Tomlison Perachora: The Remains Outside The Two Sanctuaries 1969 PDF

Perachora: The Remains outside the Two Sanctuaries
Author(s): R. A. Tomlinson
Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 64 (1969), pp. 155-258
Published by: British School at Athens
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30103336
Accessed: 28-09-2015 10:24 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of the British
School at Athens.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:24:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PERACHORA: THE REMAINS OUTSIDE THE TWO
SANCTUARIES
(PLATES 45-59)
Introduction 155
The double-apsidal cistern 157
The hestiatorion 164
The buildings in the upper plain 172
Description of waterworks of the upper plain 195
The functioning of the waterworks 221
The nature of the settlement in the upper plain 233
The Roman house 242
INTRODUCTION
i, Humfry Payne gave a brief survey of the Perachorapeninsula,
IN the first chapter of Perachora
and of his own excavations. There he distinguished between the area of the town, situated in
the plain that lies between Lake Vouliagmeni and the tip of the promontory, and the 'Heraion
Valley' whose buildings were almost wholly of a public nature. His description of the town
envisaged further excavation; but his own activities were concentrated in the area of public
buildings, the two sanctuaries of Hera Akraia by the harbour and of Hera Limenia in the
Heraion valley itself.
The two volumes of Perachora are concerned with the discoveries Payne made in these two
sanctuaries.Omitted from them are the other public buildings in or adjacent to the sanctuaries.
These consist of the angled stoa, the so-called 'agora', the double-apsidal cistern, and the
or dining-hall. Also omitted is the detailed study of the town which he promised.'
hestiatorion
The stoa and 'agora' (which is now to be renamed 'the west court', since, whateverits actual func-
tion, it was certainly not an agora) have now been published separately by Dr. J.J. Coulton.z
The present account gathers together the remaining public buildings in the vicinity of the
sanctuaries,the apsidal cistern and the hestiatorion, together with the ancient remains in the
area of the town.
In order to publish these various buildings, further excavation and cleaning work was neces-
sary. In 1938 T. J. Dunbabin started on the supplementaryexcavation in the town area already
envisaged before Payne's death. The results of this excavation are briefly described in JHS lix
(1939) 194, and appear in the plan of the promontory in Perachorai (pl. 137), which was, of
course, edited by Dunbabin. But he does not appear to have altered the text in Perachora i to
take these results into account. Dunbabin did, however, draft a chapter on the town with
series. Another draft chapter by Dun-
a view to publication in a later volume of the Perachora
babin concerns the fortificationsof the Heraion. The chapter on the town exists in two forms:
a preliminary draft in the field notebook in which he recorded his excavations, and a later,
but unfinished version in typescript. Both these versions were evidently compiled before the
outbreak of war in 1939, and Dunbabin was unable to complete the chapter before his death.
The chapter on the fortifications is also unfinished. The results of Dunbabin's excavations
I See also Dunbabin's preface to Peraihoraii.

2 BSA lix (1964) Ioo f. (stoa); BSA lxii (1967) 353 f. (west court).
156 R. A. TOMLINSON
have been incorporatedin this present account, though, as will be seen, it disagreeswith some
of Dunbabin's conclusions, particularly those concerning the nature of the ancient remains in
the town area.3
In 1964 I was asked by the Managing Committee of the British School to undertake the
publication of the ancient town and its houses. The necessarycleaning work and supplementary
excavation were carried out in August and September of that year, with the aid of students
from the Departments of Ancient History and Archaeology, and of Greek, at Birmingham
University. I was then asked to study also the double-apsidal cistern and hestiatorion in the
Heraion Valley, along with the cisterns and related waterworksin the area of the town, in
collaboration with E. J. A. Kenny, who had worked on them as a student of the School during
the original excavations. The necessary cleaning work and excavation at the apsidal cistern
and hestiatorionwere completed in September 1965, but the waterworksof the town area proved
to be of such complexity that a further season of excavation, on a much larger scale, was
necessary in the summer of 1966. Even this supplementary campaign left the deep shafts and
underground tunnels largely uncleared.
The number of people in whose debt I stand after three seasons'work is considerable. I am
particularlygratefulto ProfessorR. M. Cook who suggestedthis work to me, and to Mr. A. H. S.
Megaw, Director of the School, for his encouragement and much essential and helpful advice.
It is due to him particularly that the waterworks were re-studied in detail. I am also most
grateful to Mr. Megaw and to Professor R. J. Hopper for reading and criticizing the pre-
liminary drafts of this study. Mr. E. J. A. Kenny collaborated enthusiasticallyin the study of
the waterworks, and arranged the loan of surveying equipment from the Royal Geographical
Society. The late Dr. N. Verdelis, and his successoras Ephor of the Argolid, the late Mr. S.
Charitonides, readily gave full facilities for the work, and took a keen interest in the results.
Mr. A. Tartaris of the Greek Geological Service examined the rock sequence revealed in the
staircase tunnel of the waterworkson the upper plain. Mrs. B. Timmins of the Department of
Ancient History and Archaeology at Birmingham prepared the final versions of all the plans
and drawings. The original drawings of the small finds from the 1964 and 1965 seasons were
made by Mr. J. M. Fossey, Mr. I. A. Todd, Miss S. E. Ramsden, Miss K. M. Trump, Mr.
Goalen, Mr. A. McAllister; Miss V. Fish and Miss A. E. Clutton helped to make the plans at
Perachora. Mr. J. Prag was assistant director of the excavations during the 1966 season.
Mr. R. Howell helped with the Archaic and Classical pottery found during the 1964 season.
Dr. J. Hayes advised on the Roman pottery. I wish to thank all these people. Finally, but by
no means least, I must pay tribute to my Greek helpers and friends from Perachora village,
particularly the phylax of antiquities, Michaelis Thodes.
Funds for the cleaning and excavation work were provided by the University of Birmingham,
the University of Cambridge (Faculty of Classics)and the BritishSchool. Most of the excavating
equipment was borrowed from the British School, and the excavators are indebted to the
Assistant Director, Mr. Mervyn Popham, for making this possible. Surveying equipment was
provided by the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology of Birmingham University,
or borrowed from the Royal Geographical Society. In 1966 the excavators had the use of the
long-wheel-base Land Rover provided by the Faculty of Arts, Birmingham University, for
archaeological purposes.
3 Where I use Dunbabin I refer, unless it is stated other- after the season devoted to cleaning and studying the
wise, to his 'draft chapter'. This is the typescript version, houses. The section on the fortifications is based on the
not the preliminary essay in the field notebook. I did not work of Dunbabin.
see the draft chapter and the notebook until 1965, that is,
PERACHORA: THE REMAINS OUTSIDE THE TWO SANCTUARIES 157
THE DOUBLE-APSIDAL CISTERN

