. The insertion of the Cephisos canal was a crucial
addition that made it possible for the Argives to build permanent structures in the agora.
48
The South Stoa is sometimes referred to as the “pi-shaped stoa,” because its classical form comprised of
a long E-W north colonnade, and two smaller N-S colonnades on the sides. Since the south orientation is
helpful in situating the building within the agora, I use the “South Stoa” designation throughout this
chapter.
49
Marchetti 1994, pp. 151-153; Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, pp. 441-443. For the reasons, see infra
Chapter 2.5.
50
Pariente et al. 1998, p. 212.
27
The northern section of the agora is characterized by a more loose arrangement of
structures. A large krepidoma at the northwest, perhaps a terrace wall or the stylobate of a
stoa, may tentatively be identified as the southern temenos of the sanctuary of Apollo
Lykeios (wolf-god) – one of the most celebrated cults at Argos (fig. 2.3, F).51 Instead of
running parallel or perpendicular to other structures in the agora, this putative sanctuary
has a SW-NE diagonal orientation. A semicircular orchestra, only partially exposed and
dated to the Late Classical period, abuts the terrace along the same axis (fig. 2.3, G). The
diagonal orientation of the terrace and orchestra is countered by a long stoa at the
northeast (East Stoa, fig. 2.3, 5). This stoa, whose date is obscure, has a SE-NW
orientation. The opposing diagonal alignments of these three features (krepidoma,
orchestra, and East Stoa), together with the South Stoa and Hypostyle Hall to the south
and west, give the Argive agora an unusual triangular appearance.
Before the Roman period, the central triangular space of the agora was free from
any major construction. By the Late Classical period, the main feature inside this space
was a racetrack (dromos) set slightly off-axis from the South Stoa. The starting line of the
racetrack begins just in front of the Hypostyle Hall, and the running surface continues
nearly 180 m (= 1 stade) towards the east. Since the eastern portion of the agora remains
largely unexcavated, it is difficult to comment about any additional buildings that may
have existed here. One would assume that the agora continued as far east as the end of the
racetrack, but this cannot be confirmed without excavations. Foundations belonging to a
Hellenistic temple that almost certainly had a classical predecessor lie approximately 70
51
The identification of the krepidoma as the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios is controversial. For a discussion,
see infra Chapters 2.2 and 2.4.
28
m south of the end of the racetrack (fig. 2.3, L). To date this is the best evidence for the
southeast boundary of the agora. Other structures within the triangular space of the agora
include a square fountain house beneath the Roman nymphaeum (fig. 2.3, J), which may
date to the Classical period, a small Hellenistic temple (fig. 2.3, H), and various small
dedications and cults places from different periods.
The architectural and spatial elements within this space formed the background
where important commercial, religious, agonistic, and civic activity took place at Argos.
Although the identification of this area as the Argive agora is more or less certain, many
fundamental uncertainties persist. The spatial boundaries of the agora are imperfectly
understood, as is a more thorough appreciation of how its built environment developed
and was used over the course of several centuries. Basic problems linger on, such as the
function and chronology of a number of buildings, and their relationship to each other. In
general, earlier periods in the history of the agora are poorly understood compared to the
Roman period. Many of these difficulties can be attributed to limitations in excavations
and the imperfect state of building preservation. On the other hand, our understanding of
the Argive agora suffers from an uneven publications record, which by and large has
avoided a comprehensive engagement of the source material.52 Monographs on certain
buildings have been published, yet for the most part the Argive agora has been viewed
piecemeal through a narrow prism.53
52
Exceptions include Courtils 1992; Barkari-Gléni and Pariente 1998; Pariente et al. 1998.
53
The two monographs devoted to structures in the agora are Bommelaer and Courtils 1994 (Hypostyle
Hall) and Marchetti et al. 1995 (Roman nymphaeum). One problem is the lack of a Fouilles d’Argos series
for publishing the architecture, inscriptions, pottery, and small finds in single volume reports. To a certain
degree the Études péloponnésiennes series has been able to fill in some of the gaps; see, e.g., Vollgraff
29
This chapter presents the archaeological, and, where helpful, the epigraphical and
literary testimonia related to the urban development of Argos and the Argive agora from
the Protogeometric period through the Late Classical period. This includes a unified
investigation of major trends in building activity in the agora, and a critical survey of
relevant scholarship. A general understanding of the configuration of space should help
clarify some of the more pressing issues outlined above. Another goal of the chapter is to
trace the early development of the Argive agora. Current scholarly discourse tends to
credit the formative period of the agora to the establishment of a democratic government
in the 460s.54 But as I argue, caution must be applied in this instance. Late Archaic
buildings from the agora show that the Argives began the process of preparing their
commercial, religious, and civic space well-before the democratic government came to
power. The structure of the classical agora at Argos was not a sudden beginning sparked
by democratic needs, but a continuum of established urban practices. By placing the
Argive agora in the context of its own urban environment, as well as within the wider
spectrum of Greek commercial and civic space during the Archaic and Classical periods,
we can more fully appreciate the history and development of the site.
2.2. Shortcomings in Methodology and Identification
The general consensus among archaeologists and ancient historians is that the
Argive agora should be identified with the triangular area southeast of the Larissa hill
1956; Bovon 1966; Deshayes 1966; Ginouvès 1972; Courbin 1974; Bommelaer and Courtils 1994;
Marchetti et al. 1995; Abadie-Reynal 2007.
54
See, e.g., Courtils 1992; Viret Bernal 1992; Leppin 1999.
30
(fig. 2.5). Based on the types of non-domestic, multi-purpose buildings found here
devoted to commercial, religious, athletic, and perhaps civic activities, this inference is
more than justified. However, a shortcoming of the prevailing methodology is that it does
not engage with the architectural and spatial elements. In fact, there has never been a
study that clearly outlines the reasons for why this is the Argive agora, and what are the
physical parameters and social characteristics that contribute to such an identification.
For this reason, it is worth examining the rationale for why scholars recognize this space
as the Argive agora.
Up to the present the agora’s identification rests largely on circumstantial
evidence from Pausanias, an association between the agora and the sanctuary of Apollo
Lykeios whose location is controversial, and a handful of inscriptions that mention the
agora and a group of civic officials called the agoranomoi. Let us begin first with the
epigraphical evidence. French excavations in 1977 led to the discovery of a Roman
imperial dedicatory inscription that had been reused for building material in Roman
renovations behind the South Stoa.55 The first line of the fragmentary inscription
preserves four letters of the word for agora: [ἀγ]ορὰν. This is the only instance of an
Argive inscription that mentions the agora, and was found on the site where the agora
has, since the early years of excavations, always thought to exist. Its late date and reuse,
however, not to mention the circular argument of using the inscription for identifying the
agora, makes it of little value for our purposes.
55
Argos inscription E 92; see BCH 102 (1978), p. 784; Pariente et al. 1998, p. 219.
31
Three Late Hellenistic inscriptions, also found within the South Stoa, are relevant
because they mention the agoranomoi. These were the officials in a Greek and Roman
city responsible for market regulations, which included the supervision of official weights
and measures in the agora. Two of the inscriptions were reused in the stylobate of the
Roman extension of the South Stoa’s northern colonnade,56 while the other came from
the eastern wing of the same stoa.57 Cavities on the upper surface of the third inscription
indicate that the inscribed block was used as a measuring device (sekoma) for liquids and
grains. Undoubtedly it was used for commercial activity in the agora, and its official
capacity was certified by the agoranomos. The exact context of this inscription, however,
was never recorded, so its relationship to the South Stoa is unclear.58
The agoranomoi inscriptions are potentially important for understanding the
function of the South Stoa, and any commercial activity that may have taken place here in
the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods. Some scholars believe that the inscriptions
themselves confirm the location of the agora.59 This is an overly optimistic assumption.
Since the original context of the inscriptions cannot be known with certainty, we cannot
assume that they have any bearing on what went on here prior to their reuse as Roman
building material.60
56
The first inscription (E 260 A-B) was discovered on two separate blocks built into the stylobate of the
South Stoa. Vollgraff (1904, p. 427, no. 8) originally published only the right side (E 260 B), but later he
(1919a, p. 165, no. 10) included the left side (E 260 A). For the ca. 100 date of the inscription, along with
images, see BCH 124 (2000), pp. 493-494. The second inscription (E 261) is dated to 63; see Vollgraff
1919b, pp. 260-263, no. 27; BCH 124 (2000), p. 492.
57
Vollgraff 1904, p. 427, no. 9.
58
E.g., the sekoma may have been reused for building material, and, therefore, removed from its original
context.
59
Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, p. 439.
60
Yet note how Piérart (BCH 124 [2000], p. 494) states that there must have been earlier commercial
activity in this area, based on the findspots of the agoranomoi inscriptions.
32
The identification of the agora does not become any more secure when we turn to
the ancient authors. One frequently cited example used as a topographical reference point
is the extensive discussion by Pausanias of the monuments within the Argive agora (see
appendix B).61 The 2nd century A.D. periēgētēs describes at length many cult sites,
statues, and dedications, but his account is difficult to piece together. One reason is that
he never specifies when he enters and leaves the agora. Not surprisingly, no monument
that Pausanias describes can be securely matched with any of the excavated remains in
the area assumed to be the Argive agora. One possible exception is the sanctuary of
Apollo Lykeios, which was one of the oldest and most important cults at Argos. It was
here that public decrees and lawcodes were inscribed on bronze plaques and stone pillars
and put on display under the protection of the god. Thucydides says this much when he
specifies that a treaty during the Peloponnesian War was inscribed on a stone pillar in the
Argive agora within the sanctuary of Apollo.62 There also have been numerous Argive
decrees recovered from excavations recording the stipulation that they be published in the
sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios.63
According to Pausanias in 2.19.3-7, the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios included
various cults and dedications inside the temenos. There was a throne of Danaos
(legendary Argive king and founder of the cult), a statue of Biton carrying a bull, the
eternal fire of Phoroneus, whom the Argives believed gave fire to mankind, wooden
61
Croissant 1972; Courtils 1981; Piérart 1982; Marchetti 1993; Marchetti 1994; Marchetti and Rizakis
1995; Piérart 1998.
62
Thuc. 5.47.9-11 (A49, see appendix A).
63
The most common formula for publication is expressed on the decrees as follows: ἀγγράψαι δὲ τὸ
δόκηµα…ἐν τῶι ἰαρῶι τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Λυκείου (or ἐν τῶι τοῦ Λυκείου ἰαρῶι); see Stroud 1984,
pp. 206-207. There is no single study where all inscriptions are presented together, although Marchetti and
Rizakis (1995, pp. 467-472) summarize some of the evidence.
33
images of Hermes and Aphrodite Nikephoros dedicated by Hypermnestra the daughter of
Danaos, and a number of other dedications by Danaos, including a relief decoration of a
wolf fighting a bull, columns, and wooden images of Zeus and Artemis. All of these
monuments of veneration were outside the temple proper (ναός), but within the temenos
(ἱερὸν) of Apollo. Judging from the number of monuments and objects described by
Pausanias, the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios must have been quite large. Inside the temple,
Pausanias specifies that he saw a statue of the famous Argive athlete Ladas, a statue of
Hermes playing a lyre made out of a tortoise shell, and the cult statue of Apollo made by
Attalos, an otherwise unknown Athenian sculptor of Pausanias’ time.
Pausanias does not explicitly state that the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios was in the
agora or even nearby, but fortunately this can be inferred from other ancient authors. In
the crucial passage of Thucydides just mentioned, the 5th century historian states that the
treaty was published in the Argive agora within the sanctuary of Apollo. The close
connection between the agora and Apollo Lykeios is confirmed by Sophocles in the
Elektra, who, clearly alluding to the epithet of Apollo as the wolf-god, describes the
agora at Argos as “of the god who kills wolves.”64 That the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios
is an important topographical key in the identification of the Argive agora is clear, but so
far excavations have been unable to pinpoint the precise location of the sanctuary.
Despite these uncertainties, there is reason to suspect that the sanctuary lies
somewhere to the north of the Hypostyle Hall. One indication is that many of the stone
decrees that stipulate their own publication in the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios were
64
Soph., El. 6-7 (A43).
34
found at the northwest corner of the putative agora.65 A second indication is that Doric
architectural blocks from an unknown Late Archaic building were reused in a Late
Roman structure in the Hypostyle Hall. There is general agreement – with good reason –
that these architectural blocks come from a monumental archive building within the
sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios, or even from the temple itself.66 A number of the architrave
blocks have nail holes on the front surface with the outline of rectangular plaques still
visible, and some even preserve lead nails and bronze fragments (fig. 2.6). These are the
remnants of bronze plaques, which presumably once held decrees and laws that were
attached to the building.67 In addition to the architectural blocks, the fragmentary remains
of a 5th century monumental triglyph altar from the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios were
discovered in the Hypostyle Hall. One of the altar fragments contains a Hellenistic
proxeny decree, specifying that it was to be set up in the sanctuary.68
The findspots of the Doric architectural members, the altar, and the inscriptions
imply that the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios should lie somewhere close to the Hypostyle
Hall. This would place the cult at the northwest corner of the agora. Even though this area
remains largely unexcavated, rescue operations have revealed sections of the eastern and
western portions of what may be a large terrace (fig. 2.3, 2-3).69 Patrick Marchetti argues
65
Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, pp. 467-472; Courbin 1998, p. 261.
66
For the most recent study, see Bommelaer and Courtils 1994, pp. 61-68.
67
One bronze plaque dating to the 5th century was discovered in the Hypostyle Hall; see Charneux 1953,
pp. 395-397, no. 3. Courtils (1981, p. 609) estimates that over 100 bronze plaques were once erected on the
temple.
68
Roux 1953, pp. 116-123.
69
For a summary of the rescue operations, and a discussion of the material, see Marchetti and Rizakis
1995, pp. 445-454. The western terrace lies more than 100 m north of the Hypostyle Hall, beneath modern
Gounaris Street. The eastern wall is roughly the same distance away, but towards the northeast. For a plan
of the area, see ibid, p. 438, fig. 1. The chronology of the terrace walls is poorly understood. Marchetti
35
that these walls, and the krepidoma adjacent to the orchestra, formed the temenos of the
sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios. The space enclosed by these three features is an irregular
polygon that measures approximately 6,000 m2. As supporting evidence, Marchetti points
out that building blocks near the eastern terrace are similar to those found reused in the
Hypostyle Hall. Certainly this is an appealing suggestion, but it is one that must remain
tentative until future excavations provide additional support.70
It should now be apparent that the arguments outlining the identification of the
Argive agora principally rely on bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence. They are
generally limited to a hazy understanding of Pausanias’ description of Argos and to
epigraphical evidence that is ambiguous at best. From the literary testimonia the
sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios is the only firm landmark that we can begin to formulate a
more coherent topographical plan of the Argive agora, but even the location of this
sanctuary is not without difficulties. The findspots of the Doric architectural members
and the decrees make it perfectly plausible that the cult was located somewhere north of
the Hypostyle Hall. However, until someone can demonstrate that the terrace walls and
krepidoma once enclosed a sacred temenos, and until foundations of a temple are
excavated, we can only speculate on the location of the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios.
Another problem is that Pausanias, a 2nd century A.D. Roman source, is
predominantly used to understand the physical structure and idiosyncrasies of the agora’s
earlier phases. Why the triangular space and cluster of buildings southeast of the Larissa
(ibid, p. 453) dates the earliest phase of the western terrace to the 5th century without supporting evidence.
He does not provide a date for the eastern terrace.
70
As far as I can tell, Marchetti is the only person who believes that the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios can
definitively be identified with the two terraces and the krepidoma; contra Courbin 1998, pp. 261-262.
36
can be identified as the Argive agora is a fundamental question in Argive topography that
deserves a detailed approach where other factors are exploited. The present chapter
tackles this issue from the source, by analyzing the architecture and urban structure of the
Greek agora at Argos from the first signs of occupation. The benefit is that we can begin
to formulate a comprehensive model for how space was structured and used within the
Argive agora over time, and use this model for comparison with other agoras in the
Peloponnese.
2.3. The Early Urban Context
It is difficult to characterize the formative stages of the Argive agora, because the
built environment does not take on permanent architectural form until the Late Archaic
and Classical periods (see table 1). This situation is often used as a pretext to overlook
earlier developments and attribute the formation of the agora to something that is more
easily recognizable in the archaeological record, such as monumental architecture. At
Argos the most common model creates a union between the democratic government
established in the 460s and the origins of the agora.71 What this interpretation overlooks,
however, are the diverse factors that contribute to the integration and demarcation of
commercial, religious, and civic space in an urban environment. As we shall see, the
“birth” of the Argive agora is a moot point to a certain degree, because its “inception”
cannot be attributed to a single event, let alone a political movement of the 5th century.
The driving force behind the Greek agora, albeit hazy at times because we are working
71
See, e.g., Courtils 1992; Viret Bernal 1992; Piérart 2003.
37
with a fragmentary physical record, may be traced to urban developments that occurred
centuries before the appearance of monumental form.
Protogeometric Period to the Middle Geometric Period
From the Protogeometric period to the Middle Geometric period (ca. 1050-750),
Argos consisted of three village-like clusters, all within 500 m from one another (fig.
2.7).72 Settlements appeared near the central square of the modern town, along the eastern
side of the Larissa hill, and further to the southwest in the region that was eventually
occupied by the agora. Their existence is known from the location of burials, the presence
of modest architectural remains (stone and mudbrick walls), and industrial installations
(furnaces).73 Rather than having a condensed urban center, early Argos consisted of
bands of small villages arranged kata komas, much like early Corinth and Sparta.
Generally speaking, urban form was fragmentary and denucleated.
From what can be extracted from the archaeological evidence, the southwest
region of the city acquired a heightened significance during these early stages. The signs
of occupation are more numerous and more diverse here than anywhere else, which
indicates that this “pre-agora” settlement was the largest of the three villages. A series of
walls dating to the Protogeometric period (ca. 1050-900), along with a furnace and
hearth, were discovered approximately 70 m northwest of the Hypostyle Hall.74 These are
the remains of domestic structures that lie close to a production center probably used for
72
Hall 1997, pp. 93-99; Vink 2002, pp. 54-56.
73
For an indication of the range of archaeological explorations, see Pariente and Touchais 1998, Pls. 6-14.
74
BCH 81 (1957), p. 677, fig. 31 (Granias plot).
38
the firing of pottery. Two more Protogeometric furnaces were found 100-140 m south of
the South Stoa.75 Other architectural features recovered here include a wall (40 m south)
and an apsidal building (300 m south) of the Early Geometric period (ca. 900-825).76
Like the structures to the northwest, these must be the remains of early Argive houses.
Even though the architectural evidence may seem paltry (4-5 domestic structures,
3 furnaces), these are the embryonic stages of urban practices at Argos. Put into greater
perspective, the material here is more than a single mudbrick house and 2-3 furnaces in
the settlement near the central square,77 and a single wall in the settlement below the
Larissa hill.78 Pottery deposits that span the Protogeometric period to the Middle
Geometric period are also more plentiful in the southwest than elsewhere. In addition,
when we consider the placement of burials, which cluster around the domestic structures
and deposits, there is every reason to believe that the southwest settlement was the most
dense pocket of habitation in early Argos. Presumably people here were living, working,
and burying their dead all in one region, and on a greater scale than anywhere else. Why
this place was preferred cannot readily be explained, so for the moment we can only
observe this phenomenon. The southwest region does not seem to have any topographical
advantages (elevation), or better resources (water supply). The explanation may have
75
BCH 91 (1967), p. 844, fig. 22 (Papaparaskevas plot); Vink 2002, p. 56, n. 9 (Kypseli plot).
76
Ibid, p. 54, n. 8 (Anagnostopoulos plot); BCH 78 (1954), p. 177; BCH 79 (1955), p. 314 (South
Cemetery).
77
For the house, see BCH 77 (1953), p. 211; BCH 78 (1954), pp. 413-414 (Bertzeletos plot). For the
furnaces, see BCH 83 (1959), p. 768, fig. 24 (east of the archaeological museum).
78
BCH 83 (1959), p. 757.
39
more to do with social conditions in the villages. If early Argos was dominated by groups
of influential clans, perhaps the dominant clan resided in the southwest settlement.79
Late Geometric Period
The density of habitation at the southwest settlement increases in the Late
Geometric period (ca. 750-690), and activity becomes more diverse (fig. 2.8). New are
votive deposits with terracotta figurines (females, warriors, horses, and chariots).80 The
exact nature of these finds is unclear, as are any associated cults.81 At the very least, they
hint at the emergence of cult activity in the southwest settlement, which is contemporary
with the appearance of Late Geometric cults elsewhere at Argos. Many fragments of Late
Geometric pottery and votives (terracotta figurines, miniature pottery, bronze objects) on
the Larissa hill are associated with the early cults of Zeus Larisaios and Athena Polias.82
Even though no architecture exists here before the 6th century, the pottery and votive
material, some of which was discovered below the foundations of the later temples,
demonstrate that the origins of the two cults are older than the monumentalization of the
sanctuaries. A similar trend is noticed on the neighboring Aspis hill, where Late
79
Vink 2002, p. 56.
80
At least four female figurines were found at the eastern end of the racetrack; see BCH 78 (1954), p. 166;
Foley 1988, p. 102. Warrior figurines and fragments of horses and chariots were found 100 m southeast of
the South Stoa; see BCH 91 (1967), p. 844; Sarian 1969, pp. 651-673; Foley 1988, pp. 102-103.
81
As Foley (ibid, pp. 102-103) points out, the context of the warrior figurines, and the horses and chariots,
was not properly recorded. Geometric graves were discovered in the area, but the excavators do not state
whether the figurines came from them or not; therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that they were
deposited as grave gifts.
82
Vink 2002, p. 56, n. 12.
40
Geometric pottery probably marks the beginning of cult activity at the sanctuary of
Apollo Pythios, almost 200 years before a permanent stone temple was built.83
It is noteworthy that the terracotta figurines from the southwest settlement are the
only vestiges of Late Geometric cult at Argos outside the Larissa and Aspis hills. One
major difference is that the hilltop sanctuaries were exclusively set aside for religious
purposes: so far excavations have found no contemporary domestic structures, burials, or
industrial activity near these cult sites. The demarcation of space, and the emergence of
designated areas to fulfill religious needs, is characteristic of 8th century urban
developments throughout the Ancient Mediterranean.84 The figurines from the “pre-
agora” region, however, are established within an area of habitation, where people not
only lived, but worked and buried their dead. More than anywhere else, this part of Argos
was characterized by a mixing of occupations.
Deposits with iron slag, metal fragments, and clay indicate that artisans were
working around the South Stoa in the Late Geometric period, as well as near the
semicircular orchestra further to the north.85 These remains are contemporary with a
rubble wall beneath the northern colonnade of the South Stoa,86 and two rubble walls
perpendicular to one another just south of the colonnade.87 Both have been identified by
the excavators as Late Geometric houses.88 A number of holes near the first structure may
83
Ibid, n. 14.
84
See, e.g., Polignac 1995; Hölscher 1998.
85
BCH 92 (1968), pp. 1020-1021; BCH 116 (1992), p. 676.
86
BCH 93 (1969), p. 976, figs. 9, 16; labeled as “wall beta” on the state plan (ibid, fig. 7).
87
BCH 102 (1978), p. 783, fig. 15.
88
The proximity of the structures to industrial waste may indicate that they were used as domestic quarters
and workshops; cf., e.g., two 7th century structures in the Corinthian agora (Protocorinthian House 1,
Trader’s Complex); see infra Chapter 3.2.
41
have been for the insertion of posts. Because of the poor state of preservation, their
ground plans cannot be known. However, it is interesting that the walls have the exact
same E-W orientation as two or three archaic structures nearby, and, more noticeably, the
northern colonnade of the South Stoa. The ramifications for this are potentially quite
significant. It shows that the spatial parameters of the Argive agora – at least on the
southern side – were very likely influenced by an arrangement of structures that pre-date
any classical building by as much as 250-300 years.
French excavations have identified the remains of a monumental Late Geometric
structure approximately 120 m southwest of the Hypostyle Hall.89 Two sections of a long
northern wall (fig. 2.9, U), and the single line of a western wall (fig. 2.9, AU) form the
boundary of a vast rectangular edifice that was more than 16 x 8 m2. Two N-S cross walls
(fig. 2.9, AX, AZ) show that the structure was subdivided into at least three rooms. The
walls are constructed out of large, polygonal limestone blocks set in a vertical line with
one stone, or as a pair side by side. The vertical course is crowned by a flat horizontal
course at a consistent height throughout the building (70-80 cm). In certain places, slabs
of limestone more then 2 m long have been employed in the construction. No trace of a
superstructure survives, suggesting that the building once had mudbrick walls or that it
was an open-air edifice.
As noted by the excavators, the dimensions are truly monumental and its careful
workmanship and use of large blocks attests to its importance for the inhabitants of Late
89
Bommelaer and Grandjean 1972, pp. 168-177, 226-227; Strøm 1988, p. 198; Vink 2002, p. 58. The
monumental structure is near the area labeled “Place des réfugiés” on figure 2.5.
42
Geometric Argos.90 For the time being it remains an isolated example of Argive
monumental architecture in the city during this period. The only contemporary
architecture of this kind in the Argolid comes from the Argive Heraion, where a large
polygonal terrace (late 8th century) was built to support the first stone temple (7th
century).91 Within close proximity of the monumental structure are a series of smaller
walls tentatively interpreted as terraces, some wells, and graves, all of which are common
in this region of the city during the Late Geometric period.92 At the very least, they show
that the monumental structure was integrated into the urban environment of the southwest
settlement, which continued to distinguish itself as the largest village at Argos. The scale
and workmanship of the Late Geometric structure go above and beyond any
contemporary domestic building at Argos. This hints at some sort of public function
related to the community at large or even an influential Argive faction.93
The Late Geometric developments at Argos show that the southwest settlement
was strengthening its impact within the urban fabric. It was a multi-functional venue,
where domestic, mortuary, industrial, and cult activities were all clustered around one
another. These trends can be placed within the context of specific social and political
transformations in the region. By the end of the 8th century, Argos began to exert more
influence over neighboring cities and territories in the Argive plain. This culminated in
90
Bommelaer and Grandjean 1972, p. 227.
91
Strøm (1988, p. 178) states that Early Protocorinthian sherds provide a late 8th century terminus post
quem for the date of the terrace; she dates the terrace ca. 700. For an extended bibliography on previous
research, see ibid, p. 178, n. 40. For the Old Temple, see ibid, pp. 178-191.
92
Bommelaer and Grandjean 1972, pp. 162-168.
93
Vink (2002, p. 58) argues that southwest area of the city had a civic center already in the Late Geometric
period, based upon the monumental structure and her view that the southwest region had the “largest
quantity of use-contexts.” In my opinion this is an over-interpretation of the evidence. For what its worth,
the monumental structure lies outside the area of classical agora.
43
the Argive destruction of Asine, a coastal town 17 km southeast of Argos.94 Along the
eastern side of the valley, the Argive Heraion received its first architectural
embellishments (terrace wall) just before the first stone temple was constructed. Argos is
usually credited with the initial construction and consolidation of the sanctuary, whose
emergence at this time is taken to be a sign of Argive intentions for territorial expansion.
Although some scholars have misgivings of an Argive hegemony at such an early period,
especially with respect to the Heraion, it would be careless to dismiss Argos as an
influential participant during the formative years of the sanctuary.95
The articulation of authority over the surrounding plain was concurrent with the
emergence of a more stratified society at Argos. The wealth of certain burials attests to
the prosperity of certain groups, who themselves may have been responsible for the
growing military prowess of Argos around the end of the 8th century. The best
illustration of these new trends in burial customs are a number of tombs with rich
deposits of armor, weapons, and obeloi. These so-called warrior tombs indicate that
Argos had an elite class of citizens that welcomed ostentatious displays of wealth and
power.96 It is perhaps not by chance that these new burial practices were simultaneous
with an increased concentration of habitation in the southwest settlement, which
ultimately became an important commercial, religious, and civic center of Argos. I am
more inclined to acknowledge these transformations, rather than prematurely characterize
this region as an early agora in the Late Geometric city.
94
Tomlinson 1972, pp. 75-76; Kelly 1976, pp. 64-67.
95
See, e.g., Hall 1995.
96
Courbin 1957; Courbin 1974; Viret Bernal 1992, pp. 74-78.
44
Seventh Century Developments
The 7th century marks a transitional period in the history of the city with a
continued emphasis on strengthening the urban and social reforms of the Late Geometric
period. There is further consolidation of space, and areas of the city are partitioned off for
specific activities. By the middle of the 7th century burials are mainly confined to
communal cemeteries that border the periphery of the inhabited area (fig. 2.10).97 This
development is consistent with wider trends in Greek urban practices, where the dead
were restricted to large cemeteries beyond the immediate areas of habitation. At Corinth,
for example, the eradication of burials in the central area of the city during the 7th
century was contemporary with an increase in industrial, commercial, and cult activity, as
well as the construction of fortification walls.98 At Argos, however, we are still unclear
how the city responded to these urban changes. No large urban temple was built until the
archaic temples to Zeus Larisaios and Athena Polias on the Larissa hill, no early
fortifications are known from this period, and industrial activity is invisible in the
archaeological record.
Compared to the previous century, new constructions in the southwest settlement
and elsewhere are noticeably less.99 The earlier cults near the classical agora do not
continue, and industrial activity ceases. Those cults on the Larissa and Aspis hills
continue and some new cults do appear, but these are mainly outside the southwest
97
Hall 1997, p. 99; Vink 2002, p. 58.
98
See infra Chapter 3.2.
99
Vink 2002, p. 58.
45
settlement.100 The one major exception is the establishment of the sanctuary of Aphrodite
on the southeastern slopes of the Larissa hill, approximately 150 m east of the Hypostyle
Hall (fig. 3, D). Here, the earliest votives (terracotta figurines, miniature pottery) and
ceramics date to the end of the 7th century.101 The excavator has even suggested that a
small oikos dedicated to the goddess may have existed at this time, but no architectural
confirmation exists to support this theory.102
The evidence from burials and cults is our best indication of how the urban
structure of Argos was unfolding during the 7th century. On the other hand, the near
complete lack of a large urban temple, domestic architecture, industrial installations, and
fortification walls is puzzling. This circumstance may be explained in a number of ways,
not least of which is the limited scope of excavations to pre-archaic levels. Considering
that the Old Temple at the Heraion was erected in the 7th century, perhaps Argos chose
to invest its resources elsewhere.103 In addition, the Argives never participated in any
major colonization projects, nor were they interested in exporting pottery to foreign
markets on the same scale as Corinth, its powerful commercial neighbor to the north.
Other commodities may have been more profitable to export, such as agricultural
products and other perishable goods, but we have no way of knowing this for certain.104
Contacts with eastern traders were scarce, and very little oriental material dating to the
7th century has been recovered at Argos or the Argive Heraion.105 Overall, it seems that
100
E.g., votive material near the central square marks a new cult site; see BCH 104 (1980), p. 599.
101
BCH 93 (1969), p. 996; BCH 97 (1973), pp. 476-479.
102
BCH 93 (1969), p. 1002; Piérart 2003, p. 61.
103
See, e.g., Strøm 1988, pp. 197-200.
104
Aupert 1982, p. 28.
105
Kelly 1976, pp. 81-83; Aupert 1982, p. 28.
46
Argos did not require the kind of industrial and commercial infrastructure that we find in
other Peloponnesian cities during the same period.
From what can be gathered about the political and military history of Argos
during the 7th century, the city was predominantly interested in exerting its power and
influence on a regional scale in the Argolid valley and in eastern Arcadia. Just as Argos
destroyed Asine in the late 8th century, the coastal city of Nauplia was sacked by Argos
in the late 7th century.106 Military conflicts with Sparta are known to have occurred as
well. According to historical tradition, the hostilities between Argos and Sparta began as
early as the late 8th century, which shows that the two cities had conflicting interests as
regional powerhouses. Most notably the Argives scored a decisive victory at Hysiai in
669, subduing Spartan interests along the undefined border between Arcadia and the
Argolid.107 Argos also aided the Messenians against the Spartans during the Second
Messenian War.
2.4. Towards an Archaic Agora
Over the course of the Archaic period, the urban landscape of Argos undergoes
significant transformations. The three village-like clusters that had predominated ever
since the Protogeometric period disappear by the end of the Archaic period, in favor of a
more nucleated community focused on the southwest settlement (fig. 2.11).108 Argos is a
classic case of a de-nucleated urban environment coalescing into a single dominant urban
106
Kelly 1976, pp. 88-89.
107
669 is the traditional date for the battle of Hysiai. Note, however, that Kelly (1976, pp. 86-88) questions
the validity of such a battle taking place in the 7th century, as well as Argive help in the Second Messenian
War.
108
Vink 2002, p. 60.
47
center by a gradual process spanning several centuries. As is often the case, it is within
these nucleated centers that important urban sanctuaries, trade and commerce, and
eventually political and judicial pursuits thrive. It is a process that must result from these
places traditionally being venues that bridge together different forms of human
occupations. Similar patterns are observed at other Peloponnesian cities, of which
Corinth is the most obvious example. Here, the main urban temple of Apollo and the
Corinthian agora developed around Temple Hill, which, since the Geometric period, had
always been the largest and most manifold settlement of the city.109
Since the southwest settlement was at an early stage the most prosperous village
of early Argos, it is not surprising that the inhabitants chose this region of the city to
coalesce into a more unified center. Urban consolidation is indicated by a drop-off in
occupation at the other two village clusters, and from developments that occur at the end
of the 6th century within the area of the agora and its immediate vicinity. These include
the construction of the Cephisos canal waterworks system, the sanctuary of Apollo
Lykeios, the sanctuary of Aphrodite, commercial structures, and likely a heroon
dedicated to the legendary Theban heroes.
Before this time, however, and during the first three-quarters of the 6th century,
the urban fabric of Archaic Argos is imperfectly understood because the archaic material
within the city is patchy. It is possible that the Argives constructed fortification walls at
an early date that enclosed the Larissa hill and Aspis hill, and much of the lower city
109
48
below the two acropoleis further east.110 Domestic buildings and public architecture are
in short supply. Foundations for two 6th century temples on the Larissa hill are evidence
that the cults of Zeus Larisaios and Athena Polias finally received monumental form in
the Archaic period; however, a more precise date other than the 6th century cannot be
provided.111 There may well have been early temples to Apollo Pythios on the Aspis hill
and Apollo Lykeios in the agora, but the architectural evidence is lacking. Architectural
terracottas from the sanctuary of Apollo Pythios date to the second-half of the 6th century
and imply the presence of an early temple, but so far no foundations have been
recovered.112 Near the Hellenistic theater a number of 6th century terracotta figurines
mark the presence of some cult there. Molds for the figurines and traces of firing show
that they were produced in the same area.113 Two unknown cults have also been found
near the modern cemetery south of the agora, and just west of the central square of the
modern town. Both have large quantities of votive deposits, while the southern site has
foundations of a potentially contemporary temple.114
Beyond the Early Archaic cult sites and fortifications, the best indication of land
use comes from the distribution of graves. Showing continuity with the previous century,
burials are predominantly restricted to a select number of places (south and north) that
coincide with the 7th century cemeteries.115 There was a concerted effort by the Argives
110
Frederiksen 2004; Frederiksen, forthcoming. The archaic date is based largely on masonry style, and, in
fact, some sections of the walls might date as early as the 7th century.
111
Viret Bernal 1992, pp. 65-66.
112
Vollgraff 1956, pp. 18-19; Courtils 1992, p. 244.
113
Guggisberg 1988. For the preliminary reports, see BCH 106 (1982), p. 647; BCH 107 (1983), pp. 839-
840.
114
Banaka-Dimaki 2002, pp. 108-116.
115
Vink 2002, p. 60.
49
to eliminate graves within the inhabitable space, which was a marked departure from the
Protogeometric and geometric phases of the city. It also illustrates the formal
demarcation of space for specific uses, continuing a trend that began in the Late
Geometric period with the establishment of cults on the two acropoleis.
The Late Archaic construction in the Argive agora is of special interest (fig. 2.12).
Significant alterations to the built environment here bear witness that the Argives
intended to transform the spatial environment into something more formal: boundaries
were given better definition, the sanctuary of the most important poliadic deity (Apollo
Lykeios) was given monumental form, a heroon established a connection to the city’s
legendary past, and commercial establishments attest to the area being used for
mercantile activity. All of this occurred within the space of what is recognized as the
classical agora, showing that the initial stages of a more formally demarcated agora
emerged in the Late Archaic period. A recognition of this phase in the urban history of
Argos dismisses the notion that the Argive agora was created ex nihilo during the
Classical period.
Cephisos Canal
The area north of the South Stoa and east of the Hypostyle Hall was one of the
lowest lying areas of Argos and susceptible to annual flooding. The terrain gradually rises
westwards towards the Larissa hill, and a natural ridge defines the southern area. It was
on this southern ridge where at least two Late Geometric domestic structures were
constructed, and eventually the South Stoa in the Classical period. The marshy lowlands
50
north of the ridge required proper draining facilities to be usable. This happened in the
Late Archaic period, when a large collection channel and conduit for water was built. The
Cephisos canal, named after a tributary of the Inachos river, was a crucial collection area
and drainage system that made the construction of permanent structures within the Argive
agora possible (fig. 2.12, EA).116 Before the Late Archaic period there is no evidence of
any stone or mudbrick architecture north of the ridge, no wells, and not a single grave has
been found.
The Late Archaic phase of the channel consisted of an open-air drainage system,
which was elaborated in later periods.117 Water from the north was channeled and
collected into a holding basin, and then transported through the open space of the agora
towards the south. It is worth noting the similarities to early drainage systems at Athens
and Corinth that were vital for the initial development and expansion of the agoras in
these cities. In the Athenian agora, a large Late Archaic drain (Great Drain) transported
water to the nearby Eridanos river. The waterworks system enabled the Athenians to
construct a series of religious and administrative buildings along the western side of the
agora during the Late Archaic and Classical periods.118 At Corinth, a substantial drain
was built in the Corinthian agora already in the Middle Geometric period (ca. 825-750).
116
The 1977 excavations of the archaic phase of the Cephisos canal remain unpublished. For brief reports,
see BCH 107 (1983), p. 844; Piérart and Touchais 1996, pp. 50-51; Pariente et al. 1998, pp. 215-216;
Piérart 2003, p. 62.
117
For a description of the later phases of the Cephisos canal, see BCH 77 (1953), p. 250; BCH 101 (1977),
p. 675; BCH 102 (1978), pp. 784-787; BCH 107 (1983), pp. 842-844; BCH 2006 (130), pp. 708-713.
118
The Great Drain in the Athenian agora dates to ca. 500; see Agora XIV, pp. 194-195.
51
The drain was used up until the Roman period, and its orientation dictated the alignment
of structures within the agora for many centuries to come.119
Mercantile Activity
Contemporary with the Cephisos canal are a series of pre-stoa walls on the
southern ridge (fig. 2.12, PA). They have the exact same orientation as later classical and
Hellenistic structures, and indicate that the southern parameters of the agora were given
definition by the Late Archaic period. Two sections of a long rubble wall oriented in an
E-W direction were found beneath the northern colonnade of the South Stoa (fig. 2.13).120
That the walls are more or less aligned with one another raises the possibility of a single
structure more than 30 m in length, or at least an associated complex. In addition to this,
the longer eastern wall was bisected by two cross-walls that are only preserved for a few
meters, meaning that the Late Archaic structure had a minimum of four rooms. Both the
northern and southern extensions of the cross-walls were destroyed when the stylobate of
the South Stoa was erected in the Classical period.
Approximately 25 m to the south, the remains of two rectangular rooms are
partially preserved beneath the “palaistra” courtyard adjacent to the South Stoa.121 Here,
an E-W polygonal wall that measures approximately 10 m in length is joined by a shorter
N-S cross-wall. In addition to pottery recovered from the building which places its
construction in the 6th century, a number of inscribed lead weights and plaques allude to
119
120
For the western section, see BCH 93 (1969), pp. 976-977; BCH 99 (1975), p. 705. For the eastern
section, see BCH 108 (1984), p. 845. A summary of the remains can be found in Pariente et al. 1998, pp.
212-213.
121
BCH 110 (1986), pp. 764-765; BCH 111 (1987), pp. 590-591.
52
a commercial and administrative function. One of the plaques deals with the delivery of a
diverse number of commercial goods, such as straw (ἄχυρο).122 Besides these, other
weights and lead plaques come from disturbed levels above the same structure, and
should probably be associated with the complex. Many Attic black-glazed cups were also
found here, and a graffito scratched on the bottom of one appears to be a dedication to a
hero.123
The nature of the finds (weights, accounting records, votive objects) do not hint at
the presence of domestic structures, but are more indicative that the pre-stoa buildings on
the southern ridge played a commercial and administrative role in the archaic agora of
Argos. Although the weights and plaques were only recovered from the southern
structure, the size, orientation, and position of the northern complex signify that it too
was a building of some importance. The Late Geometric house nearby must have
influenced its alignment, which in turn influenced the orientation of the South Stoa. No
building or monument was constructed to the north throughout the Archaic and Classical
periods, meaning that it occupied a visible position in the Argive agora until being
replaced by the South Stoa in the third-quarter of the 5th century.
Sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios
By the Late Archaic period the area occupied by the classical agora had at least
one permanent stone temple. This was the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios, whose precise
122
The weights and plaques remain unpublished. For a brief description, see BCH 111 (1987), pp. 590-591;
SEG 1987, nos. 284-286.
123
The graffito reads εὐ<χὴν> τὸ hέροος. A similar graffito was found near the Hellenistic theater; see
BCH 80 [1956], pp. 386-387.
53
location remains elusive, but in all probability stood somewhere north of the Hypostyle
Hall.124 Inscriptions that stipulate their dedication within the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios
predominantly come from the northwest corner of the agora, and Doric architrave blocks
from the Hypostyle Hall reused as building material were likely taken from the temple or
an associated archive building. As already pointed out, Marchetti maintains that the
boundaries of the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios should be identified with a series of
terrace walls and the krepidoma adjacent to the semicircular orchestra (fig. 2.3, “Terrasse
d’Apollon”).125 Others are less convinced, arguing that the sanctuary instead lies more to
the east.126 At any rate, the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios cannot be too far away from the
Hypostyle Hall. It must have been a defining feature of the northwest corner of the
Argive agora and an imposing monument in the lower city.
The connection between the cult of Apollo Lykeios and civic administration is
clear on a number of levels. The god was a tutelary divinity and a vital guarantor of
political life at Argos. Treaties, public documents, and lawcodes were set up on pillars
within the sanctuary, or on bronze plaques attached to an archive building and maybe
even the temple itself. The god provided the city’s inhabitants with religious and political
authority, as did the similar cult of Apollo at Corinth whose imposing temple on Temple
Hill looks out upon the Corinthian agora. In connecting the cult of Apollo Lykeios with
public record keeping, Thucydides demonstrates the elevated standing of the god in the
124
See supra Chapter 2.2.
125
Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, pp. 445-454.
126
Support for a northern location for the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios: Piérart 1993; Moretti 1993, p. 6;
Hall 1997, p. 102; Courbin 1998. The only real decent comes from Piteros (1998, p. 192), who believes that
the sanctuary should be found at the northeast corner of the agora.
54
religious urban landscape at Argos.127 Similarly, Pausanias comments in 2.19.3 that the
god’s cult was the most important in the city.
The prominence of Apollo Lykeios was established at the very same time – if not
well before – his sanctuary received monumental form. The Doric architrave blocks from
the Hypostyle Hall place this in the Late Archaic period, sometime around 500.128 Apollo
Lykeios’ cult was intimately connected to Late Archaic developments within the Argive
agora, and his authoritative presence must have been a cornerstone of the new urban
landscape here. The cult is a prime example of the integration of monumental sanctuaries
within the urban fabric of Argos by the Late Archaic period. So far it is the only large
archaic sanctuary that is known at Argos beyond the cults on the two acropoleis. It is not
by accident, therefore, that the Argives chose to establish Apollo Lykeios firmly in the
Argive agora.
Contemporary with the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios was a small square structure
northwest of the Hypostyle Hall (figs. 2.3, 1; 2.14). Inside the building, excavators found
a deposit containing two tortoise shells, pottery, figurines, and bones mixed with ash.129
In a detailed study of the tortoise shells, Paul Courbin notes that holes in the shells once
held strings, and that the shells were used as lyres. As Hermes is the god often credited
with inventing the lyre, we might suspect a connection between this god and the small
cult site here.130 It was also during the Late Archaic period that the sanctuary of
Aphrodite on the slopes of the Larissa hill received its first altar and permanent building
127
Thuc. 5.47.11 (A49).
128
Bommelaer and Courtils 1994, pp. 61-68.
129
Courbin 1980.
130
Hymn. Hom. Hermes 41-48.
55
(a stoa).131 This shows the inclination of the Argives to enhance the periphery of the
agora (Apollo Lykeios), or areas close by (Aphrodision), with sanctuaries.
Heroon of the Theban Heroes
A heroon to those who fought in the legendary Theban expedition (Seven against
Thebes) was likely constructed in the agora by the end of the 6th century (fig. 2.15).132
The monument was fairly simple, consisting of a number of upright boundary markers
that surrounded an open central space (figs. 2.16; 2.17). Wooden bars were attached to
each of the markers and joined together to form a boundary fence. The bars no longer
exist, but circular cavities on two or three sides of each marker attest to their presence in
the original construction. Interestingly, the holes do not correctly line up for the erection
of a boundary fence in their present arrangement, and not surprisingly the stratigraphy
indicates that the heroon was reerected here in the 4th century A.D.
One of the markers carries an archaic inscription that identifies the monument as a
dedication to the legendary Argive heroes who died at Thebes: ἡρώων τῶν ἐν Θέβαις
(“of the heroes in Thebes,” see fig. 2.18).133 That the Argives had at least one other
dedication to the same heroes in the Argive agora is known from Pausanias, who
mentions that he saw statues of the seven leaders who died at Thebes in the Argive
131
The full extent of the stoa is not known, but it had at least 10 columns; see BCH 97 (1973), p. 479; BCH
98 (1974), pp. 759-761.
132
Pariente 1992.
133
The early lettering style dates the heroon to the second-half of the 6th century. It is unclear whether the
first word reads ἡρῷον (nominative singular, “the heroon of those at Thebes”), or ἡρώων (genitive plural,
“of the heroes at Thebes”); see ibid, pp. 197-200.
56
agora.134 He further says that the Argives adopted the group and the number seven after
the play of Aeschylus (produced in 467). As other scholars have noted, Pausanias must be
referring to another Theban dedication, rather than the archaic heroon which dates well
before the production of Aeschylus’ play.135 That there did exist an earlier dedication to
the heroes who fought at Thebes is certain. Less clear is whether it was originally erected
in the archaic agora. Similar monuments from other cities (e.g. Corinth, Athens, Elis)
show that small heroa dedicated to a legendary hero or lawgiver were ubiquitous in
archaic and classical agoras. The Theban dedication at Argos would certainly not be out
of place in the agora.136 The fact that Pausanias saw a statue group of the same heroes
makes it probable that a predecessor of the heroon was included within the commercial
and civic center of Argos, but this cannot be known with certainty.
Summary of Archaic Developments
Two trends become obvious from this brief description of the archaic agora at
Argos. First, the Argives set about to create a more complex urban center. Water
channels prevented seasonal flooding from occurring and the boundaries of the agora
were given greater definition. The southern side was defined by the natural ridge and a
series of commercial structures, while the northern side was marked by the sanctuary of
134
Paus. 2.20.5.
135
Pariente 1992, p. 203.
136
For the Heroon of the Crossroads in the Corinthian agora, see infra Chapter 3.2. In Athens, after Kimon
recovered the bones of Theseus from Skyros, he built a complex called the Theseion near the Old Agora to
house the remains; see Miller 1995b, 209-10. According to Pausanias (6.24.9), the Eleans had a heroon to
Oxylus, one of the city’s legendary founders, in their agora. For a general introduction to heroa in Greek
agoras, see Kenzler 1999, pp. 184-195. Polignac (1995, 128-49) considers hero worship to be an important
ideological process in early state formation.
57
Apollo Lykeios. These features along with the Cephisos canal in the middle of the
ensemble are the best reference points for the topographical boundaries of the archaic
agora. Although some scholars favor a more sprawling archaic agora, extending all the
way to the Larissa hill, there is nothing in the archaeological or literary testimonia on
which to support this hypothesis.137
The second trend is that we see a combination of commercial and religious
structures in a single venue. From the public documents set up in the sanctuary of Apollo
Lykeios, we also recognize a connection between urban temple and city administration.
More than anything it is this blending of different activities related to the everyday social
and administrative needs of the Argives that really stands out. The southwest region of
the city had always favored a union between diverse occupations, but it is not until the
Late Archaic period that we can truly begin to recognize an agora within the city of
Argos. Approaching the evolution of the agora with the longue durée in mind, and
acknowledging that different factors contribute to the early development of an agora, we
recognize that the formative stages of the Argive agora were a gradual process that
culminated in a more formal environment only in the Late Archaic period.
2.5. Consolidation and Monumentalization: The Classical Period
The Argive agora witnessed intense building activity throughout the Classical
period, including the construction of conspicuous public facilities, more urban