The double-apsidal cistern is situated between the two sanctuariesof Hera, at the lower part
of the Heraion Valley, just above the steeper slopes that descend to the harbour and the sanc-
tuary of Hera Akraia. Immediately to the south (see plan, FIG. I) is the hestiatorionor dining-
hall.4 To the north runs the great drain of limestone blocks, which led off the superfluous
rainwater from the sanctuary of Hera Limenia and the upper part of the valley. From this
drain a branch leads to the cistern itself.s
1 2 t - 6- 8 - 10m~,r~
FIG. I. THE HESTIATORION, THE DOUBLE-APSIDAL CISTERN, AND DRAIN. Scale I : 500
The cistern was excavated by Payne, and appears in Perachora i, in the general view of the
Heraion Valley looking east (PLATE 48a), at the bottom left-hand corner, with the hestiatorion
to the right. It is also just discernible in the over-all view (PLATE 46), immediately behind the
rebuilt chapel of St. John. These photographsare important as they show the state of preserva-
tion of the cistern as it was in Payne's day. Since that time it has deteriorated. The cistern was
completely excavated by Payne, and cleared once more by Dunbabin during his supplementary
excavations in 1939. It is not certain who dug the trench which followed the pipeline leading
away from the cistern at its western end. The line of this trench was still visible in 1965. Work
in 1965 consisted of cleaning out the earth and rubbish that had accumulated since 1939, and
of cutting a section between the cistern and the adjacent hestiatorion.
The cistern (PLATES 45-7; plan, FIG.2; section, FIG. 3) is cut through the slopinggroundsurface
into the subsoil, which here consistsof stone and earth debris apparently washed down from the
upper parts of the Heraion Valley. Our trial trench to the south of the cistern cut into this
4 See pp. 164 ff. on the general plan of the Heraion promontory, Perachorai,
5 The positions of the double-apsidal cistern, the hestia- pl. 137-
torion, and the approximate line of the drain are marked
158 R. A. TOMLINSON
"4"
-L wE t- i~ha
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
METRES
rV
FIG. 2. THE DOUBLE-APSIDAL CISTERN: SOUTH ELEVATION AND PLAN
hestiatorion
SECTION LOOKING WEST (pier 5)
0 1 2 3 4
metres
FIG. 3. THE DOUBLE APSIDAL CISTERN: SECTION
deposit, but did not reach the bottom of it. In view of the structuralpeculiaritiesof the cistern
it is likely that this deposit extends for a considerable depth. The cistern itself is lined with
stone blocks in regular ashlar courses, seven of which survive at least in part. Pry-holes in the
upper surface of the seventh course, where it survives, indicate that there was another course
above. Usually the blocks are not joined to each other by clamps. Clamps were used in the
surviving part of the sixth course, where its upper surfaceis visible, but on the north side only.
Most of these clamps have been crudely hacked out, and their shape cannot wholly be ascer-
tained. Where the original cutting is partly visible, it appears to be for a Z-clamp. The upper-
most courses are preserved only at the eastern end of the cistern, but the fact that they are
rendered shows that they must have originallycontinued around the entire structure.The lower
courses seem to have been set directly against the face of the cutting in the subsoil, but higher
up there was a slight gap forming a 'construction trench'. Scraps of pottery in this suggest a
terminuspost quemof the late fifth century B.C., but do not afford conclusive dating evidence.
The internal measurementsof the cistern, at floor level, are 21 40 m. long by approximately
4-20 m. wide; the actual measurements of the width at intervals being 4 12, 4 15, I, 4 I7, 49215,
and m. The depth of the coursesfrom front to back, where the blocks were 4"2 accessiblefor
4"'195 varies
measurement, considerably,and it is not possibleto calculate accurately the dimensionsof
the cutting in the subsoil at floor level. The original height from the floor to the top of the roof
may be calculated at about 4-6o m. The walls incline inwardsperceptibly,the bottom being some
0-32 m. outside the vertical line from the top of the seventh course. The sides are renderedwith a
coating of waterproofplaster which is virtually intact, but cracksin this show the lines between
the courses; these are regularly o.59 m. high. The bottom course presumably extends further
down, and is in part concealed by the plaster floor. Since it is unknown whether the cutting
reached bedrock at this level, the existence of a foundation course below this is uncertain.
The floor itself is preserved intact, and so only the smooth upper surface of the plaster is
visible. The floor was not cut into at all during the excavations, and it was not possible to
see how it was made up. It probably consists of packed small broken rubble, with the plaster
applied only to the surface, as in the floor of the fountain house.
At either end are apses. They are not truly semicircular, since their depth, c. 2-o m., is
slightly less than half the internal width of the cistern. The apses encircle the first and last of
the series of eleven square-sectioned piers which originally supported the roof.6 These piers
stand on square plinths or bases, approximately o064m. square but by no means regular in
size, extending for o- 18 m. above the surface of the plaster floor and to an unknow ndistance
below. The corners of the bases are slightly rounded, and the sloping upper surface extends
beyond the faces of the pier itself. The bases appear to have been covered with a layer of plaster
(now often broken away) to ensure that the junction with the floor was rendered completely
watertight. These bases and their piers were numberedfrom I to I I, from east to west. The sixth
base was not perfectly square, but the defects were made good in the plaster finish.
The piers themselvesare of a rough-texturedlimestone and were left unplastered(PLATE 46b).
There is no sign of dowels for fixing piers to bases. They are all constructed in two sections, a
lower and an upper,7 and all taper towards the top, the normal width at the bottom being
6 Similar
square piers, (but in four rows of five) existed corresponding capitals. These also taper noticeably towards
in a rock-cut cistern in the sanctuary of Apollo at Argos the top. They are made of several sections joined by empolia,
(W. Vollgraff, Le Sanctuaired'ApollonPythiena Argos, pl. iii). and were originally 520om. high, though the maximum
For the comparison with Perachora, cf. Roux, L'Architecture depth of water in the reservoir was only about m.
1.4o
69. The storage chamber behind the 'fountain-house of (G. Gruben, ADelt (1964) A 37 if.)
Theagenes' at Megara (probably to be dated to the fifth 7 The lengths of which are normally neither constant
century B.C.) had a roof supported by octagonal piers, with nor equal, except in those piers which snpport cross-beams.
I60 R. A. TOMLINSON
0-40 m., and at the top 6 m. All the piers originally had capitals. These consist of a short
continuation of the lineo'3of the pier, which then curves outwards to a square abacus. The
capitals were dowelled to the piers in the same way as the drums and capitals of columns
(PLATE 46a), having substantial empolion holes.8 The upper surfacesof the capitals have traces
of a smoothed band at each edge, but there are no marks or dowels showing how the roof
beams were supported by the capitals. This negative evidence suggeststhat there was a wooden
architrave, and one is shown in the partially reconstructedcross-section.Piers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7,
exceptionally, have their lower and upper sections separated by cross-beams. These stone
beams are each of two pieces, the junction, of course, coming over the pier on which they rest.
They are not actually attached to the piers. They were all bonded into the side walls before
the plaster rendering was applied. They are of the same stone as the piers, and, like them, are
unplastered. Since the wall course into which they were bonded is completely preserved along
the southern side of the cistern, and there is absolutely no trace of any missing beam once
bonded into this wall, it is clear that there can never have been more than the beams actually
preserved at the present day. Though these beams probably helped to stabilize the piers to
which they belong, this cannot have been their intended function, or they would be found with
every pier. The best explanation of their purpose seems to be that they were designed to
counteract the pressureexerted on the side walls by the relatively unstable soil into which the
cistern was cut.9 The depth of this soil, and consequently also the pressure,would have been
greatest at the eastern end of the cistern, on account of the slope of the Heraion Valley at this
point; and it is at this end that the beams are found, with only one other to the west of the
centre, that on pier 7.
As the photographs in Perachorai show, the line of the piers was well preserved when the
cistern was first excavated. The first seven piers had survived intact except that the first, fifth,
sixth, and seventh had lost their capitals. A broken fragment of the upper section remained
in position on the eighth pier. It is not possible from the published photographs to see what
was the state of the remaining three piers, but a photograph taken by E. J. A. Kenny when the
excavation was in progress(PLATE 45a) appears to indicate that a fragment of the upper section
was also in position on the tenth pier. The present situation is:
Pier I. Intact except for the capital.
Pier 2. Intact, with the capital still in position.
Pier 3. The capital and the upper section have now fallen, and the latter is in two fragments.
Pier 4. The capital and the upper section have now fallen. The capitals of piers 3 and 4,
though fallen, are still preserved.
Pier 5. The upper section has now fallen, and is in two fragments.
Pier 6. A stump of the lower section only remains standing, and the remainderis shattered.
Pier 7. Still standing as in 1933, that is, without its capital.
Pier 8. Only a stump of the lower section remains standing, and the remainder is shattered.
Pier 9. A large stump of the lower section remains standing.
Pier 10. A small stump of the lower section remains standing.
Pier II. Completely fallen.
It will be noticed that in general the piers with cross-beams are better preserved than those
without.
There is no clear evidence for the form of the roof. As the walls were originally higher than
8 It is not clear
whether in the piers without cross-beams 9 This technique seems to be without parallel. Could it
the two upright sections were dowelled to each other. be derived from methods of ship-construction?
the top of the pier capitals it is reasonable to suppose that the line of piers carried an
architrave. As suggested above, the roof architraveis likely to have been of wood. It is unlikely
that it supported a roof of stone slabs.IoSince it seems that the roof was flat (for the difference
in height between the top of the uppermostcourse of the wall and the top of the architravemust
have been small, even though these measurements remain hypothetical), planks, possibly
covered, are more likely than beams and tiles. There is no record of tile fragments being found
in any quantity in the cistern during the original excavations. A flat roof of planks is therefore
restoredin the section (FIG.3). As it is unlikely that a wooden architravewas immersedin water,
it is to be supposed that the cistern would not have been filled above the top of the seventh
course.
Access to the interior of the cistern was at the western end, by way of a stone staircasewhich
is one of the most interestingfeaturesof the whole construction(PLATES 46, c and d). The staircase
was placed at the centre of the apse, and reaches floor level at the south-west corner of the base
of the eleventh pier, in which there is a cutting to receive the bottom block of the stair. The stair
itself is ingeniously cantilevered until it comes into contact with the wall, this being achieved
at the block which forms the fifth step. There are two more steps above this, reaching to a
height of 2-2 m. above the floor. The blocks of the fifth and seventh steps are bonded with the
cistern walls; the sixth step rests on the block of the fifth step, and is held in position by the
seventh step above. The steps do not run in the normal straight line, one block behind and
above the other, but, as it were, in pairs, the second step behind the first, and forming one
pair; then the third to the side of the second, but with the fourth behind it, forming the second
pair. The fifth step is to the side of the fourth, and with the sixth step forms the third pair, with
the seventh step at its side. The eighth step is now missing. If it existed it would have been
cut into the fifth course (from the bottom) of the cistern wall. This course, and those above, do
not survive at this point. It is not clear what would have happened next. The top of the eighth
step should have been at about 2-55 m. above the floor, leaving another 2-05 m. to the top of
the eighth course. The stair cannot have passed through the wall here, unless it was continued
in solid masonry behind the outer face of the cistern, since otherwise water would have escaped
above this level. (The presence of the waterproof lining on the seventh course, where it is
preservedat the other end of the cistern, shows that it was designed to hold water at this level.)
There is, however, no trace whatsoever of this masonry, nor of the necessaryfoundations for it.
It is thereforelikely that the remainderof the stairwas containedwithin the thicknessof the wall,
either as footholds cut into the wall blocks, or in the form of a wooden ladder. It is noticeable
that the steps preserved, which would have been under the roof of the cistern, begin only at
a depth equivalent to the height of a man below this roof. The resulting staircase not only
uses a minimum of additional stone, but occupies as little as possible of the storage volume
within the cistern itself. It is also remarkablyeasy to walk up and down it (if due allowance is
made for the present worn state of the steps) without the aid of handholds.
This cistern was supplied from the great drain which carried off the rainfall from the terraces
of Hera Limenia and the upper part of the Heraion Valley (PLATE 47a). The drain begins at
present in the region of the former 'sacred pool', immediately to the north of the flight of
10 Stone slabs
appear to have covered the great cistern between the supports is only about I metre, compared with
at New Pleuron (personal observation), but they rested on 2.I m. at Perachora. At Megara (Gruben, loc. cit.)
where
walls constructed across the width of the tank. At Argos the span is about 2-3 m. no trace of the roof or its support
(Roux, loc. cit.) remains of a pebble cement floor over above the level of the capitals was found. Gruben suggests
the cistern have been found. This was laid on stone slabs. beams supporting an earth roof ('auf einer Balkenlage ein
Roux suggests the slabs were supported by stone beams, flaches Erddach') because no tile fragments were found.
though none of these has been found. There the span
C 6659 M
162 R. A. TOMLINSON
steps which led to the western terraces of the sanctuary of Hera Limenia. The first part of it is
shown in Perachora i, pl. 140, the plan of the Limenia sanctuary. Its original beginning has been
destroyed. A built cistern, plaster-linedbut of crude construction,once sent its overspillthrough
a terracotta pipe towards the great drain. These also appear on the plan in Perachora i,I~ but
they are clearly later than the great drain itself. Since Payne's excavation there has been some
further destruction and dislodgement of stones at the beginning of the drain, and it is quite
impossible to discern the original catchment system. The beginning of the drain appears to
have coincided with the site of the Archaic 'sacred pool'. We should, perhaps, postulate a
successorto the pool, contemporarywith the constructionof the drain, which took the overspill
from it.12 The present fragment of a cistern will then be a still later replacement, but the
confusion at this part of the site, and the absence of any recordedstratificationmust leave room
for considerable doubt.13
The drain is constructed from heavy rectangular slabs of limestone, 0o56 m. thick.I4 Single
slabs extending the full width form the floor of the drain, which is 1I48m. wide externally,
0o36m. wide internally. The sides again consist of single slabs standing upright on the floor,
0.72 m. high. The cover that restson top of them is also of massiveslabs, but they do not extend
for the full width. The drain is obviously designed to deal with a considerablequantity of water,
which would rush quickly down its gradient of approximately5' 50'. There was no attempt to
render the interior waterproof,so it was obviously of no moment that a certain amount of water
would seep out through the interstices of the blocks; this loss must have been negligible in
comparison with the total flow down the drain. As it is at present preserved, the drain runs
for some 60ometres, though once it would have continued until it was able to discharge its
contents safely into the sea. It consists, at present, of two straight sections; the first, from the
vicinity of the sacred pool westwards,is 44 metres long. At the change of alignment the branch
channel, similar in construction, leads southwards to the apsidal cistern. At the junction the
main drain widens to 0.72 m. internally, and the slabs forming the sides rise to the top level
of the cover. The cover is missing at this point, and this may well have been so originally, the
purpose being to give access to the drain where the branch diverged. The insertion of moveable
wooden boards across either the entrance to the branch or the continuation of the main drain
would then be possible. We have here a diversionpoint where water could be directed into the
double-apsidal cistern, or prevented from entering it, as necessity arose.
The branch survives only for a distance of 5-2 m. Beyond this point several of the slabs lie
scattered more or less on line: the reason being that, unlike the main drain, this branch runs
across the valley, and is thus subject to the destructive torrents averted originally by the main
drain. There can be no doubt that the branch originally led to the settling tank at the eastern
end of the cistern.
The settling tank (PLATE 48C) is roughly square in plan, except that the east side is curved.
It is 2-80 m. wide, measuredinternally. It is constructedof blocksof limestone or a conglomerate,
varying in size, but smaller than those of the drain and the cistern itself. The wall which would
have formed the western side has disappeared completely, though the approximate line of its
inner face is preserved by the broken edge of the floor. With it has disappeared all trace of
"x 'Cistern north of steps' in the section, Perachorai, fifth-century level, but this stratification does not do more
pl. I40o. than indicate a terminuspost quem.
12 For this reason (and others; see below p.
I71) I cannot 14 For this
type of construction compare the western out-
accept Dunbabin's suggestion (BSA xlvi (I951) 68) that flow drain of the stadium at Olympia (Kunze, Olympia
the cistern is a replacement of the archaic sacred pool. Berichtv. 19 f.). The essential purpose of these drains is the
13 In the section Perachorai, pl. 140 the drain overlies the rapid removal of heavy rainfall in enclosed collecting areas
deposit overthe Protocorinthian level, and is sunk into the such as a theatre or stadium, or, as here, the Heraion valley.
the means whereby the water was fed from the settling tank into the cistern. Part of this wall
was formed by the eighth course of the cistern wall. The walls of the settling tank were given
a plaster rendering, which survives on the back wall in one place to its full original height of
m., the last 2-5 cm. being a 450 bevel. This presumablyindicates the depth to which the
o.985 tank could be filled. The floor, of smooth
settling plaster over rubble, is level with the top of
the seventh course of the cistern wall. It has shallow basin formed in the plaster at its centre,
a
in which the debris that settled in the tank would collect when it was emptied.
The staircaseinto the cistern suggeststhat water could be drawn directly from it, an obvious
purpose being to supply the adjacent hestiatorion. Though the amount of water which the
cistern could hold (300 cu. m. approx.) might seem excessive for the needs of the hestiatorion,
such buildings are usually provided with an ample water supply, and often with elaborate
drainage systemsfor carrying it away. At the western end, a little to the north of the main axis
of the cistern, there appeared to be an outlet hole at floor level, through the wall (visible on
PLATE 46d). It was found that this hole, when cleared of the rubbish that had accumulated
since the original excavation, did not in fact penetrate the thickness of the wall, its only dis-
cernible purpose being to form a small hollow in which dirt could collect when the cistern was
drained. Further round the apse wall, on its northern side, was another hole (visible on PLATE
47b). This also was cleared, and found to pass through the wall. It was established that the line
was continued beyond the wall block by means of terracotta piping. The line of an excavation
trench is still visible leading away from the cistern at this point, presumablyfollowing the pipe.
It was not re-excavated. The trench runs towards the sanctuary by the harbour. Though the
pipe may have supplied water to one or other of the buildings in the sanctuary, it is more likely
to have been a drain, used only when the cistern was being cleaned: the draw-basins of the
fountain house (see below, p.212) were drained in a similar manner.
The date of these structuresmust remain uncertain. It is unlikely that any material found in
the cistern during the original excavation would be of any significance for dating it and, so far
as is known, no record of any survives.The cistern and the related structures are not mentioned
in Payne's preliminary reports; the excavation of them does not seem to have started until the
final year of excavation at Perachora (1933), and Payne's reports for that year are naturally
more concerned with the spectacular discovery under the chapel of St. John of the Geometric
Temple and its stratifieddeposit.'s The trench cut by us between the cistern and the hestiatorion
did not yield sufficientinformationfor a dating more precise than 'afterthe fifth century B.C.'"6
This, however, can be combined with other evidence to yield at least an approximation. There
is evidence for an attempted revival of the sanctuaryat the end of the fourth century B.c. To this
date belong the angled stoa in the sanctuary of Hera Akraia, and the final reconstruction of
the west court there.'7 In addition, this is the date assigned below (p. 216) to the extremely
complex waterworks system in the upper plain behind the Heraion Valley. The evidence of
votives in the sanctuariessuggeststhat, prior to this date, they were in a state of steady decline;
also that the attempted revival, though costly, did not meet with any considerable success. It
therefore seems probable that all the late classical structures at the Heraion belong to the
same period; if this is so, then the cistern should also be of this date.
The use of Z-clamps in one part of the cisternsuggestsa much earlierdate. Since the cuttings in
each of the blocksjoined line up, and since the later hacking of the stone proves that clamps were
Is Payne clearly regarded the cistern as Hellenistic (Pera- la trouve-t-on rarement.' The 'fountain of Theagenes',
chorai. 26), but he does not give his reasons. though earlier (fifth century B.C.?) is not really an
16 Roux (L'Architecture 69), apropos the pier cistern at exception, since there the piers support a roof considerably
Argos (n. 6 above) says: 'La citerne a piliers n'apparait pas, higher than the water level (Gruben, loc. cit.).
a ma connaissance, avant l'6poque hellknistique; encore '7 Coulton, BSA lix (Ig64) 124 f.; lxii (1967) 368.
164 R. A. TOMLINSON
removed from the wall after its construction,it is clear that the cuttings cannot be explained
by the re-use of blocks from an earlier structure. Part of one clamp is still in position. It cannot
be believed that the cistern is as early as the period normally associated with Z-clamps, that is,
the end of the sixth and the early fifth centuries B.C.,'8for this goes against both the general
stratification and the terminuspost quemabove. Since these clamps occur only in one place
that can be seen in the cistern, where no clamps are used for the majority of visiblejoints, it
can only be assumed that there was some special reason for them in this place. It may be
that Z-clamps were available on the spot from an earlier building that was being demolished,
perhaps the forerunnerof the hestiatorion (see the next section, pp. 164 ff.), and that these were
re-employed for convenience. However, Z-clamps in pairs are used to fit together the four
blocks forming the base for a well-head just inside the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros,
near the Propylaea: and this is unlikely to be earlier than the beginning of the third century B.C.,
the date of the Propylaea itself.
THE HESTIATORION
Immediately to the south of the double-apsidal cistern, at a distance of 15 m., is a building
2"
consisting of two rooms with an anteroom or vestibule in front (PLATE48a; plan, FIGS.I, 4, 5).
Its east-west walls are parallel to the main axis of the cistern. Its excavation is not mentioned
in any of Payne's reports, and no notebooks or other records of the original excavation, except
a plan, have been discovered. According to a footnote to an article by F. J. de Waele,I9it was
excavated in 1930. De Waele refers to it as 'the Hellenistic hestiatorion (?)'. Payne2zowas even
more cautious: 'a house with three rooms, in one of which are a number of stone dining-couches
closely similar to those seen near the fountain of Lerna at Corinth'. It is mentioned briefly by
Dunbabin in his article 'The oracle of Hera Akraia at Perachora',21where it is also described
as a house 'whose main feature is a number of stone benches built against the walls'. It is
shown in the sketch plan which accompanies his article (fig. I), labelled 'Hellenistic house',
where the form in respect of the entrance to the anteroom differs slightly from that shown
on the general plan in Perachorai, pl.
137.
This building does not appear to have deterioratedseriouslysince its excavation. Work here
was limited mainly to cleaning the surviving structure, and the preparationof plans and other
drawings. The exploratorytrench between this building and the cistern threw some light on its
history, as did another trench cut from its east wall, at its northern extremity, up to the edge of
one of Payne's old trenches.22
The two main rooms are square, 6-32 x 6-32 m., and are placed side by side, with doors in
their northern walls. The vestibule survives at the eastern end, and the eastern main room is
entered through it, but its outer wall is no longer complete, since at the western end the ground
has entirely fallen away, taking with it any foundations that might once have existed, so that
it is not now possible to say how far to the west the vestibule extended.23It is not unlikely
that the western room, which is in all respects similar to the eastern, was also entered through
the vestibule. If so, we may assumethat the vestibule extended for the full length of the building,
and that it was entered either at the now missing western end, or, more likely, at the centre of
18 R. Martin, Mlanueld'Architecturegrecquei. 260. 23 On the foundation block at the north-west corner of
19 'The sanctuary of Asklepios and Hygiela at Corinth', the west room, there is no trace of the foundations ever
AJA xxxvii (1933) 432 n. I. having extended further to the north; but this is not con-
20 Perachorai. 14. clusive, since it was not necessary that the block here be
21 BSA xlvi
(195I) 6I f. carefully dressed to take another block to the north, and
22 See
below, pp. I64 ff. the existing surface of the stone is badly damaged.
co
Lil
5;
It-
o
o
to
o
o
av
u
a,
cn
(n
o
o
FIG. 4. THE HESTIATORION: PLAN (ACTUAL STATE).
166 R. A. TOMLINSON
the north side, where the wall is at present interrupted. The entrance cannot have been at the
eastern end, for there the outer wall survives,and is continuous.Dunabbin'ssketchplan suggests
three openings, or perhaps a short open colonnade in the north side; but this, though an attrac-
tive solution to the problem, cannot be proved, and a single, wider opening is more likely.24
The foundations are partly visible along the north and west sides of the western room (PLATE
49a). Here they consistof large squaredblocksof coarselimestone, of variable length, the longest
being over three metres; their width is approximately o064m., and they are of similar height.
The foundationson the east side do not appear to be so substantial.Those on the south side are
not visible, while parts only of the upper surfacesof the foundation blocks of the wall dividing
the rooms can be seen, suggestingthat they too are not so substantial as those of the north-west
corner, and that they are constructed from irregularly shaped blocks. It is possible that the
north-west part of the building, where the outer walls have fallen away, was on made-up
ground. If so, it would explain the need for substantialfoundations at this point.
For the most part, only the lowest course of the walls survives. It consists of rectangular
blocks, of varying lengths and heights. The upper surfaces are normally flat (PLATE 49b), but
are on occasions stepped to accommodate the blocks of the next course, of which only one
remains in situ, at the southern end of the east wall. In places the upper surfaces are badly
broken and angular, giving the appearance of polygonal masonry; but this is clearly the result
of later damage.2s The wall blocks normally extend through the entire thickness of the wall,
which is 0-46 m. approximately. In places, additional small blocks are used to make up the
complete thickness of the wall; these seem never to have the same height as the normal wall
blocks, but are placed on ledges cut into the larger blocks, the purpose being to make good the
deficiencies in the stone, thus economizing in material. Along the preserved part of the north
outer wall there appear to have been two lines of stone forming the thicknessof the wall. The
outer line is only 0-34 m. thick, except for the last block (as the wall survives) to the west,
which is about 0o52m. thick, while that next to it is L-shaped, being partly 0.34 m. wide, and
partly 0-52 m. One block only of the inner line survives, 0-40 m. thick. The purpose of this
arrangement,and, indeed, its original form when the wall was complete must remain uncertain.
The irregularities of these walls suggest cheap construction. Within the building they were
originally concealed behind a coat of plaster, parts of which still survive. There was no evidence,
when the building was investigated, for painted decoration, but it is not unreasonable to
assume that this once existed.
The inner dividing walls, between the two main rooms and the vestibule have completely
disappeared except for their foundation. A cutting in the south wall, where the north-south
dividing wall was bonded in, suggeststhat it had the standardthicknessof approximatelyo046m.
The floors are of pebbles set in plaster over rubble in the surviving section of the vestibule
and the centre part of the main rooms. There is no attempt at forming a mosaic pattern with
the pebbles, which are obviously mixed in at random. Around the sides of the main rooms,
except at the doorways where the pebble plaster is carried through, is a slightly raised band,
plastered smooth, o088m. wide, forming a low platform.
24 Many of the rooms similar in plan and purpose to our colonnade is not part of the original structure, which may
main rooms (described below, p. 169), are approached have been even closer in arrangement to the hestiatorion
through open colonnades, usually from a peristyle court. at Perachora, with the side walls forming returns across
The dining-rooms in the Sanctuary of Asklepios on the the front.
south side of the Athenian Acropolis (for the identification 25 At one
point only, at the northern end of the east wall,
of these as dining-rooms, see my article JHS lxxxix (1969) does the original surface of the surviving blocks seem to
io6 ff.) afford the closest parallel. These comprise a line of have been deliberately trimmed to carry a polygonal block.
rooms with a colonnaded vestibule in front, but the
E
.4-
FIG. 5. THE HESTIATORION: RESTORED PLAN.
168 R. A. TOMLINSON
It is not possible to reconstructthe superstructureof this building. If the vestibule continued

in front of both main rooms, the full plan would be virtually square, in which case a hipped
roof is likely. It is also possible that a ridged roof, with pediments to east and west, covered the
main rooms, with a separate pent roof for the vestibule, particularlyif this did not extend the
full length of the main rooms. There are no internal supports for such a ridged roof, but
it could easily have been carried on longitudinal beams running from the east and west outer
walls to the partition, which is of similar dimensions, and so potentially load-bearing. This
could then be an example of Hodge's 'Gaggera roof'.26The free span, of a little over 6 metres,
is not excessive. There is no evidence to show whether there were windows to light the inner
rooms. With the vestibule in front, and the north-facing doors as the only openings, these
rooms would be dark; but this is not necessarilya disadvantagein view of their function.27
The internal arrangementsand the survivingfurnitureand tracesof furnitureof the two main
rooms afford clear evidence of this function.2sThey are both formal dining-rooms, each with
space for eleven couches arranged in the normal fashion around the walls. The couches stood
on the slightly raised platform of smooth plaster which surroundsthe floor (PLATE 49d). There
were three couches and the foot of a couch by each wall, except that the doorway in the north
wall occupies the position of one couch. To the right of the entrance was a single couch, with
its foot against the west wall. To the left, there was another single couch, while the foot of the
last couch of the east side touches the north wall, and occupies the corner.
There is no surviving evidence for the arrangement of the doors, or their fitting.29If they
had been in the normal position, that is, pivoted at the back of the doorway and opening
inwards, they would have opened against the ends of the first and last couches. On the
other hand, once the symposium had started the doors may have been more discreetly left
closed.30
The couches are carved from single slabs of stone. On average they are i m. long x
.80 0.35 m.
high (plus o0Io m. for the 'headboard')x o089m. wide, though these figures are subject to
minor variations. Two survive in their original positions against the eastern end of the south
wall, in the eastern room. There is one other against the eastern wall in the same room, at its
northern end, and part of a fourth immediately adjacent to it; these are also in their original
positions. There is none now in the western room. They do not seem to have had any special
support under the plaster floor on which they stood. Each slab is undercut at the front to
a depth of 0-34m. and a height of 0-20 m., thus making it appear that the couch has legs
at either end supporting a thinner slab.3' The right-hand 'leg' has its inner corner bevelled.
The front edge of the upper part, or 'TriKlv-rpov, has a half-round profile, of which a small
section survives on the right-hand couch of the south side. This half-round also has its vertical
edge bevelled, at least at the surviving end (the left). At the right-hand end of the couch there
is a raised headboard, m. high, with an indentation to hold a pillow in place. The upper
o.Io
surface of the slab is slightly hollowed, to a maximum depth of 0-03 m., with a flat band round
the edges. There is no trace, on the couches, of stucco or paint.
26 A. T.
Hodge, The Woodworkof GreekRoofs 50. 29 The floor in both
doorways is destroyed. The plan
27 Windows exist to either side of the door and in the side which survives from the original excavation marks post-
walls of the andronof Idrieus at Labraunda. IG xi. I54, A4, holes in the doorways, but I could not distinguish these.
from Delos, refers to aria-rr6pta(of which the precise location 30 The evidence from other similar rooms, listed below,
is not mentioned in the surviving part of the inscription) suggests that the doors opened inwards in the normal
with both doors and windows: -r&sOipasKcriTa UvpiSaS. way.
28
I cannot accept Dunbabin's suggestion (loc. cit. 68) 31 Equivalent to the rr68Esand rrihlTvrpaof the couches
that this building, together with the cistern, formed part at the Asklepieion of Delos, IG xi. 144, 66. See below,
of the as such, since it is of a type found also (and, p. I70.
pcarTiov
indeed, predominantly) in non-oracular shrines.
In front of each couch there would have been a wooden table, or at least part of a larger
table. A seriesof slots in the pebble plasterfloor seems to have been intended to hold one leg of
each table in place. From the position of these it is possible to attempt an approximate re-
construction of the arrangement of the tables, and this is shown on the plan of the hestiatorion
in its original state (FIG. 5). It is significant that it was considerednecessaryto secure the tables
in this way. These slots are approximately o-o2 x o0o5m., and have slightly rounded ends.
Rooms of this type are found at several Greek sanctuaries.The nearest and most important
parallel is the series of three rooms in the 'Abaton building' of the Asklepieion at Corinth
which open on to the peristyle court of Lerna.32These rooms seem all to have been alike; the
best preservedis the southernmostof the three. They are similar in size, 6-3 x 6i3 m., measured
on Roebuck's plan (op. cit. fig. 13). They each contained eleven stone couches (PLATE 49c)
arranged in exactly the same plan. The couches themselves, of which five and part of a sixth
survive in the southernmostroom, are almost exactly the same in construction, dimensions, and
general form as the Perachora examples, except that at the Asklepieion the 'leg' under the
'headboard' does not have the bevelled inner corner. The couches are placed on a slightly
raised platform of smooth plaster, while the central floor consists of pebble plaster. The only
differencesare that at Corinth sills of stone supported the 'legs' of the couches, while the table
consisted of wooden tops resting on stone legs let into the floor; these stone legs, however, were
subsequently cut away.33There are also at Corinth square stone slabs let into the floor at the
centre of each room. These 'blackened and cracked by heat... evidently carried a brazier'.
Although the floors at Perachora are damaged, it is certain that they did not include stone
slabs of this sort.
Rooms of precisely similar dimensions can be found in the West Building of the Athenian
Asklepieion, and in the 'Gymnasium' at Epidauros.34There can be no doubt that they once
fulfilled the same function, and contained eleven couches. None of the couches survives at
Athens; but at Epidauros there are the remains of simple couches, stone uprights to which
wooden planks were once fitted-not in the square rooms, but certainly in the adjacent large
halls.35
Three rooms with couches similar to those at Epidauros exist in the West Building of the
Argive Heraion.36These rooms are not all of the same size, and Frickenhaussupposedthat they
each contained twelve couches. However, the central room has space only for eleven if they
are to be placed against the walls, and it may well be that all three rooms had eleven couches
rather than twelve. The number eleven occurs again at Isthmia in the 'cult caves' at the
sanctuary of Poseidon, where the dining rooms, there hollowed out of the rock, are arrangedin
pairs, one room having six, the other five low rock-cut couches.37There are similar rooms, but
accommodating only nine couches, of a type similar to those at Epidauros and the Argive
Heraion, at the sanctuaryof Asklepiosat Troizen.38The building in which these are situated, of
courtyard plan, also has a large hall for a much larger number of couches, like the 'gymnasium'
at Epidauros.
32 C. Roebuck, Corinthxiv, 'The Asklepieion and Lerna' 36 Waldstein, The

Argive Heraeumi. i 3I f. (Tilton); see
51 f. also Frickenhaus's reinterpretation of this building, loc. cit.
33 Roebuck loc. cit. 54. 121.
34 See my article 'Two buildings in Sanctuaries of 37 Broneer, Hesperiaxxxi (1962) 7. The 'rock' is a marl
Asklepios', JHS lxxxix (1969) Io6 f. The possibility (n. 24) like that found in the underground parts of the waterworks
has been mentioned above that the original plan of the at Perachora: see below, p. 2oo.
building at Athens was similar to that of the hestiatorionat 38 Frickenhaus, loc. cit. 114, and G. Welter, Troizen
Perachora. undKalaureia31 f.
35 For these, see also Frickenhaus, JdI xxxii (1917) 114.
170 R. A. TOMLINSON
Such specialized dining-roomswould appear to be a not uncommon feature of Greek sanc-

tuaries. Other examples are found at the sanctuaryof Aphaia, in Aigina,39west building B; and
at the shrine of Asklepios in Delos.40
I have called the building a hestiatorion.Other ancient Greek terms for dining-room are
&v8pc'bv and 8Errvt1r-yrptov,
both of which seem to be applied to rooms in houses.4~ is
cavrr6caov
a valid alternative, but seems inappropriate or at least confusing as an architectural term.
~orticrr6ptov has authority in contexts analogous to that of the buildings discussed in this
section, for example, Athenaeus,Deipn.xii. 42 (531e) Even more appropriateis the description
IG xi. 144 (mentioned above, n. 31), an account of the iEporroioiof Delos, of the very begin-
ning of the third century B.C.:42
65 .... Tr&OAoa<XrlTIEiW
v Kal rxs 0jpaS
TrasKXAivaarTrlo'KEUaarvTtl
Kai A
P
lOaoS KaiKC~AAn a ElSETrlKatVrpa
Kal Tro8a&
TaaiKtvta1S T"rrapa
TraST'palTn3aS
'OMpu-rriat'ov,
-riI?AW-H-
Els TpalTC3aS Trrap&
acavi8eS MEvcovOS
KaiEiSTarUTOriloC
ara TlP(01)
A H K'paapoS EoT-r6 co-ria-rr6piovoEv -rTc)
r6 Trapa AplaooKpcrouvc 3E)y1 AAAAPl,
AcanryrrlEicp
T ToO 3Eiyoi hII" avErt 7o0 3EEyou; IIC KopiuaoaatFl
[r] (6)v TroIXov
TO0
"ocrr-raopiou
ccravpi6. pC0a6&ASHH. t
0ipavwri TO -"rrapaKovtao'&v-t
nappELvovrl
o-r0aTcrr6ptov
'HpcXKAEiSl, &p-ripapvai Trpsi, rt1TaiPH H
ploeO6s A[AA]AFP"H aaOtEIS "rS0Upa&Kai Tr&SKivas Trrapa
This seems obviously to be the account for the completion of a room exactly similar to those
described above from the archaeologicalremains, except that at Delos the couches were made
completely from wood, perhaps the more normal practice.43It might be doubted whether a
building in which no trace of a hearth was found should be called a hestiatorion,
but the function
appears to be the same as that of buildings where the hearth definitely existed.
In an attempt to discover dating evidence, two trial trencheswere excavated at the north-east
corner. One, between the hestiatorion and the cistern, revealed the construction trench for the
foundations of the hestiatorion.
This cut into a succession of strata which contained archaic or
early classical pottery. Unfortunately we were not able to find anything of significance in the
short section of foundation trench that we were able to clear, and the evidence here is incon-
clusive, beyond a general indication of a date in the fifth century B.C.or later. The other trial
trench extended eastwardsup to a trench of the old excavations. The foundation trench of the
hestiatorionwas again found, but again there was no significant material in it. We did, however,
find a fragment of small but well-constructedrubble wall apparently related to the late archaic
levels (PLATE 48b). This wall had been brokenwhere the foundation trench of the hestiatorion cut
into it. It ran as far as the trench of the old excavations, where it abruptly stopped. It pre-
sumably continues underneath the hestiatorion,while its probable eastward continuation must
have been destroyed in the old excavations. No record of it is known. A large post-pit was
discovered in the trench excavated between the hestiatorionand the cistern (PLATE 48d). These
remains suggest a predecessor to the hestiatorionwith perhaps a row of wooden posts along its
northern side, and dating probably to the sixth century B.C.
39 Furtwaingler, Aegina, Das Heiligtum der Aphaia 107 reference to the South Stoa I of the Athenian Agora, Hes-
(Fiechter) and pl. 70. peria xxiii (1954) 43)-
40 F. Robert, Dilos xx, 'Trois sanctuaries sur le 42 For the date, cf. F. Robert, op. cit. 99 f.
rivage
occidental' 51 f. and esp. 64. 43 Several other Delian inscriptions mention crtarlT6pta:
41 &v8pbCv is also used for the formal dining-rooms of the IG xi. 154, A4, several ia-rir6pta of unknown locality; IG
Hecatomnid dynasty in the sanctuary of Zeus at ILabraunda. xi. I6 , A 14, in the 'Artemision on the island'; and, if
Ki T-r&aT-rots
Cf. also Aristophanes, Eccl. 676: -ra 8tKacrrfiptar the restoration is accepted, IG xi.
I65, 43.
av6p65vaswvrrnra rroticao(quoted by H. A. Thompson, with
For dating purposes we are left with the building itself.44Not enough survives of the walls
to give a precise indication of their style, and they do not limit the date to any particular
period. Two construction features have useful parallels in other buildings at the Heraion.
The block at the north-west corner belongs to the east wall, but is actually L-shaped, with
a short projecting section beginning the line of the north wall. This technique, which is not
common, also occurs as an alteration at the north-west corner of the extended west court,4s
and suggests that the two structures are roughly contemporary. Secondly, the construction
of the pebble-plaster floor is exactly similar to that of the floor in the fountain house in the
upper plain, again suggesting that the two buildings are contemporary. A similar floor also
occurs in the angled stoa in the sanctuaryof Hera Akraia. The west court extension, the fountain
house, and the angled stoa may all be dated to about 300 B.C.; the hestiatorionshould be their
contemporary, and, as such, is further evidence of an attempted revival of the Heraion at this
time. A date of about 300 B.C. can also be supported by external parallels. The developed
Asklepieion at Corinth, with its dining-rooms, is dated by Roebuck to the late fourth cen-
tury B.C.46To judge from the form of the stone benches, as well as general arrangements
(the plan and the form of the floor), the hestiatorion at the Heraion should be more or less
contemporary: perhaps a little later, if the absence of stone-supportedtables is a lesson learnt
from the inconvenience of those at Corinth which eventually led to their removal. (Roebuck
suggests that this occurred during the Roman period, but it could have happened earlier.)
Robinson and Graham remark47that 'to judge from the houses at Delos the raised platform
(for the couches) disappeared early in the Hellenistic period'. This also supports a date of
around 300 B.c. for the hestiatorionat the Heraion.
There seems little reason to doubt that the double-apsidal cistern and the hestiatorion are
parts of a single building plan. Both are on the same alignment, and the roof of the cistern must
Elsewhere,hestiatoria
have been on a level with the floor of the hestiatorion. have careful provision
made for water supplies.48The majority of these hestiatoriaare approached through enclosed
peristylar courtyards (e.g. at the Asklepieion at Corinth, at the Argive Heraion, at Troizen,
and in the 'gymnasium' at Epidauros), and it was suggested49that such a courtyard may have
existed at Perachora,with the cistern at its centre. This cannot be proved, or disproved,without
the full excavation of the area in which these structures are situated. It is perhaps unlikely,
since there was no evidence for the continuation of the walls of the hestiatorion northwardsfrom
the north-east corner, which would be essential if a courtyard were to be enclosed in front;
while the shape of the cistern, unlike the nearly square cistern at Argos, does not suggest that
it belonged to the centre of a courtyard. The eastern end of the cistern extends well beyond
the western end even furtherbeyond the west wall; it is extremely
the east wall of the hestiatorion,
unlikely that any wall would have seems rather to
passed over the cistern itself. The hestiatorion
be a self-containedstructure,of the type representedin a simplerand more primitiveform by the
west building B of the sanctuary of Aphaia, and, more particularly, by the west building of
the Asklepieion at Athens.
44 Payne seems to have regarded it as Hellenistic along of water supplies is made by Tilton, but this cannot be
with the apsidal cistern, but again without giving any regarded as decisive. Draw-basins and bath buildings in
reason (Perachorai. 26). the immediate vicinity suggest that water was once avail-
4s Coulton, BSA lxii (1967) 359. able in some quantity there. Epidaurus is a well-watered
46 Roebuck, op. cit., 'Chronology' 173. spot. The peristyle building in the sanctuary of Apollo at
47 Olynthusviii, 'The Hellenic House'
I85. Argos has, as noted above (n. 6) an elaborate cistern; Roux
48 This is
certainly true of the Asklepieion at Corinth, (loc. cit.) identifies this building as a sanctuary of Asklepios,
and, probably, of that at Troizen (where there are careful and it may have included hestiatoriaamong its rooms.
arrangements to drain off water). It also applies to the 49
By Mr. Charles K. Williams, Assistant Director of the
cult caves at Isthmia. At the Argive Heraion no mention American School at Athens.
172 R. A. TOMLINSON
The function of the hestiatorionin the religious life of the sanctuaryis discussedbelow, p. 239.
Other hestiatoria,or andrones,exist among the buildings on the upper plain, and are described
in the next section; their function is also discussedlater, p. 238.
THE BUILDINGS IN THE UPPER PLAIN