137
Viret Bernal (1992, p. 83) wants to place the archaic agora near the Stepped Theater, believing that only
after the democratic in the Classical period did the agora extends further to the east. Vink (2002, p. 58)
imagines a large agora existing in the southwest settlement, possibly as early as the Late Geometric period.
Marchetti and Rizakis (1995, pp. 441-443), and Marchetti (1994, pp. 151-152; 2000, pp. 274-276) argue
that the classical agora extended all the way to the slopes of the Larissa hill; see infra Chapter 2.5.
58
sanctuaries, and commercial and cultural venues that fulfilled the everyday needs of the
city’s inhabitants (figs. 2.19; 2.20). As we have already seen in the previous two sections,
the underlying principles that contributed to the establishment of the agora had its origins
in the settlement patterns of the Geometric period and the 7th century, while the
transition to a formal agora did not commence on any measurable scale until the Late
Archaic period. Developments during the Classical period must be put into this broader
perspective, if we are to appreciate the complexities of the agora’s makeup. They do not
mark the beginning, but, rather, a continuation and modification of preexisting urban
practices. Social and political factors, including the establishment of a democratic
government in the 460s, may very well have contributed to the agora acquiring a new
face during the Classical period. Yet the developments within the Argive agora at this
time were by no means isolated, but rather symptomatic of a wider progression towards a
more complex and monumental public space within the classical Greek city, regardless of
social structure and constitution.
According to the archaeological record, construction within the Argive agora
remained stagnant until the addition of the South Stoa and the Hypostyle Hall in the
second-half of the 5th century. Excluding archaic temple architecture and the Late
Geometric monumental building, the South Stoa and Hypostyle Hall were the largest
structures ever built at Argos up until now. The South Stoa was a monumental successor
of comparably modest buildings, replacing the earlier commercial and administrative
buildings on the southern ridge. On the other hand, the Hypostyle Hall occupied a
previously undeveloped location and became a new addition to the built environment.
59
Both structures appear to have been part of a single building program: the northern
colonnade of the South Stoa is so closely aligned with the southern wall of the Hypostyle
Hall to preclude any disassociation (fig. 2.21).138 Pottery deposits beneath the eastern
colonnade of the South Stoa place its construction, and therefore that of the Hypostyle
Hall, in the third-quarter of the 5th century. This date is not too far removed from the
traditional date for the Hypostyle Hall (ca. 460), which is based on uncertain architectural
and historical considerations. By acknowledging that both structures were interconnected
and part of the same urban renewal program in the agora, we recognize that the Argive
agora was enhanced by a monumental architectural program in the third-quarter of the
5th century.139
Hypostyle Hall
In plan the Hypostyle Hall was a perfect square (32.78 m2) with 16 internal
supports arranged four columns to a side (fig. 2.22).140 According to the architectural
reconstruction by Bommelaer and des Courtils, the Hypostyle Hall had a monumental
eastern facade with 14 Doric columns in antis. This must remain only a tentative solution.
While there is no doubt that the building faced the agora, no columns or superstructure
138
Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, pp. 463-467.
139
The Stepped Theatron also dates to this period (see below). The sanctuary of Aphrodite on the slopes of
the Larissa hill received its first permanent stone temple in the second-half of the 5th century. For the
preliminary reports, see BCH 92 (1968), pp. 1021-1039; BCH 93 (1969), pp. 986-1024; BCH 95 (1971), pp.
745-747; BCH 96 (1972), pp. 883-886; BCH 97 (1973), pp. 476-481; BCH 98 (1974), pp. 759-763; BCH 99
(1975), pp. 696-699.
140
Bommelaer and Courtils (1994) is the definitive architectural study of the Hypostyle Hall. The building
was first uncovered in the early years of French excavations by Vollgraff (1907), who thought that it was a
temple. The structure was restudied by Roux in the 1950s; see BCH 77 (1953), pp. 244-248. Work
continued in the 1970s and 1980s under different excavators; see BCH 97 (1973), p. 482; BCH 100 (1976),
p. 754; BCH 105 (1981), p. 906; BCH 108 (1984), pp. 845-846; BCH 112 (1988), pp. 708-709.
60
survive, nor is the eastern stylobate well-enough preserved to understand its original
arrangement.141 Likewise, the reconstruction of the internal order is problematic, because
the 16 supports are only preserved to foundation level. Georges Roux originally argued
that the internal arrangement of the building was in the Ionic order: a suggestion based on
the discovery of three Ionic column bases found in secondary use in the South Stoa.142 An
analysis of these column bases shows that their dimensions closely match the supports in
the Hypostyle Hall (fig. 2.23). The problem, however, is that the single internal support
in the Hypostyle Hall preserving its upper course does not have a vertical dowel hole,
whereas the Ionic bases do.143
Despite uncertainties in the architectural details, the Hypostyle Hall was an
impressive monumental building in the Argive agora. The overall quality of construction
and workmanship is unmistakable. It was built out of large limestone and brown poros
stone, joins were finely finished with anathyrosis, and the large orthostate blocks had
drafted edges (fig. 2.24).144 Based on architectural considerations, such as the use of T-
clamps, Roux initially dated the building to the first-half of the 5th century. He later
down-dated the building to the end of the 5th century based on the profile of the Ionic
bases.145 Pottery recovered from the building’s foundations cannot provide an absolute
141
The east krepidoma is preserved to its full height at the southeast corner, where there are vague traces of
tool marks worked in a semicircular fashion. On the basis of this, Bommelaer and Courtils (1994, pp. 24-
26) restore a colonnade.
142
BCH 77 (1953), p. 246; Roux 1961, p. 336.
143
Bommelaer and des Courtils (1994, p. 27) do not see this as a problem, maintaining that a dowel hole on
the bottom of a column base does not require a lower course with a dowel.
144
Ibid, p. 11.
145
For Roux’s initial date of the first-half of the 5th century, see BCH 77 (1953), p. 246; Bommelaer and
des Courtils (1994, p. 29). For the downdating, see Roux 1961, p. 336.
61
chronology, only a terminus post quem of the early 5th century.146 In most published
accounts since Roux, the Hypostyle Hall is dated around 460, because a connection is
drawn between the supposed function of the building and the democratic reforms at
Argos.147 The basic thought process of the theory goes something like this: (a) the
Hypostyle Hall was an appropriate building to hold public assemblies, (b) since the
Argives adopted a democratic constitution around 460, they needed a large auditorium
for civic officials during this period, therefore, (c) the Hypostyle Hall was likely a civic
building in the Argive agora and was probably a bouleuterion.
Architectural comparanda for the Hypostyle Hall at Argos are relatively scarce,
but the few examples that do survive from the Archaic and Classical periods show that
these types of buildings were inherently multi-functional, they were not confined to a
Greek agora, nor were they necessarily used for political gatherings. The closest parallels
are the Telesterion at Eleusis, the Odeion of Perikles at Athens, and the Thersilion at
Megalopolis. Built in the second-half of the 6th century, the Telesterion at Eleusis was
nearly a perfect square (25 m x 27 m) with internal supports arranged five columns to a
side. Its plan was modified throughout the 5th century, and by the time of Perikles the
Telesterion was enlarged to be a perfect square (52 m x 52 m) with 42 internal supports
(fig. 2.25).148 A row of seats along three sides of the interior perimeter accommodated
initiates during sacred rites. By the 4th century a colonnaded porch was added to the
southern entrance of the structure. The Odeion of Perikles at Athens had 90 internal
146
BCH 97 (1973), p. 482; BCH 100 (1976), p. 754.
147
Courtils 1992, pp. 248-250 (ca. 450); Bommelaer and des Courtils 1994, p. 30 (ca. 460); Marchetti
1994, p. 134 (ca. 460); Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, p. 455 (ca. 460); Piérart and Touchais 1996, pp. 48-49
(second-quarter of 5th century); Pariente et al. 1998 (second-quarter of 5th century); Kenzler 1999, p. 316.
148
Travlos 1988, pp. 91-169.
62
supports, and was considerably larger (62 m x 69 m) than the Telesterion at Eleusis (fig.
2.26).149 Most ancient sources indicate a construction date in the 440s, during the time of
Perikles. The ancient testimonia also stress the variety of activities that took place within
this building. Throughout its lifetime it was used as a concert hall, a lawcourt, a grain
dispensary, a marshaling area for cavalry, and a lecture hall. The Thersilion at
Megalopolis, dating to the middle of the 4th century, was close in size and plan to the
other hypostyle halls (66.65 m x 52.43 m) and had between 60-67 internal supports (fig.
5.14).150 Like the Telesterion at Eleusis, the Thersilion had a colonnaded porch at the
southern entrance. From Pausanias we know that the Thersilion was used as one of the
gathering venues – but not the only one – of the Arcadian Confederacy during the 4th
century; it was likely used by the Achaean Confederacy in the Hellenistic period. Since
gatherings of the Arcadian and Achaean Confederacy were not frequent, the Thersilion
must have been used for other cultural functions, much like the Odeion of Perikles at
Athens.
The Hypostyle Hall at Argos falls squarely within the architectural tradition of the
Telesterion at Eleusis and the Thersilion at Megalopolis, and it is more or less
contemporary with the Odeion of Perikles at Athens. Although all of these hypostyle
halls accommodated large groups of people, none were used as a bouleuterion. It is true
that two, albeit much smaller hypostyle halls, can be identified with a fair degree of
certainty as bouleuteria. These are the Old Bouleuterion at Athens (traditional date of ca.
500), and the putative bouleuterion at Megalopolis (ca. 360-350), both of which were
149
Travlos 1971, pp. 387-391; Camp 2001, pp. 100-101.
150
63
located in an agora (figs. 5.11; 5.13).151 It is not until the Early Hellenistic period that we
find examples of square and rectangular hypostyle halls being used for civic gatherings.
One example is the bouleuterion at Sikyon, whose size (41 m x 40 m) was appreciably
larger than the Hypostyle Hall at Argos, but was similar in that it had 16 internal column
supports (fig. 2.27).152 The building at Sikyon, however, dates 125-150 years after the
construction of the Hypostyle Hall at Argos, and belongs to a much later architectural
tradition.153 Square and rectangular hypostyle halls become more frequent in the
Hellenistic period, and, while some were used as bouleuteria, many others were not.154
As these examples show, the relationship between the form of the Hypostyle Hall
at Argos and civic gatherings is a very tenuous association.155 Beyond the political
connection that scholars are eager to see, there is no archaeological evidence or anything
in the literary testimonia to explain the Hypostyle Hall’s function. The main problem
with linking the architectural form and date of the building to democratic reforms is that
we risk exaggerating the role of democracy on urban form.156 The notion that the
Hypostyle Hall was a civic structure is one possibility; however, we cannot be certain
151
For the Old Bouleuterion at Athens, see Camp 1986, pp. 52-53. Miller (1995a) discusses the problems in
dating and identification. For the bouleuterion at Megalopolis, see infra Chapter 5.4.
152
Gneisz 1990, pp. 351-352, no. 59.
153
Bommelaer and des Courtils 1994, pp. 45-46. Courtils (1992, p. 249) even suggests that the Hypostyle
Hall served as a model for the bouleuterion at Sikyon.
154
For another hypostyle hall used as a bouleuterion, I note the one at Dodona (early 3rd century); see
Gneisz 1990, pp. 316-317, no. 19; Dieterle 2007, pp. 133-139. Hypostyle halls that were not bouleuteria
include the Thersilochos Monument at Thasos (late 4th century); see Grandjean and Salviat 2000, pp. 140-
142; and the Hypostyle Hall at Delos (late 3rd century); see Bruneau and Ducat 2005, pp. 214-216.
155
This is a question that deserves a much more full treatment than I am able to present here.
156
Courtils 1992, p. 249 (civic assemblies); Bommelaer and des Courtils 1994, pp. 44-47 (bouleuterion or
dual function); Piérart and Touchais 1996, pp. 48-49 (prytaneion or bouleuterion); Pariente et al. 1998, p.
213 (prytaneion or bouleuterion). Marchetti (1994, pp. 134; 151-153) argues that the Hypostyle Hall was
the monument of Danaos that Strabo (8.6.9) identifies as lying in the middle of the Argive agora.
According to the ancient geographer, the Argives built a grave to Danaos here called the palinthos. Related
to this argument is Marchetti’s argument that the classical agora stretched all the way to the Larissa hill,
which would place the Hypostyle Hall in the center; see Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, pp. 442-443.
64
that it was the Argive bouleuterion. First, the oligarchic government that preceded the
democracy had a boulē and a bouleuterion. Herodotus describing events during the
Persian Wars clearly states this.157 If the oligarchic Argive boulē met within an
architectural setting at this time, we have no idea where it was located. The Corinthian
boulē met in the sanctuary of Apollo near the agora, so perhaps the Argive boulē also met
under the auspices of Apollo Lykeios.158 What must be stressed is that bouleuteria are not
unique to democracies, so we should not necessarily be looking for one after democratic
reforms.159 Second, as I stress in the Introduction, the architectural form of Greek civic
buildings was far from standardized in the Classical period. Perhaps we should leave
open the possibility that the Hypostyle Hall’s function was multifaceted, like the Odeion
of Perikles at Athens and even the Thersilion at Megalopolis. It may have been adapted
for a number of different purposes, not just political assemblies. After all, in its most
basic form the Hypostyle Hall was essentially a square stoa.
South Stoa
The South Stoa was another imposing edifice with a northern colonnade of 40
Doric columns stretching more than 80 m in length (fig. 2.19, 2).160 Additional wings on
the east and west gave its ground plan a distinct pi-shaped appearance. The eastern wing
157
Hdt. 7.148 (A19); see Tuci 2006, pp. 218-219, n. 37.
158
159
E.g., the Corinthians had a conservative oligarchic government throughout the Archaic and Classical
periods, and they had both a boulē and a bouleuterion; see infra Chapter 3.6-7.
160
There is no final publication of the South Stoa. For the preliminary reports, see BCH 31 (1907), pp. 172-
176; BCH 44 (1920), pp. 221-222; BCH 77 (1953), pp. 250-252; BCH 93 (1969), pp. 967-977; BCH 99
(1975), p. 705; BCH 100 (1976), p. 753; BCH 101 (1977), pp. 673-674; BCH 102 (1978), p. 783; BCH 102
(1978), p. 789; BCH 107 (1983), p. 846; BCH 108 (1984), p. 845; BCH 110 (1986), pp. 763-765; BCH 111
(1987), pp. 590-591; BCH 128-129 (2004-2005), pp. 828-832.
65
had 11 columns at the front and four inside, and was built at a 102º angle to the northern
colonnade (fig. 2.28). This seemingly bizarre oblique arrangement adopted its orientation
from the line of the Cephisos canal to the east and a preexisting road leading out of the
agora.161 For a person entering the agora from the south, the South Stoa’s eastern wing
must have been an impressive entrance into the public square. At the opposite end of the
stoa the Romans built a western extension that nearly touched the Hypostyle Hall and a
bath complex, both of which have wiped away most traces of the South Stoa’s original
western wing.162
The incorporation of a monumental stoa into the built environment of a Greek
agora was an increasingly common phenomenon throughout the 5th century, and the
presence of the South Stoa at Argos should be viewed within this architectural tradition.
As a physical entity the stoa was used to great effect as an organizer of space. Routinely
the stoa was placed along the perimeter of an open area, as the South Stoa in the Argive
agora, where it became a monumental backdrop to the everyday commotion taking place
in the agora.163 The public space of the agora was in many respects defined by the
placement of stoas at specific locations, leaving little doubt where the official boundary
of the agora began and where the private sphere ended. In some agoras small upright
boundary markers were used for this purpose, but in many cases the stoa essentially
161
Roux 1953, pp. 250-252; BCH 110 (1986), pp. 763-765.
162
BCH 77 (1953), p. 250; BCH 102 (1978), p. 789; BCH 107 (1983), p. 846. For the Roman bath complex,
see BCH 101 (1977), pp. 677-682; BCH 102 (1978), pp. 791-795; BCH 107 (1983), pp. 848-853.
163
This is also true for Greek sanctuaries during the Classical period, when stoas were used to define the
boundaries of sacred space and as devices to increase the sense of spatial awe for the viewer.
66
functioned as a boundary marker.164 It was important to make these distinctions, because,
among other reasons, the state needed to regulate the sale and distribution of commercial
products and foodstuffs at an official location.
It is during the Classical period that we first encounter more frequently the
practice of structuring the perimeter of an agora with monumental stoas. At the very same
time that the South Stoa was built in the Argive agora, the Athenians constructed a long
stoa (South Stoa I) of similar dimensions along the southern side of their agora (fig.
2.29). This stoa appears to have been used partly as a dining hall, presumably by civic
officials. Epigraphical evidence also shows that the officials responsible for the standards
of weights and measures at Athens (metronomoi) used South Stoa I as their
headquarters.165 Another monumental stoa, the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios, was constructed
at the northwest corner of the Athenian agora during the same period (ca. 420s). Built
entirely out of marble and with two projecting wings on either side, the Stoa of Zeus was
one of the most elaborate stoas ever constructed up until this period. It was used variably
as a picture gallery and for informal cultural gatherings (Socrates frequented the stoa),
although some would like to connect the building with civic gatherings as well.166 This is
informative, because we come to understand the versatile nature of the Greek stoa, which
was often not built for one purpose. The slightly earlier Stoa Poikile (ca. 470-460), also at
164
For the boundary markers in the Athenian agora, see Camp 1986, pp. 48-52. For stoas as boundary
markers, cf. the South Stoa in the Elean agora; see infra Chapter 4.5.
165
From stratigraphic evidence, South Stoa I is dated securely to the 420s. Some of the 15 rooms behind
the colonnade have offset doorways and raised plinths, indicating that they were used for dining. For the
building’s architecture, see Camp 1986, pp. 122-128; metronomoi inscription, see Vanderpool 1968.
166
Camp 1986, pp. 105-107.
67
the northwest corner of the Athenian agora, was both a picture gallery and a cultural
venue, but on occasion it was used as a lawcourt.167
The stoas in the Athenian agora are unusual in that we have literary sources
describing events that took place in these buildings. More often than not, however, there
is not a standard formula for pinpointing a function, because the stoa was adapted to
serve as a venue for commercial, political, judicial, and a host of other activities. At
Argos, if the Late Archaic weights and plaques dealing with commercial transactions
serve as any indication, the South Stoa was probably a monumental successor to the Late
Archaic structures and therefore connected in some way to mercantile activity. There is
no way of knowing whether trade and commerce was its primary function, whether it had
many functions, or whether it was predominantly used by civic magistrates administering
trade in the city, by private citizens, or a combination of the two. The Late Hellenistic
agoranomoi inscriptions reused in the western extension of the northern colonnade may
even be connected to contemporary commercial and administrative activity here.168 This
evidence, in combination with the Late Archaic material, alludes to a continuity of
function throughout the history of southern agora, even though a gap exists between the
material evidence.
“Palaistra”
167
Ibid, pp. 66-72.
168
68
A large open courtyard behind the South Stoa with a northern and southern
colonnade has been interpreted as a palaistra (fig. 2.20, P).169 The relationship between
the structure and the South Stoa is not fully understood, because the floor levels in both
buildings are poorly preserved. The date of the putative palaistra is also problematic and
remains unpublished. Stratified pottery dates the South Stoa to the third-quarter of the 5th
century, but the excavators have been unable to present similar evidence for the
chronology of the courtyard. They do state in a preliminary report that the courtyard dates
to the original phase of the South Stoa, and the structure is usually included on plans of
the classical agora. However, until someone can demonstrate the classical date of the
courtyard with stratigraphic evidence, we should remain cautious on the building’s
chronology.170
Perhaps a more pressing issue relates to the identification of the courtyard as a
palaistra. To my knowledge no argument has been put forward to support this
identification, which apparently rests largely on architectural comparanda (although none
has been put forward). A Hellenistic or Roman dedicatory inscription mentioning an
agōnothetēs (officer of games and training) was discovered inside the courtyard, but
these officials were not exclusive to Greek palaistrai and the inscription only shows that
these officials were active here after the Classical period.171 We would be correct to
169
BCH 107 (1983), p. 846; BCH 110 (1986), pp. 763-765. For a plan, see Pariente et al. 1998, p. 229, fig.
3.
170
The contemporary date of the South Stoa and the inner courtyard is noted in Piérart and Touchais 1996,
p. 49; see also Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, p. 454-455. The eastern portion of the courtyard’s south wall is
aligned with the south wall of the eastern wing of the South Stoa. To my knowledge this is the only dating
criteria ever published in support of a classical date.
171
BCH 110 (1986), p. 765. Cf., e.g., inscriptions from the theater at Megalopolis that mention an
agōnothetēs; see IG V.2, 450.
69
question the identification of this building as a palaistra until better evidence is available.
Our understanding of the architectural form of the Greek palaistra and gymnasium
derives exclusively from Hellenistic typologies, where large square or rectangular
courtyards are completely surrounded by colonnades and rooms on all four sides.172 As
early as the 6th century references to the palaistra and gymnasium appear in the ancient
literary sources, and a few famous examples are known to have existed, among other
places, at Athens and Elis.173 These sources, however, reveal little of the architectural
form of the archaic and classical palaistra and gymnasium, and it is doubtful that there
was any standardization during these periods. For what its worth, the courtyard building
behind the South Stoa in the Argive agora does not resemble the mature form of the
monumental Hellenistic palaistra. It certainly appears to have been a public building of
some kind, but we cannot say whether athletics and training took place here.
East Stoa
The remains of what may be a second classical stoa is situated at the northeast
(fig. 2.20, G).174 Sometimes referred to as the East Stoa, the building preserves three
courses of its southwest corner, and several sections of the walls on the northern side.
Roux excavated the southern end of the building in the early 1950s and first identified it
as a stoa. On the basis of the T-shaped clamps used to join the poros blocks together, he
172
E.g., the palaistra and gymnasium at Olympia and the two palaistrai at Delos; see Mallwitz 1972, pp.
278-289; Bruneau and Ducat 2005, pp. 240-243. To my knowledge, the earliest attested palaistra in the
archaeological record is the late 4th century one at Delphi; see Bommelaer 1991, pp. 76-77.
173
Glass (1988) summarizes the evidence for early palaistrai and gymnasia. The three famous gymnasia at
Athens are the Academy, the Lykeion, and Kynosarges; see ibid, p. 160. For the gymnasium at Elis, see
infra Chapter 4.5.
174
Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, p. 456; Pariente et al. 1998, p. 215.
70
argued that the building was contemporary with the South Stoa.175 Several decades later,
the Greek Archaeological Service uncovered the northern extension of the building. The
results of these excavations remain unpublished, but on plans reproduced by the French
School the East Stoa is shown as a narrow rectangular building nearly 90 m in length and
positioned at an oblique angle to the South Stoa.176 Whether the East Stoa was, in fact, a
stoa defining the northern section of the agora remains to be seen, as does its classical
date and purpose.177 Nevertheless, its physical presence and oblique orientation had a
significant impact on the triangular spatial structure of the Argive agora.
Semicircular Orchestra
Other facilities in the agora included a semicircular orchestra cut by a stepped
krepidoma, and a racetrack that began in front of the Hypostyle Hall. Both the orchestra
and the racetrack cannot be dated earlier than the 4th century, and it is possible that they
were not constructed until the Hellenistic period. The orchestra was an open-air venue
bordered by a course of limestone blocks that defined the boundary of the semicircular
area. It is possible that the blocks were used as seats (fig. 2.30).178 The western end of the
orchestra was cut nearly in half by the krepidoma, which Marchetti, it will be recalled,
argues is the southeast boundary of the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios (fig. 2.31). Even
though the orchestra has not been fully excavated, the complete diameter is estimated to
175
BCH 77 (1953), p. 253.
176
Marchetti and Rizakis (1995, p. 456) mention the Greek excavations.
177
Piérart is tempted to see the foundations uncovered by Roux as the temenos of Nemean Zeus; see BCH
102 (1978), p. 790, n. 5. Note also that Anna Banaka-Dimaki, who excavated the northern section of the
East Stoa for the Greek Archaeological Service, does not believe that the building was a stoa; see Marchetti
and Rizakis 1995, p. 456.
178
BCH 112 (1988), pp. 701-705; Moretti 1993, pp. 3-6; Pariente et al. 1998, pp. 214-215.
71
be about 28 m. Architectural blocks from a Doric triglyph and metope frieze dating to the
Classical period were found in a late construction nearby. The excavators suspect that
they came from an altar that once stood at the center of the semicircular orchestra. All
that stands in the middle now are reused architectural blocks from Roman renovations.179
Stratigraphic material is only helpful in establishing a broad terminus post quem
for the orchestra’s chronology. The main evidence comes from the discovery beneath the
semicircular wall of a Corinthian coin that was struck sometime between the late 5th
century and the middle of the 3rd century.180 The wide chronology does not allow for any
greater precision, and most scholars date the orchestra to the 4th century or to the Early
Hellenistic period.181 A more radial interpretation has been advanced by Marchetti, who
argues that the initial phase of orchestra should be restored as a full circle in the 5th
century (fig. 2.19, 5).182 However, with the possible exception of the Doric altar
fragments, he is unable to present architectural or stratigraphic proof for an earlier
arrangement. He relies instead on a complex argument based upon the geometry of all the
buildings within the agora, which he views as conforming to a master plan during the
Classical period.183 Although this hypothesis should not be dismissed outright, a more
conservative assessment places the construction of the orchestra within the Late Classical
phase of the Argive agora.
179
Pariente et al. (1998, p. 215) dates the altar to the second-half of the 5th century. For the Roman
renovations, see BCH 112 (1988), p. 702.
180
BCH 115 (1991), p. 675.
181
For the broad terminus post quem date of ca. 410 to the mid-3rd century, see ibid, p. 675; Barakari-Gléni
and Pariente 1998, p. 169. For the 4th century date, see Moretti 1993, p. 6; Marchetti 1994, p. 135; Pariente
et al. 1998, p. 215. Marchetti and Rizakis (1995, p. 455) say that the orchestra cannot be earlier than the last
few decades of the 4th century.
182
Ibid, p. 455.
183
Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, pp. 463-467; Marchetti 1996a, p. 122.
72
The purpose of the orchestra is equally as puzzling, and most suggestions
alternate between a civic and religious function. Pariente, the primary excavator up to the
present, originally suggested that it was used for political gatherings by a group of Argive
officials known in the literary and epigraphical testimonia as The Eighty.184 Thucydides
informs us that these officials were the administrators of the 420 treaty erected on a pillar
in the sanctuary Apollo Lykeios, and a Late Classical inscription indicates that The
Eighty held judicial functions.185 Beyond these sources little is known about this Argive
political body. Pariente identified the orchestra as the seat of The Eighty by estimating
eighty to be the maximum number of seated persons that could be accommodated on the
parapet wall. According to this interpretation, the semicircular space acted as a small
theatron for individuals to address The Eighty, and for oaths to be administered. The
close proximity of the orchestra to the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios, whose cult had a
connection with oaths guaranteed by The Eighty, may offer additional support.
Other scholars view the orchestra as serving religious and cultural needs.
Suggestions range from it being used by chorus dancers associated with unknown rites
for the cult of Apollo Lykeios, and for dancers involved in matrimonial contests
connected to the legendary Argive past.186 At Sparta there may be a similar relationship
between circular performance space and religious festivals. Standing at the southwest
corner of what is probably to be identified as the Spartan agora, there is the so-called
184
BCH 112 (1988), pp. 701-705. For a brief summary of The Eighty, see Piérart 2000, p. 304-305.
185
Thuc. 5.47.9 (A49); SEG 33, 286. The inscription (E 67) dates to the third-quarter of the 4th century.
186
For the connection to Apollo Lykeios, see Moretti 1993, p. 6; Pariente et al. 1998, p. 215. For
matrimonial contests related to Danaos, see Marchetti 1994, p. 135; Marchetti 1996a, p. 120.
73
Round Building (fig. 1.6).187 The structure is really semicircular, and it is not so much a
building as it is a large platform with a diameter of 43 m supported by a three-stepped
base surmounted by orthostate blocks, much like the orchestra in the Argive agora. Eleni
Kourinou argues that the Round Building should be identified with the Chorus, an area of
the Spartan agora where Pausanias says that the Gymnopaidiai festival took place.188 This
was one of the most important Spartan religious festivals, where young boys performed
dances in honor of Apollo in the Chorus. If there is indeed a connection between the
Round Building at Sparta and the Gymnopaidiai festival, then the similarities in
architectural form and location in an agora may allude to a related function for the
orchestra in the Argive agora.
Additionally, the close proximity of the orchestra at Argos to the starting line of
the racetrack may point to an athletic function. It is worth noting the almost identical
arrangement in the Corinthian agora, where a classical circular platform stands adjacent
to the starting line of the classical racetrack.189 Among the many suggestions, the
excavators have proposed that athletic events, and especially wrestling may have
occurred on the circular platform. Clearly there are many hypotheses for how these
venues were used at Corinth and Argos, but there is little archaeological and literary
evidence to support one explanation over the other. In my opinion, the close proximity of
the semicircular orchestra in the Argive agora to the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios is the
187
Waywell (1999, pp. 8-11) outlines the arguments for placing the Spartan agora near the Round Building
and the Roman Stoa; see also Kourinou 2000, pp. 99-129. For the Round Building, see ibid, pp. 114-127;
Waywell 1999, pp. 11-14.
188
Paus. 3.11.9; Kourinou 2000, p. 123-127. For the Gymnopaidiai at Sparta, see Pettersson 1992, pp. 42-
56.
189
74
best clue. If the sanctuary was not physically connected to the orchestra by the
krepidoma, then it most likely stood somewhere close by. Since Apollo Lykeios was a
deity who protected Argive oaths and laws within the agora, it is tempting to see the
orchestra as having an administrative function, perhaps by a group of civic officials such
as The Eighty. Nevertheless, this was not necessarily its only purpose, and it is very
plausible that the Argives put on athletic and choral competitions here during religious
festivals.
Krepidoma (Sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios?)
The krepidoma that lies adjacent to the orchestra is constructed from poros blocks
of different sizes (fig. 2.31). In certain places stone blocks in secondary use were
employed in the construction. As preserved, the structure consists of a long line of blocks
several courses high, which extend more than 28 m in a SW-NE direction.190 Nothing of
the internal arrangement of the building has been recovered. The date of the krepidoma is
intimately linked with the date of the orchestra. Since blocks from the semicircular wall
of the orchestra abut the krepidoma, it is believed that the krepidoma predates the
orchestra.191 Other than this observation, there are no clear stratigraphic clues for the date
of the building. It is usually placed, like the orchestra, in the 4th century. Several scholars
believe the krepidoma was a stoa that defined the northwest corner of the agora, and in
some published accounts it is even referred to as the Northwest Stoa. What is less clear is
190
For the preliminary reports, see BCH 112 (1988), p. 708; BCH 128-129 (2004-2005), pp. 814-816; BCH
2006 (130), pp. 696-700. Brief discussion can also be found in Moretti 1993, pp. 3-6; Marchetti 1994, p.
135; Pariente et al. 1998, pp. 214-215; Barakari-Gléni and Pariente 1998, p. 169; Marchetti 2000, p. 275, n.
12; Piérart 2003, p. 61. More of the structure still lies below Theater Street to the north.
191
Moretti 1993, p. 6; Pariente et al. 1998, p. 215.
75
whether the building faced southeast towards the orchestra, or away from the agora
towards the northwest.192
Marchetti is the only person who argues that the krepidoma formed the southern
terrace wall of the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios.193 As mentioned previously, he identifies
two other walls to the northwest and northeast as related sections of the sanctuary’s
temenos.194 It is quite possible that both arguments are correct in this instance. Keeping in
mind that the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios was somewhere near the northwest corner of
the agora, the krepidoma could have supported a stoa that defined the southern boundary
of the sacred area. At the same time, it functioned as a terrace wall, helping to create a
level surface for the sanctuary.
Racetrack
The starting line of the racetrack lies directly in front of the Hypostyle Hall. It is
also close to the semicircular orchestra and the krepidoma (fig. 2.19). All that remains are
five limestone blocks with groves for the runners’ feet, and the poros foundations of two
square bases marking the northern and southern corners (fig. 2.32).195 The total width of
the starting line was 15.72 m (= 53 Argive feet), and approximately 18 m between the
two square bases. This allowed for 16 lanes, each with a width corresponding to three
192
Bommelaer and des Courtils 1994, p. 9 (“Northwest Stoa”); Pariente et al. 1998, pp. 214-215; Piérart
2003, p. 61; BCH 128-129 (2004-2005), p. 816.
193
Marchetti 1994, p. 135, Marchetti 2000, p. 275, n. 12.
194
195
For the preliminary reports, see BCH 102 (1978), pp. 778-783; BCH 103 (1979), p. 619; BCH 105
(1981), p. 904; BCH 107 (1983), pp. 841-842; BCH 110 (1986), p. 766; BCH 111 (1987), pp. 585-588;
BCH 115 (1991), p. 667.
76
Argive feet.196 From the starting blocks, the racetrack maintains a southeast direction past
the South Stoa until terminating east of the archaeological site. Its eastern end has
reportedly been found in an agricultural field, showing that the racetrack had a total
length of nearly 178 m (= 600 Argive feet).197 For its entirety the running surface of the
racetrack consists of a hard-packed gravel surface. The only exception is found at the
halfway mark, where the running surface crosses over the Cephisos canal. Here the
Argives built a triangular holding basin and platform for the racetrack to pass over, and
they even placed a stone pillar to mark the halfway point (89 m = 300 Argive feet).198
As with many other buildings in the Argive agora, it is challenging to understand
the chronology of the racetrack. The stratigraphy indicates that the running surface and
the starting blocks cannot date earlier than the Late Hellenistic period.199 In its present
state, therefore, the racetrack does not date to the Classical period, or even to the Early
Hellenistic phase of the Argive agora. Nonetheless, there is good reason to suspect that
the racetrack was a prominent feature of the agora by the Late Classical period. Evidence
comes from the triangular holding basin and platform over the Cephisos canal, which
dates to the 4th century and is perfectly aligned with the racetrack.200 This observation
suggests that there was a Late Classical predecessor to the racetrack now preserved in the
196
Piérart and Thalmann (BCH 111 [1987], pp. 585-588) calculate an Argive foot to be 0.2966 m.
197
Piérart (BCH 105 [1981], p. 904) simply mentions the discovery of the end of the racetrack. No
additional details are provided.
198
For the triangular base and the midpoint marker, see BCH 107 (1983), pp. 841-842; BCH 111 (1987),
pp. 585-588.
199
The chronology of the racetrack is tied to the dating of a layer referred to as “Surface VI” in the
preliminary reports. For the Late Hellenistic or Early Imperial date of this layer, see BCH 102 (1978), p.
783; BCH 115 (1991), p. 667; Piérart and Touchais 1996, pp. 51-52.
200
The triangular base and platform can be seen on figure 2.19, 6a, and figure 2.20, E.
77
Argive agora. Additional support comes from a Hellenistic temple east of the starting
line, which is itself oriented according to the line of the racetrack (fig. 2.20, D).201
Although the form of a Greek racetrack is rather straightforward, consisting of a
starting line and a running surface, it is sometimes difficult to understand how the
inhabitants of a city used this kind of venue on a daily basis. At certain times throughout
the year footraces obviously took place here, but this happened only occasionally,
depending on what athletic events corresponded to Argive religious festivals.202 In the
past scholars have argued that the classical racetrack within the Corinthian agora was
used predominantly for torch races associated with the Helloteia, a festival dedicated to
Hellotis mentioned in a scholion on Pindar.203 Other athletic events occurred at other
times of the year. Besides Corinth, two other racetracks are found at Athens and Sparta,
and both lie within or in close proximity to their respective agoras. The racetrack at
Sparta is only known from the ancient literary sources, but the starting line for the
racetrack at Athens has been identified near the Altar of the Twelve Gods at the
northwest corner of the Athenian agora.204 Its gravel running surface cuts straight through
the center of the agora, almost following the path of the Panathenaic Way. Scholars
201
For the arguments in favor of a Late Classical phase of the racetrack, see BCH 111 (1987), pp. 585-588;
Piérart and Touchais 1996, pp. 51-52.
202
Amandry (1980) gives an overview of athletic events held at Argos and the Heraion from the
epigraphical testimonia; see also Marchetti (1996, pp. 164-170), who tries to sort out the religious
associations of the racetrack in light of the one at Sparta.
203
Pind. Ol. 13; see infra Chapter 3.3.
204
Sparta: Marchetti 1996b, pp. 155-164; Sanders, forthcoming. Athens: Shear 1975, pp. 362-365; Camp
1986, p. 46; cf. Miller (1995b, pp. 212-218), who questions the identification of the starting line.
78
suspect that the racetrack was used for running events during the Panathenaic festival,
another contest called the gymnikoi agōnes, and perhaps even cavalry training.205
The similarity in the placement of the racetracks directly in the heart of the agoras
at Argos, Corinth, and Athens is striking, and it is not difficult to understand why. The
agora was a venue that could accommodate large groups of people to witness public
spectacles, just as it could accommodate commercial, civic, and religious gatherings.
During religious festivals that were sponsored by the state, the agora was the preferred,
and even the most practical site to hold athletic events connected to urban festivals.
Outside the city center, racetracks and stadia are found in all four panhellenic sanctuaries
and in many extra-urban sanctuaries, where athletic events were held at religious festivals
in honor of a divinity or hero.206 There was clearly a certain degree of symbolism in
holding religious festivals and athletic events at two of the most important spheres of
public life: the agora and extra-urban sanctuary. At Argos we are not entirely sure what
athletic events were held on the racetrack, or even what religious festivals were
associated with these kinds of events. When not used for athletics, the racetrack was
probably taken over by merchant stands, political gatherings, and the everyday commerce
and commotion of a Greek agora.
Waterworks
205
For cavalry training in the Athenian agora, see Camp 1986, pp. 118-122. Cf. Elis, where Pausanias
(6.24.2) remarks that the Elean agora was called the Hippodrome, because horses were regularly trained
here.
206
For some examples, see Romano 1993.
79
Accessible water in fountain houses is usually ubiquitous in a Greek agora. At
Argos, no fountain house can be securely dated to the Classical period. The only potential
candidate lies 50 m southeast of the semicircular orchestra, just north of racetrack (fig.
2.19, 4).207 A Roman nymphaeum consisting of a tholos resting on a square plinth stood
here in the 1st century A.D. Excavations show that an earlier structure stood below the
Roman nymphaeum: the remains of four walls constructed out of small stones mark an
earlier building that was 15 m2 (fig. 2.33). Its orientation was similar to the Roman
nymphaeum, but set slightly more to the west. A circular pit inside the building directed
water into a channel and finally into a cistern outside. Marchetti believes that the
waterproof cement and the hydraulic features leave little doubt that this was a
predecessor of the Roman nymphaeum. He goes further to connect the fountain house
with Amymone, one of the daughters of Danaos, and also the name of one of four
nymphaea said to have existed at Argos according to Callimachos.208 Leaving the specific
identification aside, the date of the fountain house is more pressing. Since so little is
preserved of the structure’s initial phase, its construction date cannot be known with any
degree of certainty. It would be tempting to place it within the major building activity of
the second-half of the 5th century, or even the 4th century, yet we have no clear
confirmation.
Urban Sanctuaries
207
Marchetti et al. (1995) is the definitive publication of the fountain house. Brief mention is also found in
Marchetti 1994, pp. 135-136, 150; Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, p. 456; Marchetti 1996a, p. 120; Marchetti
1998, pp. 357-359.
208
For a discussion of Argive myths and the structure of space here, see Marchetti et al. 1995, pp. 221-231.
For the Roman nymphaeum and nuptial rites in the Argive agora, see ibid, pp. 233-248.
80
At least two urban sanctuaries were added to the Argive agora in the Classical
period. Foundations of a large temple have been recovered approximately 70 m south of
the end of the racetrack (fig. 2.3, L).209 The close proximity between temple and racetrack
implies that the former was integrated into the agora, or at least very close to its southeast
corner. If this is true, then the southeast temple, like the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios at
the northwest corner, was a peripheral feature providing definition to the Argive agora.
The foundations were constructed from large poros blocks, out of which an east facing
temple (33 m x 18 m) can be reconstructed (fig. 2.34).210 The temple had a pronaos and a
cella, possibly with a pi-shaped internal colonnade. Fragments of Doric columns and
capitals survive, but they only date to the Early Hellenistic period. Wall blocks and
columns of an earlier structure that were reused in the foundations of the temple imply
the existence of a classical predecessor. Further support comes from a number of
architectural terracottas recovered from the building that date to the middle of the 5th
century.211
It is unclear to which deity the temple was dedicated. Based on the description of
Pausanias, likely candidates include Athena Salpinx, Hera Antheia, or Pelasgian
Demeter.212 That the temple had some kind of administrative function in the Argive state
is confirmed by the discovery of several Hellenistic coin blanks intentionally deposited
209
Consolaki and Hackens 1980; Marchetti 1994, p. 136.
210
For the architectural details and the date of the building, see Consolaki and Hackens 1980, pp. 279-282.
211
Consolaki and Hackens (ibid, p. 282) state that archaic material from here, along with remains of
mudbrick, may be a sign that an archaic temple once stood here.
212
Paus. 2.21.4; 2.22.1. Deïlaki (ArchDelt 28 [1973], p. 119; ArchDelt 29 [1973-1974], p. 208-209)
believes that it was the temple of Hera Antheia, or Demeter Pelasgian. Piérart (BCH 102 [1978], pp. 789-
790, n. 3) proposes an identification with Athena Salpinx, since an inscription mentioning this goddess was
discovered 80 m to the west. Consolaki and Hackens (1980, p. 282) do not commit to an identification.
81
inside the temple. As Héléni Consolaki and Tony Hackens point out, there are examples
from other Greek cities (Athens, Delos) where mints have ceased production, only to
deposit the material in a sacred place.213 The reasons for why this occurred are not
entirely clear. One explanation is that it prevented any misuse of the coin blanks after the
mint stopped production. In this sense, the Argives may have chosen the southeast temple
to deposit old coin blanks, because they trusted the deity to provide adequate protection
over state owned goods.
The second urban sanctuary in the Argive agora built during the Classical period
was the sanctuary of Nemean Zeus. In his description of the Argive agora, Pausanias
places this cult near a heroon to Phoroneus and a statue group depicting Kleobis and
Biton.214 Regarding the sanctuary, he only comments that there was a bronze statue of
Zeus made by Lysippos here. It is not stated how large the sanctuary was, or whether it
even had a temple. The reference to the famous sculptor Lysippos dates the bronze statue
to the 4th century, and also provides a terminus ante quem for the sanctuary. The location
for the cult still remains a mystery. Marchetti argues that the sanctuary of Nemean Zeus
should be identified with the remains of a small temple between the orchestra and the
Roman nymphaeum on the northern side of the agora.215 During the Roman period a
small prostyle temple stood here, but it was built over the remains of an earlier structure
213
Ibid, pp. 284-291.
214
Paus. 2.20.2-3.
215
Marchetti 1994, pp. 135, 142-153. His arguments rest on a dense dissection of Pausanias’ route. For the
proposed location of this sanctuary in the agora, see fig. 2.3.
82
that dates to the Hellenistic period.216 Until future excavations can clarify the situation,
the placement of this cult remains anonymous.
Spatial Parameters and the Stepped Theatron
As we take note of the various buildings and venues that comprise the classical
agora at Argos, it is important to reflect on the general characteristics of its spatial
parameters. Unlike the Athenian agora, there were no boundary stones to clarify what
elements stood inside and outside the Argive agora. This must be interpreted based on the
size and types of structures that are present in the archaeological record. Natural features,
such as ridges and streams, as well as monumental structures like stoas and urban
temples, usually provide us with a good idea of an agora’s spatial boundaries. Already in
the Late Archaic period, the Argive agora took on the appearance of a formal venue
where people could congregate. A large urban sanctuary stood at the northwest corner,
and commercial and administrative buildings were situated on top of the southern ridge.
Between the two seasonal floodwaters were diverted by the Cephisos canal, which
allowed the Argives to assemble in an open area.
By the second-half of the 5th century, the South Stoa provided the agora with a
monumental southern boundary, as did the southeast temple. Towards the west, the
Hypostyle Hall gave clear definition to the western side. Rather than face another
direction, its primary focus was on the open area of the agora to the east. If the racetrack
216
The temple is often referred to, and identified on plans of the agora, as “Building D”; see BCH 104
(1980), pp. 694-697; BCH 105 (1981), p. 906; Piérart and Touchais 1996, p. 66. Piérart (BCH 102 [1978],
p. 790, n. 5) once argued that the East Stoa belonged to the sanctuary of Nemean Zeus. This was before the
Greek Archaeological Service discovered the other end of the stoa further to the north.
83
does in fact date to the 4th century, then the eastern limit of the agora extended for some
180 m beyond the Hypostyle Hall. The southeast temple, which lies near the eastern
termination of the racetrack, provides additional confirmation for this hypothesis. A
number of classical and Late Classical structures shows that the northern side of the agora
was not defined by a dominant E-W orientation. Instead, the krepidoma, the semicircular
orchestra, and the East Stoa gave the Argive agora a triangular appearance, at least on its
western half. This challenges the conventional notion, which is often assumed to be a
quintessential feature of an agora, that the central space must be square or rectangular. At
Argos we possess indisputable proof to dispel such an idea.
Although the parameters of the Argive agora are not perfectly understood,
especially on the eastern and northeastern sides, the various structures that contributed to
its makeup once enclosed an irregular central area roughly 20,000 m2 (2 ha).217 One of
the current debates on the topography of Argos has to do with the western boundary of
the agora. Despite the dominating presence of the Hypostyle Hall, some scholars argue
that the classical agora extended all the way to the slopes of the Larissa hill,
approximately 170 m west of the Hypostyle Hall. This would increase the overall size of
the agora by more than 50%.
Marchetti is the main proponent of the radical repositioning of the spatial
boundaries of the Argive agora. His arguments essentially rest on two observations.218
First, excavations show that the area immediately west of the Hypostyle Hall was void of
any major construction until a Serapeion was erected here in the Late Hellenistic period.
217
Cf. supra n. 41.
218
Marchetti 1994, pp. 151-152; Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, pp. 441-443; Marchetti 2000, pp. 274-276.
84
The Serapeion was in turn replaced by a Roman imperial bath complex a century later.219
Second, along the slopes of the Larissa hill, French excavations discovered an open-air
auditorium with a row of 37 rock-cut seats (fig. 2.19, 12). The Stepped Theatron, as it is
referred to, had two vertical stairways to provide circulation (figs. 2.35; 2.36).220 There is
no trace of a diazoma, and a terrace wall to the east created a level area for a rectangular
“orchestral” space. In most of the published reports, the building is dated to the second-
half of the 5th century.221 It is important to note, however, that only the terrace wall dates
to this period. By themselves the rock-cut seats are impossible to date, and they very well
may have preceded the formal “orchestral” space.222
The French excavators identify the Stepped Theatron as serving the needs of the
Argive popular assembly (haliaia).223 Since both the literary and epigraphical testimonia
allude to this region of Argos serving a judicial function, this is a reasonable
conclusion.224 Assuming that the terrace wall dates the entire structure to the second-half
of the 5th century, the excavators may be correct in their identification. On the other
hand, the Argive popular assembly met only once every month, so the Stepped Theatron
219
For the preliminary reports on the Serapeion and the Roman Imperial bath complex, see BCH 97 (1973),
pp. 490-500; BCH 98 (1974), pp. 764-774; BCH 99 (1975), pp. 699-703; BCH 100 (1976), pp. 747-750;
BCH 101 (1977), pp. 667-673; BCH 112 (1978), pp. 773-775; BCH 104 (1980), pp. 689-691; BCH 105
(1981), pp. 899-902; BCH 106 (1982), pp. 637-643; BCH 108 (1984), pp. 846-850; BCH 110 (1986), pp.
767-771; BCH 111 (1987), pp. 597-603; BCH 112 (1988), pp. 710-715; BCH 113 (1989), pp. 711-717;
BCH 114 (1990), pp. 858-866.
220
Ginouvès (1972) is the definitive publication of the Stepped Theatron.
221
Courtils 1992, p. 247 (just after 450); Moretti 1993, pp. 30-32 (mid-5th century); Leppin 1999, p. 303
(mid-5th century); Piérart 2003, p. 61 (after 460).
222
A date in the second-half of the 5th century for the orchestra is supported by stratigraphical material, as
well as mason’s marks on the rear wall of the orchestra; see Ginouvès 1972, pp. 37-52; Viret Bernal 1992,
p. 80.
223
The haliaia is first attested epigraphically in ca. 480-470; see Tuci 2006, p. 230.
224
Viret Bernal (1992, pp. 80-82) summaries the evidence and provides bibliography.
85
must have been used for other purposes, not the least of which may have been theatrical.
For this reason, it is preferable to avoid calling the structure an ekklēsiasterion.
The notion that the classical agora extended all the way to the Stepped Theatron
apparently rests on the belief that a civic structure must lie within an agora. This
interpretation follows the general assumption that the raison d’être of the agora was for
the accommodation of civic buildings and civic magistrates. The fact that the limited
excavations to earlier levels beneath the Roman imperial bath complex have failed to
produce any architecture, admittedly makes Marchetti’s hypothesis somewhat enticing.
This essentially clears a large swath of land from the Hypostyle Hall to the Stepped
Theatron that could be used as additional open space. The major shortcoming of this
interpretation, however, is that it places too much emphasis on the relationship between
Greek civic institutions and the agora. Not every political building was built in an agora,
nor did all political bodies require a separate, purpose-built structure for gatherings.
Frank Kolb’s survey of Greek assemblies and ekklēsiasteria convincingly demonstrates
that most Greek cities did not have an ekklēsiasterion, because the popular assembly
often held sessions in the theater.225 This is especially true for the Archaic and Classical
periods, where not a single ekklēsiasterion has been identified in a Greek agora.226
Besides this misconception about Greek civic institutions, Marchetti does not address
why the Hypostyle Hall had no communication with the suspected western extension of
225
Kolb 1981.
226
See supra Chapter 1.2. The Pnyx at Athens, one of the few purpose-built venues for an ekklēsia, was
located far from the Athenian agora. Additionally, voting disks from Elis show that the Elean popular
assembly, at least in the Hellenistic period, held meetings in the theater, which stood nearby, yet outside the
agora.
86
the agora. His reconstruction awkwardly places a large structure in the middle of the
classical agora: a solution that I am not prepared to accept.
Conclusion
The patterns in the spatial organization of the Argive agora throughout the
Classical period provide an image of a city that adopts a more monumental and
multifaceted urban center. The spatial parameters of the agora are more clearly defined
with monumental public buildings that look inwards toward the central triangular space.
The kinds of buildings that define the agora are an expression of the interests of the
community as a whole. Two large urban sanctuaries provided moral and legal authority
for the Argives, and a heroon established a connection with the city’s legendary past. The
urban temples at the northwest and southeast corners of the agora acted as divine
boundary markers, providing the public space with a sense of heightened significance and
collective power.
Other buildings were more versatile and perhaps utilitarian, but no less impressive
in their size and workmanship. Following current trends in Greek urban practices, the
Argives constructed at least two monumental stoas along the perimeter of the agora
during the Classical period. These colonnaded buildings were intended as monumental
backdrops to set the stage for the public activity within the central area of the agora. For
everyday use, the Greek stoa often doubled as a commercial and cultural venue, and
sometimes as an administrative and judicial venue. Although the exact function(s) of the
stoas in the Argive agora are not completely understood, we can at least recognize the
87
public nature of these buildings. Mercantile activity appears to have occurred in the South
Stoa, and it was here that civic officials probably regulated the sale of commercial
products, but its role in the urban environment was no doubt more broad.
The Hypostyle Hall too must have adapted to the everyday needs of the Argives.
The best architectural parallels of the Classical period show that large hypostyle halls
were used as gathering venues for religious and cultural events, and not for the
accommodation of civic bodies. Civic magistrates such as the boulē obviously met
somewhere at Argos, and it is possible that they did this in the agora, but we cannot
assume that they only gathered in the largest and most elaborate public buildings, or that
these types of buildings were intended to serve the needs of civic officials. The sanctuary
of Apollo Lykeios, the open-area of the semicircular orchestra, and the Stepped Theatron
detached from the agora are all possible candidates for civic gatherings.
One defining feature of the Greek agora is that it accommodated large crowds of
people for religious festivals and athletic events held during these festivals. Racetracks
for running events and circular platforms for other athletic and performance spectacles
are known to exist in Greek agoras elsewhere. Not only was the agora the most suitable
urban venue for religious festivals because of its openness and proximity to urban
sanctuaries, but it was also the most symbolic location for uniting the population. The
presence of the racetrack and semicircular orchestra at Argos shows that this was the
public and religious heart of a community of citizens. It is this characteristic in particular
– the ability of the agora to forge a common thread in the everyday religious, cultural,
88
economic, and civic pursuits of its citizens at a common location – that help us
understand the overall mechanics of the Argive agora.
89
CHAPTER THREE: THE CORINTHIAN AGORA
3.1. The Problem of Locating the Corinthian Agora
For more than half a century following the commencement of American
excavations in 1896, the Greek agora was thought to lie beneath the Roman forum (figs.
3.1; 3.2). The excavators assumed that there was continuity of civic and commercial
space between Greek and Roman Corinth, and, perhaps because it seemed so obvious at
the time, no one really articulated the reasons for why.227 For various reasons, however,
the excavators began to question the status quo in the 1950s and 1960s.228 Excavations to
Greek levels in the Roman forum were not producing the types of structures they
expected to find in an agora, especially in light of what the American excavations were
uncovering during the same period in the Athenian agora. By the 1970s, most scholars
and staff at the Corinth excavations, then led by its director Charles K. Williams II,
believed that the agora should be sought elsewhere, most likely north of the archaic
temple on Temple Hill where excavations were at that time fairly limited.229
According to Williams the Greek city beneath the Roman forum was unsuitable
for an agora, because the natural depression (Lechaion valley) east of the archaic temple
on Temple Hill continued southwest around Temple Hill. This formed a hollow (upper
Lechaion valley) south of the natural outcrop, where the temple of Apollo and main
227
Andreas Skias, who excavated for the Greek Archaeological Service at Corinth in the late 19th and early
20th centuries, believed that the Greek agora and Roman forum were east of the modern village; see Skias
1892; 1905; 1906. Nobody else in the early scholarly literature argues for a different location.
228
See, e.g., Corinth I.3, pp. 74-76, 134.
229
Williams 1970, pp. 32-39; 1978b, pp. 18-19, 38-40; 1987, p. 474.
90
urban sanctuary was located. It created precipices at various locations, most notably
around the Sacred Spring and Peirene fountain, and made the ground too irregular for an
open square. Williams points out that only in the Hellenistic period, and after a major
terracing campaign to accommodate the Hellenistic racetrack and the South Stoa, did this
area of Corinth become level (fig. 3.3).230 In addition, Williams stresses the lack of water
sources south of Temple Hill, reasoning that the early inhabitants would have gathered
downstream from Peirene (i.e. north), rather than climb above the spring to congregate.231
Also peculiar is the absence of civic institutions such as a prytaneion, bouleuterion, or
lawcourts beneath the Roman forum.232
Instead of functioning as an agora, Williams argues that the pre-Roman forum
was taken up by a number of sanctuaries and hero shrines during the Archaic and
Classical periods.233 Evidence for cult activity here comes in the form of small temene,
larger cult areas like the Sacred Spring, and deposits with significant quantities of
figurines and miniature vessels. A better option then, according to Williams, places the
agora north of the archaic temple on Temple Hill where the topography is more level and
can access the water sources efficiently.234 Probable locations are near the central square
230
Williams 1970, pp. 32-35. Hayward (2004) offers a revised assessment of the palaeocontours of the
Lechaion valley. As he shows, the depression south of Temple Hill was not a southwest extension of the
Lechaion valley (as argued by Williams), but a distinct hollow whose land surface sloped gently upwards
(p. 402). He further explains that the valley was oriented east-west, and not northeast-southwest as
originally suggested by Williams (p. 404).
231
Williams 1970, pp. 35-37.
232
Ibid, pp. 37-38; Williams 1987, p. 474. This claim has never been fully explained. After Williams first
proposed this in the early 1970s, a number of buildings have been excavated that should be identified as
administrative structures (e.g., the Columned Hall, Building II).
233
Williams 1970, pp. 38-39; Williams 1978b.
234
Ibid, p. 38; Williams 1987, p. 474.
91
of the modern village, or, ironically, underneath the large excavation dump created by
archaeologists during the early years of fieldwork.
This hypothesis remains the conventional wisdom on the location of the Greek
agora at Corinth, despite the lack of archaeological evidence for a civic and commercial
center in the northern area of the city.235 It is also a working model that after 40 years has
never come under scrutiny, nor has it sparked a debate about the location of the
Corinthian agora.236 This is a pity, because the core of the problem should challenge us to
consider just what constitutes a Greek agora, what sort of activities predominated here in
a Greek city, and what exactly we should be looking for in the archaeological record. At
Corinth a reassessment of the evidence is long overdue, and a number of issues deserve
further consideration.
First and foremost, we cannot expect that those elements which characterize
agoras in other cities have the same meaning or are even to be found at Corinth. Our
perception of the Corinthian agora must not be influenced by an Athenocentric model
that ignores its context and idiosyncrasies. We must also acknowledge that the Greek
agora is not just an administrative entity fulfilling a political role. Instead, it provides an
equilibrium between various forms of human activity as it interacts within its own social
235
The North Stoa and Painted Building are the only exceptions. The 1980s “East of Theater” excavations
produced very little Greek material beyond a few walls, a geometric well, and some architectural
fragments. For these reports, see Williams and Zervos 1982; 1983; 1984; 1985; 1986; 1987; 1988; 1989;
Pfaff 1988.
236
Nobody has critically evaluated Williams’ argumentation. For tacit approval, see Roebuck 1972, p. 102;
Robinson 1976, p. 212; Pemberton 1996, pp. 355-356; Bookidis and Stroud 2004, p. 408; Bookidis 2005, p.
142; Sanders 2005, p. 21. A few continue to discuss the Corinthian agora in more general terms, often
assuming that it lies beneath the Roman forum, as they try to assess its placement within the urban
landscape. Despite the benefit of these studies, they fail to address the observations of Williams, and refrain
from engaging with the archaeological material in any great depth; see, e.g., Marchetti 1998, p. 362-366;
Hölscher 1998, pp. 30-31; Kenzler 1999, pp. 93-94, 108-109, 150-158, 213-216; Polignac 2005, p. 48-50.
92
landscape over a period of time. The agora becomes an important venue for economic,
civic, and cult activity, and therefore its spatial framework and built environment are
multifunctional. At Corinth, civic buildings do not feature prominently in the urban
environment until the Late Classical period at the very earliest. Any study that seeks to
locate the Corinthian agora and trace its early development cannot rely on a model that
places too much emphasis on the political role of the Greek agora. Other factors are
equally, if not more influential during the formative stages, such as the means of
transportation and communication, trade and commerce, the industrial infrastructure, and
urban cults and religious festivals.
What I present in this chapter are the archaeological, epigraphical, and literary
testimonia related to the urban development of Corinth from the Geometric period to the
Late Classical period. This includes a survey of the settlement patterns and a review of
major trends in building activity. A general understanding of the configuration of space
and its relationship to the socio-political structure of the city should help us pinpoint the
Corinthian agora. For reasons that will become increasing clear throughout the chapter, I
argue that the Greek agora at Corinth lies beneath the Roman forum. This challenges the
prevailing attitude, often accepted without debate, that the Greek agora was north of the
archaic temple on Temple Hill.
3.2. Urban Development of Early Corinth
The inherently limited scope of archaeological exploration dictates our knowledge
of the settlement patterns of Corinth and the Corinthia. The territory under the control of
93
Corinth in the Classical period was roughly 900 km2, and the city-proper inside the 7.5
km fortification walls around 6-7 km2 (fig. 3.4).237 Needless to say this is a particularly
large area to explore. Intensive archaeological survey in the surrounding countryside
during the last two decades has made great strides to illuminate the patterns of human
settlement and its interaction with the natural landscape from the prehistoric to the
modern periods.238 However, survey archaeology has yet to impact our understanding of
the polis-center that developed below the north slopes of Acrocorinth.239 Here we must
rely on the results of over 100 years of excavations by the American School of Classical
Studies and Greek Archaeological Society that provide us with detailed information
about the past, but cannot hope to explore every corner of the city (see table 2).240
Geometric Corinth
Corinth in the Geometric period consisted of small villages clustered around
water sources, all within a few kilometers from one another. Settlements appear
predominantly in the hollow south of Temple Hill, north of Peirene fountain, and 1 km
west of Temple Hill at the modern settlement of Anaploga. The signs of habitation
mostly come from graves that span the Protogeometric to the Middle Geometric periods
237
Hansen and Nielsen 2004, pp. 466-467; Corinth III.2, pp. 1-83.
238
For the work of the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey, see Tartaron et. al. 2006; Caraher et al.
2006; Pettegrew 2007. For the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, see Wright et al. 1990; Alcock 1991;
Alcock et al. 1994.
239
Exceptions include Pettegrew (2007), who links the Late Antique countryside to contemporary activity
in the city, and Sanders and Boyd (2008) with a geophysical survey that traces the Late Antique
fortification walls.
240
Brown (2008, pp. 30-44) offers a detailed account of the history of archaeological research at Corinth.
94
(ca. 1050-750), although a few date to the Late Geometric period (ca. 750-720).241
Contemporary wells nearby imply the existence of domestic structures, but so far very
little architecture has come to light.242 Additional geometric graves have been found at
the Asklepieion, the Potters’ Quarter, the area north of Anaploga, the area around the
theater and Roman odeion, the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on the northern slopes of
Acrocorinth, the site of Mavrospelaies outside the northwest fortification walls, and the
Panayia Field southeast of the Roman forum.243 More recently, rescue excavations have
identified geometric burials in the northern plain outside the classical fortification
walls.244 These clusters of geometric burials and wells scattered throughout the
surrounding area probably indicate the location of small villages, much like early Argos.
The hypothesis follows that geometric houses at Corinth were close to where the living
buried their dead.245 Without the domestic structures for confirmation, this is the best
indication we have of the settlement structure of Geometric Corinth.
By far the largest concentration of geometric burials are found south of Temple
Hill (fig. 3.5). This area appears to have acquired a heightened significance during the
241
Roebuck (1972, pp. 101-103) and Dickey (1992, pp. 122-128) summarize the evidence. Undoubtedly
there were other pockets of settlements. For example, the eastern Kraneion district has not been explored in
depth. Inscribed archaic and classical grave monuments within the fortification walls here suggest that
Kraneion was a relatively wealthy suburb; see Stroud 1972, pp. 210-217; Millis 2007.
242
The exceptions include: (a) Early Geometric terrace wall north of Peirene fountain (Robinson and
Weinberg 1960, p. 246; Williams et al. 1974, p. 33); (b) Middle Geometric wall north of Building III
(Morgan 1953, p. 134; Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 147); (c) Late Geometric terrace wall near the Sacred
Spring (Williams and Fisher 1971, p. 3).
243
Roebuck 1972, pp. 102-105. Asklepieion: Dickey 1992, p. 132. Potters’ Quarter: Corinth XV.1, pp. 6-
11; Dickey 1992, p. 131. North of Anaploga: ibid, p. 131. Theater and Odeion: Corinth X, pp. 10-11; Pfaff
1988. Demeter and Kore sanctuary: Dickey 1992, p. 130. Mavrospelaies: Lawrence 1964, pp. 89-91.
Panayia Field: Pfaff 2007.
244
The graves were discovered during the construction of the Athens-Patras railway in the late 1990s and
early 2000s. Along with the North Cemetery further to the east, these burials show that the plain north of
the city functioned as a major Corinthian cemetery for hundreds of years.
245
Roebuck 1972, p. 103; Williams et al. 1973, p. 4; Pfaff 1988, pp. 24-25.
95
formative years of the city, because the early inhabitants took advantage of its natural
benefits. Although Acrocorinth (574 masl) was the citadel in times of crisis and vital for
monitoring armies passing through the Isthmus of Corinth, the rocky outcrop was simply
too imposing and hard to ascend to function as a normal settlement. Temple Hill fulfilled
this service, providing a visible center for urban growth and consolidation.246 The
irregular layout of the valleys to the east and south of Temple Hill became a natural link
between a landscape that was separated by imposing limestone terraces rising in a north-
south direction from the Corinthian Gulf to Acrocorinth. In fact, it was one of the few
places where people could traverse the landscape between the upper and lower city.247
Certainly there were other pockets of habitation, but the area around Temple Hill
witnessed the most diverse and intense patterns of urban development in the history of
the Greek and Roman city.
The construction of an extensive Middle Geometric drain (ca. 825-750) within the
upper Lechaion valley south of Temple Hill further highlights the importance of this
region in the early settlement.248 The inhabitants installed the drain to transport water
from the higher grounds at the southwest, through the valley, and finally towards Peirene
fountain. The cultivation of water, which intensified in the following centuries, meant
that the terrain of the valley was not just susceptible to human involvement, but that it
was important enough to modify in the first place. The Middle Geometric drain was a
246
Roebuck 1972, p. 126.
247
As Carl Roebuck (ibid, pp. 98-99) says, “It seems probable that from the outset the area around Temple
Hill, now the site of the modern village of Ancient Corinth, was the most advantageous place for settlement
and exerted the attraction of a nodal point for a community of Corinthians. Here the hill, commanding the
adjacent region, offered a focal point.”
248
Morgan 1953, pp. 131-134; Dickey 1992, p. 125.
96
defining feature of the upper Lechaion valley. From the orientation of later buildings, it is
clear that the drain dictated the alignment of structures in the valley for centuries, right up
to the Classical period.249
Over the course of the Late Geometric period new forms of social organization
and urban practices began to sweep through Corinth. Burials around Temple Hill and in
other parts of the city abruptly came to an end. People now buried their dead in large
communal cemeteries beyond the immediate areas of habitation, and the North Cemetery
– approximately 800 m north of Temple Hill – soon developed into the largest Corinthian
cemetery.250 An industrial district called the Potters’ Quarter was established at the
western end of the city on a narrow plateau (fig. 3.6). Earlier burials are evidence of a
previous occupation on the site, but during the Late Geometric period the Potters’ Quarter
became a center for ceramic production. Although the evidence mostly consists of water
channels and drains, the relationship to later, more substantial waterworks, workshops,
and mercantile activity is beyond doubt.251 The western district of the city remained an
important venue of Corinthian industry for many centuries, because it was close to the
raw materials necessary for production.
The transformation of the urban landscape also included the establishment of
specific areas for cult activity. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on the northern slopes
of Acrocorinth received its first votive offerings just before the Late Geometric period.252
249
E.g., Building II-IV and the archaic predecessors of these structures; see infra Chapter 3.3.
250
Corinth XIII, pp. 13-20, 50-52. Recent salvage excavations west of the North Cemetery have revealed
that this area of Corinth was a major extra-mural burial ground, spanning the Sub-Mycenaean to the Roman
periods; see supra n. 244.
251
Corinth XV.1, pp. 11-12; Salmon 1984, p. 96.
252
Corinth XVIII.3, pp. 16-17; Bookidis 2003, p. 248.
97
The first monumental stone temple on Temple Hill (Old Temple) was not erected until
the early 7th century, but many scholars suspect that a geometric cult pre-dates the first
signs of architectural embellishment.253 Placing the formative period of cult activity on
Temple Hill in the Late Geometric period – a generation before the Old Temple was
constructed – corresponds with the elimination of burials around Temple Hill during the
same period.
Corinth was renowned in antiquity for its abundant supply of water.254 By the
Late Geometric period the Corinthians started to exploit the natural springs which dotted
the terrain with modest architectural backdrops. The so-called Cyclopean fountain east of
Temple Hill may have received a basin surrounded by a corbel-vaulted grotto at this
time.255 Towards the end of the 8th century, the Sacred Spring southeast of Temple Hill
received a permanent enclosure,256 and it is likely that Peirene fountain was also given an
architectural setting.257 The commitment to consolidate and tame the water supply at
Corinth during the second-half of the 8th century reflects a general reorganization of the
inhabitable space, especially around Temple Hill.
The presence of domestic structures in the upper Lechaion valley by the
Protocorinthian period (ca. 720-650), indicates that this region of Corinth was (relatively
speaking) densely inhabited immediately following the Late Geometric developments.
The eradication of burials from the central area of the city, in favor of large extra-urban
cemeteries, meant that the city of the dead was effectively now separate from the city of
253
E.g., Rhodes 2003; Bookidis 2003, pp. 248-250.
254
Paus. 2.3.5.
255
The date of Cyclopean fountain remains obscure; see Corinth I.6, pp. 44-47; Pfaff 2003, p. 135.
256
Williams and Fisher 1971, pp. 3, 5, 10; Williams et al. 1973, pp. 31-32; Sanders, forthcoming.
257
Robinson 2001, pp. 21-22.
98
the living. The evidence for habitation consists of Early Protocorinthian walls beneath the
classical Punic Amphora Building, and the remains of at least two, and possibly three
other Protocorinthian structures along the southern valley (Houses 2 and 3) (figs. 3.7;
3.8).258 The orientation of these buildings followed the axis of the earlier Middle
Geometric drain. Their walls were built from small field stones up to floor level, and the
superstructures were probably mudbrick. The scanty remains – only a few walls and
rooms – prevent us from understanding the buildings in any great detail. Most likely they
were domestic, but we cannot be entirely sure that this was their only use. As we shall see
later, the distinction between domestic and commercial/industrial was sometimes
interchangeable at Corinth, and some structures were clearly multifunctional.259
Overall, the Late Geometric and Protocorinthian changes taking hold of Corinth
reflect widespread trends noticed throughout the Ancient Mediterranean. In the 8th
century the nascent Greek city-state was emerging, both as a physical entity and as a
vehicle for nourishing new forms of social organization and communal cooperation.
Instead of small groups scattered throughout the countryside, people were now
congregating in an urban environment that was more dense than the previous three
centuries. A product of this new social structure was the emergence of designated areas
for congregation that fulfilled various religious, commercial, industrial, and political
needs. This was the case, for example, at Argos, where the urban environment adopted a
more multifaceted appearance by the Late Geometric period.
258
For Houses 2 and 3, see Williams and Fisher 1972, pp. 144-149. For the remains beneath the Punic
Amphora Building, see infra n. 306.
259
E.g., the Punic Amphora Building, the Trader’s Complex, and the Terracotta Factory.
99
The Early Political Context: The Bacchiadai and Tyranny
The new urban trends at Corinth can be attributed to specific social and political
transformations. Around the middle of the 8th century the Bacchiadai, an aristocratic clan
that dominated Corinthian politics for roughly 100 years (ca. 750-650), expelled the
hereditary kings to share power among themselves.260 Later sources tell us that they held
annual elections for political offices, encouraged trade and commerce, and established
colonies throughout the Mediterranean, most notably at Syracuse and Corcyra. The
Bacchiadai’s determination to alter the ruling order, exploit Corinth’s natural resources
and advantageous topography, link the city to regions beyond the Peloponnese, and shape
Corinth into a prosperous city, resulted in an urban metamorphosis.261
Most political movements ultimately run their course, and eventually the
Corinthians became discontent with the Bacchiadai. They were violently overthrown
around the middle of the 7th century by Cypselus, who established a hereditary tyranny at
Corinth that lasted three generations (ca. 650-580).262 Cypselus was himself a member of
the Bacchiadai, only to topple his own ruling clan.263 As far as we can tell, Cypselus and
his son Periander were interested in strengthening the economic success and urban
expansion initiated by the Bacchiadai. This is most apparent in two respects. First,
sections of a late 7th century fortification wall at the Potters’ Quarter attests to the
establishment of formal boundaries at Corinth. There was now a clear distinction between
260
For a historical background on the Bacchiadai, see Salmon 1984, pp. 55-74.
261
Cf., e.g., Thucydides’ well-known passage (1.13.5) that describes the early prosperity of Corinth.
262
For a comprehensive treatment of the Corinthian tyrants, see Libero 1996, pp. 135-178.
263
100
what was inside and outside the city. This was the culmination of a gradual process that
began over 100 years prior in the Late Geometric period, when the Corinthians began to
relocate cemeteries outside the inhabitable space. There is good reason to believe that the
circuit wall at the Potters’ Quarter encircled the whole city, essentially following the line
of its classical successor.264
Second, there was a concerted effort by the tyrants to firmly establish Corinth as
an economic and commercial powerhouse in the Mediterranean.265 They constructed a
stone causeway (diolkos) across the Isthmus of Corinth early in the 6th century. The
diolkos allowed the Corinthians to transport goods across a 7 km stretch of land northeast
of the city, providing a link between two overseas trade routes. The Corinthian Gulf on
the west gave access to the Adriatic Sea and Magna Graecia, while the Saronic Gulf on
the east communicated with the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean. More
importantly the Corinthians collected tariffs from the goods crossing the diolkos, which
must have been a profitable enterprise.266 The construction of the Lechaion harbor on the
Corinthian Gulf during the reign of Periander is further proof of economic consolidation.
Here merchandise was unloaded from ships and transported 3 km to the city center via a
road that led straight to Temple Hill and the Lechaion valley. Likewise, Corinthian
products were sent down to Lechaion and exported to foreign markets.267
264
Williams 1984, pp. 12-19; Corinth XV.1, pp. 11, 14-15. Rune Frederiksen (pers. com. 2008) informs me
that it is unlikely that a village in Corinth would have had a separate fortification wall. He insists that the
walls at the Potters’ Quarter belonged to a circuit that once surrounded the whole city.
265
The tyrants’ attention to fiscal responsibility is confirmed by a fragment of Aristotle (A16).
266
Raepsaet and Tolley 1993, pp. 233-261; Salmon 1999, pp. 154-156.
267
Rothaus 1995; Wiseman 1978, pp. 87-88; Salmon 1984, pp. 133-136. Salmon (ibid, p. 406) states:
“Periander devoted enormous resources to improving conditions for commerce by excavating the harbor at
Lechaion and constructing the diolkos.”
101
The effects of the economic initiatives were immediately felt inside the city. Two
large commercial/industrial structures appeared in the Potters’ Quarter about the same
time as the fortification walls. The South Long Building (late 7th century) and North
Long Building (ca. 600) were 65 m long rectangular structures. They were either single
establishments, or a co-op of small workshops.268 Another late 7th century commercial
structure called the Trader’s Complex emerged at the head of the Lechaion valley along
the road east of Temple Hill (fig. 3.9). A high percentage of imported pottery was
discovered here, including Etruscan bucchero. The proprietor of this structure no doubt
took advantage of the traffic passing between Lechaion harbor and the settlement around
Temple Hill.269 A business for ironworking (House 1) was set up near the Sacred Spring.
This multiroomed complex dates slightly earlier than the Trader’s Complex (third-quarter
of the 7th century), and contained large amounts of iron slag, ash-filled pits, a furnace,
and a spearhead mold (3.10). Like the Trader’s Complex to the north, the ironworking
complex developed here not because it was near the raw materials, but because it was in a
commercially lucrative spot.270
Tyrants in the Greek world are typically credited with erecting large temples at
conspicuous locations and the introduction of new cults.271 But at Corinth there is little
268
Corinth XV.1, pp. 15-17; Salmon 1984, pp. 101-102.
269
Williams et al. 1974, pp. 14-24.
270
Williams 1971, pp. 3-10; Mattusch 1977, p. 381. It was remodeled over an Early Protocorinthian (ca.
720-690) predecessor with no signs of industrial activity.
271
Polykrates is sometimes associated with the massive Ionic temple (Heraion IV) at the Heraion on
Samos; Lygdamis built his own monumental temple on Naxos; the Peisistratids at Athens began an
enormous temple to Zeus Olympios below the Acropolis; Theron at Akragas set out to build the largest of
all Doric temples to Zeus Olympios. Aristotle (Pol. 5.9.4) says that major construction projects were typical
of tyrants as a strategy to keep the populace busy and therefore to avoid conspiracy. For a different view,
see Young (1980, pp. 8-13), who remains skeptical of attributing large scale building projects to the Greek
tyrants, and Anderson 2005, pp. 192-193.
102
evidence that Cypselus and Periander adorned the city with lavish, new religious
buildings. The Corinthian tyrants maintained the existing cult on Temple Hill, evidently
feeling no need to build a new temple.272 A small heroon south of the Sacred Spring (ca.
600), and the introduction of the cult of Apollo at the Asklepieion (early 6th century), are
the only new religious sites that can be attributed to the reign of the tyrants.273 Cypselus
and Periander were largely content to nourish the already established cults, wishing
instead to focus their attention on the expansion of the Corinthian economy and industry.
Oligarchy and Archaic Corinth
After the fall of tyranny in the first-quarter of the 6th century (ca. 580), the
Corinthians reorganized the government to form an oligarchic constitution. The political
reforms allowed more citizens to participate in the everyday running of government.
These changes were still fairly restrictive, and from the literary testimonia there is no
indication that the Corinthians needed to construct offices for civic officials.274 This is
fairly consistent with most Greek cities during the Archaic and Early Classical periods,
when even in democracies little expenditure was applied to civic buildings.275 At Corinth,
we should not expect the post-tyranny oligarchy to have erected these types of buildings.
During the Archaic period the oligarchic government continued to augment the
economic infrastructure of Corinth. A large tile works establishment sprung up during the
272
Some sanctuaries and temples are known in the literary sources, but have not been discovered (not
necessarily to be associated with the tyrants). Most notable among them is the temple of Athena Chalinitis.
273
Heroon of the Crossroads: Williams et al. 1973, pp. 6-12; Williams et al. 1974, pp. 1-7; Williams 1978b,
pp. 79-87; Pfaff 2003, p. 128. Apollo at the Asklepieion: Corinth XIV, pp. 8-22; Pfaff 2003, pp. 125-127.
274
See infra Chapters 3.5-6.
275
103
second-quarter of the 6th century along the road leading up from Lechaion harbor to
Temple Hill. This was largely used for the production of ceramics, especially roof tiles.276
North of Peirene fountain a dye-works complex set up business by the middle of the 6th
century (fig. 3.11).277 Nearby, the North Building was constructed along the east cliff of
Temple Hill. This stoa-like structure had a row of shops fronted by a colonnade. It was
set at an ideal position to receive the traffic funneling itself towards the Lechaion valley.
The date of its initial construction remains unclear, although scholars tend to place it in
the Archaic period.278 The North Building must have been an important commercial
structure in the heart of Corinth, as its size and proximity to other buildings related to
industry and trade would imply. Along the southern side of the upper Lechaion valley, a
number of late 6th century pits attest to metalworking. These continued to be used until
the end of the 5th century.279
Springs in the central part of the city received more elaborate architectural
settings during the Archaic period. The first monumental phase of Peirene fountain is
typically dated to this period, as is Glauke fountain to the west of Temple Hill along the
road to Sikyon.280 Caution must always be applied when dating these fountains, since the
stratigraphic data help little in pinpointing an exact date.281 In their topographical
placement, both Peirene fountain and Glauke fountain flanked respectively the northeast
276
Merker 2006.
277
Williams 1967, p. 184; Williams 1968, p. 134.
278
Corinth I.1, pp. 212-228; Pfaff 2003, pp. 135-136. The second phase of the building is more securely
dated to the late 5th century or early 4th century.
279
Williams and Fisher 1972, pp. 149, 169-170; Williams et al. 1973, pp. 12-19; Mattusch 1977, p. 382.
280
Peirene: Corinth I.6, pp. 1-115; Pfaff 2003, pp. 134-135. Glauke: Corinth I.6, pp. 200-227; Pfaff 2003,
pp. 133-134; Robinson 2005, pp. 128-131.
281
E.g., Glauke fountain may date to the Classical period.
104
and northwest access points into the upper Lechaion valley. This circumstance was not
simply a matter of chance dictated by the location of natural springs. Unlike Peirene
fountain, Glauke fountain was not built above a natural water source. Instead, the water
from its rock-hewn superstructure had to be piped in from some distance. Why the
Corinthians would do this if they already had a generous supply of springs has often
troubled scholars.282 Yet the reason seems rather straightforward: the Corinthians wanted
a fountain house on a major road from Sikyon providing access into the upper Lechaion
valley. The first monumental phase of the Sacred Spring also dates to the Archaic period
(ca. 500). At this time the spring was adorned with bronze lionhead water spouts and
enclosed by a rectangular structure with a tristyle in antis facade.283
The Corinthian urban landscape witnessed a substantial increase in the number of
sanctuaries and temples during the Archaic period, much more so than at any other time
in the history of the Greek city. The most conspicuous of these was unquestionably the
erection of a new temple on Temple Hill around the middle of the 6th century. The
identification of this temple has always been problematic, but a recent study summarizes
the evidence to show that it was likely consecrated to Apollo.284 A stepped ramp leading
down the southeast corner indicates that the focus of traffic to and from Temple Hill was
at least in part directed towards the upper Lechaion valley (figs. 3.11; 3.12).285 In general,
cults began popping up throughout the valley. These included the Stele Shrine, a temenos
282
E.g., see Williams and Zervos 1984, p. 99.
283
Pfaff (2003, pp. 132-133) discusses the archaic phase of the spring with earlier bibliography; see also
Sanders, forthcoming.
284
Bookidis and Stroud 2004.
285
Corinth I.2, p. 89; Williams 1969, p. 55.
105
enclosure for the Heroon of the Crossroads, and eventually the Underground Shrine.286
The enigmatic Apsidal Building was built at the end of the 6th century near the Sacred
Spring. This was a small single-room structure with an apsidal back wall, and a tristyle in
antis facade. A rock-cut tunnel from the building led to a Doric triglyph and metope
terrace wall near the Sacred Spring. The Apsidal Building’s association with the Sacred
Spring is unmistakable, but the exact nature of the rites that took place here is obscure.287
The addition of new religious structures was not limited to Temple Hill and the
upper Lechaion valley. The remains of a large temple, sometimes identified as the temple
of Zeus Olympios, were discovered on the northern plateau of the city near the
Asklepieion. Architectural fragments include sections of a Doric epistyle and columns
that date to the Late Archaic period. The size of the surviving members show that this
temple was the largest at Corinth: 25% larger than the temple of Apollo on Temple Hill,
and only slightly smaller than the temple of Zeus at Olympia, the largest temple in the
Peloponnese.288 Fragments of another Doric structure, possibly a temple, have come to
light near the Early Hellenistic theater. A recent study dates the pieces to ca. 500-480,
tentatively restoring the putative temple as a small distyle in antis building. Based on the
proximity to the later theater, it is tempting to identify the deity worshiped here as
286
Stele Shrine: Corinth I.4, pp. 11-12; Williams 1978a, pp. 5-12; Pfaff 2003, p. 128. Heroon of the
Crossroads: Williams et al. 1973, pp. 6-12; Williams et al. 1974, pp. 1-7; Williams 1978b, pp. 79-87; Pfaff
2003, p. 128. Underground Shrine: Morgan 1937, pp. 545-546; Broneer 1942, p. 144; Williams and Fisher
1972, pp. 149-151; Williams 1978b, pp. 67-78; Pfaff 2003, p. 127.
287
Steiner 1992; Pfaff 2003, pp. 123-124; Sanders, forthcoming.
288
Pfaff 2003, pp. 115-119.
106
Dionysos.289 Another archaic cult building at Corinth was the Oikos in the Demeter and
Kore sanctuary.290
Summary of Early Developments
Two major interrelated trends become immediately obvious from this brief survey
of the early urban development of Corinth. First, the urban changes that began in the Late
Geometric period, and gained momentum in the Protocorinthian period, took advantage
of the natural benefits of Temple Hill and its surroundings. Early Corinth was
characterized by fragmented communities scattered over a wide area. Yet the focus of
attention was always on Temple Hill and the upper Lechaion valley. This was the nodal
center of Corinth. It was a natural gathering place with an important network of
communications. By the Archaic period a number of small cults inhabited the same space
as Protocorinthian buildings. This marked a remarkable period in the urban structure of
the city, and it is an indication of the changing attitudes regarding the use of space. We
observe for the first time a diverse assortment of buildings (domestic, commercial,
industrial, and cult) all clustered around one another. If we include the springhouses, the
dye-works complex, and the North Building within the valley, this area of Corinth
became a rather fascinating amalgamation of building types for various activities.
Second, the impetus for urban development was the commercial and industrial
infrastructure of Corinth, whose expansion was a high priority for the Bacchiadai, the
tyrants, and the post-tyranny oligarchy. The economic growth that resulted from the
289
Williams and Zervos 1982, p. 129; Pfaff 2003, pp. 121-122.
290
Corinth XVIII.3, pp. 64-73; Pfaff 2003, pp. 124-125.
107
diolkos and the Lechaion harbor were concurrent with an increase in the local production,
reflected by the establishment of various commercial and industrial businesses
throughout the city. The economic expansion at Corinth was directly related to a
progression towards a more sophisticated urban landscape.
3.3. Urban Development of Classical Corinth
Corinth underwent substantial changes during the Classical period as the
inhabitants augmented the built environment of the city. This included the construction of
new fortification walls over the earlier circuit, and the addition of two long walls that
extended 3 km down to the Lechaion harbor. Acrocorinth received fortifications during
this period as well, which were connected to the main circuit. At various places around
the city, the gates and towers are still preserved several courses high. Based on the style
of the architecture, the fortification walls are typically dated to the middle of the 5th
century, although there is evidence that repairs were made periodically throughout the
Classical period.291
A scattering of new domestic structures and small sanctuaries appeared around
the city. What is often referred to as the Terracotta Factory in the Potters’ Quarter was
actually the house of a coroplast (fig. 3.13). In its initial form, the building had a central
courtyard surrounded by small rooms – a typical arrangement found in classical Greek
houses. Eventually the classical fortification walls encroached on the western end of the
house, and an eastern extension had to be added. This included a narrow corridor with
291
For the classical fortification walls, see Corinth III.2.
108
rooms on either side that led into the courtyard. Although terracotta molds were found
inside the Terracotta Factory, the absence of a kiln dismisses the theory that figurines
were produced on site. Instead, the structure was probably used to press clay into figurine
molds.292 Also new in the Potters’ Quarter were small 5th century and 4th century shrines
grouped around contemporary domestic/workshop structures.293
Other than the Terracotta Factory, the vestiges of classical houses have come to
light near the Baths of Aphrodite at the northern edge of the city, and a handful around
the city in rescue excavations.294 The Baths of Aphrodite themselves probably received
modest architectural embellishments around the same time.295 The Kokkinovrysi Shrine,
a small roadside sanctuary outside the northwest walls of the city, was built in the late 5th
or early 4th century. A recent study argues that it was a shrine dedicated to the
Nymphs.296 Closer to the center of the city, a small distyle temple (Temple A) with a
semicircular altar was built near the end of the 5th century north of Peirene fountain (fig.
3.11). Votives associated with later alterations of Temple A suggest that a hero may have
been worshipped at the sanctuary.297
292
Corinth XV.1, pp. 34-49; Williams 1981, pp. 418-420; Corinth VII.5, p. 17.
293
For a recent summary of the classical shrines in the Potters’ Quarter, see ibid, pp. 13-18.
294
No architecture survives from the houses near the Baths of Aphrodite. The evidence for occupation
comes from a double cistern, two wells, an underground tunnel, and classical pottery dumped down the
wells; see Robinson 1962, pp. 124-126. The Greek Archaeological Service excavated some houses
(allegedly classical) that remain unpublished. One is located about midway between Temple Hill and
Anaploga. A raised plinth for dining couches was apparently found in one of the rooms.
295
This included cutting tunnels and erecting a roof; see ibid, pp. 126-130.
296
Kopestonsky 2009.
297
Corinth I.2, pp. 3, 9; Williams 1967, pp. 184-185; Williams 1978b, p. 13.
109
More substantial was the elaboration of the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore during
the Classical period.298 Dozens of dining complexes were built that have continuous
benches for accommodating reclining diners (fig. 3.14). Some structures had separate
kitchen facilities for the preparation for food. Although buildings for cult activity and
dining already appeared at the sanctuary in the 6th century, the density of dining
complexes during the Classical period was unprecedented. Within this area of Corinth
there was one of the highest concentrations of dining facilities known to have existed in
the ancient Mediterranean.299 Important question still persist, however, such as the
function of the dining rooms, the rites that took place in the sanctuary, who participated,
and how often the sanctuary was used.
North of Temple Hill
The most dramatic increase in building activity during the Classical period took
place around Temple Hill, and especially within the upper Lechaion valley. The
Corinthians enhanced the northern side of Temple Hill with the North Stoa around the
first-half of the 5th century (figs. 3.2; 3.3).300 Like the North Building along the eastern
side of the natural outcrop, the North Stoa was set at a conspicuous location perhaps to
take advantage of the traffic coming from the Lechaion harbor. The northern side of
Temple Hill was further augmented by the addition of the Painted Building, so-called
because of its painted plaster walls, which stood just to the east of the North Stoa. The
298
Preliminary reports and volumes dedicated to the site are numerous. Corinth XVIII.3 provides the best
summary of the architecture and phases.
299
Storms in the early 2000s caused mudslides that exposed a number of other dining complexes further
down the hill, meaning that the sanctuary was much more extensive than originally thought.
300
Corinth I.3, pp. 163-179.
110
building must have resembled a small stoa-like structure, but the architectural details
remain uncertain because its southern rock-cut walls are all that survive.301 Nevertheless
both the Painted Building and the North Stoa defined the northern side of Temple Hill,
giving the appearance of a continuous, monumental facade.
The theater was situated further to the northwest in a natural depression (fig. 3.3).
In its present state, however, the structure is largely of Roman construction, and almost
nothing dates much earlier than the Early Hellenistic period.302 Nevertheless, its initial
phase is often placed in the late 5th or early 4th century, primarily from circumstantial
evidence from Xenophon.303 The actual archaeological evidence for a classical and Late
Classical stone theater is very slight: (a) rows of holes in the bedrock might conceivably
be from an early wooden skene, and (b) some stone blocks and a few inscribed limestone
seats might date to the 4th century. The association of these blocks with an early phase of
the theater has already been called into question.304 Like in most other Greek cities, it is
probably not until the Early Hellenistic period that the Corinthians built a permanent
stone theater.305 Of course, we cannot exclude the possibility that the area northwest of
Temple Hill was already used by the 5th century for gatherings and cultural events. The
natural embankment that later accommodated the stone koilon could have been used for
performances.
301
Ibid, pp. 157-163.
302
The architectural history of the theater appears in Corinth II. For a recent summary with bibliography,
see Corinth IX.3, pp. 2-4.
303
Xen. Hell. 4.4.2-4 (A52).
304
Kolb (1981, p. 82, n. 18) argues that the inscribed seats were reused in the Hellenistic theater from an
earlier context.
305
E.g., the first permanent theaters at Argos and Elis both date ca. 300, while the large theater at
Megalopolis was constructed ca. 330-300; see Moretti 1993, pp. 9-23 (Argos); Glaser 2001, pp. 253-256
(Elis); Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004, pp. 148-159 (Megalopolis).
111
Punic Amphora Building
Mercantile activity continued to have a presence south of Temple Hill in the
Classical period. In addition to the nearby stoas along the northern and eastern sides of
the natural outcrop, the Punic Amphora Building was constructed at the southwest extent
of the upper Lechaion valley in the 460s (fig. 3.15). Excavations show that the building
was initially a domestic structure, and then transformed into a commercial complex by
the middle of the century.306 A central courtyard with a covered northern porch was
surrounded by a series of rooms. That the complex was involved in trade and commerce
is indicated by the discovery of large quantities of transport amphoras, some from as far
away as the Iberian peninsula. Seafood was apparently one the commodities stored and
transported in these amphoras, because the remains of bones and fish scales were found
scattered all over the floors.
The placement of the Punic Amphora Building was well-suited for a commercial
establishment, since two major roads intersected at the eastern side of the building. The
Sikyon road came from the temple of Apollo and Glauke fountain and continued towards
Acrocorinth further to the south, while another road came from Peirene fountain (fig.
3.11). The remains of two structures north and northwest of the Punic Amphora Building
306
Williams 1978a, pp. 15-20; Williams 1979, pp. 107-124; Williams 1980, pp. 108-111; Zimmermann
Munn 2003, pp. 198-199, 214-215. The Punic Amphora Building was built on top of an Early
Protocorinthian structure. Two poorly preserved rubble stone walls follow the line of the classical walls.
There is also an undated mudbrick wall nearby. For the earlier remains, see Williams 1980, pp. 108-110.
112
show that this trading establishment was not isolated, but part of a larger cluster of
buildings that lined the western road passing through the upper Lechaion valley.307
Racetrack and Circular Platform
The introduction of new building types and venues in the upper Lechaion valley
marked an important transition. Sometime during the first-half of the 5th century a
racetrack lay at the heart of the valley, and, nearby, a circular platform was added by the
end of the century (figs. 3.2; 3.16). The classical racetrack at Corinth had a curved
starting line with 17 lanes, which gave way to a long running surface that terminated
approximately 165 m to the southwest (figs. 3.17; 3.18).308 From stratigraphic evidence
the earliest phase of the starting line dates between 500-450, while the running surface
cannot be earlier than ca. 500. Successive layers of crushed limestone indicate that the
Corinthians frequently resurfaced the running surface throughout the Classical period, in
addition to periodically resurfacing the starting line. During the Early Hellenistic period,
a completely new starting line was built and the orientation of the racetrack was altered to
make room for the South Stoa.
Although scholars cannot agree on the precise events that took place on the
racetrack, there is little doubt that it was used for athletic events (agōnes) during religious
307
Ibid, pp. 110-111. Finds from the northern structure suggest that it was used after the middle of the 5th
century.
308
Williams and Russell 1981, pp. 2-15; Romano 1993, pp. 43-75. The termination of the racetrack can be
estimated from a N-S road at the western end of the upper Lechaion valley, a hard limestone running
surface that ends nearby, and two markers near the road that appear to have been distance markers. Romano
(ibid, pp. 49-50) convincingly shows that 165 m roughly equals 600 Corinthian feet (1 foot = 0.275 m),
which in turn equals one Corinthian stadion (600 feet = 1 stadion).
113
festivals beginning in the 5th century.309 The wide spacing of the foot grooves on the
starting line has led several scholars to conjecture that runners adopted an upright
position during races, and more specifically for torch races (lampadēdromia) during the
Helloteia festival held in honor of Artemis or Athena.310 Others have adopted this theory,
and expanded it further to associate the Helloteia with cult activity in the Sacred
Spring.311 Another suggestion is that the heavy-armored race (hoplitodromos) could have
occurred here.312 However, the study on early Greek stadia by David Romano
persuasively demonstrates that the classical racetrack at Corinth was designed for less
cumbersome running events, such as the dolichos or stadiodromos.313 Rather than just
sprinting down the entire length of the track, runners were first required to reach a
common “break post” one-third of the way down. The curved starting line and
narrowness of the 17 lanes gave all runners an equal opportunity to converge on this
single point. As Romano argues, athletes carrying torches or wearing heavy armor would
have had great difficulty maneuvering towards a set point.
Just to the south of the racetrack’s starting line, the Corinthians built a roughly
circular platform (figs. 3.2; 3.16).314 The architecture was simple, consisting of a low wall
of ashlar blocks supporting a semicircular raised terrace (fig. 3.19). The base for a
309
See especially the forthcoming study on agōnes in the Greek agora by R. Dubbini entitled, “Agōnes in
the Greek Agora Between Ritual and Spectacle: Some Examples from the Peloponnese.” I am grateful to
her for allowing me to read over her manuscript at an early stage.
310
From a scholion on Pindar (Ol. 13, 56) mentioning torch races at Corinth during the Helloteia, Broneer
(1942, pp. 145-150) suggests that lampadēdromia took place here; see also Morgan 1937, pp. 549-550. In
agreement is Herbert (1986), who as supporting evidence draws attention to 5th century Corinthian red-
figure fragments with representations of torch races.
311
Williams 1978b, pp. 42-43, 153-157; Steiner 1992, p. 405; Sanders, forthcoming.
312
Williams and Russell 1981, pp. 13-15.
313
Romano 1993, pp. 43-75.
314
Corinth I.3, pp. 79-85. For the most recent excavations with earlier bibliography, see Williams and
Russell 1981, pp. 15-21; Kenzler 1999, pp. 213-216.
114
circular monument lay on the platform, although further to the southeast. At first this was
considered to be Roman, but later excavations revealed that the base was probably
contemporary with the first phase of the circular platform. The close proximity of the
circular platform to the starting line of the racetrack has tempted scholars to associate its
function with athletics. So, for example, it follows that the platform was used as a
viewing stand for spectators, a stand for judges presiding over races, or a space for
pankration, wrestling, and boxing events.315 It has also been noted that post holes north of
the platform may have accommodated temporary bleachers (ikria) for viewing such
events.316 If these are indeed evidence for temporary bleachers, then we can imagine an
audience observing athletic, dramatic, or musical contests taking place on the platform
during a religious festival. Presumably once the athletic events on the racetrack
concluded, the Corinthians turned their attention to the circular platform, or vice-versa.
Although the evidence is not conclusive, there may be good reason for associating
the circular platform with the theatron described in a passage of Xenophon, as other
scholars have pointed out.317 In recounting the slaughter of those Corinthians who
favored peace with Sparta at the festival of Artemis Eukleia at Corinth in 392, Xenophon
states that the festival occurred in the Corinthian agora, where, among other things,
contests were held in a theatron. Since Xenophon twice identifies the agora as the setting
for the civil strife, the theatron must have been a temporary wooden construction in the
315
Morgan 1937, pp. 550-551 (viewing stand for spectators); Caskey 1954, p. 47 (spectators and judges);
Sakellariou and Faraklas 1971, p. 98 (judges); Williams and Russell 1981, pp. 15-21 (athletic events).
316
Ibid, p. 18.
317
Xen. Hell. 4.4.2-4 (A52). Kenzler 1999, pp. 213-216; Kenzler 2000, pp. 24-25; Dubbini, forthcoming
(see supra n. 309).
115
Corinthian agora and not some monumental structure.318 Further support comes from the
relevant classical literary and epigraphical testimonia, which never use the term theatron
to imply a stone construction.319 The notion of the monumental theater as a ubiquitous
feature of the classical Greek city has always been a modern distortion of the evidence, as
has the supposed circular form of early theaters. There are, however, references in the
ancient testimonia to structures for viewing spectacles built of perishable materials.320
Temporary wooden bleachers could be easily erected and then dismantled after a few
days, and they were certainly more cost efficient than stone structures. A temporary
structure was also more practical for events that took place only a few times a year, often
in a busy public quarter of the city, like the agora, that needed the free space when
festivals were not being held.
Taking into account the chronological overlap between the date of the circular
platform (late 5th century) and the passage of Xenophon (392), not to mention the
proximity of the circular platform to another venue where public spectacles took place
(racetrack), the potential use of the platform as a temporary theatron becomes appealing.
Yet it must be emphasized, for obvious reasons, that the challenges with identifying
wooden constructions in the archaeological record does not permit any greater precision
beyond this reasonable suspicion. What is more clear, however, is the relationship
318
This point is emphasized by Kolb 1981, pp. 81-83. For the view that the monumental stone theater and
Xenophon’s theatron are the same, see Williams 1978b, pp. 39-40.
319
Csapo 2007, pp. 103-108; Frederiksen 2002, pp. 70-75.
320
E.g., a 324/3 lease from Piraeus mentions wooden benches for a theatron; see Csapo 2007, pp. 90-93,
for the full text and previous bibliography. Wooden benches (bathra) are also encountered in a mid-3rd
century payment record (IG XI 2, 274) for a temporary construction in the stadium on Delos; see ibid, pp.
103-104.
116
between circular venues and performance space in Greek agoras.321 We have already
observed the semicircular orchestra and racetrack in the Argive agora, whose
arrangement mirrors the circular platform and racetrack in the Corinthian agora.322
Likewise, performances during the Spartan Gymnopaidiai festival took place in a circular
area within the Spartan agora called the Chorus, which some scholars identify with the
Round Building.323 And at Athens, literary testimonia attests to the presence of an
orchestra and temporary wooden bleachers in the Athenian agora, which may be
identified with postholes recovered during excavations near the racetrack at the northwest
corner.324
Buildings I-IV
The Protocorinthian buildings that had occupied the southern side of the valley
were eliminated by the Late Archaic period.325 By the end of the 5th century, however,
the area was completely filled again by a series of new structures that faced the racetrack
(fig. 3.2). Buildings I-IV followed the same southwest-northeast orientation as their
Protocorinthian predecessors and the Middle Geometric drain that was still in use (figs.
3.20; 3.21). In this respect, the continuity between Protocorinthian and classical
structures is striking, despite the gap between the destruction of the former and the
erection of the latter. Property lines may have remained the same and the northern limits
of the buildings were still delineated by the drain and road. It is unclear why the land was
321
Martin 1951, pp. 202-223; Hölscher 2007, pp. 170-171; Dubbini, forthcoming.
322
323
324
For a summary, see Kenzler 2000, pp. 25-26.
325
Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 149, and especially n. 9.
117
left vacant during the middle of the 5th century – a prosperous period for the Punic
Amphora Building. The metalworking pits are the only evidence for interim activity,
along with the three cult sites of the Stele Shrine, the Underground Shrine, and the
Heroon of the Crossroads.
Building I marked the easternmost extent of the new classical structures along the
southern valley. All that remains today is a poorly preserved L-shaped complex with a
two-roomed wing at the northeast.326 The lowest wall courses were built of stone and the
superstructure of mudbrick. Unlike the other classical buildings here, Building I was not
aligned with the northern road and drain. Its orientation was instead slanted more towards
the east. This position was obviously adopted to avoid impeding upon the running surface
of the classical racetrack, which stood only a few meters to the north. The back of
Building I was also restricted by the rising topography, where a retaining wall had to be
built to create a level surface. A sunken cellar was also located behind the building (Wine
Cellar B), as was the Underground Shrine which was still in use.
As noted by the excavator, a series of pits in the southwest room with fragments
of one-handled cups, Corinthian miniature table ware, and terracottas may be indicative
of cult activity. He believes that they were votive pits connected in some way to the
worship of chthonic cults in Building I. Additional evidence may come from the still
unpublished northeast wing of the complex, which was an early 4th century addition.
Here, two couches and a pillow divider found in situ attest to the presence of dining
activity. Noting that there was adequate space in Building I to accommodate other dining
326
Williams and Fisher 1972, pp. 151-165; Bookidis 2003, p. 254.
118
rooms (now lost), the excavator proposes that funerary meals related to cult activity took
place here. This is reasonable considering the proximity of the building to the
Underground Shrine and the Heroon of the Crossroads. However, the presence of
household material dumped in a nearby drain and the storage of commodities suggest that
Building I may have served additional needs.
The best preserved classical structure along the southern side of the valley is
Building II (figs. 3.20; 3.23).327 This rectangular structure (23 m x 20 m) was constructed
partly from recycled architectural members, as is clear from limestone foundation blocks
with dowel holes and clamps serving no purpose in reuse. The architectural spolia may
have come from archaic or Early Classical buildings that no longer survive, but whose
presence is suggested by some walls and cuttings in the bedrock further to the southwest,
beneath the South Stoa.328 Some of the poros orthostate walls of Building II are preserved
in places to a height of more than one meter (fig. 3.22). The quality of workmanship is
unmistakable in the squared faces and finely drafted edges of blocks. The upper walls
above orthostate level were probably of mudbrick.
The main entrance into Building II was through a triple contracting corridor at the
east that was only accessible from the northern road parallel to the racetrack. Once
through this corridor, the entrance gave way to a long east-west court that extended the
full length of the building. Three rooms of uniform dimensions were positioned south of
the court, and, although nothing remains because of the South Stoa, two more rooms
327
Morgan 1938, pp. 362-70; Williams and Fisher 1972, pp. 165-173.
328
Corinth I.4, pp. 7-17.
119
should probably be restored at the west. This reconstruction provides the southern part of
Building II with a row of five rooms of similar dimensions. Quite different in plan, the
northeast section of the building consisted of a central court with two rooms on either
side. Access into this court was through a doorway from the main east-west court, and
perhaps through a door via the northern road. It is more difficult to understand the layout
of the northwest corner of Building II, because of the poor state of preservation. At least
two rooms existed here, and one had a well with a channel that emptied into the Middle
Geometric drain outside. Like its neighbor, Building II also had facilities for the storage
of commodities in a sunken cellar behind the southern wall (Wine Cellar A).
The ground plan and construction of Building II does not immediately call to
mind an elaborate domestic structure, such as the classical houses at Athens and Thasos,
or the regularity of the block-style Typenhäuser at Olynthos, Kassope, and Priene (figs.
1.4; 3.24).329 At these places the internal division of space focused on a single centralized
courtyard (peristyle house), oftentimes with a colonnade or upper floor on one side of the
courtyard (pastas house, prostas house). Nor does Building II resemble the central
courtyard arrangement of the Terracotta Factory in the Potters’ Quarter and the Punic
Amphora Building, which are some of the few surviving examples of classical Corinthian
domestic architecture (figs. 3.13; 3.15). What distinguishes Building II from these
examples is the division of space into distinct units. Rather than having a single courtyard
from which rooms radiate outwards, the building had a long east-west court with southern
329
For the houses at Athens and Thasos, see Agora XIV, pp. 173-185 (Athens); Grandjean and Salviat
2000, pp. 99-102; 123-128 (Thasos). For the Typenhäuser, see Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994, pp. 82-113
(Olynthos), 145-161 (Kassope), 208-225 (Priene).
120
rooms of uniform dimension, a second self-contained courtyard at the northeast with its
own set of rooms, and likely a third courtyard at the northwest. Furthermore, each
courtyard had its own well and probably its own access to the northern road.
The best architectural parallels for Building II are those structures outside the
residential quarters of a city, where the distinctions between public and private are often
blurred. Although smaller, the 5th and 4th century multi-roomed complex (House 2) next
to the theater at Thorikos in Attica was not arranged around a dominant courtyard, but
compartmentalized into several units with at least two small courtyards (fig. 3.25).330 A
southern entryway gave access to two distinct units each with 2-3 rooms, while a second
entryway from the side facing the theater gave way to a hallway with a row four rooms.
From the large quantity of drinking vessels deposited between House 2 and the theater,
the excavators believe that House 2 was likely used for public syssitia (common
banquets). This suspicion is supported by the discovery of a drinking vessel and dry
measure marked δεµόσιον (property of the state) nearby,331 as well as the close proximity
of House 2 to the theater and a large complex on the other side of the theater with rock-
cut benches. In fact, the excavators consider this part of the city to be the agora of
Thorikos.
The relationship between a building serving public needs and the agora is
reinforced by the 4th century structure near the agora at Kallipolis, one of the leading
cities in Aetolia (fig. 3.26).332 House IV had a rectilinear plan (18 m x 15 m) with an
330
Thorikos III, pp. 70-71.
331
Hackens 1967, pp. 84-86; Thorikos III, pp. 69-73.
332
Themelis 1979, pp. 260-279; Themelis 1999, pp. 432-440.
121
internal arrangement that partly recalls the layout of Building II. Instead of having a
central courtyard, an eastern door facing the agora provided access to a long east-west
court with a series of rooms on either side. Walls were constructed with simple stone
socles that supported mudbrick walls. The private nature of House IV is emphasized by
the presence of an oikos room with a large central hearth. This is a characteristic,
although not exclusive feature of Greek domestic architecture. Further indication comes
from an adjacent bathing room with a preserved clay bathtub, and dozens of loomweights
and metal door fittings that fell from the second floor. However, the fine line between
public and private spheres is highlighted by the presence of not one, but two dining
rooms with pebble mosaic floors and raised plinths for the accommodation of couches. In
addition, more than 600 decorative clay seals were found buried beneath a Hellenistic
destruction layer in a room the excavators identify as an archive room. These were for
stamping documents with an official seal, presumably papyri rolls that are now lost. In
another room, the excavators found large quantities of ceramics and storage pithoi.
Remains of charred grain in some of the pithoi reveal that foodstuff was stored (and
regulated?) in this room.
The combination of these architectural features and small finds within a single
complex emphasizes the dual public and private role of House IV, as does its close
proximity to the agora at Kallipolis. Yet as with Buildings II at Corinth it is difficult to
completely understand how these elements worked together. It may be that an influential
administrative official once occupied House IV. Perhaps he was involved in the sale and
regulation of foodstuff and the official documentation of these goods. Based on the hearth
122
room and the two dining rooms, it is also worth suggesting that House IV was the
Kallipolitan prytaneion.333 While a secure identification is not possible, it is important to
recognize the potential for plurality in the organization and usage of internal space
adjacent to an agora. Without the fortunate circumstance of the well-preserved clay seals,
pithoi, and plinths for dining couches, House IV at Kallipolis would probably have been
identified as a simple domestic structure. Instead, it provides us with a useful model for
better understanding buildings that blur these traditional boundaries.
At Corinth, excavations within Building II did not produce small finds that help
pinpoint an identification. Nonetheless, there are similarities with the structures at
Thorikos and Kallipolis that are worth mentioning. The storage of commodities, maybe
wine or foodstuff, is suggested by the sunken cellar behind the building. This happens to
be a common feature of the classical buildings along the southern side of the valley. In
addition, there is evidence that mercantile activity occurred in the vicinity. An official
Corinthian weight marked δαµόσιον Κορι(νθί)ων and a dry measure stamped with
δαµόσιον were both discovered in a drain between Buildings I-II, along with large
quantities of drinking vessels (figs. 3.27; 3.28).334 The material was discarded here at the
end of the 4th century during leveling operations for the construction of the monumental
South Stoa.335 The objects marked as state property are testimony that the Corinthian
333
This idea was first proposed by J.M. Camp; see Themelis 1998, p. 47, n. 7.
334
The semicircular weight (MF-71-48) also has ἡµιµνάον punched on the obverse, indicating that its
official weight was a half-mina; see Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 162. For the Corinthian dry measure (C-
71-335), see Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 156. Two identical Corinthian dry measures stamped with
δαµόσιον were discovered near the Sacred Spring and the Roman Northwest Stoa. For a discussion of all
marks of state ownership discovered at Corinth, see Donati 2010.
335
I. McPhee and E. Pemberton are currently preparing the final publication of the material from Drain
1971-1. For preliminary reports, see Williams and Fisher 1972, pp. 154-63; McPhee 2005, pp. 41-2, 88.
123
state had a hand in the daily organization and regulation of commercial products,
presumably somewhere nearby. Likewise, the concentration of drinking vessels implies
the presence of public syssitia.
Although we cannot be certain that these objects were used in the classical
structures along the southern valley, it remains a good possibility. Buildings I-IV were
intentionally dismantled before the construction of the South Stoa, and one would suspect
that unusable or unwanted material from them was then discarded in the drain. This
circumstance, together with the internal arrangement of Building II, offers compelling
evidence that this structure had some connection to mercantile activity and the
administration of commercial goods. The regular rooms in the back of Building II may
have been used as small offices, perhaps for boards of officials.336 Their uniform
dimensions, and the off-center threshold of one of the rooms may also indicate that the
chambers doubled as dining rooms.337 Likewise, the two other courtyards with their own
projecting rooms could have been used for a variety of commercial and administrative
purposes, especially since they had an intimate relationship with the public road and
racetrack just outside.
Next in the sequence of the classical buildings along the southern side of the
valley, Building III was separated from Building II by a narrow corridor (figs. 3.20;
336
This was first suggested by the excavator, but never expanded upon; see Williams and Fisher 1972, p.
173.
337
The excavator proposes this idea, but abandons it because he feels that the rooms are too small to
accommodate a regular arrangement of couches; see ibid, p. 172. However, the rooms from the sanctuary
of Demeter and Kore show that the dimensions of Corinthian dining rooms could vary.
124
3.29).338 The structure was not as deep, and, instead of being rectilinear, its back wall was
shallow before flaring out towards the west. Presumably there were preexisting structure
to the south that restricted the orientation and depth of the southern wall of Building III.
The evidence for nearby buildings comes from a large, multi-channel underground water
system, and cuttings in the bedrock for structures beneath Shops 30-33 of the South
Stoa.339 It is impossible to know whether these date to the Archaic or Classical periods –
to say nothing of their use.
Like its neighbor, the internal arrangement of Building III was divided into
distinct units with more than one courtyard. A western and eastern courtyard were joined
by a narrow east-west corridor with rooms on both sides. Two doorways from the
northern road provided separate access into the courtyards. The western courtyard
communicated with a small room at the rear with a well (fig. 3.30), while the eastern
courtyard also had its own well, in addition to a platform built against the eastern wall.
The only notable features from the rooms to the north and south of the central corridor
are another well, and perhaps a small hearth in the northwest room (Room 3) that the
excavator identifies as a kitchen. This is a rather tentative suggestion, since at least two
other wells were found in Building III and the purported hearth consists of four small
stones with no traces of burning. A small room at the building’s northeast corner (Room
1) had a separate entrance on the northern street facing the racetrack. For this reason we
might identify it as a small roadside shop.
338
Morgan 1939, pp. 258-260; Morgan 1953, pp. 131-140; Corinth I.4, pp. 8-10; Williams and Fisher 1972,
pp. 173-174; Williams et al. 1973, pp. 19-27; Williams 1979, pp. 125-136.
339
See supra n. 328. The underground waterworks are visible on fig. 3.2.
125
The identification of Building III as a domestic structure cannot be excluded.
Typical 4th century household pottery was excavated from an oval pit in the western
corridor. This included both fineware and cooking ware and three amphoras. On the other
hand, lots of drinking cups were discovered in the wells and more than 100 terracotta
figurines were found against one of the walls.340 The division of the complex into two
separate courtyards, each with its own water supply also raises questions about its
function, as does the (apparently) independent shop at the northeast.
Building IV marked the western extent of the classical structures along the
southern valley. Today it is in a poor state of preservation, but enough survives to show
that in plan the structure was considerably different than Buildings I-III (figs. 3.20;
3.31).341 The core of Building IV consisted of a large, sunken cellar open to the air
(almost 2 m deep), which was surrounded by a colonnaded peristyle on at least two sides.
Access into the cellar was by a flight of rock-cut steps along the southern side (fig. 3.32).
It does not appear that the cellar was used as a cistern for the storage of water. No drain
was found inside, nor did the excavators find any evidence that the walls were stuccoed
with water proof plaster. Instead, the cellar may have been used for the storage of
commodities and was simply a larger version of the sunken cellars behind Buildings I-II.
Two narrow rooms were located to the north of the central cellar room. One was
paved with a cement floor that had a decorative pebble mosaic with palmettes and
honeysuckles. A low bench and an unexcavated well were also found in this room.
Because the walls are preserved only to foundation level, we have no indication whether
340
Morgan 1953, pp. 137-139.
341
Williams 1979, pp. 125-136; Williams 1980, pp. 111-116.
126
these rooms communicated with the street outside, or whether entrance into Building IV
was by way of the narrow alley to the east. Cuttings in the bedrock found beneath the
western end of the South Stoa mark the line of the southern wall of Building IV that no
longer survives today.342 The western side of Building IV was restricted by the already
preexisting Stele Shrine. Here there is intimate relationship between a classical structure
and cult site, much like the close proximity between Building I and the Underground
Shrine.
Redevelopment and the Punic Amphora Building
The Stele Shrine and the road that linked Temple Hill and Peirene fountain with
the upper city were immediately to the west of Building IV. The property once inhabited
by the Punic Amphora Building was beyond this crossroads (fig. 3.33). The abandonment
of this building dates to the 430s, and by the 420s an east-west road crossed over much of
the site. Property lines were abandoned and no new structure was built here until the
Roman period. Some scholars attribute this curious circumstance to the onslaught of the
Peloponnesian War, when, as the hypothesis goes, an Athenian naval blockade chocked
the owner out of business.343 This is a rather unconvincing explanation. It does not
address the wider implications of the war on the Corinthian economy. One would expect
the disruption of other commercial and industrial establishments at Corinth, but there is
no evidence of this in the archaeological record.
342
Note especially the cuttings from Shop 32 of the South Stoa; see Corinth I.4, plan VI.
343
Williams 1979, p. 118; Zimmermann Munn 2003, pp. 214-215.
127
Rather than a victim of the Peloponnesian War, the Punic Amphora Building was
more likely a target for redevelopment. The abandonment of the site in the 420s roughly
overlaps with the construction of Buildings I-IV along the southern valley, as well as the
Centaur Bath further to the west (see below). Placed within this wider context of urban
renewal, we probably come closer to understanding the fate of the Punic Amphora
Building. It was no longer resistant to the changes taking place and was either
expropriated or purchased. It is peculiar that the property itself was never occupied by
another building until the Roman period. Habitation on the site goes back to the Early
Protocorinthian period, and during the 5th century the property had ties to North Africa
and the Western Mediterranean. The insertion of a public roadway marked a radical
departure of land use.
The construction of new buildings to the west overlaps chronologically with the
destruction of the Punic Amphora Building and may provide some answers. These were
the Centaur Bath, Building V, and the Pentagonal Building (fig. 3.34). Here we must
carefully consider issues regarding accessibility. The best way to enter this new
development was from the crossroads near the Stele Shrine, and then directly through the
property once occupied by the Punic Amphora Building. Other areas were not suitable for
access. The topography to the south and west of the Centaur Bath was too steep, and the
area to the north was restricted by a narrow alley. In order for these buildings, and in
particular the Centaur Bath, to communicate with the rest of the valley, the elimination of
the Punic Amphora Building was essential.
128
Centaur Bath
Despite its misleading name, the Centaur Bath probably was not a Greek
balaneion (bath) (fig. 3.34).344 The structure was bounded to the north by the scanty
remains of Building V and the Pentagonal Building, to the west by a narrow alley, and to
the south by the rising valley.345 The eastern half of the building was destroyed by later
Roman construction, so it is impossible to determine its full extent. A corridor (Room 2)
coming from the east gave access to the rest of the complex. At least one room was used
for dining (Room 3), as indicated by a raised plinth for the accommodation of dining
couches (fig. 3.35). Other rooms may have been used for dining on portable couches.346
The large central room with a pebble mosaic (Room 1) with a wheel motif surrounded by
an ithyphallic donkey and centaur chasing a hare, originally identified as a steam bath,
could have accommodated dining couches as well. A reserved space on two sides of the
central mosaic has a width (1.18 m) appropriate for couches (fig. 3.36).
Two smaller rooms were north of the mosaic room. One had a large furnace, the
other had a well. Contrary to what the excavator argues in his preliminary report, the
furnace room in all probability did not communicate with the rest of the Centaur Bath.
The furnace itself was built against a shared partition wall with the mosaic room and the
well room (Room 5). This effectively blocked off any access points. For this reason, and
344
Williams and Fisher 1975, pp. 6-9; Williams and Fischer 1976, pp. 109-115; Williams 1977, pp. 45-53;
Williams and Zervos 1991, pp. 3-11.
345
Building V: Williams and Fisher 1976, pp. 104-107; Williams 1977, pp. 41-45. Pentagonal Building:
Williams and Fisher 1975, pp. 7-8; Williams and Fisher 1976, p. 108.
346
E.g., Room 7 had a raised plinth with a lower central area that was plastered. Although in this instance
the raised area was not rectilinear, but curved. Fragments of a painted cement plinth from a dining room
were discovered in the area, and they may be associated with the Centaur Bath or Building V; see Williams
and Fisher 1976, pp. 104-107; Williams 1977, pp. 41-45.
129
the fact that the furnace faced a paved courtyard towards the west, leads me to suspect
that the furnace room functioned as an attached, yet separate facility from the main
complex. It was probably rented out for some industrial or commercial purpose, like the
shop connected to Building III.
After the Centaur Bath was discovered in the 1970s, the excavator proposed that
the building was a bathing facility based upon the tripartite arrangement of the furnace
room, the well room, and the mosaic room. His theory follows that water was drawn from
the well room, brought into the furnace room where it was heated, and then transported
into the mosaic room where bathers would have been waiting in terracotta tubs. This is a
rather ingenious suggestion, although wholly speculative. First, there is no evidence that
any of the three rooms in question communicated with one another. No thresholds have
been found, and, as I have already pointed out, the size of the furnace makes it unlikely
that this room was accessible from the other two. Likewise, it is difficult to imagine how
a person in the well room could have entered the mosaic room, since the platform of the
well blocked nearly the whole width of the shared partition wall.347 Entrance into the well
room was through a larger eastern room (Room 4). Second, not a single fragment of a
terracotta tub was discovered in the building, so it remains unclear how the Centaur Bath
would have accommodated bathers.348
Instead of trying to understand the Centaur Bath in isolation, it is preferable to
place the building within the context of the classical structures along the southern valley.
347
The excavator’s argument that windows would have been used to transport water is unconvincing.
348
It is true that a series of five circular and oval holes were cut into the reserved, plastered surface in the
mosaic room, but these were later additions, as the excavator admits.
130
If the furnace room was indeed a separate shop, the Centaur Bath displays all of the basic
characteristics of Buildings I-IV: (a) corridor providing passage to other rooms, (b)
compartmentalization of internal space, (b) rooms with plaster or mosaic floors, (c)
dining room(s), (d) supply of water from wells and drains that empty into the Middle
Geometric drain. These are parallels that highlight the integration of the Centaur Bath in
the ensemble of structures along the southern valley in the late 5th and early 4th century.
The Historical Context
Our knowledge of the history of Corinth during the 5th century is heavily
influenced by Herodotus and Thucydides. We must acknowledge, therefore, that it is
from an Athenian perspective that political events unfold and historical events have been
framed. Throughout much of the 5th century the Corinthians appear to have been
cautious supporters of Sparta, who was their traditional Peloponnesian ally. Both shared a
common form of government (oligarchic), and both had grievances against Athens,
although not necessarily overlapping ones. Nevertheless, Corinth was often suspicious of
Spartan intentions, especially when it became clear that a Spartan hegemony would
simply fill the power vacuum after the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War (431-
404). Outside of the Peloponnesian War, relations with Athens during the 5th century
were not always hostile, and there are several instances when Corinth tolerated, and even
actively aided the Athenians.349
349
E.g., when Sparta wanted to attack Athens in 440 during the Samian revolt, Corinth vetoed the proposal.
131
During the Persian Wars, the Corinthians helped the Greek cause by supplying
troops and triremes. In terms of the number of warships, Corinth was second only to
Athens. The power and size of the Corinthian navy is a reoccurring theme throughout the
5th century, despite their portrayal as being rash and not as cunning as the Athenians.350
Relations with Athens deteriorated considerably in the late 460s, when the Athenians
supported Megara in a border dispute with Corinth. The Corinthians were also uneasy
about the growth of Athenian naval power (a challenge to their own), especially after the
latter’s successful offensive against the island of Aegina in 457. In the late 430s Corinth
was drawn into another dispute with Athens, but again indirectly through a separate
dispute with Corcyra, a former Corinthian colony that traditionally resisted interference
by the mother-city. The spat between Corinth and Corcyra contributed to the growing
tensions between Athens and Sparta, which ultimately developed into a prolonged war.351
During the first-half of the Peloponnesian War, the so-called Archidamian War
(431-421), Corinth supported Sparta above all with her naval power. The strategy was
that Corinth would challenge Athenian naval superiority; however, Corinth had countless
setbacks and never managed to rise to the cause. In the mid-420s, the Athenian admiral
Phormio was able to blockade part of the Corinthian Gulf and destroy several Corinthian
vessels. The only damage on Corinthian territory during this period was when the
Athenian general Nicias launched an offensive in 425, landing with hoplites and cavalry
in the eastern Corinthia. Some of the countryside was ravaged, but the city itself was
350
Herodotus (8.57-63) portrays the Corinthian general, Adeimantos, at Salamis as being needlessly rude to
Themistocles.
351
For a discussion of these events, see Salmon 1984, pp. 270-305.
132
never under any direct threat. After a brief pause in hostilities with the Peace of Nicias
(421-415), Corinth continued to supply her Peloponnesian allies with triremes after the
resumption of the war. In particular, she sent ships for the defense of Syracuse against a
failed Athenian assault. The defeat of Athens and the conclusion of the war in 404 meant
that the Corinthians were on the victorious side, yet they clearly had qualms about the
mounting power of Sparta.
During the first-quarter of the 4th century, the Corinthians experienced perhaps
their greatest internal crisis in many generations. In a reversal of fortunes, the city banded
together with Athens, Argos, and the Boeotian Federation in an attempt to challenge
Sparta. This resulted in the so-called Corinthian War (395-387), when the territory of
Corinth became the main battleground for the opposing powers. During this period, the
Corinthian countryside was often ravaged and the long walls down to the Lechaion
harbor were breached. At one point the Spartans even occupied the Lechaion harbor. The
most shocking predicament was the slaughter of those Corinthians who favored peace
with Sparta at the festival of Artemis Eukleia in 392, while people were gathered in the
Corinthian agora. The outcome of these events led to the annexation of Corinth by Argos,
who subsequently forced their own laws on the Corinthians. Corinth did not regain her
independence until the end of the conflict with the implementation of the so-called
King’s Peace in 387.352
In the decades following the King’s Peace, Corinth remained more or less a loyal
ally of Sparta. The rise of Thebes in the 370s led to a number of military confrontations
352
See ibid, pp. 342-370.
133
on Corinthian soil, since the Isthmus of Corinth was the only route for an invading army
to reach the Peloponnese. The Theban general Epaminondas ravaged the Corinthian
countryside on occasion and even attempted (unsuccessfully) to breach the city’s
fortification walls. The Theban threat eventually subsided after the death of Epaminondas
in 362. Later in the 4th century, Corinth participated in the Greek resistance against the
Macedonians under Philip II, but the allied defeat at the battle of Chaironeia in 338 meant
that the Greek city-states were now effectively controlled by a Macedonian king.
Summary of Classical Developments
The patterns in the spatial organization of Corinth throughout the Classical period
provide an image of a city that adopts a more complex urban center, partly by cultivating
past tendencies in the built environment, and partly by creating new spaces for human
activities. A number of structures and districts were renovated or enlarged, such as the
fortification walls, the Sacred Spring, and the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. Mercantile
and industrial activity were well-represented, as they were in previous incarnations of the
city. The most striking changes occurred around Temple Hill. The boundaries of the
outcrop that supported the temple of Apollo were given greater definition with the
construction of the North Stoa and Painted Building. By the end of the 5th century the
North Stoa and the North Building were both renovated.
South of Temple Hill, redevelopment in the upper Lechaion valley appears to
have been a calculated effort throughout the 5th century. The near simultaneous
elimination of the 2-3 Protocorinthian (domestic?) structures, as well as Protocorinthian
134
House 1 near the Sacred Spring in the Late Archaic period, coincided with the
construction of the Sacred Spring’s monumental phase, the Apsidal Building, and the
Underground Shrine. The racetrack appeared sometime during the first-half of the 5th
century, followed by the Punic Amphora Building and its commercial ties. These new
architectural additions and venues merged together various forms of domestic,
commercial, religious, and athletic activities, and gradually transformed the spatial
arrangement of the entire upper Lechaion valley.
By the end of the 5th century, the southern side of the valley was occupied by a
series of new classical structures, whose relationship with the roadway to the north and
the racetrack was intimate. Some buildings had more than one door leading out onto the
road, and there were at least 1-2 shops. In no way were these structures secluded from the
public activity taking place right outside their doors. Unlike typical classical houses, there
were no small rooms arranged around a central courtyard. Some of the buildings had
multiple courtyards and space was divided into distinct units. Commodities were stored
in sunken cellars either outside the main complex or inside. All these indications suggest
that Buildings I-IV and the Centaur Bath were not used as normal domestic structures.
3.4 The Corinthian Agora: The Ancient Testimonia
I have avoided up until now any discussion about the Corinthian agora in the
preceding survey of the spatial and architectural development of Corinth. This was
intentional, because I wanted to offer a diachronic introduction to the city without biasing
any particular district over the other. As much as it possibly can, the material should
135
speak for itself. It is true that archaeological explorations beginning in the late 19th
century have tended to concentrate around Temple Hill. For obvious reasons, we should
be cautious about how to interpret larger trends in the settlement patterns at Corinth based
upon an incomplete picture. On the other hand, more than 100 years of intensive
archaeological research certainly permits us to begin evaluating the fundamental
questions on the topography and urban development of the ancient city.
There is a tendency by some Corinthian scholars to exaggerate just how
incomplete the picture really is at Corinth. Even in the early years of excavations, the
Greek Archaeological Service excavated east of the Roman forum and American
archaeologists sunk trenches at a number of places around the city to gain a foothold on
the topography. Besides Temple Hill and the Roman forum, the American School of
Classical Studies has undertaken systematic fieldwork at the sanctuary of Demeter and
Kore, the Potters’ Quarter, the western village of Anaploga, the northern region of the
city around the Asklepieion and Gymnasium, the theater and Roman odeion, the so-called
“East of Theater” district where the excavators believed they would find the Corinthian
agora, the Panayia Field southeast of the Roman forum, the North Cemetery, various
sections of the fortification walls, and on Acrocorinth. In addition, they have focused on a
number of minor operations, such as in the Kraneion district and surface explorations to
the east (fig. 3.4). We can add to this list the countless rescue operations by the Greek
Archaeological Service, most of which remain unpublished. What the Service has not
found is just as informative as what it has found. There are dozens of instances where
136
rescue excavations have produced absolutely nothing.353 In short, the assumption that few
districts beyond Temple Hill have been explored is stretching the facts. We must
acknowledge that the picture will always be incomplete and susceptible to modification,
while at the same time recognize that important conclusions can be drawn from past and
present fieldwork.
The Ancient Sources
Ancient literary references to the Corinthian agora shed some light on its function
in the city, even though the passages at out disposal are limited to only a handful of
examples (see table 3). Referring to events that occurred during the reigns of the
Bacchiadai and tyrants, both Plutarch and Nicolaus of Damascus imply that Corinth had
an agora for public gatherings. Plutarch states that Melissus, a Corinthian man whose son
had been murdered by a rival family, brought the body of his son to the agora to invoke
pity from other people.354 Likewise, Nicolaus of Damascus says that Periander banned
idling in the agora, because he wanted the populace to be busy with work.355 If we accept
these passages as trustworthy and void of anachronisms, Corinth had an agora sometime
in the late 8th century and early 7th century. Neither author specifically talks about what
the Corinthians did in the agora, but we get a sense that the venue was a place where
crowds assembled together.
353
Any future study would benefit from assembling all the data from these rescue excavations and plotting
them on a thematic map.
354
Plut. Mor. 773A (A32).
355
Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F58.1 (A21).
137
A passage from Aristotle implies that Corinth had taxes on commercial goods that
were imported into the harbors, and on products bought and sold in the agora during the
tyranny of Periander.356 The word Aristotle uses for the agora (agorē) appears to refer to
the physical venue in the city, since he specifies that taxes will also be levied in the
harbors (limenes). By the 5th and 4th century there are contemporary references to the
Corinthian agora as a venue for commercial activity. The New Attic comedy writer
Diphilus sets his play The Merchant at Corinth, where there is an amusing interaction
between buyers and sellers in the agora.357 The humor centers around the buying
practices of extravagant men, who are accused of not having enough money to afford
expensive products. As a result of their squandering, they drive up the market prices for
everyone else. Another passage in Plutarch reveals that the late 5th century Attic orator
Antiphon, before he became successful in Athens, set up a shop (οἴκηµα) near the
Corinthian agora, where he advertised that he could cure men in distress.358
Xenophon highlights the religious function of the Corinthian agora, when he
describes the slaughter of the Corinthians who favored peace with Sparta at the festival of
Artemis Eukleia in 392.359 The conspirators chose the last day of the festival to carry out
the murders, because many people would be gathered in the agora. Some of those killed
included a man standing with a group of friends and another man sitting. Xenophon even
specifies that some of the victims were attending competitions in the theatron. These
must have been dramatic or musical events connected to the festival. Because Xenophon
356
Heraclid. Lem. 20 (Arist. F 611.20) (A16).
357
Diph. The Merchant (apud Ath. 6.227e-228b) (A13).
358
Plut. Mor. 833C (A33).
359
Xen. Hell. 4.4.2-4 (A52).
138
twice identifies the Corinthian agora as the location for the civil strife, the theatron was
likely a temporary wooden construction in the agora erected specifically for the festival,
rather than the permanent stone theater northwest of Temple Hill.360
Once the plot was finally discovered, Xenophon says that some Corinthians
sought sanctuary at the statues of the gods (τὰ ἀγάλµατα) in the agora, while others
fled to the altars (τοὺς βωµούς). From this important passage we learn that the
Corinthian agora served two kinds of religious functions. Not only was it a venue for
celebrating religious festivals, in this case Artemis Eukleia, but there were also
sanctuaries in the agora with cult statues and altars. The conspicuous nature of the agora
as a venue for gathering together and witnessing a spectacle is emphasized in another
passage by Diodorus. Occurring some decades after the events described by Xenophon,
Diodorus reports that Timoleon put to death his brother Timophanes as he was
promenading in the agora, because the latter had instituted a brief tyranny at Corinth
around 366.361
Even though the ancient literary testimonia are not substantial, they do highlight
the basic mechanics of the Corinthian agora and the types of activities one might find
there. During the reign of the Bacchiadai and the tyrants, Corinth may have had an agora
where people could gather. By the Classical period our sources inform us that
commercial and religious activities took place in the Corinthian agora. The Corinthians
celebrated a festival of Artemis Eukleia in the agora, sanctuaries existed there, dramatic
contests were likely held in a temporary theatron, people bought and sold goods,
360
361
Diod. 16.65.3-4 (A11).
139
transactions took place, and some set up private businesses nearby. All of these events
underscore the inherently diverse nature of a Greek agora. Conspicuously absent is any
mention of political institutions in the Corinthian agora.
3.5. Corinthian Civic Structure: The Ancient Testimonia
Like many Greek city-states outside of Athens and Sparta, the political
organization of Corinth is poorly understood. This is simply the result of the fragmentary
survival and at times complete loss of key texts that were written on the subject in
antiquity. By the Early Hellenistic period there were at least two different works devoted
to the governmental and judicial hierarchy of the Corinthians. Aristotle and his School
included Corinth among their case-studies of 158 constitutions from various Greek cities.
Unfortunately, only a few fragments from the Constitution of the Corinthians survive.362
Cicero tells us that Dicaearchus of Messana, a philosopher, geographer, mathematician,
and a pupil of Aristotle, wrote a Constitution of the Corinthians.363 Nothing of this work
survives. Cicero only tells his friend Atticus that he thinks he has a copy of it in Rome. It
is difficult to gauge just how great the loss of these studies by Aristotle and Dicaearchus
are for us. But if Aristotle and his School’s sole surviving case-study (i.e. the
Constitution of the Athenians) serves as any indication to the depth of information that
once filled these works, then we are missing a great deal.
Lacking any complete work by the ancient authors, or even an extended
commentary, the political and civic organization of Corinth must be reconstructed
362
Rose 1886, F 516-517, F 611.19, F 611.20.
363
Cic. Att. 2.2.2 (A4).
140
imperfectly based on snippets of information here and there from the ancient literary and
epigraphical testimonia. Civic officials are first attested at Corinth during the rule of the
Bacchiadai. According to Diodorus, the Bacchiadai maintained control of the city as a
unified body and held annual elections among themselves for the eponymous office of
prytanis (chief magistrate).364 The person who held this position also assumed the
eponymous office of the basileus (king). One has to assume that the Bacchiad who held
this joint position wielded the most political weight in Corinth for that particular year. A
third civic official under the Bacchiadai was the polemarchos (war leader).365 We are not
explicitly told if annual elections were held for this office, but it would seem likely
considering the other two appointments.
The Bacchiadai were overthrown around the middle of the 7th century by the
tyrant Cypselus. Although the details are uncertain, it appears that Cypselus himself was
a member of the Bacchiadai.366 According to Nicolaus of Damascus, one of the reasons
why Cypselus was successful is that he used his position as polemarchos to gain the
support of the populace.367 Corinthian law at the time granted authority to the
polemarchos for imprisoning those convicted in the lawcourt. He could also exact a fine,
part of which went directly to the polemarchos. Cypselus, however, instead of collecting
sums of money from the guilty, suspended all fines. This policy made him immensely
popular, or so Nicolaus of Damascus says. In the same passage we are told that Cypselus
killed the Bacchiad who was basileus (and so prytanis as well), a certain Patrokleides,
364
Diod. 7.9.6 (A6).
365
Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F57.4-6 (A20).
366
According to Herodotus (5.92B1-E2), Cypselus was the son of a Bacchiad mother and a non-Bacchiad
father.
367
Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F57.4-6 (A20).
141
after whom the Corinthians appointed Cypselus to replace him as basileus. Despite the
tyranny the office of the basileus continued at least for another generation, because
Periander received this appointment from his father Cypselus by inheritance.368 By this
time there were probably no longer annual elections. The tyrants must have held on to the
eponymous offices, or at least (symbolically) granted them to trusted associates. It is
important that they were eager to retain elements of the political structure of the previous
ruling class, which perhaps gave the tyrants added legitimacy.
No ancient author mentions the office of polemarchos or prytanis at Corinth after
Cypselus, and Periander is the last person we know of who held the office of basileus.
This does not mean that these political offices were abandoned. Diodorus states that
Cypselus, once he assumed control of the city, abolished the Bacchiad form of
government.369 However, his comments here are vague. That Cypselus’ son Periander
inherited the office of the basileus is one indication that eponymous offices survived
under the tyranny. Some scholars have suggested that these offices may have continued
down to the Hellenistic period, but it is impossible to know for sure.370 The only evidence
that may be cited comes from an epigram attributed to the archaic poet Simonides, who
uses the epithet “prytanis of the fair-dancing agora” for Apollo at Corinth.371 The use of
this title for the god leaves open the possibility that this office persisted at Corinth.
368
Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F58.1 (A21).
369
Diod. 7.9.6 (A6).
370
Busolt 1893; Dow 1942, p. 110.
371
Greek Anthology 6.212 (A42). For a recent discussion of this epigram and how it relates to Corinthian
topography, see Bookidis and Stroud 2004, pp. 407-408. The date, as well as the attribution of this epigram
to Simonides, is problematic.
142
Most Greek cities, whether a democracy or oligarchy, had some form of
legislative branch of government (boulē = gerousia) that debated domestic and foreign
policy. It had the power to directly enact policy itself, or at least dictate what legislature
could be brought before a larger body of citizens. At Corinth, the first reference to a
boulē goes back to the reign of the tyrants. A fragment from Aristotle’s Constitution of
the Corinthians states that Periander formed a boulē ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων to curb the city’s
expenditure from exceeding its income.372 The meaning of ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων is ambiguous,
and has variously been understood as “at the last,” “concerning funerals,” or “for the
poor.”373 Regardless of the definition, the general picture is clear: Periander organized a
body of officials to monitor the city’s budget. Just how many members this group
consisted of, or whether Aristotle’s description of it as a boulē is anachronistic cannot be
known.
After the fall of tyranny in the first-quarter of the 6th century, Nicolaus of
Damascus says that the Corinthians reorganized the government to include a boulē of 80
members, headed by eight probouloi (advanced deliberators).374 He does not state
whether membership was for life or obtained through annual elections. This passage
happens to be the only instance where we know the number of citizens within a
Corinthian civic body.375 The system of eight corresponds to the eight tribal divisions
372
Arist. F 611.20 (apud Heraclid. Lem. 20) (A16).
373
Salmon (1984, p. 199, n. 55) summarizes the various translations with reference to earlier bibliography.
As he says, “the words have been variously, but not yet convincingly, interpreted.”
374
Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F60 (A22).
375
The text is corrupt. The numerical θ΄ literally stands for 9, but as many scholars have pointed out, a
boulē of 9 would not be feasible. Most ancient historians accept the restoration of the passage to read ἐκ δὲ
τῶν λοιπῶν βουλὴν κατέλεξεν ἀνδρων θ΄ <ἐκ φυλῆς ἑκάστης>: “and from the remaining men formed a
boulē of 9 (from each tribe).” Therefore 9 members x 8 (number of tribes) = 72 + 8 probouloi = 80 total
143
(phylai) at Corinth. The Byzantine encyclopedia Suda attributes this division to the
legendary ruler Aletes, which would place the arrangement before the Bacchiadai.376
Modern scholars, however, remain skeptical of the Suda’s statement, some suggesting
that it was only after the fall of tyranny that Corinth was reorganized into eight tribes.377
At any rate, under this system 10 members of each tribe were members of the boulē, and
one among them acted as proboulos. In a well-known passage from the Politics, Aristotle
comments that probouloi are inherently an oligarchic element of government: they are a
small body of citizens that debate and prepare measures before bringing them to the
boulē.378 Essentially the probouloi are an influential subcommittee that has the power to
dictate policy, and in the Corinthian oligarchy these officials surely came from the
wealthiest class of citizens.
A boulē is attested only two other times in Corinthian history before the sack of
the city in 146 by the Romans. In 346/5 the gerousia (literally a “body of elders” = boulē)
deliberated to decide whether to appoint Timoleon as general and send him to Sicily to
subdue the Syracusan tyrant Dionysus II. Diodorus says that the gerousia gathered in the
bouleuterion, where they were at some point joined by ambassadors from Syracuse.379
The second instance comes from an Early Hellenistic Corinthian decree found on
members in the Corinthian boulē. For a discussion of this passage, see Will 1955, pp. 609-615. Note that
Argos also had a boulē of 80 members.
376
Suda Π 225 (A46).
377
Rhodes (2007, p. 51) believes the Suda to be wrong. He argues that the eightfold tribal system was
instituted much later, after the fall of the tyrants (cf. A22).
378
Arist. Pol. 4.15.11-12 (A2).
379
Diod. 16.65.6-7 (A12).
144
Delos.380 The end of the text (lines 20-26) is concerned with the allotment of tribes and
clans at Corinth, all of which were authorized by the boulē.
In an oligarchy citizenship was usually a privilege for the male, land-owning
class.381 Most Corinthian citizens probably owned property and were expected to
purchase their own armor and participate in the army as hoplites. It is not clear whether
every Corinthian citizen was an active participant in government, or even had the option
to be a participant.382 Referring to events in the first-half of the 4th century, Plutarch says
that the Corinthians leaned towards an oligarchy and transacted little business in the
damos (popular assembly).383 This acknowledges the existence of a popular assembly,
which included an unspecified number of citizens, but it implies that legislative matters
were ratified by the probouloi and boulē and that few measures were debated by the
assembly. Apparently little more than a rubber stamp was required of the larger
Corinthian citizen body, at least during the first-half of the 4th century.
Earlier references by the ancient sources to a Corinthian assembly are vague. It is
not altogether clear whether the author is referring to an actual body of citizens called a
damos, or whether the term is used more generically. Upon the death of the Bacchiad
Patrokleides, Nicolaus of Damascus says that the damos appointed Cypselus as
380
For the text of the Delian decree (A60), see Robert 1948; 1960. Jones (1980, pp. 165-172) summarizes
the reasons for identifying the decree as being Corinthian.
381
Aristotle (Pol. 3.5.6 [A1]) equates citizenship with the privilege to participate in politics, which in
oligarchies is decided by wealth (at least in the 330s when the Politics was composed). Interestingly,
Aristotle comments that rich artisans in oligarchies can become citizens as well.
382
A passage from the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (late 5th/early 4th century) describes the qualifications for
membership in the boulē of cities within the Boeotian Federation (A15). All member states had oligarchies,
including Thebes, which headed the union. Not all Boeotian citizens were allowed to participate in the
boulē, but only those who possessed a certain amount of wealth. This passage identifies a pecking order for
those already within the regular citizen body in an oligarchic state. Some citizens could not participate in
the running of government, or at least in the civic bodies that had the most influence to make policy.
383
Plut. Dion 53.4 (A31).
145
basileus.384 Elsewhere the same author says that once tyranny was abolished at Corinth
the damos destroyed the houses of the tyrants, confiscated their property, and banished
the bones of all the tyrant’s relatives from the city.385 It was at this point that the damos
reorganized the constitution of the Corinthians to consist of a boulē of 80 and eight
probouloi. In the second passage, the damos had power to authorize a new constitution,
but the damos that Nicolaus of Damascus speaks of here may not be a large, official civic
body equivalent to the popular assembly frequently encountered in democratic (and also
oligarchic) classical and Hellenistic Greek city-states. Rather, it may be a small group of
wealthy, influential citizens that acted on behalf of their own interests, on behalf of the
rest of the Corinthian citizen population, or a combination of the two. That there was an
effort to include an equal number of citizens from each of the eight tribes, indicates that
whoever was implementing the new constitution was trying to be more inclusive than the
previous tyrannical administration. But this does not mean that every Corinthian citizen
was actively involved in a popular assembly by the 6th century.
Some ancient historians have argued that Thucydides alludes to a popular
assembly when he describes a ξύλλογος (gathering) between the Argives and the
Corinthians in 421 at Corinth.386 However, Thucydides could be referring to the boulē, or
any other group of anonymous civic magistrates. There is no reason to suspect that the
Argives came to speak before the Corinthian popular assembly, if it existed to have the
authority to make important decisions. More reliable is a passage from Plutarch that says
384
Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F57.4-6 (A20).
385
Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F60 (A22).
386
Thuc. 5.30.5 (A48); see Salmon 1984, pp. 231-232.
146
the damos gave its approval for the election of Timoleon as general in 346/5.387 Taken
together with the passage of Diodorus mentioned above,388 we come close to
understanding how Corinthian policy was formed during the 4th century: the gerousia (=
boulē) deliberated in the bouleuterion, and afterwards their decision was approved by the
damos. Although this kind of legislative hierarchy was likely an older institution, we do
not possess evidence of a Corinthian popular assembly before the 4th century. For the
Archaic and Classical periods, the two passages by Diodorus and Plutarch are the only
confirmation that the Corinthians convened meetings of the popular assembly. Just how
influential this body of citizens was on formulating policy in the 4th century, to what
degree participation was restricted, or how often it was called together is not known.
By the Hellenistic period references to the Corinthian popular assembly become
more frequent in the ancient testimonia. A handful of Corinthian decrees, including the
Delian decree mentioned above, begin with the formulaic ἔδοξε τᾶι ἐκκλησίαι (“resolved
by the ekklēsia”).389 Sterling Dow long ago commented that legislative activity likely
increased at Corinth after 243, once Aratus of Sikyon expelled Antigonos Gonatas’
Macedonian garrison to reestablish Corinthian sovereignty.390 There is little surprise then
that most surviving Corinthian decrees date after this period, a time when the Corinthians
were more eager than ever to exercise control over their own affairs after decades of
Macedonian dominance.
387
Plut. Tim. 7.2 (A36).
388
Diod. 16.65.6-7 (A12).
389
Besides the Delian decree (ca. 325-275) (A60), see also I-248 (Corinth VIII.1, no. 3) dated ca. 225-150,
and I-259 (Corinth VIII.1, no. 2) dated ca. 250-150; the formula ἔδοξε τᾶι ἐκκλησίαι can be confidently
restored on the final two.
390
Dow 1942, pp. 112-113.
147
Besides larger civic bodies, most city-states had various other magistrates
responsible for the running of government, religious events and festivals, for overseeing
the construction of buildings and allotting property, and for monitoring everyday trade
and commerce in the agora and harbors. At Corinth very little evidence survives of even
the titles of these officials. Besides the eponymous offices that existed during the early
history of the city, and possibly later, we know of only three other magistracies at
Corinth. Both a γραµµατέυς (secretary) and a ὑπογραµµατέυς (under-secretary) are
encountered on Hellenistic Corinthian decrees.391 Two other Hellenistic decrees mention
a γυµνασιάρχης, the supervisor of the palaistra and gymnasium.392 Before the
Hellenistic period, however, there is complete silence. Plutarch in the Life of Timoleon
mentions that Corinthian archons (civic magistrates) wrote down the names of possible
candidates to elect as general, but we are never told the identity of these officials.393
Remarkably the names of two civic officials survive on Hellenistic roof tiles
associated with renovations to the South Stoa, skene of the theater, and other public
structures. Five pan tiles from the theater preserve the stamp ἐπὶ Λέοντος, while 18 cover
and pan tiles are marked ἐπὶ Ξενολᾶ.394 The latter come predominantly from the South
Stoa, but examples do exist from the theater, the Roman Peribolos of Apollo, and on
Temple Hill. The preposition ἐπὶ followed by the person in the genitive case is formulaic.
It is found, for example, on dozens of Hellenistic roof tiles from Sparta and
391
For γραµµατέυς, see I-6 (A55), I-113 (A56), and the Delian decree (A60). For ὑπογραµµατέυς, see I-
2649 (A59).
392
I-1995 (A57), and I-2331 (A58).
393
Plut. Tim. 3.2 (A35).
394
For ἐπὶ Λέοντος, see Corinth II, p. 35. The Corinth inventory numbers are FP 146-150. Most of the tiles
marked ἐπὶ Ξενολᾶ remain unpublished, but see ibid, p. 35; Corinth I.4, p. 88. The Corinth inventory
numbers are FC 17-18, 21-22, 34, 44, 55, 121; FP 24, 28-29, 94, 131, 143-145, 234, 291.
148
Megalopolis.395 The stamp indicated that the manufacture of the tile was contracted
during the tenure of the civic official. Excluding Corinthian generals, the two individuals
Λέων and Ξενόλας are the only names that survive of a Corinthian civic official after the
fall of the tyrants.
The overall picture that emerges for Corinthian civic bodies comes from an
assortment of fragmentary bits of evidence (see table 4). Note the almost complete lack
of literary and epigraphical evidence for 5th century Corinth.396 But despite these
shortcomings, we are able to appreciate, on a rudimentary level, the types of political
institutions in practice at Corinth from the 8th century to the Hellenistic period.
Eponymous officials are encountered in the early history of the city, corresponding to
Corinth’s emergence as a leader in Mediterranean trade and commerce, not to mention
colonization. These offices surely helped the ruling Bacchiadai and tyrants maintain their
political control over the citizen population. Eventually political reforms took place, and
by the first-quarter of the 6th century tyranny was (violently) rejected. A wider group of
citizens was then included in the everyday running of government. Despite episodes of
civil strife, this form of oligarchy remained, probably for the most part, largely
unchanged until the Roman sack of the city in 146.397 The only noticeable change was the
increased influence of the popular assembly on approving legislature after the
Macedonian garrison was expelled in 243.
395
Sparta: Wace 1906-1907; Catling 1975. Megalopolis: Lauter 2002.
396
Not directly related to the internal arrangement of Corinthian civic bodies is the general assembly of the
Greeks held at Corinth during Xerxes’ invasion of Greece (Diod. 11.1.1 [A7]; Diod. 11.3.3 [A8]), and
another by the Peloponnesians during the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 8.8.2 [A50]).
397
There was a brief period of democracy in 392-387 and the tyranny of Timophanes in 366. Corinth was
garrisoned by the Macedonians after Chaironeia in 338.
149
3.6. Corinthian Civic Buildings: The Ancient Testimonia
The literary and epigraphical testimonia are stingy when it comes to Corinthian
civic buildings. During the rule of the Bacchiadai and the tyrants, our only reference is
the lawcourt that Nicolaus of Damascus talks about when, along with Cypselus’ early rise
to prominence, he discusses a law at Corinth established ἐν δικαστηρίῳ (“in the
lawcourt”).398 The dikasterion here may allude to a body of people engaged in judicial
activity, rather than a physical building. Nonetheless, we gather from this passage that
Corinth probably had at least one lawcourt at an early period in its history. Whether it
would have required an architectural setting is another question.399
Two of the most important civic buildings in a Greek city were the bouleuterion
and the ekklēsiasterion. The former was where meetings of the boulē took place, and the
latter where the popular assembly of citizens gathered. These buildings at Corinth do not
appear in the literary testimonia until the 4th century. In a passage already discussed
above, Diodorus tells us that the Corinthian gerousia in 346/5 deliberated in the
bouleuterion to decide whether to elect Timoleon as general.400 A similar episode
happens more than 100 years later. In the Life of Cleomenes, Plutarch recounts that in 223
398
Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F57.4-6 (A20).
399
An architectural setting for lawcourts was not ubiquitous. E.g., according to Polybios (4.73.7-10), Elis
had itinerant lawcourts that judged people on site. Athens is the only place where dikasteria have been
identified in the archaeological record. The Heliaia is associated with Building A (late 5th century) in the
Athenian agora, and the Parabyston in the nearby and contemporary Building B; see Agora XXVIII; Agora
XXVII. Outside of Athens two 5th century dikasteria are known at Argos Amphilochikon in Akarnania and
at Gortyn in Crete. Thucydides (3.105) mentions that the dikasterion at Argos Amphilochikon was located
a few kilometers outside the city at a separate seaside fortification. For Gortyn, see I.Cret. IV 72, Col. I,
line 11, an inscription that dates to the middle of the 5th century.
400
Diod. 16.65.6-7 (A12).
150
Aratus of Sikyon, sensing a crisis with the Spartan king Cleomenes, calls the citizens to
convene in the bouleuterion.401 Interesting here is that Aratus does not deliberate with the
Corinthian gerousia of Diodorus. Plutarch calls them citizens (τοὺς πολίτας), which
may or may not be taken to mean those citizens who were members of the gerousia.
A twist to Plutarch’s account comes from another version of the very same events
in the Life of Aratus.402 Although the accounts differ in some of the details, there is still a
meeting held between the Corinthians and Aratus. We are told this time that the
Corinthians, growing impatient with Aratus and more likely to favor Cleomenes,
summoned Aratus to assemble with them in the sanctuary of Apollo (εἰς τὸ τοῦ
Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὸν). In reality those who supported Cleomenes had other aims, intending
to ambush Aratus as he came to the meeting and kill him. Even though Aratus perceives
the brewing hostility, he encourages the Corinthians to gather with him in the
Apolloneion (πρὸς τὸ Ἀπολλώνιον).
These two passages of Plutarch present a fascinating dilemma: the same author
cites a different location for the meeting between Aratus and the Corinthians. One
account places this event in the bouleuterion, while the other in the Apolloneion. The
question then must be asked: was the Corinthian bouleuterion in the Hellenistic period
located in the sanctuary of Apollo? And if so, does this mean that the bouleuterion stood
on Temple Hill adjacent to the temple of Apollo? Or does Plutarch have in mind some
401
Plut. Cleom. 19.1-3 (A29).
402
Plut. Arat. 40.3-5 (A28).
151
other sanctuary of Apollo at Corinth?403 The potential link between Apollo and
Corinthian governmental activity is intriguing. Two other passages hint at such a
connection. Herodotus reveals that the tyrant Periander was so dissatisfied with the
obstinate behavior of his son, Lycophron, that he issued a proclamation that anyone
found giving his son food and shelter, or even conversing with him, had to pay a sacred
fine to Apollo.404 The implication is that the sanctuary of Apollo contained a sacred
treasury, where, in part, it served as a depository for fines that were supervised by the
Corinthian state.405 The second example is the aforementioned epigram attributed to
Simonides, where Apollo is praised as the “prytanis of the fair-dancing agora.”406 The
author of this epigram draws a correlation between Apollo and civic hierarchy: the god is
the chief magistrate (prytanis) of the agora, a title given to the leading civic official
during the Bacchiadai and tyrants.
The previous chapter on Argos showed that the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios was
attached to the Argive agora. Public decrees and law documents, some in bronze and
attached to an archive building or the temple itself, were set up in the sanctuary. Adjacent
to the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios stands the Hypostyle Hall, a building that may have
been used in part as a civic structure, if not the bouleuterion as some scholars prefer. The
parallels between Argos and Corinth with respect to Apollo and civic activity become
403
Bookidis and Stroud (2004, pp. 402-409) summarize the evidence for other sanctuaries of Apollo at
Corinth. In the Roman city there was a small temple to Klarian Apollo along the west side of the forum
(Paus. 2.2.8), and a Peribolos of Apollo next to Peirene fountain (Paus. 2.3.3). There is no evidence for
dating these sanctuaries to an earlier period. Pausanias’ burned temple of Apollo on the road to Sikyon
(Paus. 2.5.5) dates to the Hellenistic period at least, but this temple may have been outside the city walls.
404
Hdt. 3.52.1, 6 (A17).
405
Bookidis and Stroud 2004, p. 405. Recall that the polemarchos during the time of Cypselus had the
authority to levy fines on those found guilty in the lawcourts (A20).
406
Greek Anthology 6.212 (A42).
152
more tempting considering that 11 public decrees were discovered at the northeast corner
of Temple Hill. This is the greatest accumulation of Corinthian public decrees ever
found, and their discovery in the late 1960s and early 1970s increased the number of
known Corinthian decrees nearly threefold.407 Unfortunately the inscriptions still remain
unpublished, so a detailed account of them is not possible here.408 Nevertheless, these
decrees indicate that official records at Corinth, like Argos, were put on display within
the sanctuary of Apollo under the protection of the god. The meaning of the epithet
“prytanis of the fair-dancing agora” becomes more clear when Apollo is understood in
this context.
There is no literary evidence for the existence of an ekklēsiasterion at Corinth. By
the 4th century a popular assembly is attested in the ancient literature, but nowhere are
we told explicitly where they met. The only example that may be helpful is a passage in
Plutarch’s Life of Aratus. After Aratus expels Antigonos Gonatas’ garrison from Corinth
in 243, he holds a session with the Corinthians in the theater.409 Plutarch does not specify
who came to the theater (assembly, citizens, entire population?), opting to use the
ambiguous term πλῆθος (crowd). That the Corinthians, or Aratus, chose to hold this
meeting in the theater is significant. It shows that the theater was the preferred location
for large bodies of people to gather, and for individual people to address a large crowd.
407
As Bookidis and Stroud (ibid, p. 410) say: “This (i.e. the 11 decrees) represents the largest concentration
of official documents from any one place in the pre-Roman city. Clearly the sanctuary on Temple Hill was,
like the Acropolis of Athens, a prominent and important location for the display of state documents.”
408
P. Iverson, who will be publishing the material, offered a virtual seminar on the inscriptions during
Summer 2008 on the Website Current Epigraphy; see http://www.currentepigraphy.org/2008/09/03/virtual-
seminar-on-some-unpublished-inscriptions-from-corinth-ix/ (October 2, 2009).
409
Plut. Arat. 23.1 (A27).
153
The natural conclusion from this passage is that the Corinthian assembly met in
the monumental stone theater during the Hellenistic period, just as the πλῆθος gathered
there to hear Aratus. The dual function of a theater as both a venue for dramatic
performances and political gatherings of the popular assembly has been noted by scholars
on numerous occasions.410 Likewise, the material and literary evidence supports the
notion that most Greek cities did not have a separate, single-purpose ekklēsiasterion, but,
instead, used their theater for meetings of the popular assembly.411 The theater at Corinth
probably falls under the same category: it was used as an ekklēsiasterion whenever the
popular assembly needed to convene.
Besides civic buildings for the boulē and popular assembly, Corinth must have
had an assortment of various civic offices (archeia) throughout the city. These were
typically used by boards of officials for the daily economic, commercial, and general
administration of the city. Outside of Corinth several are known from inscriptions,412 or
from the ancient authors,413 while Athens provides us with our best single collection of
archeia in the archaeological record.414 The evidence for archeia in the ancient literary
sources at Corinth is lacking. Only the titles of the γραµµατέυς, ὑπογραµµατέυς, and
γυµνασιάρχης are known from inscriptions. There is no confirmation whether there
were purpose-built structures at Corinth for these administrative officials. The same holds
410
Kolb 1981; Hansen and Fischer-Hansen 1994, pp. 48-53; Frederiksen 2002.
411
412
E.g., a 4th century archeion in the Carian city of Iasos (I.Iasos 30, line 12).
413
Pausanias (8.30.6) mentions that there were six archeia in a small stoa next to the Stoa of Philip in the
agora of Megalopolis; see infra Chapter 5.4.
414
Tholos for the 50 prytaneis (460s), Royal Stoa for the 9 archons (second-half of 5th century?), Stoa of
Zeus and South Stoa I (420s), Mint (ca. 400).
154
true for the prytanis, basileus, and polemarchos. One would expect that there did exist
modest offices for these officials, but we have no support from the ancient testimonia.
The presence of a stratēgeion (office of the generals) at Corinth is more secure. It
is supported by the discovery of two classical marble counting tables found on the floor
of the Columned Hall, a Hellenistic building only partially excavated west of the South
Stoa (fig. 3.3).415 Acrophonic numerals and painted columns on the top surface show that
the marble tables were counting devices (figs. 3.37; 3.38). That they were state owned
property and connected to civic activity is clear from two smaller inscriptions on one of
the tables. Zeus Bouleus (Council), a deity closely associated with the gathering places of
civic officials, is mentioned in the genitive case as Διὸς βούλεως. Likewise, δαµόσια
Κορινθίων identifies the counting table as the property of the Corinthian state.416 An
additional inscription along the right vertical side of the second counting table helps
clarify its function. Here, there are six carefully cut letters before a break, στρατα (fig.
3.39). After the discovery of the counting table, the excavator restored the inscription to
read στρατα[γίον], and he suggested that both counting tables from the Columned Hall
were likely associated with balancing the accounts, or distributing funds, to the
Corinthian army.417 Henry Immerwahr later amended the inscription to read
στρατα[γίον Κορινθίων], because he felt that the original length of the table could have
accommodated more letters.418
415
Donati 2010, pp. 8-10, 18-21. For the preliminary report on the Columned Hall, see Williams 1977, pp.
52-58. He dates the building to the late 3rd century or first-half of the 2nd century.
416
The feminine singular gender of δαµόσια alludes to τράπεζα (table), and not the masculine ἄβαξ
(abacus).
417
Williams 1977, p. 56.
418
Immerwahr 1986, pp. 201-202.
155
The Columned Hall has only been partially excavated, but from a substantial
amount of tile debris and other material found above the floor, it is clear that it did not
survive Mummius’ sack of Corinth in 146. The counting tables were discovered on the
floor buried under the destruction layer. They were obviously used inside the Columned
Hall and their presence strongly suggests that this building was a Hellenistic civic
structure at Corinth, perhaps connected to Corinthian state finances. In addition, the Διὸς
βούλεως inscription implies that the counting tables were administered and used by
Corinthian civic officials under the auspices of Zeus Bouleus. Perhaps the Columned Hall
was the headquarters of the Corinthian army (stratēgeion), or a board of officials
responsible for state funds. Since the tables predate the Columned Hall by two centuries
or more, presumably they were first used in an unidentified classical civic building and
then transported to the Columned Hall in the Hellenistic period.
The evidence for Corinthian civic buildings in the literary and epigraphical
testimonia looks like the following (see table 5). Striking is the complete lack of evidence
for a Corinthian prytaneion. It was in this building that foreign ambassadors and special
citizens were hosted at the expense of the state, and where a sacred flame to Hestia was
usually maintained. Again, we probably should assume, based on comparison with other
Greek cities, that Corinth did have a prytaneion at some time before the Roman
destruction of the city. Unfortunately this building has managed to escape any mention.
By the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods, Corinth had regular venues to host large
bodies of civic officials. A bouleuterion existed at least by the 4th century, and there is
good reason to believe that it was nearby, or even within, the sanctuary of Apollo on
156
Temple Hill in the Hellenistic period. Absolutely nothing from Temple Hill has been
excavated that can be identified as a bouleuterion. Perhaps the boulē gathered outside in a
simple, cordoned off space, or maybe they met inside the unusually large opisthodomos.
To the best of our knowledge, the popular assembly convened in the theater during the
Hellenistic period. Corinth did not have a separate ekklēsiasterion, so the theater fulfilled
this function when necessary.
3.7. Placing the Corinthian Agora
A recognition of the Greek agora’s inherent diversity, in conjunction with a more
contextual approach to specific details, should allow us to place the Corinthian agora
within the upper Lechaion valley. This is clear on a number of different levels and has
involved a reevaluation of how the Corinthians structured their built environment over
time, and what kinds of activity predominated in specific regions of the city. It has also
involved a change of direction in how we view the significance and frequency of civic
buildings as indicators of the Greek agora, and whether different social and political
systems played a role in the manifestation of a city’s built environment. Greek civic
institutions are often challenging to identify in the archaeological record, especially
during the Archaic and Classical periods when they were neither standardized, nor
monumental features of the built environment. Even in those cities that have securely
identified agoras, many of the supposed prerequisite civic buildings (bouleuterion,
prytaneion) remain anonymous. By distancing ourselves a bit from the political role of
the agora, and by recognizing that Corinth was a relatively conservative oligarchy and
157
probably did not require the same administrative institutions as, for example, the
Athenians, we can begin to reevaluate the situation.
The Corinthian Agora as Commercial Center
From an early point in the history of Corinth, Temple Hill and the natural hollows
to the east and south became venues that blended commercial, industrial, religious, and
private activities. More than anywhere else this part of Corinth was characterized by a
mixing of occupations. Mercantile and industrial activity had a strong presence in the
Corinthian agora. Structures doubled as domestic quarters and as ergastēria (workshops)
for the production of commodities and the trade of merchandise. The Trader’s Complex,
Protocorinthian House 1, and likely other houses along the southern side of the valley
established a precedent that led to more recognizable building types like the North
Building and North Stoa, and multi-functional complexes like the Punic Amphora
Building and Buildings I-IV.419
The archaeological and literary testimonia emphasize the commercial and
industrial infrastructure of Corinth. During the formative years of the city, the Bacchiadai
and tyrants encouraged economic prosperity, which naturally effected the built
environment. Even though various foci of mercantile and industrial activity developed
around Corinth, Temple Hill became the center of a larger network that moved goods.420
The Lechaion valley was an advantageous place for the exchange of products and the
419
For ergastēria in the agoras at Kroton and Morgantina, see Fisher-Hansen 2000, pp. 98, 103. Production
was based on external trade, rather than internal sustenance (p. 113). Workshops were not laid out
separately from residential areas (pp. 113-114).
420
Vlassopoulos 2007.
158
transportation of people in a city built on a series of rising terraces. Major roads
converged on this area, including the main route coming from the Lechaion harbor. Even
before the eradication of geometric burials in the central part of the city, the early
inhabitants recognized the benefits of the local topography by installing a large Middle
Geometric drain to transport water from the higher grounds to the southwest.
The Corinthian Agora as Religious Center
The religious role of the Corinthian agora is emphasized by the large sanctuaries
and small cults that stood next to commercial structures and springhouses. Some had
clear associations with hero cults. Together they recall the passage of Xenophon that
highlights the sacred aspect of the Corinthian agora. It was a venue where statues and
altars of the gods were close by, and where the Corinthians held a religious festival to
Artemis Eukleia. Of course, the most conspicuous cult was the temple of Apollo on
Temple Hill, the focus of urban cult at least by the early 7th century. In the Late Classical
and Hellenistic periods official decrees were set up here under the protection of the god.
Yet well before this Apollo was intimately linked with civic authority. As Simonides tells
us, Apollo was the prytanis of the fair-dancing agora. From Herodotus we know that he
likely had a sacred treasury on Temple Hill by the early 6th century, and according to
Plutarch the Corinthian boulē assembled within the Apolloneion. The connection
between urban temple and city administration is a recognizable pattern that appears time
and time again in Greek cities, and typically the temple lies within or near an agora. At
Corinth we only understand the basic components of this ensemble, but nonetheless the
159
relationship to other urban temples, such as Apollo Lykeios at Argos, shows that Corinth
was no exception.
Public Spectacles and the Corinthian Agora
The Corinthian agora as a venue for accommodating public spectacles and agōnes
is supported by the presence of the racetrack and nearby circular platform. From the
evidence from Xenophon, the circular platform is a candidate for the location of a
temporary theatron at Corinth. Acknowledging that these two venues were used for
competitions during religious festivals challenges the prevailing attitude that the
Corinthian agora was elsewhere. Here we should note the similar presence of racetracks
in the agoras at Argos and Athens, which demonstrate that the open space of the Greek
agora was the preferred location and even the most practical site for holding public
spectacles connected to urban festivals.421 When festivals were not taking place, the
running surface became part of the open space of the agora.
Towards a Classical Agora
Striking are the changes that occurred in the Corinthian agora over the course of
the Classical period. Put into a more broad context, the building activity here reflects
widespread trends in the augmentation of Greek commercial and civic space elsewhere in
the 5th century. Buildings that had existed since the Protocorinthian period were removed
and new structures and venues succeeded them. These changes roughly coincided with
421
Note the identical arrangement of the racetrack and semicircular orchestra in the Argive agora; see supra
Chapter 2.5. For Athens, see Shear 1975, pp. 362-365; Camp 1986, p. 46; Miller 1995b, pp. 212-218.
160
the construction of the classical fortifications and the long walls down to the Lechaion
harbor. In general, space within the upper Lechaion valley took on greater definition. The
enlargement of the Sacred Spring at the northern side of the valley was balanced by the
construction of the circular platform, Buildings I-IV, and the Centaur Bath along the
southern side of the valley. The racetrack and open area of the agora stood at the very
heart of this composition.
Property along the southern side of the valley, in particular, was susceptible for
redevelopment in the Classical period because of its proximity to the public sphere. The
Punic Amphora Building escaped development at first, but later in the 5th century its
position was no longer resistant to the urban changes. The construction of a road over the
site marked a radical departure in land use. By the end of the 5th century, and built within
the span of a few decades, Buildings I-IV and the Centaur Bath marked the southern
limits of the Corinthian agora. These buildings were intimately connected to the public
road and racetrack only a few meters to the north. Although many questions remain
unanswered, some of these building clearly played a role in the public life of the city:
access was not restricted to a single entryway, internal space was organized into distinct
units, most structures had facilities for the storage of commodities, some rooms were
used as roadside shops, and small cults were nearby.
It is not difficult to image Buildings I-IV and the Centaur Bath being used by an
influential family or boards of officials within the oligarchy for their daily business,
perhaps related to commercial and administrative activities.422 Adding weight to this
422
The excavator suggests that the Centaur Bath was a clubhouse (leschē); see Williams 1977, p. 49.
161
suspicion are the official Corinthian weight and dry measure from the drain between
Buildings I-II, which imply that commercial activity took place in this part of the
Corinthian agora. In addition, large numbers of drinking vessels from the drain, as well as
the presence of multiple dining rooms grouped together raise questions regarding the
function of these buildings.423 It may indicate that the structures along the southern valley
provided accommodation for public syssitia, of the kind known to occur in an agora
during religious festivals and civic gatherings.424
Hellenistic Developments and the Corinthian Agora
What eventually happened to Buildings I-IV along the southern valley is just as
informative as the circumstances surrounding their construction. Their period of use
lasted roughly 100 years, and by the end of the 4th century every one was demolished
within a decade of one another. The only exception was Building IV, which went out of
use by the middle of the 4th century. Casting pits indicate the subsequent use of the area
423
Building I: traces of two couches with pillows as dividers in the northeast complex. There are also the
potential remains of another dining room at the southwest corner of the main building. Williams and
Fischer (1972, pp. 163-164) state that “the building, if not a dining hall itself, had dining facilities.” They
associate the dining rooms with civic and/or religious activity. Building II: according to Williams and
Fischer (ibid, p. 172), “certain features suggest that the structure is more than an elaborate residence.” They
are hesitant, however, to restore the southern rooms as dining rooms, instead suggesting that they were
offices (ibid, pp. 172-173). Building III: no dining room has yet been identified. Building IV: little is
preserved of this structure, but one room does have a pebble mosaic floor and a low plinth preserved on one
side that may come from a dining room; see Williams 1980, pp. 114-115. Building V: fragments of a
cement plinth from a dining room were discovered in the area, and they may be associated with this
building; see Williams and Fisher 1976, pp. 104-107; Williams 1977, pp. 41-45). Centaur Bath: at least 2-3
dining rooms; see supra Chapter 3.3.
424
From the Athenian agora we know of at least three places where civic dining occurred: Tholos, South
Stoa, and a dining complex at the northwest corner. Within close proximity to two of these – Tholos and
the northwest corner – a number of drinking vessels were discovered marked with a delta-epsilon ligature;
see Talcott 1936; Rotroff and Oakley 1992.
162
by metalworkers, but even these were abandoned by the end of the century.425 The near
simultaneous destruction of Buildings I-IV was followed by the construction of the
monumental South Stoa around ca. 300. This was the largest stoa ever built in Mainland
Greece and its erection required the elimination of Buildings I-IV. These buildings were
intentionally dismantled and massive amounts of soil had to be brought in to create a
level terrace for the South Stoa. The preparation and completion of such a large scale
project, not to mention the vast expenditure involved, underscores the suspicion (yet
again) that here we have the agora and urban center of Corinth.
It is beyond the scope of this study to engage in a detailed discussion of the South
Stoa and other Hellenistic developments, but this structure should be viewed as a
monumental successor of Buildings I-IV. The construction of the South Stoa was a major
addition to the urban layout of the upper Lechaion valley (fig. 3.3). It was not isolated,
however, but part of wider changes that swept through this part of Corinth during the
Early Hellenistic period. A completely new starting line was built and the orientation of
the racetrack was altered to make room for the South Stoa. Moving the racetrack further
to the north also involved reducing the size of the Sacred Spring’s temenos. The
Corinthians built another stoa, the Northwest Stoa, below the monumental stairway that
led down from the southeast corner of Temple Hill. It has been suggested that this
building did not have a back wall, and therefore was used as a propylon linking the
precinct of Apollo with the agora below.426 A third stoa may tentatively be identified
from cuttings beneath the eastern half of the Roman Central Shops, south of the
425
Williams 1979, p. 129.
426
Williams 1969, pp. 52-55; Wiseman 1979, p. 481.
163