The remains of buildings, often unsubstantial, lie scattered all over the upper plain (plan,
PLATE 50).50 Apart from the buildings of the sanctuaries,and the cistern and hestiatorionalready
described, there is virtually nothing in the Heraion Valley,5' and the contrast between the two
areas is immediately apparent. The surfacescatter of visible foundationsappears on the general
plan, Perachorai, pl. I37. In I964 a detailed survey, with some additional excavation, was
made of the remains in the vicinity of the waterworks (marked on the plan in Perachorai).
This included buildings already excavated by Dunbabin. In addition, a plan was made of the
scantier remainsnearer to the lighthouse, which in part have been disturbedby the construction
of the modern road and car park.
The nature of this settlement is discussedbelow (pp. 233 f.), since this discussionalso involves
considerationof the waterworks.The present section gives merely a descriptionof the buildings
and attempts to elucidate the chronology of each structure, describing where necessary the
objects found in association with them.
One of these structures is certainly a small temple, while another, the earliest found, is of
megaron plan and so may be a temple. The buildings are listed and described, as far as possible,
in chronological sequence, except that the temple is described first; but the sequence often
rests on dubious inference rather than on firm archaeological grounds. The reference letters
and numbers are those assignedduring our survey, and were used to label the pottery and other
finds which are now in the Perachora Museum. These referencesare marked by each structure
on the plan.
The buildings lie apparently along the line of a road which led from the general direction
of the lake, and along the southern edge of the plain to its highest point immediately above the
head of the Heraion Valley, where one branch climbs to the ancient polygonal platform on
which stands the chapel of Ay. Nikolaos. It is possible that this road also gave direct access
to the Heraion valley, though the descent is abrupt, and no line of road is here traceable. This
road does not seem to be part of the built road describedin Perachora i, and still visible closer to
the lake, since this appearsto have crossedthe upper plain furtherto the north. It may be some-
what earlier in date than Payne's road.52
so The plain of the Heraion promontory runs westwards keeper of the sacred herds or the tiller of the sacred soil'.
from the lake, at first with a marked gradient, then level, We re-examined this building in 1967. At present it seems
then climbing by a steep but low bank to another level that the 'return' at the south end is to the west, not the
area. It is this area which we call the 'Upper Plain'. east, while that at the other end could simply be a stone
5s In this valley walls, probably of terraces, are marked dislodged from its original position (its upper surface has
on the plan Perachorai, pl. I37. Dunbabin in his draft a cutting which suggests that another stone abutted against
chapter records that the Heraion valley was trenched dur- it, so that originally it must have been a vertical surface).
ing the original excavations, but the remains of only one It would be surprising if this wall is any earlier than 400 B.C.,
building were found: 'about Ioo yards east of the temenos and the cup sherd referred to by Dunbabin can hardly be
wall (i.e. of Hera Limenia), on the south side of the valley, more than a fortuitous find. One must agree that the
is a north-south wall, returning at each end towards the Heraion valley was most likely to have been undeveloped
east; its interior measurement is 5'70 m., and it consists of sacred ground.
one course of foundations, of large squared stones carefully 52 The existence of this older road had already been
laid. Inside the space enclosed was found a sherd from a postulated by Dunbabin in his draft chapter. There are
Droop or Cassel Cup. So this building must be at least as cuttings in the rock above the western end of the lake,
old as the second half of the sixth century.' Dunbabin higher than those described by Payne (Perachorai. Io),
believes that the valley was sacred ground, and that 'the which may be part of an earlier road.
single building in the valley may well have been for the
Coming from the lake this older road must have passed near the position of the three deep
shafts, though these would appear to be later. Then it had on its north side the three buildings
Z I, II, and III, and the small temple Z IV with its courtyard or temenos. On the southern
side at this point are various terrace walls, but the structuresthey must have supported could
not be elucidated. A little further to the west the road appears to widen, as if to form a small
plateia.To the south of this is building A I and the entrance to A II. Beyond this point the line
appears to run between buildings B V and B IV; it is now in an area of archaic structures.
Beyond this is the highest part of the plain. Numerous foundations, apparently in regular
alignment, were visible in Payne's day, and appear on his plan. Little now remains here, and
we were unable to confirm his plan.
THE TEMPLE, BUILDING Z IV (FIG. 6; PLATE 5Ia-c)

This was not excavated; the surfacesof the surviving masonry were cleaned, allowing a plan
to be drawn.
Z VI
0~231,a metres Z IV
Z V
Z III
Z I
Z II
Z VII
FIG. 6. Scale 1:250
What survives is the euthynteria course of a building 7-64 m. x m., the ends facing east
and west. An inner cross wall is set back about 4 metres from the 9.96
western front. This euthynteria
course is made up of flat slabs of unknown height, and about o06om. wide, though this dimen-
sion varies. The length of the slabs is completely irregular. Those at the eastern end are larger,
the longest being 1I24m. x 0o68m. Most are rectangular; where they are not, smaller and
irregularly shaped pieces fill the gaps. Some of the larger stones are shattered, which suggests
174 R. A. TOMLINSON
that they have nothing of the thicknessfound in the euthynteria of the fountain house.saCompared
with that building they are of lighter, more carelessconstruction,and cannot have been intended
to bear such a substantial superstructure.
The upper surface of the slabs has been trimmed flat, but not polished smooth. Here again
these blocks are not comparable with the fine work at the fountain house. A smoother band,
about oI15 m. in width, has been trimmed along the outer edge. The width varies slightly;
the inner edge of the band is constant while the outer edge of the blocks varies again showing
a noticeable lack of precision. One would expect this line to have been trimmed when the
blocks were in position, yet perversely one of the blocks has the band along its inner edge.
Since the function of this line would seem to be to act as a setting for the superstructure,this
position can only be the result of a mistake, and it suggests that the band was in fact trimmed
before the blocks were assembledin their final position, the one block being placed the wrong
way round.
There is no trace of the course which came over the euthynteria. In three places there are
of
stones remaining on top it, but they are all of very irregularrubble. Possibly the superstruc-
ture was of rubble, but in view of the uniform deposit of soil which covers these foundations
unbaked mudbrick is more likely, probably over a rubble footing.
The cross-wall foundation is set at a slightly higher level, and has been partly robbed. The
four surviving blocks at the centre are more carefully worked than the others, with a smoothed
surface, and a noticeably straight western edge. They appear to mark a central threshold,
and suggest a building with an eastern room approached through a westward-facing porch.
It is this plan, together with the presence of a small temenos yard to the west, which makes
it likely that this simple structurewas in fact a temple.
Nothing of the superstructurewas found, though the presence of innumerable fragments of
terracotta roof-tiles suggests that the building was completed and roofed. The tiles are of the
late fifth-centurytype, and are identical with the serieswhich predominatesin the construction
of the runnel which, running nearby, makes a change of alignment to avoid the temple.s4It is
not unlikely that the tiles used in the runnel came from the temple. A similar occurrence can
be found in the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia where a water runnel, comparable with that
at Perachora, is roofed over with marble tiles obviously taken from the temple.ss Indeed, it is
not unlikely that the Perachora temple was damaged at the same time as that of Poseidon,
that is, in the Corinthian war-most probably in the raid of Agesilaos,so that its damaged tiles
were available for secular uses in later times. The fact that the runnel deliberately avoids the
temple area shows that the temple was still in use (even if perhaps derelict) when the runnel
was built; or at least that its site was still sacred ground.
The precise appearance of the temple thereforeeludes us. Since the northern boundary wall
of the temenos runs up to the north-west corner of the temple, it may be supposed that its
purpose was to prevent access to the temple except from the temenos itself. If so, the temple
must have had columns in antis, not prostyle; otherwise there would have been direct access
from outside between the corner column and the north wall. There is no evidence of the order,
or any of its details.
The tiles afford the best evidence for the date. Without full excavation the sporadic surface
finds indicate merely general occupation of the area from archaic times to the fourth century
B.C., and perhaps later. A date in the fifth century B.c., immediately before the outbreak of the
Peloponnesian war, seems likely.
53 See below p. 212. ss O. Broneer, Hesperiaxxviii (1959) 306.
54 See p. 203.
There is no evidence of the dedication. As the temple faces west it may belong to Artemis,
but we cannot be sure.
In front of the temple is the small forecourtor temenos traced by lines of stone, large boulders
roughly trimmed, that marked its limits. A gap was clearly discernible in the north side, pre-
sumably the original entrance. The technique of these walls, i.e. large boulders set upright,
with small gaps between, not forming a solid line of masonry, has an analogy in the boundary
walls which mark off some of the burial places of ancient Cyrene from the adjacent fields.56
The other buildings of the upper plain, apart from the waterworks, are in general even
less substantial. Rubble walls predominate, and only a few of the structuresuse sizeable blocks
of stone, however rough.
BUILDING B II (PLAN, FIG. 7; SECTION, FIG. 8; PLATE 5Id)
This was the oldest of the structuresthat we investigated. It was only partly excavated, but
two floors were found, sealing material of the early seventh century B.C.It was partly overlaid
and destroyed by another structure(B IV) which appears to be of archaic date still, though the
evidence for this is less certain.
The surviving walls seem to be the northern part of a megaron-plan structure facing west.
Preservedare: the entire northernwall, of both room and porch; the northern half of the porch
wall, up to the doorway; the northern part of the rear wall. This last is broken by the later
wall that crosses it. Our excavations were not aimed at clearing the entire structure, and we
cannot tell whether the southern part survives beyond this interruption. We do not know,
therefore, the original width of the building.
The external length of the north wall is 8-45 m. The surviving length, as excavated, of the
east wall, is 4-20 m. The northern part of the porch wall projects 1 40om. from the inner face
of the north wall. The internal length of the 'cella' is 5 o10 m.
The arrangement of the stones in these walls is apparent on the plan. The northern wall
uses fairly large stones, packed with smaller ones where necessaryto fill the gaps or to complete
the thickness.This varies, as is natural in a structureof this technique; but the desired thickness
appears to be about 0-75 or o.8o m. The line is not absolutely straight, and it is more than
probable that some stones have been slightly displaced. The east wall is a little more regular,
with a tendency to a header-and-stretchertechnique, where the thickness consists of stones
placed side by side, with occasional through stones to bind them together. It seems less sub-
stantial than the north wall, being only about o065m. thick. Presumably this difference was
carried up into the superstructure,and is to be explained by the need for the north and south
walls to take the load of the main roof beams, those running across the width. This suggests,
but does not prove, that the roof had a gable at each end, perhaps with an opening over the
porch.
Two periods of occupation were discernible, almost certainly continuous. The first was
marked by a rough floor in the 'cella', of pebbles set in red clay over the natural subsoil. This
ran up to a stone threshold at the porch doorway; in the porch, the floor seems to have con-
sisted merely of the natural subsoil, presumably trampled to a sufficient degree of hardness.
These earlier floors are dated by pottery found in the make-up of the inner floor, and by a bronze
wand or spit (exactly similar to those found by Payne in the temple of Hera Limenia) which
was resting on top of it; they belong to the earlier part of the seventh century B.c. There were
traces of several hearths, or patches of ash, on this floor.
s6 Personal observation; cf. Cassels. BSR xxiii (1955) 14 and pl. viiia, though the blocks used at Perachora are by no
means as regular as those of this tomb.
176 R. A. TOMLINSON
BII
ANDRON
B1P
N
0 1 2 3 4
METRES
FIG. 7.
WALL EAST
BIV HkLL PORCH
LE EL
GROUND
NOT
BEDIROC
(
EXCAVATED
0 1 2 3 4 5
METRES
FIG. 8. SECTION THROUGH BUILDING B II.
Over inner floors, outer floors, and threshold blocks alike was the make-up for the later
flooring. Again it was possible to distinguish between an inner and outer floor. Curiously,this
time it is the outer floor that is pebbled, the inner being a level of hard greenish clay. There
are no threshold blocks here, the pebble floor of the porch continuing into the doorway to take
their place. Again the dating evidence is the pottery, both in and on the floors, particularly
a small group of miniature votive-type pots in the porch. (In general the pottery in this building
is of this type.) The date cannot be much later than that of the first floor, and clearly falls
well within the seventh century. The continuation eastwards of the section excavated shows
that the wall of building B IV is set in the higher level of soil which covers these second floors
and the remains of the east wall. It is thereforecertain that building B II had been destroyed
before B IV was built. We do not envisage a long period of occupation. There are no indications
that any later floors have been lost.
The purpose and function of this building are not certain. The obvious interpretationis that
it is a house belonging to the small community that first inhabited the upper plain. In plan it is
not possible to distinguishit from a temple, but it was reasonableto assume that religious struc-
tures were initially confined to the Heraion Valley. The discovery in the upper plain of the
later temple already described means that this question remains open. The Geometric temple
by the harbour, which has marked affinities of construction technique with this megaron,
differs only in possessing an apsidal western end. That our building is oriented towards the
west is not conclusive, although (as we have seen) this is also the orientation of the later temple
nearby. The fact that the greater part of the pottery found belonged to miniature votive-type
vessels, and the presence among the small finds of a bronze wand and an iron 'money' spit
again suggest that this building also is a temple.
Against this is the short life of the building, and the apparent character of that which suc-
ceeded and partly covered it; for this seems to be a house, though it may have had a more
specialized function (see below, pp. 238 f.). It is unlikely that a religious area would be so
rapidly desecrated. Though the temple by the harbour shifted its locality slightly, the site of
the first temple remained within the sanctuary area. It therefore seems preferable to suppose
that the building was not a temple. If this is so, then the votive objects found can best be
explained as articles on sale here to the pilgrimswho visited the sanctuary, for dedication in
the temples there.
The rectangular plan of this building makes it nearer in arrangement to the building model
from the Argive Heraion than to that from the Geometric temple of Hera Akraia. There were
no fragments of tile found in building B II, though these are common enough on other parts
of the site, and it seems certain that the roof must have been of perishablematerial, presumably
some form of thatch. This again makes it similar to the models. If, then, our building is a house,
or rather a house-cum-shop,there is some reason to suggest that the models could also represent
houses, rather than temples. It is clear, however, that the models show structures far more
elaborate than our building, which seems not to have had, for example, the wooden protection
and supporting columns in front of the porch walls. Admittedly, the undoubted temple by
the harbour is no more elaborate, except for the apse, than our building, but this suggests
even more that the models representexceptional structures,perhaps the contemporarytemples
in larger and more important places such as Argos and Corinth.
C 6659 N
178 R. A. TOMLINSON
Catalogueof material
found in buildingB II
Smallfinds otherthanpottery:FIG. 9
Bronze
I. Spit or wand, L. 25'7 cm. FIG.9,a. 3. Frs. (17) of bronze vessel. D. of rim c. 6-0 cm., but no
Decorated with one large knob, and two smaller knobs to other features are recognizable. Level 2, over the later
either side. The knobs have two almost plain surfaces floor of the porch.
meeting in an edge, and are marked off from the shaft 4. Spiral finger-ring. D. 2-5 cm. Th. 0-3 cm. Parts of two
by sharp rings. The shaft, which is not complete, tapers. circles are preserved. Level i, superficial.
Cf. Perachorai, pl. 77, especially nos. 3 and 4, and 5. Ring, almost complete, in five fragments. Outside
Dunbabin's comments, ibid. 175. Seventh century B.C. D. 2.8 cm. Th. 0-25 cm. Level 5, later floor of the porch.
On level 7, the earlier floor. 6. Large piece of bronze sheet. Th. 0o05 cm. Max. dimen-
2. Fr. of pin, L. 1.9 cm. Th. 0-3 cm. Level 5, the later floor sions 8-8 x 7-o cm. No decoration. Irregularly shaped,
in the porch. curved. Level I, superficial.
Iron
I. Bar, FIG.9,b. square-section grooves along the edges.57 These grooves
Seven frs., forming two pieces; (i) part of the shaft, run together on two sides at the head.
bent through 900go,L. 40o'5cm.; (ii) the head, in which the The bend in the shaft is presumably accidental. The
shaft tapers to a flat wedge or chisel-shaped end, L. bar is an iron spit of the type supposed to have been
13o0cm. Level 2, over the later floor of the porch. used as money before the invention of silver coin. Being
The shaft is squarish in section, approximately 1.9 cm. almost square in section it resembles the description of
across, the four surfaces being slightly curved, with those found at the Argive Heraion and at the sanctuary
D
A
0L 5 10 15
CMS
FIG. 9
57 Similar grooves appear to be represented on the spit Comic Scenes from Athens', Hesperia xxiv (1955) 76,
carried by the two obeliaphoroi on a polychrome oinochoe pl. 35b and c.
from the Athenian Agora; see Margaret Crosby, 'Five
of Artemis Orthia rather than those from the Perachora 3. Two frs. of pins or nails: (i) L. 3-8 cm. Th.
0o35 cm.,
sanctuary, which Dunbabin describes as circular in tapering to o-I cm. (ii) L. cm.
section. He suggests that this was due to corrosion, and 1.8
Level 8, lower floor of porch.
this must be so. The slightly curving surfaces, together
with the grooves at the edge would give an approxi-
mately circular section when heavily corroded. Traces Lead
of the edge grooves can be detected in one of the frag-
ments illustrated by Dunbabin (Perachorai, pl. 86 I. Fr. of indeterminate shape, L. 3'35 cm.
Level 2, over later floor of porch.
no. Io).
Our example is interesting because of its relatively good
state of preservation, being only lightly corroded. This is Obsidian
particularly true of the head, in which the chisel shape
is probably stronger than a point would have been, I. Fr. of blade, L. 2-4 cm. W. 0-8 cm.
giving the spit a longer life. The edge grooves again Level 5, the later floor of the porch.
serve a practical purpose, giving the spit a firmer grip
on the carcase. Whatever these spits were used for in
the sanctuaries, their form is strictly utilitarian. Flint
Cf. Perachorai, no. I87; Argive Heraeum i. 61-3; I. Brown flake, L. 2-7 cm. W. I18cm.
ArtemisOrthia391-2. Level 2, over later floor of porch.
2. Fr. of another spit. Curved. Square section with rect-
angular grooves along two edges. L. 10 5 cm. W. I18cm.
Th. .-4cm. Similar to no. I.
Level 8, lower floor of porch.
Pottery
The best preservedpottery came from the upper levels, that below the later of the two floors
consisting merely of insignificant scraps. The following pieces seem to be the more important.
ConicalOinochoai TrefoilRim
i. Fr. of base, with flat ring. D. 10-4 cm. Yellowish clay, 12. Yellow clay. Traces of black paint.
painted outside with alternate black and light orange Level 2.
stripes.
Level 2.
2. Mis-shaped, and with part of the spout missing. D. at
Pyxides
base 6-I cm. H. of cone 3-I cm. Total surviving H. 13. Two frs. of the same vessel. D. Io-ocm. Surviving
H. 3'5 cm. Yellow clay. Painted decoration: base with
6.2 cm. Yellow clay, undercoated. red horizontal lines, incised. Four horizontal red lines
Level 2.
above this. Interior of base has narrow red rays
3. Fragmentary. Original D. at base I1-6 cm. Yellow clay.
Traces of horizontal red lines. radiating from the centre.
Level 2. The design is somewhat similar to Perachoraii, no. 942
4. Spout only, unevenly fired black-red. H. 9-ocm. (late eighth century), but has incisions and mouldings.
Yellow clay. No trace of decoration. Level 2.
Level 2. 14. Lid, with knob missing. D. I Io cm. Yellow clay de-
corated on the outside only, with a large central red
5. Fr. of base. Original D. 8-o cm. Yellow clay. Hori-
zontal red-painted lines. blob, and then red concentric circles.
Level 2. Similar to Perachoraii, no. I155 (eighth century/first
6. Base. D. 70ocm. Yellow clay. Horizontal brown lines. quarter of seventh).
Level 2. Level 2.
7. Fr. of spout. Yellow clay. Undecorated.
Level 2.
8. Fr. of spout. Yellow clay. Traces of red paint.
Level 2.
9. Fr. of spout. Yellow clay. Undecorated.
Level 2.
Io. Spout, complete except for the tip. Yellow clay. Hori-
zontal brown lines top and bottom, with vertical lines
at the centre.
Level 2.
Similar to Perachoraii, no. 209 (late eighth century B.C.).
11. Fr. of base. D. 7-4 cm. Yellow clay. Horizontal red lines.
Level 2.
I80 R. A. TOMLINSON
Kotyle (FIG. IO)

Bowls
15. D. I6-ocm. Yellow-buff clay. Scratches rather than I7. Upturned rim. D. 7o0cm. Yellow-buff clay. No traces
incisions, with traces of brown painted decoration out- of decoration.
side; vertical short lines over horizontal line at the top Level 4.
and rays towards the base. I8. Bowl with lug and upturned rim. D. 6-o cm. Yellow
Compare Perachoraii, no. 380 (mid-seventh-century). clay, fired orange inside. Traces of black decoration.
Level 4. Level 4.
Kalathos SmallPlatter
16. Rim fragment. D. c. 12-o cm. Yellow-buff clay. Rim 19. D. c. 9-4 cm. Yellow-buff clay. Concentric incised circles
has hammer-head profile, with horizontal grooves on underneath, with traces of red paint. Traces of red
the exterior. Traces of red paint outside, monochrome paint on the side.
red-brown inside. Similar to Perachoraii, no. 747.
Similar to Perachoraii, no. 826. Level 4-
Level
4.-
BUILDING B IV (PLAN, FIG. 7; PLATE 52C)
Possibly next in sequence is the building which partly overlies the megaron B II. This was
excavated but, as for the most part only the thinnest soil covering overlaid the undisturbed
natural sub-soil, no stratification was possible. The material found, however, is excJusively
Archaic in character.
It is not certain whether the walls belong to two structures,or a single more complex one.
There are certainly two sections, which are connected to each other, though whether or not
they represent two periods of construction is not clear.
The western part consists of a large room, measuring internally 7-80 x 7-60 m. The western
wall extends further to the north for one block of stone only; the remaining walls in this area
belong to the earlier B II, and must have once been covered by B IV which here appears
to have been totally destroyed. The technique of building is not consistent. The method aimed
at, but not always achieved, employed rough triangularstones, with one edge tolerably straight.
These are set with the straight edge outermost, the gaps along the inner face being filled, where
necessary, with smaller stones. A gap in the western wall, marked at the northern end by a
large square stone, with another set behind it inside the room, probably indicates an entrance.
The gap is m. wide, but was presumablynarrowerin its originalstate. (As the firstsurviving
stone to the2.40
south is triangular, not square, it would seem to be part of the wall, not a door-
jamb.) The northern wall also consists of these triangular stones; here the straight edges face
south, that is, towards the interior of the room, indicating that there must have been another
room to the north,58lying over the remains of B II. Of this room nothing remains except the
stub of the west wall and its east wall.
To the east of this room, or pair of rooms, is a large rectangle, x 8-8o m. internally.
There are at present one small and four large gaps in the walls, some 6.20
of which are certainly
doorways. The clearest is that in the centre of the east wall, o08om. wide, with large blocks to
either side, and obviously the entrance to the small room beyond. There is a possible, but less
clearly defined entrance to yet another room in this same east wall. The doorway leading into
the rectangle from outside is probably that in the northern wall; the opening in the southern
wall is almost certainly accidental, as is the third gap in the east wall.
ss If they had formed an outer wall they would have had to face north.
With a number of definite rooms opening from it, this central space is more likely to be an
enclosed court than a room. The gap connecting it with the western room is too narrow (only
0-25 m. wide) to be a doorway, and for this reason we are inclined to regard the two parts as
distinct. If so, the eastern part-the court and two rooms-form the original structure, against
which the western part was built subsequently, using the west wall of the original building as
a party wall. The construction of this wall, particularly at the southern end, indicates that the
western room was added to it.
There remain parts of two rooms only to the east of the court. The southern one measures
internally 3-20 X 4'40 m., and does not show any special features. The northern room is more
interesting. 3-20 m. wide, with a maximum preservedlength of 4-oo m., this room is separated
from its neighbour only by a narrow partition wall 0-4o0m. thick. Each of its walls, as far as
they are preserved,has in front of it a low platform of earth and stone (o.8o m. wide c. o io m.
high), edged with more substantial stones. These are clearly an integral part of the plan, the
doorway from the courtyard being set exactly a platform's width from the south-west corner.
They seem to be the platforms on which couches would be set: there is room for one couch
a little over 2 metres in length against the southern wall, for two against the east wall, for one
against the north wall, and for one against the west wall. Thus the room is an andr6n,a formal
dining-room.S9
The finds made in this area are not conclusive for dating. Building B II had passed out of use
before the western part of B IV was constructed; but, as we have seen, this may be a later
addition. However, the sounding taken across B II and extending across the western wall of
the courtyardbelonging to B IV does indicate that B II had been covered before that particular
wall was built. The presumptionmust therefore be that B II had passed out of use before any
part of B IV was built. Unfortunately the bedrock and sterile subsoil is higher under B IV than
under B II, and though a trial sounding was dug no conclusive stratification emerged. The
pottery is all Archaic, but with nothing as early as some of the pottery from B II. The absence of
later, Classical pottery does indicate a date in the Archaic period for this structure, perhaps
in the sixth rather than the seventh century B.C.
found in BuildingB IV
Smallfinds otherthanpottery
Bronze
I. Pinhead, FIG.9, c. L. as preserved 2-8 cm. A flat disc 3. Mirror handle, FIG. 9, d. Flat bronze handle with
at the head with inclined sides is followed by flattened circular end. W. 26 cm. D. of circle 37 cm. The
globes in decreasing sizes, forming a compact mass. The handle is incised with a palmette on the circle, and
closest parallel seems to be Perachorai, pl. 76, nos. volutes on the section which connected with the miss-
16-19, type D (p. 173), described as 'probably late'. ing mirror disc. There is no parallel example in Pera-
Level I (superficial). chora.
2. Middle part of pin. L. cm. W. 0-25 cm. tapering to Level 2.
cm. 4-.I
0o175
Level I.
so9Cf. Robinson and Graham, Olynthusviii, 'The Hellenic Graham, on the evidence then available, considered that
House' 171 f. This example at Perachora is considerably the type probably developed in the fifth century B.c.
older than any other example known. Robinson and
182 R. A. TOMLINSON
Terracotta
I. Torso of seated female figurine, FIG. 9, e. H. as pre- 3. Lamp. Intact, except for the nozzle. Length and
served 4'5 cm. Buff clay. No paint survives. The stump breadth as preserved 6-2 cm. H. g.9cm. Yellow-buff
of the right arm is preserved. At this shoulder is a disc clay, no paint.
or pellet, from which hangs a single band, running Level I.
across the breasts, presumably to a similar disc on
the left shoulder, which is now missing. This band is
divided at the centre, and here a small disc falls from
it. Obsidian
There is no precise parallel at Perachora. It belongs i. Fr. of blade. L. 25 cmrn.W. o9gcm.
to the group Perachorai, nos. Level I.
6I-8I (pp. 211-14,
pl. 93); cf. also the figurines from the sanctuary of 2. Fr. of blade. L. cm. W. I-I cm.
Demeter and Kore at Corinth (Stroud, Hesperiaxxxiv Level I. 2.'
(1965) I7, pl. 6 a and b). Our example seems to be of
a developed style.
Level I.
2. Spindle whorl. D. 4-3 cm. H. 4'5 cm. Yellow-buff clay, Flint
undecorated. I. Brown flake. L. 2-4 cm. W. o06 cm.
Level I. Level I.
Potterj
Pyxides Platter
I. Fr. D. c. Io-o cm. Yellow-buff clay, decorated with hori- 5. Rim, with strap handle. D. 140ocm. Yellow-buff clay.
zontal grooves around the foot, and painted outside Traces of orange band under rim outside, black paint
with two horizontal red lines at the bottom, and verti- inside.
cal wavy lines in red above. Level 2.
Similar to Perachoraii, no. 942.
Level I.
2. Lid. D. 76 cm. Yellow-buff clay. Knob missing.
Painted polychrome linear decoration on outside. Oinochoe
No comparable lid in Perachoraii. 6. Frs.-base, part of neck, shoulder and handle. D. of
Level 2. base, slightly flared 6-5 cm. Yellow-buff clay. Painted
decoration. Base: outside, three wide bands of red
separated by narrower reserve bands. Shoulder and
MiniatureKothon(FIG. IO) body: narrow red horizontal bands up to handle.
Downward pointing rays on neck, followed by more
3. Intact. Maximum D. cm. Yellow-buff clay. Hori- narrow bands, and then upward pointing rays, all in
zontal handle. Traces of3"5black paint. red. Handle (vertical, flat): upright, simple maeander
Cf. Perachoraii, no. 3135. pattern in red.
Level 2. Compare Perachoraii, no. I 19.
Level 2.
Dish
4. Fr. of rim and handle. Diameter at inner edge of rim Jug(FIG.10)
c. 26-o cm. Reddish-brown clay. Impressed decoration 7. Shoulder and neck (rim missing). Yellow-buff clay.
of inclined wedge shapes on outer edge of handle. On There are traces of an internal division, so the vessel
top of handle, to either side, two small raised circles is perhaps a cooler. Traces of black decoration-small
surrounded by impressed dots. No paint. rays at the shoulder.
Level 2. Level 2.
E Surface find
B I 15
BIV6
ZI-EI 11
zI-m a Zi
BE&3
zI -TI 4
Z12 Z4 A
Z7
ZI-IT 10
235 (x a)
Zil (A)
Z 21 Z27 A
Z 29 Z 32
Z31 Z 30
Z 28 0 5 10
CMS
FIG. 10
184 R. A. TOMLINSON
BUILDING A I (PLAN, FIG. I I; PLATE 52a).