Hellenistic racetrack.427 Finally, cuttings beneath the Julian Basilica, east of the starting
blocks of the Hellenistic racetrack, mark the presence of a monumental pre-Roman
structure perhaps more than 20 m long that defined the eastern extent of the Corinthian
agora.428
All these Hellenistic projects show that the Corinthians were interested in
updating the appearance of their public space to reflect trends in Hellenistic urban
planning, when agoras were given more uniform dimensions. Stoas defined the southern
and northern limits of the Corinthian agora and a monumental structure flanked its
eastern side. The South Stoa was even oriented according to the alignment of the temple
of Apollo on Temple Hill. For the first time the Corinthian agora took on the image of
what we would expect of a mature Hellenistic city center.
New Answers to Old Arguments
The long held view advocated by Charles Williams and others that the Corinthian
agora cannot be placed south of Temple Hill needs reevaluation. Williams argued that the
uneven topography and lack of water sources south of Temple Hill make it an unlikely
place for an agora. Yet the idea that an agora had to be perfectly level and square may be
unduly based on our notions of the Hellenistic agora, where large stoas defined the
boundaries of a more condensed central area, rather than a universal trait of Greek
427
Corinth I.3, pp. 76-77. Wiseman (1979, p. 515, n. 305) states that there is no evidence that this putative
stoa dates before 146.
428
Relevant is the orientation of the Julian Basilica and earlier structures in this area. Weinberg (Corinth
I.5, pp. 37-39) observes that the Julian Basilica was aligned with the earlier cuttings and stones of the
presumed pre-Roman building, which in turn shared the same alignment with the starting line of the
Hellenistic racetrack just to the west.
164
commercial and civic space over the centuries. At Corinth it is unsurprising, therefore,
that we do not encounter a more rigid arrangement of commercial and civic space until
the Early Hellenistic period, when the South Stoa and other constructions gave the
Corinthian agora more formal definition.
A characteristic feature of the archaic and classical Greek agora, however, is its
informal spatial organization, often encompassing large expanses of open area. The
classical agora at Argos was not flat and rectangular, but triangular and with noticeable
rises on its southern and western sides. As we shall see in the following chapter, the agora
at Elis maintained a relatively modest appearance throughout its history, and permanent
structures were virtually non-existent during the 5th century. When two monumental
stoas were added to the Elean agora in the Late Classical period, there was still little or no
definition to the agora’s boundaries on the northern and eastern sides. Even the Athenian
agora was not a level area, especially along the eastern slope of the Kolonos Agoraios
hill.429 Also instructive is the Late Classical agora of Arcadian Orchomenos, which was
built on a fairly steep acropolis.430
If it is true that the terrain south of Temple Hill would have discouraged people
from congregating, one has to wonder why this area saw the most extensive and
variegated patterns of human occupation throughout the history of the city. The valley
became the focus of burials from the Protogeometric to the Middle Geometric period,
only to be transformed for public use by the 7th century. During the Classical period a
429
The area east of the Kolonos Agoraios hill consisted of a steep valley running from the eastern ridge of
the Areopagos down to the Eridanos River. It only began to be leveled toward the Late Archaic period; see
Ammerman 1996.
430
Winter 1987.
165
racetrack stood at the center, which shows that the topography of the valley was level
enough to accommodate events and large groups of people. The racetrack, along with
contemporary springhouses, commercial structures, and public buildings, show that the
Corinthians were eager to erect structures in this part of the city long before leveling the
terrain at the end of the 4th century for the construction of the South Stoa.
I am also not convinced that the Corinthian agora must lie downstream from the
natural springs. Water could be acquired by tapping into a number of water supply
tunnels and wells that existed throughout the valley south of Temple Hill, and especially
along the southern side near the South Stoa.431 Besides the well-known springhouses, this
area of Corinth happens to have a long history of waterworks. Even before the
eradication of geometric burials here, the early inhabitants installed a large Middle
Geometric drain. This drain, as well as the underground supply tunnels and wells
scattered throughout the valley in the following centuries, shows that the Corinthians did
not have to collect water downstream from the natural springs. Extensive underground
water tunnels at Anaploga, west of Temple Hill, confirm that the Corinthians constructed
waterworks above the natural springs.432
Those scholars wishing to place the Corinthian agora elsewhere also point to the
absence of civic buildings south of Temple Hill. On the one hand, this claim must be
reassessed based upon the marble counting tables recovered from the Columned Hall and
the classical structures along the southern valley. But there are broader implications here.
431
A multi-channel underground water system was beneath Shops 30-33 of the South Stoa. It appears to
date as early as the Classical period; see Corinth I.4, 7-17. Besides wells scattered throughout the valley,
many of the classical structures along the southern side had one or more wells.
432
Robinson 1969; Landon 1994.
166
The traditional approach tends to take the Athenian model and force it upon other cities.
So, for example, we have the objections raised in the 1950s and 1960s that the area south
of Temple Hill lacks the prerequisite civic buildings. Yet we cannot assume that those
elements which characterize agoras in other cities have the same meaning, or are even to
be found in other socio-political cityscapes. The Corinthian agora must be understood
within a Corinthian context.
Previous failures to locate civic buildings at Corinth have largely worked within a
defined set of preconditions. Above all we are led to believe that Corinth required civic
institutions on the same scale as Athens or other democratic governments. We are also
led to believe that these institutions should be easy to recognize in the archaeological
record. For the Archaic and Classical periods the ancient literary testimonia mention a
few political bodies, but the overall picture is of a city that had a small oligarchic
government largely restricted to the upper class of citizens. The Corinthian boulē
numbered only 80 members, and, at least in the Hellenistic period, they met in the
Apolloneion, presumably the archaic temple on Temple Hill. Although the evidence is
still lacking, we may suspect that they assembled here in the Archaic and Classical
periods. Absolutely no evidence exists to suppose that the Corinthians needed a
monumental bouleuterion to house the boulē. Equally, if the Corinthians did have a
popular assembly before the Hellenistic period, then it probably met out in the open, not
within a purpose-built ekklēsiasterion.
Clearly we must be cautious in how we apply our knowledge of Greek civic and
judicial institutions to an individual city. The inability to identify civic buildings at
167
Corinth south of Temple Hill does not mean that they are not to be found there; rather, we
may simply be looking for the wrong things based upon a preconceived notion of what
these buildings should look like. Any remaining civic officials, such as those responsible
for market regulations and eponymous magistrates, could have met in a variety of
buildings within the upper Lechaion valley. Additionally, it would be presumptuous to
assume that all civic bodies required an architectural setting for their activities, so we
cannot exclude the large temenos of the Sacred Spring or even a modest outdoor setting
as potential areas for congregations.433
At Corinth what we have are relatively modest public buildings, such as
commercial structures and dining complexes, interspersed among springhouses, like
Peirene and the Sacred Spring. Also scattered around are small precincts for a number of
cults, and by the 5th century a racetrack lies at the heart of this ensemble. Above sits a
conspicuous temple on the summit of Temple Hill – the focus of urban cult. It was here
that public decrees under the protection of the god were put on display. We find here an
ensemble that in most every respect looks like the commercial, religious, and political
heart of the Greek city.
433
E.g., Miller (1995a) argues that the Athenian boulē of 500 congregated, not in the Old Bouleuterion, but
outside on a series of steps along the eastern slope of the Kolonos Agoraios hill; see Shear (1995) for a
rebuttal.
168
CHAPTER FOUR: THE ELEAN AGORA
4.1. The Historical Background
The scattered remains of the ancient city of Elis are located along the southern
banks of the Peneios river within a level and fertile valley of the northwest Peloponnese,
approximately 14 km inland from the Ionian Sea (fig. 4.1). By the 5th century this region
was commonly referred to as Hollow Elis, a title that alluded to its position in the
lowland valley.434 Hollow Elis shared a border with Achaia to the north, Akroreia and its
mountains leading into Arcadia to the east, the hilly region of Pisatis along the northern
banks of the Alpheus river to the south, and the Ionian Sea to the west. Beginning in the
6th century, and continuing throughout the 5th century, the Eleans expanded their
influence beyond Hollow Elis through warfare or favorable alliances and imposed
perioikic status on neighboring communities.435 This included Akroreia and Pisatis, both
of which were incorporated into Eleia, and perhaps settlements south of the Alpheus river
in Triphylia.436 The incorporation of Pisatis into the sphere of Elean control around 570
was significant, because the Eleans became the overseers of the panhellenic sanctuary of
Zeus at Olympia and the administrators of the Olympic Games.437 By the second-half of
the 5th century, the Eleans extended their influence further south, taking full control of
Triphylia, a region between the Alpheus and Neda rivers that shared a border with
434
Thuc. 2.25.3 (A47).
435
Roy (1997; 2002, pp. 251-252) treats the evidence of perioikic communities under Elean control.
436
E.g., Skillous and Makistos.
437
Paus. 6.22.4 (A24).
169
northern Messenia. Many settlements here became dependent poleis (i.e. perioikoi) of the
Eleans, and they were probably required to pay annual tribute.438
A confrontation with Sparta at the end of the 5th century resulted in Elis
relinquishing its domination over the perioikic communities in Triphylia, and a restriction
of its influence over Pisatis.439 Elean authority at Olympia was openly challenged by the
Pisatans and Arcadians in the second-quarter of the 4th century. In a well-known episode
described by Xenophon, tensions reached a boiling point when the Pisatans and
Arcadians gained control of Olympia by force. The Eleans then waged a pitched battle
outside the Altis (sacred grove) to regain control of the sanctuary.440 These remarkable
events occurred during the summer of 364 as the Games were being held. Not long
afterwards the Eleans regained control of Olympia and Pisatis, but it was not until the
Hellenistic period that they fully reasserted their authority over the perioikic communities
south of the Alpheus river.
The expansionist policy of the Eleans during the Archaic and Early Classical
periods is curious considering the unusual political organization of the Elean state.
According to ancient tradition, the Eleans resided in a number of small agricultural
communities throughout Hollow Elis.441 They did not have a dominant urban center until
after the Persian Wars, when a synoicism in 471/0 led to the creation of a nucleated polis-
438
E.g., Thucydides (5.31.1-5) mentions that Lepreon refused to pay tribute in 421 and sought help from
Sparta in gaining independence from Elis. None of the ancient authors substantiate the exact terms of
financial obligations. There is better evidence that the perioikoi had military obligations; see Roy 1997, pp.
292-295. Additionally, it appears that the perioikoi were poleis, and not just small settlements; see ibid., pp.
285-286.
439
Unz 1986; Roy 1997, pp. 299-304.
440
Xen. Hell. 7.4.28-32.
441
E.g., Homer (Od. 21.347; Il. 11.671-681) characterizes the Eleans as making their living in the
countryside, and tending to their animals. Polybios (4.73.5-10 [A39]) states that the Eleans did not live in
cities for a long time.
170
center at Elis. According to Strabo and Diodorus, Elis was established as the capital and
center of the polis in this year.442 Strabo states that the Eleans originally lived in scattered
villages throughout the countryside (ἡ χώρα κωµηδὸν ᾠκεῖτο), and that they did not
settle at the present city of Elis until after the Persian Wars out of many demes (ἐκ
πολλῶν δήµων) and surrounding communities (ἐκ τῶν περιοικίδων). The geographer
compares the synoicism at Elis with others in the Peloponnese, such as those at Mantinea
and Tegea. Diodorus’ account is more brief, but nonetheless explicit: “When Praxiergus
was archon in Athens, the Romans elected as consuls Aulus Verginius Tricostus and
Gaius Servilius Structus (i.e. 471/0). At this time the Eleans, who dwelt in many small
poleis (µικρὰς πόλεις οἰκοῦντες), united to form one state which is known as Elis.”443
The two accounts of the synoicism are so similar that ancient historians suspect
that the 1st century authors shared a common source (probably Ephorus), either directly
or indirectly, for their information.444 Diodorus’ absolute date of 471/0 agrees with
Strabo’s relative chronology of “after the Persian Wars.” In addition, both authors are
clear in the details of the synoicism, saying that many communities were gathered
together to form a common urban center at Elis. A minor difference is that Strabo
characterizes the pre-synoicism settlements in Hollow Elis as κωµηδὸν (villages),
δήµων (demes), and περιοικίδων (surrounding settlements), whereas Diodorus claims
that they were already µικρὰς πόλεις (small poleis). Despite the divergence in
442
Diod. 11.54.1 (A9) and Strabo 8.3.2 (A44) are the main sources for the 471/0 synoicism. Potentially
relevant passages are also found in Ps.-Skylax 43, and Leandr(i)os (FGrH 492). Roy (2002) summarizes
the evidence and offers a critical assessment of the validity of the synoicism.
443
English translation from C.H. Oldfather, Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Vol. IV (Loeb Classical
Library) (London, 1946).
444
E.g., Roy 2002, p. 251.
171
terminology, the implication from both authors is that Elis did not exist as an urban center
before the synoicism.
Well before the period of the 471/0 synoicism, however, the Eleans, apparently
without a central city for administration, managed to wrestle control of Olympia from the
Pisatans and become a regional power. These circumstances stand in stark contrast to
other Greek poleis in the Archaic period (e.g., Athens, Argos) that had well-defined
urban centers from which to direct their regional authority. Even Sparta, famously
characterized by Thucydides as a cluster of settlements organized haphazardly, probably
had a more condensed urban center in the 6th century than did any of the small
settlements in Hollow Elis.445
Most ancient historians explain the discrepancy between Elean regional authority
and the lack of an urban center by identifying the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia as the
political center of the Elean state during the Archaic period (fig. 4.2).446 A number of 6th
century and early 5th century bronze plaques from Olympia have inscribed treaties, leges
sacrae, and other state mandates in the Elean dialect.447 Presumably these were put on
public display in an archive building or some sacred precinct. In addition, civic buildings
outside the Altis were used by Elean magistrates for the administration of the sanctuary
and internal Elean affairs. A bouleuterion dating to the second-half of the 6th century and
445
Thuc. 1.10. Few ancient towns north of the Alpheus river have been systematically explored besides
Elis, the two harbor settlements of Kyllene and Pheia, and Elean Pylos. Inglis (1998, pp. 134-140) provides
a useful list of all known archaic settlements in Hollow Elis. For the pre-classical material from Elis, see
infra Chapters 4.4-5.
446
Walter 1993, pp. 116-125; Hansen and Fisher-Hansen 1994, pp. 86-89; Siewert 2000, p. 26; Crowther
2003; Heiden 2006; Nielsen 2007. For a more cautious approach to Olympia as the political center of Elis
during the Archaic period, see Morgan and Coulton 1997, pp. 112-113.
447
Minon 2007, nos. 2-20, with earlier bibliography.
172
a prytaneion dating to the 5th century have been identified based on descriptions of the
sanctuary by Xenophon and Pausanias.448
From the 6th century onwards, the political organization of the Eleans was closely
intertwined with the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia, even after the establishment of a
polis-center at Elis following the 471/0 synoicism. The Elean state was effectively bi-
polar and officials carried out duties at both places. One example of this phenomenon are
the hellanodikai, a group of Elean magistrates who had responsibilities related to the
Games and the Elean state. During the Games the hellanodikai were the official judges of
the competitions, yet their headquarters were at Elis in a place called the Hellanodikaion
in the agora.449 The strong connection between city and sanctuary is further illustrated by
the sacred way linking the two sites together. Athletes competing at the Games were
required to train first at the gymnasia at Elis before making the symbolic 50-60 km
journey to Olympia.450
The unique circumstances of the Elean state creates an interesting environment
from which to explore the structure and development of the Elean agora. Many factors
present in the political structure of Elis, including its transition from a de-centralized
community into a bi-polar political entity, are not encountered in other Greek poleis.
448
Xen. Hell. 7.4.31; Paus. 5.23.1; 5.24.1; 5.24.9 (bouleuterion); Paus. 5.15.8-9; 5.20.10 (prytaneion).
Xenophon (Hell. 7.4.31) refers not to a prytaneion, but to a sanctuary of Hestia (τὸ ἱερον τῆς Ἑστίας). For
the archaeological remains of the two civic buildings, see Mallwitz 1972, pp. 125-128, 235-240. Morgan
and Coulton (1997, pp. 112-113) correctly point out that the ancient testimonia identifying the bouleuterion
and prytaneion only go as far back as the Late Classical period.
449
Minon (2007, pp. 532-535) summarizes the literary and epigraphical testimonia. Cf. Hdt. 5.22.1 (A18).
Pausanias (6.24.3) says that during an Olympic year the hellanodikai trained at Elis for 10 months before
the commencement of the Games under the auspices of the νοµοφύλακες (protectors of the law) in the
Hellanodikaion.
450
The exact route is not known; see Crowther 2003, p. 65; Heiden 2006, p. 55.
173
Significant constitutional reforms were also concurrent with these urban changes. Over
the course of the 6th century, a conservative oligarchy dominated by a few influential
families gradually gave way to a more inclusive oligarchy, which in turn transformed into
a democracy sometime in the Late Archaic or Early Classical period.451 The potential
influence of these constitutional changes on the urban layout of Elis, as well as on the
structure and administration of Olympia, are important factors to consider when one
examines the Elean agora.
This chapter presents the structure and development of the Elean agora in light of
the political idiosyncrasies and urban history of the Elean state. This includes a unified
investigation of building activity in the agora and an assessment of the relevant
administrative structures at Olympia. The agora at Elis is poorly represented in studies on
the Greek agora, despite the fact that Pausanias gives a detailed account of its remains
and systematic excavations have occurred throughout much of the 20th century and
continue to the present.452 This is partly due to a poor publications record of the
archaeological finds, but also because the spectacular archaeological material from
Olympia overshadows (ironically) the city that once administered it in antiquity. The
present chapter seeks to refocus our attention back to the city of Elis and its agora by
offering a comprehensive account of its material culture. The advantage of studying the
Elean agora, and then placing it within the wider context of other Greek agoras, is that the
city is largely a classical and Hellenistic creation. Beyond some early burials and a
scattering of archaic material, whose relationship with an early settlement is unclear, very
451
Arist. Pol. 5.6.10-11 (A3); see infra Chapter 4.5.
452
The most detailed studies appear in Tritsch 1932; Yalouris 1996, pp. 78-113; Heiden 2006, pp. 53-55.
174
little material at Elis dates before the Persian Wars. Unlike Argos and Corinth, this
situation provides a good opportunity to observe how a classical agora developed without
the influence of an earlier polis-center.
4.2. Topography and Archaeological Research
The topography and identification of buildings in and around the Elean agora
have been the primary focus of archaeological fieldwork for nearly 100 years (fig. 4.3).
Systematic excavations have been undertaken by the Austrian Archaeological Institute
(1910-1914; 1960-1981), and the Archaeological Society at Athens (1960-present) with
the support of the Greek Archaeological Service. These results show that the Elean agora
is situated at the northwest corner of the ancient city, within a level region (35-40 masl)
between the southern banks of the Peneios river and the ancient acropolis (152 masl) (fig.
4.4). Many important public and religious monuments are found clustered in an irregular
space approximately 40,000 m2 (4 ha) in total area.453 The agora is in close proximity to
the theater and a sanctuary of Dionysos (northeast), various sanctuaries and temples
(south and southwest), a sizeable domestic quarter of the city (southwest), and three
gymnasia (west).
The Elean agora consists of a loose group of buildings roughly arranged around
an irregular open area (fig. 4.5). On the whole its spatial boundaries are sporadically, if
not poorly defined, despite the presence of two monumental Late Classical stoas that
provide some semblance of structure. The West Stoa is a Doric structure with two
453
Cf. supra n. 41.
175
internal colonnades that looks out on the agora to the west (fig. 4.5, W). The building
marks the western boundary of the agora, separating the public area from the city’s
western suburbs. In contrast, the South Stoa has an unusual double-sided arrangement
with Doric colonnades, and communicates with the agora to the north and outside the
agora to the south (fig. 4.5, S). Inside the stoa is divided by a central partition wall. That
the stoas marked the western and southern limits of the Elean agora in antiquity is made
clear by Pausanias, who encounters the West Stoa immediately after entering the agora
from the northwest,454 and he describes the double-sided South Stoa as facing the agora
and the exterior.455 Both structures, therefore, were boundary markers that separated
features inside the agora from those outside.
The northern and eastern regions of the Elean agora are less well-defined.
Excavations have revealed a scattering of foundations from small structures (perhaps
religious) and bases from monuments (altars or dedications), most of which date to the
Hellenistic and Roman periods.456 None give clear definition to the spatial parameters of
the agora. The only noteworthy structure is a square Hellenistic building (North Building)
of uncertain function to the northeast, approximately 50 m from the Early Hellenistic
454
Paus. 6.24.2-3. His comment in 6.24.2 that the triple-aisled stoa (West Stoa) lies towards the south (ἡ
πρὸς µεσηµβρίαν ἐργασίας) had originally led scholars to believe that the stoa should be placed along the
southern side of the agora. However, Tritsch (1932, pp. 68-70) convincingly shows that this phrase refers to
how Pausanias entered the agora (i.e. at the northwest corner, and therefore north of the West Stoa, which
stood to his south). Pausanias does not describe the structures as if he were standing in the middle of the
agora. The relationship between the stoa and the Hellanodikaion, which Pausanias encounters upon
entering the agora, is also helpful in showing that the West Stoa stood at the entrance of the agora.
455
Paus. 6.24.5: Ἔστι δὲ ἡ κατασκευὴ τῆς στοᾶς δώριος καὶ διπλῆ, τῇ µὲν ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν τοὺς κίπνας
(i.e. north), τῇ δὲ ἐς τὰ ἐπέκεινα τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἔχουσα (i.e. south).
456
Ergon 1960, p. 133.
176
theater (fig. 4.5, T).457 The northeast boundary of the Elean agora must have been
somewhere between the North Building and the theater. Not only does Pausanias state
that the theater was located nearby, yet outside the agora,458 but Hellenistic and Roman
domestic structures north of the theater show that the public sphere of the agora
terminated somewhere close by.459
A number of religious structures lie southwest of the agora, along the eastern side
of a road leading to a domestic quarter of the city (fig. 4.6).460 The buildings here include
a large rectangular structure (Temenos H, see fig. 4.5, H), which appears to be a
Hellenistic temenos, a small building originally described as a propylon of uncertain date
and use (fig. 4.5, J), and a west-facing temple with a pronaos dating to the first-half of the
5th century (fig. 4.5, C). A Late Classical dedicatory base, and perhaps a contemporary
stoa are found south of the temple.461 Many other foundations of Hellenistic and Roman
date are encountered here. None have been studied or presented in any detail, so it is
difficult to comment on them. Based on the discovery of Late Roman kilns, this part of
457
The North Building is sometimes referred to as “Building D” in the early excavation reports; see Walter
1913, p. 149; Tritsch 1932, p. 73. Confusingly, the designation “Building D” is sometimes used to describe
the west-facing temple southwest of the agora; see Ergon 1981, p. 51; Ergon 1982, p. 41; Ergon 1983, pp.
65-67. For the theater, see Glaser 2001, and the preliminary reports in Ergon 1960, pp. 130-132; Ergon
1961, pp. 177-188; Ergon 1962, pp. 144-153; Ergon 1963, pp. 115-125; Ergon 1964, pp. 122-126; Ergon
1965, pp. 71-75; Ergon 1966, pp. 110-114; Ergon 1967, pp. 14-18; Ergon 1969, pp. 80-85; Ergon 1970, pp.
132-136; Ergon 1972, pp. 84-88; Ergon 1973, pp. 82-90; Ergon 1976, pp. 118-122; Ergon 1977, pp. 105-
112; Ergon 1979, pp. 17-18; Ergon 1981, pp. 50-51.
458
Paus. 6.26.1.
459
Ergon 1976, pp. 118-122; Ergon 1977, pp. 105-112; Ergon 1979, pp. 17-18; Ergon 1981, pp. 50-51.
460
The domestic quarter includes several insulae of houses organized on a grid-plan. Andreou and Andreou
(2007, pp. 22-23) say that most of the excavated remains date to the Roman imperial period, but they state
that the Romans adopted a system already in use by the Classical period.
461
Ergon 1981, p. 51; Ergon 1982, pp. 40-41; Ergon 1983, pp. 65-67.
177
the city was partly used as an industrial quarter in the Late Antique period.462 However,
there is no evidence yet to suggest that artisans were active here at an earlier period.
Beyond these discoveries, the early Austrian excavations uncovered a series of
long, parallel foundations west of the agora, which are tentatively attributed to the
famous gymnasia of Elis where athletes trained before the Olympic Games.463 The
foundations were uncovered during the very first year of excavations (1910), but there
was never a subsequent study of the remains and the foundations are now no longer
visible. Since Pausanias and Xenophon locate the gymnasia in a western suburb, the
identification of the foundations as gymnasia is a good assumption.464 Other finds in the
vicinity include a number of Roman bath complexes around the agora and the gymnasia.
Most remain unpublished except for one that lies between the gymnasia and the West
Stoa.465
This is the current state of the Elean agora and the monuments in the general
vicinity of the commercial, religious, and civic center of Elis. Compared to Argos and
Corinth, the physical remains of the Elean agora are rather disappointing at first sight.
Most pre-Roman structures are only preserved to foundation level and were discovered
centimeters below top soil in some instances. This circumstance makes it challenging to
date buildings in the agora with any degree of certainty from the stratigraphy, let alone
draw any concrete conclusions on their identification. For these reasons, Pausanias’
description of the Elean agora is absolutely vital to gain a sense of how the urban
462
Andreou and Andreou 2007, p. 18.
463
Walter 1913, pp. 145-146.
464
Xen. Hell. 3.2.27 (A51); Paus. 6.23.1-7. Pausanias’ location of the gymnasia can be confirmed by his
description of the road leading from the gymnasium into the agora (6.24.1).
465
Walter 1913, p. 145.
178
environment at Elis appeared in antiquity. The material remains uncovered by the
Austrians and Greeks must be supplemented with his commentary.
4.3. Description of the Site by Pausanias
Pausanias devotes more than three chapters to the sights and monuments at Elis,
carefully leading his readers step by step through the city (see appendix C). Unlike his
description of Argos which lacks a coherent topographical framework, Pausanias is
explicit in the location of buildings in relation to one another at Elis. His journey follows
a straightforward course with less ambiguity in the placement of monuments (fig. 4.7).
Directions and buildings become reference points to help make transitions to other
monuments more comprehensible. Pausanias often explains the route between
monuments, and in one instance he even identifies the name of the road and what he saw
along the way. This is incredibly helpful in reconstructing the urban landscape of Elis,
especially in light of the fragmentary state of the archaeological material.
The description of Pausanias can be subdivided into five main sections: (a) the
western city with the gymnasia, (b) roads leading away from the gymnasia, (c) the agora,
(d) sanctuaries south and southwest of the agora, and (e) the theater and sanctuary of
Dionysos northeast of the agora. A final section makes brief mention of the acropolis and
the sanctuary of Athena. Pausanias must have had first-hand knowledge of Elis. Apart
from his attention to details which reveals an intimate knowledge of the site, he mentions
that locals provided information on two occasions during his journey.466
466
Paus. 6.23.6; 6.24.9.
179
Three Gymnasia
Pausanias begins his account in the western section of the city, where he describes
at length three separate gymnasia.467 Here athletes of all kinds, including runners,
pentathletes, wrestlers, and boxers, were required to train before the Olympic Games.
Here too boys and young men were educated in palaistras throughout the year. But as
Pausanias informs us the gymnasia were more than just venues for athletics and training.
Civic officials gathered inside and cultural events with exhibitions and recitations were
held on occasion. Religion played a role here as well, as is clear from the presence of
altars and at least one heroon. Together these structures formed a multifaceted complex
that was vital for the everyday livelihood of the Eleans.
Pausanias is immediately struck by the impressive size and antiquity of the first
gymnasium.468 He describes the gymnasium as being “old” (ἀρχαῖον), and where
runners and pentathletes trained before the Olympic Games. There was an inner court
called the Xystos that was large enough to accommodate two running tracks: one of the
tracks was known as the Sacred Track. The Eleans called another area of the gymnasium
the Plethrion. This was where the hellanodikai matched competitors according to age and
skill for wrestling. Finally, Pausanias mentions that altars dedicated to Idaean Herakles,
Eros, Anteros (Love Returned), and Demeter and Kore, as well as a cenotaph to Achilles,
were scattered throughout the grounds of the gymnasium.
467
Paus. 6.23.1-7.
468
Paus. 6.23.1-3.
180
There was a smaller training facility attached to the old gymnasium called the
Square Gymnasium on account of its shape.469 This structure was primarily used for the
training of wrestlers and boxers, and, interestingly, where an image of Zeus was set up
from the fines imposed on two people. Pausanias describes a third and final gymnasium
known as the Maltho Gymnasium, so-called because of the softness of its soil.470 This
facility was partly reserved for the education and training of young boys in a palaistra.
According to Pausanias the exterior and interior of the building were decorated with
statues: the entrance was flanked by two statues of boy boxers, while statues of Herakles,
Eros, and Anteros stood inside. We also learn that a structure called the Lalichmion stood
inside the gymnasium, and doubled as the Elean bouleuterion and as a venue for holding
exhibitions and public recitations. The eponymous structure was privately funded and
donated to the city by Lalichmos, who was presumably an Elean citizen of some
importance. That no expense was spared in the decoration of the Lalichmion is suggested
by the shields which Pausanias reports hung around the walls.
With the exception of the word ἀρχαῖον (old) to describe the large gymnasium
with the two running tracks, there is nothing in Pausanias’ account that discloses the
chronology of the three gymnasia. Here we must turn to Xenophon and his account of the
Spartan military campaign against Elis at the end of the 5th century. During the Spartan
invasion of Eleia in ca. 400, the historian states that the Spartan king Agis reached the
city and did harm to the suburbs and the gymnasia, but declined to invade the center of
469
Paus. 6.23.4.
470
Paus. 6.23.5-7.
181
the city.471 Presumably the gymnasia that Agis damaged during the military offensive
were the same gymnasia that Pausanias encountered more than five centuries later. The
impressive sight of the old gymnasium in the eyes of Pausanias recalls a similar remark
by Xenophon, who comments that the gymnasia at Elis were particularly beautiful (τὰ
γυµνάσια καλὰ ὄντα). A relative date for the gymnasia in the Classical period is the
extent of our knowledge, and we cannot be certain that anything else described by
Pausanias dates to the same period.
Roads Leading from the Gymnasia
According to Pausanias at least two roads connected the gymnasia to other parts
of the city. One led to an unspecified number of bath complexes along the so-called
Street of Silence. The street acquired the name because the legendary city-founder
Oxylos led a surprise attack on the city in complete silence along the same road.472
Pausanias does not state in which direction the Street of Silence traveled, but from the
Oxylos legend we may safely deduce that it led eastwards into the city. The numerous
Roman baths uncovered east of the gymnasium offer additional support, since Pausanias
reports that the Street of Silence was linked to bath complexes.473 Not far from the
gymnasia along the same street, Pausanias passed by a sanctuary of Artemis Philomeirax
(Lover of Boys). The second road from the gymnasia led straight to the Elean agora, and
471
Xen. Hell. 3.2.27 (A51).
472
Paus. 6.23.8.
473
For the Roman baths, see supra Chapter 4.2.
182
more specifically to a building in the agora called the Hellanodikaion.474 It was here that
the hellanodikai were trained to be judges of the Olympic Games by the nomophylakes
(guardians of the laws). Pausanias even says that the hellanodikai frequently used the
road to access the gymnasia, along which there was a grave to Achilles.
Agora
Upon entering the agora via the road coming from the gymnasia, Pausanias notes
the dated appearance of the Elean agora. He reflects on its physical layout as follows:
“The agora of the Eleans looks nothing like the Ionian agoras and the agoras in the poleis
near Ionia. It was built in the older manner with stoas separated from one another, and
with streets running through them.”475 The adjective used to describe the Elean agora,
ἀρχαιότερα, carries the sense of something that appears old fashioned in its organization
of space, rather than implying that buildings in the agora were themselves necessarily
old. Pausanias substantiates his characterization by drawing attention to the fact that stoas
are separated from one another by streets. For him it is this quailty in particular that
supports calling the agora old fashioned. Recall that Pausanias uses a derivative of the
same word, ἀρχαῖον, to describe the large gymnasium and also, as we shall see, a
partially collapsed temple outside the agora and the theater. Elsewhere, Pausanias uses
the very same term (ἀρχαιότερα) to characterize the agora of Pherai, a city northeast of
474
Paus. 6.24.1.
475
Paus. 6.24.2: Ἡ δὲ ἀγορὰ τοῖς ἠλείοις οὐ κατὰ τὰς ἰώνων καὶ ὅσαι πρὸς Ἰωνίᾳ πόλεις εἰσὶν
ἑλλήνων, τρόπῳ δὲ πεποίηται τῷ ἀρχαιοτέρῳ στοαῖς τε ἀπὸ ἀλλήλων διεστώσαις καὶ ἀγυιαῖς δι’
αὐτῶν. English translation by the author.
183
Elis in Achaia.476 In this instance the justification in terminology comes from the great
size of the agora.
Elis and Pherai demonstrate that two traits of an old fashioned agora according to
Pausanias are (a) stoas divided by streets, which make the agora less compact, and (b) its
large size. Both of these qualities are contrasted to what Pausanias calls the Ionian agora.
Although he never elaborates on what the Ionian agora looks like, his comments are
usually understood to distinguish between two types of agoras: (a) the symmetrical and
compact agoras defined by stoas and other monumental public buildings on all sides,
often found in the grid-planned Hellenistic cities of Ionia; and (b) the irregular, less
structured agoras (i.e. ἀρχαιότερα) that evolved gradually over several centuries and are
more often encountered on the Greek Mainland.477
Pausanias’ interest in the old fashioned layout of the Elean agora may reveal
something of its classical arrangement. One gets the sense that Pausanias was struck by
the agora’s dated appearance, because the basic structure of the Elean agora had not been
altered to reflect Hellenistic and Roman trends in town planning. Later renovations more
likely maintained the original appearance of the agora, rather than deliberately reshaped it
to look antiquarian.478 The West Stoa and the South Stoa are, in fact, separated by a gap
of approximately 100 m where a southwest road leads into the agora. The stoas are
arranged perpendicular to one another, yet one hardly gets the sense of a unified
476
Paus. 7.22.2 (A25).
477
See, e.g., Tritsch 1932; Wycherley 1942; Martin 1951, pp. 372-417.
478
Classicizing and archaizing tendencies in Roman art and architecture appear at various periods. They
were especially prevalent during the reigns of Augustus, the Julio-Claudians, and Hadrian. For the most
part, however, the interest in adopting and reapplying earlier forms was confined to architectural details and
sculpture, and it is not often encountered in town-planning; see, e.g., Pollitt 1978; Zanker 1988; Hölscher
2004 (especially pp. 103-112, 125-127); Gros 1996, pp. 127-130, 173-185.
184
ensemble. Not only is this because of the distance between the buildings, but because the
South Stoa is not flush with the southern end of the West Stoa. For some unexplained
reason, the Eleans positioned the building further north and partially restricted the ability
of the West Stoa to communicate with the agora to the east.479 A loose arrangement of
buildings separated by roads is encountered again at the northwest corner of the agora,
where the road coming from the gymnasia enters the agora between the Hellanodikaion
and the West Stoa.
After commenting on the general topography of the Elean agora, Pausanias
mentions that the Eleans call their agora the Hippodrome, because people trained horses
in the agora’s central space.480 We find a similar arrangement in the Athenian agora,
where equestrian competitions (hippioi) occurred along the Panathenaic Way, and where
the Athenian cavalry practiced drills.481 Although it is not stated by Pausanias, the term
Hippodrome may also imply the presence of equestrian competitions in the Elean
agora.482 That the agora was able to accommodate horses reveals something of its
abundant space and open area.
The first buildings that Pausanias encounters in the agora are the West Stoa and
the Hellanodikaion.483 As he enters the agora at the northwest corner, Pausanias describes
the Hellanodikaion as being on the left and the West Stoa towards the south. In addition,
the Hellanodikaion is said to be parallel to the West Stoa. The spatial relationship of the
479
480
Paus. 6.24.2.
481
Camp 1998, pp. 25-27; Noting the evidence from Elis and Athens, Dubbini (forthcoming) further
suggests that hippioi may have occurred in the Corinthian agora.
482
Dubbini (ibid) offers this suggestion by looking at similar competitions in other Peloponnesian agoras.
483
Paus. 6.24.2-3.
185
buildings to each other leaves no doubt that they formed the northwest corner of the
agora. Moreover, there is a logical arrangement of space concerning the function and the
means of access between the buildings. The West Stoa and the Hellanodikaion served the
needs of the hellanodikai, whose affiliation with athletics and the Olympic Games is
reinforced by the road used by Pausanias linking them with the gymnasia. Not only does
Pausanias single out the Hellanodikaion as the training grounds of the hellanodikai, but
he frames his description of the West Stoa entirely in terms of its association with the
hellanodikai. After describing the stoa as a Doric structure divided by internal colonnades
into three aisles, he mentions that the hellanodikai generally spend their day here. And on
more than one occasion he identifies the West Stoa as “the stoa where the hellanodikai
pass their day.” Unfortunately we are never told what these officials did here, besides
erecting altars to Zeus in front of the colonnade.
As an administrative institution the hellanodikai can be traced back to the second-
quarter of the 5th century (epigraphical evidence), although they may have operated
under a different title before the synoicism.484 They numbered anywhere between 2-10
officials, depending on the period, and were selected by lot among the members of the
Elean boulē. The responsibilities of the hellanodikai were related to the Olympic Games
and the civic affairs of the Elean state. Besides being the judges at Olympia, they also
administered the compulsory 30 day training period before the festival in the gymnasia,
and had the power to limit the authority of other Elean officials. We do not know whether
the hellanodikai had strong ties to the northwest corner of the agora in the Classical
484
Crowther 2003, pp. 65-66.
186
period, but it remains a possibility from the testimony of Pausanias. By taking into
consideration the long-standing importance of these officials at Elis, and the conservative
organization of space in the Elean agora, the hellanodikai may have been active in the
northwest corner of the agora from an early point. Nevertheless, until excavations bring
to light the structure described by Pausanias as the Hellanodikaion, it is impossible to
know whether this same building or a predecessor existed in the Classical period.485
The next building that Pausanias encounters in the agora is the South Stoa, which
he locates near the West Stoa but separated from it by a road.486 He describes the stoa as
being in the Doric order and double-sided with a partition wall running down the center
lined with dedicatory statues. Remarkably, the stoa uncovered during excavations in the
agora has the very same arrangement. In an important passage for our understanding of
the spatial parameters of the Elean agora, Pausanias states that the South Stoa faces both
the agora and the side away from the agora. This is generally understood to mean that the
area north of the building was the agora, while that to the south stood outside. Pausanias
also speaks about the circumstances of the stoa’s initial construction. As he says the
building was known as the Corcyrean stoa, because it was built from a tithe of the spoils
taken from Corcyra. The battle in question is often dated by ancient historians between
485
The Hellanodikaion is often reproduced on plans of the agora as a square structure; e.g., see the building
to the north of the West Stoa in figs. 5-6. It must be emphasized, however, that no actual remains have been
excavated.
486
Paus. 6.24.4-5.
187
435-432, when Thucydides reports that the Eleans aided the Corinthians in a dispute with
the Corcyreans.487
Following the South Stoa, Pausanias devotes a considerable amount of time to
describing the religious landscape of the Elean agora. Judging from his narrative, the
agora was predominantly free from large scale construction beyond a scattering of altars,
sacred temene, and temples. On more than one occasion, Pausanias uses the term “in the
open area of the agora” (ἐν τῷ ὑπαίθρῳ τῆς ἀγορᾶς) to locate these sanctuaries. It is
here that he encounters an unspecified number of poorly constructed altars, as well as the
temple of Apollo Akesios (Healer).488 According to Pausanias the temple and cult statue
of the god was the most remarkable thing to see in the open area of the agora. Although
the location of the temple has not been established, excavations have largely confirmed
Pausanias’ characterization of the agora as being “in the open.” Only a scattering of small
bases and foundations from unidentified structures have been found within a large
expanse of space north of the South Stoa and east of the West Stoa (fig. 4.5). This was an
under-developed area of considerable extent, which recalls the great size of the old
fashioned agora of Pherai.
Other religious sites include stone statues of Helios and Selene which presumably
came from a temple or peribolos, a sanctuary of the Graces with an acrolithic cult statue
group that included Eros, a temple of Silenus with a cult statue group of the satyr and the
personification of Drunkenness, and a building used by the so-called Sixteen Women to
487
Thuc. 1.27.2; 1.46.1. In my opinion, the evidence from Thucydides is inconclusive in connecting the
events with the battle reported by Pausanias, despite what some ancient historians accept; see, e.g., Tritsch
1932, p. 72; Heiden 2006, p. 54.
488
Paus. 6.24.3 (altars); 6.24.6 (temple of Apollo Akesios).
188
weave a sacred robe for Hera during her festival at Olympia.489 Unlike the temple of
Apollo Akesios, Pausanias never clarifies whether these sanctuaries stand in the open
area of the agora, or whether they are peripheral features. Some of the cults should
probably be associated with the various bases and foundations excavated in the agora, but
there is no secure identification at present. It is also uncertain whether any of these cults
existed during the Classical period.
One peculiar structure in the agora was a low, temple-like edifice with nothing to
support it except for wooden columns.490 Most of the local informants were only able to
tell Pausanias that it was a tomb, yet they did not know to whom it was dedicated,
although one old man thought that it was the tomb of Oxylos. This exchange indicates
that the temple-like structure in the agora was probably a heroon. And since the locals of
Pausanias’ day could hardly remember the identity of the structure, it was probably quite
old as well. The only other mention of Oxylos in the Elean agora comes from the 4th
century historian Ephorus, who claims that a statue of the legendary city-founder stood in
the Elean agora accompanied by an inscription describing his lineage and the foundation
of the city.491 It is tempting to draw a correlation between Ephorus’ statue of Oxylos and
the heroon of Oxylos in the agora, if Pausanias’ informant can be trusted.492 This would
provide a terminus ante quem of the 4th century for the heroon, although it was likely the
489
Paus. 6.24.6 (Helios and Selene); 6.24.6-7 (sanctuary of the Graces); 6.24.8 (temple of Silenus); 6.24.10
(building of the Sixteen Women). For the Sixteen Women, see Calame 1997, pp. 114-116; Scanlon 2002,
pp. 98-100.
490
Paus. 6.24.9.
491
Eph. FGrH 70 F 122 (apud Strabo 10.3.2 [A14]).
492
In this scenario the statue of Oxylos was removed from the heroon sometime before Pausanias’ visit.
189
type of monument the Eleans would have erected soon after the 471/0 synoicism to claim
an earlier presence on the site.
Sanctuaries Outside the Agora
After describing the Elean agora, Pausanias diverts his attention to religious
monuments south and southeast of the agora.493 This is an area of Elis that Pausanias in
his description of the double-sided South Stoa has already indicated lies outside the
agora. The first monument he comments on is a peristyle temple with a collapsed roof
that lies adjacent to the agora.494 Pausanias is careful to emphasize the antiquity of the
temple in his narrative. Beyond mentioning the partial destruction of the building, which
itself implies an advanced age, the periēgētēs says as much when he calls the temple
“old” (ἀρχαῖος). During his visit the building was dedicated to the Roman emperors, but
in its original form it must have honored a now unknown divinity. The location of the
temple also remains unclear. While Pausanias is explicit in placing the building just
outside the agora, he does not provide any other points of reference. The best guess
would be south of the agora, because Pausanias follows with an extended narrative of the
sanctuaries in this part of the city.
The temple of Aphrodite Ourania and a separate open-air temenos to the goddess
were built immediately behind the South Stoa.495 Inside the temple Pausanias saw a
chryselephantine cult statue of Aphrodite stepping on a tortoise by the 5th century
493
Paus. 6.24.10-6.25.6.
494
Paus. 6.24.10.
495
Paus. 6.25.1.
190
sculptor Phidias. The work was particularly famous in antiquity and survives today
through Roman copies.496 By identifying Phidias as the sculptor, Pausanias allows us to
date the temple of Aphrodite Ourania to the third-quarter of the 5th century at the very
latest. Fieldwork immediately south of the South Stoa has revealed the foundations of a
long structure, approximately 25 m in length and oriented in a southwest-northeast
direction (fig. 4.5). Although additional explorations are necessary to gain a better
understanding of its proportions and ground plan, the foundations may tentatively be
associated with the temple of Aphrodite Ourania.
Near the temple of Aphrodite Ourania, Pausanias comes across the sanctuary of
Aphrodite Pandemos with a bronze cult statue of Aphrodite sitting on a he-goat by the
sculptor Skopas.497 The sanctuary was only surrounded by a temenos wall and the statue
was erected on a stone plinth in the open. The identification of Skopas as the sculptor
dates the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos no later than the first-half of the 4th century.
Pausanias encounters other sanctuaries and temples in the general vicinity, although he is
not specific in their location. The most peculiar cult is the sanctuary of Hades with a
temple to the god of the Underworld that only the priest was allowed to enter one day per
year.498 Two other sites include the sanctuary of Tyche with an attached stoa and a
colossal acrolithic cult statue, and a sanctuary of Sosipolis near the Tyche sanctuary.499
Anyone of these cults may potentially be associated with the rectangular peribolos
(Temenos H), or the west-facing temple along the southwest road leading into the
496
LIMC II, s.v. Aphrodite, pp. 27-29, nos. 174-184 (A. Delivorrias).
497
Paus. 6.25.1. For the cult statue, see LIMC II, s.v. Aphrodite, pp. 98-100, nos. 947-976 (A. Delivorrias).
498
Paus. 6.25.2-3.
499
Paus. 6.25.4.
191
agora.500 The origins of these cults at Elis are obscure, and it cannot be known whether
they existed during the Classical period.
A bronze statue of Poseidon from “the most thickly-populated part of Elis” is the
final monument that Pausanias mentions south of the agora.501 The statue represented the
god as a beardless youth and was said to have been brought to Elis from Samikon in
Triphylia. That Pausanias locates the statue in a residential quarter of the city is helpful,
because we can begin to speculate upon the route he used when leaving the agora. After
describing the two sanctuaries of Aphrodite south of the South Stoa, Pausanias continues
to describe the sanctuaries of Hades, Tyche, and Sosipolis. These cults were presumably
along the southwest road that passes out of the agora between the West Stoa and South
Stoa. The key to understanding the whole excursion is the domestic quarter of the city,
where Pausanias sees the statue of Poseidon. This can be none other than the residential
insulae recently excavated at the termination of the southwest road (fig. 4.8).
Theater and Sanctuary of Dionysos
Moving to another part of Elis, Pausanias next describes the theater and sanctuary
of Dionysos, both of which he locates between the agora and the Peneios river.502
Alluding to the old fashioned layout of the agora, Pausanias comments that the theater is
itself “old” (ἀρχαῖον). The structure was discovered during the first years of excavations
and subsequent studies show that it dates to the Early Hellenistic period in its earliest
500
501
Paus. 6.25.5-6.
502
Paus. 6.26.1-2.
192
phase (fig. 4.9). In plan and workmanship the theater was modest and alterations in the
Hellenistic and Roman periods did not greatly change its plan. The cavea was constructed
out of a large earthen mound and spectators sat on the barren ground. Stone seats were
restricted only to the first row and the rows along the parodoi. The impression of
Pausanias that the theater was old surely has to do with its simple arrangement and
modest outfittings. After seeing more elaborate theaters elsewhere, the theater at Elis
must have struck him as being retrospective, much like the agora.
Pausanias locates the sanctuary of Dionysos near the theater, commenting that its
cult statue was made by the famous 4th century sculptor Praxiteles. While digressing on
the worship of Dionysos at Elis, he is interested in discussing the Elean festival for the
god that was celebrated at an extra-mural sanctuary eight stades away from the city.
During the festival the priest is said to have administered the miracle of producing wine
from empty pots. Apart from the interesting story, the remains of the sanctuary of
Dionysos inside the city have not been discovered. The foundations of a semicircular
Late Classical monument near the western parodos of the theater may be a candidate, but
not enough of the structure is preserved to confirm its identification as a temple.503 A
number of Late Roman graves in the vicinity were constructed from reused material,
including an entablature, which may have come from the sanctuary. It is important to
note that Pausanias describes the place as a ἱερόν (sanctuary), and nowhere does he say
that there was a temple (ναός) dedicated to Dionysos. At the very least, the cult statue by
Praxiteles indicates that the sanctuary should not date after the 4th century.
503
Ergon 1990, pp. 36-40.
193
Acropolis
Pausanias concludes his lengthy description of the sites and monuments at Elis by
briefly mentioning the acropolis, approximately 600 m southeast of the agora.504 On the
summit he saw a sanctuary of Athena with a chrselephanitine cult staute by the 5th
century sculptor Phidias. No remains of a temple have been discovered on the acropolis,
although excavations up to the present have been limited.
4.4. Early Developments in the Elean Agora
Instead of confirming that Elis was created ex novo (à la Megalopolis) following
a synoicism in 471/0, as we learn from the ancient authors, the archaeological evidence
demonstrates that there did exist an early, albeit small settlement before the synoicism.505
Early and Middle Helladic pottery shows that Elis was inhabited as early as the Bronze
Age, although the complete absence of Late Helladic material indicates that the site was
evidently abandoned. From the Submycenaean to the Protogeometric periods (11th/10th
century), the site was reoccupied. Evidence comes from a scattering of simple earth cut
graves and cist graves with stone slabs that were largely found around the theater.506
Some of the graves even had modest grave goods (bronze hairpins). The two centuries of
reoccupation are followed by a second decline during the Early Geometric period (9th
504
Paus. 6.26.3.
505
Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999; Eder 2001.
506
Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 6-9. Other graves from the Submycenaean and Protogeometric
periods have been found west of the city, and one was found in the West Stoa.
194
century), when a single kantharos fragment from the West Stoa, presumably from a
grave, is the only evidence for habitation.507
By the Middle and Late Geometric periods (8th/early 7th century) there are
sustainable signs of occupation at Elis leading up to the 471/0 synoicism (see table 6).
Although the remains are rather modest, they leave no doubt that people were
congregating here at an early period. As in the previous centuries, the evidence largely
consists of graves and pottery associated with burials found near the theater and at the
foot of the acropolis.508 A Late Geometric krater and kantharos from the theater are two
particularly well-preserved finds. The concentration of burials near the Early Hellenistic
theater during the Geometric period may imply the existence of a small, yet nucleated
settlement in this part of Elis. However, because of the limited scope of archaeological
explorations, this must remain only a tentative suggestion.
Other geometric material includes two bronze animals (bull and horse), a bronze
wheel from a model chariot or wagon, and three bronze beads from a pithos burial near
the West Stoa (fig. 4.10).509 Besides the beads, it is uncertain whether the bronze objects
constitute grave goods or votives from a sanctuary. The discovery of the bronze beads in
a burial may favor a similar use for the other bronzes. On the other hand, we cannot rule
out the possibility that the bronze animals and wheel were cult objects in an unknown
sanctuary. Whatever their original purpose, the bronze objects along with the graves and
507
Ibid, pp. 9-10.
508
Ibid, pp. 10-24.
509
Ibid, nos. 3-8: (a) bronze bull found in the nearby village of Palaiopolis, 9th/8th century; (b) bronze
horse found around the so-called propylon, third-quarter of the 8th century; (c) bronze wheel base of
unknown provenance, 8th century; (d) three bronze beads from a pithos burial in the West Stoa, 8th/7th
century.
195
ceramics are an important testimony to the 8th century and early 7th century settlement at
Elis.
The general picture that emerges from Geometric Elis is fairly consistent with the
previous three centuries of occupation at the site. The only traces of an early settlement
comes from a scattering of graves here and there, and the ceramics and goods associated
with these graves. The cluster of burials in certain regions (theater, acropolis) implies the
presence of small settlement clusters, much like early Argos and Corinth. But unlike
these Peloponnesian cities, no architecture dating to the Geometric period has been
discovered at Elis and the mortuary evidence is more limited. The graves also give us an
incomplete picture of the social structure of the early settlement. The handful of
geometric bronze objects from Elis cannot compare, for example, to the warrior graves at
early Argos, or the emergence of the North Cemetery at Corinth.510 And where there is
clear evidence of early cult activity at Argos (terracotta figurines) and Corinth (sanctuary
of Demeter and Kore, Old Temple), no such material has been discovered at Elis.
4.5. The Archaic Period
The patterns of habitation experience transformations in a limited capacity during
the Archaic period, but the results are nevertheless recognizable. As we have seen at
Argos and Corinth, the tendency in archaic urban practices was to eliminate burials from
the domestic and public quarters of the city, in favor of group cemeteries at the periphery
of the urban environment. Something similar yet on a smaller scale occurred at Elis,
510
See supra Chapter 2.3 and Chapter 3.2.
196
because the theater and southern region of the Elean agora cease to be used for burials.511
Although graves had congregated here in previous centuries, excavations so far have
produced no archaic burials around the agora. An archaic bronze lion’s head protome
from the theater was once attached to a large vessel, but it probably was not used as a
grave dedication (fig. 4.11).512 Another archaic bronze object (small pendant) was found
during the early Austrian excavations. However, since the findspot was never recorded, it
is impossible to conjecture on its use.513
Architectural Terracottas
More substantial and intriguing evidence for changes to the urban fabric of
Archaic Elis are the painted architectural terracottas found south of the classical agora.
Five archaic sima fragments are the earliest evidence of architecture at the site. They are
also an important indication that the built environment was taking on a more monumental
appearance. Two of the sima fragments are early, and have been dated ca. 580-560 based
on similarities in style and workmanship to the early architectural terracottas from
Olympia (fig. 4.12). One was discovered between the South Stoa and Temenos H, while
the findspot of the other was never recorded.514 Their design, proportions, and material
are so similar that they likely came from the same building, presumably one around the
classical agora. Three other sima fragments date to end of the 6th century (ca. 500). One
511
Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 24-33.
512
Ibid, pp. 20-21, 37, no. 9. The excavators have suggested a domestic or religious function.
513
Ibid, pp. 22, 37, no. 10.
514
Ibid, pp. 25-29, 37, no. 11. One from the 1972 excavations (between the South Stoa and Temenos H);
A120 (findspot unknown).
197
was reused in a rubble wall near the so-called propylon, another was found near the west-
facing temple, and a third is without provenance (fig. 4.13).515
Since excavations have failed to produce foundations from archaic buildings at
Elis, either in the agora or elsewhere, none of the architectural terracottas can be
associated with specific structures. For certain they mark the existence of buildings at
Elis before the 471/0 synoicism, but the nature of these early structures is difficult to
grasp. Since three of the sima fragments were found south of the classical agora, it is
reasonable to assume that all five came from here based upon similarities in style and
workmanship. During the Classical and Hellenistic periods, the area south and southwest
of the agora was taken up by sanctuaries and temples. We know this to be true from the
types of buildings excavated here (west-facing temple, Temenos H), and the description
of Pausanias, who identifies many sanctuaries in this region of the city (Aphrodite
Ourania, Aphrodite Pandemos, Hades, Tyche, and Sosipolis). It is tempting, therefore, to
associate the architectural terracottas with an early temple or auxiliary building in one or
more of these sanctuaries known to have existed here at a later date.516
Alternatively, some scholars want to draw a relationship between the architectural
terracottas and archaic civic buildings at Elis.517 This theory is less appealing, but it does
raise important issues concerning the status and frequency of archaic civic building in the
Greek urban environment, and how we view such institutions in the history and
development of the Greek agora. I have already emphasized in the chapters on Argos and
515
Ibid, pp. 29-33, 38-39, nos. 12-14. A37 (propylon); A38 (unknown); A39 (canal NW of west-facing
temple).
516
As do Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon (ibid, pp. 30-33), and Siewert (2000, p. 25).
517
E.g., Siewert 2001, p. 246; Heiden 2006, p. 55.
198
Corinth that religious monuments and commercial structures were more common than
civic buildings in the archaic and classical agora. In general, early poleis were more
willing to finance religious monuments, large multi-purpose stoas, and dedications in
sanctuaries, rather than embellish their agoras with monumental civic and administrative
structures.518 It would be an extraordinary circumstance if the architectural terracottas
from Elis represent civic architecture from an early Elean agora, especially considering
that the settlement of Archaic Elis does not appear to have been a polis-center until after
the 471/0 synoicism.
Judicial Inscription
Besides the architectural terracottas, another important find is an archaic bronze
inscription found next to the so-called propylon, southwest of the classical agora, among
numerous 5th and 4th century terracotta figurines and other votives (figs. 4.14; 4.15).519
The editio princeps of the inscription was published in 1994 by Peter Siewert and a study
of the terracottas appeared in 2001.520 The terracotta figurines appear to have come from
the sanctuary of a nearby female deity, only to be deposited near the so-called propylon
sometime during the Late Classical or Hellenistic period. The inscription has been dated
by Siewert to the first-half of the 6th century, based on the early epichoric letter style and
518
Where civic architecture does occur in these early contexts, the results are often not monumental but
modest; e.g., Buildings I-IV in the Corinthian agora, see supra Chapter 3.7. On the other hand, Herodotus
(3.57) states that the Siphnians adorned their agora and prytaneion with expensive Parian marble when they
built the treasury at Delphi (ca. 530-525).
519
A61.
520
Inscription: Siewert 1994; Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 24-25; Siewert 2000, pp. 21-29;
Siewert 2001; Minon 2007, pp. 15-17, no. 1. Terracottas: Mitsopoulos-Leon 2001.
199
its boustrophedon arrangement.521 The document is entirely unique at Elis, and actually
predates the earliest Elean inscriptions at Olympia by at least a quarter of a century.
Although in a fragmentary state of preservation, the five lines of the bronze
inscription clearly record a judicial procedure. Technical terms such as “judgment,”
“judge,” and “trial,” or a derivative of them, are encountered on three separate occasions.
Their exact meaning depends on how the endings of the words are restored. The
expression ἔα ἀ ζίκα in line 1 refers to some judgment passed by a single person or body
of officials now lost. The same word is likely found in line 3, preceded by what may be a
reference to the damiourgoi, a group of Elean officials. Finally, the expression µὰ ζι[κάζ-
-] (“should not judge”) in line 5 seems to be describing a judicial action.522
As Siewert points out, the inscription cannot be a lex sacra, even though it was
found among votives.523 No word in the inscription has a religious connotation and there
is no mention of a divinity or a sacrifice. Instead, the text describes the modus operandi
of some legal process, regulating the judges who are able to perform a function. Siewert
and other ancient historians maintain that the inscribed bronze plaque proves that judicial
events and state gatherings were held at Elis by the early 6th century. This would imply
that the Elean agora already existed in an administrative capacity by the Archaic
period.524 Siewert surmises that the document was put on display in a nearby sanctuary of
a female deity, most likely in the sanctuary of Aphrodite Ourania or Aphrodite
521
Siewert (2000, p. 22) notes that this boustrophedon inscription begins left to right, unlike all the other
boustrophēdon inscriptions in the Elean dialect from Olympia that begin right to left.
522
µὰ ζικ[άζοι(?) as restored by Siewert. Minon (2007, p. 17) agrees that the verb should be restored as an
optative.
523
Siewert 2000, p. 24.
524
Siewert 1994; Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 24-25; Siewert 2000, p. 25; Siewert 2001, p. 246;
Roy 2002, pp. 253-254; and Heiden 2006, p. 55.
200
Pandemos.525 According to him the architectural terracottas support the existence of an
archaic sanctuary in the vicinity.
How we interpret the significance of the archaic judicial inscription from Elis has
important implications for the development of the agora, and the political structure of the
early Elean state. That the area of the classical agora functioned as a venue for political,
judicial, and religious meetings during the Archaic period is certainly appealing. The
termination of burials around the agora in the Archaic period suggests that space at Elis
was being restructured to fulfill other needs. The architectural terracottas imply the
existence of archaic religious structures, perhaps from an early sanctuary of Aphrodite
Ourania or Aphrodite Pandemos. The bronze judicial document may have been stored in
an archive of the sanctuary, and therefore close to the agora. As the previous chapters on
Argos and Corinth have shown, public documents are often found in a sanctuary adjacent
to the agora.526
But it must be admitted that the evidence from Elis is too slight to draw any
tangible conclusions. The lack of archaic buildings found in situ is troublesome. Should
we envision mudbrick structures in the agora that no longer survive? Can we be sure that
the inscription was set up in a temple under the protection of a god, or even in a civic
building? Why have no other archaic documents been found at the site? For the time
being these are questions that remain unanswered.
525
Siewert 2000, p. 25. Cf. Mitsopoulos-Leon (2001), who wants to associate the terracottas with the
sanctuary of Artemis Philomeirax.
526
See supra Chapters 2.2 and 2.4 (Apollo Lykeios in the Argive agora); and Chapters 3.7-8 (temple of
Apollo adjacent to the Corinthian agora).
201
The uniqueness of the judicial inscription does present a dilemma. Previous
scholarship assumes that Elis was the original context of the document. Its small size,
however, and the fact that no other archaic documents are known to exist at Elis, leaves
open the possibility that it was brought here from Olympia at a later date. Apart from this
judicial inscription, the sanctuary at Olympia was the exclusive repository of Elean state
documents by the fourth-quarter of the 6th century – a pattern that continued into the
Classical period.527 That the judicial inscription was found in a Late Classical or
Hellenistic sacred deposit two to three centuries after it was inscribed, should raise
further questions about its original provenance.528 While it is not possible to commit to
one position, it is preferable to remain cautious on the significance of this unique
inscription in how we characterize the archaic settlement at Elis.529
Political Structure of the Archaic Elean State
Despite the shortcomings of the early material, the limited evidence does tell us
two important details about the urban environment: (a) the 471/0 synoicism did not lead
to the creation of a new settlement ex nihilo, and (b) the patterns of habitation at Elis
underwent changes during the Archaic period, although the exact nature and significance
of these transformations are indeterminate. Regarding the first point, the contradiction of
527
However, Siewert (2000, p. 26) interprets the early date of the judicial inscription as implying that the
Eleans originally used Elis as a repository for state documents, until they took control of Olympia ca. 570.
He is more inclined to date the inscription before 570, so that it fits nicely into this model.
528
The deposit of coin blanks from the southeast temple in the Argive agora (see supra Chapter 2.5) may
be cited as comparanda. At Argos, the coin blanks were brought to the temple from an uncertain location,
apparently as a way of ritually discarding the material under the protection of a divinity. The late context of
the archaic judicial document with cult material (terracotta figurines) hints at a similar practice at Elis.
529
Roy (2002, p. 256), using this inscription and the archaic architectural terracottas, characterizes pre-
471/0 Elis as “a significant community.” He may have a point from a historical perspective, but I largely
see this as an overstatement based on the archaeological record.
202
the material evidence with the literary accounts of Strabo and Diodorus is striking,
especially since the two ancient authors are explicit in their date of the synoicism (471/0,
and “after the Persian Wars”) and the details of the synoicism (Eleans were previously
not an urban society). Most ancient historians explain the discrepancy between the
literary and archaeological evidence through a different interpretation of the use of the
term synoicism.530 Rather than accepting as straightforward the reports of the two authors
(i.e. synoicism = new city), there is consensus that the synoicism resulted from political
and constitutional developments, perhaps to strengthen the political position of the Elean
state by uniting surrounding communities.
This scenario is better appreciated when placed within the context of the political
realities of the Elean state during the Archaic period. The ancient testimonia indicate that
the Eleans took control of Olympia from Pisa around 570, and that by the end of the 6th
century Akroreia and perhaps even a number of settlements in Triphylia south of the
Alpheus river were incorporated into Eleia.531 From ca. 570 until the Persian Wars the
sanctuary became a venue for the Eleans to exercise regional authority over the Games
and dependent communities. The first documents in Elean dialect that deal with the local
cult and the administrative functions of the Elean state appear at Olympia in ca. 525.532
Two inscriptions show that the Eleans were making alliances with other communities,
and IvO 9 in particular shows that the terms of the treaty, if broken, were favorable to the
530
Roy (ibid) discusses all the possible scenarios and previous scholarship on the topic in detail.
531
Roy 1997; 2002; see also supra Chapter 4.1.
532
Minon 2007, nos. 2-12 (ca. 525-475). These deal with the use of land, access to the sanctuary, treaties
with other states, and official documents that mention Elean state officials.
203
Eleans.533 It stipulates that Olympia act as a state repository for the penalties, a procedure
that obviously favored the Eleans since they administered the sanctuary.534 The
documentary evidence implies that the Eleans were exploiting Olympia for their own
political ends, and that the sanctuary was the political center of a state that otherwise did
not have a polis-center.
Additional evidence comes from the political institutions of the Elean state during
the Archaic period. From Aristotle we learn that Elis was once a conservative oligarchy,
that the state was controlled only by a few influential families, and that the oligarchic
boulē numbered 90 with membership being for life.535 At some point in time, a rival
Elean faction became dissatisfied with the status quo and managed to press for reforms.
The details of these changes are unknown to us, except that they enabled a wider group of
citizens to participate in the running of government. Although we do not understand the
chronology of these reforms, it is generally assumed that Aristotle is referring to events
of the early 6th century in describing Elis as a conservative oligarchy.
More definitive verification comes from IvO 7, a bronze lex sacra from Olympia
in the Elean dialect dating ca. 525-500 that mentions the βολά (boulē) and the δᾶµος
(popular assembly).536 If we exclude the retroactive evidence from Aristotle, IvO 7 is the
earliest reference to these legislative organizations. In line 4 the document specifies that
there are 500 members of the boulē, meaning that the political reforms definitely predate
the synoicism. Previously the boulē only comprised of 90 members (Aristotle), but now
533
Ibid, nos. 5 (ca. 525-500), 10 (IvO 9 [A63], ca. 500-475); see also Roy and Schofield 1999.
534
We do not hear of tribute imposed on dependent communities until the 5th century; e.g., Thuc. 5.31.2-4
(Lepreon makes tribute payments).
535
Arist. Pol. 5.6.10-11 (A3).
536
Minon 2007, no. 4 (A62).
204
they numbered 500. This was a significant increase in citizen participation and shows that
the government was becoming more inclusive. Based on the Athenian analogy (boulē of
500), we may suspect the influence of a more democratic constitution, but it does not
necessarily prove the existence of a democracy at this time.537 By the time of the
Peloponnesian War in the following century the boulē was subsequently increased to 600
members.538 Greater representation in government by the end of the 6th century is also
implied by the δᾶµος and δᾶµος πλεθύον in IvO 7, though this institution does not itself
mark political reforms (one may have previously existed) or a certain transition to a
democratic constitution.539 The same body of Elean officials is encountered in early 5th
century inscriptions from Olympia.540 From the epigraphical testimonia, the popular
assembly had legislative power along with the boulē and oversaw judicial matters.
Overall, the use of the terms βολά and δᾶµος shows that the Eleans had polis instiutions
by the 6th century. Moreover, as Sophie Minon points out, it is very probable that these
were administrative bodies of the Elean state and not an amphictionic body.541
Besides the boulē and popular assembly, the only other civic body known to
predate the synoicism are the damiourgoi. These officials are first encountered in the
judicial inscription from Elis (ca. 600-550), followed by several Late Archaic and 5th
537
Ibid, pp. 510-511. As Minon says (p. 510), the number 500 is a surprising amount for a community that
was supposedly scattered before the 471/0 synoicism.
538
Thuc. 5.47.9-11 (A49).
539
δ/ζᾶµος or δᾶµος πλεθύον: IvO 7 (Minon 2007, no. 4). Note that a popular assembly existed in both
oligarchies and democracies. For the conservative oligarchy at Corinth and the Corinthian assembly, see
supra Chapter 3.6.
540
δ/ζᾶµος or δᾶµος πλεθύον: (a) IvO 11 (ibid, no. 12), ca. 500-475; (c) IvO 3 (ibid, no. 13), ca. 475; (d)
IvO 13 (ibid, no. 19), ca. 475-450.
541
Minon 2007, p. 511.
205
century documents.542 They numbered at least two people and were guarantors of treaties,
held judicial responsibilities as a high court, and could act as a provisional government in
perioikic settlements.
Olympia and the Elean State
Coinciding with the political reforms of the second-half of the 6th century (ca.
525-500 terminus ante quem), and the practice of erecting state documents at Olympia
(ca. 525), was the construction of civic buildings at Olympia. The Eleans had both a
bouleuterion and a prytaneion at the sanctuary (fig. 4.2). The bouleuterion lies south of
the temple of Zeus, just outside the Altis, and consists of two long, parallel apsidal
buildings that are joined by a central rectangular hall.543 A central row of columns runs
down the length of the north and south apsidal halls, while an Ionic porch gives the entire
ensemble a decorative facade. Complicating matters is that many parts of the building
date to different periods. Only the north apsidal hall dates to the 6th century (second-
half): the south hall was added in the early 5th century, the Ionic porch in ca. 450 (or after
374), and the central rectangular hall after 374. Its identification as the bouleuterion is
based on the description of the sanctuary by Pausanias and Xenophon, who both locate
542
[- δαµι]ο̣<ρ>γεοίταν: (a) Minon 2007, no. 1, ca. 600-550; (b) IvO 16 (ibid, no. 22), ca. 450-425.
δαµιοργός: IvO 3 (ibid, no. 13), ca. 475. Ϝισοδαµιοργόν: IvO 11 (ibid, no. 12), ca. 500-475.
ζ/δαµιοργία: (a) IvO 4 (ibid, no. 9), ca. 500-475; (b) IvO 2 (ibid, no. 20), ca. 475-450; and (c) IvO 16
(ibid, no. 22), ca. 450-425.
543
Gneisz 1990, pp. 340-341, no. 47; Mallwitz 1972, pp. 235-240; McDonald 1943, pp. 224-231.
206
the bouleuterion in this part of the sanctuary.544 In addition, several Hellenistic bronze
voting disks were unearthed near the north apsidal hall.545
Sophie Minon, among others, argues that the Elean boulē probably held meetings
in the bouleuterion at least until the 471/0 synoicism.546 Their purpose was twofold and
involved the administration of the sanctuary and the Elean state. In a later period the body
was responsible for the administration of the sanctuary, the distribution of funds, making
loans to foreign states in the sanctuary, and for maintaining the rules and erecting
statues.547 We do not know whether the boulē congregated exclusively at Olympia to hold
sessions, or whether they were only present at the sanctuary for part of the year. The fact
that Pausanias identifies a bouleuterion in the Maltho Gymnasium at Elis suggests that
civic gatherings were held at two different places at some point in the history of the Elean
state.548 But for the Archaic period, the main location for meetings of the Elean boulē was
at Olympia, just as it was the preferred place to erect Elean state documents.
The large, multi-roomed building at the northwest corner of the Altis is usually
identified as the prytaneion based on Pausanias’ description of the site.549 The majority of
the complex dates to the 2nd century A.D., although the remains of earlier rubble walls
have tempted scholars to push its original phase back to the early 5th century (ca. 500-
544
Pausanias 5.23.1; 5.24.1, 9; Xen. Hell. 7.4.31.
545
Baitinger and Eder 2001; Minon 2007, no. 59. Obverse: Ϝα(λείων); Reverse: (a) ΡΟΕ, (b) Δι(ός) and
lightening bolt, or (c) Δα(µόσιος).
546
Minon 2007, p. 513. Contra Morgan and Coulton (1999), who question whether the function of the
bouleuterion and prytaneion predate the synoicism. They state that the Elean inscriptions at Olympia are
merely treaties between cities and do not prove Elean domination.
547
From late authors we learn of a body called the Olympic boulē, whose relation to the Elean boulē is
uncertain; see Heiden 2006, p. 57.
548
Paus. 6.23.7.
549
Miller 1978, pp. 86-91. Pausanias (5.15.8-9) states that the prytaneion is located inside the Altis at the
northwest corner near the exit that leads to the gymnasium, while in another passage (5.20.10) he says that
it is near the Philippeion.
207
480).550 There is good reason to suspect that the classical prytaneion was located at the
southeast corner of the Altis, and should be identified with the Southeast Building, now
often referred to as the Hestia Hall.551 This structure dates to the late 5th century and
consists of two rooms and a large courtyard in the back. In this scenario the prytaneion
was transferred to the northwest corner sometime during the Early Imperial period, where
Pausanias would have seen it during the 2nd century A.D.
The growing administrative authority of the Elean state during the Archaic period
had more of a visible impact at Olympia (state documents, civic officials, civic
building[s]), where the sanctuary acted as the organizational nucleus of Elean political
unity before the synoicism. Contemporary archaeological evidence from Elis does show
that some, albeit limited transformations were taking place in what would eventually
become the second polis-center of the Elean state. Although there are still no definitive
signs of political activity during the Archaic period, the early settlement was imitating the
changes taking place at Olympia on a smaller scale and in other ways. It is important to
recognize this in the same context of what was occurring at Olympia, because it shows
that the political growth and regional expansion of the Eleans were simultaneous with
alterations at both sanctuary and settlement.
An Archaic Polis at Elis?
550
This date is accepted without debate by the Copenhagen Polis Center; see Hansen and Fischer-Hansen
1994, 35, 87.
551
The reason why the Southeast Building may be identified as the prytaneion comes from a passage in
Xenophon (Hell. 7.4.31), where he implies that the prytaneion (Xenophon does not call it πρυτανεῖον, but
τὸ ἱερον τῆς Ἑστίας) was near the bouleuterion; see Sinn 2000, pp. 93-94. For a description of the
Southeast Building, see Mallwitz 1972, pp. 200-201.
208
It is possible – although unlikely – that Elis was considered a polis already in the
Archaic period. As mentioned above, Diodorus characterizes Hollow Elis before the
471/0 synoicism as a collection of small poleis, whereas Strabo designates them as
villages, demes, and surrounding settlements. Presumably one of these terms should
characterize early Elis. That the settlement did exist and was small is assured, but could it
be identified as a small polis, and did it have the characteristics of a polis during the
Archaic period? The answer is difficult to fully comprehend, because of the bi-polar
structure of the Elean state and limitations in the physical record. For the Copenhagen
Polis Center, the characteristics of the urban environment that contribute to its
identification as a polis are the following: (a) an urban settlement with a four-digit
number of inhabitants, (b) a hinterland (chōra), (c) a harbor (limēn) if it lies close to the
sea, (d) city walls, and (e) civic subdivisions that comprise of “decision-making
institutions,” such as a boulē or an ekklēsia.552 For Archaic Elis, we can confirm (a),
although not the population of the settlement, the interpretation of (b) is ambiguous, there
is no secure evidence for (c) and (d), and while there is evidence for (e), we cannot be
certain that the boulē and popular assembly came from Elis, or were simply
representatives of the various Elean communities throughout Hollow Elis.
From this set of criteria there is little reason to categorize Archaic Elis as a polis.
We may be more inclined to view it as one of a number of small settlements in Hollow
Elis that contributed to the expansion of Elean regional interests and had their political
center at Olympia. There is good cause, however, to suspect that Elis was one of the more
552
Hansen and Nielsen (2004, pp. 138-42). For the term “decision-making institutions,” see ibid, Index 12,
pp. 1341-1342.
209
influential Elean villages during the Archaic period, and for this reason was enlarged and
promoted to the status of polis-center following the 471/0 synoicism.553 Apparently the
Eleans realized that they needed a strong urban center, and not just a sanctuary, from
which to administer the Games, the Elean state, and the perioikoi. Just as Strabo and
Diodorus report, smaller communities were gathered together and the Eleans joined in a
new urban center built over an older settlement. The synoicism was not just a
restructuring of the Elean state as a bi-central political entity, but was also a means of
consolidating their resources and strengthening their state after the Persian Wars. The aim
of the Eleans was not to centralize political power at Elis, but to diversify their
administration.
4.6. The Elean Agora During the Classical Period
The previous two sections argued that the 471/0 synoicism described by Strabo
and Diodorus did not entail the creation of an entirely new settlement where one had
never existed before. On the contrary, the archaeological material from Elis clearly
demonstrates that a settlement predates the synoicism by several centuries. Elis at this
time was probably one of a number of villages scattered throughout Hollow Elis, yet it
must have been a moderately prosperous one. By the Archaic period, Elis already had
sanctuaries and temples near the classical agora. These were dedicated to cults whose
presence can only be traced back to the 5th and 4th centuries, or to those cults mentioned
553
Perhaps an influential family or clan came from Elis, or perhaps it had topographical advantages
(agricultural land, proximity to coast). It is hard to understand why Elis was chosen as a polis-center, if not
for some political or economic advantage.
210
by Pausanias for which we cannot establish a chronology. It is less likely that Elis had
civic building in the area of the classical agora during the Archaic period. Contrary to the
interpretation of others, I am more inclined to see the 6th century judicial inscription as
inconclusive evidence. All administrative bodies of the Elean state convened at Olympia,
where treaties, laws, and other state documents were kept.
By the end of the Archaic period, the Argive and Corinthian agoras had
springhouses, canals, workshops, stoas, sanctuaries, monumental temples, heroa, a
racetrack, and a modest collection of commercial and administrative structures. Nothing
of the sort has been discovered in the Elean agora. If the early settlement did have a place
were people congregated for economic, religious, and administrative needs, and if this
place was the same as the classical agora, then it was an undeveloped public space with
few buildings. The traditional character of the Eleans as an agricultural society living in
smaller settlement is perhaps one reason, but we must also keep in mind that Archaic Elis
was probably not yet a polis, unlike Argos and Corinth.
As we shall see in this section, the establishment of a polis-center at Elis
following the 471/0 synoicism did not lead to an immediate transformation of the urban
environment. Substantial changes were slow to develop in the agora, and they do not
become apparent until the end of the 5th century and well into the 4th century. Ironically,
this was a time when Elis fought and lost a war with Sparta on her own territory, leading
to the loss of perioikic territories in Triphylia and Pisatis. And for a brief period, the
Eleans even lost control of Olympia and the administration of the Olympic Games in 364
to the Arcadians and Pisatans.
211
The growth of the Elean government did not have any measurable effect on the
built environment of the agora during the Classical period. After the synoicism, the
number of civic bodies in the ancient testimonia increases substantially. There is
evidence for thesmophylakes (guardians of the laws), a basileus (eponymous official),
mastroi (financial officers), a gropheas (secretary), and the hellanodikai.554 However,
despite the increase in government, excavations have failed to produce a single classical
or Late Classical civic building in the Elean agora. The only potential exception is the
still undiscovered Hellanodikaion at the northwest corner of the agora, but even here the
relationship of this building to the agora during the five centuries before Pausanias is
unclear. One reason for this is that the Elean agora was not necessarily the preferred
venue for civic gatherings. As mentioned previously, the Elean bouleuterion was located
in a separate building within the Maltho Gymnasium outside of the agora, while the
Elean popular assembly, at least in the Early Hellenistic period, met in the theater outside
the northeast corner of the agora.555 These examples serve as helpful reminders that civic
buildings do not have to be independent structures or even within an agora.
Urban Sanctuaries South of the Agora
554
Thesmophylakes: Thuc. 5.47.9-11 (A49), 420. They are probably associated with the nomophylakes,
who trained the hellanodikai; see Paus. 6.24.3. Basileus: IvO 2 (Minon 2007, no. 20), ca. 475-450. Mastroi:
ibid, no. 15, ca. 475; and IvO 2 (ibid, no. 20), ca. 475-450. Gropheas: ibid, no. 15, ca. 475; and IvO 2 (ibid,
no. 20), ca. 475-450. Hellanodikai: IvO 14 (ibid, no. 18), ca. 475-450; and IvO 2 (ibid, no. 20), ca. 475-450.
555
384 Hellenistic bronze voting disks, similar to those found at Olympia, were discovered in the theater.
They were presumably used by the Elean popular assembly during sessions. On one side they are marked
with a di-gamma and alpha, an abbreviation for the dialectic name of Elis, and on the other side with a
delta-alpha, an abbreviation for damosion; see Baitinger and Eder 2001.
212
Before any monumental structure was ever built in the Elean agora, the area south
of the agora became an important venue for urban cults. At least three 5th century cults
and likely more appear in the archaeological and literary testimonia. From Pausanias we
know that the temple of Aphrodite Ourania existed by the third-quarter of the 5th century,
because Phidias was the sculptor of the chryselephantine cult statue of the goddess.556
The west-facing temple that lies along the eastern side of the road connecting the
southwest residential part of the city to the agora is another 5th century cult (fig. 4.5,
C).557 The temple is the earliest surviving example of stone architecture at Elis. In plan
the structure is approximately 16 m x 12 m with two rooms of almost equal dimensions
divided by a central partition wall (fig. 4.16). Only the foundations and a few orthostate
blocks of the southern wall and central partition wall survive (fig. 4.17). The width of the
stylobate is slightly more pronounced along the western end, meaning that the structure
faced the southwest street towards the west. Among the architectural fragments are the
remains of a stone column, part of a terracotta triglyph, a sima with a floral decoration of
painted palmettes with a double meander, and an antefix. Based on these finds, Walter
proposed reconstructing the building as a Doric structure with six columns along its
western facade.558
The identification of the building as a small temple rests on its ground plan and
the discovery of many fragments of a marble statue, double lifesize in scale, inside the
556
Paus. 6.25.1.
557
Walter 1913, pp. 148-149; Walter 1915, p. 61; Tritsch 1932, p. 72; Inglis 1998, pp. 131-132; Lippolis et
al. 2007, p. 651. Papachatzis (1979, pp. 396-397, figs. 359, no. 13, and 360) mistakenly restores the
building as an east-facing temple, and without explanation shows the building as being distyle in antis.
558
Walter 1913, p. 148.
213
building.559 These should be associated with a cult statue, although excavations have not
produced evidence for a cult state base. A poros block with a triglyph frieze was also
excavated near the temple. Because of its small size, it is tempting to associated it with a
nearby altar.560 Even though a full architectural analysis is lacking, the temple is usually
dated to the first-half of the 5th century from the style and decoration of the terracotta
architectural fragments and the roof tiles.561 The wide chronological range does not
clarify whether the temple was constructed before or after the 471/0 synoicism.
The identification of the deity worshiped inside the west-facing temple is equally
puzzling. The fragments of the over lifesize marble statue have never been published,
therefore we cannot know whether they would be helpful in an identification. Walter
originally suggested that the western orientation of the temple may indicate an
association with a chthonic deity. If this is the case then one plausible candidate would be
the temple of Hades, whose door was reportedly opened only one day per year for the
priest and nobody else. However, it must be admitted that this suggestion is not very
convincing. By convention Greek temples typically have an eastern orientation towards
the rising sun, but this practice was not universal and there are numerous exceptions. To
give just some examples, the large Ionic temples of Artemis at Ephesus, Magnesia, and
Sardis all have a western orientation, as does the temple of Apollo on Naxos. Likewise,
559
Ibid, p. 149; Inglis 1998, p. 132.
560
Walter 1913, p. 149.
561
Walter (ibid, p. 149) dates the structure to the first-half of the 5th century based on (a) Z-clamps in the
foundations and dovetail clamps in the orthostate blocks, and (b) style of the terracotta sima fragments.
Tritsch (1932, p. 72) suggests a more narrow timeframe of ca. 470-450 based on the style of the terracotta
sima fragments. These sima pieces have never been published. Tritsch’s date is obviously influenced by the
471/0 synoicism. The use of two different kinds of clamps is problematic. I wonder whether the dovetail
clamps indicate an Augustan renovation (cf. the dovetail clamps from the South Stoa).
214
temples with a northern and southern orientation are not uncommon.562 At Elis the
western orientation probably had nothing to do with cultic rites, but more with the
proximity of the temple to a major thoroughfare just to the west. In this instance, the
architect wanted to accentuate the side of the building that was most visible to those
passing by from the agora.
The key to the temple’s identification may come from nearby structures.
Excavations to the south of the temple revealed a number of buildings and a large drain
mostly dating to the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods (fig. 4.18).563 However, the
foundations of two parallel walls that abut the southern wall of the temple appear to
belong to a classical or Hellenistic stoa-like structure. In his description of the cults south
of the agora, Pausanias mentions that he saw a stoa in the sanctuary of Tyche, where the
Eleans dedicated a colossal acrolithic image of the goddess.564 Although by no means
solid evidence, it is worth proposing that the stoa-like structure adjacent to the west-
facing temple, and the fragments of an over lifesize statue found on the site, may have
some connection to the sanctuary of Tyche described by Pausanias.
The area around Temenos H (fig. 4.5, H) and the so-called propylon (fig. 4.5, J) is
the third place where 5th century cult activity is attested south of the agora. Here Austrian
excavators discovered several classical and Late Classical terracotta figurines and votives
562
E.g., temples with a northern orientation include the temple of Apollo at Bassai, the Hieron on
Samothrace, and the temple of Asklepios on Kos, while those with southern orientations include the temple
of Apollo at Thermon, the temple in the Herakleion on Thasos, and the temple of Demeter at Sangri on
Naxos.
563
Ergon 1983, pp. 65-67; Ergon 1982, pp. 40-41; Ergon 1981, pp. 50-52. These reports confusingly refer
to the west-facing temple as “Building D,” a term used by the early Austrian excavations to describe the
Hellenistic North Building in the agora.
564
Paus. 6.25.4.
215
in the vicinity of these buildings.565 This is also the place where the 6th century judicial
inscription was found. Although the material is often treated as a single deposit, the finds
came from different areas near the propylon and Temenos H.566 The terracottas form a
rather heterogeneous group of material, including statuettes of Artemis, nude females
(perhaps Aphrodite), young men, seated deities, female head protomes, and animals (e.g.,
doves, pig). To date the best hypothesis associates the terracottas with the sanctuary of a
nearby female deity, either one of the Aphrodite sanctuaries or that of Artemis
Philomeirax near the gymnasia along the Street of Silence.567 Other candidates are the
buildings near the findspots of the terracottas. Yet in their present state, Temenos H and
the so-called propylon are not contemporary with the votives, so one must imagine
predecessors of these buildings.
Classical Agora
From our understanding of the archaeological remains, no structure of any
measureable size was built in the Elean agora until the last-quarter of the 5th century and
perhaps later. This despite the presence of sanctuaries south of the agora (e.g., temple of
Aphrodite Ourania, west-facing temple), and the western gymnasia not far from the
agora. The exact date depends on how we interpret the chronology of the West Stoa and
South Stoa, which were surprisingly the only classical structures in the Elean agora.
565
The full publication of the material appears in Mitsopoulos-Leon 2001; see also Siewert 2000, p. 21.
566
They were only grouped together after the excavations, because Walter thought that they constituted a
homogenous group of material.
567
Paus. 6.23.8. Mitsopoulos-Leon (2001) argues for an identification with Artemis Philomeirax. In my
opinion the material seems rather diverse, likely coming from more than one nearby sanctuary.
Mitsopoulos-Leon does not discuss the significance of the judicial inscription, even though it may have
been kept in an archive building of a sanctuary.
216
Beyond the monumental stoas, archaeological excavations have not revealed anything
that demonstrably dates before the Hellenistic period. Considering the growth of urban
cults at Elis during the 5th century, we should suspect that a handful of sanctuaries
described by Pausanias as being in the “open area” of the agora, such as the temple of
Apollo Akesios or the temple of Silenus, date as early as the Classical period. It is also
plausible that the Elean agora had a heroon dedicated to the legendary city-founder
Oxylos at least by the 4th century. Unfortunately, we cannot know this with certainty and
must be content to limit ourselves to a discussion of the monuments that are visible today.
West Stoa
The remains of the West Stoa today give us a poor impression of the original
magnitude of the building and its once imposing presence in the agora. Only a series of
poorly preserved foundations and robbing trenches help to reconstruct the proportions of
the monumental structure (figs. 4.19; 4.20).568 They are enough to show that in size the
West Stoa was approximately 96 m long and 25 m wide, and its internal arrangement
consisted of three aisles separated by two internal colonnades, just as Pausanias
describes. The front colonnade along the eastern side looked out upon the agora. To my
knowledge no columns or architectural fragments from the building’s superstructure
survive, and it is only from the description of Pausanias that the building can be restored
in the Doric order. The excavators did manage to recover terracotta sima fragments
associated with the stoa that include antefixes and painted lionhead water spouts.
568
Walter 1913, pp. 147-148; Walter 1915, p. 64; Tritsch 1932, pp. 64-74, 78; Ergon 1976, pp. 122-123;
Coulton 1976, pp. 45, 79, 237; Inglis 1998, p. 129; Lippolis et al. 2007, p. 651.
217
Lacking any firm stratigraphic data, the two criteria for dating the West Stoa are
the T-shaped clamps from the foundation blocks, and the style of the terracotta sima
fragments. Based on these the stoa is usually dated to the end of the 5th century or
sometime in the 4th century.569 Its monumental proportions and unusual internal
arrangement should tip the scale in favor of the Late Classical date. In a previous chapter,
I argue that the South Stoa at Argos and other stoas in the Athenian agora are evidence of
a growing trend in classical urban practices towards structuring the perimeter of an agora
with monumental buildings. By the second-half of the 5th century stoas became
conspicuous features of Greek cities and sanctuaries. However, it was not until the Late
Classical and Hellenistic periods that cities began constructing stoas on a grand scale like
the West Stoa in the Elean agora. These larger and newer generation of stoas sometimes
span 100 m in total length or more, and have spacious internal arrangements, often with
one or more interior colonnades.
In length the West Stoa (96 m) is similar to several 4th century and Hellenistic
stoas, such as the Echo Hall at Olympia (97 m), the Northwest Stoa in the Thasian agora
(97 m), the stoa in the Sikyonian agora (106 m), and the Stoa of Attalos II in the Athenian
agora (115 m).570 The shear monumentality of these stoas meant that space in an agora or
sanctuary could be more tightly regulated, both visually and physically. It was also an
opportunity for Greek architects to experiment with the internal arrangement of the
buildings. The large width of the West Stoa at Elis (25 m) enabled the architect to divide
569
Coulton 1976, pp. 45, 237; Tritsch 1932, p. 73; Inglis 1998, p. 129.
570
For the Echo Hall, see Mallwitz 1972, pp. 194-199; Coulton 1976, p. 268. For the Northwest Stoa at
Thasos, see ibid, pp. 287-288; Grandjean and Salviat 2000, pp. 64-65. For the stoa at Sikyon, see Coulton
1976, p. 283. For the Stoa of Attalos, see ibid, p. 219; Camp 1986, pp. 172-175.
218
the stoa into three aisles, separated by two internal colonnades. Such an arrangement was
not common, and, in fact, the only other Greek stoa with three aisles separated by two
internal colonnades was the Stoa of Philip II at Megalopolis, which dates to the third-
quarter of the 4th century.571 Taking this into consideration, the proportions and
arrangement of the West Stoa fit much better in this later architectural tradition than they
do in the 5th century.572
The identification and function of the West Stoa is even more obscure. Pausanias
refers to the building as the place where the hellanodikai spend much of their time, and
where the they erect altars to Zeus in front of the colonnade. As it turns out the eastern
facade of the stoa is still lined with the remains of statue bases, a cistern, and some pithoi
whose function are not entirely clear.573 That the West Stoa was partially reserved for
civic activity is further supported by the proximity of the stoa to the Hellanodikaion. Yet
this was the situation during the Roman period. For the Late Classical period the stoa has
no clear association with these Elean officials. Since the hellanodikai supervised athletic
events in the western gymnasia, the proximity of the West Stoa to these complexes may
be cited as indirect support. But we must admit that the evidence is inconclusive. Another
possibility is that the West Stoa served a commercial purpose, especially as its expansive
internal arrangement would have been suitable for large gatherings.
571
As noted by Coulton (1976, p. 79). For the Stoa of Philip II at Megalopolis, see infra Chapter 5.4. Note
the divergence between the West Stoa’s width (25 m) and those of the long stoas listed above, whose
shorter widths range from 12-20 m.
572
Of course, it is possible that the West Stoa was an early prototype of the monumental stoas that became
more widespread in Greek sanctuaries and public spaces during the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic
periods.
573
Lippolis et al. 2007, p. 651.
219
South Stoa
The South Stoa is in no better state of preservation than its neighbor. All that
remains are a few courses of foundations and pier supports, and the lines of robbing
trenches that reveal the original location of walls (figs. 4.21; 4.22).574 In size the stoa was
slightly larger than the West Stoa, approximately 98.50 m long and 30 m wide, but in
plan it was radically different. The South Stoa was essentially two stoas in one: a central
partition wall divided the building into northern and southern halves, both with their own
exterior and interior colonnades. In its current state the partition wall is only preserved to
foundation level, therefore it is uncertain whether the two sides communicated with each
other. Almost nothing of the South Stoa’s superstructure survives, making the
commentary of Pausanias critical for reconstructing the building in the Doric order. The
only architectural elements that do survive are fragments of terracotta antefixes and
painted lionhead water spouts.
After its initial discovery in the early 20th century, a subsequent study of the
building’s architecture and chronology was carried out during the 1970s and early 1980s.
The results revealed that the stoa, in its present state, does not date earlier than the
Augustan period. The chronology is based on early 1st century A.D. pottery recovered
from the foundation trenches and dovetail clamps from the foundations of the central
574
Walter 1913, pp. 143-144; Walter 1915, pp. 64-65; Tritsch 1932, pp. 72-73, 77; Ergon 1964, pp. 117-
122; Ergon 1962, pp. 153-154; Ergon 1970, pp. 136-138; Ergon 1973, pp. 90-92; Mitsopoulos-Leon 1972-
1975, pp. 181-184; Ergon 1976, pp. 122-123; Coulton 1976, pp. 45, 79, 237; Mitsopoulos-Leon and
Pochmarski 1976-1977, pp. 181-199; Mitsopoulos-Leon and Scherrer 1978-1980, pp. 65-74; Ergon 1979,
p. 18; Ergon 1977, p. 112; Mitsopoulos-Leon 1981-1982, p. 17; Ergon 1981, p. 52; Pochmarski 1990;
Mitsopoulos-Leon 1983; Mitsopoulos-Leon 1990; Inglis 1998, pp. 129-130; Lippolis et al. 2007, pp. 650-
651.
220
partition wall.575 There is no evidence that any of the surviving wall courses date to an
earlier period. Needless to say this is a surprising discovery, because Pausanias clearly
says that the stoa was financed from war-booty in a battle that apparently occurred in the
5th century, around the time of the Peloponnesian War. A Greek predecessor that no
longer survives must have existed on the same site where the Roman South Stoa now
stands. From historical considerations, the initial phase of the South Stoa is usually dated
to the 420s or thereabouts.576 Besides the testimony of Pausanias, additional evidence for
an earlier stoa comes from the sima fragments that presumably adorned the building.
These date to the 4th century and where found in the vicinity of the stoa.
There are two ways of approaching the complex chronology of the South Stoa.
We can accept that the structure was built soon after the military victory over the
Corcyreans, even though a 5th century date does not appear in the archaeological record,
or else rely on the style of the architectural sima fragments and date the structure
sometime in the 4th century. The problem with dating the South Stoa on historical
considerations is that we assume the stoa was built soon after a military victory. This is
something that cannot be taken for granted. The temple of Zeus at Olympia was
supposedly built from the spoils of war following a successful military campaign by the
Eleans over the Pisatans. Yet the Eleans defeated the Pisatans ca. 570, and the temple was
not constructed until after the Persian Wars, more than 100 years later.577
575
Mitsopoulos-Leon (1983) offers the most comprehensive account of the South Stoa. She dates the
structure to the Augustan period based on the stratigraphy. Pochmarski (1990) has some issues, seeing an
earlier phase based on possible cuts near the foundations. For a response, see Mitsopoulos-Leon 1990.
576
Tritsch 1932, pp. 72-73; Coulton 1976, p. 45; Pochmarski 1990; Mitsopoulos-Leon 1990.
577
Paus. 5.10.2 (A23), and 6.22.4 (A24).
221
Accepting the 4th century date based on the sima fragments is at least consistent
with the proportions and arrangement of the South Stoa. Like the West Stoa, its scale and
experimentation in layout finds the best parallels in the Late Classical period. Double-
sided stoas are not common in Greek architecture, but the few examples that do exist date
to the 4th century and Hellenistic period. The closest parallel is the much smaller double-
sided stoa at Molykreion in Aetolia (39 m x 12 m), which dates to the second-half of the
4th century.578 This stoa was constructed on a natural outcrop beside a temple of
Poseidon with eastern and western colonnades that were separated by a central partition
wall. Its western side communicated directly with the temple, while the eastern side
looked away from the sanctuary. Two other double-sided stoas are the Stoa of Philip V
on Delos and the Middle Stoa in the Athenian agora, both dating to the Hellenistic
period.579 The Stoa of Philip V originally had a single northern portico (71 m x 11 m),
until a second portico was added some decades later on the southern side facing the
harbor (88 m x 11 m). The new portico was longer and extended beyond the limits of the
northern portico, but in the final execution the two sides ultimately gave the impression
of a single double-sided stoa. The Middle Stoa in the Athenian agora (147 m x 17 m) was
built to subdivide the southern portion of the agora into two distinct units. But instead of
having a central partition wall, the Middle Stoa had a central colonnade that opened up
the entire structure. Its northern colonnade faced the central area of the agora, while its
578
Coulton 1976, pp. 79, 261.
579
For the Stoa of Philip V on Delos, see ibid, pp. 233-234; Bruneau and Ducat 2005, pp. 165-167. For the
Middle Stoa in the Athenian agora, see Coulton 1976, p. 221; Camp 1986, pp. 175-177.
222
southern colonnade, along with the Hellenistic South Stoa II further to the south,
essentially created a small agora within an agora.
The important question, of course, is whether the double-sided South Stoa at Elis
retained the features of its Greek predecessor. One argument in favor is the position of
the stoa between the agora and the Aphrodite sanctuaries. The South Stoa divided the two
spheres from each other, and, at least in the Roman period, acted as a monumental
backdrop for both.580 The double-sided ground plan was likely inspired by its dual
function between agora and urban sanctuary. By the third-quarter of the 5th century, the
Eleans installed a chryselephantine cult-statue by Phidias in the temple of Aphrodite
Ourania, and sometime in the first-half of the following century they commissioned
Skopas to make a bronze cult-statue for the open-air sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos.
The presence of at least one Aphrodite sanctuary by the 5th century, if not both, must
have dictated the placement of the South Stoa. The building was not in line with the
southern end of the West Stoa, but was positioned further north. This seemingly awkward
arrangement was likely necessitated by the preexistence of the Aphrodite sanctuaries,
which prevented the architects from constructing the building more to the south. For this
reason, I favor reconstructing the original plan of the South Stoa as a double-sided
structure, which, like its Roman successor, faced the agora and the Aphrodite sanctuaries.
There is no direct evidence for the function of the South Stoa, beyond its
proximity to the agora and the urban cults of Aphrodite. Pausanias only mentions that he
580
In addition to double-sided stoas, the South Stoa also finds parallels with the Hellenistic multi-level
stoas built on terraces whose upper floors face an agora or sanctuary, but whose lower floors face the
opposite direction; see, e.g., the South Stoa in the agora at Assos (Coulton 1976, p. 219), the South Stoa at
the sanctuary of Demeter at Pergamon (ibid, p. 276); and the southwest peristyle in the Lower Agora at
Pergamon (ibid, p. 271).
223
saw statues lining both sides of the central partition wall, where along the northern side
there stood a statue of the local sophist Pyrrhus. No other ancient author mentions the
building and the presence of Elean officials in this part of the agora is unknown. In
general, the South Stoa and the West Stoa reflect urban trends of the Late Classical and
Early Hellenistic periods, when monumental structures defined the public sphere from
other parts of the city.581 These stoas were multifunctional and could have been used for
commerce, gatherings of state officials, judicial hearings, and a host of other activities.
That these types of monumental buildings appear in the Elean agora by the 4th century is
an important sign that Elis was not an architectural backwater in the Western
Peloponnese. Where no large-scale structures had existed before, the city managed to
adorn their agora with large edifices like other Greek cities. Although it took nearly 100
years after the synoicism of the city, the Elean agora was finally progressing towards a
more permanent and elaborate public area, rather than just an open expanse of space.
Conclusion
The Elean agora demonstrates that a Greek agora does not require an elaborate
built environment during the Classical period. Permanent structures are virtually non-
existent throughout the 5th century. This was the case despite the proximity of the agora
to sanctuaries with temples and costly cult statues, and gymnasia praised for their
beauty.582 The Elean agora also shows that there is not always a correlation between a
democratic constitution and the monumentalization of civic space. Elis was a democracy
581
582
Xen. Hell. 3.2.27 (A51).
224
during the 5th century, and there is ample evidence for Elean civic bodies from this
period, but so far no classical civic buildings have been discovered. The West Stoa may
have accommodated the hellanodikai in the 4th century, and there may have been a
predecessor to Pausanias’ Hellanodikaion at the northwest corner of the agora, but so far
excavations have not produced a purpose-built civic building. It is possible that the Elean
bouleuterion was always housed in the Maltho Gymnasium, as it was in the time of
Pausanias. Likewise, the gathering place of the Elean popular assembly may have always
been outside the agora, like it was during the Hellenistic period when sessions were held
in the theater.
In the case of Elis, the raison d’être of the classical agora was not for the
accommodation of civic officials and civic activity, and there is no measureable effect of
politics and city administration on the built environment. Note how the situation is
different in other “democratic” agoras during the 5th century, most notably in the
Athenian agora and potentially in the Argive agora with the Hypostyle Hall. Even when
the two monumental stoas appeared in the 4th century, the Late Classical agora
maintained a relatively modest appearance. Besides these structures, there may have been
a heroon to Oxylos and some other cults. Even up to the Roman period, the Elean agora
managed to retain an open, and dated appearance. Compared to other cities, the agora
was always an undeveloped space within the city.
225
CHAPTER FIVE: THE MEGALOPOLITAN AGORA
5.1. The Historical Background
The ancient city of Megalopolis lies in the middle of a large upland basin (ca. 400
masl) in southwest Arcadia that is surrounded by mountains and subsidiary valleys on all
sides (fig. 5.1). Among several streams and rivers that converge here the most prominent
is the Helisson. In antiquity this river divided Megalopolis into nearly two equal parts,
but today it lies north of the modern town. The Helisson eventually empties into the
Alpheus river, approximately 4 km west of the city. There was never a major urban
settlement within this upland basin until Megalopolis was created ex novo sometime
between 371/0 and 368/7.583 As its name suggests (Megalē polis = Great city),
Megalopolis quickly became the largest Arcadian polis in the 4th century, and it was an
influential participant in regional alliances and political conflicts with other cities in the
Peloponnese and beyond.
The events that sparked the creation of Megalopolis in the second-quarter of the
4th century are fairly straightforward. Our two main sources on the synoicism, Diodorus
and Pausanias, both explain the foundation as a political maneuver by the Arcadians and
Thebans to check Spartan expansion.584 According to Pausanias the Arcadians united
together in a single urban center to gain strength. The periēgētēs draws a comparison to
the Argives, who had once increased the population of Argos from smaller communities
in the Argive plain to better counter frequent Spartan attacks. Similarly, Diodorus says
583
Roy et al. 1988, p. 179.
584
Diod. 15.72.4 (A10); Paus. 8.27.1-5, 8 (A26).
226
that the Arcadians were fearful of Spartan aggression and for this reason they decided to
build a new city at a strategic location. Many routes passed through the Megalopolitan
basin, including one from Laconia that gave the Spartans access to the rest of the
Peloponnese. The creation of Megalopolis provided added security for the Arcadians
under the aegis of a single city-state that acted as a barricade against Spartan interests in
the Peloponnese.
The two ancient authors, however, differ on the precise chronology of the events
that led to the synoicism, and on the logistics of how Megalopolis was established from
the surrounding Arcadian communities. Pausanias places the foundation of Megalopolis
squarely in the year 371/0, immediately after the Thebans and Arcadians, under the
command of the Theban general Epaminondas, defeated the Spartans at the battle of
Leuctra. As he says, the synoicism was managed by a board of 10 oikistes (city-founders)
appointed by the newly formed Arcadian Confederacy, and that 39 Arcadian
communities joined in the synoicism.585 Some of these communities had to be coerced
into leaving their old towns, and only Trapezous could not be forced to join. On the other
hand, Diodorus claims that it was not the battle of Leuctra that led to the foundation of
Megalopolis, but the so-called Tearless Battle in 368/7. Furthermore, he states that only
20 communities from the Mainalians and Parrhasians were brought together at
Megalopolis.
585
Paus. 8.27.2-5 (A26). Two oikistes each from Mantinea, Tegea, Kleitor, the Mainalians, and the
Parrhasians. The 39 communities numbered 10 from the Mainalians, six from the Euresians, six from the
Aigytai, seven from the Parrhasians, four from the Kynurians, three from the territory of Orchomenos, and
three from Tripolis.
227
The seemingly irreconcilable accounts of Diodorus and Pausanias have been a
source of constant disagreement among ancient historians, who fluctuate between dating
the synoicism to 371/0 or 368/7.586 Thomas Heine Nielsen adopts a more pragmatic
approach, suggesting that Diodorus’ account is primarily descriptive, whereas Pausanias’
is primarily prescriptive.587 This means that the decision to establish Megalopolis very
likely occurred after the battle of Leuctra in 371/0, but that the implementation of the
synoicism did not occur until 368/7. Likewise, the Arcadians may have intended to
include a higher number of communities in the synoicism (i.e. the 39 villages of
Pausanias), but the logistical problems in convincing and forcing people to join together
in a new urban experiment meant that fewer communities actually participated. For the
purpose of the present study on the agora of Megalopolis, the exact foundation date and
the precise number of communities that coalesced in the city is of little importance.
The second-quarter of the 4th century marks an important period in the history of
Greek urbanism in the Peloponnese. The political tug of war between Sparta, Thebes, and
Athens forced settlements to become deeply involved in regional conflicts within their
own territories. Alliances were formed and smaller settlements realized that survival was
difficult without the help of a more powerful polis. The prevailing instability in the
Peloponnese led to new urban experiments as smaller communities sought safety in
numbers, often with the assistance of a regional power interested in limiting the influence
of a rival. The city of Megalopolis was a product of these political realities, but it was not
586
E.g., Hornblower (1990) supports Pausanias’ date of 371/0, while Moggi (1974) and Demand (1990, pp.
112-113) favor Diodorus’ date of 368/7.
587
Nielsen 2004, pp. 520-521.
228
an isolated example. The Arcadian city of Mantinea underwent an almost simultaneous
synoicism in 370. The new settlement succeeded an older settlement that was forced to
depopulate (dioikismos) by the Spartans in 385. In the southwest Peloponnese, the city of
Messene was established with the aid of Thebes in 370/69. Its population included former
Messenean helots, who had been indentured to Sparta for centuries.
After the synoicisms, Megalopolis and Mantinea joined together as partners in an
Arcadian Confederacy. Like the new urban centers, the primary purpose of the
Confederacy was to restrict Spartan interests in the Peloponnese by banding together
small to moderately sized settlements in Arcadia. Epigraphical evidence shows that
Megalopolis was likely the largest and most influential Arcadian city in the Confederacy.
A 4th century decree probably dating to the 360s lists the names of 50 damiourgoi of the
Arcadian Confederacy according to their home polis.588 Out of these officials, 10 were
from Megalopolis, five each from Tegea, Mantinea, Kynouria, Orchomenos, Kleitor,
Heraia, and Thelpousa, three from Mainalia, and two from Lepreon. If there is a
correspondence between population and representation in the Confederacy, then
Megalopolis was the largest and most influential Arcadian city when the decree was
inscribed.
Despite the city’s obvious importance in the Arcadian Confederacy, it is unclear
whether Megalopolis served as the capital. The only positive evidence comes from
Pausanias, who comments that a 4th century hypostyle hall at Megalopolis called the
Thersilion served as the gathering place of the Arcadian Myrioi (fig. 5.2, 24). These were
588
IG V.2, 1 (A64). Roy (2005, pp. 262-263) dates the decree ca. 366-363 based on historical
considerations. Cf. Nielson 2004, p. 521 (360s).
229
the representatives from the Arcadian cities within the Confederation.589 However, as
James Roy has recently pointed out, the only known meeting of the Myrioi in the 360s
actually took place at Tegea, and it was not until 348/7 that we hear of a gathering at
Megalopolis.590 The limited evidence from the ancient authors shows that Megalopolis
did host assemblies of the Arcadian Confederacy from time to time, but there is little
reason to single it out as the capital of the Confederacy, or even to suspect that the
Arcadians had a capital city in the modern sense of the term.591
The union of the Arcadian Confederacy had a very short lifespan. By 364
irreconcilable disagreements erupted between member states, and by 362 the
Confederacy split into rival factions. The dispute began when Mantinea opposed
Arcadian military involvement in neighboring Eleia. The Arcadian Confederacy had
wanted to help the Pisatans regain control of Olympia from the Eleans as a means of
extending its regional influence. When the Olympic Games were taking place in the
summer of 364, they were successful for a brief period. However, the operation had a
damaging effect on the unity of the Arcadian Confederacy. Feeling that the military
campaign in Eleia was unjustified, Mantinea broke away to join Sparta, Elis, and Athens
in an attempt to crush the Arcadians. Megalopolis and the other Arcadian settlements in
the Confederacy countered by seeking the help of Thebes and its general Epaminondas.
The crisis culminated in the Battle of Mantinea in 362, when the Thebans and
589
Based on the name (myrioi = ten-thousand), ancient historians often assume that the Arcadian Myrioi
numbered 10,000 officials. Yet as McDonald (1943, p. 107) pointed out long ago, the term can be used to
refer to any large number of people.
590
Xen. Hell. 7.4.36 (11); Xen. Hell. 7.5.5 (A54); Dem. 19.10-11 (A5); see Roy 2007, pp. 291-292.
591
As Roy (ibid, p. 291) notes, the concept of a capital city in ancient Greece has not been adequately
addressed.
230
Megalopolitan faction of the Arcadians routed the Spartans and their allies, just as they
had done nine years earlier at Leuctra.592 Nevertheless the victory came at a great cost.
The Theban leader Epaminondas was killed, and Thebes, without a powerful successor,
effectively lost its regional hegemony. Political factions in the Peloponnese then became
locked in a stalemate.
After the victory at Mantinea, the Megalopolitans never reconciled with the
Mantineans and the Arcadian Confederacy continued to operate as a divided political
entity. The ancient authors are unclear on the exact state of affairs after the schism. It
appears that Megalopolis and Mantinea led rival factions, who both claimed to be the true
Arcadian Confederacy, but we do not have a list of the settlements that sided with each
city. Put into greater perspective, the weakened state of the Arcadian Confederacy in the
middle of the 4th century was a product of the times. None of the traditionally powerful
Greek poleis, such as Sparta or Athens, managed to reappear as a dominant authority. So
it happened that by the third-quarter of the 4th century, under a weakened political
environment, the Macedonians under Philip II eclipsed the Greek city-states to fill the
political vacuum. Many of the Arcadian cities headed by Megalopolis openly supported
Macedonian rule, and the Megalopolitans even built a monumental stoa in their agora
dedicated to Philip II.593
The Arcadian Confederacy, or at least a faction of it headed by Megalopolis,
probably continued into the 3rd century with limited influence in wider regional affairs.
At the same time Megalopolis experienced two separate tyrannies. The first was the
592
Polyb. 4.33.9 (A38).
593
For the Stoa of Philip, see infra Chapter 5.4.
231
tyranny of Aristodemos (ca. 265-252), who is known to have embellished Megalopolis
with public buildings, including a stoa along the eastern side of the agora. The second
was Lydiadas (240s), who was eventually forced to abandon the tyranny and reintroduce
a democratic constitution at Megalopolis. Lydiadas was also compelled to formally
dissolve the Arcadian Confederacy in 235 and allow Megalopolis and her Arcadian allies
to be absorbed into the now more influential Achaean Confederacy. Far from being
marginalized, Megalopolis managed to play an influential role in the regional power
struggles between her Achaean allies and the Macedonians, Spartans, and eventually the
Romans. Megalopolis was the home city of Philopoimen (ca. 253-183), a brilliant
military tactician who served as hipparchos (cavalry commander) and stratēgos (general)
in the Achaean Confederacy.
The reemergence of Megalopolis in regional politics during the second-half of the
3rd century led to its destruction in 223 by the Spartan king Cleomenes III.594 Ever since
the synoicism of Megalopolis, Sparta had always looked for ways to subdue her Arcadian
neighbor. The chance finally came in the 220s, when the Achaean Confederacy and the
Macedonians joined together to counter a revived Sparta. In retaliation, Cleomenes III
successfully laid siege to Megalopolis and plundered much of the city. The destruction of
223 was a watershed in the history of Megalopolis, and the disaster inflicted on the city is
conspicuous in the archaeological record.
Megalopolis experienced a revival of fortunes during the 2nd century. Most of the
public structures within the agora and elsewhere were reconstructed. This included the
594
Plut. Cleom. 25.1 (A30); Plut. Phil. 5.1-2 (A34); Polyb. 2.55.1-9 (A37).
232
Thersilion, where representatives of the Achaean Confederacy probably held sessions on
occasion. Epigraphical evidence shows that donations were gathered for rebuilding the
fortification walls.595 At the beginning of the century, constitutional reforms were passed
by Philopoimen, and we know that the statesman and historian Polybios (ca. 203-120),
along with other leading Megalopolitans, financed the construction of buildings within
the agora.
The Roman domination of Mainland Greece in 146 marked a slow decline in the
fortunes of the city. For more than two centuries, Megalopolis had always maintained its
prosperity through an active involvement in external conflicts. Ironically, without the
constant threat from Sparta and other enemies, Megalopolis became marginalized.
Already in the 1st century, the geographer Strabo reports a joke by an unnamed comic
poet that Megalopolis was a great desert.596 By the time Pausanias visited the city in the
2nd century C.E., the periēgētēs reports that a significant number of public buildings and
sanctuaries were in ruin. He closes his itinerary with a digression on the human condition,
comparing it to the once prosperous, but now ruined state of Megalopolis.
An appreciation of the historical events that led to the creation of Megalopolis,
and a contextualization of the city’s political influence in the Peloponnese is critical for
our understanding of its built environment. Unlike the urban centers at Argos and
Corinth, which took centuries to reach physical, economic, and political maturity, the
public structures, sanctuaries, and residential quarters at Megalopolis had to be devised
and constructed on a rapid scale. A new population had to be brought inside the city
595
IG V.2, 434.
596
Strabo 8.8.1 (A45).
233
under difficult circumstances. Many communities were not pleased with having to leave
their former settlements. Despite the challenges, Megalopolis became the largest
Arcadian polis only a decade after its foundation. A new civic and religious identity had
to be forged where none had existed before. The city had to be defendable in the face of
an immediate threat from Sparta, who constantly sought to undermine Arcadian unity.
Megalopolis was also required to be a leader in the newly formed Arcadian Confederacy,
whose unity lasted less than a decade before splitting into rival factions.
The speed and complexity in which these events unfolded in the 4th century, and
the manner in which political events progressed into the Hellenistic period, provide us
with an exceptional opportunity to observe how a Greek agora responds to such
conditions. In the previous chapter on Elis, I argue that a Greek agora does not require an
elaborate built environment following a synoicism, nor is there necessarily a correlation
between a democratic constitution and the monumentalization of civic space. As we learn
in the present chapter, the situation was quite the opposite at Megalopolis. The intention
was to create the semblance of a unified urban entity with a structured agora and venues
to accommodate members of the Arcadian Confederacy. For this reason the agora at
Megalopolis followed Late Classical and Hellenistic trends in town planning that are
noticed elsewhere in the Ancient Mediterranean, but less frequently in the Peloponnese.
5.2. Archaeological Research
Megalopolis has never benefited from the kind of sustained excavations that are
common elsewhere in the Peloponnese. Yet when research has occurred, the results have
234
had an overwhelmingly positive effect on our understanding of the history and urban
development of the city. As early as 1829, the Expédition Scientifique de Morée visited
the site and produced a useful topographical map.597 Five years later the German
archaeologist Ludwig Ross conducted the first trial excavations at Megalopolis. His work
mainly uncovered Roman and later material around the ancient city.598 The location of
these early excavations were never properly recorded, and today they remain largely
unknown. By the middle of the 19th century, the German archaeologist and historian
Ernst Curtius undertook an examination of the history of Megalopolis in light of the
ancient literary testimonia.599 In particular, he produced a conjectural reconstruction of
the agora based on Pausanias’ description of the site (fig. 5.3). The plan, as subsequent
excavations have now shown, is surprisingly accurate in its placement of public buildings
and sanctuaries within the agora.
From 1890-1891 the British School at Athens initiated the first systematic
archaeological explorations at Megalopolis under the direction of Ernest Gardner and
William Loring. Accompanied by a large team of specialists, the British focused their
efforts on gaining a firm understanding of the topography of the ancient city. In only two
years they uncovered the large theater and Thersilion, and many of the public monuments
in the agora. Beyond the public quarters of the city, sporadic excavations were also
undertaken elsewhere, often with less interesting results that produced the occasional wall
and architectural fragment. The results of the British excavations were presented only one
597
Blouet 1831, pp. 36-40.
598
Ross 1841.
599
Curtius 1851-1852.
235
year (1892) after the completion of fieldwork in a remarkably thorough publication that
ranks among the best archaeological monographs of the 19th century.600
Following the British excavations, very little archaeological research was
conducted on the site for the next one hundred years.601 This changed in the 1990s when
two separate projects marked a new phase of archaeological investigations at
Megalopolis. Under the direction of Anna V. Karapanagiotou, the Greek Archaeological
Service began a reexamination of the architectural history and chronology of the theater
through small scale excavations.602 The work of Hans Lauter of the German
Archaeological Institute at Athens and Theodoros Spyropoulos of the Greek
Archaeological Service was more ambitious in scale. From 1991-2002 they co-directed
new excavations in the agora with the double aim of (a) gaining a better understanding of
the architecture and chronology of the public buildings excavated a century ago by the
British, and (b) excavating sections of the agora that had never been explored. The results
of their work appear in a series of detailed reports that are crucial for our understanding
of the Late Classical and Hellenistic arrangement of the Megalopolitan agora.603
600
Gardner et al. 1892. Other reports of the British excavations appear in Bather 1892-1893; Benson 1892-
1893; Loring 1892-1893; Bury 1898.
601
There are some notable exceptions. Fiechter (1931) published a final volume on the theater, and
Knoblauch (Walter 1942) began an examination of the sanctuary of Zeus Soter before his untimely death in
the Second World War. Minor projects were also carried out at the theater from 1959-1963 (Ergon 1959,
pp. 185-186; Ergon 1961, p. 236; Ergon 1962, p. 177-181; AR 9 [1962-1963], p. 17; Ergon 1963, pp. 192-
193), and the fortification walls in the late 1970s (AR 26 [1979-1980], p. 33). For a Late Roman house that
was explored in the 1970s, see ArchDelt 28 (1973), Chron. B1, pp. 175-178.
602
Karapanagiotou 2001. Additional work focused on the conservation of the theater and a partial
anastylosis. See also the brief reports in ArchDelt 50 (1995), Chron. B1, pp. 147-150; ArchDelt 51 (1996),
Chron. B1, pp. 101, 137-144, 147-148; ArchDelt 52 (1997), Chron. B1, pp. 159-160, 200-207; ArchDelt 53
(1998), Chron. B1, pp. 147-148, 176-180, 186; AR 47 (2000-2001), p. 32; AR 48 (2001-2002), p. 28; AR 49
(2002-2003), p. 28; AR 51 (2004-2005).
603
Spyropoulos et al. 1995; Spyropoulos et al. 1996; Lauter and Münkner 1997; Lauter and Spyropoulos
1998; Lauter 2002; Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004; Lauter 2005.
236
5.3. Monuments and the Description of Pausanias
Megalopolis was one of the few cities in the Ancient Mediterranean that was
divided in half by a river of any significant size (fig. 5.4).604 Usually a major tributary
acted as a liminal feature in a Greek urban center. This was primarily for strategic
purposes, but also to distinguish the boundary between city and countryside. It would
have been easy to build Megalopolis elsewhere in the upland basin or even along one side
of the river. Yet for some reason the city-founders chose to include the Helisson inside
the urban center and make it a central feature of the new city. This peculiar circumstance
created additional burdens on the defense of the city, especially with the constant threat
from Sparta. The two places where the Helisson entered and exited Megalopolis became
natural weaknesses in the fortification of the city. For this reason, other factors beyond
just the protection of the city must have been taken into account by the town-planners.
Another peculiar feature was the immense size of the new city. Based on sections
that are still preserved today, the circumference of the 4th century fortification walls was
approximately 9 km and encompassed an area of about 350 ha (3.5 km2).605 This size
corresponds remarkably well with Polybios’ statement that the fortification walls at
Megalopolis were 50 stades long (= 8.85 km).606 Comparing Megalopolis to another
Peloponnesian city during the Classical period, the walls were larger than the 7.5 km
fortification walls at Corinth. But since Megalopolis stood in a relatively level valley –
604
Pausanias (8.30.2) notes the similar arrangements at Knidos and Mytilene.
605
Roy 2007, pp. 289-291. Loring identified 12 sections of the fortification walls in the 1890s; see Gardner
et al. 1892, p. 107.
606
Polyb. 9.21 (A41). 1 stade = 600 Attic feet = 177.6 m.
237
unlike Corinth on the slopes of Acrocorinth – the city’s extensive fortification walls
required better defense and more manpower. Under these circumstances, it is not
surprising that Polybios faults the size of Megalopolis when trying to explain why the
city was successfully sacked by Cleomenes III.607 After the destruction of the city in 223,
Polybios reports that there was even a heated debate on whether to construct the
fortification walls along their original lines, or contract them for better defense.608
The seemingly flawed planning of Megalopolis as a viably defendable city may
not have been accidental. As some ancient historians have noted, the synoicism probably
intended to achieve a greater population than it ended up having.609 Conflicts with
neighboring Arcadian communities that resisted relocation certainly could have been a
factor. The joke reported by Strabo from an unknown Middle Comedy playwright that
Megalopolis was a “great desert” shows that a 4th century Athenian audience was already
familiar with these issues.610 Others prefer to explain the great size of the city for the
accommodation of military personnel, or tensions between the land-owning class of
citizens and the lower classes.611 Whatever the reasons, Megalopolis was an optimistic
endeavor that probably never reached its intended capacity, and large expanses of space
within the 9 km fortification walls must have been left empty.
Focusing our attention on the structure of the city, the monumental public
buildings and sanctuaries of Megalopolis were central features of the urban environment.
This arrangement was no doubt a calculated attempt by the town-planners to enhance the
607
Polyb. 2.55.2 (A37).
608
Polyb. 5.93.1-10 (A40).
609
Roy 2007, p. 289.
610
See supra n. 596.
611
Roy 2007, p. 294.
238
heart of the new city with civic, commercial, and religious structures. In addition to this,
the town-planners chose to divide the public quarters into two separate parts by using the
Helisson as a natural boundary marker. The agora was positioned along the northern
banks, while the theater, Thersilion, and stadium were located along the southern banks
(fig. 5.5). It is with this composition that we can better appreciate the function of the
Helisson in the urban fabric of the city. There must have been a symbolic appeal of
distinguishing two types of public zones that reflected the dual role of Megalopolis in the
Arcadian Confederacy and its own civic administration. The agora served the municipal
requirements of the citizens, and the urban sanctuaries here were intended to form a
common civic identity where none had existed before (fig. 5.2, 1). On the other hand, the
public buildings south of the Helisson were primarily reserved for public spectacles
(theater [fig. 5.2, 23], stadium [fig. 5.2, 29]), and official meetings of the Arcadian
Confederacy (Thersilion, fig. 5.2, 24). This part of the city had the capacity to appeal to a
wider audience of Arcadians, beyond just the administrative and commercial needs of the
Megalopolitans.
Unlike the other agoras included in this study, the Megalopolitan agora is highly
regular in plan (figs. 5.6; 5.7). The central open-area measures approximately 225 x 160
m2 (3.6 ha), and it is defined on all sides by monumental public buildings set at right
angles to one another.612 Along the northern side stands the Stoa of Philip (fig. 5.2, 9) and
the partial remains of the Archive Building (fig. 5.2, 11). The Stoa of Philip is a Doric
structure with two protruding wings at either end and two internal colonnades in the Ionic
612
Cf. supra n. 41.
239
order. The Archive Building, itself a stoa-like building, has an external colonnade
supported by rectilinear pillars with six rooms at the back. Presently only a fraction of
this building has been excavated, since a modern road crosses over its eastern side. In
addition to these structures, a series of dedicatory statue bases are found in front of the
Archive Building and along the eastern side of the Stoa of Philip (fig. 5.8).
Even though the eastern side of the agora remains largely unexcavated, sporadic
fieldwork has confirmed that another monumental stoa stood here in antiquity. All that
has been uncovered so far is the southern end of a building with a protruding wing, and at
least one row of an internal colonnade (fig. 5.2, 14). This is usually identified with the
Myropolis Stoa that Pausanias says was built by the 3rd century tyrant Aristodemos from
the spoils of war. Looking at the southern side of the agora, most of the area here has
been completely wiped away by the Helisson river. One conspicuous exception is the
large sanctuary of Zeus Soter at the southeast corner (fig. 5.2, 2), which consists of a
large square peribolos with an internal colonnade and a frontal temple on the western
side. In antiquity the sanctuary was adjacent to another monumental stoa that defined the
remaining southern portion of the agora (fig. 5.2, 4). This building is no longer preserved,
but Pausanias reports that the stoa was known as the Aristandreion after the name of the
donor (Aristander).
The western side of the agora is lined with an almost continuous sequence of
administrative and religious buildings (figs. 5.9; 5.10). The best preserved is a square
hypostyle hall near the Stoa of Philip with four internal supports and a colonnaded
forecourt (fig. 5.2, 7). This has been identified as the bouleuterion of Megalopolis.
240
Further to the south, there is a long structure with a series of rooms looking out upon an
internal peristyle court, and a smaller structure with a courtyard. These have been
tentatively identified as civic buildings.613 Further to the south, there is a large open-air
sanctuary with an altar and a series of rooms that lies at the southwest corner of the agora.
The excavator is eager to identify this as the sanctuary of Zeus Homarios, but it must be
emphasized that this remains only a tentative suggestion. Another possibility is that the
complex is associated with the sanctuary of the Great Goddesses mentioned by
Pausanias.
The central area of the Megalopolitan agora remains largely unexplored. One
exception is the so-called Spolia Building, which as its name suggests is constructed
entirely from reused blocks (fig. 5.6). The rectilinear structure dates no earlier than the
Frankish period. Architectural fragments from the Stoa of Philip and the sanctuary of
Zeus Soter have been found here, and some of the reused blocks carry inscriptions
indicating that they were once used as statue bases. Of particular interest are a number of
blocks that are slightly curved, which must have come from an exedra in the agora that
measured approximately 20 m. Two end blocks from the monument bear an honorary
inscription to a certain Eudamos son of Lydiadas. The latter was one of the tyrants of
Megalopolis during the 3rd century.614
Description of the Agora by Pausanias
613
In the excavation reports the buildings are often referred together as the dēmosia oikia (civic office).
614
For the inscription, see Spyropoulos et al. 1996, p. 282; Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, p. 417.
241
The identification and function of the buildings in the Megalopolitan agora and
surrounding areas would have been otherwise obscure, if it was not for the
comprehensive description of the site by Pausanias (see appendix D).615 The periēgētēs
devotes two whole chapters to the agora at Megalopolis (8.30.2-8.31.8), before describing
the monuments on the southern side of the Helisson (8.32.1-8.32.5), and concluding with
a chapter on the slow demise of the city (8.33.1-4). In most instances he places the
buildings within the agora in context to one another, so that his readers are able to
appreciate the spatial parameters of the public square as an ensemble. His meticulous
account supplements the inherent shortcomings in the archaeological record. This is
especially true on the southern side of the agora, which is now all but destroyed by the
Helisson, and the unexcavated central area.
We learn from Pausanias that the Megalopolitan agora was characterized by two
different types of buildings and venues. Public structures were represented by no less
than four large stoas and a bouleuterion, all of which defined the borders of the agora and
provided the public square with a monumental backdrop. The stoas were multi-purpose
buildings that could have been used for a host of activities, both civic and commercial,
while the bouleuterion was vital for the civic administration of the city. The second
category of buildings within the agora were urban sanctuaries. Pausanias often has an
affinity for highlighting the religious landscape of a Greek agora, and the various legends
and unusual cult objects associated with the sanctuaries. His narrative of the
Megalopolitan agora is no exception to this general rule.
615
Osanna (2003, 2005) provides a useful commentary on Pausanias’ itinerary at Megalopolis.
242
Pausanias begins his account of the Megalopolitan agora by describing the
sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios, which had no proper entrance and where one could find
altars, offering tables, and a cult statue of Pan Sinoeis.616 The cult of Zeus Lykaios at
Megalopolis was an urban imitation of the much older, and highly important Arcadian
sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios on Mt. Lykaion that lies approximately 13 km northwest of
the city.617 After the synoicism the inhabitants created a “doublet” of the cult at
Megalopolis as a means of forging a strong Arcadian identity for the new city. It is
perhaps not by accident, therefore, that the agora was chosen as the location for the
sanctuary.
Other cults were situated near the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios. We are told that a
bronze statue of Apollo Epikourios stood directly in front of the sanctuary of Zeus
Lykaios, and that a temple of the Mother of the Gods was to the right of the statue.618
Here Pausanias saw a small cult statue of the goddess, even though the temple was
mostly in ruin. Assuming that the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios had an eastern orientation,
the statue of Apollo Epikourios and the temple of the Mother of the Gods must have been
positioned further to the east in relation to the front of the sanctuary. Again using the
sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios as a reference point, Pausanias mentions that a stele honoring
the Megalopolitan statesman and historian Polybios stood behind the sanctuary.619 We
should understand this to be somewhere to the west of the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios.
The architectural remains of all these sanctuaries, as well as the stele of Polybios, remain
616
Paus. 8.30.2-4.
617
Jost 1985, pp. 221-222; Jost 1994, pp. 227-228; Jost 1996, p. 106.
618
Paus. 8.30.4-5.
619
Paus. 8.30.8-9.
243
to be discovered through archaeological explorations, but in general they are thought to
lie somewhere in the central area of the agora.620
There is less ambiguity in the placement of monuments along the perimeter of the
agora. The stoa named in honor of the Macedonian king Philip II, and the smaller stoa
nearby that was used as administrative offices, are without a doubt the two buildings
along the northern side of the agora.621 Although Pausanias does not orient his readers
when describing these two buildings, a stamped roof tile found in the eastern wing of the
monumental Doric stoa, and marked as Φιλιππείου (“property of the Philippeion”),
leaves little doubt in its identification as the Stoa of Philip.622 Using the stoa as a
reference point, the partially cleared building to the east can be none other than the
Archive Building. Pausanias mentions that this building had six rooms inside (two have
so far been excavated), and that the structure also housed statues of Ephesian Artemis and
Pan Skoleitas.623 We also learn that there was a temple of Hermes Akakesios somewhere
near the Stoa of Philip, which was in ruin during the time of Pausanias.624 The temple
was probably located in front of the stoa in the center of the agora, but we cannot dismiss
the possibility that it stood north of the Stoa of Philip and outside of the agora proper.
Leaving the northern perimeter, Pausanias mentions that he saw a stoa called
Myropolis, which was built by Aristodemos from the spoils of a war against Sparta.625
This information dates the building securely to the middle of the 3rd century, when
620
Osanna 2003, pp. 20-21.
621
Paus. 8.30.6-7.
622
IG V.2, 469.6.
623
It is unclear whether the two images were cult statues, or simply on display in the building.
624
Paus. 8.30.6.
625
Paus. 8.30.7.
244
Aristodemos was the tyrant of Megalopolis (ca. 362-352). The location of the Myropolis
Stoa within the Megalopolitan agora is never made clear by the periēgētēs. Nevertheless
it should probably be associated with the monumental stoa that defines the eastern side of
the agora. In its present state, only the southern portion of the structure has been
uncovered.
Moving to the southern side of the agora, the monuments here consisted of a
sanctuary of Zeus Soter and a fourth monumental stoa called the Aristandreion. Today
the Helisson has washed away much of this area, but the placement of these structures is
absolutely certain from the description of Pausanias. As the periēgētēs says, the sanctuary
of Zeus Soter lies east of the stoa built by Aristander.626 Fortunately, epigraphical
evidence recovered from the large temple complex at the southeast corner of the
Megalopolitan agora confirms its identification as the sanctuary of Zeus Soter.627 This
permits us to restore the Aristandreion west of the sanctuary, where the stoa obviously
marked the southern boundary of the agora. Pausanias describes the sanctuary of Zeus
Soter as having an internal colonnade, which excavations have confirmed. He also
comments on an exceptional cult statue group inside the temple of a seated Zeus Soter,
Artemis Soteira (Savior), and a personification of the city of Megalopolis. We are told
that these were made out of Pentelic marble by the 4th century Athenian sculptors
Kephisodotos and Xenophon.
The western boundary of the agora was the only side not occupied by a
monumental stoa. Much of the southwest corner was taken up by a large sanctuary
626
Paus. 8.30.10.
627
IG V.2, 432 (A66); IG V.2, 437.
245
dedicated to the Great Goddesses, Demeter and Kore Soteira. The placement of the
sanctuary is explicit in the description of Pausanias, who mentions that it stood west of
the Aristandreion.628 The periēgētēs then goes on to devote nearly an entire chapter to the
various cults, statues, and cult objects he found inside.629 Besides the temenos itself and a
monumental entranceway, constructions within the main sanctuary included a temple of
the Great Goddesses, a temple of Zeus Philios (Friendly), a small grove of trees, a
sanctuary and temple of Aphrodite Machanitis (Deviser), a structure with four statues of
the donors of the sanctuary, and a sanctuary of Kore. Pausanias also mentions that the
Messenean sculptor Damophon made a series of wooden statues in the shape of herms. If
the number of cults serves as an indication, the sanctuary of the Great Goddesses was
undoubtedly a sacred area of considerable size.
A gymnasium also stood somewhere near the western side of the agora and the
sanctuary of Great Goddesses. Pausanias says this much, but he is rather vague in the
precise relationship of the gymnasium with the agora.630 In the past scholars have been
tempted to reconstruct the gymnasium along the western side of the agora,631 but recent
excavations demonstrate that this area was occupied by a peristyle building and a
courtyard building, as well as the hypostyle hall (bouleuterion) at the northwest corner. In
all likelihood the gymnasium lies further to the west, close to the agora yet detached.632
628
Paus. 8.31.1.
629
Paus. 8.31.1-8.
630
Paus. 8.31.8.
631
Curtius 1851-1852 (see the plan reproduced in Papachatzis 1980, p. 310, fig. 306); Martin 1951, p. 384;
Petronotis 1973, fig. 7 (shown on the plan as no. 6).
632
High resolution satellite images of the area show a line of scrub brush and trees that might be an
indication of a substantial complex approximately 80 m west of the agora. It measures roughly 260 m x 155
246
At least three sanctuaries were located outside of the agora in the northern region
of the city. Pausanias comments that a temple of Tyche with a cult statue stood behind
the Archive Building,633 while elsewhere he states that there were two hills to the north
with a sanctuary of Athena Polias and a temple of Hera Teleia (Full-grown).634 The
sanctuaries on the hills were in ruin during the time of Pausanias.
5.4. The Late Classical Megalopolitan Agora
The Megalopolitan agora witnessed intense building activity throughout the Late
Classical period (see table 7). Where nothing had existed before the inhabitants
consciously integrated into their city a working ensemble of conspicuous public buildings
that included monumental civic structures, large urban sanctuaries, and commercial
complexes. Just as remarkable was the speed in which the Megalopolitans carried out the
building program. Large scale construction began only 10-20 years after the foundation
of the city, and by the 320s many of the monumental buildings within the agora were
complete. This enormous task was simultaneous with the construction of the fortification
walls, the Thersilion, other urban sanctuaries, and the domestic quarters of the city. By
the end of the century the theater was also added to the urban environment.635
The rapid planning and expenditure of time and money that went into the creation
of the Megalopolitan agora stand in considerable contrast to the often staggered
m, and is oriented about 20° to the northeast. If this is the gymnasium of Megalopolis, it is worth noting the
similar arrangement of the agora and western gymnasia at Elis.
633
Paus. 8.30.7.
634
Paus. 8.31.9.
635
According to Paus. 8.32.1 the theater at Megalopolis was the largest in Greece. For the most recent
chronology and phasing of the theater, see Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004.
247
architectural development of other agoras in the Peloponnese. At Megalopolis such a
building program not only reflects the social and political idiosyncrasies of the Arcadians
during a period of acute instability and uncertainty, but it also marks a new period in the
history of urban planning within the Peloponnese. The intention was to give its citizens,
and even its rivals the semblance of an organized and respectable city. The desire to
convey this message where no town had previously existed led to the creation of
progressive building types that complemented one another in a single venue. The spatial
structure of the Megalopolitan agora, and the individual elements that worked together to
form this space, anticipate trends in Greek urban planning of the Hellenistic period. This
is rather remarkable since the planning and execution of the Megalopolitan agora
occurred in the 4th century shortly after the foundation of the city.
With few exceptions most of the structures within the Megalopolitan agora date to
two different periods of construction during the 4th century. The first phase is represented
by the buildings along the western side of the agora, which the excavators say were built
around 360-350. These include the hypostyle hall at the northwest corner, which is often
identified as the bouleuterion, the interconnected peristyle building and courtyard
building, and a sanctuary further to the southwest. Taken together these structures formed
a continuous and unbroken western boundary of the agora. Another structure that likely
dates to first few decades following the synoicism is the sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios.
Despite any evidence of its physical remains, the pan-Arcadian cult was essential for
Arcadian unity in the new urban experiment. As other ancient historians have noted, it
would be difficult to imagine Megalopolis without this sanctuary in its agora from the
248
very beginning.636 More secure evidence for a building that dates to the first phase of
construction is the Thersilion. Although it lies outside of the agora, the gathering hall of
the Arcadian Confederacy is representative of the types of public buildings that the
Megalopolitans were interested in erecting during the first few decades of the city’s
existence.637 The second phase of construction consists of the Stoa of Philip and the
sanctuary of Zeus Soter, which both date to third-quarter of the 4th century. We may also
add with slight reservations the original phase of the Archive Building, which may date
to the same period, if not to the first phase of construction. The limited fieldwork carried
out on this building does not permit a more definitive chronology.
The Myropolis Stoa and the Aristandreion are the only two structures on the
periphery of the Megalopolitan agora that do not date to the 4th century. Historical
considerations place both of these building squarely in the Hellenistic period, and more
specifically in the 3rd century.638 We do not know whether the stoas had predecessors,
either monumental or temporary, and whether the southern and eastern sides of the agora
were simply void of any construction until the Hellenistic period. On the other hand, the
regularity and compactness of the Megalopolitan agora leaves little doubt that the city-
planners had always intended to insert large edifices here. The Myropolis Stoa ultimately
complemented the Stoa of Philip and the Archive Building at the north, and the hypostyle
hall, other public buildings, and the southwest sanctuary at the east. If the orientation of
636
Jost 1994, pp. 226-226; Osanna 2003, pp. 17-21. Both Zeus Lykaios and Pan Sinoeis appear on coins
struck at Megalopolis during the 4th century.
637
For the most recent dating of the Thersilion, see Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004.
638
For the Myropolis Stoa, see Gardner et al. 1892, p. 12; Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, pp. 415-417; AR
50 (2003-2004), p. 26; Lauter 2005, p. 235.
249
the sanctuary of Zeus Soter serves as an indication, then the Aristandreion likely had the
same effect along the southern perimeter.
Hypostyle Hall
Now that the general structure and chronology of the buildings within the
Megalopolitan agora have been presented, it is now possible to assess each one of these
structures individually to see how they contributed to the overall structure of the agora.
As previously mentioned, the first signs of monumental architecture in the Megalopolitan
agora appear along the western side of the public square (figs. 5.9; 5.10). Here a
continuous group of structures gave strict definition to the agora and formally separated it
from external features, such as the western gymnasium. At the northwest corner, the
hypostyle hall formed the northernmost extent of this western ensemble.639 In form the
building consisted of a broad forecourt and a nearly square hypostyle hall supported by
four internal columns (figs. 5.11; 5.12). Access into the building was via a monumental
colonnaded facade that communicated directly with the agora. Although the precise
number of columns here is uncertain, architectural fragments recovered from the site
indicate that the exterior of the building was in the Doric order. After entering the
building, two doors from the forecourt led into the main room. Here the four internal
columns divided the room into three aisles. Several fragments from one or more Ionic
columns suggest that the interior of the building was decorated in the Ionic order.
639
Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, pp. 426-438; Lauter 2002, p. 376; Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004, pp. 154-
155.
250
In its present state, the remains of the hypostyle hall largely belong to Hellenistic
and Roman renovations that followed the total destruction of the building during the
Spartan sack of the city in 223. This is most evident from the secondary use of
architectural fragments in the exterior walls and the internal partition wall. Some of these
reused architectural members, including the Ionic column fragments, were badly
damaged by fire. Additional evidence for the Spartan devastation comes from a
destruction layer with broken terracottas antefixes, presumably from the original roof of
the building. Despite the heavy damage it appears that the Hellenistic renovations
adopted the basic form of the original structure. Some of the limestone orthostate blocks
with finely drafted edges are still in situ and must come from the building’s initial phase,
as do a number of the architectural blocks from the superstructure reused for building
material.
Based on architectural comparanda with the Thersilion, Hans Lauter maintains
that the hypostyle hall dates between 360-350, which would place its construction no
more than a decade or two after the foundation of Megalopolis.640 This is a date that must
be accepted until a more comprehensive study of the building and its stratigraphy is
published. For now the question concerning the identification of the structure as the
bouleuterion is more intriguing. Nobody has questioned this identification, nor has
anyone outlined the reasons for why the building must be the bouleuterion of
Megalopolis. This is somewhat surprising, especially since Pausanias does not state
where the bouleuterion was located in the Megalopolitan agora. The periēgētēs only
640
Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, pp. 436-438; Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004, p. 155.
251
mentions the civic building in passing, saying that it was left of the stele of Polybios
before he continues with a description of the Myropolis Stoa.641 No other ancient author
mentions the bouleuterion, and nothing has been recovered from the building that might
recommend such an identification.642
Presumably it is the architectural form of the structure and its proximity to the
agora that has led scholars to associate the building with the bouleuterion. This is
perfectly reasonable, but even here we are not entirely on firm ground. If the building
does in fact date to the second-quarter of the 4th century, the only predecessors that can
be identified with certainty as bouleuteria are the apsidal structure at Olympia (second-
half of 6th century) and both the Old Bouleuterion (ca. 500?) and the New Bouleuterion
in the Athenian agora (ca. 400).643 Based on architectural form, the examples from the
Athenian agora are closest in style to the hypostyle hall at Megalopolis. The Old
Bouleuterion consists of a broad forecourt and a main room with five internal supports
arranged in a U-shaped pattern (fig. 5.13). Although auditorium seats are often
reconstructed in the building, there is no firm evidence for their existence. The New
Bouleuterion is a slightly smaller building that lacks a distinct forecourt like its
predecessor. It is often reconstructed with a semicircular auditorium (fig. 2.29), though
the poor preservation of the building leaves uncertainty in the exact seating arrangement.
Much larger hypostyle halls during the Classical and Late Classical periods are
prevalent in other cities and sanctuaries throughout the Ancient Mediterranean, but their
641
Paus. 8.30.9.
642
E.g., voting disks, official decrees, or the mention of a divinity commonly associated with the gathering
places of civic officials (Zeus Bouleus).
643
252
relationship to Greek bouleuteria are either disconnected (Odeion of Perikles at Athens,
Telesterion at Eleusis) or ambiguous (Hypostyle Hall at Argos).644 The only other
structure that might be suggested as a possible exception is the Thersilion at Megalopolis,
which was built (perhaps) to accommodate gatherings of the Arcadian Confederacy (figs.
5.5; 5.14). Beyond this there is no support for a standard typology in the architectural
form of pre-Hellenistic bouleuteria. I would prefer to remain cautious on the
identification of the hypostyle hall at Megalopolis, because there is much at stake here. If
the hypostyle hall was the bouleuterion at Megalopolis – a hypothesis that certainly
cannot be excluded – then it is an early example of a building type that does not mature
until the Hellenistic period. In this respect Megalopolis was potentially a forerunner of
the standardization of a building type. On the other hand, the hypostyle hall may simply
have been used for various other administrative purposes, if not for commercial and
religious activities. We have no way of knowing with absolute certainty.
“Dēmosia Oikia”
The complex of structures that extend south from the hypostyle hall are usually
thought to be administrative offices (figs. 5.9; 5.10). Lauter often refers to the long
peristyle building and the courtyard building, together with the hypostyle hall, as the
dēmosia oikia (civic office) of Megalopolis.645 He sees here the headquarters of three
administrative bodies of the polis: (a) the boulē in the bouleuterion, and the damiourgoi
644
For these buildings and the Hypostyle Hall at Argos, see supra Chapter 2.4.
645
Lauter 2002; AR 49 (2002-2003), p. 28; AR 50 (2003-2004), p. 26; Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004, p. 154;
Lauter 2005, p. 235.
253
and the polemarchoi (war generals) in the other two buildings. In our initial
understanding of the remains, the chronology of the latter buildings appears to
correspond with the hypostyle hall. Lauter dates the initial phase to shortly after the
foundation of the city (ca. 360-350), while destruction layers and architectural spolia
imply that the buildings were rebuilt during the Hellenistic period following the Spartan
sack of the city.
The architecture and small finds from the buildings remain to be studied, so it is
only possible at this point to comment on the published plans. The long peristyle building
has a row of at least 12 rooms along its western end, and up to 4-5 rooms at the southern
end. Some of the western rooms do not communicate directly with the peristyle court, but
instead are accessed by anterooms. In some cases an anteroom may give access to two
small rooms on one side, and a single room on the other side. Comparanda for this type
of arrangement comes from Buildings II-IV in the Corinthian agora, where a courtyard
also gives access to a series of interconnected rooms that were likely used for a variety of
administrative and commercial purposes (fig. 3.20).646 The plan of the courtyard building
further to the south is more simple. Here a square forecourt with two small rooms leads
into the main courtyard, where there are two smaller rooms in the back. Some of the
rooms of the building may even have communicated with the peristyle building.
The phasing of the structures and their 4th century arrangements remain
somewhat sketchy in our preliminary understanding of the buildings. Parts of the
peristyle building clearly date after the destruction of the city by the Spartans, and should
646
254
be placed well into the Roman period. At some point in the history of the city the
southern wall of the hypostyle hall was moved towards the north to enlarge the peristyle
building. These renovations probably occurred sometime during the Late Roman period,
when a new facade was given to the buildings along the western side of the agora, and a
stoa was built between the Stoa of Philip and the hypostyle hall. Assuming that the
buildings were not greatly altered from their 4th century arrangement, Lauter is probably
correct to identify them as administrative buildings, much like the series of late 5th
century and 4th century structures along the southern side of the Corinthian agora.647
Southwest Sanctuary
An open-air peristyle court south of the so-called dēmosia oikia forms the final
section of the continuous group of buildings along the western side of the agora.648 The
southern part of the building has been damaged by the Helisson river, and beyond this
there are no more ancient remains preserved. In plan the building is almost a perfect
square (28-29 m2) with a peristyle courtyard at the center and a series of rooms along the
western side. Only the limestone foundations of the walls and the supports for the
peristyle courtyard survive. In front of the rooms to the east there was a porch that
extended 4-5 m into the central space. More than 200 stamped terracotta roof tiles dating
to the Hellenistic period were uncovered here, all marked with the names of certain
647
Two 4th century decrees mention the damiourgoi at Megalopolis: IG V.2, 1 (360s); IG V.2, 431 (A65).
648
Lauter 2002; AR 49 (2002-2003), p. 28; Lauter 2005, p. 235. His hypothesis that these were the official
headquarters of the damiourgoi and the polemarchoi – two groups of officials for which we know very
little about at Megalopolis – is no more than guesswork.
255
individuals who donated money for the reconstruction of the building following the
Spartan destruction.
Two interesting architectural features of the building are a ground-level altar from
the courtyard constructed out of limestone blocks, and a hearth in one of the rooms at the
northwest. The altar is nearly a perfect square (2.20 m2) with a round depression in the
middle. Its significance is accentuated by the fact that it lies approximately in the center
of the building. As Lauter notes, the precise function of the altar, and how it was used, is
obscure. He suggests that some sort of vessel, perhaps a marble lekanē, would have been
inserted into the central hole for libations. As for the hearth in the northwest room, Lauter
proposes that it may have been used as the common hearth (hestia) of the city.
As Lauter maintains, the initial phase of construction is contemporary with the
other buildings along the western side of the agora. Not only are there similarities in
architecture and workmanship, but datable finds from the foundation walls place the
building in the second-quarter of the 4th century. The altar in the courtyard appears to
date to the earliest phase as well. In their present state the rooms along the western side
only date after the Hellenistic restorations, and it is likely that they continued further to
the south beyond the area where the river has inflicted damage.
The function and identification of the building is a matter of debate. The altar
potentially indicates that the complex was some sort of sanctuary, perhaps one of the
many cult sites that Pausanias mentions in his tour of the Megalopolitan agora. On the
other hand, the unusual form of the square limestone blocks with a circular depression
finds few parallels in Greek sanctuaries, and its identification as an altar does not come
256
without difficulties. If the hearth in the northwest room was used as the common hearth
of the city, there remains the possibility that the building was the prytaneion of
Megalopolis. All of these suggestions remain tentative until a full report of the building
appears.
Despite these uncertainties two points are evident in the archaeological record.
First, the reconstruction of the building was under the supervision of the state. Two
different types of Hellenistic roof tiles from the building are marked δαµόσιοι, meaning
that they were the property of the Megalopolitan state. In one example the δαµόσιοι
follows the name of the workshop that produced the roof tiles (Ὁµίλου), which is then
followed by the dedicator Polybios (fig. 5.15).649 This Polybios was likely the well-
known 2nd century Megalopolitan statesman and historian. Another set of tiles has an
abbreviated form of δαµόσιοι following the name of the dedicator (Ἀριστίων), and is
dated to the year when a certain Thraseas held the office of aganothetēs.650 Roof tiles
marked as public property are common in Greek cities, but here we know the two
individuals who helped fund the reconstruction of the building following the destruction
of the city by the Spartans.
It is also clear that the building was in some way associated with the cult of Zeus.
Another set of Hellenistic roof tiles is stamped as Φιλοποίµην Διί, which shows that the
famous Megalopolitan general Philopoimen made a dedication to Zeus by funding the
construction of the roof.651 Based on this association, Lauter would like to identify the
649
Lauter 2002, p. 380, no. 2: Ὁµίλου δαµόσιοι / Πολύβιος ἀνέθηκε.
650
Ibid., p. 380-381, no. 3: Ἀριστίων δα(µόσιοι) ἐπ’ ἀγων[ο] / [θέ]ται Θρασέαι.
651
Ibid., p. 380, no. 1: Φιλοποίµην Διί.
257
entire structure as the sanctuary of Zeus Homarios. When describing the terms of a new
constitution for Megalopolis, Polybios states that the laws were to be inscribed on a
column and set up near the altar of Hestia in the Homarion.652 Presumably this would
have been near the agora, where public decrees and laws were typically put on display in
a Greek city. The suggestion by Lauter is rather ingenious, but Polybios only makes
reference to the Homarion and never to Zeus Homarios, nor does he specify that the
Homarion was in the agora.
It is likely that the building had a religious function of great civic importance.
Prominent Megalopolitan statemen were involved in the reconstruction of the building,
which was also tied to the cult of Zeus, a deity often associated with civic gatherings in a
Greek city. Additionally, it is worth suggesting that the building may have been the
sanctuary of the Great Goddesses described by Pausanias as lying at the southwest corner
of the Megalopolitan agora.653 Among a number of divinities housed in the large
sanctuary, the periēgētēs reports seeing a temple of Zeus Philios and a cult statue of the
god sculpted by Polykleitos of Argos. The cult of Zeus Philios could be related to the
roof tiles dedicated to Zeus by Philopoimen. Another enticing piece of evidence comes
from a stone dedication discovered nearby during the early British excavators. Carved on
the stone is a trident with an inscription dedicated to Poseidon Asphaleios (Helper) by the
Messenean sculptor Damophon (fig. 5.16).654 The plain form of the block, along with the
representation of Poseidon as a trident, recalls a series of aniconic images sculpted by
652
Polyb. 5.93.10 (A40).
653
Paus. 8.31.1-8.
654
IG V.2, 454 (A67).
258
Damophon that Pausanias reports seeing in the sanctuary of the Great Goddesses.655 Of
course this evidence may be incidental, but owing to the fact that the sanctuary of the
Great Goddesses was located somewhere at the agora’s southwest corner, this hypothesis
is on more firm grounds than identifying the building as the sanctuary of Zeus Homarios.
Stoa of Philip
Moving to the northern side of the agora, the Stoa of Philip is the best preservered
and most visible monument within the archaeological site today (fig. 5.8).656 The sheer
size of the building must have had the same dominating effect on the built environment
of the agora in antiquity. Erected sometime between 340-330, it had a monumental Doric
facade flanked by two projecting wings on either side.657 Inside there were two internal
colonnades in the Ionic order, which accentuated the length of the building by creating
three separate aisles (fig. 5.17). Two symmetrical exedras with Corinthian colonnades
were set along the back wall of the building, and at least one of them had a large
rectangular base for the display of a lifesize statue group (fig. 5.18). The Stoa of Philip
was clearly meant to impress the viewer both outside and inside, and convey a message
of power and authority in a city that made every effort at increasing its own prestige and
regional influence.
655
Paus. 8.31.7.
656
For the most recent work on the building, see Spyropoulos et al. 1995, pp. 122-125; Gans 1995, pp. 269-
271; Kreilinger 1995; Spyropoulos et al. 1996, pp. 269-275, 278-282; Lauter and Münkner 1997; Lauter
and Spyropoulos 1998, pp. 415-417, 420-426.
657
Verfenstein (2002, pp. 54-60) opposes a 4th century date, arguing instead for a Hellenistic date.
259
At nearly 160 m in total length, the Stoa of Philip was one of the largest stoas ever
built up through the Late Classical period.658 The building was a forerunner of the
monumental stoas that came into style during the Hellenistic period, when wealthy
foreign benefactors and kings from Asia Minor often funded such expensive
constructions. However, here at Megalopolis the building did not have a foreign donor,
but was erected by the citizens of Megalopolis to pay homage to a foreign king, Philip II.
During the second-half of the 4th century, the Arcadians sought the aid of the growing
power of the Macadonians to help settle regional disputes in the Peloponnese. As a way
of bargaining for their loyalty, the Macedonian king gave the Megalopolitans additional
territory in Arcadia shortly after his victory at the battle of Chaironea in 338.659 The
construction of the Stoa of Philip symbolized the partnership between Megalopolis and a
powerful foreign ally, who could help protect the city by maintaining a strong front
against Sparta and rival Arcadian factions.660
The symbolic function of the Stoa of Philip cannot be underestimated. On the one
hand, it gave the Megalopolitan agora the perception of a certain monumentality where
nothing had even existed only a few decades prior. On the other hand, the stoa was a
semantic structure that communicated a relationship between Megalopolis and a powerful
foreign king. The Megalopolitans sought the protection of Philip by erecting a building in
658
Its size rivals the South Stoa in the Corinthian agora, which at 164 m was the longest stoa in Mainland
Greece and dates a good 30-40 years after the Stoa of Philip.
659
Spyropoulos et al. 1995, p. 123.
660
Lauter suspects that the statue base in the western exedra accomodated a dynastic statue group of the
Macedonian royal family, much like the Daochos monument at Delphi and the Philipeion at Olympia; see
ibid. pp. 124-125.
260
his honor. The duality and complexity of the structure goes beyond its emense size and
overpowering presence in the agora.
Archive Building
The remaining northern boundary of the agora is taken up by the smaller,
although still impressive Archive Building located just to the east of the Stoa of Philip
(fig. 5.8).661 Set on the same axis, and separated from the stoa only by a narrow corridor,
the Archive Building complements the monumental scale and formal layout of the Stoa
of Philip by helping to create an integrated architectural ensemble on this side of the
agora. Although there is no evidence that the superstructure of the Archive Building was
in a canonical order, the building still functioned like a stoa without Doric or Ionic
features. Square pillars along the southern side facing the agora acted as the monumental
colonnade, which gave access into a long corridor and a series of rooms in the back. Two
have been recovered so far, but from Pausanias we know that the building once had a
total of six rooms.662 A reconstruction of these additional rooms, based upon the
dimensions of the two already preserved, shows that the Archive Building was
approximately 60 m in length and completed the northeast corner of the agora.
That the Archive Building and the Stoa of Philip were planned together as an
architectural ensemble during the second-half of the 4th century seems obvious.
However, this cannot be confirmed until more of the building has been excavated. In a
brief reexamination of the structure in the mid-1990s, Lauter argues that most of the
661
Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, pp. 438-444.
662
Paus. 8.30.6-7.
261
building as it now stands dates after the agora was destroyed by the Spartans in the
Hellenistic period. In particular he points to blocks of the euthynteria and upper walls that
are in secondary use, as well as holes for T-clamps that do not match with adjacent
blocks. He also maintains that the two rooms in the back cannot date earlier than the
Roman period in their present state. We are therefore confronted with the possibility that
most of the Archive Building dates to the Hellenistic period at the earliest. Yet as Lauter
himself notes, the lowest course of foundation blocks appear to predate the Hellenistic
renovations. These as well as the reused blocks from the upper walls likely came from an
earlier incarnation of the Archive Building. Beyond this the material evidence does not
permit any greater degree of precision on the building’s chronology.
We have no reason to doubt Pausanias’ identification of the structure as an
archive building. The word that Pausanias uses is ἀρχεῖα, which is a general term that
can refer to any kind of civic building within a Greek city. It does not necesarily imply
that the building was the records office of Megalopolis, like the Hellenistic archives in
the Athenian agora. There is also no reason to suspect that the temple of the Mother of
the Gods was housed in the building, as at least one scholar has suggested.663 This temple
was already in ruin during Pausanias’ visit, while the Archive Building was intact.664
During the Hellenistic period the northern part of the agora became a favorite venue for
the erection of dedicatory monuments, and in particular equestrian statues in honor of
prominent citizens. Several bases carrying inscriptions have been uncovered all along the
663
Osanna 2003, p. 19.
664
Paus. 8.30.4-5.
262
front of the Archive Building, as well as the eastern wing of the Stoa of Philip.665 None of
the bases bears a dedication to a divinity or hero, which makes it unlikely that the
Archive Building was a sanctuary or heroon. Without being too specific, we must be
content to regard the building as an administrative structure within the Megalopolitan
agora. Its prime location next to the Stoa of Philip and a series of conspicuous dedicatory
monuments at the very least gives us the impression that it was a civic building of some
importance.
Sanctuary of Zeus Soter
The considerable remains of the sanctuary of Zeus Soter stand at the southeast
corner of the Megalopolitan agora (fig. 5.19).666 Along with the sanctuary of Zeus
Lykaios and the sanctuary of the Great Goddesses, it was one of the city’s most important
and conspicuous urban sanctuaries. Zeus Soter was a tutelary divinity, and his epithet
reveals that the origins of the cult were probably connected to the victory of
Epaminondas over the Spartans at the battle of Leuctra. The name carries the meaning of
a divine liberator and is similar to the cult of Zeus Eleutherios in the Athenian agora.667
By commemorating the events surrounding the formation of Megalopolis with the cult of
Zeus Soter, the Arcadians were attempting to forge a common civic identity within the
new urban center. The cult statue group inside the temple even consisted of the triad of
Zeus Soter, Artemis Soteira (herself a divine liberator), and the personification of
665
Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, pp. 444-449; Lauter-Bufe 2009.
666
Jost 1985, pp. 225-227; Spyropoulos et al. 1995, pp. 119-122; Jost 1996, pp. 104-105; Lauter and
Spyropoulos 1998, pp. 415-419; Gans and Kreilinger 2002; Corso 2005.
667
For the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios in the Athenian Agora, see Thompson 1937, pp. 21-77; Thompson and
Wycherley 1972, pp. 96-103.
263
Megalopolis. The citizens of Megalopolis commissioned the Athenian sculptors
Kephisodotos and Xenophon to create this ensemble, no doubt with the intention to
strengthen the association between the new city and its divine liberators.668
The execution of the sanctuary was groundbreaking. It consisted of an almost
square sacred enclosure that was approximately 47 m x 54 m. Two monumental entrance
propylons along the north side facing the agora, and at the east provided access into the
temenos. A ceremonial ramp more than 9 m long led up towards the eastern propylon.
Once inside, the sanctuary was marked out by a double colonnaded portico that
surrounded a rectangular altar at the heart of the temenos. The columns closest to the altar
were in the Doric order, while the internal colonnade was in the Ionic order. On the
western side of the complex, and directly on axis with the eastern propylon, stood the
temple with a hexastyle Doric facade that projected out into the central court. Oblong
foundation on either side of the temple’s propylon were used as statue bases, and perhaps
even for an equestrian statue group. The pronaos of the temple gave way to a second
antechamber and finally to the main cella, where the cult statue base of Zeus Soter,
Artemis Soteira, and the personification of Megalopolis was surrounded by a U-shaped
colonnade.
The entire architecture composition adheres to a strict geometry, where the two
propylons, the internal colonnaded portico, the altar, the statue bases, and the temple
itself are all aligned with one another. As others have noted, this type of tight
architectural ensemble is more characteristic of the Hellenistic period, and until recently
668
See Corso (2005, pp. 225-226), who argues convincingly that the Kephisodotos must be the Elder.
264
the sanctuary was thought to date to the 3rd century or later.669 But the excavations
carried out in the 1990s now confirm that the sanctuary of Zeus Soter dates to end of the
4th century (ca. 330-320), and is more or less contemporary with the Stoa of Philip. In
fact the architecture and workmanship of both buildings are so similar that Lauter
surmises that the two structures were planned together. He suggests that the same
architect must have been responsible for their construction.670 Pottery recovered from the
northern foundation walls also points to a Late Classical date.671 The architectural novelty
of the complex makes it one of the earliest peristyle sanctuaries in the Greek World. As
with the Stoa of Philip and the hypostyle hall, we observe here a building that breaks
away from the conventional boundaries of Greek architecture, and in this particular
instance creates new horizons in the conception of Greek sacred space.
Summary of Late Classical Developments
By the end of the Late Classical period, and only two generations after the
foundation of the city in 371/0 or 368/7, the Megalopolitan agora achieved a monumental
architectural form rarely observed before the Hellenistic period in the Peloponnese.
Although the buildings were conceived of separately and had their own distinct features,
their overall execution and presentation was as an architectural ensemble. Unlike the
agoras at Corinth and Argos where new structures had to be inserted carefully, and at
669
E.g., Martin 1951, p. 491 (3rd century); Coulton 1976, pp. 61, 171 (ca. 200); and Jost 1985, p. 226 (3rd
century). More recently, a Hellenistic date is still maintained by Verfenstein (2002, pp. 47-48).
670
Spyropoulos et al. 1995, p. 122.
671
AR 40 (1993-1994), p. 17; Gans and Kreilinger 2002, p. 188; see contra the criticisms of Verfenstein
(2002, pp. 45-48), who remains skeptical in dating the sanctuary to the 4th century. Note, however, that her
2002 Ph.D. dissertation was completed before the most recent publications on the sanctuary appeared (e.g.,
Gans and Kreilinger 2002; Corso 2005; Lauter-Bufe 2009).
265
times haphazardly into a well-established urban center, the town-planners at Megalopolis
had the advantage of beginning with a clean slate. Under these conditions, it is interesting
to observe the intentions and goals of their conception of Greek commercial and civic
space. The focus revolved around generating an impressive collection of civic buildings,
urban sanctuaries, and multi-purpose structures within a single and lucid venue. Right
angles and symmetrical forms were favored over an irregular appearance. New building
types, such as the peristyle sanctuary and the monumental three-aisled stoa, were
preferred over more conservative forms of Greek architecture. There was a general
willingness to experiment with buildings and signal a new period in the formation of the
Greek agora.
Eventually many of the agoras in the Peloponnese would come to adopt some of
the trends observed in the Megalopolitan agora. The South Stoa in the Corinthian agora,
which was not built until the Early Hellenistic period, is a prime example of a general
readiness by Greek urban planners to update their civic and commercial space with large
structure that compartmentalize space (fig. 3.3). The Athenian agora received a similar
facelift in the 2nd century with the construction of the Middle Stoa, South Stoa II, and the
Stoa of Attalos II. These new buildings transformed the Athenian agora into a more
compact and balanced urban center. Until now the Megalopolitan agora has been largely
ignored as a forerunner of Hellenistic trends in Greek urban planning. Yet we come to
learn that its architectural conception and spatial development anticipate what is to come.
266
CONCLUSION
The Peloponnese offers new perspectives into the urban integration, structure, and
use of the Greek agora during the Archaic and Classical periods. It demonstrates that
there is often great variation among agoras, even within a single region of the Ancient
Mediterranean. In fact, none of the Peloponnesian agoras included in this study are
exactly alike. The spatial and architectural mechanics of the Corinthian agora at the end
of the 5th century were different than the Elean agora during the same period. While the
Corinthian agora had an impressive collection of waterworks, religious sites, commercial
and administrative buildings, and athletic and cultural venues, the Elean agora was
largely an undeveloped space until the construction of two monumental stoas in the
following century. Likewise, the rigid symmetry and monumental structure of the
Megalopolitan agora diverged considerably from the more haphazard arrangement of the
Argive agora during the Late Classical period. All these examples emphasize the need to
understand each agora within its own economic, social, political, religious, and
topographical context.
Urban Integration and Characteristics
In those settlements with an extensive history of occupation, such as Argos and
Corinth, the architectural development of the agora was a gradual process. As early as the
Geometric period, the location of the Argive and Corinthian agoras acquired a heightened
state of importance. Habitation in these areas were more intense than elsewhere, burials
267
were more ostentatious, and the most impressive constructions filled these places. The
Corinthians built a large drainage channel in the valley south of Temple Hill, and the
Argives constructed an unparalleled monumental structure in the vicinity of the later
agora. By the 7th century, sanctuaries and commercial/domestic establishments were
integrated into the landscape within and around the agoras. At Corinth, the Old Temple
stood prominently on Temple Hill, and the Heroon of Crossroads was established along
the southern side of the upper Lechaion valley. Several Protocorinthian structures
throughout the valley marked the presence of domestic structures, some of which were
also used for trade and industry (Trader’s Complex, House 1). The evidence from Argos
is more modest, but it is significant that the sanctuary of Aphrodite west of the Argive
agora became the first permanent cult site in the city.
By the Archaic period, the architectural elaboration of the Corinthian and Argive
agoras reached new levels. The religious landscape of the Argive agora was augmented
by the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios and the Heroon of the Theban Heroes, the Cephisos
canal transported water, and at least two archaic structures beneath the South Stoa were
used for commerce. We observe a similar pattern in the Corinthian agora, where the
temple of Apollo was built on Temple Hill, several new sanctuaries dotted the valley
(Stele Shrine, Underground Shrine, Apsidal Building), fountain houses likely received
more elaborate facades (Peirene, Sacred Spring), and a dye-works industry was
established nearby. The Corinthians also built a stepped ramp that connected Temple Hill
to the agora towards the south, and it is possible, although not conclusive, that the first
racetrack was placed in the heart of the agora by the Late Archaic period.
268
The Argive and Corinthian model for the slow development of the Greek agora is
constructive, because we are able to appreciate the factors that contributed to its
placement and integration into the religious, economic, and social fabric of the city over
time. The picture is still incomplete, however, and the archaeological and literary
evidence do not reveal when, so to speak, the agora became the agora. Nevertheless, it is
clear that the defining characteristic of the classical agoras at Argos and Corinth, i.e.
significant focal center for the community that merged together disparate activities, can
be traced back to 8th and 7th century developments. The concept of an early urban space
reserved for a mixing of communal activities is most apparent at Greek colonial
settlements. To cite the most well-documented example, the late 8th and early 7th century
urban planners at Megara Hyblaia intentionally demarcated an area of the city to function
as an agora.672 The space was framed by major arteries that led to city gates, the harbor,
and sanctuaries, all of which gave the agora a distinctive triangular appearance. In its
initial conception, the agora at Megara Hyblaia remained essentially a simple open area,
and only later did the inhabitants construct permanent buildings. From this we should
recognize that there was already the idea of an agora in the 8th and 7th century: a concept
that should apply to our understanding of the Argive and Corinthian agoras during the
same period.
Turning to the other two case-studies, the Elean and Megalopolitan agoras serve
as alternative models to the gradual development of Greek commercial and civic space
that we have come to recognize at Argos and Corinth. Here, new urban experiments in
672
Vallet et al. 1976; Gras and Tréziny 2001; Polignac 2005, pp. 50-55.
269
the Classical and Late Classical periods mark a different phase in the history of the Greek
agora. This is best exemplified with the Megalopolitan agora, which in the 4th century
quickly amassed an impressive collection of tightly packed structures that surrounded an
open rectilinear space. Monumental stoas, numerous urban cults, and commercial and
administrative offices were all integrated together within the span of only a few
generations – a remarkable amount of time considering the staggered development of the
Argive and Corinthian agoras. The town-planners of Megalopolis worked with an entirely
new conception of Greek urban planning, one that is observed elsewhere in the 4th
century at places such as Messene, Priene, and Kassope. In these examples, the rigid
placement of buildings in relation to one another was preferred over irregular forms, and
the agora became a venue defined by monumental stoas built in canonical orders. Other
cities would eventually come to adopt these new aesthetics, as the Late Classical
monumental stoas in the Elean agora and the Early Hellenistic South Stoa in the
Corinthian agora attest.
Beyond Civic Space
The Peloponnesian agoras in this study also contradict the impression, often
championed by the Athenian agora, that the Greek agora was principally a venue for
political activities and monumental civic buildings. Quite the contrary as these examples
show: buildings and venues reserved for religious and commercial activity, as well as
cultural and athletic events, were more prominent features of the built environment. For
the Archaic and Classical periods, there is scarce evidence for civic structures in the
270
Argive, Corinthian, and Elean agoras. In fact, not a single bouleuterion, ekklēsiasterion,
prytaneion, or dikasterion has been securely identified, which should be cause for further
reflection on the frequency and architectural form of these types of institutions. On the
one hand, Corinth and Elis demonstrate that civic buildings could be located outside the
agora, either as a single structure or within a larger building complex. The Corinthian
boulē apparently held sessions inside the Apolloneion, while the Elean boulē assembled
inside a gymnasium and the popular assembly in the theater. Even at Athens during the
Classical period, a number of civic offices were located outside the agora’s boundaries.673
It is important to be aware that the Greek agora was never the exclusive venue for
political activity in the Greek city; therefore, we should not expect to find the
“prerequisite” civic buildings in this part of the city in every instance.
Furthermore, the lack of recognizable civic buildings at Argos, Corinth, and Elis
raises serious questions in how these structures are identified in the archaeological
record. As I emphasize in the Introduction, there are only a limited number of archaic and
classical civic structures that can be securely identified as such, which reinforces the
suspicion that their architectural form was not standardized.674 This makes it challenging
to distinguish civic buildings from other types of venues. The Hypostyle Hall in the
Argive agora is an interesting case-study of this dilemma, as are Buildings I-IV along the
southern side of the Corinthian agora. By convention, the square form and colonnaded
interior space of the Hypostyle Hall at Argos inevitably produces the reaction that it was
the Argive bouleuterion. Yet the closest contemporary architectural parallels served as
673
E.g., the boukoleion (office of the Archon Basileus) and the classical prytaneion.
674
271
gathering venues for religious and cultural events, not political assemblies.675 The
building was also twice as large as the Old Bouleuterion in the Athenian agora (ca. 33 m2
compared to 23 m2), which raises additional doubts about its identification as a
bouleuterion. At Corinth, Buildings I-IV were less pretentious stone and mudbrick
structures, but their distinctive ground plans and proximity to the racetrack and deposits
with drinking vessels and official standards suggests an administrative function. At this
early stage in the architectural conception of Greek civic institutions, there are few
certainties: a modest mudbrick structure could be a civic building, as could a square
hypostyle hall or a room within a monumental stoa.
Beyond the Democratic Model
A study of Peloponnesian agoras also challenges the notion that democracy was
concurrent with the architectural development of the Greek agora. The Elean agora was
quite modest throughout the 5th century, despite the Eleans adopting a democratic
constitution some years before the 471/0 synoicism. In this instance, democracy did not
spark a monumental building program in the Elean agora. The Eleans preferred to invest
in other areas, such as the western gymnasia, the sanctuaries south of the agora with
chryselephantine and bronze cult statues, and, of course, the temple of Zeus at Olympia.
So too at Argos, where there was not an obvious relationship between democracy and the
architectural development of the Argive agora. As a matter of fact, a comparison of the
basic structure and building types of the Argive and Corinthian agoras during the 5th
675
I.e. Telesterion at Eleusis, Odeion of Perikles at Athens; see supra Chapter 2.5.
272
century shows that there were many similarities. This even though Argos had a
democratic constitution, while Corinth had a conservative oligarchic government. The 5th
century developments at these two agoras are more consistent with general trends in the
architectural elaboration of Greek commercial and civic space, rather than being a sign of
a political affiliation.
In bringing together these Peloponnesian agoras, this study illustrates the need to
integrate different models in our conception of Greek commercial and civic space. It
highlights the complexities of the Greek agora, and the many factors that contribute to its
development. Above all, we learn there cannot be just one history of the Greek agora, but
many.
273
APPENDIX A
LITERARY AND EPIGRAPHICAL TESTIMONIA
1. Arist. Pol. 3.5.6 (1278a21-25)

ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὀλιγαρχίας θῆτα µὲν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται εἶναι πολίτην (ἀπὸ τιµηµάτων
γὰρ µακρῶν αἱ µεθέξεις τῶν ἀρχῶν), βάναυσον δ’ ἐνδέχεται‧ πολουτοῦσι γὰρ
καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν τεχνιτῶν.676
In oligarchies on the other hand, though it is impossible for a hired laborer to be a
citizen (since admission to office of various grades is based on high property
assessments), it is possible for an artisan, since the majority of craftsmen are rich.677
2. Arist. Pol. 4.15.11-12 (1299b31-38)

οἷον ἡ τῶν προβούλων‧ αὕτη γὰρ οὐ δηµοκρατική, βουλὴ δὲ δηµοτικόν‧ δεῖ µὲν
γὰρ εἶναί τι τοιοῦτον ᾧ ἐπιµελὲς ἔσται τοῦ δήµου προβουλεύειν, ὅπως
ἀσχολῶν ἔσται‧ τοῦτο δ’, ἐὰν ὀλίγοι τὸν ἀριθµὸν ὦσιν, ὀλιγαρχικόν‧ τοὺς δὲ
προβούλους ὀλίγους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸ πλῆθος, ὥστ’ ὀλιγαρχικόν. ἀλλ’ ὅπου
ἄµφω αὗται αἱ ἀρχαί, οἱ πρόβουλοι καθεστᾶσιν ἐπὶ τοῖς βουλευταῖς‧ ὁ µὲν γὰρ
βουλευτὴς δηµοτικόν, ὁ δὲ πρόβουλος ὀλιγαρχικόν.
For instance the office of the probouloi. This is undemocratic, although a boulē is a
popular body, for there is bound to be some body of this nature to have the duty of
preparing measures for the demos, in order that it may be able to attend to its
business. But these members, if small, are oligarchical, and probouloi must
necessarily be few in number, so that they are an oligarchical element. But where
both of these magistracies exist, the probouloi are in authority over the boulē, since a
member of the boulē is a democratic official, but a proboulos is an oligarchic one.
3. Arist. Pol. 5.6.10-11 (1306a13-20)