This building was excavated by Dunbabin, and appears on the general plan in Perachora i
as House B. It was merely resurveyed by us, and we have no excavated material from it.
A I is a substantial structure, the largest found in this area. It forms a rectangle, externally
18"oox I I -80 m., the sides deviating slightly from the straight line. The walls consist of a single
0 1 2 3
AI
metres
FIG. II
course of large blocks roughly hewn to shape, and normally wide enough to form the entire
thicknessof the wall, which is generally about o06om. In places small stones have been added
on the inside to achieve the desired thickness. In one place in the south wall a large boulder,
presumably already fallen from the hills above, has been incorporated into the wall.
The internal arrangements are evident only in part. The entrance is at the centre of the
north wall, which at this point forms the threshold. It takes the form of a porch, internally
1-62 m. wide by 2-46 m. deep, with walls to either side, recessed into the building. This porch
is paved with large flat slabs, carefully fitted, three rows each of two slabs, a larger slab to the
east, a smaller to the west. A fourth row of slabs has been removed, though it was in position
when Dunbabin excavated.60There are no tracesof doorsor door fittings, which would probably
60 Dunbabin,Field Notebook.
have been in the missing row of slabs at the back of the porch. This porch seems to have opened
on to a central courtyard.
There appears to have been a series of rooms along the southern side of the house, though
the walls are visible only at the eastern end. Of these rooms the easternmost,which alone can be
measured, is 4-04 m. wide by 4'30 m. deep, entirely open to the north, except for single blocks
of stone which form returns from the eastern and western walls. There is no visible sign of a
threshold. The next room was of similar depth, but as it has lost its western wall the width
cannot be measured. This room had a doorway from the courtyard with a threshold. No
more of this series of rooms survives.
There is also a curious series of walls in the north-westcorner. The corner itself is shut off by
two internal walls forming a space 4-20 m. (north to south) X 3-20 m. (east to west) approxi-
mately. There is a narrow gap, only m. wide, between the southern wall and the west
wall of the house, perhaps too narrow o.68to be an entrance, and more likely to be merely a space
from which a block has been removed. This 'room' has been subdivided by an east-west cross
wall, giving a southern part approximately 3-20 m. X 2o00m., and a northern 3-20 m. X I142m.
This narrow northern room is still further subdivided by two blocks forming a north-south
wall, the western part being I-8o m. wide, the eastern only 1-20m. Even this small space is
obstructed by a single block of stone in its southern half. There seems to be a doorway leading
from the southern room to that in the north-westcorner. There is no indication of the function
of these walls.
There exists no material of chronological significance from this building; whatever was
found in the original excavations is now lost, and any attempt to date it must depend solely
on the appearance of the walls. These are more substantial than those of the archaic buildings,
and of more careful workmanship.This suggests a date in the fifth, or even the fourth century
B.c., but this is not capable of proof.
This building is described in JHS (1939) 194 as belonging
'in its present form to the fifth century B.C.,but built over a roughly apsidal house of the sixth
century', with indications of occupation going back to the early seventh.61
BUILDING A II
Building A II lies immediately behind, i.e. to the south of A I, and is so similarin construction
that it would seem to have been built at the same time. It is constructedof large blocks trimmed
to shape, to form walls 0o60m. thick. In parts, namely the southern and western wall, there
remain more than one course of stonework,which is there polygonal in character. The southern
wall extends further than the house, and is part of a continuous terrace-supportwall, behind
which there may have been a road. The entrance, however, is from the south, from the road
which runs through the middle of this scatter of buildings on the upper plain.
Like A I, this building was excavated by Dunbabin. The entrance is to the west of A I,
through a passage formed by the west wall of that building and the east polygonal wall of
A II, the actual entrance being marked by a short eastwardsreturn from this wall. The passage
leads into what is apparently a small court, with another, narrowerpassage leading eastwards
behind A I. To the south of this second passage, and perhaps opening from it rather than from
the court, are two rooms, both 4'45 m. from north to south, the width of that to the east being
m. The court, not including the entrance passage, is
2.50 m., and of that to the west
m. x
7oo00 m., and the second4.3o m. long, all measurements
passage is approximately 8oo00
being 6.65
internal.
61 The
identity of A I with this building depends on Dunbabin's Field Notes. The other building mentioned in JHS lix
(1939) 194 is house XIV.
I86 R. A. TOMLINSON
This building gives every appearance of being a small two-roomed courtyard house, fitted
somewhat awkwardlyinto the confined space behind A I and in front of the continuous terrace
wall. Since the other walls of the building do not bond into this terrace wall, it is probable
that the terrace was in existence before A II was built. The date of A II should be the same as
that of A I, and for similar reasons: the two structuresseem to be of one construction.
BUILDINGS Z I, Z II, AND Z III (PLAN, FIG. 6; PLATE 51e-f, PLATE 52b, d)
Because of their similarityof arrangement,these three buildings are best consideredtogether.
They are situated on the flat ground between the line of the road and the little temple, their
foundations being on a higher level than that of the temple euthynteria. The north walls of Z I
and Z II appear to incorporatethe southernboundaryof the temple temenos, the spaces between
the blocks of that wall being filled with smaller stones. The east wall of Z I, though outside the
temenos, is of the same technique, presumably incorporating another boundary wall, which
can be followed also on the southern side of the road. The south wall of all three buildings is
continuous and straight, the gaps in it appearing to be recent and accidental. All walls, except
those incorporatingboundarywalls, are of a carefulrubble technique,well laid out. The majority
of stones used are of triangular shape, laid so that the bases of the triangles form the outer
face of the wall. The intervening spaces on the inner face are filled with smaller stone. Occa-
sional rectangular stones go through the thicknessof the walls, with both inner and outer faces
straight. The corners are marked with squared blocks. The alignment of building Z I appears
to be dictated by the boundary wall incorporated in its east wall. The other buildings are
aligned with the temple. Access to all three buildings was presumably from the road, that is,
from the south. On the south side of each is a courtyard, while on the northern side-at least
in buildings Z I and Z II- were pairs of rooms, placed side by side. The eastern part of Z III
has been destroyed, and it is not absolutely certain that it had two rooms, though from the
general proportions that seems very likely.
Z I (PLATE 51e) is 8-20 m. wide externally. Its depth is not quite so certain; both east and
west walls are about I I-8o m. long, but there is no southern wall linking them. The east wall
makes a right-angled turn at its southern end towards the east for some 3 metres, before
turning south again until it almost, but not quite, reaches the continuous southern wall by the
road. The west wall simply stops, though as there is no obvious corner block it has probably
been robbed away at this point. It may therefore have originally continued to the south wall
by the road. This wall at present ends in line with the west wall of Z I, though this again may
be due to chance destruction,there being no obvious corner block at this point. If the courtyard
of Z I did extend up to this wall, it is not a perfect rectangle, the west side being, internally,
approximately 9oo00 m. in length, while the eastern, ignoring the extra section in the south
is
corner, only 8-40 m.
The two rooms at the northern end are approached by a single opening approximately
I metre wide, in the centre of the crosswall. The dividing wall between the rooms runs towards
the centre of this doorway, but does not reach it, leaving openings into the rooms to either
side. From front to back the rooms measure internally 4-60 m. The eastern one is 3-80 m. wide,
the western m. We did not find any traces of the internal arrangements. Broken fragments
3.3o
of tile are incorporated into the cross wall, and this may suggest an earlier building in the
vicinity.
Z II (PLATE 5 If) is separated from Z I by the space that results from the differentalignments,
partly occupied by the re-entrant angle in the east wall of Z I. The exact arrangements in this
area, which would probably repay further investigation, are at present obscured by a large
heap of stones cleared from the field. As in Z I there are two rooms at the northern end, and
a large forecourt to the south. At the point where the cross-wall separating the rooms from
the court runs into the side walls, large squared corner blocks are used. This seems to indicate
that the rooms were built first as a separate unit, the forecourtbeing added, though the distinc-
tion is probably constructional rather than chronological.
Total external dimensions are 8-8o m. x 12-32m. The rooms are entered by a single doorway
in the cross-wall 13 m. wide, and 2.6o m. from the inner side of the west wall. This leads
I.
directly into the western room, from which another door, at the southern end of the dividing
wall, leads into the eastern room. The internal depth of these rooms is that to the east
is 3.72 m. wide, that to the west 3.96 m. The forecourt, this time a perfect 3.64 m.;
rectangle, is 8-oo m.
wide and 7-52 m. deep. The only gaps in the outer wall occur in the southern part of the
western wall, and in the south-easterncorner, where it appears to be accidental. It seems likely
that the entrance to the court was in this region.
Z III is the least well preserved. It is precisely aligned with Z II, from which it is separated
by a narrow passage only o06om. wide (PLATE 52b). Only the western part of a single room is
preserved. Front and back walls are on the same line as the corresponding walls in Z II.
There is no good evidence for the eastern walls; the few stones that might come from Z III
seem different in building technique, and may be part of a different structure. There is no sign
of the doorway to the room, or of another room to the east, though both must have existed.
The west wall, which is well preserved,does not extend beyond the corner of the room to form
the westernwall of a forecourt,though the southernwall of such a court was found. It can hardly
be accidental that the west wall breaks off at this point. Possibly the east wall of the court of
Z II served as a wall for the court of Z III also, though there was no attempt to block the
passage between the two sets of rooms. This passageseems too narrow to have been an entrance,
and leads only to the temple. It may simply be that we have here another instance of the
distinction in construction between house and court already noted in Z II, and that this time
the court wall was never built, perhaps because it was superfluous.The only definite dimensions
for house Z III are the same as those for Z II: depth of room, m., depth of forecourt
3.64
7-52 m. A feature of independent interest in this house is the existence against the west wall,
and the preservedpart of the north wall, of a slightly raised platform of earth and stone, edged
with larger stones (PLATE 52d). This room, like the similar room in B IV, presumably an
is
andron.
All these buildings show similarity of design, layout, and purpose, and are quite clearly of
the same date. What that date is is not certain, as the buildings were not fully excavated. The
finds associated with them, described below, are from the disturbed surface levels only. From
the way Z I and Z II incorporate the boundary and temenos walls it appears that they must be
later in date than the temenos and temple. This is also suggested by the way in which they
stand at a higher level than the temple, as though the ground between this and the road has
been levelled up. This gives a terminus post quemtowards the end of the fifth century, and, on
historical grounds, probably after the raid of Agesilaos.
In avoiding the temple, the runnel also avoids buildings Z I, II, and III. It is just possible
that if the buildings had not existed it could have passed to the south, instead of to the north of
the temple, and thus its actual course would prove that these buildings already existed; but
since they stand on slightly higher ground, which would make unnecessary difficulties if the
runnel traversed it, this is not conclusive. Since these buildings recall in their arrangements
features found in the earlier structures, particularly the simple plan of the courtyard with two
188 R. A. TOMLINSON
rooms only, one would not like to separatethem by too long an interval; and a date in the fourth
century, perhaps late in it, and contemporary with the constructionof the waterworks,seems
not unlikely.
foundin buildingsZ I, II, andIII

Smallfinds otherthanpottery
Bronze Terracotta
i. Plain ring. D. 2-5 cm. Th. 0-25 cm. i. Figurine of horse with rider, FIG. 9f. Fragmentary:
Level I. rider missing, together with most of the neck, the head,
2. Fragment of pin. L. 5-3 cm. Th. o'5 cm., tapering to most of the rear legs, and the left foreleg of the horse.
0-25 cm. Length of horse 4-2 cm. Buff clay. Probably similar to
Level 2. the terracotta Perachorai. 288 no. i66, pl. Ioo, de-
3. Fragment of ring. Internal D. c. 2-o0cm. Th. 0-2 cm. scribed there as archaic. Ours is not well enough pre-
Level 2. served to add any information, and the stratification
is unhelpful.
Level I.
Obsidian
I. Irregularly shaped flake. L. 2-I cm.
Level i.
Pottery(FIG. IO)
Most of the pottery came from the superficialploughed levels, and none was in a stratified
deposit. Only the more interesting pieces have been selected. It is noticeable that on this part
of the site there was a not inconsiderableproportion of late painted pottery. This is in marked
contrast with what we found at the earlier buildings already described. Some of this later
pottery is described in the second part of this section.
Archaicandminiature
pottery
For the miniature pottery, and an assessmentof its date, comparePerachora
ii, chap. v. 290 f.
Pyxides Conicaloinochoai
I. Miniature. D. at rim 3-0 cm. Grey clay, decorated 5. Neck. Decorated with wavy vertical lines in black, now
with black paint inside and out, perhaps reserved out- worn. Similar to Perachoraii, no. 2142.
side around the belly. There is no sign of a handle. 6. Neck. Grey-buff clay. Traces of black and red paint.
Similar to Perachoraii, no. 3179. FIG. 10o. 7. Miniature. Intact. D. at base 3-3 cm. H. 3-8 cm. Yellow-
2. Lid. D. 8-o cm. Pale lemon clay decorated with con- buff clay. Decorated with a red band at the base,
centric rings in black and maroon, separated by re- two red lines on the cone, vertical red stripes on the
served bands. shoulder, red lines round the spout and on the handle.
3. Lid. D. 5-6 cm. Pale buff clay, decorated with con- Similar to Perachoraii, no. 2911. FIG.IO.
centric rings (some broken) in black, brown and
maroon, separated by reserved bands.
4. Concave sided. Miniature. D. 5-0 cm. at base. Lemon
clay. Decorated with black squares and red-brown
bands. Perhaps after the type Perachoraii, no. 3146.
FIG. IO.
4a. D. 6 cm. Pale orange clay. See FIG.10.
Phiale mesomphalos Gamingpiece

8. Intact. D. 5-5 cm. H. cm. io. Soft buff clay. Flat disc with raised edge in battlement
I.5 form. D. 3-4 cm. Decorated with incised horizontal
Yellow-buff clay. Unpainted. Compare Perachoraii, no.
298, and pl. 120. FIG. IO. lines on the side. FIG.10.
Cup Dish
9. Miniature. Rim and handle only. D. 4o0 cm. Horizon- I I. Miniature. Maximum D. 4'30 cm. Yellow clay. String
tal strap handle. Buff clay, with greyish paint inside marks on the base.
and out. Similar to Perachoraii, no. 2966-3005. IHG.Io.
Similar to Perachoraii, no. 3204.
Oinochoe
I a. Yellow-buff clay. See FIG. 10.
LaterPottery
This included several fragments of good Classical black glaze on orange clay which must be
Attic, though none of these was worth individual descriptionin the catalogue. Otherwise there
were two main categories: (i) simple pottery of Corinthian yellow clay, decorated with a thin
black glaze which generally does not cover the whole of the pot; (ii) sherds of a thin brittle
blue-grey fabric, on which the principal decorationwas a series of thin slightly oblique parallel
lines painted in black between bands of colour, particularly red.
Dishes Jug
12. Flattish dish with ring base. D. 15-6 cm. Lemon-yellow 18. Rim fragment. D. 8-o cm. Lemon-yellow clay. Good
clay, with thin black glaze inside and out. FIG.I o. black glaze inside and out.
Bowls Platter
13. Tapering profile to rim. Flaring base. D. at rim io-o cm. 19. Rim fragment. D. c. 32o0 cm. Bright red clay, fine
Lemon-yellow clay. Thin black glaze band, not hori- paste, but with no painted decoration.
zontal, round body. Rim black. Inside thin black all
over.
14. Flaring base of bowl similar to 13. D. of base 5'4 cm. CUp
Orange slip on outside; inside thin black all over. 2o. Fragments of the rim, with the beginnings of the handle.
Black band on inner wall of the foot. D. c. i6-o cm. Thin, hard, yellow fabric with orange
I5. Rim, possibly from a bowl. D. c. Io cm. slip.
Thin brittle blue-grey clay. Painted with a black band Painted outside with purple and black, with reserved
at the top outside, followed by a broad blue-grey band,
(orange) bands. Inside, thin black glaze.
and then an orange band. Inside, thin black glaze, with
a narrow reserved band.
16. Rim of small bowl. D. 9-o0cm. Lemon-yellow clay.
Thin black glaze inside and out.
17. Fragment of small bowl, with the rim. D. c. io cm.
Lemon-yellow clay. Thin black glaze inside and out.
190 R. A. TOMLINSON
Fragments
21. Base. D. 70o cm. Orange clay, with grey core. Thin the surface. Fluted on the outside. The impression of
black glaze inside. Outside, thin, slightly oblique, the flutes is also visible inside.
parallel lines rising from a black band near the base. 25. Body sherd, possibly from a bowl. Hard blue-grey clay,
Red-brown and black bands on the foot. FIG. IO. fired orange in places. Black band outside, monochrome
22. Flaring base. D. 4'9 cm. Grey clay. Inside, black glaze black inside.
with traces of a red band near the base. Outside, a 26. Body sherd, possibly from a bowl. Hard grey-orange
red band, with oblique parallel lines in black. Black clay. Painted outside with a blue-grey band, with
and red paint on the foot. vertical thin blue-grey lines below.
23. Flaring base. D. 7-ocm. Lemon-yellow clay. Thin 27. Body sherd. Pale grey clay. Thin black paint inside.
black glaze inside. Good black glaze outside and on Outside, a black band, with black parallel vertical lines.
foot. 28. Base of globular pot. Pale yellow clay. D. of base 9-o cm.
24. Body sherd. Red-brown clay, fired deep blue-grey on Thin black glaze on upper part of body.
Coarsewares
A considerable quantity of coarse ware sherds was found. The following rims from large
storagejars were selected for illustration (FIG. IO).
29. D. c. 35-0 cm. Coarse orange clay.
30. D. c. 40-0 cm. Coarse yellowish clay.
31. D. 46-o0cm. Coarse pale orange clay.
32. D. 24-0 cm. Coarse brown clay. Some relief decoration
on the top of the rim.
33. Rim with fragment of a horizontal handle. D. 20-o cm.
Coarse brown clay.
34. D. 16-o cm. Coarse yellow clay. Zigzag decoration
painted on top of the rim.
Spouteddish
35. D. 27 cm. Yellow-buff clay; small angular grit.
See FIG. IO.
OTHER BUILDINGS
The following buildings were cleaned, but apart from their plans yielded nothing of signi-
ficance, and it does not seem possible to fit them into the chronological scheme.
BI
As it survives, this consists of two rooms, B Ia and B Ib. It is not clear whether these are to
be regarded as separate or as parts of the same structure.
B Ia is a small square of field stone, 3-5 m. x 3-5 m., with walls approximately 0o60m. thick.
There is no trace of an entrance.
B Ib, which is not quite on the same alignment, lies approximately 1-50m. to the west.
Again the walls are made from field stone. The room is 4-0 m. wide; after extending westwards
for a maximum distance of 4-20 m., all trace of the walls disappears.
The depth of soil over these rooms was minimal, and secure dating material could not be
obtained. The pottery ranged from a conical oinochoe similar to Perachoraii, no. 217 of the early
seventh century B.c., to pieces with a fine black Classical glaze on orange clay.
B III
These walls lie to the south of B II and the overlying B IV. It was impossible to work out
any convincing structural form from them, and they may be merely terrace support walls.
Whether or not a building went with them is not clear. The coin, found near the west wall,
was in a superficiallevel, and does not provide any evidence for the date.
Materialfoundin BuildingB III

I. Coin AE.c. 400-300 B.C. Rather badly pitted. 2. Terracotta spindle whorl. Indented drum shape.
Obv. Pegasos, flying left. D. cm.
Rev. Trident upwards. H. 3.4
2-I cm. Yellow-buff clay.
Presumably the same as Perachoraii. 457, C. 8. Level r.
Z VI, Z VII
The rubble foundations of Z VI lie immediately to the east of the temple. They are incom-
plete, and it is not certain how far they originally extended to the south; a small piece of wall
to the east of Z III is on the same alignment, and if, as seems probable, it is not part of that
building, it may well mark the continuation of Z VI. At present the external east-west measure-
ment, which is complete, is m., with a short return to the south at the eastern end, and
a somewhat longer one, 2-50 3.96
m., the western end. It is not quite on the same alignment as the
at
temple.
Z VII comprisesa few insignificant blocks to the south, which do not seem to be part of the
south wall of Z I, II, and III.
Materialfoundin BuildingZ VI
Bronze
I. Pinhead. Slightly bent. L. as preserved 3'4 cm. Flat Perachorai, pl. 74 no. 17, though the rings are not
disc at head, followed by two globes, probably all that quite so pronounced as in that example.
originally existed. There are rings and hollows between Probably to be regarded as Payne's type A, and pre-
disc and globe and between the globes. The second sumably seventh century B.c.
globe is rather smaller than the first; both are ap- Level I.
parently plain. The nearest parallel seems to be 2. Plain ring. D. 2-6 cm. Th. 0o4 cm.
Perachorai, pl. 75 no. I, though the disc does not have Level 2.
the horizontal groove of this type, and the knob at 3. Plain ring. D. 2-4 cm. Th. 0o2 cm.
the end is not really heavy enough. Compare also Level 2.
The remaining walls on our plan were surveyed from the remains visible on the surfaceonly,
without clearing, and can be dealt with more summarily.
B V had been excavated by Payne or Dunbabin. It is built of large blocks in a technique
similar to that of buildings A I and A II. A line of stone continuing westwards seems to be a
terrace support; the space between this and building B IV probably marks the line of the
road. There is little depth of soil here.
C I is clearly a building, and uses sizeable blocks of stone. It may possibly be an eastward-
facing megaron, but it is not sufficiently well preservedfor certainty. Its technique, like that
of all structures to the west of this point, seems later than that of the archaic buildings
immediately to the east.
C II lies higher up the slope, behind a very long terrace wall. Two possible rooms can be
discerned, but this structure has been damaged by rock-fall from above.
Areas D, E, and F yielded only small fragmentsand isolated blocks, though more apparently
survived in Payne's day. D I and E I were evidently quite substantialstructures,but the surviv-
ing blocks do not enable us to do more than discern the general alignment. It is noticeable
that all the buildings in this, the highest part of the plain, are on the same alignment (more
192 R. A. TOMLINSON
noticeable on Payne's plan than on ours); this suggests that they are all part of the same phase
of construction which, again, would seem to be quite late.
E II is a small, apparently isolated square.
F I, though not very extensive as it is at present preserved, is made up of a few very large
blocks.
F II provides evidence for at least two rooms, though the resemblance to a megaron plan is
clearly fortuitous.
To the north of area B are a few isolated and fragmentarywalls, mainly terrace supports.
Elsewhere on the upper plain, evidence for other buildings is confined to two rectangular
structures, one partly incorporated into the surface of the modern road, and a second to the
north of the road; and a rectangular enclosure (rather than a building) with an adjacent terrace
wall, close to the rock bank that marks the eastern limit of the hard limestone cap covering the
upper plain.
BUILDINGS TO THE WEST OF THE UPPER PLAIN
On the ridge, immediately to the north of the two sanctuariesof Hera, but outside the fortified
area of the acropolis, are two buildings (FIG. 12). That to the west is marked clearly on the
ors
Plf~f~ 45
METRES
at
FIG. 12. BUILDINGS ON THE RIDGE ABOVE THE SANCTUARIES.
general plan in Perachorai, pl. I37. It is a rectangular structure, 14-oo m. X 5-60 m., divided
into two by a cross-wallsome 3 metresor so from the northern end. The southern end has been
completely destroyed although it apparently survived when the survey for Perachora i, pl. 137
was made. In that plan the cross-wallalso appearscomplete, so that the presentform, consisting
of two short sections of wall with a central doorway, may be fortuitous;however, both sections
have exactly the same length, and both end with the solid squared blocks that were found to
mark doorways elsewhere (for instance, in building B IV and Dunbabin's house [XIV], for
which see below). Otherwise the walls are of irregularrubble, but showing a tendency to employ
squarishor rectangularblocks. There is no indication of date. This building is now incorporated
into the car parking area at the end of the modern road.
The second building is some 36 metres to the east. It is also in the car parking area, and
partly in the roadway itself; here it has been totally destroyed. Even where the line of the walls
can be made out, there are serious gaps; the precise relationship of the various parts and,
often, their original form can only be guessed at. It is clear that the building did once extend
further to the south. At present it consists of two adjacent rectangular rooms (internal dimen-
sions approximately 4'4 m. x 4-o m., and 4'4 m. x 3-8 m.) with a corridor to the north. The east
wall of this corridor appears to terminate at a doorway leading to the outside, but there is no
guarantee that this is in its original condition. The remains of a wall leading south from
the eastern room were also visible.
The walls are again of rubble construction, and there is no indication of date. A small bronze
coin of Sikyon was found on the eastern side of the dividing wall between the two rooms,
probably of the fourth century B.C.
DUNBABIN'S HOUSE (XIV) (PLAN, FIG. 13)

This lies some distance to the east of the upper plain, closer to Lake Vouliagmeni. It appears
on the plan in Perachorai, pl. 137, at the western end of the preserved section of the (later)
ancient road, though it is not there given its number. We did not clean or re-excavate it, but
a new plan was prepared of its present state.
House XIV lies by the side of the road which led from the lake to the acropolis. As it climbs
to the upper plain the road is edged with large boulders. These are replaced by the southern
wall of the house, which is set back 2'53 m. from the line of the road. The house itself is
rectangular, 22-8 m. X I3.2 m. Outside, at the south-west corner is a bottle-shaped cistern
(marked on the plan in Perachorai, pl. 137 as a well), of which the entry shaft is similar in
plan, i.e. oval, to the cistern by the lake (see below p. 2 18), and to the well-shaft on the upper
plain.
The technique employed in the walls of the house differs from that of the buildings already
described. A footing of small stones was laid, probably in a trench, to give a level upper surface.
On this was placed a course of large blocks roughly trimmed. Only one such course survives,
though from the amount of fallen stone Dunbabin judged that the entire superstructurewas
of stone. Inside the building Dunbabin found a layer of whitish earth, which he refers to as
a 'floor'. It was probably similar to the clay floor of building B II.
The plan is unusual (FIG. 13). There appears to be a large courtyard at the western end.
Here the wall adjoining the road is damaged but there may have been an entrance leading
directly from the road into this court. Dunbabin found here a threshold 'set back from the
inside of the wall, consisting of four stones of the same nature as the rest of the building, nearly
flat but not square. The greatest continuous length was 1.79 m. by o'54 m.' We did not see
these blocks. There is definitely another entrance from the road at the other end of the south
wall, giving direct access to a passage c. 3'5 m. x m. In the east wall of this passage are two
9.o
doors each leading to a room. There is another long, narrow room at the north side. A doorway
to the west of the passage apparently leads to a corridor extension of the courtyard. From this
there is access to another room in the centre of the structure. Most of the door passages are
C 6659 O
194 R. A. TOMLINSON
flanked by large blocks of stone. The explanation of the plan seems to be that the set of rooms
in the eastern part of the house formed the residentialquarters,while to the west was a separate
court or yard for animals or carts.
Cistern
"V
(displaced)
ROAD
0 2 4 6 8 10
Metres
FIG. 13. DUNBABIN'SHOUSEXIV.
During his excavations Dunbabin found a complete tile of yellowish-green clay, 72-5 cm. X
61 cm., and other tiles with 'brown-black-paint typical of the fourth century B.c.'; an Attic
lamp and Corinthian kotyle of the late fifth-early four century B.c., 'and other fine sherds
which should be of the same date'. This seems to indicate a date in the fourth century B.C.
for the construction of the house and, in view of its connection with it, of the road also.
DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERWORKS OF THE UPPER PLAIN

The first study of the waterworkswas made during Payne's excavations, and in view of their
interest, a preliminary report was given in the first chapter of Perachora i. This was largely the
result of excavations supervised in 1933 by E. J. A. Kenny, who was then a student at the
school. He excavated the entrance to the staircase which leads, by way of the tunnel system,
to the bottom of the three deep shafts.6zThe photographsand drawings in this section illustrat-
ing the entrance to the staircase are by him. He explored as far as possible the underground
tunnel system linking the three shafts and the staircase, and discovered a branch leading west-
wards towards a well-shaft. The bottom of this shaft and the adjacent part of the tunnel are
blocked, but as there can be no doubt that the only way in which the stone blocking the tunnel
could have entered it was by way of the shaft, it is certain that the tunnel does reach to the
bottom of the shaft. He also carried out small excavations at the triple cistern further to the
west, cutting through the floor in the hope of finding material to date its construction.Another
exploratory trench here led to the discoveryof a runnel, which was followed for a short distance
from the triple cistern with a further sounding to prove the continuation of the line. This
promising work was not pursued further during that season, which was the last of Payne's
excavations. Kenny was of the opinion that the runnel led to the well-shaft, since in its first
alignment it is heading in this direction. However, he was not able to confirm this, and when
Payne wrote his preliminary account of the waterworksin the upper plain he quite obviously
thought that the systems of the deep shafts and the triple cistern with its runnel were separate
and distinct.63Although he does not state this in so many words he clearly believed that there
existed a series of water supply systems, including the smaller cistern by Vouliagmeni,64
necessitatedby a sizeable ancient town which stretchedfrom the area of the upper plain towards
Vouliagmeni.
In his supplementary excavations immediately before the war T. J. Dunbabin started to
clear the fill that had accumulated inside the easternmost deep shaft.6s He appears not to
have removed any material from the shaft itself, but to have contented himself with digging
at the east end, and depositing the spoil at the other. He managed by this means to expose
part of the shaft that had not been subjected to rock fall, so confirmingthe width of the shaft
at a considerabledepth below ground surface.This excavation removed only the very top of the
debris that partly fills the shaft, and cannot have yielded any evidence for the date of construc-
tion.
In 1964, when we were investigating the buildings of the upper plain, we trenched round the
well-shaft in the hope that we would find evidence to prove that the runnel ran from it. No
such evidence was found. In 1965 the runnel was followed systematically, and the changes of
alignment discovered, which showed that it led, not from the well-shaft, but from the top of the
three deep shafts. It thus became apparent that we had not two systems but one, linked and
extremely complex. The Director of the British School, Mr. Megaw, had already suggested
the possibilityof wheels and lifting machinery in the deep shafts, and the evidence of the runnel
now proved that these shaftswere not cisternsin the normal sense, but gave access to an under-
ground water table, from which water had been lifted and fed into the runnel to supply the
triple cistern. At the triple cistern itself, cleaning to find the original western end (which had
not been revealed during Payne's excavation) led to the discovery of a fountain house. A further
season's work in 1966 was devoted to this system of waterworks; the present publication is
62 Cf. Perachorai, fig. 5. 65 Recorded in his Field Notebook. The part where he
63 Perachorai. I I. 64 See below p. 218. had excavated was still plainly visible in 1966.
196 R. A. TOMLINSON
based on this work and that of the previousyear, except for the descriptionof the entrance to the
staircase of the deep shafts.
The waterworks of the upper plain, then, consist of three parts: the three deep shafts and
the well-shaft, with their interconnecting tunnels and the approach staircase; the runnel into
which water was fed after being lifted by way of the deep shafts; and the triple storage chambers
with the fountain house. Since the water originates at the bottom of the deep shafts, the de-
scription will begin with this part of the system.
THE DEEP SHAFTS AND ANCILLARY WORKS (FIG. 14, GENERAL PLAN)
The deep shaftsare situated close to the steeply rising hills which mark the southernboundary
of the upper plain, exactly at the point where the ground begins to rise from the general level
of the plain. Behind them the hills are not quite so abruptly steep as in the greater part of
their extent, since a hollow here intervenes, breaking the line of the ridge. The shafts are not
arranged in a straight line, though there is no obvious reason for this. It may have facilitated
the feeding of water from all three into a single runnel. At present the central and western
shafts are badly collapsed at their upper part, and it is possible to form only an approximate
idea of their size and alignment. The sides are covered with brushwood, and are dangerous to
approach. It is clear that the shaftswere not all of the same size. That at the west is the smallest,
that to the east the largest of the three. All have the same depth, at least as far as the tunnels;
it is not clear whether or not they descend any further.
The east shaft (FIGS. 15, 16; PLATE 53c) is relatively well preserved, and provides the best
evidence of the arrangement of the shafts at ground surface. Parts, but only parts, of the rock
at the surface, which is tolerably hard, have fallen away. Below this the softer rock is less well
preserved. Though it was possible to draw a plan of the shaft, and to measure its original
dimensions at ground surface,below this the sides have crumbled away to a depth of I I metres;
it is only below this point, where Dunbabin's excavations are still visible, that the original shape
of the shaft becomes evident again. We cleared most of the shrubsthat were growing round the
top of this shaft, and excavated down to the rock surfaceson both sides and at the east end.66
The shaft consists of a narrow slot I5-6 x 13 m., with the ends very slightly curved. The
sides are cut smooth, and are vertical. The rock surfaceall round the shaft, where it is preserved
in its original state, has been trimmed back to form a flat ledge about o-56 m. wide. The
level of this ledge is not constant, but rises and falls in a series of low steps, in accordance, it
would seem, with the natural level of the rock.The cuttings at the east end are more complicated,
with a rougher upper step, and a carefully trimmed lower one, o06om. wide, which continues
beyond the side of the shaft. The western end is not well preserved. On the south side there is
what appears to be a small dowel hole in the trimmed surface, and others even less distinct,
but otherwise there are no marks to indicate what was fitted into this ledge. The surface does
not seem to have been prepared for a stone wall, or foundations, and it is more likely that the
ledges held wooden beams. The step at the east end is particularly suitable for holding a baulk
of timber, which here would have been virtually wedged into position.
In order to reach the rock surface where these cuttings were made, the original soil-cover-
a reddish-brown clay-must have been removed. On the north side our trial trench did not
reveal any distinction in the soil, which had since fallen back on to the rock cutting. It seems
possible that after the wooden edging to the shaft had been fitted in position the soil was simply
put back behind it, but further excavation would be necessary to prove this. On the southern
66 The west end has fallen away, and is in a dangerous condition.
WEST SHAFT
t2
SECTlION
EAS ~5FT TUNNEL
a'EST SECTION 3
MIDDLE SHAFT SECTION 1
SUBSIDIARY
TUNNEL 1 TUNNEL/
UMAIN
STAIRWAY
(FOR DETAILSOF NICHES
C.F DIAGRAMOF WALL)
- LAMP NICHES
0 1 2 3 A5 6 7 8 9 10 11- 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 M
FIG. 14. SHAFT AND STAIRCASE PLAN
SHAFT
WEST
MIDDLE SHAFT SECTION 1