καταλύονται δὲ καὶ ὅταν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ ἑτέραν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἐµποιῶσιν‧ τοῦτο
δ’ ἐστὶν ὅταν τοῦ παντὸς πολιτεύµατος ὀλίγου ὄντος τῶν µεγίστων ἀρχῶν µὴ
µετέχωσιν οἱ ὀλίγοι πάντες, ὅπερ ἐν Ἤλιδι συνέβη ποτέ‧ τῆς πολιτείας γὰρ δι’
ὀλίγων οὔσης τῶν γερόντων ὀλίγοι πάµπαν ἐγίνοντο διὰ τὸ ἀϊδίους εἶναι
ἐνενήκοντα ὄντας, τὴν δ’ αἵρεσιν δυναστευτικὴν εἶναι καὶ ὁµοίαν τῇ τῶν ἐν
Λακεδαίµονι γερόντων.
Also oligarchical governments break up when they create a second oligarchy within
the oligarchy. This is when, although the whole citizen class is small, its few
members are not all admitted to the greatest offices. This is what once occurred in
Elis, for the government being in the hands of a few, very few men used to become
members of the gerontes (elders), because these numbering ninety held office for life,
676
Greek text of Aristotle from J. Aubonnet, Aristotle Politique, livres III et IV (Paris, 1999), and Aristotle
Politique, livres V et VI (Paris, 1995).
677
Translation of Aristotle based on H. Rackham, Aristotle, Politics (Loeb Classical Library) (London,
1932).
274
and the mode of election was of a dynastic type and resembled that of the gerontes at
Sparta.
4. Cic. Att. 2.2.2

‘Πελληναίων’ in manibus tenebam et hercule magnum acervum Dicaearchi mihi
ante pedes exstruxeram. o magnum hominem et unde multo plura didiceris quam de
Procilio! ‘Κορινθίων’ et ‘Αθηναίων’ puto me Romae habere. mihi crede (sed ego te
hoc doceo?), mirabilis vir est.678
I have the Constitution of Pellene in my hand and a goodly heap Dicaearchus piled up
in front of me. What a great man! There’s a deal more to be learned from him than
from Procilius. I think I have the Constitution of Corinth and the Constitution of
Athens in Rome. Believe me (but am I telling you?) he’s a wonderful man.
5. Dem. 19.10-11 (De fal. leg.)

ἔστι τοίνυν οὗτος ὁ πρῶτος Ἀθηναίων αἰσθόµενος Φίλιππον, ὡς τότε
δηµηγορῶν ἔφη, ἐπιβουλεύοντα τοῖς Ἓλλησι καὶ διαφθείροντά τινας τῶν ἐν
Ἀρκαδίᾳ προεστηκότων, καὶ ἔχων Ἴσχανδρον τὸν Νεοπτολέµου
δευτεραγωνιστήν, προσιὼν µὲν τῇ βουλῇ, προσιὼν δὲ τῷ δήµῳ περὶ τούτων,
καὶ πείσας ὑµᾶς πανταχοῖ πρέσβεις πέµψαι τοὺς συνάξοντας δεῦρο τοὺς
βουλευσοµένους περὶ τοῦ πρὸς Φίλιππον πολέµου, [11] καὶ ἀπαγγέλλων µετὰ
ταῦθ’ ἥκων ἐξ Ἀρκαδίας τοὺς καλοὺς ἐκείνους καὶ µακροὺς λόγους, οὕς ἐν τοῖς
µυρίοις ἐν Μεγάλῃ πόλει πρὸς Ἱερώνυµον τὸν ὑπὲρ Φιλίππου λέγοντα ὑπὲρ
ὑµῶν ἔφη δεδηµηγορηκέναι, καὶ διεξιὼν ἡλίκα τὴν Ἑλλάδα πᾶσαν, οὐχὶ τὰς
ἰδίας ἀδικοῦσι µόνον πατρίδας οἱ δωροδοκοῦντες καὶ χρήµατα λαµβάνοντες
παρὰ Φιλίππου.679
Aeschines, then, was the first man in Athens, as he claimed at the time in a speech, to
perceive that Philip (i.e. Philip II) had designs against Greece, and was corrupting
some of the magnates of Arcadia. It was he who, with Ischander, son of Neoptolemos,
as his understudy, addressed the boulē, and addressed the demos on this subject, and
persuaded them to send ambassadors to all the Greek states to convene a conference
at Athens for the consideration of war with Philip. [11] It was he who afterwards, on
his return from Arcadia, gave a report of the fine long orations which he said he had
delivered as your spokesman before the myrioi at Megalopolis in reply to Philip’s
champion Hieronymos, and he made a long story of the enormous harm which
corrupt statesmen in the pay of Philip were doing not only to their own countries. But
to the whole of Greece.680
6. Diod. 7.9.6
678
Latin text and translation from D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero, Letters to Atticus, Vol. I (Loeb Classical
Library) (London, 1999).
679
Greek text from M.R. Dilts, Demosthenis orationes, vol. II (Oxford Classical Text) (Oxford, 2005).
680
Translation based on C.A. Vince and J.H. Vince, Demosthenes, Vol. II, De Corona and De Falsa
Legatione (Loeb Classical Library) (London, 1926).
275
οἱ δ’ ἀπο Ἡρακλέους Βακχίδαι πλείους ὄντες διακοσίων κατέσχον τὴν ἀρχήν,
καὶ κοινῇ µὲν προειστήκεσαν τῆς πόλεως ἅπαντες, ἐξ αὑτῶν δὲ ἔνα κατ’
ἐνιαυτὸν ᾑροῦντο πρύτανιν, ὅς τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως εἶχε τάξιν, ἐπὶ ἔτη ἐννιακόσια
µέχρι τῆς Κυψέλου τυραννίδος, ὑφ’ ἧς κατελύθησαν.681
And the Bacchiadai, who were descendants of Herakles, were two hundred in number
when they seized the rule, and they all maintained control over the state as a body;
out of their own number they annually chose one man to be prytanis, who held the
position of the basileus, this form of government continuing for 90 years until it was
destroyed by the tyranny which Cypselus established.682
7. Diod. 11.1.1
ἡ µὲν οὖν πρὸ ταύτης βίβλος, τῆς ὅλης συντάξεως οὖσα δεκάτη, τὸ τέλος ἔσχε
τῶν πράξεων εἰς τὸν προηγούµενον ἐνιαυτὸν τῆς Ξέρξου διαβάσεως εἰς τὴν
Εὐρώπην καὶ εἰς τὰς γενοµένας δηµηγορίας ἐν τῇ κοινῇ συνόδῳ τῶν Ἑλλήνων
ἐν Κορίνθῳ περὶ τῆς Γέλωνος συµµαχίας τοῖς Ἕλλησιν.683
The preceding Book, which is the tenth of our narrative, closed with the events of the
year just before the crossing of Xerxes into Europe and the formal deliberations
which the general assembly of the Greeks held in Corinth on the alliance between
Gelon and the Greeks.
8. Diod. 11.3.3
οἱ δ’ Ἰσθµῷ συνεδεύοντες τῶν Ἑλλήνων…
The Greeks meeting in congress at the Isthmus…
9. Diod. 11.54.1
ἐπ’ ἄρχοντος δ’ Ἀθήνησι Πραξιέργου Ῥωµαῖοι µὲν ὑπάτους κατέστησαν Αὔλον
Οὐεργίνιον Τρίκοστον καὶ Γάιον Σερουίλιον Στροῦκτον. ἐπὶ δὲ τούτων Ἠλεῖοι
µὲν πλείους καὶ µικρὰς πόλεις οἰκοῦντες εἰς µίαν συνῳκίσθησαν τὴν
ὀνοµαζοµένην Ἦλιν.
When Praxiergus was archon in Athens, the Romans elected as consuls Aulus
Verginius Tricostus and Gaius Servilius Structus. At this time the Eleans, who dwelt
in many small poleis, united to form one state which is known as Elis.
10. Diod. 15.72.4

µετὰ δὲ τὴν µάχην οἱ Ἀρκάδες, φοβηθέντες τὰς τῶν Λακεδαιµονίων εἰσβολάς,
ἔκτισαν ἐπί τινος ἐπικαίρου τόπου τὴν ὀνοµαζοµένην Μεγάλην πόλιν,
συρρίψαντες εἰς αὐτὴν κώµας εἴκοσι τῶν ὀνοµαζοµένων Μαιναλίων καὶ
Παρρασίων Ἀρκάδων.684
681
Greek text from F. Vogel, Diodori: Bibliotheca historica, vol. II (Stuttgart, 1985).
682
Translation of Diodorus based on C.H. Oldfather, Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, Vols. III-IV, VI-
VII (Loeb Classical Library) (London, 1939-1954).
683
Greek text of Diodorus’ Book 11 from J. Haillet, Diodore de Sicile: Bibliothèque historique, livre XI
(Paris, 2001).
684
Greek text from C. Vial, Diodore de Sicile: Bibliothèque historique, livre XV (Paris, 1977).
276
After this battle (i.e. so-called Tearless Battle) the Arcadians, fearful of the invasions
of the Lacedaimonians, founded in a favorable location the city called Great,
Megalopolis, by combining to form it 20 villages of the Arcadians known as
Mainalians and Parrhasians.
11. Diod. 16.65.3-4

Τιµοφάνης γὰρ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ προέχων τῶν Κορινθίων πλούτῳ τε καὶ
τόλµῃ πάλαι µὲν ἦν φανερὸς τυραννίδος ὀρεγόµενος, τότε δὲ τοὺς ἀπόρους
ἀναλαµβάνων καὶ πανοπλίαις κατασκευαζόµενος καὶ τοὺς πονηροτάτους ἔχων
µεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν περιῄει, οὐ προσποιούµενος ὅτι τύραννός ἐστι, τὰ
δὲ τῆς τυραννίδος ἔργα διαπραττόµενος. [4] ὁ δὲ Τιµολέων ἀλλοτριώτατος ὢν
µοναρχίας τὸ µὲν πρῶτον ἐπεχείρει πείθειν τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἀποστῆναι τῆς
ἐπιβολῆς, ὡς δ᾽ οὐχ ὑπήκουεν, ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ καὶ µᾶλλον ἐπετείνετο τῇ τόλµῃ,
ἀδυνατῶν αὐτὸν λόγῳ διορθώσασθαι περιπατοῦντα κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν
ἀπέσφαξεν.685
Timophanes, his brother, a man of outstanding wealth and effrontery amongst the
Corinthians, had for some time past been clearly aiming at a tyranny and at the
moment was winning the poor to his cause and laying up a store of suits of armor and
parading about the agora accompanied by a band of ruffians, not actually claiming to
be tyrant but practicing the arts of tyranny. [4] Timoleon, who was much averse to the
rule of one man, first attempted to dissuade his brother from his overt attempt, but
when the latter refused to heed and continued all the more his headstrong career,
Timoleon, being unable by reasoning with him to make him mend his ways, put him
to death as he was promenading in the agora.
12. Diod. 16.65.6-7

τῆς δὲ γερουσίας συνεδρευούσης ἐν τῷ βουλευτηρίῳ καὶ τῆς περὶ τὴν πρᾶξιν
ἀµφισβητήσεως ἐπὶ τὸ συνέδριον ἀναπεµφθείσης οἱ µὲν ἐχθροὶ τοῦ Τιµολέοντος
κατηγόρουν, οἱ δὲ χαριέστεροι συνηγοροῦντες συνεβούλευον σώζειν τὸν ἄνδρα.
[7] ἀκρίτου δ᾽ ἔτι τῆς ζητήσεως οὔσης κατέπλευσαν ἐκ τῶν Συρακουσσῶν οἱ
πρέσβεις καὶ τῇ γερουσίᾳ τὰς ἐντολὰς δηλώσαντες ἠξίουν τὴν ταχίστην
ἀποστεῖλαι τὸν στρατηγόν.
When the gerontes (elders) met to deliberate in the bouleuterion and the matter in
dispute was referred to the session, Timoleon's personal enemies denounced him,
while those more favorably inclined rallied to his cause and counseled letting him go
free. [7] While the investigation was still unsettled there sailed into the harbor from
Syracuse the ambassadors who, having made known their mission to the gerontes,
requested them to dispatch with all speed the general they needed.
13. Diph., The Merchant (apud Ath. 6.227e-228b)

(Α.) νόµιµον τοῦτ’ ἐστι, βέλτιστ’, ἐνθάδε
Κορινθίοισιν, ἄν τιν’ ὀψωνοῦντ’ ἀεὶ |
685
Greek text of Diodorus’ Book 16 from C.T. Fischer, Diodori: Bibliotheca historica, vol. IV (Stuttgart,
1985).
277
λαµπρῶς ὁρῶµεν, τοῦτον ἀνακρίνειν πόθεν
ζῇ καὶ τί ποιῶν‧ κἂν µὲν οὐσίαν ἔχῃ,
5 ἧς αἱ πρόσοδοι λύουσι τἀναλώµατα,
ἐᾶν ἀπολαύειν τοῦτον ἤδη τὸν βίον‧
ἐὰν δ’ ὑπὲρ τὴν οὐσίαν δαπανῶν τύχῃ,
ἀπεῖπον αὐτῷ τοῦτο µὴ ποιεῖν ἔτι.
ὅς ἂν δὲ µὴ πίθητ’, ἐπέβαλον ζηµίαν.
10 ἐὰν δὲ µηδ’ ὁτιοῦν ἔχων ζῇ πολυτελῶς,
τῷ δηµίῳ παρέδωκαν αὐτόν. (B.) Ἡράκλεις. ||
(Α.) οὐκ ἐνδέχεται γὰρ ζῆν ἄνευ κακοῦ τινος
τοῦτον‧ συνιεῖς; ἀλλ’ ἀναγκαίως ἔχει
ἢ λωποδυτεῖν τὰς νύκτας ἢ τοιχωρυχεῖν,
15 ἢ τῶν ποούντων ταῦτα κοινωνεῖν τισιν,
ἢ συκοφαντεῖν κατ’ ἀγορὰν, ἢ µαρτυρεῖν
ψευδῆ. τὸ τοῐοῦτον ἐκκαθαίροµεν γένος.
(Β.) ὁρθῶς γε νὴ Δί’. ἀλλὰ δὴ τί τοῦτ’ ἐµοί;
(Α.) ὁρῶµεν ὀψωνοῦθ’ ἑκάστης ἡµέρας
20 οὐχὶ µετρίως, βέλτιστέ, σ’, ἀλλ’ ὑπερηφάνως. |
οὐκ ἔστιν ἰχθυρὸν ὑπὸ σοῦ µεταλαβεῖν.
συνῆχας ἡµῶν εἰς τὰ λάχανα τῆν πόλιν‧
περὶ τῶν σελίνων µαχόµεθ’ ὥσπερ Ἰσθµίοις.
λαγώς τις εἰσελήλυθ’‧ εὐθὺς ἥρπακας.
25 πέρδικα δ’ ἢ κίχλην γε νὴ Δί’ οὐκ<έτι>
ἔστιν δί ὑµᾶς οὐδὲ πετοµένην ἰδεῖν.
τὸν ξενικὸν οἶνον ἐπιτετίµηκας πολύ.686
(A.) This is the custom here in Corinth, my good man: if we see someone always
ostentatiously buying fish, we question him about what he lives off and what his
occupation is. If he’s got property whose revenues cover his expenses, we let him
enjoy that life-style after that. And if he turns out to be spending more than he can
afford, they forbid him to do this any longer; and they impose a fine on anyone who
disobeys. But if someone with no property at all lives expensively, they turn him over
to the public executioner. (B.) Herakles! (A.) Because it’s impossible that this
fellow’s surviving without doing something wrong. Do you get it? It’s inevitable that
he’s either mugging people for their clothes at night, or committing burglaries; or else
he’s an accomplice of this type of criminal; or he’s making false accusations in the
agora, or perjuring himself. We’re eliminating this sort of person. (B.) And rightly so,
by Zeus. But what does this have to do with me? (A.) We see you buying fish every
day, my good sir, and not just a few, but prodigally. Because of you, it’s impossible
to get any seafood. You’ve confined our city to the vegetable-market; we’re battling
over celery, like at the Isthmian Games! A hare comes in; you immediately snatch it.
It’s your fault that it’s now impossible, by Zeus, to catch a glimpse of a partridge or a
686
Greek text from S.D. Olson, Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, Vol. III (Loeb Classical Library)
(London, 2008).
278
thrush even flying around. You’ve driven the price of imported wine up
considerably.687
14. Eph. (apud Strabo 10.3.2, FGrH 70 F 122)

τὸ δ’ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ τῶν Ἠλείων ἐπὶ τῷ Ὀξύλου ἀνδριάντι
Αἰτωλός ποτε τόνδε λιπὼν αὐτόχθονα δῆµον
κτήσατο Κουρῆτιν γῆν δορὶ πολλὰ καµών·
τῆς δ’ αὐτῆς γενεᾶς δεκατόσπορος Αἵµονος υἱός
Ὄξυλος ἀρχαίην ἔκτισε τήνδε πόλιν.688
…and the other inscription in the agora of the Eleans on the statue of Oxylos:
“Aetolos once left this autochthonous people, and through many a toil with the spear
took possession of the land of Kouretis; but the tenth scion of the same stock, Oxylos,
the son of Haimon, founded this city in early times.”689
15. Hell. Oxy. 16.2

εἶχεν δὲ τὰ πράγµατα τότε κα[τὰ τὴ]ν βοιωτίαν οὕτως‧ ἦσαν καθεστηκυῖαι
βουλαὶ [τὸ]‖τε τέττα[ρες παρ’ ἑ]κάστῃ τῶν πόλεων, ὧν οὐ[χ ἅπασι] τοῖς
πολ[ίταις ἐξῆ]ν µετέχειν, ἀ[λλὰ] τοῖς κεκ[τηµένοις] πλῆθός τ[ι χρηµά]των,
τούτων δὲ τῶν βουλῶ[ν κατὰ] µέρος ἑκάσ[τη προκ]αθηνένη καὶ
προβουλεύ[ουσα] | περὶ τῶν π[ραγµά]των εἰσέφερεν εἰς τὰς τρε[ῖς, ὅτι] δὲ
δόξε<ι>ε[ν] ἁπάσα[ι]ς τοῦτο κύριον ἐγίγνετο.690
At that time the situation in Boeotia was as follows. There were four boulai
established at that time in each of the cities. Not all of the citizens were allowed to
share in these, but only those with a certain level of wealth. Each of these boulai in
turn sat and deliberated about policy, and referred it to the other three. What seemed
acceptable to all of them was approved.
16. Heraclid. Lem. 20 (Arist. F 611.20)

Περίανδρος δὲ πρῶτον µετέστησε τὴν ἀρχὴν δορυφόρους ἔχων καὶ οὐκ
ἐκτρέπων ἐν ἄστει ζῆν, ἔτι δὲ δούλων κτήσεις καὶ τρυφὴν ὅλως περιαιρῶν.
µέτριος δὲ ἦν ἐν ἄλλοις, τῷ τε µηδ<ένα> τέλος πράσσεσθαι ἀρκεῖσθαι τὲ τοῖς
ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγορᾶς καὶ τῶν λιµένων. καὶ τῷ µήτε ἄδικος µήτε ὑβριστὴς εἶναι,
µισοπόνηρος δὲ, τὰς δὲ προαγωγὰς πάσας κατεπόνιστε. βουλὴν δὲ ἐπ’
ἐσχάτων κατέστησεν, οἳ οὐκ ἐφίεσαν δαπανᾶν πλέον ἢ κατὰ τὰς προσόδους.691
Periander was the first to change the constitution by having a bodyguard and not
allowing people to live in the city, and also by entirely outlawing the possession of
slaves and luxuries. But he was moderate in other respects: in not levying a tax on
anyone, in being satisfied with a tax on goods from the agora and the harbors, and in
687
Translation based on S.D. Olson, Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, Vol. III (Loeb Classical Library)
(London, 2008).
688
Greek text from S. Radt, Strabons Geographika, vol. III (Göttingen, 2004).
689
Translation based on H.L. Jones, Strabo, Geography, Vol. V (Loeb Classical Library) (London, 1928).
690
Greek text and translation from P.H. McKechnie, and S.J. Kern, Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Warminster,
1988).
691
Greek text from V. Rose, Aristotelis qui ferebantur liborum fragmenta (Stuttgart, 1966).
279
being neither unjust nor overbearing, but hating wickedness. He had all prostitutes
expelled. He established a boulē ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων, which did not allow spending to
exceed income.692
17. Hdt. 3.52.1, 6

τέλος δὲ ὁ Περίανδρος κήρυγµα ἐποιήσατο, ὃς ἂν ἢ οἰκίοισι ὑποδέξηταί µιν ἢ
προσδιαλεχθῇ, ἱρὴν ζηµίην τοῦτον τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι ὀφείλειν, ὅσην δὴ εἴπας.
Finally Periander made a proclamation that whoever sheltered the boy (i.e.
Lycophron) in his house or spoke to him, would owe a fine to Apollo, and he set the
amount.
Περίανδρος µὲν τούτοισι αὐτὸν κατελάµβανε, ὁ δὲ ἄλλο µὲν οὐδὲν ἀµείβεται τὸν
πατέρα, ἔφη δέ µιν ἱρὴν ζηµίην ὀφείλειν τῷ θεῷ ἑωυτῷ ἐς λόγους ἀπικόµενον.693
With these words Periander tried to move his son (i.e. Lycophron), but he said
nothing else to his father, only told him that because he had conversed with him he
owed the fine to Apollo.694
18. Hdt. 5.22.1

πρὸς δὲ καὶ οἱ τὸν ἐν Ὀλυµπίῃ διέποντες ἀγῶνα Ἑλληνοδίκαι οὕτω ἔγνωσαν
εἶναι.
Furthermore, the hellanodikai who manage the contest at Olympia determined that it
is so.
19. Hdt. 7.148

ταῦτα µὲν τὴν Πυθίην χρῆσαι πρότερον, µετὰ δὲ ὡς ἐλθεῖν τοὺς ἀγγέλους ἐς δὴ
τὸ Ἄργος, ἐπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ βουλευτήριον καὶ λέγειν τὰ ἐντεταλµένα.
This answer had already been uttered by the priestess when the envoys arrived in
Argos and entered the bouleuterion to speak as they were charged.
20. Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F57.4-6

ἀνὰ δὲ χρόνον ὁ Κύψελος βουλόµενος κατελθεῖν εἰς Κόρινθον ἐχρηστηριάζετο ἐν
Δελφοῖς. συµφέρουσαν δὲ δεξάµενος φήµην οὐδὲν µελλήσας ἧκεν εἰς Κόρινθον καὶ
ταχὺ τῶν ἀστῶν ἐν τοῖς µάλιστα ἀγαστὸς ἦν, ἀνδρεῖός τε καὶ σώφρων καὶ
δηµωφελὴς δοκῶν εἶναι παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους Βαχκιάδας, ὑβριστάς τε ὄντας καὶ
βιαίους. [5] πολεµαρχήσας δἐ ἔτι µᾶλλον ἐστέρχθη, τῶν πώποτε ταύτην
ἀρξάντων τὴν ἀρχὴν µακρῷ ἄριστος γενόµενος. τἄλλα τε γὰρ ὀρθῶς ἔπραξε
καὶ τόδε. νόµος καθεστήκει Κορινθίοις τοὺς ἐν δικαστηρίῳ ἁλισκοµένους
ἀπάγεσθαι πρὸς τὸν πολέµαρχον καὶ καθείργνυσθαι τῶν ἐπιτιµίων ἕνεκα, ὧν
καὶ αὐτῷ µέρος τι ἦν. ὁ δἐ οὔτε καθεῖρξέ τινα πολίτην οὔτε ἔδησεν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς
µὲν ἀπέλυεν δεχόµενος ἐγγυητάς, τῶν δἐ αὐτὸς ἐγίνετο, πᾶσι τε ἠφίει τὸ αὑτοῦ
692
Translation based on M.R. Dilts, Heraclidis Lembi: Excerpta Politiarum (Durham, 1971).
693
Greek text of Herodotus from H.B. Rosén, Herodoti Historiae, vol. I, libros I-IV continens (Leipzig,
1987), and Herodoti Historiae, vol. II, libros V-IX continens (Leipzig, 1997).
694
Translation of Herodotus based on A.D. Godley, Herodotus, The Persian Wars, Vols. II-III (Loeb
Classical Library) (London, 1921-1922).
280
µέρος. ἐξ ὧν µάλιστα ἐν τῳ πλήθει ἐστέργετο. [6] ὁρῶν δὲ τοὺς Κορινθίους
ἐχθρωδῶς πρὸς Βαχιάδας διακειµένους, προστάτην δ’ οὐκ ἔχοντας, ᾧ
χρησάµρνοι κατλύσειαν αὐτούς, ἐπέδωκεν αὑτὸν καὶ ἐδηµαγώγει τὸ πλῆθος,
τόν τε χρησµὸν λέγων, ὅτι ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πέπρωται καταλύθῆναι αὐτούς, ἀνθ’ ὅτου
καὶ πάλαι γενόµενον αὐτὸν ὁρµήσειαν ἀνελεῖν καὶ νῦν ἐπιβουλεύειν. ἀλλ’ οὐ
δεδυνῆσθαι παρατρέψαι τὰ µοιρίδια. οἱ δ’ ἀσµένως προσίεντο τοὺς λόγους, τοῖς
µὲν δυσµενεῖς ὄντες, τῳ δὲ εὖνοι καὶ τὸ βέβαιον τοῦ κατορθώσειν τὸ ἔργον ἐκ τῆς
περὶ αὐτὸν ἀνδρείας ἔχοντες. τέλος δὲ συστήσας ἑταιρικὸν κτείνει βασιλεύοντα
Πατροκλείδην παράνοµον ὄντα καὶ ἐπαχθῆ. ταχὴ δἐ ἀντ’ ἐκείνου ὁ δῆµος αὐτὸν
βασιλέα κατέστησεν.
After some time, Cypselus desiring to return to Corinth consulted the oracle at
Delphi. Receiving a favorable reply, he came to Corinth without delay, and soon was
one of the most admired of the citizens, since he was brave, prudent and seemed to
favor the people as opposed to the other Bacchiadai, who were insolent and violent.
[5] As polemarch he was loved even more, being by far the best of those who had ever
held that office. He acted rightly in other respects and in this: a law laid down for the
Corinthians that those who were condemned in a lawcourt should be brought before
the polemarch and imprisoned on account of the penalty to be paid, some of which
was due to him. He did not imprison or bind any citizen, but he accepted guarantors
and released some, and himself became guarantor of others, and he remitted all that
was due to himself. As a result of this he was particularly loved among the masses. [6]
Noticing that the Corinthians were inclined to detest the Bacchiadai, and that they did
not have the leader that they would need to dispose of them, he offered himself and
led the people. He recounting the oracle that it was fated by him to dispose of them,
and that from this old (oracle) they would urge him to take to task and contrive (an
overthrow). He was not able to turn aside destiny. They gladly approved of the plans,
being hostile to the Bacchiadai, and they were well-minded and steadfast to
accomplish the work on account of his strong nature. Finally, banding together in
union he killed Patrokleides, a lawless and hateful man, who held the office of
basileus. In his place the damos immediately appointed Cypselus as basileus.695
21. Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F58.1

ὅτι Περίανδρος ὁ Κυψέλου υἱὸς τοῦ βασιλέως Κορίνθου τὴν βασιλείαν παρὰ τοῦ
πατρὸς κατὰ πρεσβεῖον παραλαµβάνει καὶ ὑπὸ ὠµότητος καὶ βίας ἐξέτρεψεν
αὐτὴν εἰς τυραννίδα καὶ δορυφόρους εἶχε τ΄. ἐκώλυέ τε τοὺς πολίτας δούλους
κτᾶσθαι καὶ σχολὴν ἄγειν, ἀεί τινα αὐτοῖς ἔργα ἐξευρίσκων. εἰ δὲ τις ἐπὶ τῆς
ἀγορᾶς καθέζοιτο, ἐζηµίου, δεδιὼς µή το βουλεύοιντο κατ’ αὐτοῦ.
Periander the son of the Cypselus, the basileus of Corinth, received the (office of the)
basileus from his father by inheritance, and by cruelty and force he turned it into a
tyranny and had 300 bodyguards. He prevented the citizens from acquiring slaves and
being at leisure, always finding some work for them. If someone was sitting in the
agora, Periander fined him fearing that he might be plotting something against him.
695
Translation of Nikolaos of Damascus by the author.
281
22. Nik. Dam. FGrH 90 F60
ὁ δὲ δῆµος τάς τε οἰκίας τῶν τυράννων κατέσκαψεν καὶ τὰς οὐσίας ἐδήµευσεν
ἄταφόν τε ἐξώρισε τὸν Κύψελον καὶ τῶν προγόνων τοὺς τάφους ἀνορύξας τὰ
ὀστᾶ ἐξέρριψεν. αὐτὸς δὲ παραχρῆµα † ἐστρατεύσατο πολιτείαν τοιάνδε. µίαν
µὲν ὀκτάδα προβούλων ἐποίησεν, ἐκ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν βουλὴν κατέλεξεν ἀνδρων
† θ΄.
The damos completely destroyed the houses of the tyrants, confiscated their property,
banished the unburied body of Cypselus (i.e. Psammetichos), and dug up the graves
of his ancestors and cast out the bones. (The damos) then immediately organized the
constitution this way: (the damos) made a body of eight probouloi, and from the
remaining men formed a boulē of 9 (from each tribe).
23. Paus. 5.10.2

ἐποιήθη δὲ ὁ ναὸς καὶ τὸ ἄγαλµα τῷ Διὶ ἀπὸ λαφύρων, ἡνίκα Πῖσαν οἱ Ἠλεῖοι
καὶ ὅσον τῶν περιοίκων ἄλλο συναπέστη Πισαίοις πολέµῳ καθεῖλον.696
The temple and the image were made for Zeus from spoils, when Pisa was crushed in
war by the Eleans, and with Pisa such of the subject peoples as conspired together
with her.697
24. Paus. 6.22.4

Πύρρου δὲ τοῦ Πανταλέοντος µετὰ Δαµοφῶντα τὸν ἀδελφὸν βασιλεύσαντος
Πισταῖοι πόλεµον ἑκούσιον ἐπανείλοντο Ἠλείοις, συναπέστησαν δέ σφισιν ἀπὸ
Ἠλείων Μακίστιοι καὶ Σκιλλούντιοι, οὗτοι µὲν ἐκ τῆς Τριφυλίας, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων
περιοίκων Δυσπόντιοι· τούτοις καὶ µάλιστα ἐς τοὺς Πισαίους οἰκεῖα ἦν, καὶ
οἰκιστὴν Δυσποντέα γενέσθαι σφίσιν Οἰνοµάου παῖδα ἐµνηµόνευον. Πισαίους
µὲν δὴ καὶ ὅσοι τοῦ πολέµου Πισαίοις µετέσχον, ἐπέλαβεν ἀναστάτους ὑπὸ
Ἠλείων γενέσθαι.
When Pyrrhus, the son of Pantaleon, succeeded his brother Damophon as king, the
people of Pisa of their own accord made war against Elis, and were joined in their
revolt from the Eleans by the people of Makistus and Skillus, which are in Triphylia,
and by the people of Dyspontium, another vassal community. The list were closely
related to the people of Pisa, and it was a tradition of theirs that their founder had
been Dysponteus the son of Oinomaos. It was the fate of Pisa, and of all her allies, to
be destroyed by the Eleans.
25. Paus. 7.22.2

περίβολος δὲ ἀγορᾶς µέγας κατὰ τρόπον τὸν ἀρχαιότερόν ἐστιν ἐν Φαραῖς.698
696
Greek text of Pausanias’ Books 5 and 6 from M. Casevitz, J. Pouilloux, and A. Jacquemin, Pausanias:
Description de la Grèce, tome V, livre V, l’Élide (I) (Paris, 1999), and Pausanias: Description de la Grèce,
tome VI, livre VI, l’Élide (II) (Paris, 2002).
697
Translation of Pausanias based on W.H.S. Jones and H.A. Ormerod, Pausanias, Description of Greece,
Vol. II (Loeb Classical Library) (London, 1926), and W.H.S. Jones, Pausanias, Description of Greece,
Vols. III-IV (Loeb Classical Library) (London, 1933-1935).
282
The agora of Pharai is of wide extent after the ancient fashion.
26. Paus. 8.27.1-5, 8

ἡ δὲ Μεγάλη πόλις νεωτάτη πόλεών ἐστιν οὐ τῶν Ἀρκαδικῶν µόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ
τῶν ἐν Ἕλλησι, πλὴν ὅσων κατὰ συµφορὰν <ἐπὶ> ἀρχῆς τῆς Ῥωµαίων
µεταβεβήκασιν οἰκήτορες· συνῆλθον δὲ ὑπὲρ ἰσχύος ἐς αὐτὴν οἱ Ἀρκάδες, ἅτε καὶ
Ἀργείους ἐπιστάµενοι τὰ µὲν ἔτι παλαιότερα µόνον οὐ κατὰ µίαν ἡµέραν
ἑκάστην κινδυνεύοντας ὑπὸ Λακεδαιµονίων παραστῆναι τῷ πολέµῳ, ἐπεὶ δὲ
ἀνθρώπων πλήθει τὸ Ἄργος ἐπηύξησαν καταλύσαντες Τίρυνθα καὶ Ὑσιάς τε καὶ
Ὀρνεὰς καὶ Μυκήνας καὶ Μίδειαν καὶ εἰ δή τι ἄλλο πόλισµα οὐκ ἀξιόλογον ἐν τῇ
Ἀργολίδι ἦν, τά τε ἀπὸ Λακεδαιµονίων ἀδεέστερα τοῖς Ἀργείοις ὑπάρξαντα καὶ
ἅµα ἐς τοὺς περιοίκους ἰσχὺν γενοµένην αὐτοῖς. [2] γνώµῃ µὲν τοιαύτῃ
συνῳκίζοντο οἱ Ἀρκάδες, τῆς πόλεως δὲ οἰκιστὴς Ἐπαµινώνδας ὁ Θηβαῖος σὺν
τῷ δικαίῳ καλοῖτο ἄν· τούς τε γὰρ Ἀρκάδας οὗτος ἦν ὁ ἐπεγείρας ἐς τὸν
συνοικισµὸν Θηβαίων τε χιλίους λογάδες καὶ Παµµένην ἀπέστειλεν ἡγεµόνα
ἀµύνειν τοῖς Ἀρκάσιν, εἰ κωλύειν πειρῶνται οἱ Λακεδαιµόνιοι τὸν οἰκισµόν.
ᾑρέθησαν δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἀρκάδων οἰκισταὶ Λυκοµήδης καὶ Ὁπολέας καὶ Τίµων
τε καὶ Πρόξενος, οὗτοι µὲν ἐκ Τεγέας, Λυκοµήδης δὲ καὶ Ὁπολέας Μαντινεῖς,
Κλειτορίων δὲ Κλεόλαος καὶ Ἀκρίφιος, Εὐκαµπίδας δὲ καὶ Ἱερώνυµος ἐκ
Μαινάλου, Παρρασίων δὲ Ποσσικράτης τε καὶ Θεόξενος. [3] πόλεις δὲ τοσαίδε
ἦσαν ὁπόσας ὑπό τε προθυµίας καὶ διὰ τὸ ἔχθος τὸ Λακεδαιµονίων πατρίδας
σφίσιν οὔσας ἐκλιπεῖν ἐπείθοντο οἱ Ἀρκάδες, Ἀσέα, Παλλάντιον, Εὐταία,
Σουµάτειον, Ἰασαία, Περαιθεῖς, Ἑλισσὼν, Ὀρεσθάσιον, Δίπαια, Λύκαια· ταύτας
µὲν ἐκ Μαινάλου· ἐκ δὲ Εὐτρησίων Τρικόλωνοι καὶ Ζοίτιον καὶ Χαρισία καὶ
Πτολέδερµα καὶ Κναῦσον καὶ Παρωρία· [4] παρὰ δὲ Αἰγυτῶν <...> καὶ
Σκιρτώνιον καὶ Μαλέα καὶ Κρῶµοι καὶ Βλένινα καὶ Λεῦκτρον· Παρρασίων <δὲ>
Λυκοσουρεῖς, Θωκνεῖς, Τραπεζούντιοι, Προσεῖς, Ἀκακήσιον, Ἀκόντιον,
Μακαρία, Δασέα· ἐκ δὲ Κυνουραίων τῶν ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ Γόρτυς καὶ Θισόα <ἡ> πρὸς
Λυκαίῳ καὶ Λυκοᾶται καὶ Ἀλίφηρα· ἐκ δὲ τῶν συντελούντων ἐς Ὀρχοµενὸν
Θισόα, Μεθύδριον, Τεῦθις· προσεγένετο δὲ καὶ Τρίπολις ὀνοµαζοµένη, Καλλία
καὶ Δίποινα καὶ Νώνακρις. [5] τὸ µὲν δὴ ἄλλο Ἀρκαδικὸν οὔτε τι παρέλυε τοῦ
κοινοῦ δόγµατος καὶ συνελέγοντο ἐς τὴν Μεγάλην πόλιν σπουδῇ· Λυκοᾶται δὲ
καὶ Τρικολωνεῖς καὶ Λυκοσουρεῖς τε καὶ Τραπεζούντιοι µετεβάλοντο Ἀρκάδων
µόνοι, καὶ – οὐ γὰρ συνεχώρουν ἔτι τὰ ἄστη τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἐκλιπεῖν – οἱ µὲν αὐτῶν
καὶ ἄκοντες ἀνάγκῃ κατήγοντο ἐς τὴν Μεγάλην πόλιν…[8] συνῳκίσθη δὲ ἡ
Μεγάλη πόλις ἐνιαυτῷ τε τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ µησὶν [τε] ὀλίγοις ὕστερον ἢ τὸ πταῖσµα
ἐγένετο Λακεδαιµονίων τὸ ἐν Λεύκτροις, Φρασικλείδου µὲν Ἀθήνησιν ἄρχοντος,
δευτέρῳ δὲ ἔτει τῆς ἑκατοστῆς ὀλυµπιάδος καὶ δευτέρας, ἣν Δάµων Θούριος
ἐνίκα στάδιον.699
Megalopolis is the youngest city, not of Arcadia only, but of Greece, with the
exception of those whose inhabitants have been removed by the accident of the
Roman domination. The Arcadians united into it to gain strength, realizing that the
698
Greek text from M. Casevitz, and Y. Lafond, Pausanias: Description de la Grèce, tome VII, livres VII,
l’Achaïe (Paris, 2000).
699
Greek text from M. Casevitz, M. Jost, and J. Marcadé, Pausanias: Description de la Grèce, tome VIII,
livre VIII, l’Arcadie (Paris, 1998).
283
Argives also were in earlier times in almost daily danger of being subjected by war to
the Lacedaimonians, but when they had increased the population of Argos by
reducing Tiryns, Hysiai, Orneai, Mycenae, Midea, along with other towns of little
importance in Argolis, the Argives had less to fear from the Lacedaimonians, while
they were in a stronger position to deal with their vassal neighbors. [2] It was with this
policy in view that the Arcadians united, and the founder of the city might fairly be
considered Epaminondas of Thebes. For he it was who gathered the Arcadians
together for the union and dispatched a thousand picked Thebans under Pammenes to
defend the Arcadians, if the Lacedaimonians should try to prevent the union. There
were chosen as founders by the Arcadians, Lycomedes and Hopoleas of Mantinea,
Timon and Proxenos of Tegea, Kleolaos and Akriphios of Kleitor, Eukampidas and
Hieronymus of Mainalos, Possikrates and Theoxenos of the Parrhasians. [3] The
following were the cities which the Arcadians were persuaded to abandon through
their zeal and because of their hatred of the Lacedaimonians, in spite of the fact that
these cities were their homes: Alea, Pallantion, Eutaia, Sumateion, Asea,
Peraethenses, Helisson, Oresthasion, Dipaia, Lykaia; these were cities of Mainalos.
Of the Eutresian cities Tricoloni, Zoition, Charisia, Ptolederma, Knauson, Paroreia.
[4] From the Aigytai: Aigys, Skirtonion, Malea, Kromi, Blenina, Leuktron. Of the
Parrhasians Lykosoura, Thoknia, Trapezous, Prosenses, Akakesion, Akontion,
Makaria, Dasea. Of the Cynurians in Arcadia: Gortys, Theisoa by Mount Lykaios,
Lykaia, Aliphera. Of those belonging to Orchomenos: Theisoa, Methydrion, Teuthis.
These were joined by Tripolis, as it is called, Kallia, Dipoina, Nonakris. [5] The
Arcadians for the most part obeyed the general resolution and assembled promptly at
Megalopolis. But the people of Lykaia, Tricoloni, Lykosoura and Trapezous, but no
other Arcadians, repented and, being no longer ready to abandon their ancient cities,
were, with the exception of the last, taken to Megalopolis by force against their
will…[8] Megalopolis was united into one city in the same year, but a few months
later, as occurred the defeat of the Lacedaimonians at Leuctra, when Phrasikleides
was archon at Athens, in the second year of the hundred and second Olympiad, when
Damon of Thurii was victor in the foot-race.
27. Plut. Arat. 23.1

ἐπεὶ δ’ ἀσφαλῶς ἐδόκει πάντ’ ἔχειν, κατέβαινεν εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἀπὸ τῆς ἄκρας,
πλήθους ἀπείρου συρρέοντος ἐπιθυµίᾳ τῆς τ’ ὄψεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν λόγων οἷς
ἔµελλε χρῆσθαι πρὸς τοὺς Κορινθίους.700
When everything appeared to be safe, (Aratus) came down from the citadel into the
theater whither an immense multitude streamed with an eager desire to see him and
hear what he would say to the Corinthians.701
700
Greek text of Plutarch’s Aratus from R. Flacelière, and É. Chambry, Plutarque vies, tome XV,
Artaxerxès – Aratos, Galba – Othon (Paris, 1979).
701
Translation of Plutarch based on B. Perrin, Plutarch Lives, Vols. VI, X-XI (Loeb Classical Library)
(London, 1918-1926), and H.N. Fowler, Plutarch’s Moralia, Vol. X (Loeb Classical Library) (London,
1936).
284
28. Plut. Arat. 40.3-5
συνδραµόντες οὖν εἰς τὸ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερόν, µετεπέµποντο τὸν Ἄρατον,
ἀνελεῖν ἢ συλλαβεῖν πρὸ τῆς ἀποστάσεως ἐγνωκότες. [4] ὁ δ’ ἧκε µὲν αὐτὸς
ἐφελκόµενος τὸν ἵππον ὡς οὐκ ἀπιστῶν οὐδ’ ὑποπτεύων, ἀναπηδησάντων δὲ
πολλῶν καὶ λοιδορουµένων αὐτῳ καὶ κατηγορούντων, εὖ πως καθεστῶτι τῷ
προσώπῳ καὶ τῷ λόγῳ πρᾴως ἐκέλευε καθίσαι καὶ µὴ βοᾶν ἀτάκτως ἑστῶτας,
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς περὶ θύρας ὄντας εἴσω παριέναι· καὶ ταῦθ’ ἅµα λέγων ὑπεξῄει
βάδην ὡς παραδώσων τινὶ τὸν ἵππον. [5] οὕτως δ’ ὑπεκδύς καὶ τοῖς ὑπαντῶσι
τῶν Κορινθίων ἀθορύβως διαλεγόµενος καὶ κελεύων πρὸς τὸ Ἀπολλώνιον
βαδίζειν, ὡς ἔλαθε πλησίον τῆς ἄκρας γενόµενος, ἀναπηδήσας ἐπὶ τὸν ἵππον καὶ
Κλεοπάτρῳ τῷ ἄρχοντι τῆς φρουρᾶς διακελευσάµενος ἐγκρατῶς φυλάττειν,
ἀφίππευσεν εἰς Σικυῶνα, τριάκοντα µὲν αὐτῷ στρατιωτῶν ἑποµένων, τῶν δ’
ἄλλων ἐγκαταλιπόντων καὶ διαρρυέντων.
So they assembled hastily in the sanctuary of Apollo and sent for Aratus, determined
to kill him or seize him, and then to revolt. He came, accordingly, leading his horse
after him, as though he had no distrust or suspicion, and when many sprang up and
abused and denounced him, with a composed countenance and gentle words he bade
them sit down and not stand there shouting in disorderly fashion, but to admit also
those who were outside at the door; and as he spoke, he withdrew slowly, as if he
would hand his horse over to somebody. Having thus slipped out of the crowd, he
conversed calmly with the Corinthians who met him, bidding them go to the
Apolloneion, and so, before his enemies were aware of it, came nigh the citadel. Then
he leaped upon his horse, and after giving orders to Kleopater the commander of the
garrison in the citadel to guard it with a strong hand, he rode off to Sikyon, followed
by only thirty of his soldiers; the rest deserted him and dispersed.
29. Plut. Cleom. 19.1-3

ἑαλωκότος δ’ Ἄργους καὶ κατόπιν εὐθὺς προσθεµένων τῷ Κλεοµένει Κλεωνῶν
καὶ Φλιοῦντος, ἐτύγχανε µὲν ὁ Ἄρατος ἐν Κορίνθῳ ποιούµενός τινα τῶν
λεγοµένων λακωνίζειν ἐξέτασιν· [2] ἀγγελίας δὲ περὶ τούτων προσπεσούσης,
διαταραχθεὶς καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἀποκλίνουσαν αἰσθόµενος πρὸς τὸν Κλεοµένη καὶ
τῶν Ἀχαιῶν ἀπαλλαγῆναι βουλοµένην, ἐκάλει µὲν εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον τοὺς
πολίτας, ἔλαθε δὲ διολισθὼν ἄχρι τῆς πύλης. [3] ἐκεῖ δὲ τοῦ ἵππου προσαχθέντος
ἀναβὰς ἔφυγεν εἰς Σικυῶνα.702
Thus Argos was taken by Cleomenes, and immediately afterwards Kleonai and
Phleious came over to him. When this happened, Aratus was at Corinth, holding a
judicial examination of those who were reputed to favor the Spartan cause. The
unexpected tidings threw him into consternation, and perceiving that the city was
leaning towards Cleomenes and wished to be rid of the Achaeans, he summoned the
citizens into the bouleuterion, and then slipped away unnoticed to the city gate. There
his horse was brought to him, and mounting it he fled to Sikyon.
702
Greek text of Plutarch’s Cleomenes from R. Flacelière, and É. Chambry, Plutarque vies, tome XI, Agis,
Cléomène – les Gracques (Paris, 1976).
285
30. Plut. Cleom. 25.1
τούτων δ’ ἀπαγγελθέντων τῷ Κλεοµένει, τετηρηκὼς τὴν πόλιν ἄθικτον καὶ
ἀκέραιον, ὥστε µηδένα λαθεῖν µηδὲ τοὐλάχιστον λαβόντα, τότε παντάπασι
τραχυνθεὶς καὶ ἀγανακτήσας τὰ µὲν χρήµατα διήρπασεν, ἀνδριάντας δὲ καὶ
γραφὰς ἀπέστειλεν εἰς Σπάρτην, τῆς δὲ πόλεως τὰ πλεῖστα καὶ µέγιστα µέρη
κατασκάψας καὶ διαφθείρας ἀνέξευξεν ἐπ’ οἴκου, φοβούµενος τὸν Ἀντίγονον καὶ
τοὺς Ἀχαιούς.
When tidings of these things were brought to Cleomenes (i.e. that Philopoimen was
stirring the support of the Achaeans against Sparta), although he had taken strict care
that the city should be inviolate and unharmed, so that no one took even the least
thing without being detected, he was now so incensed and embittered that he
plundered it, and sent its statues and pictures off to Sparta; then, after completely
demolishing most and the largest portions of the city, he marched back towards home,
being in fear of Antigonos and the Achaeans.
31. Plut. Dion 53.4

ὁρῶν καὶ τοὺς Κορινθίους ὀλιγαρχικώτερόν τε πολιτευοµένους καὶ µὴ πολλὰ
τῶν κοινῶν ἐν τῷ δήµῳ πράττοντας.703
For (Dion) saw that the Corinthians had a polity which leaned towards oligarchy, and
that they transacted little public business in the damos.
32. Plut. Mor. 773A

Μέλισσος δὲ τὸν νεκρὸν τοῦ παιδὸς εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν τῶν Κορινθίων παρακοµίσας
ἐπεδείκνυε, δίκην ἀπαιτῶν παρὰ τῶν ταῦτα πραξάντων· οἱ δὲ πλέον οὐδὲν ἢ
τὸν ἄνδρα ἠλέουν.704
But Melissus took his son’s body and exhibited it in the Corinthian agora, demanding
the punishment of the men who had done the deed; but they merely pitied him and did
nothing further.
33. Plut. Mor. 833C

ἐν Κορίνθῳ τε κατεσκευασµένος οἴκηµά τι παρὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν προέγραψεν ὅτι
δύναται τοὺς λυπουµένους διὰ λόγων θεραπεύειν· καὶ πυνθανόµενος τὰς αἰτίας
παρεµυθεῖτο τοὺς κάµνοντας.
And at Corinth, fitting up a room near the agora, (Antiphon) wrote on the door that he
could cure by words those who were in distress; and by asking questions and finding
out the causes of their condition he consoled those in trouble.
34. Plut. Phil. 5.1-2

ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ τριάκοντ’ ἔτη γεγονότος, Κλεοµένης ὁ βασιλεὺς Λακεδαιµονίων
νυκτὸς ἐξαίφνης προσπεσὼν τῇ Μεγάλῃ πόλει καὶ τὰς φυλακὰς βιασάµενος
ἐντὸς παρῆλθε καὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν κατέλαβεν. [2] ἐκβοηθήσας δὲ Φιλοποίµην τοὺς
703
Greek text from R. Flacelière, and É. Chambry, Plutarque vies, tome XIV, Dion – Brutus (Paris, 1978).
704
Greek text of Plutarch’s Morales from R. Flacelière, and É. Chambry, Plutarque œuvres morales, tome
X (Paris, 1997), and M. Cuvigny, and G. Lachenaud, Plutarque œuvres morales, tome XII (Paris, 1981).
286
µὲν πολεµίους οὐ κατἴσχυσεν ἐξελάσαι, καίπερ ἐρρωµένως καὶ παραβόλως
διαγωνισάµενος, τοὺς δὲ πολίτας τρόπον τινὰ τῆς πόλεως ἐξέκλεψε
προσµαχόµενος τοῖς ἐπιδιώκουσι καὶ τὸν Κλεοµένην περισπῶν ἐφ’ ἑαυτόν, ὡς
χαλεπῶς καὶ µόλις ὕστατος ἀπελθεῖν ἀποβαλὼν τὸν ἵππον καὶ τραυµατίας
γενόµενος.705
(Philopoimen) was now thirty years of age, when Cleomenes, King of the
Lacedaimonians, suddenly attacked Megalopolis by night, forced the guard, made his
way into the city, and occupied the agora. Philopoimen came to the help of the
citizens, but had not force enough to drive the enemy out, although he fought with
vigor and daring. He did, however, steal the citizens out of the city, as it were, by
attacking their pursuers and drawing Cleomenes against himself, so that with the
greatest difficulty he got away last of all, after losing his horse and receiving a
wound.
35. Plut. Tim. 3.2

ζητουµένου δὲ στρατηγοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων γραφόντων καὶ προβαλλοµένων
τοὺς εὐδοκιµεῖν ἐν τῇ πόλει σπουδάζοντας, εἷς ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν ἀναστὰς
ὠνόµασε Τιµολέοντα τὸν Τιµοδήµου.706
While they were looking for a stratēgos, and the magistrates were writing down the
names of those in the city who were eager for the honor and proposing them for
election, one of the common people rose to his feet and nominated Timoleon the son
of Timodemos.
36. Plut. Tim. 7.2

ἀναγορευθέντος οὖν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ δήµου προθύµως δεξαµένου καὶ
χειροτονήσαντος…
Accordingly, when (Timoleon) had been nominated (as stratēgos), and the damos had
readily approved of it and given him their votes…
37. Polyb. 2.55.1-9

κατὰ δὲ τοὺς καιροὺς τούτους συνθεωρῶν ὁ Κλεοµένης τὰς µὲν δυνάµεις
διαφειµένας, τὸν δὲ Ἀντίγονον µετὰ τῶν µισθοφόρων ἐν Αἰγίῳ διατρίβοντα, καὶ
τριῶν ἡµερῶν ὁδὸν ἀφεστῶτα τῆς Μεγάλης πόλεως, [2] τὴν δὲ πόλιν ταύτην
εἰδὼς δυσφύλακτον οὖσαν διὰ τὸ µέγεθος καὶ τὴν ἐρηµίαν, τότε δὲ καὶ ῥᾳθύµως
τηρουµένην διὰ τὴν Ἀντιγόνου παρουσίαν, τὸ δὲ µέγιστον, ἀπολωλότας τοὺς
πλείστους τῶν ἐν ταῖς ἡλικίαις ἔν τε τῇ περὶ τὸ Λύκαιον καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα τῇ περὶ
Λαδόκεια µάχῃ, [3] λαβὼν συνεργούς τινας τῶν ἐκ Μεσσήνης φυγάδων, οἵ
διατρίβοντες ἐτύγχανον ἐν τῇ Μεγάλῃ πόλει, παρεισῆλθε διὰ τούτων λάθρᾳ
νυκτὸς ἐντὸς τῶν τειχῶν. [4] τῆς δ’ ἡµέρας ἐπιγενοµένης παρ’ ὀλίγον ἦλθε τοῦ
µὴ µόνον ἐκπεσεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ὅλοις κινδυνεῦσαι διὰ τὴν εὐψυχίαν τῶν
Μεγαλοπολιτῶν· [5] ὃ δὴ καὶ τρισὶ µησὶ πρότερον αὐτῷ συνέβη παθεῖν
705
Greek text from R. Flacelière, and É. Chambry, Plutarque vies, tome V, Aristide – Caton l’ancien,
Philopoemen – Flamininus (Paris, 1969).
706
Greek text of Plutarch’s Timoleon from R. Flacelière, and É. Chambry, Plutarque vies, tome IV,
Timoléon – Paul Émile, Pélopidas – Marcellus (Paris, 1966).
287
παρεισπεσόντι κατὰ τὸν Κωλαιὸν προσαγορευόµονον τόπον τῆς πόλεως. [6]
τότε δὲ τῷ πλήθει τῆς δυνάµεως καὶ τῷ προκαταλαµβάνεσθαι τοὺς εὐκαίρους
τόπους καθίκετο τῆς ἐπιβολῆς, καὶ πέρας ἐκβαλὼν τοὺς Μεγαλοπολίτας
κατέσχε τὴν πόλιν. [7] γενόµενος δ’ ἐγκρατὴς οὕτως αὐτὴν πικρῶς διέφθειρε καὶ
δυσµενῶν ὥστε µηδ’ ἐλπίσαι µηδένα διότι δύναιτ’ ἂν συνοικισθῆναι πάλιν. [8]
τοῦτο δὲ ποιῆσαί µοι δοκεῖ διὰ τὸ κατὰ τὰς τῶν καιρῶν περιστάσεις παρὰ
µόνοις Μεγαλοπολίταις καὶ Στυµφαλίοις µηδέποτε δυνηθῆναι µήθ’ αἱρετιστὴν
καὶ κοινωνὸν τῶν ἰδίων ἐλπίδων µήτε προδότην κατασκευάσασθαι. [9] τὸ µὲν
γὰρ Κλειτορίων φιλελεύθερον καὶ γενναῖον εἷς ἀνὴρ κατῄσχυνε διὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ
κακίαν, Θεάρκης· ὃν εἰκότως ἐξαρνοῦνται Κλειτόριοι µὴ φῦναι παρὰ σφίσι, γενος
δ’ ὑποβολιµαῖον ἐξ Ὀρχοµονοῦ τῶν ἐπηλύδων τινὸς στρατιωτῶν.707
Cleomenes at this juncture had observed that Antigonos had dismissed his other
troops and, keeping only his mercenaries with him, was spending the time at Aigion
at a distance of three days’ march from Megalopolis. [2] He knew that this latter city
was very difficult to defend, owing to its extent and partial desolation, that it was at
present very carelessly guarded owing to the presence of Antigonos in the
Peloponnese, and above all that it had lost the greater part of its citizens of military
are in the battles at the Lykaion and Ladokeia. [3] He therefore procured the
cooperation of certain Messenian exiles then living in Megalopolis and by their
means got inside the walls secretly by night. [4] On day breaking, he came very near
not only being driven out, but meeting with complete disaster owing to the bravery of
the Megalopolitans, [5] who had indeed expelled and defeated him three months
previously when he entered the city by surprise in the quarter called Kolaion. [6] But
on this occasion, owing to the strength of his forces, and owing to his having had time
to seize on the most advantageous positions, his project succeeded, and finally he
drove out the Megalopolitans and occupied their city. [7] On possessing himself of it,
he destroyed it with such systematic cruelty and animosity, that nobody would have
thought it possible that it could ever be re-inhabited. [8] I believe him to have acted
so, because the Megalopolitans and Stymphalians were the only peoples from among
whom in the varied circumstances of his career he could never procure himself a
single partisan to share in his projects or a single traitor. [9] For in the case of the
Klitorians their noble love of freedom was sullied by the malpractices of one man
Thearces whom, as one would expect, they naturally deny to have been a native-born
citizen, affirming that he was the son of a foreign soldier and foisted in from
Orchomenos.708
38. Polyb. 4.33.9

ἐπὶ τοσοῦτο διέσπευσαν Μεγαλοπολῖται καὶ πάντες οἱ κοινωνοῦντες Ἀρκάδων
τῆς αὐτῶν συµµαχίας ὥστε Μεσσηνίους µὲν ὑπὸ τῶν συµµάχων προσδεχθῆναι
707
Greek text from P. Pédech, Polybe histoires, livre II (Paris, 1998).
708
Translation of Polybios based on W.R. Paton, Polybius, The Histories, Vols. I-IV (Loeb Classical
Library) (London, 1922-1925).
288
καὶ µετασχεῖν τῶν ὅρκων καὶ διαλύσεων, Λακεδαιµονίους δὲ µόνους ἐκσπόνδους
γενέσθαι τῶν Ἑλλήνων.709
The Megalopolitans and all the Arcadians in alliance with them were so active in their
efforts, that the Messenians were received by the allies and included in the general
treaty of peace, while the Lacedaimonians alone among the Greeks were excluded
from it.
39. Polyb. 4.73.5-10

δῃουµένης δὲ τῆς χώρας πολὺ µὲν ἦν τὸ τῶν ἁλισκοµένων πλῆθος, ἔτι δὲ πλέον
τὸ συµφεῦγον εἰς τὰς παρακειµένας κώµας καὶ τοὺς ἐρυµνοὺς τῶν τόπων. [6]
συµβαίνει γὰρ τὴν τῶν Ἠλείων χώραν διαφερόντως οἰκεῖσθαι καὶ γέµειν
σωµάτων καὶ κατασκευῆς παρὰ τὴν ἄλλην Πελοπόννησον. [7] ἔνιοι γὰρ αὐτῶν
οὕτως στέργουσι τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀγρῶν βίον ὥστε τινὰς ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τρεῖς γενεάς,
ἔχοντας ἱκανὰς οὐσίας, µὴ παραβεβληκέναι τὸ παράπαν εἰς ἁλίαν. [8] τοῦτο δὲ
γίνεται διὰ τὸ µεγάλην ποιεῖσθαι σπουδὴν καὶ πρόνοιαν τοὺς πολιτευοµένους
τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς χώρας κατοικούντων, ἵνα τό τε δίκαιον αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τόπου
διεξάγηται καὶ τῶν πρὸς βιωτικὰς χρείας µηδὲν ἐλλείπῃ. [9] δοκοῦσι δέ µοι
πάντα ταῦτα καὶ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος µὲν τῆς χώρας τὸ παλαιὸν ἐπινοῆσαι καὶ
νοµοθετῆσαι, τὸ δὲ πλεῖστον διὰ τὸν ὑπάρχοντά ποτε παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἱερὸν βίον,
[10] ὅτε λαβόντες παρὰ τῶν Ἐλλήνων συγχώρηµα διὰ τὸν ἀγῶνα τῶν
Ὀλυµπίων ἱερὰν καὶ ἀπόρθητον ᾤκουν τὴν Ἠλείαν, ἄπειροι παντὸς ὄντες δεινοῦ
καὶ πάσης πολεµικῆς περιστάσεως.
When the country was plundered, the number of captives was great, and still more
numerous were those who escaped to the neighboring villages and strong places. [6]
For Elis is much more thickly inhabited and more full of slaves and farm stock than
any other part of the Peloponnese. [7] Some of the Eleans in fact are so fond of
country life, that though men of substance, they have not for two or three generations
shown their faces in the lawcourts, [8] and this because those who occupy themselves
with politics show the greatest concern for their fellow-citizens in the country and see
that justice is done to them on the spot, and that they are plentifully furnished with all
the necessities of life. [9] As it seems to me, they have adopted such a system from
old time and legislated accordingly in a measure because of the large extent of their
territory, but chiefly owing to the sacrosanct life they formerly led, [10] having, ever
since the Greeks conferred immunity on them owing to the Olympic games, dwelt in
a country which was holy and safe from pillage, with no experience of danger and
entirely unmenaced by war.
40. Polyb. 5.93.1-10

ταῦτα δὲ ἁρµοσάµενος διέλυε τοὺς Μεγαλοπλίτας πρὸς αὑτοὺς κατὰ τὸ τῶν
Ἀχαιῶν δόγµα. [2] συνέβαινε γὰρ τούτους προσφάτως ὑπὸ Κλεοµένους
ἐπταικότας τῇ πατρίδι καὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόµενον ἐκ θεµελίων ἐσφαλµένους, πολλῶν
µὲν ἐπιδεῖσθαι πάντων δὲ σπανίζειν· [3] τοῖς µὲν γὰρ φρονήµασιν ἔµενον, ταῖς δὲ
χορηγίαις καὶ κοινῇ καὶ κατ’ ἰδίαν πρὸς πᾶν ἀδυνάτως εἶχον. [4] διόπερ ἦν
ἀµφισβητήσεως, φιλοτιµίας, ὀργῆς τῆς ἐν ἀλλήλοις πάντα πλήρη· τοῦτο γὰρ δὴ
709
Greek text of Polybios’ Book 4 from J. de Foucault, Polybe histoires, livre IV (Paris, 1972).
289
φιλεῖ γίνεσθαι καὶ περὶ <τὰ> κοινὰ πράγµατα καὶ περὶ τοὺς κατ’ ἰδίαν βίους,
ὅταν ἐλλίπωσιν αἱ χορηγίαι τὰς ἑκάστων ἐπιβολάς. [5] πρῶτον µὲν οὖν
ἠµφισβήτουν ὑπὲρ τοῦ τειχισµοῦ τῆς πόλεως, φάσκοντες οἱ µὲν συνάγειν αὐτὴν
δεῖν καὶ ποιεῖν τηλικαύτην ἡλίκην καὶ τειχίζειν ἐπιβαλλόµενοι καθίξονται καὶ
φυλάττειν καιροῦ περιστάντος δυνήσονται· καὶ γὰρ νῦν παρὰ τὸ µέγεθος αὐτῆς
καὶ τὴν ἐρηµίαν ἐσφάλθαι. [6] πρὸς δὲ τούτοις εἰσφέρειν ᾤοντο δεῖν τοὺς
κτηµατικοὺς τὸ τρίτον µέρος τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν τῶν προσλαµβανοµένων
οἰκητόρων ἀναπλήρωσιν. [7] οἱ δ’ οὔτε τὴν πόλιν ἐλάττω ποιεῖν ὑπέµενον οὔτε
τὸ τρίτον τῶν κτήσεων εὐδόκουν εἰσφέρειν µέρος, [8] µάλιστά <τε> τῶν νόµων
ὑπὸ Πρυτάνιδος γεγραµµένων πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐφιλονείκουν, ὃν ἔδωκε µὲν
αὐτοῖς νοµοθέτην Ἀντίγονος, ἦν δὲ τῶν ἐπιφανῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκ τοῦ Περιπάτου
καὶ ταύτης τῆς αἱρέσεως. [9] τοιαύτης δ’ οὔσης τῆς ἀµφισβητήσεως ποιησάµεονς.
Ἄρατος τὴν ἐνδεχοµένην ἐπιστροφὴν κατέπαυσε τὴν φιλοτιµίαν αὐτῶν. [10] ἐφ’
οἷς δ’ ἔληξαν τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους διαφορᾶς, γράψαντες εἰς στήλην παρὰ τὸν τῆς
Ἑστίας ἀνέθεσαν βωµὸν ἐν Ὁµαρίῳ.710
After having arranged this, he put an end to the intestine disputes of the
Megalopolitans by a decree of the Achaeans. [2] They had only recently been ejected
from their city by Cleomenes, and as the saying is, utterly uprooted, and consequently
they were in absolute want of many things and were ill provided with everything. [3]
It is true that they retained their his spirit; but in every respect the shortage of their
supplies both in public and private was a source of weakness to them. [4] In
consequence disputes, jealousies, and mutual hatred were rife among them, as usually
happens both in public and private life when men have not sufficient means to give
effect to their projects. [5] The first matter of dispute was the fortification of the city,
some saying that it ought to be reduced to a size which would enable them to
complete the wall if they undertook to build one and to defend it in time of danger. It
was just its size, they said, and the sparseness of the inhabitants which had proved
fatal to the town. [6] The same party proposed that landowners should contribute the
third part of their estates, for making the number of additional citizens required. [7]
Their opponents neither approved of reducing the size of the city nor were disposed to
contribute the third part of their property. [8] The most serious controversy of all,
however, was in regard to the laws framed for them by Prytanis, an eminent member
of the Peripatetic school, whom Antigonos had sent to them to draw up a constitution.
[9] Such being the matters in dispute, Aratus exerted himself by every means in his
power to reconcile the rival factions, [10] and the terms on which they finally
composed their difference were engraved on a stone and set up beside the altar of
Hestia in the Homarion.
41. Polyb. 9.26a.1-2

Οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς περιµέτρου τεκµαίρονται τὰ µεγέθη
τῶν προειρηµένων. [2] λοιπὸν ὅταν εἴπῃ τις τὴν µὲν τῶν Μεγαλοπολιτῶν πόλιν
πεντήκοντα σταδίων ἔχειν τὸν περίβολον, τὴν δὲ τῶν Λακεδαιµονίων ὀκτὼ καὶ
710
Greek text from P. Pédech, Polybe histoires, livre V (Paris, 1977).
290
τετταράκοντα, τῷ δὲ µεγέθει διπλῆν εἶναι τὴν Λακεδαίµονα τῆς Μεγάλης
πόλεως, ἄπιστον αὐτοῖς εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ λεγόµενον.711
Most people judge of the size of cities simply from their circumference. [2] So that
when one says that Megalopolis is fifty stades in circumference and Sparta forty-
eight, but that Sparta is twice as large as Megalopolis, the statement seems incredible
to me.
42. Simon. (att.) Greek Anthology 6.212

Εὔχεο τοῖς δώροισι, Κύτων, θεὸν ὧδε χαρῆναι
Λητοΐδην ἀγορῆς καλλιχόρου πρύτανιν,
ὥσπερ ὑπο ξείνων τε, καὶ οἳ ναίουσι Κόρινθον,
αἶνον ἔχεις χαρίτων µεστοτάτοις στεφάνοις.712
Pray, Kyton, that your gifts give as much delight to the divine son of Leto, prytanis of
the fair-dancing agora, as the praise you have from foreigners and those who dwell in
Corinth, lord of delights, by reason of your crowns.713
43. Soph., El. 1-14

[ὦ τοῦ στρατηγήσαντος ἐν Τροίᾳ ποτὲ]
Ἀγαµέµνονος παῖ, νῦν ἐκεῖν᾽ ἔξεστί σοι
παρόντι λεύσσειν, ὧν πρόθυµος ἦσθ᾽ ἀεί.
τὸ γὰρ παλαιὸν Ἄργος οὑπόθεις τόδε,
5 τῆς οἰστροπλῆγος ἄλσος Ἰνάχου κόρης·
αὕτη δ᾽, Ὀρέστα, τοῦ λυκοκτόνου θεοῦ
ἀγορὰ Λύκειος· οὑξ ἀριστερᾶς δ᾽ ὅδε
Ἥρας ὁ κλεινὸς ναός· οἷ δ᾽ ἱκάνοµεν,
φάσκειν Μυκήνας τὰς πολυχρύσους ὁρᾶν,
10 πολύφθορόν τε δῶµα Πελοπιδῶν τόδε,
ὅθεν σε πατρὸς ἐκ φονῶν ἐγώ ποτε
πρὸς σῆς ὁµαίµου καὶ κασιγνήτης λαβὼν
ἤνεγκα κἀξέσωσα κἀξεθρεψάµην
τοσόνδ᾽ ἐς ἥβης, πατρὶ τιµωρὸν φόνου.714
Son of Agamemnon who once led the army before Troy, now you can gaze with your
own eyes on what you have always longed to see! This is ancient Argos for which
you used to long, the precinct of the daughter of Inachos whom the gadfly stung; and
this, Orestes, is the Lykeian agora of the wolf-killing god; this to the left is the
famous temple of Hera; and the place where we have arrived, you may say that you
see Mycenae, rich in gold, and the house of the sons of Pelops here, rich in disasters,
from which I once carried you, after your father’s murder, receiving you from you
own sister, and kept you safe and raised you up to this stage of youthful vigor, to
avenge your father’s murder.715
711
Greek text from R. Weil, Polybe histoires, livres VII-VIII et IX (Paris, 1982).
712
Greek text from G.P. Goold, The Greek Anthology I (Loeb Classical Library) (London, 1993).
713
Translation based on Bookidis and Stroud 2004, p. 408.
714
Greek text from R.D. Dawe, Sophoclis Electra (Stuttgart, 1996).
715
Translation based on H. Lloyd-Jones, Sophocles, Vol. I (Loeb Classical Library) (London, 1994).
291
44. Strabo 8.3.2
Ἦλις δὲ ἡ νῦν πόλις οὔπω ἔκτιστο καθ’ Ὅµηρον, ἀλλ’ ἡ χώρα κωµηδὸν ᾠκεῖτο,
ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ Κοίλη Ἦλις ἀπὸ τοῦ συµβεβηκότος· τοιαύτη γὰρ ἦν ἡ πλείστη καὶ
ἀρίστη. ὀψὲ δέ ποτε συνῆλθον εἰς τὴν νῦν πόλιν Ἦλιν µετὰ τὰ Περσικὰ ἐκ
πολλῶν δήµων. σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τόπους τοὺς κατὰ Πελοπόννησον
(πλὴν ὀλίγων), οὓς κατέλεξεν ὁ ποιητής, οὐ πόλεις, ἀλλὰ χώρας ὀνοµάζει,
συστήµατα δήµων ἔχουσαν ἑκάστην πλείω, ἐξ ὧν ὕστερον αἱ γνωριζόµεναι
πόλεις συνῳκίσθησαν· οἷον τῆς Ἁρκαδίας Μαντίνεια µὲν ἐκ πέντε δήµων ὑπ’
Ἀργείων συνῳκίσθη, Τεγέα δ’ ἐξ ἐννέα, ἐκ τοσούτων δὲ καὶ Ἡραία ὑπὸ
Κλεοµβρότου (ἢ ὑπὸ Κλεωνύµου)· ὣς δ’ αὔτως Αἴγιον ἐξ ἑπτὰ ἢ ὀκτὼ δήµων
συνεπολίσθη, Πάτραι δὲ ἐξ ἑπτὰ, Δύµη δὲ ἐξ ὀκτὼ. οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἡ Ἦλις ἐκ τῶν
περιοικίδων συνεπολίσθη (µία τούτων προσκτισ... Ἀγριάδες).716
What is now the polis of Elis was not yet built in the time of Homer, but the region
was settled in villages. And the country was called Hollow Elis from its character, for
such was the largest and best part. At some time they came together into the present
polis of Elis, after the Persian Wars, from many demes. And almost all the other
places in the Peloponnese that the poet listed, with only a few exceptions, he calls not
as poleis, but as regions with each being composed of several demes, from which in
later times the well-known cities were synoicized. For instance, in Arcadia, Mantinea
was synoicized by Argive colonists from five demes, and Tegea from nine, and also
Heraia from nine by Kleombrotos or by Kleonymos. And in the same way Aigion
was made into a polis by seven or eight demes, Patrai by seven, and Dyme by eight.
And in this way the Elis was made into a polis by the surrounding communities (one
of these . . . the Agriades).717
45. Strabo 8.8.1

νυνὶ δὲ καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ Μεγάλη πόλις τὸ τοῦ κωµικοῦ πέπονθε καὶ
ἐρηµία µεγάλη ’στὶν ἡ Μεγάλη πόλις.
But now Megalopolis itself has suffered the fate described by the comic poet:
“Megalopolis is a great desert.”
46. Suda Π 225

s.v. πάντα ὀκτῴ…οἱ δέ ὅτι Ἀλήτης κατὰ χρησµὸν τοὺς Κορινθίους συνοικίζων
ὀκτὼ φυλὰς ἐποίησε τοὺς πολίτας, καὶ ὀκτὼ µέρη τὴν πόλιν.718
“All Things in Eights” – some say that Aletes, when synoicizing the Corinthians in
accordance with an oracle, made the politai into eight phylai and the polis into eight
parts.719
716
Greek text of Strabo from S. Radt, Strabons Geographika, vol. II (Göttingen, 2003).
717
Translation of Strabo based on H.L. Jones, Strabo, Geography, Vol. IV (Loeb Classical Library)
(London, 1927).
718
Greek text from T. Gaisfordum, and G. Bernhardy, Suidae Lexicon: Graece et Latine, tomus IV
(Osnabrück, 1986).
719
Translation based on Jones 1980, p. 162.
292
47. Thuc. 2.25.3
Οἱ δὲ Ἀθηναῖοι ἄραντες παρέπλεον, καὶ σχόντες τῆς Ἠλείας ἐς Φειὰν ἐδῄουν τὴν
γῆν ἐπὶ δύο ἡµέρας καὶ προσβοηθήσαντας τῶν ἐκ τῆς κοίλης Ἤλιδος
τριακοσίους λογάδας καὶ τῶν αὐτόθεν ἐκ τῆς περιοικίδος Ἠλείων µάχῃ
ἐκράτησαν.720
The Athenians at once weighed anchor and continued their cruise. Touching at Pheia
in Elis, they ravaged the country for two days and defeated a picked force of three
hundred men that had come from Hollow Elis and the immediate neighborhood to the
rescue.721
48. Thuc. 5.30.5

ἔτυχον δὲ παρόντες ἐν Κορίνθῳ καὶ Ἀργείων πρέσβεις, οἳ ἐκέλευον τοὺς
Κορινθίους ἰέναι ἐς τὴν ξυµµαχίαν καὶ µὴ µέλλειν‧ οἱ δὲ ἐς τὸν ὕστερον ξύλλογον
αὐτοῖς τὸν παρὰ σφίσι προεῖπον ᾕκειν.
Some Argive ambassadors who happened to be in Corinth pressed the Corinthians to
conclude the alliance without further delay, but were told to attend the next assembly
to be held at Corinth.
49. Thuc. 5.47.9-11

Ὀµνύντων δὲ Ἀθήνησι µὲν ἡ βουλὴ καὶ αἱ ἔνδηµοι ἀρχαί, ἐξορκούντων δὲ οἱ
πρυτάνεις· ἐν Ἄργει δὲ ἡ βουλὴ καὶ οἱ ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ οἱ ἀρτῦναι, ἐξορκούντων
δὲ οἱ ὀγδοήκοντα· ἐν δὲ Μαντινείᾳ οἱ δηµιουργοὶ καὶ ἡ βουλὴ καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι
ἀρχαί, ἐξορκούντων δὲ οἱ θεωροὶ καὶ οἱ πολέµαρχοι· ἐν δὲ Ἤλιδι οἱ δηµιουργοὶ
καὶ οἱ τὰ τέλη ἔχοντες καὶ οἱ ἑξακόσιοι, ἐξορκούντων δὲ οἱ δηµιουργοὶ καὶ οἱ
θεσµοφύλακες. [10] ἀνανεοῦσθαι δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους Ἀθηναίους µὲν ἰόντας ἐς Ἦλιν καὶ
ἐς Μαντίνειαν καὶ ἐς Ἄργος τριάκοντα ἡµέραις πρὸ Ὀλυµπίων, Ἀργείους δὲ καὶ
Ἠλείους καὶ Μαντινέας ἰόντας Ἀθήναζε δέκα ἡµέραις πρὸ Παναθηναίων τῶν
µεγάλων. [11] τὰς δὲ ξυνθήκας τὰς περὶ τῶν σπονδῶν καὶ τῶν ὅρκων καὶ τῆς
ξυµµαχίας ἀναγράψαι ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ Ἀθηναίους µὲν ἐν πόλει, Ἀργείους δὲ ἐν
ἀγορᾷ ἐν τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τῷ ἱερῷ, Μαντινέας δὲ ἐν τοῦ Διὸς τῷ ἱερῷ ἐν τῇ
ἀγορᾷ· καταθέντων δὲ καὶ Ὀλυµπίασι στήλην χαλκῆν κοινῇ Ὀλυµπίοις τοῖς
νυνί.
The oath shall be taken at Athens by the boulē and the magistrates, the prytaneis
administering it; at Argos by the boulē, the Eighty, and the artynai, the Eighty
administering it; at Mantinea by the damiourgoi, the boulē, and the other magistrates,
the theoroi and polemarchoi administering it; at Elis by the damiourgoi, the
magistrates, and the Six Hundred, the damiourgoi and the thesmophylakes
administering it. [10] The oaths shall be renewed by the Athenians going to Elis,
Mantinea, and Argos thirty days before the Olympic Games; by the Argives,
Mantineans, and Eleans going to Athens ten days before the great feast of the
Panathenaia. [11] The articles of the treaty, the oaths, and the alliance shall be
720
Greek text of Thucydides from J. de Romilly, Thucydide: la guerre du Péloponnèse, livre II (Paris,
1991), Thucydide: la guerre du Péloponnèse, livres IV et V (Paris, 1973), and Thucydide: la guerre du
Péloponnèse, livre VIII (Paris, 1972).
721
Translation of Thucydides based on J.M. Dent, Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War (London, 1910).
293
inscribed on a stone pillar by the Athenians in the citadel, by the Argives in the
sanctuary of Apollo in the agora; by the Mantineans in the sanctuary of Zeus in the
agora; and a brazen pillar shall be erected jointly by them at the Olympic Games now
at hand.
50. Thuc. 8.8.2

…ἀλλὰ ξυνελθόντες ἐς Κόρινθον οἱ ξύµµαχοι ἐβουλεύοντο…
…but when the allies came together at Corinth and deliberated…
51. Xen. Hell. 3.2.27

ἐπεὶ δὲ ἀφίκετο πρὸς τὴν πόλιν, τὰ µὲν προάστια καὶ τὰ γυµνάσια καλὰ ὄντα
ἐλυµαίνετο, τὴν δὲ πόλιν (ἀτείχιστος γὰρ ἦν) ἐνόµισαν αὐτὸν µὴ βούλεσθαι
µᾶλλον ἢ µὴ δύνασθαι ἑλεῖν.722
When (Agis) reached the city he did some harm to the suburbs and the gymnasia,
which were beautiful, but as for the city itself (for it was unwalled) the
Lacedaimonians thought that he was unwilling, rather than unable, to capture it.723
52. Xen. Hell. 4.4.2-4

ἐκεῖνοι δ’Εὐκλείων τὴν τελευταίαν προείλοντο, ὅτι πλείονας ἂν ᾤοντο λαβεῖν ἐν
τῇ ἀγορᾷ, ὤστε ἀποκτεῖναι. [3] ὡς δ’ ἐσηµάνθη οἷς εἴρητο οὓς ἔδει ἀποκτεῖναι,
σπασάµενοι τὰ ξίφη ἔπαιον τὸν µέν τινα συνεστηκότα ἐν κύκλῳ, τὸν δὲ
καθήµενον, τὸν δέ τινα ἐν θεάτρῳ, ἔστι δ’ὃν καὶ κριτὴν καθήµενον. ὡς δ’
ἐγνώσθη τὸ πρᾶγµα, εὐθὺς ἔφευγον οἱ βέλτιστοι, οἱ µὲν πρὸς τὰ ἀγάλµατα τῶν
ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ θεῶν, οἱ δ’ἐπὶ τοὺς βωµούς· ἔνθα δὴ οἱ ἀνοσιώτατοι καὶ
παντάπασιν οὐδὲν νόµιµον φρονοῦντες, οἵ τε κελεύοντες, καὶ οἱ πειθόµενοι,
ἔσφαττον καὶ προς τοῖς ἱεροῖς, ὥστ’ ἐνίους καὶ τῶν οὐ τυπτοµένων, νοµίµων δ’
ἀνθρώπων, ἀδηµονῆσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ἰδόντας τὴν ἀσέβειαν. [4] ἀποθνῄσκουσι
δ’οὕτω τῶν µὲν πρεσβυτέρων πολλοί· µᾶλλον γὰρ ἔτυχον ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ ὄντες·
οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι, ὑποπτεύσαντος Πασιµήλου τὸ µέλλον ἔσεσθαι, ἡσυχίαν ἔσχον ἐν
τῷ Κρανείῳ. ὡς δὲ τῆς κραυγῆς ᾔσθοντο, καὶ φεύγοντες τινες ἐκ τοῦ πράγµατος
ἀφίκοντο πρὸς αὐτούς, ἐκ τούτου ἀναδραµόντες κατὰ τὸν Ἀκροκόρινθον,
προσβαλόντας µὲν Ἀργείους καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀπεκρούσαντο· βουλευοµένων δὲ
τί χρὴ ποιεῖν, πίπτει τὸ κιόκρανον ἀπό του κίονος οὔτε σεισµοῦ οὔτε ἀνέµου
γενοµένου.
These men chose the last day of the Eukleia, because they thought they would catch
more people in the agora, so as to kill them. [3] Then again, when the signal was
given to those who had been told whom they were to kill, they drew their swords and
struck men down – one while standing in a social group, another while sitting in his
seat, still another in the theatron, and another even while he was sitting as judge. Now
when the situation became known, the better classes immediately fled, some to the
statues of the gods in the agora, some to the altars; then the conspirators, utterly
722
Greek text of Xenophon from C. Hude, Xenophontis Historia Graeca (Stuttgart, 1969).
723
Translation of Xenophon based on C.L. Brownson, Xenophon, Hellenica, Vols. I-II (Loeb Classical
Library) (London, 1918-1921).
294
sacrilegious and without so much as a single thought for civilized usage, both those
who gave the orders and those who obeyed, kept up the slaughter even at the holy
places, so that some even among those who were not victims of the attack, being
right-minded men, were dismayed in their hearts at beholding such impiety. [4] In this
way many of the older men were killed; for it was they especially who chanced to be
in the agora; while the younger men, since Pasimelos suspected what was going to
happen, had remained quietly in the Kraneion (gymnasium). But when they heard the
outcry and some had come to them in flight from the massacre, thereupon, rushing up
on the slopes of Acrocorinth, they beat off an attack which the Argives and the rest
made upon them.
53. Xen. Hell. 7.4.36

γενοµένων δὲ τῶν ὅρκων καὶ ὀµοσάντων τῶν τε ἄλλων ἁπάντων καὶ
Τεγεατῶν καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Θηβαίου, ὅς ἐτύγχανεν ἐν Τεγέᾳ ἔχων τριακοσίους
ὁπλίτας τῶν Βοιωτῶν, οἱ µὲν ἄλλοι Ἀρκάδες ἐν τῇ Τεγέᾳ αὐτοῦ
ἐπικαταµείναντες ἐδειπνοποιοῦντό τε καὶ ηὐθυµοῦντο καὶ σπονδὰς καὶ παιᾶνας
ὡς εἰρήνης γεγενηµένης ἐποιοῦντο, ὁ δὲ Θηβαῖος καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων οἱ
φοβούµενοι τὰς εὐθύνας σύν τε τοῖς Βοιωτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὁµογνώµοσι τῶν
ἐπαρίτων κλείσαντες τὰς πύλας τοῦ τῶν Τεγεατῶν τείχους, πέµποντες ἐπὶ τοὺς
σκηνοῦντας συνελάµβανον τοὺς βελτίστους. ἅτε δὲ ἐκ πασῶν τῶν πόλεων
παρόντων τῶν Ἀρκάδων, καὶ πάντων εἰρήνην βουλοµένων ἔχειν, πολλοὺς ἔδει
τοὺς συλλαµβανοµένους εἶναι· ὥστε ταχὺ µὲν αὐτοῖς τὸ δεσµωτήριον µεστὸν
ἦν, ταχὺ δὲ ἡ δηµοσία οἰκία.
The oaths were ratified, and among all those who swore to them included the rest the
Tegeans and the Theban (general) himself, who was inside Tegea with three hundred
Boiotian hoplites. While the bulk of the Arcadians still remained in Tegea, feasting
and being merry with outpouring of libations and songs of victory to celebrate the
conclusion of peace, the Theban (general) and the Arcadian magistrates who were
fearful about their accounts, after closing the city-gates of Tegea with the help of the
Boiotians and their partisans among the Eparitoi, sent to the feasters and proceeded to
seize the aristocrats. But inasmuch as the Arcadians of all the cities were present and
all of them were desirous of having peace, those who were seized were necessarily
many, so that the prison was eventually full, and the demosia oikia (town-hall)
likewise.
54. Xen. Hell. 7.5.5

ὁ µέντοι Ἐπαµεινώνδας ἐλογίζετο καὶ ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ σφίσιν ὑπάρχειν
Ἀργείους τε καὶ Μεσσηνίους καὶ Ἀρκάδων τοὺς τὰ σφέτερα φρονοῦντας. ἦσαν δ’
οὗτοι Τεγεᾶται καὶ Μεγαλοπολῖται καὶ Ἀσεᾶται καὶ Παλλαντιεῖς, καὶ εἴ τινες δὴ
πόλεις διὰ τὸ µικραί τε εἶναι καὶ ἐν µέσαις ταύταις οἰκεῖν ἠναγκάζοντο.
Epaminondas, however, reflected that his people had supporters in the Peloponnese
also: the Argives, the Messenians, and those of the Arcadians who shared their views.
These were the Tegeans, the Megalopolitans, the Aseans, the Pallantians, and
whatever cities were constrained to adopt this course owing to their small size or their
position in the midst of these larger cities were forced to follow their lead.
295
55. Corinth I-6 (Corinth VIII.1, no. 7)
[- - - - - - - - - -]ας γρ̣α[µµατεύς - - - -]
[Ἐπειδ]ὴ ὁ Π̣υθ̣ο̣[- - - - - - - - - - - - - -]

[ἐπὶ - - - ca. 5 - - - γρ]αµµα[τέος - - - name - - -]
[- - - - - - ἐπειδὴ] Θιό̣δ̣ο[τος - - - - - - - - - - - - ]
[- - - - - - - - - - ]Α̣Τ̣[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ]

[- - - -]α̣σ̣ι̣π̣π̣[- - - - - -]
[- - - -]γυµνασιά̣[- - -]

ἐπὶ γυµν̣[ασιάρχου τοῦ δεῖνα]
59. Corinth I-2649 (Anderson 1967, p. 11)

A ὑπογραµµατέυς is mentioned in line 1 of this inscription.
60. Delian Decree (Robert 1948; 1960)

Θεός
[Ἐπ]ὶ γραµµατιστᾶ Εὐθέα‧ vac
[Γ]α̣µιλίου‧ ἔδοξε τᾶι ἐκκλησί-
[α]ι‧ ἐπειδὲ Ξενοκλῆς καὶ Παυσί-
5 µαχος Ἀθηναῖοι ἐµ παντὶ
καιρῶι διατελοῦντι εὔνοοι ὄν-
τες τᾶι πόλει καὶ τοῖς παραυε-
νοµένοις τῶν πολιτᾶν εἰς Ἀ-
θήνας‧ ἔδοξε τᾶι ἐκκλσί-
10 αι‧ Ξενοκλῆ Ἁγνοθέου καὶ
Παυσίµαχον Δηµοκλέους Ἀ-
θηναίους προξένους εἶµεν
καὶ εὐεργέτας τᾶς πόλιος
αὐτοὺς καὶ ἐκγόνους‧ εἶµεν δὲ
15 αὐτοῖς καὶ πολιτείαν καὶ γᾶς
καὶ οἰκίας ἔγκτησιν καὶ ἀσυ-
λίαν καὶ πολέµου καὶ εἰράνας
καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τίµια ὅσα καὶ το[ῖς]
λοιποῖς προξένοις καὶ εὐερ-
20 γέταις τᾶς πόλιος‧ τὰν δὲ
βουλὰν διακλαρῶσαι εἰς
ἡµιόγδοον καὶ τριακάδα
καὶ φυλὰν καὶ φάτραν‧ Διεκλα-
ρώθην‧ ἡµιογδόου vv ΑΣ vv Ϝ
25 [ἀ]ρχαίας vv φυλᾶς vv Ἀορέων‧
296
[φ]άτρας vv Οµακχιάδας.
61. Elean Judicial Inscription (Minon 2007, no. 1)

[- κα - -]µον : ἔα : ἀ ζίκα Α[- - -]
[- - -]οσας κα : ΑΠΕΤ̣[- - -]
[- - δαµι]ο̣<ρ>γεοίταν, : ὀ ζι[κα- -]
4 [- - - -] : αἰ µά Ϝο<ι> ἔα : [- - -]
[- - - - -]ΟΝΟΝ µὰ ζι[κάζ- -].
62. IvO 7 (Minon 2007, no. 4)

{κα} vacat
κα θεαρὸς εἴε· αἰ δὲ βενέοι ἐν τἰαροῖ, βοί κα θοάδοι καὶ κοθάρσι
τελείαι, καὶ τὸν θεαρὸν ἐν τ-
α<ὐ>τᾶι. Αἰ δέ τις παρ τὸ γράφος δικάδοι, ἀτελές κ’ εἴε ἀ δίκα, ἀ δέ
κα Ϝράτρα ἀ δαµοσία τελεία εἴ-
ε δικάδοσα. Τον δέ κα γραφέον, ὄ το δοκέοι καλιτέρος ἔχεν πο’ τὸν
θ<ε>όν, ἐξαγρέον κἆλ’ ἐ-
4 νποιον σὺν βολᾶι <π>εντακατίον ἀϜανέος καὶ δάµοι πλεθύοντι
δινάκοι· <δινά>κοι δέ κα <ἐ>ν τρίτ-
ον, αἴ τι ἐνποιοῖ αἴτ’ ἐξαγρέοι. vacat
63. IvO 9. (Minon 2007, no. 10)

Ἀ Ϝράτρα τοῖρ Ϝαλείοις : καὶ τοῖς Εὐ̣-
Ϝαοίοις· : συνµαχία κ’ ἔα ἐκατὸν Ϝέτεα, :
ἄρχοι δέ κα τοΐ. : Αἰ δέ τι δέοι, : αἴτε Ϝέπος αἴτε Ϝ-
4 άργον, : συνέαν κ’ ἀλάλοις : τὰ τ’ ἄλ<α> καὶ πα-
ρ πολέµο· : αἰ δὲ µὰ συνέαν, τάλαντον κ’
ἀργύρο : ἀποτίνοιαν : τοῖ Δὶ Ὀλυνπίοι : τοὶ κα-
δαλέµενοι : λατρειόµενον. : Αἰ δέ τιρ τὰ γ-
8 ράφεα : ταῒ καδαλέοιτο, : αἴτε Ϝέτας αἴτε τ-
ελεστὰ : αἴτε δᾶµος, : ἐν τἐπιάροι κ’ ἐνέχ-
οιτο : τοῖ ’νταῦτ’ ἐγραµένοι.
64. IG V.2, 1
Θεός: Τύχη·
ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι τῶν
Ἀρκάδων: καὶ τοῖς
µυρίοις: Φύλαρχον
5 Λυσικράτους: Ἀθηναῖον
πρόξενον: καὶ εὐεργέτην
εἶναι Ἀρκάδων πάντων
αὐτὸν: καὶ γένος·
δαµιοργοὶ οἵδε ἦσαν·
10 Τεγεᾶται· 40 Κυνούριοι
Φαιδρέας Τιµοκράτης
297
Ἀριστοκράτης Καλλικλῆς
Νίκαρχος Λαφάνης
Ξενοπείθης Σάϊς
15 Δαµοκρατίδας, 45 Σάϊς,
Μαινάλιοι Ὀρχοµένιοι·
Ἁγίας Εὐγείτων
Εὐγειτονίδας Ἀµύντας
Ξενοφῶν, Πάµφιλος
20 Λεπρεᾶται· 50 Παυσανίας
Ἱππίας Καλλίας,
Γάδωρος, Κλητόριοι·
Μεγαλοπολῖται· Τηλίµαχος
Ἀρίστων Ἀλκµᾶν
25 Βλύας 55 Αἰσχυτῆς
Ἀρχέψιος Δαµάγητος
Ἀτρεστίδας Πρόξενος,
Γοργέας Ἡραῆς·
Σµίνθις Ἀλεξικράτης
30 Πλειστίερος 60 Σιµίας
Νίκις Θεόποµπος
Λάαρχος Ἁγίας
Πολυχάρης, Ἱπποσθένης,
Μαντινῆς· Θελφούσιοι·
35 Φαῖδρος 65 Πολέας
Ϝᾶχος Ἀλεξίας
Εὐδαµίδας Ἐχίας
Δαΐστρατος Παυσανίας
Χαρείδας, Λύκιος.
65. IG V.2, 431

[- -]α̣ν̣τ̣ο[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]
[- - δα]µ̣ιοργῶν̣ [- - - - - - - - - -]
[- -]νι προσσ[τάται βωλᾶς - -]
[- -]ας, Ἀµφι[- - - - - - - - - - - - -]
66. IG V.2, 432

Hellenistic decree with heroic honors given to Philopoimen. A monument to him is to
be set up in the agora (ἐν τᾶι ἀγορᾶι τὸ µ[νᾶµα]) and his bones are to be brought to
the agora (τὰ ὀστέα εἰς τ[ὰν ἀγορὰν]).
67. IG V.2, 454

Ποσειδῶνι Ἀσφαλείωι
Δαµοφῶν ἀνέθηκε
298
APPENDIX B
PAUSANIAS 2.19.3-2.22.9: DESCRIPTION OF ARGOS
19. [3] Ἀργείοις δὲ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει τὸ ἐπιφανέστατόν ἐστιν Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὸν

λυκίου. Τὸ µὲν οὖν ἄγαλµα τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡµῶν Ἀττάλου ποίηµα ἦν ἀθηναίου, τὸ δὲ ἐξ
ἀρχῆς Δαναοῦ καὶ ὁ ναὸς καὶ τὸ ξόανον ἀνάθηµα ἦν· ξόανα γὰρ δὴ τότε εἶναι
πείθοµαι πάντα καὶ µάλιστα τὰ αἰγύπτια. Δαναὸς δὲ ἱδρύσατο λύκιον Ἀπόλλωνα
ἐπ᾽ αἰτίᾳ τοιαύτῃ: παραγενόµενος ἐς τὸ Ἄργος ἠµφισβήτει πρὸς Γελάνορα τὸν
Σθενέλα περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς. Ῥηθέντων δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ δήµου παρ᾽ ἀµφοτέρων πολλῶν τε
καὶ ἐπαγωγῶν καὶ οὐχ ἧσσον δίκαια λέγειν τοῦ Γελάνορος δόξαντος, ὁ µὲν δῆµος
ὑπερέθετο, φασὶν, ἐς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν κρίνειν· [4] ἀρχοµένης δὲ ἡµέρας ἐς βοῶν ἀγέλην
νεµοµένην πρὸ τοῦ τείχους ἐσπίπτει λύκος, προσπεσὼν δὲ ἐµάχετο πρὸς ταῦρον,
ἡγεµόνα τῶν βοῶν. Παρίσταται δὴ τοῖς ἀργείοις τῷ µὲν Γελάνορα, Δαναὸν δὲ
εἰκάσαι τῷ λύκῳ, ὅτι οὔτε τὸ θηρίον τοῦτό ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις σύντροφον οὔτε
Δαναός σφισιν ἐς ἐκεῖνο τοῦ χρόνου. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸν ταῦρον κατειργάσατο ὁ λύκος, διὰ
τοῦτο ὁ Δαναὸς ἔσχε τὴν ἀρχήν. Οὕτω δὴ νοµίζων Ἀπόλλωνα ἐπὶ τὴν ἀγέλην
ἐπαγαγεῖν τῶν βοῶν τὸν λύκον, ἱδρύσατο Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὸν λυκίου. [5] Ἐνταῦθα
ἀνάκειται µὲν θρόνος Δαναοῦ, κεῖται δὲ εἰκὼν Βίτωνος, ἀνὴρ ἐπὶ τῶν ὤµων φέρων
ταῦρον· ὡς δὲ Λυκέας ἐποίησεν, ἐς Νεµέαν ἀργείων ἀγόντων θυσίαν τῷ Διὶ ὁ Βίτων
ὑπὸ ῥώµης τε καὶ ἰσχύος ταῦρον ἀράµενος ἤνεγκεν. Ἑξῆς δὲ τῆς εἰκόνος ταύτης πῦρ
καίουσιν ὀνοµάζοντες Φορωνέως εἶναι· οὐ γάρ τι ὁµολογοῦσι δοῦναι πῦρ
Προµηθέα ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ ἐς Φορωνέα τοῦ πυρὸς µετάγειν ἐθέλουσι τὴν εὕρεσιν.
[6] Τὰ δὲ ξόανα Ἀφροδίτης καὶ Ἑρµοῦ, τὸ µὲν Ἐπειοῦ λέγουσιν ἔργον εἶναι, τὸ δὲ
Ὑπερµήστρας ἀνάθηµα. Ταύτην γὰρ τῶν θυγατέρων µόνην τὸ πρόσταγµα
ὑπεριδοῦσαν ὑπήγαγεν ὁ Δαναὸς ἐς δικαστήριον, τοῦ τε Λυγκέως οὐκ ἀκίνδυνον
αὑτῷ τὴν σωτηρίαν ἡγούµενος καὶ ὅτι τοῦ τολµήµατος οὐ µετασχοῦσα ταῖς
ἀδελφαῖς καὶ τῷ βουλεύσαντι τὸ ὄνειδος ηὔξησε. Κριθεῖσα δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἀργείοις
ἀποφεύγει τε καὶ Ἀφροδίτην ἐπὶ τῷδε ἀνέθηκε νικηφόρον. [7] Τοῦ ναοῦ δέ ἐστιν
ἐντὸς Λάδας, ποδῶν ὠκύτητι ὑπερβαλ[λ]όµενος τοὺς ἐφ᾽ αὑτοῦ, καὶ Ἑρµῆς ἐς λύρας
ποίησιν χελώνην ᾑρηκώς. Ἔστι δὲ ἔµπροσθεν τοῦ ναοῦ βόθρος πεποιηµένα ἐν τύπῳ
ταύρου µάχην ἔχων καὶ λύκου, σὺν δὲ αὐτοῖς παρθένον ἀφιεῖσαν πέτραν ἐπὶ τὸν
ταῦρον· Ἄρτεµιν [δὲ] εἶναι νοµίζουσι τὴν παρθένον. Δαναὸς δὲ ταῦτά τε ἀνέθηκε καὶ
πλησίον κίονας καὶ Διὸς καὶ Ἀρτέµιδος ξόανον.
[8] Τάφοι δέ εἰσιν ὁ µὲν Λίνου τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ Ψαµάθης τῆς Κροτώπου,
τὸν δὲ λέγουσιν εἶναι Λίνου τοῦ ποιήσαντος τὰ ἔπη. Τὰ µὲν οὖν ἐς τοῦτον
οἰκειότερα ὄντα ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ παρίηµι τῷδε, τὰ δὲ ἐς τὸν Ψαµάθης ἡ Μεγαρική µοι
συγγραφὴ προεδήλωσεν. Ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐστὶν Ἀπόλλων ἀγυιεὺς καὶ βωµὸς ὑετίου
Διός, ἔνθα οἱ συσπεύδοντες Πολυνείκει τὴν ἐς Θήβας κάθοδον ἀποθανεῖσθαι
συνώµοσαν, ἢν µὴ τὰς Θήβας γένηταί σφισιν ἑλεῖν. Ἐς δὲ τοῦ Προµηθέως τὸ µνῆµα
ἧσσόν µοι δοκοῦσιν Ὀπουντίων εἰκότα λέγειν, λέγουσι δὲ ὅµως.
20. Παρέντι δὲ Κρεύγα τε εἰκόνα ἀνδρὸς πύκτου <καὶ> τρόπαιον ἐπὶ

κορινθίοις ἀνασταθέν, ἄγαλµά ἐστι καθήµενον Διὸς µειλιχίου, λίθου λευκοῦ,
Πολυκλείτου δὲ ἔργον. Ποιηθῆναι δὲ ἐπυνθανόµην αὐτὸ ἐπ᾽ αἰτίᾳ τοιαύτῃ:
299
λακεδαιµονίοις πολεµεῖν πρὸς ἀργείους ἀρξαµένοις οὐδεµία ἦν ἔτι ἀπαλλαγή, πρὶν
ἢ Φίλιππος σφᾶς ἠνάγκασεν ὁ Ἀµύντου µένειν ἐπὶ τοῖς καθεστηκόσιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὅροις
τῆς χώρας. Τὸν δὲ ἔµπροσθεν χρόνον οἱ λακεδαιµόνιοι µηδὲν ἔξω Πελοποννήσου
περιεργαζόµενοι τῆς ἀργείας ἀεί τι ἀπετέµνοντο, ἢ οἱ ἀργεῖοι τετραµµένων πρὸς
πόλεµον ἐκείνων ὑπερόριον ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ καὶ αὐτοί σφισιν ἐνέκειντο. [2]
Προηγµένου δὲ ἀµφοτέροις ἐς ἄκρον τοῦ µίσους ἔδοξεν ἀργείοις λογάδας τρέφειν
χιλίους· ἡγεµὼν δὲ ἐτέτακτο ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς Βρύας ἀργεῖος, ὃς ἄλλα τε ἐς ἄνδρας ὕβρισε
τοῦ δήµου καὶ παρθένον κοµιζοµένην παρὰ τὸν νυµφίον ᾔσχυνεν ἀφελόµενος τοὺς
ἄγοντας. Ἐπιλαβούσης δὲ τῆς νυκτὸς τυφλοῖ τὸν Βρύαντα ἡ παῖς φυλάξασα
ὑπνωµένον· φωραθεῖσα δὲ ὡς ἐπέσχεν ἡµέρα, κατέφυγεν ἱκέτις ἐς τὸν δῆµον. Οὐ
προεµένων δὲ αὐτὴν τιµωρήσασθαι τοῖς χιλίοις καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου προαχθέντων ἐς
µάχην ἀµφοτέρων κρατοῦσιν οἱ τοῦ δήµου, κρατήσαντες δὲ οὐδένα ὑπὸ τοῦ θυµοῦ
τῶν ἐναντίων ἔλιπον. Ὕστερον δὲ ἄλλα τε ἐπηγάγοντο καθάρσια ὡς ἐπὶ αἵµατι
ἐµφυλίῳ καὶ ἄγαλµα ἀνέθηκαν µειλιχίου Διός.
[3] Πλησίον δέ εἰσιν ἐπειργασµένοι λίθῳ Κλέοβις καὶ Βίτων αὐτοί τε ἕλκοντες
τὴν ἅµαξαν καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ ἄγοντες τὴν µητέρα ἐς τὸ Ἡραῖον. Τούτων δὲ ἀπαντικρὺ
νεµείου Διός ἐστιν ἱερόν <καὶ> ἄγαλµα ὀρθὸν χαλκοῦν, τέχνη Λυσίππου. Μετὰ δὲ
αὐτὸ προελθοῦσιν ἐν δεξιᾷ Φορωνέως τάφος ἐστίν· ἐναγίζουσι δὲ καὶ ἐς ἡµᾶς ἔτι τῷ
Φορωνεῖ. Πέραν δὲ τοῦ νεµείου Διὸς Τύχης ἐστὶν ἐκ παλαιοτάτου ναός, εἰ δὴ
Παλαµήδης κύβους εὑρὼν ἀνέθηκεν ἐς τοῦτον τὸν ναόν. [4] Τὸ δὲ µνῆµα τὸ πλησίον
Χορείας µαινάδος ὀνοµάζουσι, Διονύσῳ λέγοντες καὶ ἄλλας γυναῖκας καὶ ταύτην ἐς
Ἄργος συστρατεύσασθαι, Περσέα δέ, ὡς ἐκράτει τῆς µάχης, φονεῦσαι τῶν
γυναικῶν τὰς πολλάς· τὰς µὲν οὖν λοιπὰς θάπτουσιν ἐν κοινῷ, ταύτῃ δὲ (ἀξιώµατι
γὰρ δὴ προεῖχεν) ἰδίᾳ τὸ µνῆµα ἐποίησαν. [5] Ἀπωτέρω δὲ ὀλίγον Ὡρῶν ἱερόν
ἐστιν. Ἐπανιόντι δὲ ἐκεῖθεν ἀνδριάντες ἑστήκασι Πολυνείκους τοῦ Οἰδίποδος καὶ
ὅσοι σὺν ἐκείνῳ τῶν ἐν τέλει πρὸς τὸ τεῖχος µαχόµενοι τὸ Θηβαίων ἐτελεύτησαν.
Τούτους τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐς µόνων ἑπτὰ ἀριθµὸν κατήγαγεν Αἰσχύλος, πλειόνων ἔκ τε
Ἄργους ἡγεµόνων καὶ Μεσσήνης καί τινων καὶ Ἀρκάδων στρατευσαµένων. Τούτων
δὲ τῶν ἑπτὰ (ἐπηκολουθήκασι γὰρ καὶ Ἀργεῖοι τῇ Αἰσχύλου ποιήσει) πλησίον
κεῖνται καὶ οἱ τὰς Θήβας ἑλόντες Αἰγιαλεὺς Ἀδράστου καὶ Πρόµαχος ὁ
Παρθενοπαίου τοῦ Ταλαοῦ καὶ Πολύδωρος Ἱπποµέδοντος καὶ Θέρσανδρος καὶ οἱ
Ἀµφιαράου παῖδες, Ἀλκµαίων τε καὶ Ἀµφίλοχος, Διοµήδης τε καὶ Σθένελος· παρῆν
δὲ ἔτι καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων Εὐρύαλος Μηκιστέως καὶ Πολυνείκους Ἄδραστος καὶ Τιµέας.
[6] Τῶν δὲ ἀνδριάντων οὐ πόρρω δείκνυται Δαναοῦ µνῆµα καὶ ἀργείων τάφος
κενὸς ὁπόσους ἔν τε Ἰλίῳ καὶ ὀπίσω κοµιζοµένους ἐπέλαβεν ἡ τελευτή. Καὶ Διός
ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα ἱερὸν σωτῆρος καὶ παριοῦσίν ἐστιν οἴκηµα· ἐνταῦθα τὸν Ἄδωνιν αἱ
γυναῖκες Ἀργείων ὀδύρονται. Ἐν δεξιᾷ δὲ τῆς ἐσόδου τῷ Κηφισῷ πεποίηται τὸ
ἱερόν· τῷ δὲ ποταµῷ τούτῳ τὸ ὕδωρ φασὶν οὐ καθάπαξ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος
ἀφανισθῆναι, ἀλλὰ ἐνταῦθα δὴ µάλιστα, ἔνθα καὶ τὸ ἱερόν ἐστι, συνιᾶσιν ὑπὸ γῆν
ῥέοντος. [7] Παρὰ δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Κηφισοῦ Μεδούσης, λίθου πεποιηµένη, κεφαλή·
Κυκλώπων φασὶν εἶναι καὶ τοῦτο ἔργον. Τὸ δὲ χωρίον τὸ ὄπισθεν καὶ ἐς τόδε
Κριτήριον ὀνοµάζουσιν, Ὑπερµήστραν ἐνταῦθα ὑπὸ Δαναοῦ κριθῆναι λέγοντες.
Τούτου δέ ἐστιν οὐ πόρρω θέατρον· ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ἄλλα θέας ἄξια καὶ ἀνὴρ
φονεύων ἐστὶν ἄνδρα, Ὀθρυάδαν τὸν σπαρτιάτην Περίλαος ἀργεῖος ὁ Ἀλκήνορος·
Περιλάῳ δὲ τούτῳ καὶ πρότερον ἔτι ὑπῆρχε Νεµείων ἀνῃρῆσθαι νίκην παλαίοντι.
[8] Ὑπὲρ δὲ τὸ θέατρον Ἀφροδίτης ἐστὶν ἱερόν, ἔµπροσθεν δὲ τοῦ ἕδους
Τελέσιλλα ἡ ποιήσασα τὰ ᾁσµατα ἐπείργασται στήλῃ· καὶ βιβλία µὲν ἐκεῖνα
300
ἔρριπταί οἱ πρὸς τοῖς ποσίν, αὐτὴ δὲ ἐς κράνος ὁρᾷ κατέχουσα τῇ χειρὶ καὶ
ἐπιτίθεσθαι τῇ κεφαλῇ µέλλουσα. Ἦν δὲ ἡ Τελέσιλλα καὶ ἄλλως ἐν ταῖς γυναιξὶν
εὐδόκιµος καὶ µᾶλλον ἐτιµᾶτο ἔτι ἐπὶ τῇ ποιήσει. Συµβάντος δὲ ἀργείοις ἀτυχῆσαι
λόγου µειζόνως πρὸς Κλεοµένην τὸν Ἀναξανδρίδου καὶ λακεδαιµονίους, καὶ τῶν µὲν
ἐν αὐτῇ πεπτωκότων τῇ µάχῃ, ὅσοι δὲ ἐς τὸ ἄλσος τοῦ Ἄργου κατέφευγον
διαφθαρέντων καὶ τούτων, τὰ µὲν πρῶτα ἐξιόντων κατὰ ὁµολογίαν, ὡς δὲ
ἔγνωσαν ἀπατώµενοι συγκατακαυθέντων τῷ ἄλσει τῶν λοιπῶν, οὕτω τοὺς
λακεδαιµονίους Κλεοµένης ἦγεν ἐπὶ ἔρηµον ἀνδρῶν τὸ Ἄργος. [9] Τελέσιλλα δὲ
οἰκέτας µὲν καὶ ὅσοι διὰ νεότητα ἢ γῆρας ὅπλα ἀδύνατοι φέρειν ἦσαν, τούτους µὲν
πάντας ἀνεβίβασεν ἐπὶ τὸ τεῖχος, αὐτὴ δὲ ὁπόσα ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις ὑπελείπετο καὶ τὰ
ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν ὅπλα ἀθροίσασα τὰς ἀκµαζούσας ἡλικίᾳ τῶν γυναικῶν ὥπλιζεν,
ὁπλίσασα δὲ ἔτασσε κατὰ τοῦτο ᾗ τοὺς πολεµίους προσιόντας ἠπίστατο. Ὡς δὲ
<ἐγγὺς> ἐγίνοντο οἱ λακεδαιµόνιοι καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες οὔτε τῷ ἀλαλαγµῷ
κατεπλάγησαν δεξάµεναί τε ἐµάχοντο ἐρρωµένως, ἐνταῦθα οἱ λακεδαιµόνιοι,
φρονήσαντες ὡς καὶ διαφθείρασί σφισι τὰς γυναῖκας ἐπιφθόνως τὸ κατόρθωµα ἕξει
καὶ σφαλεῖσι µετὰ ὀνειδῶν γενήσοιτο ἡ συµφορά, ὑπείκουσι ταῖς γυναιξί. [10]
Πρότερον δὲ ἔτι τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦτον προεσήµηνεν ἡ πυθία, καὶ τὸ λόγιον εἴτε ἄλλως
εἴτε καὶ ὡς συνεὶς ἐδήλωσεν Ἡρόδοτος: «ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν ἡ θήλεια τὸν ἄρρενα νικήσασα |
ἐξελάσῃ καὶ κῦδος ἐν Ἀργείοισιν ἄρηται, | πολλὰς ἀργείων ἀµφιδρυφέας τότε
θήσει». Τὰ µὲν ἐς τὸ ἔργον τῶν γυναικῶν ἔχοντα τοῦ χρησµοῦ ταῦτα ἦν.
21. Κατελθοῦσι δὲ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ τραπεῖσιν αὖθις ἐπὶ τὴν ἀγοράν, ἔστι µὲν
Κερδοῦς Φορωνέως γυναικὸς µνῆµα, ἔστι δὲ ναὸς Ἀσκληπιοῦ. Τὸ δὲ τῆς Ἀρτέµιδος
ἱερὸν ἐπίκλησιν πειθοῦς, Ὑπερµήστρα καὶ τοῦτο ἀνέθηκε νικήσασα τῇ δίκῃ τὸν
πατέρα ἣν τοῦ Λυγκέως ἕνεκα ἔφυγε. Καὶ Αἰνείου ἐνταῦθα χαλκοῦς ἀνδριάς ἐστι καὶ
χωρίον καλούµενον Δέλτα, ἐφ᾽ ὅτῳ δὲ (οὐ γάρ µοι τὰ λεγόµενα ἤρεσκεν), ἑκὼν
παρίηµι. [2] Πρὸ δὲ αὐτοῦ πεποίηται Διὸς φυξίου βωµὸς καὶ πλησίον Ὑπερµήστρας
µνῆµα Ἀµφιαράου µητρός, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Ὑπερµήστρας τῆς Δαναοῦ· σὺν δὲ αὐτῇ καὶ
Λυγκεὺς τέθαπται. Τούτων δὲ ἀπαντικρὺ Ταλαοῦ τοῦ Βίαντός ἐστι τάφος· τὰ δὲ ἐς
Βίαντα καὶ ἀπογόνους τοῦ Βίαντος ἤδη λέλεκταί µοι. [3] Ἀθηνᾶς δὲ ἱδρύσασθαι
σάλπιγγος ἱερόν φασιν Ἡγέλεων. Τυρσηνοῦ δὲ τοῦτον <τὸν> Ἡγέλεων, τὸν δὲ
Ἡρακλέους εἶναι καὶ γυναικὸς λέγουσι τῆς Λυδῆς, Τυρσηνὸν δὲ σάλπιγγα εὑρεῖν
πρῶτον, Ἡγέλεων δὲ τὸν Τυρσηνοῦ διδάξαι τοὺς σὺν Τηµένῳ δωριέας τοῦ
ὀργάνου τὸν ψόφον καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸ Ἀθηνᾶν ἐπονοµάσαι σάλπιγγα. Πρὸ δὲ τοῦ ναοῦ
τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς Ἐπιµενίδου λέγουσιν εἶναι τάφον· λακεδαιµονίους γὰρ πολεµήσαντας
πρὸς κνω[σ]σίους ἑλεῖν ζῶντα Ἐπιµενίδην, λαβόντας δὲ ἀποκτεῖναι, διότι σφίσιν
οὐκ αἴσια ἐµαντεύετο, αὐτοὶ δὲ ἀνελόµενοι θάψαι ταύτῃ φασί. [4] Τὸ δὲ οἰκοδόµηµα
λευκοῦ λίθου κατὰ µέσον µάλιστα τῆς ἀγορᾶς οὐ τρόπαιον ἐπὶ Πύρρῳ τῷ
Ἠπειρώτῃ, καθὰ λέγουσιν οἱ ἀργεῖοι, καυθέντος δὲ ἐνταῦθα τοῦ νεκροῦ µνῆµα καὶ
τοῦτο ἂν εὕροι τις, ἐν ᾧ τά τε ἄλλα ὅσοις ὁ Πύρρος ἐχρῆτο ἐς τὰς µάχας καὶ οἱ
ἐλέφαντές εἰσιν ἐπειργασµένοι. Τοῦτο µὲν δὴ κατὰ τὴν πυρὰν <τὸ> οἰκοδόµηµα
ἐγένετο· αὐτὰ δὲ κεῖται τοῦ Πύρρου τὰ ὀστᾶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς Δήµητρος, παρ᾽ ᾧ
συµβῆναί οἱ καὶ τὴν τελευτὴν ἐδήλωσα ἐν τῇ Ἀτθίδι συγγραφῇ. Τοῦ δὲ τῆς
Δήµητρος ἱεροῦ τούτου κατὰ τὴν ἔσοδον ἀσπίδα ἰδεῖν Πύρρου χαλκῆν ἔστιν ὑπὲρ
τῶν θυρῶν ἀνακειµένην.
[5] Τοῦ δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ τῶν Ἀργείων οἰκοδοµήµατος οὐ µακρὰν χῶµα γῆς
ἐστιν· ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ κεῖσθαι τὴν Μεδούσης λέγουσι τῆς Γοργόνος κεφαλήν. Ἀπόντος δέ
301
τοῦ µύθου τάδε ἄλλα ἐς αὐτήν ἐστιν εἰρηµένα· Φόρκου µὲν θυγατέρα εἶναι,
τελευτήσαντος δέ οἱ τοῦ πατρὸς βασιλεύειν τῶν περὶ τὴν λίµνην τὴν Τριτωνίδα
οἰκούντων καὶ ἐπὶ θήραν τε ἐξιέναι καὶ ἐς τὰς µάχας ἡγεῖσθαι τοῖς λίβυσι· καὶ δὴ καὶ
τότε ἀντικαθηµένην στρατῷ πρὸς τὴν Περσέως δύναµιν (ἕπεσθαι γὰρ καὶ τῷ
Περσεῖ λογάδας ἐκ Πελοποννήσου) δολοφονηθῆναι νύκτωρ, καὶ τὸν Περσέα τὸ
κάλλος ἔτι καὶ ἐπὶ νεκρῷ θαυµάζοντα οὕτω τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποτεµόντα αὐτῆς ἄγειν
τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐς ἐπίδειξιν. [6] Καρχηδονίῳ δὲ ἀνδρὶ Προκλεῖ τῷ Εὐκράτους ἕτερος
λόγος ὅδε ἐφαίνετο εἶναι τοῦ προτέρου πιθανώτερος: Λιβύης ἡ ἔρηµος καὶ ἄλλα
παρέχεται θηρία ἀκούσασιν οὐ πιστὰ καὶ ἄνδρες ἐνταῦθα ἄγριοι καὶ ἄγριαι
γίνονται γυναῖκες· ἔλεγέ τε ὁ Προκλῆς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἄνδρα ἰδεῖν κοµισθέντα ἐς
Ῥώµην. Εἴκαζεν οὖν πλανηθεῖσαν γυναῖκα ἐκ τούτων καὶ ἀφικοµένην ἐπὶ τὴν λίµνην
τὴν Τριτωνίδα λυµαίνεσθαι τοὺς προσοίκους, ἐς ὃ Περσεὺς ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτήν·
Ἀθηνᾶν δέ οἱ συνεπιλαβέσθαι δοκεῖν τοῦ ἔργου, ὅτι οἱ περὶ τὴν λίµνην τὴν
Τριτωνίδα ἄνθρωποι ταύτης εἰσὶν ἱεροί. [7] Ἐν δὲ Ἄργει παρὰ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ µνῆµα
τῆς Γοργόνος Γοργοφόνης τάφος ἐστὶ τῆς Περσέως. Καὶ ἐφ᾽ ὅτῳ µὲν αὐτῇ τὸ ὄνοµα
ἐτέθη, δῆλον εὐθὺς ἀκούσαντι· γυναικῶν δὲ πρώτην αὐτήν φασι τελευτήσαντος τοῦ
ἀνδρὸς Περιήρους τοῦ Αἰόλου (τούτῳ γὰρ παρθένος συνῴκησε), τὴν δὲ αὖθις
Οἰβάλῳ γήµασθαι· πρότερον δὲ καθεστήκει ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἐπὶ ἀνδρὶ ἀποθανόντι
χηρεύειν. [8] Τοῦ τάφου δὲ ἔµπροσθεν τρόπαιον λίθου πεποίηται κατὰ ἀνδρὸς
ἀργείου Λαφάους· τοῦτον γὰρ (γράφω δὲ ὁπόσα λέγουσιν αὐτοὶ περὶ σφῶν
Ἀργεῖοι) τυραννοῦντα ἐξέβαλεν ἐπαναστὰς ὁ δῆµος, φυγόντα δὲ ἐς Σπάρτην
λακεδαιµόνιοι κατάγειν ἐπειρῶντο ἐπὶ τυραννίδι, νικήσαντες δὲ οἱ ἀργεῖοι τῇ µάχῃ
Λαφάην τε καὶ τῶν λακεδαιµονίων τοὺς πολλοὺς ἀπέκτειναν.
Τὸ δὲ ἱερὸν τῆς Λητοῦς ἔστι µὲν οὐ µακρὰν τοῦ τροπαίου, τέχνη δὲ τὸ
ἄγαλµα Πραξιτέλους. [9] Τὴν δὲ εἰκόνα παρὰ τῇ θεῷ τῆς παρθένου Χλῶριν
ὀνοµάζουσι, Νιόβης µὲν θυγατέρα εἶναι λέγοντες, Μελίβοιαν δὲ καλεῖσθαι τὸ ἐξ
ἀρχῆς· ἀπολλυµένων δὲ ὑπὸ Ἀρτέµιδος καὶ Ἀπόλλωνος τῶν Ἀµφίονος παίδων
περιγενέσθαι µόνην τῶν ἀδελφῶν ταύτην καὶ Ἀµύκλαν, περιγενέσθαι δὲ εὐξαµένους
τῇ Λητοῖ. Μελίβοιαν δὲ οὕτω δή τι παραυτίκα τε χλωρὰν τὸ δεῖµα ἐποίησε καὶ ἐς
τὸ λοιπὸν τοῦ βίου παρέµεινεν ὡς καὶ τὸ ὄνοµα ἐπὶ τῷ συµβάντι ἀντὶ Μελιβοίας
αὐτῇ γενέσθαι Χλῶριν. [10] Τούτους δή φασιν ἀργεῖοι τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς οἰκοδοµῆσαι τῇ
Λητοῖ τὸν ναόν· ἐγὼ δὲ (πρόσκειµαι γὰρ πλέον τι ἢ οἱ λοιποὶ τῇ Ὁµήρου ποιήσει)
δοκῶ τῇ Νιόβῃ τῶν παίδων µηδένα ὑπόλοιπον γενέσθαι· µαρτυρεῖ δέ µοι τὸ ἔπος
«τὼ δ᾽ ἄρα καὶ δοιώ περ ἐόντ᾽ ἀπὸ πάντας ὄλεσσαν». Οὗτος µὲν δὴ τὸν οἶκον τὸν
Ἀµφίονος ἐκ βάθρων ἀνατραπέντα οἶδε.
22. Τῆς δὲ Ἥρας ὁ ναὸς τῆς ἀνθείας ἐστὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς Λητοῦς ἐν δεξιᾷ καὶ
πρὸ αὐτοῦ γυναικῶν τάφος. Ἀπέθανον δὲ αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν µάχῃ πρὸς ἀργείους τε καὶ
Περσέα, ἀπὸ νήσων τῶν ἐν Αἰγαίῳ Διονύσῳ συνεστρατευµέναι· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο
Ἁλίας αὐτὰς ἐπονοµάζουσιν. Ἀντικρὺ δὲ τοῦ µνήµατος τῶν γυναικῶν Δήµητρός
ἐστιν ἱερὸν ἐπίκλησιν πελασγίδος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱδρυσαµένου Πελασγοῦ τοῦ Τριόπα, καὶ
οὐ πόρρω τοῦ ἱεροῦ τάφος Πελασγοῦ. [2] Πέραν δὲ τοῦ τάφου χαλκεῖόν ἐστιν οὐ
µέγα, ἀνέχει δὲ αὐτὸ ἀγάλµατα ἀρχαῖα Ἀρτέµιδος καὶ Διὸς καὶ Ἀθηνᾶς. Λυκέας µὲν
οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἔπεσιν ἐποίησε µηχανέως τὸ ἄγαλµα εἶναι Διός, καὶ ἀργείων ἔφη τοὺς
ἐπὶ Ἴλιον στρατεύσαντας ἐνταῦθα ὀµόσαι παραµενεῖν πολεµοῦντας, ἔστ᾽ ἂν ἢ τὸ
Ἴλιον ἕλωσιν ἢ µαχοµένους τελευτὴ σφᾶς ἐπιλάβῃ· ἑτέροις δέ ἐστιν εἰρηµένον ὀστᾶ
ἐν τῷ χαλκείῳ κεῖσθαι Ταντάλου. [3] Τὸν µὲν δὴ Θυέστου παῖδα ἢ Βροτέου
302
(λέγεται γὰρ ἀµφότερα), ὃς Κλυταιµ[ν]ήστρᾳ πρότερον ἢ Ἀγαµέµνων συνῴκησε,
τοῦτον µὲν <τὸν> Τάνταλον οὐ διοίσοµαι ταφῆναι ταύτῃ· τοῦ δὲ λεγοµένου Διός
τε εἶναι καὶ Πλουτοῦς ἰδὼν οἶδα ἐν Σιπύλῳ τάφον θέας ἄξιον. Πρὸς δὲ οὐδὲ ἀνάγκη
συνέπεσεν ἐκ τῆς Σιπύλου φυγεῖν αὐτόν, ὡς Πέλοπα ἐπέλαβεν ὕστερον ἐλαύνοντος
Ἴλου τοῦ φρυγὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν στρατείᾳ. Τάδε µὲν ἐς τοσοῦτον ἐξητάσθω.
Τὰ δὲ ἐς τὸν βόθρον τὸν πλησίον δρώµενα Νικόστρατον ἄνδρα ἐπιχώριον
καταστήσασθαι λέγουσιν. Ἀφιᾶσι δὲ καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἐς τὸν βόθρον καιοµένας λαµπάδας
Κόρῃ τῇ Δήµητρος. [4] Ἐνταῦθα Ποσειδῶνός ἐστιν ἱερὸν ἐπίκλησιν προσκλυστίου·
τῆς γὰρ χώρας τὸν Ποσειδῶνά <φασιν> ἐπικλύσαι τὴν πολλήν, ὅτι Ἥρας εἶναι καὶ
οὐκ αὐτοῦ τὴν γῆν Ἴναχος καὶ οἱ συνδικάσαντες ἔγνωσαν. Ἥρα µὲν δὴ παρὰ
Ποσειδῶνος εὕρετο ἀπελθεῖν ὀπίσω τὴν θάλασσαν· ἀργεῖοι δέ, ὅθεν τὸ κῦµα
ἀνεχώρησεν, ἱερὸν Ποσειδῶνι ἐποίησαν προσκλυστίῳ. [5] Προελθόντι δὲ οὐ πολὺ
τάφος ἐστὶν Ἄργου Διὸς εἶναι δοκοῦντος καὶ τῆς Φορωνέως Νιόβης· µετὰ δὲ ταῦτα
Διοσκούρων ναός. Ἀγάλµατα δὲ αὐτοί τε καὶ οἱ παῖδές εἰσιν Ἄναξις καὶ Μνασίνους,
σὺν δέ σφισιν αἱ µητέρες Ἱλάειρα καὶ Φοίβη, τέχνη µὲν Διποίνου καὶ Σκύλλιδος,
ξύλου δὲ ἐβένου· τοῖς δ᾽ ἵπποις τὰ µὲν πολλὰ ἐβένου καὶ τούτοις, ὀλίγα δὲ καὶ
ἐλέφαντος πεποίηται. [6] Πλησίον δὲ τῶν Ἀνάκτων Εἰληθυίας ἐστὶν ἱερὸν ἀνάθηµα
Ἑλένης, ὅτε σὺν Πειρίθῳ Θησέως ἀπελθόντος ἐς θεσπρωτοὺς Ἄφιδνά τε ὑπὸ
Διοσκούρων ἑάλω καὶ ἤγετο ἐς Λακεδαίµονα Ἑλένη. Ἔχειν µὲν γὰρ αὐτὴν λέγουσιν
ἐν γαστρί, τεκοῦσαν δὲ ἐν Ἄργει καὶ τῆς Εἰληθυίας ἱδρυσαµένην τὸ ἱερὸν τὴν µὲν
παῖδα ἣν ἔτεκε Κλυταιµ[ν]ήστρᾳ δοῦναι (συνοικεῖν γὰρ ἤδη Κλυταιµ[ν]ήστραν
Ἀγαµέµνονι), αὐτὴν δὲ ὕστερον τούτων Μενελάῳ γήµασθαι. [7] Καὶ ἐπὶ τῷδε
Εὐφορίων χαλκιδεὺς καὶ πλευρώνιος Ἀλέξανδρος ἔπη ποιήσαντες, πρότερον δὲ ἔτι
Στησίχορος ὁ ἱµεραῖος, κατὰ ταὐτά φασιν ἀργείοις Θησέως εἶναι θυγατέρα
Ἰφιγένειαν. Τοῦ δὲ ἱεροῦ τῆς Εἰληθυίας πέραν ἐστὶν Ἑκάτης ναός, Σκόπα δὲ τὸ
ἄγαλµα ἔργον. Τοῦτο µὲν λίθου· τὰ δ᾽ ἀπαντικρὺ χαλκᾶ, Ἑκάτης καὶ ταῦτα
ἀγάλµατα, τὸ µὲν Πολύκλειτος ἐποίησε, τὸ δὲ ἀδελφὸς Πολυκλείτου Ναυκύδης
Μόθωνος. [8] Ἐρχοµένῳ δὲ ὁδὸν εὐθεῖαν ἐς γυµνάσιον Κυλάραβιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ παιδὸς
ὀνοµαζόµενον τοῦ Σθενέλου, τέθαπται δὴ Λικύµνιος ὁ Ἠλεκτρύωνος· ἀποθανεῖν δ᾽
αὐτὸν Ὅµηρος ὑπὸ Τληπτολέµου φησὶ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους, καὶ διὰ τὸν φόνον τοῦτον
ἔφυγεν ἐξ Ἄργους Τληπτόλεµος. Ὀλίγον δὲ τῆς ἐπὶ Κυλάραβιν καὶ τὴν ταύτῃ
πύλην ἀποτραπεῖσι Σακάδα µνῆµά ἐστιν, ὃς τὸ αὔληµα τὸ Πυθικὸν πρῶτος
ηὔλησεν ἐν Δελφοῖς· [9] καὶ τὸ ἔχθος τὸ Ἀπόλλωνι διαµένον ἐς τοὺς αὐλητὰς ἔτι ἀπὸ
Μαρσύου καὶ τῆς ἁµίλλης τοῦ Σιληνοῦ παυθῆναι διὰ τοῦτον δοκεῖ τὸν Σακάδαν. Ἐν
δὲ τῷ γυµνασίῳ τῷ Κυλαράβου καὶ καπανεία ἐστὶν Ἀθηνᾶ καλουµένη καὶ τάφον
Σθενέλου δεικνύουσι, τὸν δὲ αὐτοῦ Κυλαράβου. Πεποίηται δὲ οὐ πόρρω τοῦ
γυµνασίου πολυάνδριον τοῖς µετὰ ἀθηναίων πλεύσασιν ἀργείοις ἐπὶ καταδουλώσει
Συρακουσῶν τε καὶ Σικελίας.724
The most famous building in the city of Argos is the sanctuary of Apollo
19. [3]
Lykeios (Wolf-god). The modern image was made by the Athenian Attalos, but the
original temple and wooden image were the offering of Danaos. I am of opinion that in
those days all images, especially Egyptian images, were made of wood. The reason why
Danaos founded a sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios was this. On coming to Argos he claimed
724
Greek text from N.D. Papachatzis,Παυσανίου Ελλάδος περιήγησις: βιβλίο 2 και 3. Κορινθιακά –
Λακωνικά (Athens, 1976).
303
the kingdom against Gelanor, the son of Sthenelas. Many plausible arguments were
brought forward by both parties, and those of Sthenelas were considered as fair as those
of his opponent; so the people, who were sitting in judgment, put off, they say, the
decision to the following day. [4] At dawn a wolf fell upon a herd of oxen that was
pasturing before the wall, and attacked and fought with the bull that was the leader of the
herd. It occurred to the Argives that Gelanor was like the bull and Danaos like the wolf,
for as the wolf will not live with men, so Danaos up to that time had not lived with them.
It was because the wolf overcame the bull that Danaos won the kingdom. Accordingly,
believing that Apollo had brought the wolf on the herd, he founded a sanctuary of Apollo
Lykeios. [5] Here is dedicated the throne of Danaos, and here is placed a statue of Biton,
in the form of a man carrying a bull on his shoulders. According to the poet Lykeas,
when the Argives were holding a sacrifice to Zeus at Nemea, Biton by sheer physical
strength took up a bull and carried it there. Next to this statue is a fire which they keep
burning, calling it the fire of Phoroneus. For they do not admit that fire was given to
mankind by Prometheus, but insist in assigning the discovery of fire to Phoroneus. [6] As
to the wooden images of Aphrodite and Hermes, the one they say was made by Epeos,
while the other is a votive offering of Hypermnestra. She was the only one of the
daughters of Danaos who neglected his command, and was accordingly brought to justice
by him, because he considered that his life was in danger so long as Lynkeos was at
large, and that the refusal to share in the crime of her sisters increased the disgrace of the
contriver of the deed. On her trial she was acquitted by the Argives, and to commemorate
her escape she dedicated an image of Aphrodite Nikephoros (Bringer of Victory). [7]
Within the temple is a statue of Ladas, the swiftest runner of his time, and one of Hermes
with a tortoise which he has caught to make a lyre. Before the temple is a pit with a relief
representing a fight between a bull and a wolf, and with them a maiden throwing a rock at
the bull. The maiden is thought to be Artemis. Danaos dedicated these, and some pillars
hard by and wooden images of Zeus and Artemis.
[8] Here are graves; one is that of Linos, the son of Apollo by Psamathe, the
daughter of Krotopos; the other, they say, is that of Linos the poet. The story of the latter
Linos is more appropriate to another part of my narrative, and so I omit it here, while I
have already given the history of the son of Psamathe in my account of Megara. After
these is an image of Apollo Aguieus (God of Streets), and an altar of Zeus Hyetios (God
of Rain), where those who were helping Polyneikes in his efforts to be restored to Thebes
swore an oath together that they would either capture Thebes or die. As to the tomb of
Prometheus, their account seems to me to be less probable than that of the Opuntians, but
they hold to it nevertheless.
20. Passing over a statue of Kreugas, a boxer, and a trophy that was set up to
celebrate a victory over the Corinthians, you come to a seated image of Zeus Meilichios
(Gracious), made of white marble by Polykleitos. I discovered that it was made for the
following reason. Ever since the Lacedaimonians began to make war upon the Argives
there was no cessation of hostilities until Philip, the son of Amyntas, forced them to stay
within the original boundaries of their territories. Before this, if the Lakedaimonians were
not engaged on some business outside the Peloponnese, they were always trying to annex
304
a piece of Argive territory; or if they were busied with a war beyond their borders it was
the turn of the Argives to retaliate. [2] When the hatred of both sides was at its height, the
Argives resolved to maintain a thousand picked men. The commander appointed over
them was the Argive Bryas. His general behavior to the men of the people was violent,
and a maiden who was being taken to the bridegroom he seized from those who were
escorting her and ravished. When night came on, the girl waited until he was asleep and
put out his eyes. Detected in the morning, she took refuge as a suppliant with the people.
When they did not give her up to the Thousand for punishment both sides took up arms;
the people won the day, and in their anger left none of their opponents alive.
Subsequently they had recourse to purifications for shedding kindred blood; among other
things they dedicated an image of Zeus Meilichios.
[3] Hard by are Kleobis and Biton carved in relief on stone, themselves drawing
the carriage and taking in it their mother to the sanctuary of Hera. Opposite them is a
sanctuary of Nemean Zeus, and an upright bronze statue of the god made by Lysippos.
Going forward from this you see on the right the grave of Phoroneus, to whom even in
our time they bring offerings as to a hero. Over against the Nemean Zeus is a temple of
Tyche, which must be very old if it be the one in which Palamedes dedicated the dice that
he had invented. [4] The tomb near this they call that of the maenad Chorea, saying that
she was one of the women who joined Dionysos in his expedition against Argos, and that
Perseus, being victorious in the battle, put most of the women to the sword. To the rest
they gave a common grave, but to Chorea they gave burial apart because of her high rank.
[5] A little farther on is a sanctuary of the Seasons. On coming back from here you see
statues of Polyneikes, the son of Oedipus, and of all the chieftains who with him were
killed in battle at the wall of Thebes. These men Aeschylus has reduced to the number of
seven only, although there were more chiefs than this in the expedition, from Argos, from
Messene, with some even from Arcadia. But the Argives have adopted the number seven
from the drama of Aeschylus, and near to their statues are the statues of those who took
Thebes: Aegialeus, son of Adrastos; Promachos, son of Parthenopaios, son of Talaos;
Polydoros, son of Hippomedon; Thersander; Alcmaion and Amphilochos, the sons of
Amphiaraos; Diomedes, and Sthenelos. Among their company were also Euryalos, son of
Mekisteos, and Adrastos and Timeas, sons of Polyneikes. [6] Not far from the statues are
shown the tomb of Danaos and a cenotaph of the Argives who met their death at Troy or
on the journey home. Here there is also a sanctuary of Zeus Soter (Savior). Beyond it is a
building where the Argive women bewail Adonis. On the right of the entrance is the
sanctuary of Cephisos. It is said that the water of this river was not utterly destroyed by
Poseidon, but that just in this place, where the sanctuary is, it can be heard flowing under
the earth. [7] Beside the sanctuary of Cephisos is a head of Medusa made of stone, which
is said to be another of the works of the Cyclopes. The ground behind it is called even at
the present time the Kriterion (Place of Judgment), because it was here that they say
Hypermnestra was brought to judgment by Danaos. Not far from this is a theater. In it are
some noteworthy sights, including a representation of a man killing another, namely the
Argive Perilaos, the son of Alkenor, killing the Spartan Othryadas. Before this, Perilaos
had succeeded in winning the prize for wrestling at the Nemean games.
305
[8] Above the theater is a sanctuary of Aphrodite, and before the image is a slab
with a representation wrought on it in relief of Telesilla, the lyric poetess. Her books lie
scattered at her feet, and she herself holds in her hand an helmet, which she is looking at
and is about to place on her head. Telesilla was a distinguished woman who was
especially renowned for her poetry. It happened that the Argives had suffered an awful
defeat at the hands of Cleomenes, the son of Anaxandrides, and the Lakedaimonians.
Some fell in the actual fighting; others, who had fled to the grove of Argos, also perished.
At first they left the sanctuary under an agreement, which was treacherously broken, and
the survivors, when they realized this, were burnt to death in the grove. So when
Cleomenes led his troops to Argos there were no men to defend it. [9] But Telesilla
mounted on the wall all the slaves and such as were incapable of bearing arms through
youth or old age, and she herself, collecting the arms in the sanctuaries and those that
were left in the houses, armed the women of vigorous age, and then posted them where
she knew the enemy would attack. When the Lakedaimonians came on, the women were
not dismayed at their battle-cry, but stood their ground and fought valiantly. Then the
Lakedaimonians, realizing that to destroy the women would be an invidious success
while defeat would mean a shameful disaster, gave way before the women. This fight had
been foretold by the Pythian priestess in the oracle quoted by Herodotus, who perhaps
understood to what it referred and perhaps did not: “But when the time shall come that
the female conquers in battle, Driving away the male, and wins great glory in Argos,
many an Argive woman will tear both cheeks in her sorrow.” Such are the words of the
oracle referring to the exploit of the women.
21. Having descended thence, and having turned again to the agora, we come to
the tomb of Kerdo, the wife of Phoroneus, and to a temple of Asklepios. The sanctuary of
Artemis, surnamed Peithos (Persuasion), is another offering of Hypermnestra after
winning the trial to which she was brought by her father because of Lynkeos. Here there
is also a bronze statue of Aeneas, and a place called Delta. I intentionally do not discuss
the origin of the name, because I could not accept the traditional accounts. [2] In front of
it stands an altar of Zeus Phyxius (God of Fight), and near is the tomb of Hypermnestra,
the mother of Amphiaraos, the other tomb being that of Hypermnestra, the daughter of
Danaos, with whom is also buried Lynkeos. Opposite these is the grave of Talaos, the son
of Bias; the history of Bias and his descendants I have already given. [3] A sanctuary of
Athena Salpinx (Trumpet) they say was founded by Hegeleos. This Hegeleos, according
to the story, was the son of Tyrsenos, and Tyrsenos was the son of Herakles and the
Lydian woman; Tyrsenos invented the trumpet, and Hegeleos, the son of Tyrsenos,
taught the Dorians with Temenos how to play the instrument, and for this reason gave
Athena the surname Salpinx. Before the temple of Athena is, they say, the grave of
Epimenides. The Argive story is that the Lakedaimonians made war upon the Knossians
and took Epimenides alive; they then put him to death for not prophesying good luck to
them, and the Argives taking his body buried it here. [4] The building of white marble in
just about the middle of the agora is not, as the Argives declare, a trophy in honor of a
victory over Pyrrhus of Epiros, but it can be shown that his body was burnt here, and that
this is his monument, on which are carved in relief the elephants and his other
306
instruments of warfare. This building then was set up where the pyre stood, but the bones
of Pyrrhus lie in the sanctuary of Demeter, beside which, as I have shown in my account
of Attica, his death occurred. At the entrance to this sanctuary of Demeter you can see a
bronze shield of Pyrrhus hanging dedicated over the door.
[5] Not far from the building in the agora of Argos is a mound of earth, in which
they say lies the head of the Gorgon Medusa. I omit the miraculous, but give the rational
parts of the story about her. After the death of her father, Phorkos, she reigned over those
living around Lake Tritonis, going out hunting and leading the Libyans to battle. On one
such occasion, when she was encamped with an army over against the forces of Perseus,
who was followed by picked troops from the Peloponnesus, she was assassinated by
night. Perseus, admiring her beauty even in death, cut off her head and carried it to show
the Greeks. [6] But Prokles, the son of Eukrates, a Carthaginian, thought a different
account more plausible than the preceding. It is as follows: among the incredible
monsters to be found in the Libyan desert are wild men and wild women. Prokles
affirmed that he had seen a man from them who had been brought to Rome. So he
guessed that a woman wandered from them, reached Lake Tritonis, and harried the
neighbors until Perseus killed her; Athena was supposed to have helped him in this
exploit, because the people who live around Lake Tritonis are sacred to her. [7] In Argos,
by the side of this monument of the Gorgon, is the grave of Gorgophone (Gorgon-killer),
the daughter of Perseus. As soon as you hear the name you can understand the reason
why it was given her. On the death of her husband, Perieres, the son of Aeolus, whom she
married when a virgin, she married Oibalos, being the first woman, they say, to marry a
second time; for before this wives were wont, on the death of their husbands, to live as
widows. [8] In front of the grave is a trophy of stone made to commemorate a victory
over an Argive Laphais. When this man was tyrant I write what the Argives themselves
say concerning themselves: the people rose up against him and cast him out. He fled to
Sparta, and the Lakedaimonians tried to restore him to power, but were defeated by the
Argives, who killed the greater part of them and Laphais as well. [9] The statue of the
maiden beside the goddess they call Chloris (Pale), saying that she was a daughter of
Niobe, and that she was called Meliboia at the first. When the children of Amphion were
destroyed by Apollo and Artemis, she alone of her sisters, along with Amyklas, escaped;
their escape was due to their prayers to Leto. Meliboia was struck so pale by her fright,
not only at the time but also for the rest of her life, that even her name was accordingly
changed from Meliboia to Chloris. [10] Now the Argives say that these two built
originally the temple to Leto, but I think that none of Niobe's children survived, for I
place more reliance than others on the poetry of Homer, one of whose verses bears out
my view: “Though they were only two, yet they gave all to destruction.” So Homer
knows that the house of Amphion was utterly overthrown.
22. The temple of Hera Anthea (Flowery) is on the right of the sanctuary of Leto,
and before it is a grave of women. They were killed in a battle against the Argives under
Perseus, having come from the Aegean Islands to help Dionysos in war; for which reason
they are surnamed Haliai (Women of the Sea). Facing the tomb of the women is a
sanctuary of Demeter, surnamed Pelasgian from Pelasgus, son of Triopas, its founder,
307
and not far from the sanctuary is the grave of Pelasgus. [2] Opposite the grave is a small
bronze vessel supporting ancient images of Artemis, Zeus, and Athena. Now Lykeas in
his poem says that the image is of Zeus Mechaneos (Contriver), and that here the Argives
who set out against Troy swore to hold out in the war until they either took Troy or met
their end fighting. Others have said that in the bronze vessel lie the bones of Tantalus. [3]
Now that the Tantalus is buried here who was the son of Thyestes or Broteas (both
accounts are given) and married Clytemnestra before Agamemnon did, I will not gainsay;
but the grave of him who legend says was son of Zeus and Pluto (it is worth seeing) is on
Mount Sipylos. I know because I saw it. Moreover, no constraint came upon him to flee
from Sipylos, such as afterwards forced Pelops to run away when Ilos the Phrygian
launched an army against him.
But I must pursue the inquiry no further. The ritual performed at the pit hard by
they say was instituted by Nikostratos, a native. Even at the present day they throw into
the pit burning torches in honor of Kore who is daughter of Demeter. [4] Here is a
sanctuary of Poseidon, surnamed Prosklystios (Flooder), for they say that Poseidon
inundated the greater part of the country because Inachos and his assessors decided that
the land belonged to Hera and not to him. Now it was Hera who induced Poseidon to
send the sea back, but the Argives made a sanctuary to Poseidon Prosklystios at the spot
where the tide ebbed. [5] Going on a little further you see the grave of Argos, reputed to
be the son of Zeus and Niobe, daughter of Phoroneus. After these comes a temple of the
Dioscouroi. The images represent the Dioscouroi themselves and their sons, Anaxis and
Mnasinous, and with them are their mothers, Hilaeira and Phoebe. They are of ebony
wood, and were made by Dipoinos and Skyllis. The horses, too, are mostly of ebony, but
there is a little ivory also in their construction. [6] Near the Lords is a sanctuary of
Eilethyia, dedicated by Helen when, Theseus having gone away with Peirithous to
Thesprotia, Aphidna had been captured by the Dioscouroi and Helen was being brought
to Lakedaimon. For it is said that she was with child, was delivered in Argos, and
founded there the sanctuary of Eilethyia, giving the daughter she bore to Clytemnestra,
who was already wedded to Agamemnon, while she herself subsequently married
Menelaus. [7] And on this matter the poets Euphorion of Chalcis and Alexander of
Pleuron, and even before them, Stesichoros of Himera, agree with the Argives in
asserting that Iphigenia was the daughter of Theseus. Over against the sanctuary of
Eilethyia is a temple of Hekate, and the image is a work of Skopas. This one is of stone,
while the bronze images opposite, also of Hekate, were made respectively by Polykleitos
and his brother Naukydes, son of Mothon. [8] As you go along a straight road to a
gymnasium, called Kylarabis after the son of Sthenelos, you come to the grave of
Likymnios, the son of Elektryon, who, Homer says, was killed by Tleptolemos, the son of
Herakles for which homicide Tleptolemos was banished from Argos. On turning a little
aside from the road to Kylarabis and to the gate there, you come to the tomb of Sakadas,
who was the first to play at Delphi the Pythian flute-tune; [9] the hostility of Apollo to
flute-players, which had lasted ever since the rivalry of Marsyas the Silenus, is supposed
to have stayed because of this Sakadas. In the gymnasium of Kylarabes is an Athena
called Pania; they show also the graves of Sthenelos and of Kylarabes himself. Not far
308
from the gymnasium has been built a common grave of those Argives who sailed with the
Athenians to enslave Syracuse and Sicily.725
725
Translation based on W.H.S. Jones, Pausanias, Description of Greece, Vol. I (Loeb Classical Library)
(London, 1918).
309
APPENDIX C
PAUSANIAS 6.23.1-6.26.3: DESCRIPTION OF ELIS
23. Ἐν δὲ Ἤλιδι τὰ ἄξια µνήµης γυµνάσιόν ἐστιν ἀρχαῖον, καὶ ὅσα ἐς τοὺς
ἀθλητὰς πρὶν ἢ ἐς Ὀλυµπίαν ἀφικνεῖσθαι νοµίζουσιν, ἐν τούτῳ σφίσι τῷ γυµνασίῳ
δρᾶν καθέστηκε. Πλάτανοι µὲν ὑψηλαὶ διὰ τῶν δρόµων πεφύκασιν ἐντὸς τοίχου· ὁ
σύµπας δὲ οὗτος περίβολος καλεῖται Ξυστός, [2] ὅτι Ἡρακλεῖ τῷ Ἀµφιτρύωνος ἐς
ἄσκησιν ἐγίνετο, ὅσαι τῶν ἀκανθῶν ἐφύοντο ἐωταῦθα ἐπὶ ἑκάστῃ ἡµέρᾳ σφᾶς
ἀναξύειν. Χωρὶς µὲν δὴ ἐς ἅµιλλαν τῶν δροµέων ἐστὶν ἀποκεκριµένος δρόµος,
ὀνοµάζεται δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιχρίων ἱερός, χωρὶς δὲ ἔνθα ἐπὶ µελέτῃ δροµεῖς καὶ οἱ
πένταθλοι θέουσιν. Ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῳ γυµνασίῳ καλούµενον Πλέθριον ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ
συµβάλλουσιν οἱ ἑλλανοδίκαι τοὺς καθ’ ἡλικίαν ἢ καὶ αὐτῷ διαφέροντας τῷ
ἐπιτηδεύµατι· συµβάλλουσι δὲ ἐπὶ πάλι. [3] Εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ θεῶν ἐν τῷ γυµνασίῳ βωµοί,
Ἡρακλέους τοῦ ἰδαίου, παραστάτου δὲ ἐπίκλησιν, καὶ Ἔρωτος καὶ ὃν ἠλεῖοι καὶ
ἀθηναῖοι κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἠλείοις Ἀντέρωτα ὀνοµάζουσι, Δήµητρός τε καὶ τῆς παιδός.
Ἀχιλλεῖ δὲ οὐ βωµός, κενὸν δέ ἐστιν αὐτῷ µνῆµα ἐκ µαντείας· τῆς πανηγύρεως δὲ
ἀρχοµένης ἐν ἡµέρᾳ ῥητῇ περὶ ἀποκλίνοντα ἐς δυσµὰς τοῦ ἡλίου τὸν δρόµον αἱ
γυναῖκες αἱ ἠλεῖαι ἄλλα τε τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως δρῶσιν ἐς τιµὴν καὶ κόπτεσθαι νοµίζουσιν
αὐτόν.
[4] Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλος ἐλάσσων γυµνασίου περίβολος, ὅς ἔχεται µὲν τοῦ
µείζονος, τετράγωνον δὲ ὀνοµάζουσιν ἐπὶ τῳ σχήµατι· καὶ παλαῖστραι τοῖς
ἀθοῦσιν ἐωταῦθα ποιοῦνται, καὶ συµβάλλουσιν αὐτόθι τοὺς ἀθλητὰς οὐ
παλαίσοντας ἔτι, ἐπὶ δὲ ἱµάντων τῶν µαλακωτέρων ταῖς πληγαῖς. Ἀνάκειται δὲ καὶ
τῶν ἀγαλµάτων τὸ ἕτερον, ἃ ἐπὶ ζηµίᾳ Σωσάωδρου τε τοῦ σµυρναίου καὶ ἠλείκου
Πολύκτορος τῷ Διὶ ἐποιήθη. [5] Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τρίτος γυµνασίου περίβολος, ὄνοµα µὲν
Μαλθὼ τῆς µαλακότητος τοῦ ἐδάφους ἕνεκα, τοῖς δὲ ἐφήβοις ἀνεῖται τῆς
πανηγύρεως τὸν χρόνον πάντα. Ἔστι δὲ ἐν γωνία τῆς Μαλθοῦς πρόσωπον
Ἡρακλέους ἄχρι ἐς τοὺς ὤµους, καὶ ἐν τῶν παλαιστρῶν µιᾷ τύπος Ἔρωτα ἔχων
ἐπειργασµένον καὶ τὸν καλούµενον Ἀντέρωτα· ἔχει δὲ ὁ µὲν φοίνικος ὁ Ἔρως
κλάδον, ὁ δὲ ἀφελέσθαι πειρᾶται τὸν φοίνικα, ὁ Ἀντέρως. [6] Τῆς ἐσόδου δὲ
ἑκατέρωθεν τῆς ἐς τὴν Μαλθὼ παιδὸς ἕστηκεν εἰκὼν πύκτου· καὶ αὐτον ἔφασκεν ὁ
νοµοφύλαξ ἠλείων γένος µὲν ἀλεξανδρέα εἶναι τῆς ὑπὲρ Φάρου τῆς νήσου,
Σαραπίωνα δὲ ὄνοµα, ἀφικόµενον δὲ ἐς Ἦλιν σπανίζουσι σίτου σφίσι τροφὰς
δοῦναι. Τούτῳ µὲν αὐτόθι ἀντὶ τούτου γεγόνασιν αἱ τιµαί· χρόνος δὲ στεφάνου τε
τοῦ ἐν Ὀλυµπίᾳ καὶ εὐεργεσίας αὐτῷ τῆς ἐς ἠλείους ὀλυµπιὰς ἑβδόµη πρὸς ταῖς
δέκα τε καὶ διακοσίαις· [7] ἐν τούτῳ τῷ γυµνασίῳ καὶ βουλευτήριόν ἐστιν ἠλείοις,
καὶ ἐπιδείξεις ἐνταῦθα λόγων τε αὐτοσχεδίων καὶ συγγραµµάτων ποιοῦνται
παντοίων· καλεῖται δὲ Λαλίχµιον, τοῦ ἀναθέντος ἐπώνυµον. Περὶ δὲ αὐτὸ ἀσπίδες
ἀνάκεινται, θέας ἕνεκα καὶ οὐκ ἐς ἔργον πολέµου πεποιηµέναι.
[8] Ἐκ δὲ τοῦ γυµνασίου πρὸς τὰ λουτρὰ ἐρχοµένῳ δι’ ἀγυιᾶς τε ἡ ὁδὸς
Σιωπῶς καὶ παρὰ τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς φιλοµείρακός ἐστιν Ἀρτέµιδος. Τῇ µὲν δὴ θεῷ
γέγονεν ἡ ἐπίκλησις ἅτε τοῦ γυµνασίου γείτονι· τῇ ἀγυιᾷ δὲ Σιωπῇ ὄνοµα ἐπὶ
λόγῳ τοιῷδε τεθῆναι λέγουσιν ἄνδρες τοῦ Ὀξύλου στρατεύµατος ἐπὶ κατασκοπῇ
τῶν ἐν Ἤλιδι ἀποπεµφθέντες καὶ ῳῖῖἀλλήλοις διακελευσάµενοι κατὰ τὴν ὁδόν,
310
ἐπειδὰν πλησίον γίνωνται τοῦ τείχους, φθέγγεσθαι µὲν µηδὲν ἔτι αὐτοί,
ἐπακροᾶσθαι δὲ εἴ τι παρὰ τῶν ἐντὸς πυθέσθαι δυνήσονται, οὗτοι λανθάνουοι
παρελθόντες ἐς τὴν πόλιν κατὰ τὴν ἀγυιὰν ταύτην καὶ ἐπακούσαωτες ὁπόσα
ἐβούλοντο ἐπανίασιν αὖθις ἐς τοὺς αἰτωλούς‧ καὶ ἡ ἀγυιὰ τὸ ὄνοµα εἴληφεν ἀπὸ
τῶν κατασκόπων τῆς σιωπῆς.
24. Ἑτέρα δὲ ἔξοδος ἐκ τοῦ γυµνασίου φέρει µὲν ἔς τε τὴν ἀγορὰν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν
ἑλλανοδικαιῶνα καλούµενον, ἔστι δὲ ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως τὸν τάφον‧ καὶ ταύτῃ
τοὺς ἑλλανοδίκας ἰέναι καθέστηκεν ἐς τὸ γυµνάσιον. Ἐσίασι δὲ πρὶν µὲν ἥλιον
ἀνίσχειν συµβαλοῦντες δροµέας, µεσούσης δὲ τῆς ἡµέρας ἑπὶ τὸ πένταθλον καὶ ὅσα
βαρέα ἆθλα ὀνοµάζουσιν.
[2] Ἡ δὲ ἀγορὰ τοῖς ἠλείοις οὐ κατὰ τὰς ἰώνων καὶ ὅσαι πρὸς Ἰωνίᾳ πόλεις
εἰσὶν ἑλλήνων, τρόπῳ δὲ πεποίηται τῷ ἀρχαιοτέρῳ στοαῖς τε ἀπὸ ἀλλήλων
διεστώσαις καὶ ἀγυιαῖς δι’ αὐτῶν. Ὄνοµα δὲ τῇ ἀγορᾷ τὸ ἐφ’ ἡµῶν ἐστιν
Ἱππόδροµος, καὶ οἱ ἐπιχώριοι τοὺς ἵππους παιδεύουσιν ἐνταῦθα. Τῶν στοῶν δὲ ἡ
πρὸς µεσηµβρίαν ἐργασίας ἐστὶ τῆς δωρίου, διαιροῦσι δὲ αὐτὴν ἐς µοίρας τρεῖς οἱ
κίονες· ἐν ταύτῃ διηµερεύουσι τὰ πολλὰ οἱ ἑλλανοδίκαι. [3] Ποιοῦνται δὲ πρὸς
αὐτοῖς καὶ βωµοὺς τῷ Διί, καὶ εἰσὶν ἐν τῷ ὑπαίθρῳ τῆς ἀγορᾶς οἱ βωµοὶ πλῆθος οὐ
πολλοί· καταλύονται γὰρ οὐ χαλεπῶς ἅτε αὐτοσχεδίως οἰκοδοµούµενοι. Κατὰ
ταύτην τὴν στοὰν ἰόντι ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἔστιν ἐν ἀριστερᾷ παρὰ τὸ πέρας τῆς στοᾶς
ὁ ἑλλανοδικαιών· ἀγυιὰ δὲ ἡ διείργουσα ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἐστιν αὐτόν. Ἐν τούτῳ
τῳ ἑλλανοδικαιῶνι οἰκοῦσι δέκα ἐφεξῆς µῆνας οἱ αἱρεθέντες ἑλλανοδικεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ
τῶν νοµοφυλάκων ὅσα ἐς τὸν ἀγῶνα σφᾶς δεῖ ποιεῖν διδάσκονται.
[4] Τῇ στοᾷ δὲ ἔνθα οἱ ἑλλανοδίκαι διηµερεύουσιν ἔστιν ἐγγὺς ἄλλη στοά· τὸ
µεταξὺ αὐτῶν ἀγυιὰ µία. Ταύτην ὀνοµάζουσι κορκυραϊκὴν οἱ ἠλεῖοι· ναυσί γὰρ ἐς
τὴν σφετέραν κορκυραίους ἐλθόντας ἐλάσαι µοῖραν τῆς Ἠλείας λέγουσι λαβεῖν τε ἐκ
τῆς κορκυραίων πολλαπλάσια καὶ οἰκοδοµήσασθαι τὴν στοὰν ἀπὸ τῶν λαφύρων
τῆς δεκάτης. [5] Ἔστι δὲ ἡ κατασκευὴ τῆς στοᾶς δώριος καὶ διπλῆ, τῇ µὲν ἐς τὴν
ἀγορὰν τοὺς κίπνας, τῇ δὲ ἐς τὰ ἐπέκεινα τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἔχουσα· κατὰ µέσον δὲ αὐτῆς
οὐ κίονες, ἀλλὰ τοῖχος ὁ ταύτῃ τὸν ὄροφον ἀνέχων ἐστίν, ἀνάκεινται δὲ καὶ εἰκόνες
ἑκατέρωθεν πρὸς τῷ τοίχῳ. Κατὰ δὲ τῆς στοᾶς τὸ ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν ἕστηκε
Πύρρωνος τοῦ Πιστοκράτους εἰκών, σοφιστοῦ τε ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἐς βέβαιον ὁµολογίαν
ἐπὶ οὐδενὶ λόγῳ καταστάντος. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ µνῆµα τῷ Πύρρωνι οὐ πόρρω τοῦ
ἠλείων ἄστεως· Πέτρα µὲν τῷ χωρίῳ τὸ ὄνοµα, λέγεται <δὲ> ὡς ἡ Πέτρα δῆµος
εἴη τὸ ἀρχαῖον. [6] Ἠλείοις δὲ ἐν τῷ ὑπαίθρῳ τῆς ἀγορᾶς τὰ ἐπιφανέστατα ναός
ἐστι καὶ ἄγαλµα Ἀπόλλωνος ἀκεσίου‧ σηµαίνοι δ’ἂν τὸ ὄνοµα οὐδέν τι ἀλλοῖον ἢ ὁ
καλούµενος Ἀλεξίκακος ὑπὸ ἀθηναίων. Ἑτέρωθι δὲ Ἡλίῳ πεποίηται καὶ Σελήνῃ
λίθου τὰ ἀγάλµατα, καὶ τῆς µὲν κέρατα ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς, τοῦ δὲ αἱ ἀκτῖνες
ἀνέχουσιν. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Χάρισιν ἱερὸν καὶ ξόανα ἐπίχρυσα τὰ ἐς ἐσθῆτα, πρόσωπα
δὲ καὶ χεῖρες καὶ πόδες λίθου λευκοῦ· ἔχουσι δὲ ἡ µὲν αὐτῶν ῥόδον, ἀστράγαλον δὲ ἡ
µέση, καὶ ἡ Τρίτη κλῶνα οὐ µέγαν µυρσίνης. [7] Ἔχειν δὲ αὐτὰς ἐπὶ τοιῷδε εἰκάζοι
τις ἂν τὰ εἰρηµένα, ῥόδον µὲν καὶ µυρσίνην Ἀφροδίτης τε ἱερὰ εἶναι καὶ οἰκεῖα τῷ ἐς
Ἄδωνιν λόγῳ, Χάριτας δὲ Ἀφροδίτῃ µάλιστα <φίλας> εἶναι θεῶν· ἀστράγαλον δὲ
µειρακίων τε καὶ παρθένων, οἷς ἄχαρι οὐδέν πω πρόσεστιν ἐκ γήρως, τούτων εἶναι
τὸν ἀστράγαλον παίγνιον. Τῶν Χαρίτων δὲ ἐν δεξιᾷ ἄγαλµά ἐστιν Ἔρωτος·
ἕστηκε δὲ ἐπὶ βάθρου τοῦ αὐτοῦ. [8] Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Σειληνοῦ ναὸς ἐνταῦθα, ἰδίᾳ τῷ
Σειληνῷ καὶ οὐχ ὁµοῦ Διονύσῳ πεποιηµένος· Μέθη δὲ οἶνον ἐν ἐκπώµατι αὐτῷ
311
δίδωσι. Θνητὸν δὲ εἶναι τὸ γένος τῶν Σειληνῶν εἰκάσαι τις ἂν µάλιστα ἐπὶ τοῖς
τάφοις αὐτῶν· ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἑβραίων χώρᾳ Σειληνοῦ µνῆµα καὶ ἄλλου Σειληνοῦ
περγαµηνοῖς ἐστιν. [9] Ἠλείων δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καὶ ἄλλο τοιόνδε εἶδον, ναοῦ σχῆµα·
ἔστι δὲ οὐχ ὑψηλόν, καὶ τοῖχοι µὲν οὐκ εἰσί, τὸν ὄροφον δὲ δρυὸς ἀνέχουσιν
εἰργασµένοι κίονες. Τοῦτο εἶναι µὲν ὁµολογοῦσιν οἱ ἐπιχώριοι µνῆµα, ὅτου δὲ οὐ
µνηµονεύουσιν· εἰ δὲ ὁ γέρων ὅντινα ἠρόµην εἶπεν ἀληθῆ λόγον, Ὀξύλου τοῦτο ἂν
µνῆµα εἴη. [10] Πεποίηται δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καὶ ταῖς γυναιξὶν οἴκηµα ταῖς ἑκκαίδεκα
καλουµέναις, ἔνθα τὸν πέπλον ὑφαίνουσι τῇ Ἥρᾳ.
Ἔχεται δὲ τῆς ἀρορᾶς ναὸς ἀρχαῖος στοαῖς ἐν κύκλῳ περίστυλος, ὁ δὲ
ὄροφος κατερρύηκε τῷ ναῷ καὶ ἄγαλµα οὐδὲν ἐλείπετο‧ βασιλεῦσι δὲ ἀνεῖται
ῥωµαίοις.
25. Ἔστι δὲ τῆς στοᾶς ὀπίσω τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν λαφύρων τῶν ἐκ Κορκύρας
Ἀφροδίτης ναός, τὸ δὲ ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ τέµονος οὐ πολὺ ἀφεστηκὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ ναοῦ. Καὶ
τὴν µὲν ἐν τῷ ναῷ καλοῦσιν Οὐρανίαν, ἐλέφαντος δέ ἐστι χρυσοῦ, τέχνη Φειδίου,
τῷ δὲ ἑτέρῳ ποδὶ ἐπὶ χελώνης βέβηκε· τῆς δὲ περιέχεται µὲν τὸ τέµενος θριγκῷ,
κρηπὶς δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ τεµένους πεποίηται καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ κρηπῖδι ἄγαλµα Ἀφροδίτης
χαλκοῦν ἐπὶ τράγῳ κάθηται χαλκῷ· Σκόπα τοῦτο ἔργον, Ἀφροδίτην δὲ πάνδηµον
ὀνοµάζουσι. Τὰ δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ χελώνῃ τε καὶ ἐς ὐτὸν τράγον παρίηµι τοῖς θέλουσιν
εἰκάζειν.
[2] Ὁ δὲ ἱερὸς τοῦ ᾍδου περίβολός τε καὶ ναὸς (ἔστι γὰρ δὴ ἠλείοις καὶ ᾍδου
περίβολός τε καὶ ναὸς) ἀνοίγνυται µὲν ἅπαξ κατὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον, ἐσελθεῖν δὲ οὐδὲ
τότε ἐφεῖται πέρα γε τοῦ ἱερωµένου. Ἀνθρώπων δὲ ὧν ἴσµεν µόνοι τιµῶσιν ᾍδην
ἠλεῖοι κατὰ αἰτίαν τήνδε: Ἡρακλεῖ στρατιὰν ἄγοντι ἐπὶ Πύλον τὴν ἐν τῇ Ἤλιδι,
παρεῖναί οἱ καὶ Ἀθηνᾶν συνεργὸν λέγουσιν· ἀφικέσθαι οὖν καὶ πυλίοις τὸν ᾍδην
συµµαχήσοντα τῇ ἀπεχθείᾳ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους, ἔχοντα ἐν τῇ Πύλῳ τιµάς. [3]
Ἐπάγονται δὲ καὶ Ὅµηρον τῷ λόγῳ µάρτυρα ποιήσαντα ἐν Ἰλιάδι: «τλῆ δ’ Ἀίδης
ἐν τοῖσι πελώριος ὠκὺν ὀιστόν, / εὖτέ µιν ωὐτὸς ἀνὴρ υἱὸς Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο / ἐν
Πύλῳ ἐν νεκύεσσι βαλὼν ὀδύνῃσιν ἔδωκεν· » εἰ δὲ κατὰ τὴν Ἀγαµέµνονος καὶ
Μενελάου στρατείαν ἐπ Ἴλιον Ποσειδῶν τῷ Ὁµήρου λόγῳ τοῖς ἕλλησιν ἐπίκουρος
ἦν, οὐκ ἂν ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰκότος οὐδὲ ᾍδην εἴη δόξῃ γε τοῦ αὐτοῦ ποιητοῦ πυλίοις
ἀµῦναι. Ἠλεῖοι δ’ οὖν ὡς σφίσι τε εὔνῳ καὶ ἀπεχθανοµένῳ πρὸς τὸν Ἡρακλέα
ἐποιήσαντο τὸ ἱερὸν τῷ θεῷ‧ ἑκάστου δὲ ἅπαξ ἀνοίγειν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ νοµίζοθσιν,
ὅτι οἶµαι καὶ ἀνθρώποις ἅπαξ ἡ κάθοδος ἡ ἐς τοῦ ᾍδου γίνεται. [4] Τοῖς δὲ ἠλείοις
καὶ Τύχης ἐστὶν ἱερόν· ἐν στοᾷ δὲ τοῦ ἱεροῦ µεγέθει µέγα ἄγαλµα ἀνάκειται, ξόανον
ἐπίχρυσον πλὴν προσώπου καὶ ὁ Σωσίπολις ἐν ἀριστερᾷ τῆς Τύχης, ἐν οἰκήµατι οὐ
µεγάλῳ· κατὰ δὲ ὄψιν ὀνείρατος γραφῇ µεµιµηµένος ἐστὶν ὁ θεός, παῖς µὲν ἡλικίαν,
ἀµπέχεται δὲ χλαµύδα ποικίλην ὑπὸ ἀστέρων, τῇ χειρὶ δὲ ἔχει τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τὸ κέρας τῆς
Ἀµαλθείας.
[5] Καθότι δὲ ἠλείων ἡ πόλις πληθύει µάλιστα ἀνθρώποις, κατὰ τοῦτο
ἀνδριάς σφισιν ἀνδρὸς οὐ µείζων µεγάλου χαλκοῦς ἐστιν οὐκ ἔχων πω γένεια τόν
τε ἕτερον τῶν ποδῶν ἐπιπλέκων τῷ ἑτέρῳ καὶ ταῖς χερσὶν ἀµφοτέραις ἐπὶ δόρατι
ἠρεισµένος· ἐσθῆτα δὲ ἐρεᾶν αὐτῷ καὶ ἀπὸ λίνου τε καὶ βύσσου περιβάλλουσι. [6]
Τοῦτο τὸ ἄγαλµα ἐλέγετο εἶωαι Ποσειδῶνος, ἔχειν δὲ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐπὶ Σαµικῷ τῷ
ἐν τῇ Τριφυλίᾳ τιµάς. Μετακοµισθὲν δὲ ἐς τὴν Ἦλιν τιµῆς µὲν καὶ ἐς πλέον ἔτι ἥκει,
Σατράπην δὲ καὶ οὐ Ποσειδῶνα ὄνοµα αὐτῷ τίθενται, µετὰ τὴν πατρέων
312
προσοίκησιν τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ Σατράπου διδαχθέντες‧ Κορύβαντός τε ἐπίκλησις ὁ
Σατράπης ἐστί.
26. Θέατρον δὲ ἀρχαῖον, µεταξὺ τῆς ἀγορᾶς καὶ τοῦ Μηνίου [τὸ θέατρόν τε]
καὶ ἱερόν ἐστι Διονύσου· τέχνη τὸ ἄγαλµα Πραξιτέλους, θεῶν δὲ ἐν τοῖς µάλιστα
Διόνυσον σέβουσιν ἠλεῖοι καὶ τὸν θεόν σγισιν ἐπιφοιτᾶν ἐς τῶν Θυίων τὴν ἑορτὴν
λέγουσιν. Ἀπέχει µέν γε τῆς πόλεως ὅσον τε ὀκτὼ στάδια ἔνθα τὴν ἑορτὴν ἄγουσι
Θυῖα ὀνοµάζοντες· λέβητας δὲ ἀριθµὸν τρεῖς ἐς οἴκηµα ἐσκοµίσαντες οἱ ἱερεῖς
κατατίθενται κενούς, παρόντων καὶ τῶν ἀστῶν καὶ ξένων, εἰ τύχοιεν ἐπιδηµοῦντες‧
σφαγῖδας δὲ αὐτοί τε οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὅσοις ἂν κατὰ γνώµην ᾖ ταῖς θύραις
τοῦ οἰκήµατος ἐπιβάλλουσιν, [2] ἐς δὲ τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν τά τε σηµεῖα ἐπιγνῶναι πάρεστί
σφισι καὶ ἐσελθόντες ἐς τὸ οἴκηµα εὑρίσκουσιν οἴνου πεπλησµένους τοὺς λέβητας.
Ταῦτα ἠλείων τε οἱ δοκιµώτατοι ἄνδρες, σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ καὶ ξένοι κατώµνυντο ἔχειν
κατὰ τὰ εἰρηµένα, ἐπεὶ αὐτός γε οὐκ ἐς καιρὸν ἀφικόµην τῆς ἑορτῆς· λέγουσι δὲ καὶ
ἄνδριοι παρὰ ἔτος σφίσιν ἐς τοῦ Διονύσου τὴν ἑορτὴν ῥεῖν οἶνον αὐτόµατον ἐκ τοῦ
ἱεροῦ. <Εἰ> πιστεύειν χρὴ ταῦτα ἕλλησιν, [εἰ] ἀποδέχοιτο ἄν τισ τῷ λόγῳ γε τῷ
αὐτῷ καὶ ὅσα αἰθίοπες οἱ ὑπὲρ Συήνης ἐς τοῦ ἡλίου τὴν τράπεζαν λέγουσιν.
[3] Ἐν ἀκροπόλει δὲ τῇ ἠλείων ἐστὶν ἱερὸν Ἀθηνᾶς· ἐλέφαντος δὲ τὸ ἄγαλµα
καὶ χρυσοῦ. Εἶναι µὲν δὴ Φειδίου φασὶν αὐτήν, πεποίηται δὲ ἀλεκτρυὼν ἐπὶ τῷ
κράνει, ὅτι οὗτοι προχειρότατα ἔχουσιν ἐς µάχας οἱ ἀλεκτρυόνες‧ δύναιτο δ’ ἂν καὶ
Ἀθηνᾶς τῆς ἐργάνης ἱερὸς ὁ ὄρνις νοµίζεσθαι.726
23. One of the noteworthy things in Elis is an old gymnasium. In this gymnasium
the athletes are wont to go through the training through which they must pass before
going to Olympia. High plane-trees grow between the tracks inside a wall. The whole of
this enclosure is called Xystos, [2] because an exercise of Herakles, the son of Amphitryo,
was to scrape up each day all the thistles that grew there. The track for the competing
runners, called by the natives the Sacred Track, is separate from that on which the
runners and pentathletes practice. In the gymnasium is the place called Plethrion. In it the
hellanodikai match the competitors according to age and skill; it is for wrestling that they
match them. [3] There are also in the gymnasium altars of the gods, of Idaean Herakles,
surnamed Comrade, of Eros, of the deity called by the Eleans and Athenians alike
Anteros (Love Returned), of Demeter and of her daughter. Achilles has no altar, only a
cenotaph raised to him because of an oracle. On an appointed day at the beginning of the
festival, when the course of the sun is sinking towards the west, the Elean women do
honor to Achilles, especially by bewailing him.
[4] There is another enclosed gymnasium, but smaller, adjoining the larger one
and called Square because of its shape. Here the athletes practice wrestling, and here,
when they have no more wrestling to do, they are matched in contests with the softer
gloves. There is also dedicated here one of the images made in honor of Zeus out of the
fines imposed upon Sosander of Smyrna and upon Polyctor of Elis. [5] There is also a
third enclosed gymnasium, called Maltho from the softness of its floor, and reserved for
the youths for the whole time of the festival. In a corner of the Maltho is a bust of
726
Greek text from N.D. Papachatzis, Παυσανίου Ελλάδος περιήγησις: βιβλίο 4, 5 και 6. Μεσσηνιακά -
Ηλιακά (Athens, 1979).
313
Herakles as far as the shoulders, and in one of the wrestling-schools is a relief showing
Love and Love Returned, as he is called. Love holds a palm-branch, and Love Returned
is trying to take the palm from him. [6] On each side of the entrance to the Maltho stands
an image of a boy boxer. He was by birth, so the Guardian of the Laws at Elis told me,
from Alexandria over against the island Pharos, and his name was Sarapion; arriving at
Elis when the townsfolk were suffering from famine he supplied them with food. For this
reason these honors were paid him here. The time of his crown at Olympia and of his
benefaction to the Eleans was the two hundred and seventeenth Festival. [7] In this
gymnasium is also the Elean bouleuterion, where take place exhibitions of extempore
speeches and recitations of written works of all kinds. It is called Lalichmion, after the
man who dedicated it. About it are dedicated shields, which are for show and not made to
be used in war.
[8] The way from the gymnasium to the baths passes through the Street of Silence
and beside the sanctuary of Artemis Philomeirax. The goddess is so surnamed because
she is neighbor to the gymnasium; the street received, they say, the name of Silence for
the following reason. Men of the army of Oxylos were sent to spy out what was
happening in Elis. On the way they exhorted each other, when they should be near the
wall, themselves to keep a strict silence, but to listen attentively if perchance they might
learn aught from the people in the town. These men by this street reached the town
unobserved, and after hearing all they wished they went back again to the Aetolians. So
the street received its name from the silence of the spies.
24. One of the two ways from the gymnasium leads to the agora, and to what is
called the Hellanodikaion; it is above the grave of Achilles, and by it the hellanodikai are
wont to go to the gymnasium. They enter before sunrise to match the runners, and at
midday for the pentathlon and for such contests as are called heavy.
[2] The agora of the Eleans is not after the fashion of the cities of Ionia and of the
Greek cities near Ionia; it is built in the older manner, with stoas separated from each
other and with streets through them. The modern name of the agora is the Hippodrome,
and the natives train their horses there. Of the stoas the southern is in the Doric style, and
it is divided by columns into three parts. In it the hellanodikai generally spend the day. [3]
At the columns they also cause altars to be made to Zeus, and in the open agora are the
altars, in number not many; for, their construction being improvised, they are without
difficulty taken to pieces. As you enter the agora at this stoa the Hellanodikaion is on
your left, parallel to the end of the stoa. What separates it from the agora is a street. In
this Hellanodikaion dwell for ten consecutive months the hellanodikai-elect, who are
instructed by the nomophylakes as to their duties at the festival.
[4] Near to the stoa where the hellanodikai pass the day is another stoa, between
the two being one street. The Eleans call it the Corcyrean, because, they say, the
Corcyreans landed in their country and carried off part of the booty, but they themselves
took many times as much booty from the land of the Corcyreans, and built the portico
from the tithe of the spoils. [5] The stoa is in the Doric style and double, having its pillars
both on the side towards the agora and on the side away from it. Down the center of it the
roof is supported, not by pillars, but by a wall, beside which on either side have been
314
dedicated statues. On the side of the stoa towards the agora stands a statue of Pyrrhus, son
of Pistokrates, a sophist who never brought himself to make a definite admission on any
matter. The tomb also of Pyrrhus is not far from the town of the Eleans. The name of the
place is Petra, and it is said that Petra was a township in ancient times. [6] The most
notable things that the Eleans have in the open part of the agora are a temple and image
of Apollo the Healer (Akesios). The meaning of the name would appear to be exactly the
same as that of Averter of Evil, the name current among the Athenians. In another part
are the stone images of the sun and of the moon; from the head of the moon project
horns, from the head of the sun, his rays. There is also a sanctuary to the Graces; the
images are of wood, with their clothes gilded, while their faces, hands and feet are of
white marble. One of them holds a rose, the middle one a die, and the third a small
branch of myrtle. [7] The reason for their holding these things may be guessed to be this.
The rose and the myrtle are sacred to Aphrodite and connected with the story of Adonis,
while the Graces are of all deities the nearest related to Aphrodite. As for the die, it is the
plaything of youths and maidens, who have nothing of the ugliness of old age. On the
right of the Graces is an image of Love, standing on the same pedestal. [8] Here there is
also a temple of Silenus, which is sacred to Silenus alone, and not to him in common with
Dionysus. Drunkenness is offering him wine in a cup. That the Silenuses are a mortal
race you may infer especially from their graves, for there is a tomb of a Silenus in the
land of the Hebrews, and of another at Pergamon. [9] In the agora of Elis I saw something
else, a low structure in the form of a temple. It has no walls, the roof being supported by
pillars made of oak. The natives agree that it is a tomb, but they do not remember whose
it is. If the old man I asked spoke the truth, it would be the tomb of Oxylos. [10] There is
also in the agora a building for the women called the Sixteen, where they weave the robe
for Hera.
Adjoining the agora is an old temple surrounded by pillars; the roof has fallen
down, and I found no image in the temple. It is dedicated to the Roman emperors.
25. Behind the stoa built from the spoils of Corcyra is a temple of Aphrodite, the
precinct being in the open, not far from the temple. The goddess in the temple they call
Ourania; she is of ivory and gold, the work of Phidias, and she stands with one foot upon
a tortoise. The precinct of the other Aphrodite is surrounded by a wall, and within the
precinct has been made a basement, upon which sits a bronze image of Aphrodite upon a
bronze he-goat. It is a work of Skopas, and the Aphrodite is named Pandemos. The
meaning of the tortoise and of the he-goat I leave to those who care to guess.
[2] The sacred enclosure of Hades and its temple (for the Eleans have these among
their possessions) are opened once every year, but not even on this occasion is anybody
permitted to enter except the priest. The following is the reason why the Eleans worship
Hades; they are the only men we know of so to do. It is said that, when Herakles was
leading an expedition against Pylos in Elis, Athena was one of his allies. Now among
those who came to fight on the side of the Pylians was Hades, who was the foe of
Heracles but was worshipped at Pylos. [3] Homer is quoted in support of the story, who
says in the Iliad:
315
And among them huge Hades suffered a wound from a swift arrow,
When the same man, the son of aegis-bearing Zeus,
Hit him in Pylos among the dead, and gave him over to pains (Il. 5.395-397)
If in the expedition of Agamemnon and Menelaus against Troy Poseidon was according
to Homer an ally of the Greeks, it cannot be unnatural for the same poet to hold that
Hades helped the Pylians. At any rate it was in the belief that the god was their friend but
the enemy of Herakles that the Eleans made the sanctuary for him. The reason why they
are wont to open it only once each year is, I suppose, because men too go down only once
to Hades. [4] The Eleans have also a sanctuary of Tyche. In a stoa of the sanctuary has
been dedicated a colossal image, made of gilded wood except the face, hands and feet,
which are of white marble. Here Sosipolis too is worshipped in a small shrine on the left
of the sanctuary of Tyche. The god is painted according to his appearance in a dream: in
age a boy, wrapped in a star-spangled robe, and in one hand holding the horn of
Amaltheia.
[5] In the most thickly-populated part of Elis is a statue of bronze no taller than a
tall man; it represents a beardless youth with his legs crossed, leaning with both hands
upon a spear. They cast about it a garment of wool, one of flax and one of fine linen. [6]
This image was said to be of Poseidon, and to have been worshipped in ancient times at
Samicum in Triphylia. Transferred to Elis it received still greater honor, but the Eleans
call it Satrap and not Poseidon, having learned the name Satrap, which is a surname of
Corybas, after the enlargement of Patras.
26. Between the agora and the Menius (i.e. Peneios) is an old theater and a shrine
of Dionysos. The image is the work of Praxiteles. Of the gods the Eleans worship
Dionysos with the greatest reverence, and they assert that the god attends their festival,
the Thyia. The place where they hold the festival they name the Thyia is about eight
stades from the city. Three pots are brought into the building by the priests and set down
empty in the presence of the citizens and of any strangers who may chance to be in the
country. The doors of the building are sealed by the priests themselves and by any others
who may be so inclined. [2] On the morrow they are allowed to examine the seals, and on
going into the building they find the pots filled with wine. I did not myself arrive at the
time of the festival, but the most respected Elean citizens, and with them strangers also,
swore that what I have said is the truth. The Andrians too assert that every other year at
their feast of Dionysos wine flows of its own accord from the sanctuary. If the Greeks are
to be believed in these matters, one might with equal reason accept what the Ethiopians
above Syene say about the table of the sun.
[3] On the Acropolis of the Eleans is a sanctuary of Athena. The image is of ivory
and gold. They say that the goddess is the work of Phidias. On her helmet is an image of
a cock, this bird being very ready to fight. The bird might also be considered as sacred to
Athena the worker.727
727
Translation based on W.H.S. Jones, Pausanias, Description of Greece, Vol. III (Loeb Classical Library)
(London, 1933).
316
APPENDIX D
PAUSANIAS 8.30.1-8.33.4: DESCRIPTION OF MEGALOPOLIS
30. Ὁ δὲ Ἑλισσὼν οὗτος ἀρχόµενος ἐκ κώµης ὁµωνύµου (καὶ γὰρ τῇ κώµῃ τὸ

ὄνοµα Ἑλισσών ἐστι) τήν τε διπαιέων καὶ τὴν Λυκαιᾶτιν χώραν, τρίτα δὲ αὐτὴν
διεξελθὼν Μεγάλην πόλιν, <εἴκοσι> σταδίος ἀπωτέρω µεγαλοπολιτῶν τοῦ
ἄστεως κάτεισιν ἐς τὸν Ἀλφειόν. Πλησίον δὲ ἤδη τῆς πόλεως Ποσειδῶνός ἐστιν
ἐπόπτου ναός· ἐλείπετο δὲ τοῦ ἀγάλµατος ἡ κεφαλή.
[2] Διαιροῦντος δὲ τὴν Μεγάλην πόλιν τοῦ ποταµοῦ τοῦ Ἑλισσόντος, καθὰ
δὴ καὶ Κνίδον καὶ Μυτιλήνην δίχα οἱ εὔριποι νέµουσιν, ἐν µέρει τῷ πρὸς ἄρκτους,
δεξιᾷ δὲ κατὰ τὸ µετέωρον τοῦ ποταµοῦ, πεποίηταί σφισιν ἀγορά. Περίβολος δέ
ἐστιν ἐν ταύτῃ λίθων καὶ ἱερὸν λυκαίου Διός, ἔσοδος δὲ ἐς αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστι· τὰ γὰρ
ἐντός ἐστι δὴ σύνοπτα, βωµοί τέ εἰσι τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τράπεζαι δύο καὶ ἀετοὶ ταῖς
τραπέζαις ἱσοι καὶ ἄγαλµα Πανὸς λίθου πεποιηµένον· [3] ἐπίκλησις δὲ σινόεις ἐστὶν
αὐτῷ, τήν τε ἐπίκλησιν γενέσθαι τῳ Πανὶ ἀπὸ νύµφης Σινόης λέγουσι, ταύτην δὲ
σὺν ἄλλας τῶν νυµφῶν <ἐπιµεληθῆναι τοῦ θεοῦ> καὶ ἰδίᾳ γενέσθαι τροφὸν τοῦ
Πανός. Ἔστι δὲ πρὸ τοῦ τεµένος τούτου χαλκοῦν ἄγαλµα Ἀπόλλωνος θέας ἄξιον,
µέγεθος µὲν ἐς πόδας δώδεκα, ἐκοµίσθη δὲ ἐκ τῆς φιγαλέων συντέλεια ἐς κόσµον τῇ
Μεγάλῃ πόλει. [4] Τὸ δὲ χωρίον ἔνθα τὸ ἄγαλµα ἱδρυτο ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ φιγαλέων
ὀνοµάζεται Βᾶσσαι· τῷ θεῷ δὲ ἡ ἐπίκλησις ἠκολούθηκε µὲν ἐκ τῆς φιγαλέων, ἐφ’
ὅτῳ δὲ ὄνοµα ἔσχεν ἐπικούριος, δηλώσει µοι τὰ ἐς φιγαλέας τοῦ λόγου. Ἔστι δὲ ἐν
δεξιᾷ τοῦ Ἀπόλωνος ἄγαλµα οὐ µέγα Μητρὸς θεῶν, τοῦ ναοῦ δέ, ὅτι µὴ οἱ κίονες,
ἄλλο ὑπόλοιπον οὐδέν.
[5] Πρὸ δὲ τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Μητρὸς ἀνδριὰς µὲν οὐδείς ἐστι, δῆλα δὲ ἦν τὰ
βάθρα, ἐφ’ ὧν ἀνδριάωτες ποτὲ ἑστήκεσαν. Ἐλεγεῖον δὲ ἐπὶ ἑνὸς γεγραµµένον τῶν
βάθρων Διοφάνους φησὶν εἶναι τὴν εἰκόνα, Διαίου µὲν υἱοῦ, συντάξαντος δὲ ἀνδρὸς
πρώτου Πελοπόννησον τὴν πᾶσαν ἐς τὸν ὀνοµασθέντα ἀχαϊκὸν σύλλογον. [6]
Στοὰν δὲ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ὀνοµαζοµένην φιλίππειον οὐ Φίλιππος ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἀµύντου,
χαριζόµενοι δὲ οἱ µεγαλοπολῖται τὴν ἐπωνυµίαν διδόασιν αὐτῷ τοῦ
οἰκοδοµήµατος. Ἑρµοῦ δὲ ἀκακησίου πρὸς αὐτῇ ναὸς κατεβέβλητο, καὶ οὐδὲν
ἐλείπετο ὅτι µὴ χελώνη λίθου. Ταύτης δὲ ἔχεται τῆς φιλιππείου µέγεθος ἀποδέουσα
ἑτέρα στοά, µεγαλοπολίταις δὲ αὐτόθι ᾠκοδοµηµένα ἐστὶ τὰ ἀρχεῖα, ἀριθµὸν
οἰκήµατα ἕξ· ἐν ἑνὶ δέ ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἐφεσίας ἄγαλµα Ἀρτέµιδος καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ χαλκοῦς
Πᾶν πηχυαῖος ἐπίκλησιν σκολείτας· [7] µετεκοµίσθη δὲ ἀπὸ λόφου Σκολείτα· καὶ ὁ
λόφος οὗτος τοῦ τείχους ἐστὶν ἐντός, ἀπὸ δὲ αὐτοῦ κάτεισιν ὕδωρ ἐς τὸν Ἑλισσόντα
ἐκ πηγῆς. Τῶν ἀρχείων δὲ ὄπισθε ναὸς Τύχης καὶ ἄγαλµα λίθου πεποίηται ποδῶν
πέντε οὐκ ἀποδέον. Στοὰν δὲ ἥντινα καλοῦσι µυρόπωλιν, ἔστι µὲν τῆς ἀγορᾶς,
ᾠκοδοµήθη δὲ ἀπὸ λαφύρων, ἡνίκα τὸ πταῖσµα ἐγένετο Ἀκροτάτῳ τῷ Κλεοµένους
καὶ λακεδαιµονίων τοῖς συστρατεύσασι, µαχεσαµένοις πρὸς Ἀριστόδηµον
τυραννίδα ἐν Μεγάλῃ πόλει τότε ἔχοντα. [8] Μεγαλοπολίταις δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς
ἐστιν ὄπισθεν τοῦ περιβόλου τοῦ ἀνειµένου τῷ λυκαίῳ Διὶ ἀνὴρ ἐπειργασµένος ἐπὶ
στήλῃ, Πολύβιος Λυκόρτα· γέγραπται δὲ καὶ ἐλεγεῖα ἐπ’ αὐτῷ λέγοντα ὡς ἐπὶ γῆν
καὶ θάλασσαν πᾶσαν πλανηθείη, καὶ ὅτι σύµµαχος γένοιτο ῥωµαίων καὶ παύσειεν
αὐτοὺς ὀργῆς <τῆς> ἐς τὸ Ἑλληνικόν. Συνέγραψε δὲ ὁ Πολύβιος οὗτος καὶ ἄλλα
317
ἔργα ῥωµαίων καὶ ὡς καρχηδονίοις κατέστησαν ἐς πόλεµον, [9] αἰτία τε ἥτις
ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ καὶ ὡς ὀψὲ οὐκ ἄνευ κινδύνων µεγάλων ῥωµαῖοι <αὐτοῦ
ἀπηλλάγησαν· φίλον δὲ καὶ συνήθη Πολύβιος ἔσχε> Σκιπίωνα, ὅν τινα
καρχηδονιακὸν ὀνοµάζουσι τέλος τε ἐπιθέντα τῷ πολέµῳ καὶ τὴν Καρχηδόνα
καταβαλόντα ἐς ἔδαφος· ὅσα µὲν δὴ Πολυβίῳ παραινοῦντι ὁ ῥωµαῖος ἐπείθετο, ἐς
ὀρθὸν ἐχώρησεν αὐτῷ· ἃ δὲ οὐκ ἠκροᾶτο διδάσκοντος, γενέσθαι οἱ λέγουσιν
ἁµαρτήµατα. Ἑλλήνων δὲ ὁπόσαι πόλεις ἐς τὸ Ἀχαϊκὸν συνετέλουν, παρὰ
ῥωµαίων εὕραντο αὗται Πολύβιόν σφισι πολιτείας τε καταστήσασθαι καὶ νόµους
θεῖναι. Τῆς δ’ εἰκόνος τοῦ Πολυβίου τὸ βουλευτήριόν ἐστιν ἐν ἀριστερᾷ. Τοῦτο µὲν
δή ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα.
[10] Στοὰν δὲ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἀριστάνδρειον ἐπίκλησιν ἄνδρα τῶν ἀστῶν
Ἀρίστανδρον οἰκοδοµῆσαι λέγουσι. Ταύτης τῆς στοᾶς ἐστιν ἐγγυτάτω ὡς πρὸς
ἥλιον ἀνίσχοντα ἱερὸν σωτῆρος ἐπίκλησιν Διός· κεκόσµηται δὲ πέριξ κίοσι.
Καθεζοµένῳ δὲ τῷ Διὶ ἐν θρόνῳ παρεστήκασι τῇ µὲν ἡ Μεγάλη πόλις, ἐν ἀριστερᾷ
δὲ Ἀρτέµιδος σωτείρας ἄγαλµα. Ταῦτα µὲν λίθου τοῦ πεντελησίου ἀθηναῖοι
Κηφισόδοτος καὶ Ξενοφῶν εἰργάσαντο.
31. Τὸ δὲ ἕτερον πέρας τῆς στοᾶς παρέχεται τὸ πρὸς ἡλίου δυσµῶν

περίβολον θεῶν ἱερὸν τῶν µεγάλων. Αἱ δέ εἰσιν αἱ µεγάλαι θεαὶ Δηµήτηρ καὶ Κόρη,
καθότι ἐδήλωσα ἤδη καὶ ἐν τῇ Μεσσηνίᾳ συγγραφῇ· τὴν Κόρην δὲ Σώτειραν
καλοῦσιν οἱ ἀρκάδες. Ἐπειργασµένοι δὲ ἐπὶ τύπων πρὸ τῆς ἐσόδου τῇ µὲν Ἄρτεµις,
τῇ δὲ Ἀσκληπιός ἐστι καὶ Ὑγεία. [2] Θεαὶ δὲ αἱ µεγάλαι Δηµήτηρ µὲν λίθου διὰ
πάσης, ἡ δὲ Σώτειρα τὰ ἐσθῆτος ἐχόµενα ξύλου πεποίηται· µέγεθος δὲ ἑκατέρας
πέντε που καὶ δέκα εἰσὶ πόδες. Τά τε ἀγάλµατα <Δαµοφῶν> καὶ πρὸ αὐτῶν κόρας
ἐποίησεν οὐ µεγάλας· ἐν χιτῶσί τε καθήκουσιν ἐς σφυρὰ καὶ ἀνθῶν ἀνάπλεων
ἑκατέρα τάλαρον ἐπὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ φέρει· εἶναι δὲ θυγατέρες τοῦ Δαµοφῶντος
λέγονται, τοις δὲ ἐπανάγουσιν ἐς τὸ θειότερον δοκεῖ σφᾶς Ἀθηνᾶν τε εἶναι καὶ
Ἄρτεµιν τὰ ἄνθη µετὰ τῆς Περσεφόνης συλλεγούσας. [3] Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Ἡρακλῆς παρὰ
τῇ Δήµητρι µέγεθος µάλιστα πῆχυν· τοῦτον τὸν Ἡρακλέα εἶναι τῶν ἰδαίων
καλουµένων Δακτύλων Ὀνοµάκριτός φησιν ἐν τοῖς ἔπεσι. Κεῖται δὲ τράπεζα
ἔµπροσθεν, ἐπειργασµέναι τε ἐπ’ αὐτῇ δύο τέ εἰσιν Ὧραι καὶ ἔχων Πὰν σύριγγα καὶ
Ἀπόλλων κιθαρίζων· ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐπίγραµµα ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς εἶναι σφᾶς θεῶν τῶν
πρώτων. [4] Πεποίηνται δὲ ἐπὶ τραπέζῃ καὶ νύµφαι· Νέδα µὲν Δία φέρουσά ἐστι
νήπιον παῖδα, Ἀνθρακία δὲ νύµφη τῶν ἀρκαδικῶν καὶ αὕτη δᾷδα ἔχουσά ἐστιν,
Ἁγνὼ δὲ τῇ µὲν ὑδρίαν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ χειρὶ φιάλην· Ἀγχιρ<ρ>όης δὲ καὶ
Μυρτωέσσης εἰσὶν ὑδρίαι τὰ φορήµατα, καὶ ὕδωρ δῆθεν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν κάτεισιν. Τοῦ
περιβόλου δέ ἐστιν ἐντὸς φιλίου Διὸς ναός, Πολυκλείτου µὲν τοῦ ἀργείου τὸ
ἄγαλµα, Διονύσῳ δὲ ἐµφερές· κόµορνοί τε γὰρ τὰ ὑποδήµατά ἐστιν αὐτῳ καὶ ἔχει
τῇ χειρὶ ἔκπωµα, τῇ δὲ ἑτέρᾳ θύρσον, κάθηται δὲ ἀετὸς ἐπὶ τῷ θύρσῳ· καίτοι <τοῖς>
γε ἐς Διόνυσον λεγοµένοις τοῦτο οὐχ ὁµολογοῦν ἐστι. [5] Τούτου δὲ ὄπισθεν τοῦ
ναοῦ δένδρων ἐστὶν ἄλσος οὐ µέγα, θριγκῷ περιεχόµενον· ἐς µὲν δὴ τὸ ἐντὸς ἔσοδος
οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνθρώποις, πρὸ δὲ αὐτοῦ Δήµητρος καὶ Κόρης ὅσον τε ποδῶν τριῶν εἰσιν
ἀγάλµατα. Ἔστι δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου τῶν Μεγάλων θεῶν καὶ Ἀφροδίτης ἱερόν.
Πρὸ µὲν δὴ τῆς ἐσόδου ξόανά ἐστιν ἀρχαῖα, Ἥρα καὶ Ἀπόλλων τε καὶ µοῦσαι·
ταῦτα κοµισθῆναί φασιν ἐκ Τραπεζοῦντος. [6] Ἀγάλµατα δὲ ἐν τῷ ναῷ Δαµοφῶν
ἐποίησεν, Ἑρµῆν ξύλου καὶ Ἀφροδίτης ξόανον· καὶ ταύτης χεῖρές εἰσι λίθου καὶ
πρόσωπόν τε καὶ ἄκροι πόδες. Τὴν δὲ ἐπίκλησιν τῇ θεῷ µαχανῖτιν ὀρθότατα ἔθεντο
318
ἐµοὶ δοκεῖν· Ἀφροδίτης γὰρ ἕνεκα καὶ ἔργων τῶν ταύτης πλεῖσται µὲν ἐπιτεχνήσεις,
παντοῖα δὲ ἀνθρώποις ἀνευρηµένα ἐς λόγους ἐστίν. [7] Ἑστήκασι δὲ καὶ ἀνδιάντες ἐν
οἰκήµατι, Καλλιγνώτου τε καὶ Μέντα καὶ Σωσιγένους τε καὶ Πώλου·
καταστήσασθαι δὲ οὗτοι µεγαλοπολίταις λέγονται πρῶτον τῶν Μεγάλων θεῶν
τὴν τελετήν, καὶ τὰ δρώµενα τῶν Ἐλευσῖνί ἐστι µιµήµατα. Κεῖται δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ
περιβόλου θεῶν τοσάδε ἄλλων ἀγάλµατα τὸ τετράγωνον παρεχόµενα σχῆµα:
Ἑρµῆς τε ἐπίκλησιν ἀγήτωρ καὶ Ἀπόλλων καὶ Ἀθηνᾶ τε καὶ Ποσειδῶν, ἔτι δὲ Ἥλιος
ἐπωνυµίαν ἔχων σωτὴρ [δὲ] εἶναι καὶ Ἡρακλῆς· ᾠκοδόµηται δὲ καὶ <τελεστήριόν>
σφισι µεγέθει µέγα, καὶ ἄγουσιν ἐνταῦθα τὴν τελετὴν ταῖς θεαῖς.
[8] Τοῦ ναοῦ δὲ τῶν Μεγάλων θεῶν ἐστιν ἱερὸν ἐν δεξιᾷ καὶ Κόρης· λίθου δὲ
τὸ ἄγαλµα ποδῶν ὀκτὼ µάλιστα· ταινίαι δὲ ἐπέχουσι διὰ παντὸς τὸ βάθρον. Ἐς
τοῦτο τὸ ἱερὸν γυναιξὶ µὲν τὸν πάντα ἐστὶν ἔσοδος χρόνον, οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες οὐ πλέον ἢ
ἅπαξ κατὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον ἐς αὐτὸ ἐσίασι. Γυµνάσιον δὲ τῇ ἀγορᾷ συνεχὲς κατὰ ἡλίου
δυσµάς ἐστιν ᾠκοδοµηµένον. [9] Τῆς στοᾶς δὲ ἣν ἀπὸ τοῦ µακεδόνος Φιλίππου
καλοῦσι, ταύτης εἰσὶ δύο ὄπισθεν λόφοι, οὐκ ἐς ὕψος ἀνήκοντες· ἐρείπια δὲ Ἀθηνᾶς
ἱεροῦ πολιάδος ἐπὶ αὐτῷ, καὶ τῷ ἑτέρῳ ναός ἐστιν Ἥρας τελείας, ὁµοίως καὶ ταῦτα
ἐρείπια. Ὑπὸ τούτῳ τῷ λόφῳ Βάθυλλος καλουµένη πηγὴ συντελεῖ καὶ αὕτη τῷ
ποταµῷ Ἑλισσόντι ἐς µέγεθος. Τοσάδε ἐνταῦθα ἀξιόχρεα ἦν.
32. Ἡ δὲ ἐπέκεινα τοῦ ποταµοῦ µοῖρα ἡ κατὰ µεσηµβρίαν παρείχετο ἐς

µνήµην θέατρον µέγιστον τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι· ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ἀέναός ἐστιν ὕδατος
πηγή. Τοῦ θεάτρου δὲ οὐ πόρρω λείπεται τοῦ βουλευτηρίου θεµέλια, ὃ τοῖς µυρίοις
ἐπεποίητο ἀρκάδων· ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀναθέτος θερσίλιον. Πλησίον δὲ οἰκίαν,
ἰδιώτου κατ’ ἐµὲ κτῆµα ἀνδρός, [ὃ] Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ Φιλίππου τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐποίησαν·
ἔστι δὲ ἄγαλµα Ἄµµωνος πρὸς τῇ οἰκίᾳ, τοῖς τετραγώνοις ἑρµαῖς εἰκασµένον,
κέρατα ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχον κριοῦ. [2] Τὸ δὲ τῶν µουσῶν Ἀπόλλωνός τε ἱερὸν καὶ
Ἑρµοῦ, κατασκευασθέν σφισιν ἐν κοινῷ, παρείχετο [δὲ] ἐς µνήµην θεµέλια οὐ πολλά·
ἦν δὲ καὶ τῶν µουσῶν µία ἔτι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνος ἄγαλµα κατὰ τοὺς ἑρµᾶς τοὺς
τετραγώνους τέχνην. Ἐρείπια δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἦν τὸ ἱερόν, πλὴν ὅσον
πρόναός τε ἐλείπετο ἔτι καὶ ἀγάλµατα ἀριθµὸν τρία, ἐπίκλησις δὲ οὐρανία, τῇ δ’
ἔστι πάνδηµος, τῇ τρίτῃ δὲ οὐδὲν ἐτίθεντο· [3] ἀπέχει δὲ οὐ πολὺ Ἄρεως βωµός,
ἐλέγετο δὲ ὡς καὶ ἱερὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ᾠκοδοµήθη τῷ θεῷ. Πεποίηται δὲ καὶ στάδιον
ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης τῇ µὲν ἐπὶ τὸ θέατρον καθῆκον (καὶ κρήνη σφίσιν ἐστὶν αὐτόθι,
ἣν ἱερὰν Διονύσου νοµίζουσι) κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ σταδίου πέρας Διονύσου ναὸς
ἐλέγετο ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κεραυνωθῆναι γενεαῖς δύο ἐµοῦ πρότερον, καὶ ἐρείπια οὐ
πολλὰ ἔτι ἐς ἐµὲ ἦν αὐτοῦ. Ἡρακλέους δὲ κοινὸς καὶ Ἑρµοῦ πρὸς τῷ σταδίῳ ναὸς
µὲν οὐκέτι ἦν, µόνος δέ σφισι βωµὸς ἐλείπετο. [4] Ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῇ µοίρᾳ ταύτῃ λόφος
πρὸς ἀνίσχοντα ἥλιον καὶ ἀγροτέρας ἐν αὐτῷ ναὸς Ἀρτέµιδος, ἀνάθηµα
Ἀριστοδήµου καὶ τοῦτο. Τῆς δὲ Ἀγροτέρας ἐστὶν ἐν δεξιᾷ τέµενος· ἐνταῦθα ἔστι µὲν
ἱερὸν Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ ἀγάλµατα αὐτός τε καὶ Ὑγεία, εἰσὶ δὲ ὑποκαταβάντι ὀλίγον
θεοὶ (παρέχονται δὲ καὶ οὗτοι σχῆµα τετράγωνον, ἐργάται δέ ἐστιν αὐτοῖς
ἐπίκλησις) Ἀθηνᾶ τε ἐργάνη καὶ Ἀπόλλων ἀγυιεύς· τῷ δὲ Ἑρµῇ καὶ Ἡρακλεῖ καὶ
Εἰλειθυίᾳ πρόσεστιν ἐξ ἐπῶν τῶν Ὁµήρου φήµη, τῷ µὲν Διός τε αὐτὸν διάκονον
εἶναι καὶ ὑπὸ τὸν ᾍδην ἄγειν τῶν ἀπογινοµένων τὰς ψυχάς, Ἡρακλεῖ δὲ ὡς
πολλούς τε καὶ χαλεποὺς τελέσειεν ἄθλους· Εἰλειθυίᾳ δὲ ἐποίησεν ἐν Ἰλιάδι ὠδῖνας
γυναικῶν µέλειν. [5] Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑπὸ τὸν λόφον τοῦτον Ἀσκληπιοῦ παιδὸς
ἱερόν· τούτου µὲν δὴ τὸ ἄγαλµα ὀρθὸν πεποίηται πηχυαῖον µάλιστα, Ἀπόλλωνος
319
δὲ ἐν θρόνῳ κάθηται ποδῶν ἕξ οὐκ ἀποδέον µέγεθος. Ἀνάκειται δὲ αὐτόθι, καὶ ὀστᾶ
ὑπερηρκότα ἢ ὡς ἀνθρώπου δοκεῖν· καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐλέγετο ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς εἶναι τῶν
γιγάντων ἑνός, οὕς ἐς τὴν συµµαχίαν τῆς Ῥέας ἤθροισεν Ὁπλάδαµος, ἃ δὴ καὶ ἐς
ὕστερον ἐπέξεισιν ἡµῖν ὁ λόγος. Τούτου δέ ἐστι πηγὴ τοῦ ἱεροῦ πλησίον, καὶ ἀπ’
αὐτῆς ὁ Ἑλισσὼν τὸ ὕδωρ δέχεται κατερχόµενον.
33. Εἰ δὲ ἡ Μεγάλη πόλις προθυµίᾳ τε τῇ πάσῃ συνοικισθεῖσα ὑπὸ ἀρκάδων

καὶ ἐπὶ µεγίσταις τῶν ἑλλήνων ἐλπίσιν ἐς αὐτὴν κόσµον τὸν ἅπαντα καὶ
εὐδαιµονίαν τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀφῄρηται καὶ τὰ πολλά ἐστιν αὐτῆς ἐρείπια ἐφ’ ἡµῶν,
θαῦµα οὐδὲν ἐποιησάµην, εἰδὼς τὸ δαιµόνιον νεώτερα ἀεί τινα ἐθέλον ἐργάζεσθαι,
καὶ ὁµοίως τὰ πάντα τά τε ἐχυρὰ καὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ τὰ γινόµενά τε καὶ ὁπόσα
ἀπόλλυνται µεταβάλλουσαν τὴν Τύχην, καὶ ὅπως ἂν αὐτῇ παριστῆται µετὰ
ἰσχυρᾶς ἀνάγκης ἄγουσαν. [2] Μυκῆναι µέν γε, τοῦ πρὸς Ἰλίῳ πολέµου τοῖς ἕλλησιν
ἡγησαµένη, καὶ Νῖνος, ἔνθα ἦν ἀσσυρίοις βασίλεια, καὶ βοιώτιαι Θῆβαι προστῆναι
τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ποτε ἀξιωθεῖσαι, αἱ µὲν ἠρήµωνται πανώλεθροι, τὸ δὲ ὄνοµα τῶν
Θηβῶν ἐς ἀκρόπολιν µόνην καὶ οἰκήτορας καταβέβηκεν οὐ πολλούς. Τὰ δὲ
ὑπερηρκότα πλούτῳ τὸ ἀρχαῖον, Θῆβαί τε αἱ αἰγύπτιαι καὶ ὁ µινύης Ὀρχοµενὸς καὶ
ἡ Δῆλος τὸ κοινὸν ἑλλήνων ἐµπόριον, αἱ µὲν ἀνδρὸς ἰδιώτου µέσου δυνάµει
χρηµάτων καταδέουσιν ἐς εὐδαιµονίαν, ἡ Δῆλος δέ, ἀφελόντι τοὺς ἀφικνουµένους
παρ’ ἀθηναίων ἐς τοῦ ἱεροῦ τὴν φρουράν, δηλίων γε ἑνεκα ἒρηµός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων.
[3] Βαβυλῶνος δὲ τοῦ µὲν Βήλου τὸ ἱερὸν λείπεται, Βαβυλῶνος δὲ ταύτης, ἥντινα
εἶδε πόλεων τῶν τότε µεγίστην ἥλιος, οὐδὲν ἔτι ἦν εἰ µὴ τεῖχος, καθὰ καὶ Τίρυνθος
τῆς ἐν τῇ Ἀργολίδι.
Ταῦτα µὲν δὴ ἐπίησεν ὁ δαίµων εἶναι τὸ µηδέν· ἡ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου πόλις ἐν
Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἡ Σεκεύκου παρὰ τῷ Ὀρόντῃ χθές τε ᾠκισµέναι καὶ πρῴην ἐς τοσοῦτο
ἐπιδεδώκασι µεγέθους καὶ εὐδαιµονίας, ὅτι σφᾶς ἡ τύχη δεξιοῦται. [4] Ἐπιδείκνυται
δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷδε ἔτι τὴν ἰσχὺν µείζονα καὶ θαύµατος πλείονος ἢ κατὰ συµφορὰς καὶ
εὐπραγίας πόλεων: Λήµνου γὰρ πλοῦν ἀπεῖχεν οὐ πολὺν Χρύση νῆσος, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τῷ
Φιλοκτήτῃ γενέσθαι συµφορὰν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδρου φασί· ταύτην κατέλαβεν ὁ κλύδων
πᾶσαν, καὶ κατέδυ τε ἡ Χρύση καὶ ἠφάνισται κατὰ τοῦ βυθοῦ· νῆσον δὲ ἄλλην
καλουµένην Ἱερὰν <ἀνέφηνεν ὁ βυθός, ἣ> τόνδε οὐκ ἦν χρόνον. Οὕτω µὲν τὰ
ἀνθρώπινα πρόσκαιρά τε καὶ οὐδαµῶς ἐστιν ἐχυρά.728
30. The Helisson river, beginning at a village of the same name – for the name of
the village is also Helisson – passes through the lands of Dipaea and Lycaea, and then
through Megalopolis itself, descending into the Alpheus twenty stades away from the city
of Megalopolis. Near the city is a temple of Poseidon the Overseer. I found the head of
the image still remaining.
[2] The river Helisson divides Megalopolis just as Knidos and Mytilene are cut in
two by their straits, and in the north section, on the right as one looks down the river, the
townsfolk have made their agora. In it is an enclosure of stones and a sanctuary of Zeus
Lykaios, with no entrance into it. The things inside, however, can be seen – altars of the
god, two tables, as many eagles as tables, and an image of Pan made of stone. [3] His
728
Greek text from N.D. Papachatzis, Παυσανίου Ελλάδος περιήγησις: βιβλίο 7 και 8. Αχαϊκά –
Αρκαδικά (Athens, 1980).
320
surname is Sinoeis, and they say that Pan was so surnamed after a nymph Sinoe, who
with others of the nymphs nursed him on her own account. There is before this enclosure
a bronze image of Apollo worth seeing, in height twelve feet, brought from Phigaleia as a
contribution to the adornment of Megalopolis. [4] The place where the image was
originally set up by the Phigalians is named Bassai. The surname of the god has followed
him from Phigaleia, but why he received the name of Epikourios (The Helper) will be set
forth in my account of Phigaleia. On the right of the Apollo is a small image of the
Mother of the Gods, but of the temple there remains nothing save the pillars.
[5] Before the temple of the Mother is no statue, but I found still to be seen the
pedestals on which statues once stood. An inscription in elegiacs on one of the pedestals
says that the statue was that of Diophanes, the son of Diaeus, the man who first united the
whole Peloponnese into what was named the Achaean League. [6] The stoa in the agora,
called the Philippeion, was not made by Philip, the son of Amyntas, but as a compliment
to him the Megalopolitans gave his name to the building. Near it I found a temple of
Hermes Akakesios in ruins, with nothing remaining except a tortoise of stone. Adjoining
this Philippeion is another stoa, smaller in size, where stand the government offices of
Megalopolis, six rooms in number. In one of them is an image of Ephesian Artemis, and
in another a bronze Pan, surnamed Skoleitas, one cubit high. [7] It was brought from the
hill Skoleitas, which is within the walls, and from a spring on it a stream descends to the
Helisson. Behind the government offices is a temple of Tyche with a stone image not less
than five feet high. The stoa called Myropolis, situated in the agora, was built from the
spoils taken when the Lakedaimonians fighting under Akrotatos, the son of Cleomenes,
suffered the reverse sustained at the hands of Aristodemos, then tyrant of Megalopolis. [8]
In the agora of that city, behind the enclosure sacred to Lykaian Zeus, is the figure of a
man carved in relief on a slab, Polybios, the son of Lycortas. Elegiac verses are inscribed
upon it saying that he roamed over every land and every sea, and that he became the ally
of the Itomans and stayed their wrath against the Greek nation. This Polybios wrote also a
history of the Romans, including how they went to war with Carthage, what the cause of
the war was, and how at last, not before great dangers had been run, Scipio . . . whom
they name Carthaginian, because he put an end to the war and razed Carthage to the
ground. [9] Whenever the Romans obeyed the advice of Polybios, things went well with
them, but they say that whenever they would not listen to his instructions they made
mistakes. All the Greek cities that were members of the Achaean League got permission
from the Itomans that Polybios should draw up constitutions for them and frame laws. On
the left of the portrait-statue of Polybios is the bouleuterion. Here then is the Chamber.
[10] The stoa called the Aristandreion in the agora was built, they say, by
Aristander, one of their townsfolk. Quite near to this stoa, on the east, is a sanctuary of
Zeus, surnamed Soter (Savior). It is adorned with pillars round it. Zeus is seated on a
throne, and by his side stand Megalopolis on the right and an image of Artemis Soteira
(Savior) on the left. These are of Pentelic marble and were made by the Athenians
Kephisodotos and Xenophon.
31. At the other end of the Aristandreion stoa (i.e. the western) is an enclosure
sacred to the Great Goddesses. The Great Goddesses are Demeter and Kore, as I have
321
already explained in my account of Messenia, and Kore is called Soteira (Savior) by the
Arcadians. Carved in relief before the entrance are, on one side Artemis, on the other
Asclepius and Hygeia. [2] Of the Great Goddesses, Demeter is of stone throughout, but
the Soteira has drapery of wood. The height of each is about fifteen feet. The images . . .
and before them he made small maids in tunics reaching to the ankles, each of whom
carries on her head a basket full of flowers. They are said to be daughters of Damophon,
but those inclining to a more religious interpretation hold that they are Athena and
Artemis gathering the flowers with Persephone. [3] By the side of Demeter there is also a
Herakles about a cubit high. This Herakles, says Onomacritus in his poem, is one of those
called Idaean Dactyls. Before it stands a table, on which are carved in relief two seasons,
Pan with pipes, and Apollo playing the harp. There is also an inscription by them saying
that they are among the first gods. [4] Nymphs too are carved on the table: Neda carrying
an infant Zeus, Anthracia, another Arcadian nymph, holding a torch, and Hagno with a
water-pot in one hand and a bowl in the other. Anchirhoe and Myrtoessa carry water-
pots, with what is meant to be water coming down from them. Within the precinct is a
temple of Zeus Philios (Friendly). Polycleitus of Argos made the image; it is like
Dionysus in having buskins as footwear and in holding a beaker in one hand and a
thyrsus in the other, but an eagle sitting on the thyrsus does not fit in with the known
accounts of Dionysus. [5] Behind this temple is a small grove of trees surrounded by a
wall; nobody may go inside, and before it are images of Demeter and the Maid some
three feet high. Within the enclosure of the Great Goddesses is also a sanctuary of
Aphrodite. Before the entrance are old wooden images of Hera, Apollo and the Muses,
brought, it is said, from Trapezous, [6] and in the temple are images made by Damophon,
a wooden Hermes and a wooden Aphrodite with hands, face and feet of stone. The
surname Machanitis (Deviser) given to the goddess is, in my opinion, a most apt one; for
very many are the devices, and most varied are the forms of speech invented by men
because of Aphrodite and her works. [7] In a building stand statues also, those of
Callignotus, Mentas, Sosigenes and Polus. These men are said to have been the first to
establish at Megalopolis the mysteries of the Great Goddesses, and the ritual acts are a
copy of those at Eleusis. Within the enclosure of the goddesses are the following images,
which all have a square shape: Hermes, surnamed Agetor (Guide), Apollo, Athena,
Poseidon, Sun too, surnamed Soter (Savior), and Heracles. There has also been built for
them a of vast size, and here they celebrate the mysteries in honor of the goddesses.
[8] To the right of the temple of the Great Goddesses there is also a sanctuary of
Kore. The image is of stone, about eight feet high; ribbons cover the pedestal all over.
Women may enter this sanctuary at all times, but men enter it only once every year.
Adjoining the agora on the west there is built a gymnasium. [9] Behind the stoa called
after Philip of Macedon are two hills, rising to no great height. Ruins of a sanctuary of
Athena Polias are on one, while on the other a temple of Hera Full-grown, this too being
in ruins. Under this hill is a spring called Bathyllus, which is one of the tributaries that
swell the Helisson. Such are the notable things on this site.
32. The southern portion, on the other side of the river, can boast of the largest
theater in all Greece, and in it is a spring which never fails. Not far from the theater are
322
left foundations of the bouleuterion built for the Arcadian Myrioi, and called Thersilion
after the man who dedicated it. Hard by is a house, belonging today to a private person,
which originally was built for Alexander, the son of Philip. By the house is an image of
Ammon, like the square images of Hermes, with a ram’s horns on his head. [2] The
sanctuary built in common for the Muses, Apollo and Hermes had for me to record only a
few foundations, but there was still one of the Muses, with an image of Apollo after the
style of the square herms. The sanctuary of Aphrodite too was in ruins, except for the
pronaos and three images, one surnamed Ourania, the second Pandemos, and the third
without a surname. [3] At no great distance is an altar of Ares, and it was said that
originally a sanctuary too was built for the god. Beyond the Aphrodite is built also a
racecourse, extending on one side to the theater (and here they have a spring, held sacred
to Dionysus), while at the other end of the racecourse a temple of Dionysos was said to
have been struck by lightning two generations before my time, and a few ruins of it were
still there when I saw it. The temple near the racecourse shared by Herakles and Hermes
was no longer there, only their altar was left. [4] There is also in this district a hill to the
east, and on it a temple of Artemis Agrotera (Huntress) this too was dedicated by
Aristodemos. To the right of the Huntress is a precinct. Here there is a sanctuary of
Asklepios, with images of the god and of Hygeia, and a little lower down there are gods,
also of square shape, surnamed Workers, Athena Ergane (Worker) and Apollo Aguieus
(God of Streets). To Hermes, Heracles and Eileithyia are attached traditions from the
poems of Homer: that Hermes is the minister of Zeus and leads the souls of the departed
down to Hades, and that Herakles accomplished many difficult tasks; Eileithyia, he says
in the Iliad, cares for the pangs of women. [5] Under this hill there is another sanctuary of
Boy Asklepios. His image is upright and about a cubit in height, that of Apollo is seated
on a throne and is not less than six feet high. Here are also kept bones, too big for those
of a human being, about which the story ran that they were those of one of the giants
mustered by Hopladamos to fight for Rhea, as my story will relate hereafter. Near this
sanctuary is a spring, the water flowing down from which is received by the Helisson.
33.Megalopolis was founded by the Arcadians with the utmost enthusiasm amidst
the highest hopes of the Greeks, but it has lost all its beauty and its old prosperity, being
today for the most part in ruins. I am not in the least surprised, as I know that heaven is
always willing something new, and likewise that all things, strong or weak, increasing or
decreasing, are being changed by Tyche (Fortune), who drives them with imperious
necessity according to her whim. [2] For Mycenae, the leader of the Greeks in the Trojan
war, and Nineveh, where there was the royal palace of the Assyrians, are utterly ruined
and desolate; while Boeotian Thebes, once deemed worthy to be the head of the Greek
people, why, its name includes only the acropolis and its few inhabitants. Of the opulent
places in the ancient world, Egyptian Thebes and Minyan Orchomenos are now less
prosperous than a private individual of moderate means, while Delos, once the common
commercial center of Greece, has no Delian inhabitant, but only the men sent by the
Athenians to guard the sanctuary. [3] At Babylon the sanctuary of Belus still is left, but of
the Babylon that was the greatest city of its time under the sun nothing remains but the
wall. The case of Tiryns in the Argolid is the same.
323
These places have been reduced by heaven to nothing. But the city of Alexander
in Egypt, and that of Seleucus on the Orontes, that were founded but yesterday, have
reached their present size and prosperity because fortune favors them. [4] The following
incident proves the might of fortune to be greater and more marvelous than is shown by
the disasters and prosperity of cities. No long sail from Lemnos was once an island
Chryse, where, it is said, Philoktetes met with his accident from the water-snake. But the
waves utterly overwhelmed it, and Chryse sank and disappeared in the depths. Another
island called Hiera (Sacred) . . . was not during this time. So temporary and utterly weak
are the fortunes of men.729
729
Translation based on W.H.S. Jones, Pausanias, Description of Greece, Vol. IV (Loeb Classical Library)
(London, 1935).
324
DOMESTIC / PUBLIC / CIVIC CULT
INDUSTRIAL (NON-RELIGIOUS)
Protogeometric/ Stone and mudbrick walls (PG)
Middle Geometric Three furnaces and a hearth (PG)
ca. 1050-750 Wall (EG)
Late Geometric Iron slag, metal, and clay Monumental structure (ca. 700) Terracotta figurines
ca. 750-690 Pre-South Stoa structures
Terraces
7th Century Sanctuary of Aphrodite (late 7th)
Archaic Workshops near theater (6th) Fortifications (6th) Votives near theater (mid-6th)
Cephisos canal (ca. 500) Heroon of the Theban Heroes (2h 6th)
Commercial and/or administrative Stoa and altar in sanctuary of Aphrodite (late-
structures (ca. 500) 6th)
Structure with tortoise shells (late-6th/early 5th)
325
Sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios (ca. 500)
Classical South Stoa (3q 5th) Southeast temple (mid-5th)

Hypostyle Hall (2h 5th) Temple of Aphrodite (2h 5th)
Stepped Theatron (2h 5th) Krepidoma (Northwest Stoa?) (4th)
East Stoa (5th?) Sanctuary of Nemean Zeus (4th)
Racetrack (4th) Orchestra (4th or later)
TABLE 1. Timeline of building activity in and around the Argive agora.

DOMESTIC / INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / CIVIC CULT
(NON-RELIGIOUS)
Geometric Terrace N of Peirene (EG) Drain N of Buildings I-IV (MG) Sanctuary of Aphrodite on Acrocorinth (EG?)
pre-Bacchiadai Wall N of Building III (MG) Demeter and Kore Sanctuary (1h 8th)
Bacchiadai Potters’ Quarter (ca. 750-650); Cyclopean Spring (late 8th?) Old Temple (1q 7th)
ca. 750-650 Terrace near Sacred Spring (2h 8th); Peirene Fountain (late 8th?)
House 1 (1st phase, ca. 700); House Sacred Spring (late 8th/early 7th)
below Punic Amphora Building
(EPC); House 2 (PC); House 3 (PC)
Tyranny House 1 (2nd phase, 3q 7th); South Fortifications walls (late 7th) Heroon of the Crossroads (late 7th/early 6th)
ca. 650-580 Long Building (late 7th); Trader’s Diolkos (early 6th) Apollo Cult in Asklepieion (early 6th)
Complex (late 7th); North Long Oikos I in Demeter and Kore Sanctuary (6th?)
Building (ca. 600)
Archaic Tile Works (2q 6th) North Building (1st phase, Archaic?) Stele Shrine (2q 6th); Temple of Apollo (mid-6th);
post-tyranny Dye-works complex (ca. 550) Stepped Ramp (2h 6th) Heroon of the Crossroads (temenos) (mid-6th);
326
Rectangular House in PQ (6th) Peirene Fountain (Archaic?) Oikos II in Demeter and Kore Sanctuary (3q 6th);
Buildings beneath South Stoa Sacred Spring (late 6th/early 5th) Temple of (Zeus?) (late 6th); Penteskouphia
(Archaic?) Sanctuary (6th); Archaic temple near Temple E?
TABLE 2. Timeline of building activity at Corinth.

(late 6th); Underground Shrine (late 6th/early 5th);
Apsidal Building (late 6th/early 5th); Doric temple
near theater? (to Dionysos?) (ca. 500-480);
Anaploga Sanctuary (Archaic or Classical)
Classical Punic Amphora Building (2q 5th); Racetrack (1h 5th); North Stoa (1h Dining Rooms in Demeter and Kore Sanctuary
Pentagonal Building (3q 5th); 5th)?; Painted Building (1h 5th?); (5th and 4th)
Building V (late 5th); Houses near Long Walls (ca. 450); Building I (3q Small Shrines at Potters’ Quarter (5th and 4th)
Baths of Aphrodite (late 5th/4th); 5th); Buildings II-IV (late 5th); Temple A (late 5th)
Terracotta Factory (5th and 4th) Centaur Bath (4q 5th); Circular Kokkinovrysi Shrine (late 5th/early 4th)
Platform (late 5th/early 4th); Glauke
Fountain (Classical?); Baths of
Aphrodite (4th)
COMMERCIAL/ CIVIC RELIGIOUS VARIA
INDUSTRIAL
Bacchiadai A32 Melissus exhibits body
ca. 750-650 of his son in the agora
Tyranny A16 Taxes in the agora A21 Periander bans people

ca. 650-580 from idling in the agora
Archaic
post-tyranny
Classical A13 Buyers in the agora Public A52 Festival of A11 Timophanes parades
A33 Business near the decrees set up Artemis Eukleia; around the agora; Timoleon
agora in the agora? crowd in the agora; kills him there
statues of gods in the
agora
Hellenistic Public
decrees set up
in the agora?
TABLE 3. Ancient literary and epigraphical testimonia concerning the Corinthian agora.
Numbers correspond to those found in Appendix A.
Boul! Damos Eponymous Other Magistrates

= Gerousia = Ekkl!sia Officials
Bacchiadai Prytanis (A6)
ca. 750-650 Basileus (A6)
Polemarch (A20)
Tyranny A16 (boul! !"’ A20 (damos?) Basileus (A21)

ca. 650-580 !#$%&'() Polemarch (A16)
Archaic A22 (8 probouloi A22 (damos?) Prytanis? (A20)

post-tyranny + 72 other boul!
members = 80)
5th century A48 ()*++,-,.)
4th century A12 (gerousia) A31, A36 archons (A35)

(damos)
Hellenistic A61 (boul!) A61, Corinth -/0µµ0&12. (A55-56, 61)

VIII.1, nos. 2-3 3",-/0µµ0&12. (A60)
(ekkl!sia) -2µ(0#4%/$5. (A58-59)
Roof tiles (!"6 78(,+9 and
!"6 :1,(&,.)
TABLE 4. Ancient literary and epigraphical testimonia concerning Corinthian civic

officials. Numbers correspond to those found in Appendix A.
327
Bouleuterion Ekkl!siasterion Lawcourts Other Archeia
Bacchiadai A20 (dikasterion)

ca. 750-650
Tyranny A20 (dikasterion)

ca. 650-580
Archaic
post-tyranny
5th century strat!geion (I-76-5)
4th century A12 (bouleuterion)
Hellenistic A28 (Apolloneion) A27 (!"#$%& in the

A29 (bouleuterion) theater)
TABLE 5. Ancient literary and epigraphical testimonia concerning Corinthian civic

buildings. Numbers correspond to those found in Appendix A.
328
(NON-RELIGIOUS)
Submycenaean/
Protogeometric
11th-10th century
Geometric Bronze dedications at a sanctuary? (MG)

9th-early 7th century Bronze dedications at a sanctuary? (LG)
7th Century
Archaic State archive? (1h 6th) Architectural terracottas from temple(s)?

(ca. 580-560; ca. 500)
Classical Gymnasia (5th) West-facing temple (Hades?) (1h 5th)

Hellanodikaion (5th/4th?) Temple of Aphrodite Ourania (mid-5th)
West Stoa (4th) Sanctuary near Temenos H (5th/4th)
South Stoa (4th) Sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos (1h 4th)
Sanctuary of Dionysos (mid-4th)
329
Heroon of Oxylos? (4th)
Unknown Date Temple of Apollo Akesios; Temple of Silenus;

Sanctuary of the Graces; Sanctuary(?) of Helios and
Selene; Building for the Sixteen Women; “Old
Temple” reused as Sebasteion; Temple of Hades;
Sanctuary of Tyche; Sanctuary of Sosipolis
TABLE 6. Timeline of Building Activity in and around the Elean Agora.

(NON-RELIGIOUS)
371-300 House of Alexander (336-323) Fortification walls (4th) Sanctuary of Zeus Lykaios (4th)
Houses N of Stoa of Philip (4th/3rd) Thersilion (ca. 360-350) Sanctuary of the Great Goddesses (ca. 360-350)
Bouleuterion (ca. 360-350) Sanctuary of Zeus Homarios? (ca. 360-350)
Damosia Oikia (ca. 360-350) Sanctuary of Zeus Soter (ca. 330-320)
Stoa of Philip (ca. 340-330) Sanctuary of Ares (4th?)
Theater (ca. 325-300)
Archive Building (4th?)
300-222 Myropolis Stoa (ca. 262-252) Temple of Artemis Agrotera (ca. 360-350)
Aristandreion Stoa (3rd) Temple of Tyche (3rd/2nd)
222-146 Archive Building (3rd/2nd) Sanctuary of Asklepios (terminus ante quem 2nd)
Myropolis Stoa (ca. 200)
Theater (ca. 200)
Skanotheka of theater (ca. 200)
Bouleuterion
Damosia Oikia
330
Thersilion
146-31 Stele of Polybius (2nd/1st) Structure at E end of Stoa of Philip

(150 B.C. – Augustan period)
Unknown Date Gymnasium Temple of the Mother of the Gods; Temple of

Stadium Hermes Akakesios; Sanctuary of Athena Polias;
Temple of Hera Teleia; Sanctuary of the Muses,
Apollo, and Hermes; Sanctuary of Aphrodite;
Temple of Dionysos; Temple of Herakles and
Hermes; Sanctuary of Asklepios the Boy
TABLE 7. Timeline of building activity at Megalopolis. Italics indicate a rebuilding.

Figure 1.1. The Greek agora is an urban venue where diverse occupations converge.
Figure 1.2. Where have we been looking? Standard models for the Greek agora: (a)
Magna Graecia, (b) Ionia and the Greek East, (c) the Athenian agora.
331
Figure 1.3. Plan of Rhodes from Haus und Stadt in klassischen Griechenland (1986).
Note the strict regularity of the urban center as reconstructed (Hoepfner and Schwandner
1994, fig. 43a).
Figure 1.4. Typenhäuser from Piraeus. Everybody lives in the democratic ideals of
isonomia (Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994, p. 41, fig. 33).
332
Figure 1.5. Cover of The Archaeology of Athens and Attica Under the Democracy (1994),
showing the Old Bouleuterion in the Athenian agora. Note how the building is
reconstructed as a monumental Doric civic building, even though the archaeological
evidence is inconclusive. The building is traditionally dated ca. 500, i.e. only a few years
after the democratic reforms of Cleisthenes, but it may date well into the 5th century.
333
Figure 1.6. Tentative location of the Spartan agora (Waywell 1999, p. 12, fig. 3).
334
Figure 2.1. Plan of the Argolid (Piérart and Touchais 1996, p. 10).
335
Figure 2.2. Plan of Argos with modern streets (Pariente and Touchais 1998, Pl. 4).
336
Figure 2.3. Plan of the Argive agora (Marchetti 1994, p. 133, fig. 1).
337
Figure 2.4. Plan of Argos showing the location of ancient roads (Marchetti 2000, p. 284,
fig. 3).
338
Figure 2.5. Plan of the Argive agora (Piérart and Touchais 1996, p. 45).
339
Figure 2.6. Doric architrave block from the sanctuary of Apollo Lykeios (Courtils 1981,
p. 608, figs. 1-2).
340
Figure 2.7. Plan of Argos, ca. 1050-750 (Vink 2002, p. 55, fig. 1).
341
Figure 2.8. Plan of Argos, ca. 750-690 (Vink 2002, p. 57, fig. 2).
342
Figure 2.9. Monumental structure, ca. 700 (Bommelaer and Grandjean 1972, fig. 124).
343
Figure 2.10. Plan of Argos, distribution of 7th century burials (Hall 1997, p. 98, fig. 6).
344
Figure 2.11. Plan of Argos, Archaic period (Vink 2002, p. 60, fig. 4).
345
Figure 2.12. Plan of the Argive agora, Archaic period (Pariente et al. 1998, p. 228, fig. 2).
346
Figure 2.13. Archaic walls beneath the northern colonnade of the South Stoa. Towards
the west (Photograph by the author).
Figure 2.14. Archaic structure with tortoise shells (Courbin 1980, p. 97, fig. 5).
347
Figure 2.15. Findspot of Theban dedication within shaded area (Pariente 1992, p. 226,
plan 1).
348
Figure 2.16. Theban dedication, ca. 550-500 (Pariente 1992, Pl. 35, plan II).
Figure 2.17. Theban dedication, ca. 550-500. Towards the east (Pariente 1992, Pl. 35, fig.
1).
349
Figure 2.18. Inscription on the Theban dedication, ca. 550-500 (Pariente 1992, p. 228,
figs. 2-3).
350
Figure 2.19. Argive agora, second-half of 5th century (Marchetti and Rizakis 1995, p.
457, fig. 12).
351
Figure 2.20. Argive agora, Classical and Hellenistic periods (Pariente et al, 1998, p. 229,
fig. 3).
352
Figure 2.21. Alignment of the South Stoa with the Hypostyle Hall (Marchetti and Rizakis
1995, p. 466, fig. 17).
Figure 2.22. Reconstruction of the Hypostyle Hall (Bommelaer and des Courtils 1994, p.
35, fig. 19).
353
Figure 2.23. Ionic column bases (from the Hypostyle Hall?) (Bommelaer and des Courtils
1994, p. 33, fig. 15).
Figure 2.24. Southeast corner of the Hypostyle Hall (Bommelaer and des Courtils 1994,
Pl. VIb).
354
Figure 2.25. Telesterion at Eleusis, 5th through 4th century (Camp 2001, p. 107, fig. 98).
Figure 2.26. Odeion of Perikles at Athens, ca. 440s (Travlos 1971, p. 389, fig. 502).
355
Figure 2.27. Bouleuterion at Sikyon, after 303 (Papachatzis 1976, p. 105, fig. 98).
Figure 2.28. East wing of the South Stoa, ca. 450-425 (Roux 1953, Pl. 37).
356
Figure 2.29. Athenian agora, ca. 400 (Rotroff and Oakley 1992, Pl. 64).
357
Figure 2.30. Semicircular orchestra, 4th century or later (Moretti 1993, p. 5, fig. 3).
Figure 2.31. Semicircular orchestra and krepidoma. Towards the northeast (Photograph
by the author).
358
Figure 2.32. Starting line of the racetrack, Late Hellenistic or 1st century A.D. (BCH 111
[1987], p. 588, fig. 2).
Figure 2.33. Pre-Roman nymphaeum, Classical or Hellenistic period (Marchetti et al.

1995, p. 45, fig. 12).
359
Figure 2.34. Southeast temple (Consolaki and Hackens 1980, p. 280, fig. 1).
360
Figure 2.35. State plan of the Stepped Theatron, 5th century (Ginouvès 1972, Pl. 1).
361
Figure 2.36. Reconstruction of the Stepped Theatron, 5th century (Ginouvès 1972, Pl. 5).
362
Figure 3.1. Roman forum, mid-2nd century A.D. (after Corinth XX, Pl. 4).
363
Figure 3.2. Corinthian agora, ca. 400 (Williams 1980, p. 112, fig. 2).
364
Figure 3.3. Corinthian agora, ca. 200-150 (after Corinth XX, Pl. 3).
365
Figure 3.4. Plan of Corinth (Courtesy of Corinth Excavations).
366
Figure 3.5. Geometric burials and wells around Temple Hill (Pfaff 2007, p. 445, fig. 1).
367
Figure 3.6. Potters’ Quarter (Corinth XV.1, pl. 51).
368
Figure 3.7. Corinthian agora, ca. 650 (Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 146, fig. 2).
Figure 3.8. Remains of Protocorinthian House 2 beneath Building II. Its rubble walls are
distinguished from the ashlar blocks of the later classical structure. Towards the north
(Williams and Fisher 1972, Pl. 21a).
369
Figure 3.9. Corinthian agora, ca. 600-575 (Williams et al. 1974, p. 15, fig. 4).
Figure 3.10. Remains of Protocorinthian House 1 near the Sacred Spring. Towards the
northeast (Williams and Fisher 1971, Pl. 2b).
370
Figure 3.11. Corinthian agora, ca. 450-425 (Corinth XX, Pl. 2).
371
Figure 3.12. Stepped ramp leading down the southeast corner of Temple Hill (Photograph
by the author).
Figure 3.13. Classical house (“Terracotta Factory”) in the Potters’ Quarter (Corinth
XV.1, pl. 52).
372
Figure 3.14. Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, ca. 400 (Corinth XVIII.3, Pl. 4).
373
Figure 3.15. Punic Amphora Building, ca. 460s-420s (Williams 1980, p. 109, fig. 1).
374
Figure 3.16. Racetrack and circular platform (Williams and Russell 1981, p. 4, fig. 2).
375
Figure 3.17. Classical and Hellenistic racetracks (Romano 1993, p. 52, fig. 31).
376
Figure 3.18. Curved starting line of classical racetrack, ca. 500-450 (Romano 1993, p. 50,
fig. 28).
Figure 3.19. Circular platform, late 5th century (Photograph by the author).
377
Figure 3.20. Buildings I-IV, ca. 400 (Courtesy of Corinth Excavations).
378
Figure 3.21. Classical structures along the southern side of the upper Lechaion valley that
preceded the Hellenistic South Stoa. Building I and Building II are in the foreground.
Towards the west (Williams and Fisher 1972, Pl. 19a).
Figure 3.22. Eastern wall of Building II. Towards the northwest (Photograph by the
author).
379
Figure 3.23. Buildings I-III, ca. 400 (Williams and Fisher 1972, p. 166, fig. 5).
380
Figure 3.24. Typenhäuser at Priene (Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994, p. 214, fig. 208).
381
Figure 3.25. Plan of Thorikos. House 2 left of the theater (Thorikos III, p. 249, plan 3).
382
Figure 3.26. House IV at Kallipolis (Themelis 1999, p. 432).
383
Figure 3.27. MF-71-48. Semicircular bronze weight marked δαµόσιον Κορι(νθί)ων
ἡµιµνάον (Courtesy of Corinth Excavations).
Figure 3.28. C-71-335. Corinthian dry measure stamped δαµόσιον (Courtesy of Corinth
Excavations).
384
Figure 3.29. Buildings III (Williams et al. 1973, p. 20, fig. 5).
Figure 3.30. Well room in Building III. Towards the southwest (Williams et al. 1973, Pl.
7a).
385
Figure 3.31. Buildings IV (Williams 1980, p. 113, fig. 3).
Figure 3.32. Central cellar in Building IV. Towards the south (Williams 1979, Pl. 48).
386
Figure 3.33. Site of the Punic Amphora Building and the Centaur Bath (Williams 1978, p.
12, fig. 3).
387
Figure 3.34. Centaur Bath, Building V, and the Pentagonal Building (Williams 1977, p.
43, fig. 2).
388
Figure 3.35. Rooms 3 and 4 of the Centaur Bath. Note the plastered floor with the raised
plinth in the foreground for the accommodation of dining couches. Towards the north
(Williams 1977, Pl. 21f).
Figure 3.36. View of the Centaur Bath from the west. The large construction in the center
dates to the Roman Imperial period (Williams 1977, Pl. 19).
389
Figure 3.27. I-1206. Inscribed marble counting table from the Columned Hall, probably
second-half of 5th century (Photograph by the author).
390
Figure 3.38. I-76-5. Inscribed marble counting table from the Columned Hall, second-
half of 5th century (Photograph by the author).
Figure 3.39. Inscription on the marble counting table (I-76-5) from the Columned Hall,
στρατα[γίον Κορινθίων] (Courtesy of Corinth Excavations).
391
Figure 4.1. Map of Eleia and surrounding territories (Yalouris 1996, p. 8).
392
Figure 4.2. Plan of the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia (Hitzl 1996, Pl. 43).
393
Figure 4.3. Plan of Elis (Eder 2001, p. 238, fig. 2).
394
Figure 4.4. View of the level fertile plane of Elis from the acropolis. Towards the north
(Photograph by the author).
Figure 4.5. Plan of the Elean agora (Heiden 2006, p. 54, fig. 1).
395
Figure 4.6. Southwest road leading out of the Elean agora. The foundations of several
Greek and Roman structures have been excavated along the right side of the road.
Towards the north (Photograph by the author).
Figure 4.7. Route of Pausanias through Elis (Tritsch 1932, p. 68, fig. 77).
396
Figure 4.8. Domestic quarter of Elis southwest of the agora. A temple to the Roman
emperors stands in the foreground. Towards the south (Photograph by the author).
Figure 4.9. Theater at Elis with a simple earthen cavea. Towards the east (Photograph by
the author).
397
Figure 4.10. Geometric bronze bull and horse from Elis (Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon
1999, pp. 15-16, figs. 7-8).
Figure 4.11. Archaic bronze lion head’s protome from Elis (Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon
1999, pp. 21-22, fig. 11).
398
Figure 4.12. Archaic terracotta simas from Elis, ca. 580-560. a., b. A120, c. 1972 (Eder
and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 27-28, fig. 14).
399
Figure 4.13. Archaic terracotta simas from Elis, ca. 500. a. A37, b. A38, c. A39 (Eder and
Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, pp. 31-32, fig. 15).
400
Figure 4.14. Archaic bronze judicial inscription from Elis, ca. 600-550 (Eder and
Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999, p. 25, fig. 13).
Figure 4.15. Archaic bronze judicial inscription from Elis, ca. 600-550 (Siewert 2001, p.
245).
401
Figure 4.16. West-facing temple, first-half of 5th century (Walter 1913, p. 147, fig. 41).
Figure 4.17. Remains of the west-facing temple, first-half of 5th century. Towards the
east (Photograph by the author).
402
Figure 4.18. Foundations south of the west-facing temple (Prakt 1983, p. 164, fig. 1).
Figure 4.19. West Stoa, 4th century (Walter 1913, p. 147, fig. 40).
403
Figure 4.20. Foundations blocks from the eastern colonnade of the West Stoa. Towards
the north (Photograph by the author).
Figure 4.21. South Stoa, Augustan period (Mitsopoulos-Leon 1983, Pl. 1).
404
Figure 4.22. Internal pier supports from the northern hall of the South Stoa. Towards the
east (Photograph by the author).
Figure 5.1. Map of the Megalopolis basin (Roy 2007, p. 293, fig. 31.2).
405
Figure 5.2. Plan of Megalopolis (Petronotis 1973, fig. 7).
406
Figure 5.3. 1851 Reconstruction of the Megalopolitan agora by E. Curtius (Papachatzis
1980, p. 310, fig. 306).
407
Figure 5.4. Plan of Megalopolis (Roy 2007, p. 290, fig. 31.1).
408
Figure 5.5. This 1900 photograph shows the theater and Thersilion south of the Helisson
river. The remains of the sanctuary of Zeus Soter are visible across the river on the far
left. Towards the north (Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004, p. 136, fig. 1).
Figure 5.6. Plan of the Megalopolitan agora (Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, p. 416, fig.
1).
409
Figure 5.7. Plan of the Megalopolitan agora (AR 50 [2003-2004], p. 27, fig. 34).
410
Figure 5.8. Hellenistic dedicatory bases in front of the Stoa of Philip and the Archive
Building. Towards the northwest (Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, p. 439, fig. 32).
Figure 5.9. Structures along the western side of the Megalopolitan agora thought to be
civic offices (demosia oikia) and religious buildings (Lauter 2002, p. 380, fig. 6).
411
Figure 5.10. Plan of the so-called demosia oikia on the western side of the Megalopolitan
agora (Lauter 2002, 379, fig. 5).
412
Figure 5.11. Plan of the hypostyle hall (bouleuterion) (Lauter and Spyropoulos 1998, p.
428, fig. 15).
Figure 5.12. Elevation of the hypostyle hall (bouleuterion) (Lauter and Spyropoulos
1998, p. 430, fig. 17).
413
Figure 5.13. Old Bouleuterion in the Athenian agora, ca. 500? (Camp 1986, p. 52, fig.
31).
Figure 5.14. Plan of the Thersilion (Lauter and Lauter-Bufe 2004, p. 160, fig. 19).
414
Figure 5.15. Hellenistic roof tile from the southwest sanctuary stamped as Ὁµίλου
δαµόσιοι / Πολύβιος ἀνέθηκε (Lauter 2002, p. 385, fig. 12b).
Figure 5.16. Dedication by Damophon to Poseidon Asphaleios (Papachatzis 1980, p. 312,

fig. 308).
415
Figure 5.17. Two rows of Ionic columns inside the Stoa of Philip. Towards the southeast
(Photograph by the author).
Figure 5.18. Eastern exedra of the Stoa of Philip. Towards the northeast (Spyropoulos et
al. 1995, p. 126, fig. 10).
416
Figure 5.19. Plan of the sanctuary of Zeus Soter, ca. 330-320 (Lauter 2005, p. 247, fig.
4).
417
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abadie-Reynal, C. 2007. La céramique romaine d'Argos: fin du IIe siècle avant J-C - fin
du IVe siècle après J-C (Études Péloponnésiennes 13), Athens.
Agora XIV = H.A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Agora of Athens: The History,
Shape, and Uses of An Ancient City Center, Princeton 1972.
Agora XXVII = R.F. Townsend, The East Side of the Agora: The Remains Beneath the
Stoa of Attalos, Princeton 1995.
Agora XXVIII = A.L. Boegehold, The Lawcourts at Athens: Sites, Buildings, Equipment,
Procedure, and Testimonia, Princeton 1995.
Alcock, S.E. 1991. “Urban Survey and the Polis of Phlius,” Hesperia 60, pp. 421-463.
Alcock, S.E., J.F. Cherry, and J.L. Davis. 1994. “Intensive Survey, Agricultural Practice
and the Classical Landscape of Greece,” in New Directions in Classical
Archaeology, ed. I. Morris, Cambridge, pp. 137-170.
Amandry, P. 1980. “Sur les concours argiens,” in Études argiennes (BCH Suppl. 6),
Paris, pp. 211-253.
Ammerman, A.J. 1996. “The Eridanos Valley and the Athenian Agora,” AJA 100, pp.
699-715.
418
Anderson, G. 2005. “Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early
Greek History,” ClAnt 24, pp. 173-222.
Andreou, E., and I. Andreou. 2007. Ήλις: η πόλη των Ολυµπιακών αγώνων, Athens.
Andreau, J., and V. Chankowski, eds. 2007. Vocabulaire et expression de l'économie

dans le monde antique, Paris.
Aupert, P. 1982. “Argos aux VIIIe-VIIe siècles: bourgade ou métropole?,” ASAtene 44,
pp. 21-32.
Baitinger, H., and B. Eder. 2001. “Hellenistische Stimmarken aus Elis und Olympia:
Neue Forschungen zu den Beziehungen zwichen Hauptstadt und Heiligtum,” JdI
116, pp. 163-257.
Banaka-Dimaki, A. 2002. “Cult Places in Argos,” in Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and

Cults, ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, pp. 107-116.
Barakari-Gléni, K., and A. Pariente. 1998. “Argos du VIIe au IIe siècle av. J.-C.:
synthèse des données archéologique,” in Argos et l’Argolide: topographie et
urbanisme, eds. A. Pariente, and G. Touchais, Paris, pp. 165-178.
Bather, A.G. 1892-1893. “The Development of the Plan of the Thersilion,” JHS 13, pp.
328-337.
Benson, E.F. 1892-1893. “The Thersilion at Megalopolis,” JHS 13, pp. 319-327.
419
Blouet, A. 1831. Expédition scientifique de Morée ordonnée par le gouvernement
francais: architecture, sculptures, inscriptions et vues du Pélopouése, des
cyclades et de l'attique, vol. 2, Paris.
Bommelaer, J.-F. 1991. Guide de Delphes: le site, Athens.
Bommelaer, J.-F., and J. des Courtils. 1994. La salle hypostyle d’Argos (Études
Péloponnésiennes 10), Paris.
Bommelaer, J.-F., and Y. Grandjean. 1972. “Quartier sud d'Argos,” BCH 96, pp. 155-
228.
Bookidis, N. 2003. “The Sanctuaries of Corinth,” in Corinth XX, Princeton, pp. 247-259.
———. 2005. “Religion in Corinth. 146 B.C.E. to 100 C.E..” in Urban Religion in
Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches (Harvard Theological Studies 53),
eds. D.N. Schowalter, and S.J. Friesen, Cambridge, pp. 141-164.
Bookidis, N., and R.S. Stroud. 2004. “Apollo and the Archaic Temple at Corinth,”
Hesperia 73, pp. 401-426.
Broneer, O. 1942. “Hero Cults in the Corinthian Agora,” Hesperia 11, pp. 128-161.
Bovon, A. 1966. Lampes d'Argos (Études Péloponnésiennes 5), Paris.
Bresson, A. 2000. La cité marchande, Bordeaux.
420
———. 2007. L'économie de la Grèce des cités (fin VIe-Ier siècle a.C.), I. Les structures
et la production, Paris.
———. 2008. L'économie de la Grèce des cités (fin VIe-Ier siècle a. C.). II. Les espaces
de l'échange, Paris.
Brock, R., and S. Hodkinson, eds. 2000. Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political
Organization and Community in Ancient Greece, Oxford.
Brown, A.R. 2008. “The City of Corinth and Urbanism in Late Antique Greece” (diss.
University of California, Berkeley).
Bruneau, P., and J. Ducat. 2005. Guide de Délos, 4th ed., rev., Paris.
Bury, J.B. 1898. “The Double City of Megalopolis,” JHS 18, pp. 15-22.
Busolt, G. 1893. “Die Korinthischen Prytanen,” Hermes 28, pp. 312-320.
Calame, C. 1997. Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece: Their Mythology,

Religious Role, and Social Function, Lanham.
Camp, J.M. 1986. The Athenian Agora, London.
———. 1998. Horses and Horsemanship in the Athenian Agora (Athenian Agora Picture
Book 24), Princeton.
421
———. 1999. “Excavations in the Athenian Agora, 1996 and 1997,” Hesperia 68, pp.
255-283.
———. 2001. The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven.
———. 2003. “Excavations in the Athenian Agora, 1998-2001,” Hesperia 72, pp. 241-
280.
———. 2007. “Excavations in the Athenian Agora, 2002-2007,” Hesperia 76, pp. 627-
663.
Caraher, W.R., D. Nakassis, and D.K. Pettegrew. 2006. “Siteless Survey and Intensive
Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment: Case Studies from the Eastern
Corinthia, Greece,” JMA 19, pp. 7-42.
Caskey, J.L. 1954. Ancient Corinth: A Guide to the Excavations, 6th ed., rev., Athens.
Catling, H.W. 1975. “Excavations of the British School at Athens at the Menelaion,
Sparta, 1973-75,” Lakonikai Spoudai 2, pp. 258-269.
Charneux, P. 1953. “Inscriptions d'Argos,” BCH 77, pp. 387-403.
Consolaki, H., and T. Hackens. 1980. “Un atelier monetaire dans un temple argien?,” in
Études argiennes (BCH Suppl. 6), Paris, pp. 279-294.
Corinth I.1 = H.N. Fowler and R. Stillwell, Introduction, Topography, Architecture,
422
Cambridge 1932.
Corinth I.2 = R. Stillwell, R.L. Scranton, and S.E. Freeman, Architecture, Cambridge
1941.
Corinth I.3 = R.L. Scranton, Monuments in the Lower Agora and North of the Archaic
Temple, Princeton 1951.
Corinth I.4 = O. Broneer, The South Stoa and Its Roman Successors, Princeton 1954.
Corinth I.5 = S.S. Weinberg, The Southeast Building, The Twin Basilicas, The Mosaic
House, Princeton 1960.
Corinth I.6 = B.H. Hill, The Springs: Peirene, Sacred Spring, Glauke, Princeton 1964.
Corinth II = R. Stillwell, The Theatre, Princeton 1952.
Corinth III.2 = R. Carpenter and A. Bon, The Defenses of Acrocorinth and the Lower
Town, Cambridge 1936.
Corinth VII.5 = M.K. Risser, Corinthian Conventionalizing Pottery, Princeton 2001.
Corinth VIII.1 = B.D. Meritt, Greek Inscriptions, 1896–1927, Cambridge 1931.
Corinth IX.3 = M.C. Sturgeon, Sculpture: The Assemblage from the Theater, Princeton
2004.
423
Corinth X = O. Broneer, The Odeum, Cambridge 1932.
Corinth XIII = C.W. Blegen, H. Palmer, and R.S. Young, The North Cemetery, Princeton
1964.
Corinth XIV = C.A. Roebuck, The Asklepieion and Lerna, Princeton 1951.
Corinth XV.1 = A.N. Stillwell, The Potters’ Quarter, Princeton 1948.
Corinth XVIII.3 = N. Bookidis and R.S. Stroud, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore:
Topography and Architecture, Princeton 1997.
Corinth XX = C.K. Williams and N. Bookidis, eds., Corinth, The Centenary: 1896-1996,
Princeton 2003.
Corso, A. 2005. “The Triad of Zeus Soter, Artemis Soteira and Megalopolis at
Megalopolis,” in Ancient Arcadia, ed. E. Ostby, Athens, pp. 225-234.
Coulson, W.D.E., O. Palagia, T.L. Shear, Jr., H.A. Shapiro, and F.J. Frost, eds. 1994. The
Archaeology of Athens and Attica Under the Democracy, Bloomington.
Coulton, J.J. 1976. The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa, Oxford.
Courbin, P. 1957. “Une tombe géometrique d'Argos,” BCH 81, pp. 322-386.
424
———. 1974. Tombes géometriques d’Argos (Études Péloponnésiennes 7), Paris.
———. 1980. “Les Lyres d'Argos,” in Études argiennes (BCH Suppl. 6), Paris, pp. 93-
114.
———. 1998. “Le Temple d'Apollon Lycien à Argos: quelques suggestions,” in Argos et
l’Argolide: topographie et urbanisme, eds. A. Pariente, and G. Touchais, Paris,
pp. 261-269.
Courtils, J. des. 1981. “Note de topographie argienne,” BCH 105, pp. 607-610.
———. 1992. “L’architecture et l’histoire d’Argos dans la première motié du Ve siècle

avant J.-C.,” in Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la
constitution d l’État classique (BCH Suppl. 22), ed. M. Piérart, Athens, pp. 241-
251.
Croissant, F. 1972. “Note de topographie argienne,” BCH 96, pp. 137-154.
Crowther, N.B. 2003. “Elis and Olympia. City, Sanctuary and Politics,” in Sport and
Festival in the Ancient Greek World, eds. D.J. Phillips, and D. Pritchard,
Swansea, pp. 61-73.
Csapo, E. 2007. “The Men Who Built the Theatres: Theatropolai, Theatronai, and
Arkhitektones,” in The Greek Theatre and Festivals: Documentary Studies, ed. P.
Wilson, Oxford, pp. 87-121.
Curtius, E. 1851-1852. Peloponnesos: eine historisch-geographische Beschreibung der
425
Halbinsel, Gotha.
Demand, N.H. 1990. Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece, Bristol.
Deshayes, J. 1966. Argos, les fouilles de la Deiras (Études Péloponnésiennes 4), Paris.
Dickey, K. 1992. “Corinthian Burial Customs, ca. 1100 to 550 BC” (diss. Bryn Mawr
College).
Dieterle, M. 2007. Dodona: Religionsgeschichtliche und historische Untersuchungen zur

Entstehung und Entwicklung des Zeus-Heiligtums, Zurich.
Donati, J.C. 2010. “Marks of State Ownership and the Greek Agora at Corinth,” AJA
114, pp. 1-24.
Dow, S. 1942. “Corinthiaca,” HSCP 53, pp. 89-119.
Dubbini, R. Forthcoming. “Agones in the Greek Agora between Ritual and Spectacle:
Some Examples from the Peloponnese.”
Ebert, J., and P. Siewert. 1999. “Eine archäische Bronzeurkunde aus Olympia mit
Vorschriften für Ringkämpfer und Kampfrichter,” OlBer 11, pp. 391-412.
Eder, B. 2001. “Die Anfänge von Elis und Olympia: zur Siedlungsgeschichte der
Landschaft Elis am Übergang von der Spätbronze- zur Früheisenzeit,” in
Forschungen in der Peloponnes, ed. V. Mitsopoulos-Leon, Athens, pp. 233-243.
426
Eder, B., and V. Mitsopoulos-Leon. 1999. “Zur Geschichte der Stadt Elis vor dem
Synoikismos von 471 v.Chr. Die Zeugnisse der geometrischen und archaischen
Zeit,” ÖJh 68 (Beibl.), pp. 1-39.
Étienne, R. 1997. “Le Prytanée de Délos,” RÉA 99, pp. 305-324.
Fiechter, E.R. 1931. Das Theater in Megalopolis, Stuttgart.
Fisher-Hansen, T. 2000. “Ergasteria in the Western Greek World,” in Polis and Politics,
eds. P. Flensted-Jensen, T.H. Nielsen, and L. Rubinstein, Copenhagen, pp. 91-
120.
Foley, A. 1988. The Argolid, 800-600 B.C.: An Archaeological Survey, Göteborg.
FGrH = F. Jacoby, Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin 1923-1930.
Frederiksen, R. 2002. “The Greek Theater: A Typical Building in the Urban Centre of the
Polis?,” in Even More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Papers from the
Copenhagen Polis Center 6), ed. T.H. Nielsen, Stuttgart, pp. 65-124.
———. 2004. “Walled Poleis of the Archaic Period: Architecture, Distribution and
Significance” (diss. University of Copenhagen).
———. Forthcoming. Archaic Greek City Walls 900-480 BC, Oxford University Press.
427
Gans, U.W. 1995. “Antefixe aus Megalopolis,” AM 110, pp. 261-272.
Gans, U.W., and U. Kreilinger. 2002. “The Sanctuary of Zeus Soter at Megalopolis,” in
Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, pp. 187-190.
Gardner, E.A., W. Loring, G.C. Richards, and W.J. Woodhouse. 1892. Excavations at
Megalopolis, 1890-1891, London.
Ginouvès, R. 1972. Le théâtron à gradins droits et l’Odéon d’Argos (Études

Péloponnésiennes 6), Paris.
Glaser, F. 2001. “Das Theater von Elis und das Problem einer Hölzernen Skene,” in
Forschungen in der Peloponnes, ed. V. Mitsopoulos-Leon, Athens, pp. 253-256.
Glass, S.L. 1988. “The Greek Gymnasium,” in The Archaeology of the Olympics: The
Olympics and Other Festivals in Antiquity, ed. W.J. Raschke, Madison, pp. 155-
173.
Gneisz, D. 1990. Das antike Rathaus: das griechische Bouleuterion und die frührömische
Curia, Vienna.
Grandjean, Y., and F. Salviat. 2000. Guide de Thasos, 2nd ed., rev., Athens.
Gras, M., and H. Tréziny. 2001. “Mégara Hyblaea: Retours sur l'agora,” in Architettura,
urbanistica, società nel mondo antico. Giornata di studi in ricordo di Roland
Martin, ed. E. Greco, Paestum, pp. 51-63.
428
Greco, E., ed. 1999. La città greca antica: Istituzioni, società e forme urbane, Rome.
———, ed. 2001. Architettura, urbanistica, società nel mondo antico: Giornata di studi
in ricordo di Roland Martin, Paestum.
Greco, E., and M. Torelli. 1983. Storia dell'urbanistica: il mondo greco, Rome.
Gros, P. 1996. L’architecture romaine de debut de IIIe siecle av. J-C a la fin du Haut
Empire I: les monuments publics, Paris.
Guggisberg, M. 1988. “Terrakotten von Argos. Ein Fundcomplex aus dem Theater,”
BCH 112, pp. 167-234.
Hackens, T. 1967. “Le théâtre,” Thorikos 3, pp. 82-88.
Hall, J.M. 1995. “How ‘Argive’ was the Argive Heraion? The Political and Cultic
Geography of the Argive Plain, 900-400,” AJA 99, pp. 577-613.
———. 1997. “Alternative Responses Within a Polis Formation: Argos, Mykenai and
Tiryns,” in Urbanization in the Mediterranean in the 9th to the 6th Centuries BC,
ed. H. Damgaard Andersen, Copenhagen, pp. 89-109.
Hansen, M.H., ed. 2000. A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures,

Copenhagen.
Hansen, M.H., and T. Fischer-Hansen. 1994. “Monumental Political Architecture in
429
Archaic and Classical Greek Poleis: Evidence and Historical Significance,” in
From Political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius: Sources for the Ancient
Greek Polis (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Center 1), ed. D. Whitehead,
Stuttgart, pp. 23-90.
Hansen, M.H., and T.H. Nielsen, eds. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical
Poleis, Oxford.
Harris, E.M. 2002. “Workshop, Marketplace and Household,” in Money, Labour and
Land: Approaches to the Economics of Ancient Greece, eds. P. Carledge, E.E.
Cohen, and L. Foxall, London, pp. 67-99.
Hayward, C.L. 2004. “A Reconstruction of the Pre-8th Century B.C. Palaeotopography

of Central Corinth, Greece,” Geoarchaeology 19, pp. 383-405.
Heiden, J. 2006. “Die Agorai von Elis und Olympia,” in Die griechische Agora, eds. W.
Hoepfner, and L. Lehman, Mainz, pp. 53-58.
Herbert, S. 1986. “The Torch-Race at Corinth,” in Corinthiaca: Studies in Honor of

Darrell A. Amyx, ed. M.A. Del Chiaro, Columbia, pp. 12-24.
Hitzl, K. 1996. Die Gewichte griechischer Zeit aus Olympia (OlForsch 25), Berlin.
Hoepfner, W. 2006. “Die Griechische Agora im Überblick,” in Die griechische Agora,

eds. W. Hoepfner, and L. Lehman, Mainz, pp. 1-28.
Hoepfner, W., and L. Lehmann, ed. 2006. Die griechische Agora, Mainz.
430
Hoepfner, W., and E.-L. Schwandner. 1994. Haus und Stadt im klassischen
Griechenland, 2nd ed., rev., Munich.
Hölkeskamp, K.-J. 1997. “Agorai bei Homer,” in Volk und Verfassung im

vorhellenistischen Griechenland, eds. W. Eder, and K.-J. Hölkeskamp, Stuttgart,
pp. 1-19.
Hölscher, T. 1998. Öffentliche Räume in frühen griechischen Städten, Heidelberg.
———. 2004. The Language of Images in Roman Art, Cambridge.
———. 2007. “Urban Spaces and Central Places: The Greek World,” in Classical
Archaeology, eds. S.E. Alcock, and R. Osborne, Oxford, pp. 164-181.
Hornblower, S. 1990. “When Was Megalopolis Founded?,” BSA 85, pp. 71-77.
Immerwahr, H.R. 1986. “Aegina, Aphaia-Tempel, 9. An Archaic Abacus from the

Sanctuary of Aphaia,” AA 1986, pp. 195-204.
Inglis, A.S.G. 1998. “A History of Elis c. 700-362 B.C.” (diss. Harvard University).
IvO = W. Dittenberger, and K. Purgold, Die Inschriften von Olympia (Olympia 5), 1896.
I.Cret. IV = M. Guarducci, Inscriptiones Creticae, Rome 1950.
431
I.Iasos = W. Blümel, Die Inschriften von Iasos, Bonn 1985.
Jones, N.F. 1980. “The Civic Organization of Corinth,” TAPA 110, pp. 161-193.
Jost, M. 1985. Sanctuaires et cultes d'Arcadie, Paris.
———. 1994. “The Distribution of Sanctuaries in Civic Space in Arkadia,” in Placing

the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, eds. S.E. Alcock, and
R. Osborne, Oxford, pp. 217-230.
———. 1996. “Les cultes dans une ville nouvelle d'Arcadie au IVe siècle. Mégalopolis,”
in Le IVe siècle av. J.-C.: approaches historiographiques, ed. P. Carlier, Nancy,
pp. 103-109.
Karapanagiotou, A.V. 2001. “Ανασκαφικές εργασίες στο αρχαίο θέατρο

Μεγαλόπολης 1995-1997: Πρώτες εκτιµήσεις,” in Forschungen in der
Peloponnes, ed. V. Mitsopoulos-Leon, Athens, pp. 331-342.
Karvonis, P. 2007. “Le vocabulaire des installations commerciales en Grèce aux époques
classique et hellénistique,” in Vocabulaire et expression de l'économie dans le
monde antique, eds. J. Andreau, and V. Chankowski, Paris, pp. 35-49.
———. 2008. “Typologie et évolution des installations commerciales dans les villes
grecques du IVe siècle av. J.-C. et de l'époque hellénistique,” RÉA 110, pp. 57-81.
Keil, J., and A. von Premerstein. 1911. “Vorläufiger Bericht über eine Probegrabung in
Elis,” ÖJh 14 (Beibl.), pp. 97-116.
432
Kelly, T. 1976. A History of Argos to 500 B.C., Minneapolis.
Kenzler, U. 1999. Studien zur Entwicklung und Struktur der griechischen Agora in
archaischer und klassischer Zeit, Frankfurt.
———. 2000. “Vom dörflichen Versammlungsplatz zum urbanen Zentrum. Die Agora
im Mutterland und in den Kolonien,” in Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer:
Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr., eds. F. Krinzinger, V.
Gassner, and M. Kerschner, Vienna, pp. 23-28.
Kolb, F. 1981. Agora und Theater: Volks- und Festversammlung, Berlin.
Kopestonsky, T.B. 2009. “Kokkinovrysi: A Classical Shrine to the Nymphs at Corinth”

(diss. SUNY Buffalo).
Kourinou, E. 2000. Σπάρτη: συµβολή στη µνηµειακή τοπογραφία της, Athens.
Kreilinger, U. 1995. “Neue Inschriften aus Megalopolis,” AM 110, pp. 373-385.
Landon, M.E. 1994. “Contributions to the Study of Water Supply of Ancient Corinth”
(diss. University of California, Berkeley).
Lang, F. 1994. “Veränderungen des Siedlungsbildes in Akarnanien von der klassisch-

hellenistischen zur römischen Zeit,” Klio 76, pp. 239-254.
433
Lauter, H. 2002. “ ‘Polybios hat es geweiht…’: Stiftungsinschriften des Polybios und des
Philopoimen aus dem neuen Zeus-Heiligtum zu Megalopolis (Griechenland),”
AW 33, pp. 375-386.
———. 2005. “Megalopolis: Ausgrabungen auf der Agora 1991-2002,” in Ancient

Arcadia, ed. E. Ostby, Athens, pp. 235-248.
Lauter, H., and H. Lauter-Bufe. 2004. “Thersilion und Theater in Megalopolis. Das
Bauensemble im Licht neuer Forschungen,” AA (2004), pp. 135-176.
Lauter, H. and N. Münkner. 1997. “Locus superior. Aus der Philipps-Halle in

Megalopolis,” AA (1997), pp. 389-405.
Lauter, H., and T. Spyropoulos. 1998. “Megalopolis. 3. Vorbericht 1996 – 1997,” AA

(1998), pp. 415-451.
Lauter-Bufe, H. 2009. Das Heiligtum des Zeus Soter in Megalopolis, Mainz.
Lawrence, P. 1964. “Five Grave Groups from the Corinthia,” Hesperia 33, pp. 89-107.
Leppin, H. 1999. “Argos. Eine griechische Demokratie des fünften Jahrhunderts v.Chr.,”
Ktema 24, pp. 297-312.
Libero, L. de. 1996. Die archaische Tyrannis, Stuttgart.
Loring, W. 1892-1893. “The Theatre at Megalopolis,” JHS 13, pp. 356-358.
434
Mallwitz, A. 1972. Olympia und seine Bauten, Munich.
Marchetti, P. 1993. “Recherches sur les mythes et la topographie d'Argos, 1. Hermès et

Aphrodite,” BCH 117, pp. 211-223.
———. 1994. “Recherches sur les mythes et la topographie d'Argos, 2. Présentation du

site. 3. Le téménos de Zeus,” BCH 118, pp. 131-160.
———. 1996a. “Le centre politique et religioux d’Argos,” in L'espace grec: 150 ans de
fouilles de l'École française d'Athènes, Paris, pp. 114-122.
———. 1996b. “Le 'Dromos' au coeur de l’agora de Sparte. Les dieux protecteurs de
l’éducation en pays dorien. Points de vue nouveaux,” Kernos 9, pp. 155-170.
———. 1998. “Le nymphée d'Argos, le Palémonion de l'Isthme et l'agora de Corinthe,”

in Argos et l’Argolide: topographie et urbanism, eds. A. Pariente, and G.
Touchais, Paris, pp. 357-372.
———. 2000. “Recherches sur les mythes et la topographie d'Argos, 5. Quelques mises
au point sur les rues d'Argos. A propos de deux ouvrages récents,” BCH 124, pp.
273-289.
Marchetti, P., K. Kolokotsas, and C. Abadie-Reynal. 1995. Le nymphée de l'agora

d'Argos. Fouille, étude architecturale et historique (Études Péloponnésiennes 11),
Paris.
435
Marchetti, P., and Y. Rizakis. 1995. “Recherches sur les mythes et la topographie
d'Argos, 4. L'agora revisitée,” BCH 119, pp. 437-472.
Martin, R. 1951. Recherches sur l’agora grecque, études d’histoire et d’architecture

urbaines, Paris.
———. 1974. L'urbanisme dans la Grèce antique, 2nd ed., rev., Paris.
Mattusch, C.C. 1977. “Corinthian Metalworking: The Forum Area,” Hesperia 46, pp.
380-389.
McDonald, W.A. 1943. The Political Meeting Places of the Greeks, Baltimore.
McPhee, I. 2005. “The Corinth Oinochoe: One- and Two-Handled Jugs in Ancient
Corinth,” Hesperia 74, pp. 41-94.
Merker, G.S. 2006. The Greek Tile Works at Corinth: The Site and the Finds. (Hesperia
Suppl. 35), Princeton.
Mertens, D. 1982. “Das Theater-Ekklesiasterion auf der Agora von Metapont,”

Architectura (1982), pp. 93-124.
Milbank, T.M. 2002. “A Commercial and Industrial Building in the Athenian Agora, 480
B.C. to A.D. 125” (diss. Bryn Mawr College).
Miller, S.G. 1978. The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form, Berkeley.
436
———. 1995a. “Old Metroon and Old Bouleuterion in the Classical Agora of Athens,” in
Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Center 2),
eds. M.H. Hansen, and K. Raaflaub, Stuttgart, pp. 133-156.
———. 1995b. “Architecture as Evidence for the Identity of the Early Polis,” in Sources
for the Ancient Greek City-State (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Center 2), ed.
M.H. Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 201-244.
Millett, P. 1998. “Encounters in the Agora,” in Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and
Community in Classical Athens, eds. P. Cartledge, P. Millett, and S. von Reden,
Cambridge, pp. 203-228.
Millis, B.W. 2007. “An Inscribed Funerary Monument from Corinth,” Hesperia 76, pp.
359-364.
Minon, S. 2007. Les inscriptions Éléennes dialectales (VIe-IIe siècle avant J.C.), Geneva.
Mitsopoulou-Leon, V. 1960. “1. vorläufiger Bericht über die Wiederaufnahme der

Grabungen in Alt-Elis,” ÖJh 45 (Beibl.), pp. 99-110.
———. 1961-1963a. “2. vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Alt-Elis,” ÖJh 46
(Beibl.), pp. 33-58.
———. 1961-1963b. “3. vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Alt-Elis,” ÖJh 46
(Beibl.), pp. 57-76.
437
———. 1964-1965a. “4. vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Alt-Elis,” ÖJh 47
(Beibl.), pp. 43-74.
(Beibl.), pp. 73-92.
———. 1964-1965c. “6. vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Alt-Elis,” ÖJh 47
(Beibl.), pp. 91-102.
———. 1966-1967a. “7. vorläufige r Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Alt-Elis,” ÖJh 48
(Beibl.), pp. 45-62.
(Beibl.), pp. 63-78.
———. 1968-1971. “9. vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Alt-Elis,” ÖJh 49
(Beibl.), pp. 93-114.
(Beibl.), pp. 181-224.
(Beibl.), pp. 101-132.
———. 1983. “Die Südhalle in Elis,” ÖJh 54 (Beibl.), pp. 41-103.
438
———. 1990. “Zur Chronologie der S-Stoa in Elis. Eine Entgegnung,” ÖJh 60, pp. 153-
154.
———. 2001. “Tonstatuetten aus Elis,” ÖJh 70, pp. 81-116.
Mitsopoulou-Leon, V., and E. Pochmarski. 1976-1977. “11. vorläufiger Bericht über die
Ausgrabungen in Alt-Elis,” ÖJh 51 (Beibl.), pp. 181-222.
Mitsopoulou-Leon, V., and R. Scherrer. 1978-1980. “12. vorläufiger Bericht über die
Ausgrabungen in Alt-Elis,” ÖJh 52 (Beibl.), pp. 65-98.
Moggi, M. 1974. “Il sinecismo di Megalopoli,” AnnPisa 3, pp. 71-107.
Moretti, J.-C. 1993. Théâtres d’Argos (Sites et Monuments 10), Paris.
Morgan, C.H. 1937. “Excavations at Corinth, 1936-1937,” AJA 41, pp. 539-552.
———. 1938. “Excavations at Corinth, Autumn 1937,” AJA 42, pp. 362-370.
———. 1939. “Excavations at Corinth, 1938,” AJA 43, pp. 255-267.
———. 1953. “Investigations at Corinth, 1953: A Tavern of Aphrodite,” Hesperia 22,

pp. 131-140.
Morgan, C.M., and J.J. Coulton. 1997. “The Polis as a Physical Entity,” in The Polis as
439
an Urban Centre and as a Political Community (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis
Center 4), ed. M.H. Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 84-144.
Murray, O., and S. Price, eds. 1990. The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, Oxford.
Nielsen, T.H. 2004. “Megalopolis,” in An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, eds.
M.H. Hansen, and T.H. Nielsen, Oxford, pp. 520-522.
———. 2007. Olympia and the Classical Hellenic City-State Culture, Copenhagen.
Osanna, M. 2003. “L'agora di Megalopoli vista da Pausania. Alla ricerca del tempo
perduto in una città sinecizzata,” Siris 4, pp. 15-22.
———. 2005. “L'agorà di Megalopoli vista da Pausania. Alla ricerca del tempo perduto
in una città sinecizzata,” in Ancient Arcadia, ed. E. Ostby, Athens, pp. 249-260.
Papachatzis, N.D. 1976. Παυσανίου Ελλάδος περιήγησις: βιβλίο 2 και 3. Κορινθιακά –

Λακωνικά, Athens.
———. 1979. Παυσανίου Ελλάδος περιήγησις: βιβλίο 4, 5 και 6. Μεσσηνιακά -

Ηλιακά, Athens.
———. 1980. Παυσανίου Ελλάδος περιήγησις: βιβλίο 7 και 8. Αχαϊκά - Αρκαδικά,

Athens.
440
Papadopoulos, J.K. 2003. Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters' Field in the
Area of the Classical Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 31), Princeton.
Pariente, A. 1992. “Le monument argien des ‘Sept contre Thèbes’,” in Polydipsion
Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’etat classique
(BCH Suppl. 22), ed. M. Piérart, Athens, pp. 195-229.
Pariente, A., M. Piérart, and J.-P. Thalmann. 1998. “Les recherches sur l’agora d’Argos:
résultats et perspective,” in Argos et l’Argolide: topographie et urbanisme, eds.
A. Pariente, and G. Touchais, Paris, pp. 211-231.
Pariente, A., and G. Touchais, eds. 1998. Argos et l’Argolide: topographie et urbanisme,
Paris.
Pemberton, E.G. 1996. “Wealthy Corinth: The Archaeological Evidence for Cult
Investment at Greek Corinth,” in Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and
Approaches, ed. M. Dillon, Amsterdam, pp. 353-366.
Petronotis, A. 1973. Η Μεγάλη Πόλις της Αρκαδίας, Athens.
Pettegrew, D.K. 2007. “The Busy Countryside of Late Roman Corinth: Interpreting
Ceramic Data Produced by Regional Archaeological Surveys,” Hesperia 76, pp.
743-784.
Pettersson, M. 1992. Cults of Apollo at Sparta: The Hyakinthia the Gymnopaidiai and the
Karneia, Stockholm.
441
Pfaff, C.A. 1988. “A Geometric Well at Corinth: Well 1981-6,” Hesperia 57, pp. 21-80.
———. 2003. “Archaic Corinthian Architecture, ca. 600 to 480 B.C.,” in Corinth XX,
Princeton, pp. 95-140.
———. 2007. “Geometric Graves in the Panayia Field at Corinth,” Hesperia 76, pp. 443-
537.
Piérart, M. 1982. “Deux notes sur l’itinéraire argien de Pausanias,” BCH 106, pp. 139-
152.
———. 1993. “De l’endroit où l’on abritait quelques statues d’Argos et de la vraie nature
du feu de Phoroneus. Une note critique,” BCH 117, pp. 609-613.
———. 2000. “Argos: une autre démocratie,” in Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient
Greek History, eds. P. Flensted-Jensen et al., Copenhagen, pp. 297-314.
———. 2003. “Genèse et développement d’une ville à l'ancienne: Argos,” in La

naissance de la ville dans l’antiquité, ed. M. Reddé, Paris, pp. 49-70.
Piérart, M., and G. Touchais. 1996. Argos: Une ville grecque de 6000 ans, Paris.
Piteros, C.I. 1998. “Συµβολή στην Αργειάκη τοπογραφία: χώρος, οχύρωσεις,

τοπογραφία και προβλήµατα,” in Argos et l’Argolide: topographie et
urbanisme, eds. A. Pariente, and G. Touchais, Paris, pp. 179-210.
442
Pochmarski, E. 1990. “Zur Chronologie der S-Stoa in Elis,” ÖJh 60, pp. 7-17.
Polignac, F. de 1995. Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State, Chicago.
Polignac, F. de. 2005. “Forms and Processes: Some Thoughts on the Meaning of
Urbanization in Early Archaic Greece,” in Mediterranean Urbanization 800-600
BC, eds. R. Osborne, and B. Cunliffe, Oxford, pp. 45-70.
Pollitt, J.J. 1978. “The Impact of Greek Art on Rome,” TAPA 108, pp. 155-174.
Raepsaet, G., and M. Tolley. 1993. “Le diolkos de l’Isthme à Corinthe: son tracé, son
fonctionnement,” BCH 117, pp. 233-261.
Rhodes, R.F. 2003. “The Earliest Greek Architecture in Corinth and the 7th-Century
Temple on Temple Hill,” in Corinth XX, Princeton, pp. 85-94.
Rhodes, P.J. 2007. The Greek City States: A Source Book, 2nd ed., rev., Cambridge.
Robert, L. 1948. “Un Décret dorien trouvé à Délos,” Hellenica 5, pp. 5-15.
———. 1960. “Décret dorien trouvé à Délos,” Hellenica 12, pp. 562-569.
Robinson, B.A. 2001. “Fountains and the Culture of Water at Roman Corinth” (diss.
University of Pennsylvania).
———. 2005. “Fountains and the Formation of Cultural Identity,” in Urban Religion in
443
Roman Corinth, eds. D.N. Schowalter, and S.J. Friesen, Cambridge, pp. 111-140.
Robinson, H.S. 1962. “Excavations at Corinth, 1960,” Hesperia 31, pp. 95-133.
———. 1969. “A Sanctuary and Cemetery in Western Corinth,” Hesperia 38: 1-35.
———. 1976. “Excavations at Corinth: Temple Hill, 1968-1972,” Hesperia 45, pp. 203-
239.
Robinson, H.S., and S.S. Weinberg. 1960. “Excavations at Corinth, 1959,” Hesperia 29,
pp. 225-253.
Roebuck, C.A. 1972. “Some Aspects of Urbanization in Corinth,” Hesperia 41, pp. 96-
127.
Romano, D.G. 1993. Athletics and Mathematics in Archaic Corinth: The Origins of the
Greek Stadion, Philadelphia.
Rose, V. 1886. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta, Leipzig.
Ross, L. 1841. Reisen und Reisenrouten durch Griechenland: Reisen im Peloponnes,

Berlin.
Rothaus, R. 1995. “Lechaion, Western Port of Corinth: A Preliminary Archaeology and

History,” OJA 14, pp. 293-306.
444
Rotroff, S.I., and J.H. Oakley. 1992. Debris from a Public Dining Place in the Athenian
Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 25), Princeton.
Roux, G. 1953. “Deux études d’archéologie péloponnésienne. I. Autel à triglyphes bas

trouvé sur l’Agora d’Argos,” BCH 77, pp. 116-138.
———. 1961. L'architecture de l'Argolide aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.-C., Paris.
Roy, J. 1997. “The Perioikoi of Elis,” in The Polis as an Urban Center and as a Political
Community (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Center 4), ed. M.H. Hansen,
Copenhagen, pp. 282-320.
———. 1998. “Thucydides 5.49.1-50.4: The Quarrel Between Elis and Sparta in 420 BC,
and Elis’ Exploitation of Olympia,” Klio 80, pp. 360-368.
———. 2000. “The Frontier Between Arkadia and Elis in Classical Antiquity,” in Polis
and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History, eds. P. Flensted-Jensen et al.,
Copenhagen, pp. 134-156.
———. 2002. “The Synoicism of Elis,” in Even More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis
(Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Center 6), ed. T.H. Nielsen, Stuttgart, pp.
249-264.
———. 2005. “Synoikizing Megalopolis. The Scope of the Synoikism and the Interests
of Local Arkadian Communities,” in Ancient Arcadia, ed. E. Ostby, Athens, pp.
261-270.
445
———. 2007. “The Urban Layout of Megalopolis in its Civic and Confederate Context,”
in Building Communities: House Settlement and Society in the Aegean and
Beyond (British School at Athens Studies 15), eds. R. Westgate, N. Fisher, and J.
Whitley, London, pp. 289-295.
Roy, J., J.A. Lloyd, and E.J. Owens. 1988. “Tribe and Polis in the Chora at Megalopolis:
Changes in Settlement Pattern in Relation to Synoecism,” in XII International
Congress of Classical Archaeology (Athens 4-10 September 1983), Athens, pp.
179-182.
Roy, J., and D. Schofield. 1999. “IvO 9. A New Approach,” Horos 13, pp. 155-165.
Scanlon, T.F. 2002. Eros and Greek Athletics, Oxford.
Sakellariou, M., and N. Faraklas. 1971. Corinthia – Cleonaea, Athens.
Salmon, J.B. 1984. Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 B.C., Oxford.
———. 1999. “The Economic Role of the Greek City,” G&R 46, pp. 147-167.
Sanders, G.D.R. 2005. “Urban Corinth: An Introduction,” in Urban Religion in Roman

Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches (Harvard Theological Studies 53), eds.
D.N. Schowalter, and S.J. Friesen, Cambridge, pp. 11-24.
———. Forthcoming. “The Sacred Spring, Its Landscape and Traditions.”
446
———. Forthcoming. “Platanistas, the Course and Carneus: Their Place in the
Topography of Sparta.”
Sanders, G.D.R., and M.J. Boyd. 2008. “Moving Homes: A Resistivity Survey of the
Late Antique City Wall East of the Forum at Corinth,” paper read at the 2008
Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, 3-6 January,
Chicago.
Sarian, H. 1969. “Terres cuites géométriques d'Argos,” BCH 93, pp. 651-678.
Schilardi, D. 2002. “The Emergence of Paros the Capital,” in Habitat et urbanisme dans
le monde grec de la fin des palais mycéniens à la prise de Milet (494 av. J.-C.),
ed. J.-M. Luce, Toulouse, pp. 229-249.
Schmalz, G.C.R. 2006. “The Athenian Prytaneion Discovered?,” Hesperia 75, pp. 33-82.
Shear, T.L., Jr. 1975. “The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1973-1974,” Hesperia 44,
pp. 331-374.
———. 1993. “The Persian Destruction of Athens: Evidence from Agora Deposits,”
———. 1994. “Ἰσονόµους τ’Ἀθήνας ἐποιησάτην: The Agora and the Democracy,” in
The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, eds. W.D.E.
Coulson, O. Palagia, T.L. Shear Jr., H.A. Shapiro, and F.J. Frost, Bloomington,
pp. 225-248.
447
———. 1995. “Bouleuterion, Metroon and the Archives at Athens,” in Studies in the
Ancient Greek Polis (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Center 2), eds. M.H.
Hansen, and K. Raaflaub, Stuttgart, pp. 157-190.
Siewert, P. 1994. “Eine archaische Rechtsaufzeichnung aus der antiken Stadt Elis,” in
Symposium 1993. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschicht,
ed. G. Thür, Graz, pp. 17-32.
———. 1997. “Privilegien überseeischer Griechen im Heiligtum von Olympia,” in Il

dinamismo della colonizzazione greca, ed. C. Antonetti, Naples, pp. 95-96.
———. 2000. “Due inscrizioni giuridiche della città di Elide,” Minima Epigraphica et
Papyrologica 3, pp. 19-37.
———. 2001. “Zwei Rechtsaufzeichnungen der Stadt Elis,” in Forschungen in der

Peloponnes, ed. V. Mitsopoulos-Leon, Athens, pp. 245-252.
Sinn, U. 1996. Olympia: Kult, Sport und Fest in der Antike, Munich.
Skias, A.N. 1892. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Κορίνθῳ,” Prakt, pp. 111-136.
———. 1905. “Περὶ τῆς τοπογραφίας τῆς ἀρχαίας Κορίνθου,” in Comptes rendus du
Congrès international d'archéologie, Athens, pp. 302-304.
———. 1906. “Ἀνασκαφὴ ἐν Κορίνθῳ,” Prakt, pp. 145-166.
448
Smith, K.K. 1919. “Greek Inscriptions from Corinth II,” AJA 23, pp. 331-393.
Spyropoulos, T., H. Lauter, H. Lauter-Bufe, and U. Kreilinger. 1995. “Megalopolis.

Vorbericht 1991-1993,” AA (1995), pp. 119-128.
Spyropoulos, T., H. Lauter, H. Lauter-Bufe, U. Kreilinger, and U. Gans. 1996.

“Megalopolis. 2. Vorbericht 1994-1995,” AA (1996), pp. 269-286.
Steiner, A. 1992. “Pottery and Cult in Corinth: Oil and Water at the Sacred Spring,”
Strøm, I. 1988. “The Early Sanctuary of the Argive Heraion and Its External Relations
(8th-Early 6th Cent. B.C.): The Monumental Architecture,” ActaArch 59, pp. 173-
203.
Stroud, R.S. 1972. “Greek Inscriptions at Corinth,” Hesperia 41, pp. 198-217.
———. 1984. “An Argive Decree from Nemea Concerning Aspendos,” Hesperia 53, pp.
193-216.
Taita, J. 2001. “Indovini stranieri al servizio dello stato spartano. Un ‘epoikia’ elea a
Sparta in una nuova iscrizione da Olimpia,” Dike 4, pp. 39-85.
Talcott, L. 1936. “Vases and Kalos-Names from an Agora Well,” Hesperia 5, pp. 333-
354.
449
Tartaron, T.F., T.E. Gregory, D.J. Pullen, J.S. Noller, R.M. Rothaus, J.L. Rife, L.
Tzortzopoulou-Gregory, R. Schon, W.R. Caraher, D.K. Pettegrew, and D.
Nakassis. 2006. “The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey: Integrated
Methods for a Dynamic Landscape,” Hesperia 75, pp. 453-523.
Themelis, P. 1979. “Ausgrabungen in Kallipolis (Ost-Aetolien), 1977-1978,” AAA 12, pp.

245-279.
———. 1998. “Attic Sculpture from Kallipolis (Aetolia). A Cult Group of Demeter and
Kore,” in Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, eds. O. Palagia, and W.
Coulson, Oxford, pp. 47-59.
———. 1999. “Ausgrabungen in Kallipolis (Ost-Aetlien),” in Geschichte des Wohnens,

ed. W. Hoepfner, Stuttgart, pp. 427-440.
Thompson, H.A. 1937. “Buildings on the West Side of the Agora,” Hesperia 6, pp. 1-
226.
Thorikos III = D. Vanhove, Graffiti, Dipinti, Stamps, Paris 2006.
Tomlinson, R.A. 1972. Argos and the Argolid: From the End of the Bronze Age to the
Roman Occupation, Ithaca.
Travlos, J. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, New York.
———. 1988. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika, Tübingen.
450
Tritsch, F. 1932. “Die Agora von Elis und die altgriechische Agora,” ÖJh 27, pp. 64-105.
Tuci, P.A. 2006. “Il regime politico di Argo e le sue istituzioni tra fine VI e fine V secolo
a.C.: verso un’instabile democrazi,” in Argo. Una democrazia diversa, eds. C.
Bearzot, and F. Landucci, Milan, pp. 209-271.
Unz, R.K. 1986. “The Chronology of the Elean War,” GRBS 27, pp. 29-42.
Vallet, G., F. Villard, and P. Auberson. 1976. Mégara Hyblaea, 1. Le quartier de l'agora
archaïque, Paris.
Vanderpool, E. 1968. “Metronomoi,” Hesperia 37, pp. 73-76.
Verfenstein, C.D. “Architecture of the Greek Federal Leagues: Fourth Through Second
Centuries B.C.” (diss. University of Minnesota).
Vink, M.C.V. 2002. “Sanctuaries and Cults in an Early Urban Context: Argos c. 900-500
BC,” in Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults, ed. R. Hägg, Stockholm, pp. 53-
61.
Viret Bernal, F. 1992. “Argos: du palais à l’agora,” DHA 18, pp. 61-88.
Vivier, D. 1994. “La cité de Dattalla et l’expansion de Lyktos en Crète centrale,” BCH
118, pp. 229-259.
Vlassopoulos, K. 2007. “Free Spaces: Identity, Experience, and Democracy in Classical
451
Athens,” CQ 57, pp. 33-52.
Vollgraff, W. 1904. “Inscriptions d’Argos,” BCH 28, pp. 420-429.
———. 1907. “Fouilles d’Argos,” BCH 31, pp. 139-184.
———. 1919a. “Novae inscriptiones argivae,” Mnemosyne 47, pp. 160-170.
———. 1919b. “Novae inscriptiones argivae,” Mnemosyne 47, pp. 252-270.
———. 1956. Le sanctuaire d'Apollon Pythéen à Argos (Études Péloponnésiennes 1),

Paris.
Wace, A.J.B. 1906-1907. “Excavations at Sparta, 1907. The Stamped Tiles,” BSA 13, pp.
17-43.
Walter, O. 1913. “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Elis 1911-1912,” ÖJh 16
(Beibl.), pp. 145-151.
———. 1915. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Elis 1914,” ÖJh 18 (Beibl.),
pp. 61-76.
———. 1942. “Megalopolis,” AA (1942), pp. 148-149.
Walter, U. 1993. An der Polis teilhaben: Bürgerstaat und Zugehörigkeit im archaischen

Griechenland (Historia Einzelschiften 82), Stuttgart.
452
Waywell, G.B. 1999. “Sparta and Its Topography,” BICS 43, pp. 1-26.
Will, E. 1955. Korinthiaka: recherches sur l’histoire et la civilisation de Corinthe des

origines aux guerres médiques, Paris.
Williams, C.K. 1967. “Excavations at Corinth,” ArchDelt 22 (1968), pp. 184-185.
———. 1968. “Excavations at Corinth,” ArchDelt 23 (1969), pp. 134-136.
———. 1969. “Excavations at Corinth, 1968,” Hesperia 38, pp. 36-63.
———. 1970. “Corinth, 1969: Forum Area,” Hesperia 39, pp. 1-39.
———. 1977. “Corinth, 1976: Forum Southwest,” Hesperia 46, pp. 40-81.
———. 1978a. “Corinth, 1977: Forum Southwest,” Hesperia 47, pp. 1-39.
———. 1978b. “Pre-Roman Cults in the Area of the Forum of Ancient Corinth” (diss.
University of Pennsylvania).
———. 1980. “Corinth Excavations, 1979,” Hesperia 49, pp. 107-134.
453
———. 1981. “The City of Corinth and Its Domestic Religion,” Hesperia 50, pp. 408-
421.
———. 1984. “The Early Urbanization of Corinth,” ASAtene 60, n.s. 44, 1982 (1984),
pp. 9-20.
———. 1987. “Corinth 1896-1987: A Study of Changing Attitudes,” AJA 91, pp. 473-
474.
Williams, C.K., J.L. Angel, P. Burns, and J.E. Fisher. 1973. “Corinth, 1972: The Forum
Area,” Hesperia 42, pp. 1-44.
Williams, C.K., and J.E. Fisher. 1971. “Corinth, 1970: Forum Area,” Hesperia 40, pp. 1-
51.
———. 1972. “Corinth, 1971: Forum Area,” Hesperia 41, pp. 143-184.
Williams, C.K., J. MacIntosh, and J.E. Fisher. 1974. “Excavation at Corinth, 1973,”
Williams, C.K., and P. Russell. 1981. “Corinth: Excavations of 1980,” Hesperia 50, pp.
1-44.
454
Williams, C.K., and O.H. Zervos. 1982. “Corinth, 1981: East of the Theater,” Hesperia
51, pp. 115-163.
———. 1983. “Corinth, 1982: East of the Theater,” Hesperia 52, pp. 1-47.
———. 1984. “Corinth, 1983: The Route to Sikyon,” Hesperia 53, pp. 83-122.
———. 1987. “Corinth, 1986: Temple E and East of the Theater,” Hesperia 56, pp. 1-46.
———. 1988. “Corinth, 1987: South of Temple E and East of the Theater,” Hesperia 57,
pp. 95-146.
———. 1991. “Corinth, 1990: Southeast Corner of Temenos E,” Hesperia 60, pp. 1-58.
Winter, F.E. 1987. “Arkadian Notes I: Identification of the Agora Buildings at

Orchomenos and Mantinea,” EchCl 31, pp. 235-246.
Wiseman, J. 1978. The Land of the Ancient Corinthians (SIMA 50), Göteborg.
455
———. 1979. “Corinth and Rome I: 228 B.C.-A.D. 267,” ANRW II.7.1, pp. 438-548.
Wright, J.C., J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis, E. Mantzourani, S.B. Sutton, and R.F. Sutton Jr.
1990. “The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project. A Preliminary Report,”
Wycherley, R.E. 1942. “The Ionian Agora,” JHS 62, pp. 21-32.
Yalouris, N.F. 1996. Ancient Elis: Cradle of the Olympic Games, Athens.
Young, P.H. 1980. “Building Projects and Archaic Greek Tyrants” (diss. University of
Pennsylvania).
Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor.
Zimmermann Munn, M.L. 2003. “Corinthian Trade with the Punic West in the Classical
Period.” in Corinth XX, Princeton, pp. 195-217.
456

Greek Agora PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Greek Agora PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greek Agora PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOWARDS AN AGORA:

THE SPATIAL AND ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF GREEK

COMMERCIAL AND CIVIC SPACE IN THE PELOPONNESE

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Institute of Fine Arts

New York University

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All Rights Reserved, 2010

My interest in Peloponnesian agoras began at Corinth, while excavating there as a

2003-2004 Regular Member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. I

In order to supplement the archaeological evidence, the present study makes

four separate appendices in the original Greek accompanied by an English translation.

description of Argos, Elis, and Megalopolis.

(see www.hesperiaonline.org/), and the American Journal of Archaeology for periodical

19963). All dates are B.C. unless otherwise noted.

Despite the presence of sufficient archaeological and literary evidence, the

Peloponnese is a region of the Ancient Mediterranean that is underrepresented in studies

Peloponnesian settlements show great diversity in their architectural and spatial

Through a detailed examination of the archaeological and literary evidence, the

democracy on the agora’s physical composition at those Peloponnesian cities that

role in the urban fabric of city.

LIST OF TABLES xxi

LIST OF APPENDICES xxii

1.1. The Greek Agora 1

1.2. Interpretations and Methodologies 4

1.3. Peloponnesian Models 17

1.4. Peloponnesian Agoras 20

CHAPTER 2. THE ARGIVE AGORA 25

2.1. Topography and Historiography of the Site 25

2.2. Shortcomings in Methodology and Identification 30

2.3. The Early Urban Context 37

2.4. Towards an Archaic Agora 47

2.5. Consolidation and Monumentalization: The Classical Period 58

CHAPTER 3. THE CORINTHIAN AGORA 90

3.1. The Problem of Locating the Corinthian Agora 90

3.3. Urban Development of Classical Corinth 108

3.4 The Corinthian Agora: The Ancient Testimonia 135

3.5. Corinthian Civic Structure: The Ancient Testimonia 140

3.6. Corinthian Civic Buildings: The Ancient Testimonia 150

3.7. Placing the Corinthian Agora 157

CHAPTER 4. THE ELEAN AGORA 169

4.1. The Historical Background 169

4.2. Topography and Archaeological Research 175

4.3. Description of the Site by Pausanias 179

4.4. Early Developments in the Elean Agora 194

4.5. The Archaic Period 196

4.6. The Elean Agora During the Classical Period 210

CHAPTER 5. THE MEGALOPOLITAN AGORA 226

5.1. The Historical Background 226

5.2. Archaeological Research 234

5.3. Monuments and the Description of Pausanias 237

5.4. The Late Classical Megalopolitan Agora 247

Fig. 1.1 331

Fig. 1.2 331

Fig. 1.3 332

Fig. 1.4 332