3
SECTION
SUBSIDIARY MAIN
TUNNEL 1
STAIRWAY
(FOR DETAILS OF NICHES
C.F DIAGRAM OF WALL)
-- LAMP NICHES
0 1 3 4 5 6 78 1011 12 13 1 15 16 17 18 19 20 METRES
FIG. 14. SHAFT AND STAIRCASE PLAN
(EXISTING)
SHAFT
CUTTING
CUTTINGS
OF
OF
(EXISTING)
ROCK
EDGE
EXCAVATION METRES
LINE
OF
OF EDGE
LIMIT
ROCK
EDGE FORMER
FORMER
- - - -
9
9
jo)P
EXCAVATED 9
NOT
15
FIG.
SHAFT
EAST
40
198 R. A. TOMLINSON
side the arrangementsare more complex. At approximately 2-25 m. back from the edge of the
shaft we found the steeply falling edge of a very distinct level of white powdered rock. A spill
of this overlies the red natural subsoil up to the edge of the shaft, but this appears to have been
washed down from the original deposit, which must once have been held back by a revetment.
As there was no trace of a stone wall, or of its foundations, this again was presumablyof timber.
This would have been fixed in the subsoil, and as we found no traces of it it must have been
deliberately removed at some stage, and not allowed to decay.67The powdered white rock
is without doubt the debris excavated from the shaft. It had been deliberately placed all to
one side of the shaft, and set back slightly from its edge, in order to provide a level platform.
LO
5 4 3 2
lx-
1
55
FIG. 16. EAST SHAFT: ORIGINAL STATE (AXONOMETRIC RECONSTRUCTION).
This platform is still discernible, since it contrastswith the natural slope of the ground at this
point, and there are similar platforms behind the west and central shafts. We did not clean
or excavate the platform, apart from its northernedge. The pottery found here ranges from the
Archaic period to the fourth century B.C., the latest predominating. Failing full excavation
the platformdoes not of itself provide evidence of its purpose or function, but only of its extent,
height, and general relationship with the shaft.
The only other part of the first section of this water system to be visible at ground surface is
the entrance to the staircase, excavated by Kenny in 1933. To prevent damage this was partly
filled in after the excavation, and the following description is based on Kenny's report, plan
and photographs. The entrance is situated 68 m. north of the central shaft. It consists of two
parallel retaining walls, 6-3 m. long, built for the most part of rectangular blocks of completely
random size, with only partial attempts to arrange them in courses. Only one block is of
polygonal shape, the style of the wall being comparable with that employed in the hestiatorion.
67 It is also possible that the
powdered rock once extended up to the wooden beams which surrounded the top of
the shaft, and has either fallen or been dug away.
At its highest point the top of this wall is at present o-o7 m. below the level of the topmost
step that survives, and 0-20 m. below the ground level. There would presumably have once
been another line of blocks above those that survive, to bring the walls above ground level; but
the exact original height must remain unknown, and it is not clear whether or not these walls
RETAININGWALL AT TOP OF STAIRWAY
ROCK
LEVEL
WEST SIDE
O 20 40 60 go 100
METRES
ROCKLEVEL
EAST SIDE
THE
AFTERBY
DRAWING
ANMDE
KENNY
FIG. I7.
did more than form a low parapet. The walls extend downwards as far as the bedrock, which
is here the hard limestone cap, some I135m. below the present ground level. The lowest line
of blocks rests directly on the limestone, which has been trimmed back to receive them.
The northern part of these walls survives in situ (FIG.17): they can be seen in PLATE 54a,
taken by Kenny during his 1933 excavations. The northern end appears to have been formed
by the topmost step, whose upper surface had been badly damaged (probably by ploughing,
which must also have exposed and led to the disappearanceof the topmost blocks of the wall).
This step was wider than the others, and rested at either end over the side walls. Presumably
there is an earth fill, or more stonework, underneath.
200 R. A. TOMLINSON
At the southern end, where they were not supported by the steps which have here passed
below the rock surface, the walls have collapsed, and this part was not excavated. PLATE54b
shows this end during Kenny's excavation: it would seem that the west wall fell over on to
the steps and the eastern wall.
There would seem to have been no roof over the steps where they are flanked by these walls:
the roof begins only when the staircase has descended a sufficient depth to give head room
within the limestone cap, and from which it is formed. At the southern end the earth must have
been kept back by a wall, joining the two flanking walls. Only the lowest block of this wall
remains in position at the present day.
Access to the staircase is now possible only at the southern end of the original rectangular
opening. It would seem that the blocks of the collapsed retaining walls here fell deeper into the
tunnel, where they still conceal several of the steps. The existing opening must have been made
accidentally, probably as the result of ploughing. It already existed before the 1930 excavations,
but since there is no sign in the tunnel of recent entries, it may not then have been in existence
for very long. The staircase (FIG. 18 and PLATE54c) continues the angle of descent already
determined by the uppermost stairs; that is, 270. The sides of the tunnel are cut from the
natural rock, and are left in a completely rough-hewn state, so that it is possible to distinguish
the marks caused by the use of the point and the blade of a pick. The sides are not absolutely
vertical, but incline inwards slightly towards the roof. At the bottom the tunnel is 0o83m.
wide, and below the curve of its roof, 0o68m. The roof itself has the curved profile normal in
rock-cut work of this sort, being easier to cut, and also, it would seem, acting as a natural
vault. The maximum height is 1-85 m. above the steps. At the sides, but predominantly in the
west side, is a series of small holes, flat at the bottom, curved at the top, the approximate
dimensions being in the order of 0oI2XOIo xo0o5 m. These are normally about 0-75 m.
above the level of the nearest step (A to X on The Section). Though there are no marks of
blackening on the rock above them, there seems little doubt that their purpose is to serve as
niches for lamps. By this means the whole length of the staircase could be illuminated when
necessary. We shall also see that similar niches exist in the horizontal tunnels, in which they
are most obviously placed where lamps could give the maximum of useful illumination.
Where most light was needed, for example at corners,the niches are generally larger, to accom-
modate multi-nozzle lamps.68
The rock through which the staircase is cut varies in quality; the strata that we could di-
stinguish appear on the sectional drawing, FIG. 8. It will be observed that this stratificationis
much more complex than that shown on Perachora i, fig. 5. There appear to have been several
levels which could have produced water, even in the staircase itself; a succession of layers of
sandstone, separated by impervious bands of marl. There are occasional fissuresin the sand-
stone, through which the water seeped (PLATE 54e).
Only at the top of the staircase is there a level of hard limestone. None of the other rock is
at all hard-wearing, and thereforethe steps could not be simply cut from it. Each step consists
of a separate block of the hard limestone, probably taken from the quarries on the northern
side of the upper plain, carefully placed in position. These blocks measure 0o97x 0-55 x o 18-
0-20 m. and so are slightly wider than the passage itself, so that an additional cutting was
necessaryon either side to receive them. This cutting was not carefullydone, and it is possible to
tfeelinto it, down the sides of the steps, and even underneath them. It appears to be continuous
for the length of the staircase, and can be seen in the photograph (PLATE54e). Not all the
steps are visible now. Those revealed in the excavation of the entrance to the staircase are now
68The position of these niches is shown on the plan (FIG. 16) and on the west side of the staircase in the section (FIG. 20).
COARSI
MARL / SANDSTONE
MARL 0O
N
L
K
SOFTER MARL H
"
SANDSTONE CONGLOMERATE
SANDSTONE AND MARL D

IN ALTERNATING LAYERS
(HARDER SANDS) c
------------
COARSE SANDSTONE
A
WITH PEBBLE
MARL
FIG. 18
GROUND LEVEL y V y V
SOIL
LIMESTONE
MARL
CONGLOMERATE
SANDSTONE
Here the are obscured

walls by
SOFTER MARL rubble, but, with light from the
entrance, lamps would not be needed
COARSER MARL V
U
S
S
Between these points the west wall

is partly obscured by rubble and no
lamp niches are at present visible
01 23 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1314 I 1 METRES
8METRES
. 18
completely covered, as are those in the first part of the descending tunnel, where much
rubble has fallen in from the entrance. But, where visible, the steps are of regular dimensions
(though the tread varies slightly, from to 0-38o m.), and so it is possible to calculate the
number here concealed. The total number o.365
of steps, depending on how far the staircaseactually
descended, must have been either 159 or I6o. The bottom of the staircase is at present com-
pletely buried.
At the bottom of the staircase the ceiling levels out, as presumably does the buried floor of
the passage.69After a short interval the passage branches into three tunnels which are here
largely filled with brown marl, washed from the marl levels through which both passage and
tunnels pass. Silt may also have entered this part of the system through the deep shafts, but it
is not perhaps so likely to have been spread from them throughout the passages. It is just
possible to move along the main branches of these tunnels, and to reach, or see, the points
where they enter the western and central shafts. The tunnel which tends in the general direc-
tion of the eastern shaft was too completely blocked to allow us to crawl far enough along it
to determine how it entered the shaft. When Kenny entered the systemin 1933it was completely
dry. In 1966, however, the branch leading to the west shaft, and from the west shaft to the
well-shaft, was holding water. The water itself was pure and drinkable, with no unpleasant
taste.
The tunnel system (PLATE 54d) consistsof three parts: a continuation of the staircasepassage
as a horizontal tunnel, and two branch tunnels, one to the east, and one to the west. The first
is short, and on precisely the same straight alignment as the staircase tunnel. It enters the
central shaft towards its western end. The east tunnel was traced as far as possible, by moving
some of the silt, and probing where it was no longer possible to crawl. It undoubtedly leads
to the east shaft. Before that there is a secondary southward branch (subsidiary tunnel I),
which leads to the eastern end of the central shaft. A cluster of lamp niches provided for
illumination at the junction. Beyond this junction the east branch itself makes a change of
alignment, but the purpose of this cannot for certain be understood without clearance of the
passage.
The west branch makes directly for the western shaft, which it enters probably at about
5 metres from its western end; that is, at about its centre, though both the shaft and the tunnel
would need to be cleared in order to verify our calculated measurements.Just before it reaches
the shaft, a slightly narrower branch leads off north-westwardsat virtually 900. After some
3 metres it changes direction by 900 again, to the south west, and runs into the north-west
corner of the western shaft, the only place where a lower section of a shaft is at all visible. It
then turns again through 90o and heads in a north-westerlydirection, curving slightly. There
is a distinct step in the southern side of this passage, 21 28 m. from the corner of the shaft,
which seems to suggest that it was constructed from both ends simultaneously, and that this
is the point where the tunnellers met. In 1966 we were not able to go beyond this step, as
the water here reached to the roof of the tunnel. This tunnel is provided with lamp niches
apparently on a more generous scale than the others, though it may simply be that more
remain uncovered in this part of the system. At the north-west corner of the west shaft there
is visible from the passage a large block of stone with worked surfaces: one flat, the other
(an adjacent end) cut in a concave curve (PLATE59a).
69 The exact levels are impossible to determine without towards the well-shaft, which we could compare with the
clearance of the tunnels. It does not appear that the tunnels water level, definitely does slope down; though, as can be
are absolutely level; they seem to decline away from the seen in the photograph, this slope is not very pronounced.
junction. The ceiling of the section from the west shaft
202 R. A. TOMLINSON
As noted above, there can be no doubt that this tunnel leads to the bottom of the well-shaft.
This shaft is elliptical (I 40 x 0 m.), and is at present open to a depth of some 18 metres.
There are footholds in the longer sides, at intervals of about 0-50 m. It is surrounded at the
surface by a square of ashlar blocks, forming a well head: only one course of this survives, and
it is not clear whether or not it continued higher to form a wall.
The presence of a water level in this tunnel in 1966 showed that the roof line runs downhill
towards the west. Presumably the same applies to the floor of the tunnel. In the summer of
1968, when preparationswere being made to give the modern road to the lighthouse an asphalt
surface, the weight of the bulldozer used caused a second shaft to be revealed. It is situated
in the area to the west of the upper plain, about 400 m. west of the Fountain House. It is
similar in shape and dimensions to the well-shaft on the upper plain. At present it is open to
a depth of some II metres. The possibility of a connection existing between this and the tunnel
system of the upper plain is discussed below.
THE RUNNEL
The runnel is the essential link between the deep shafts and the storage reservoirsbehind
the fountain house.
The section uncovered by Kenny in 1933 now lies concealed under the modern road,
except for the very end where it runs into a tank. We traced it from the other side of the road,
in the reversedirection (that is, towardsits source), by opening trenches at selected points along
its alignment. Where that failed, as a result of the changes in alignment, we cleared up to the
corner where the change occurred, and then pursued the runnel along the new line.
The construction of the runnel varies with the nature of the rock or subsoil through which it
passes. The storage reservoirsinto which it dischargedwere cut in the soft rock which underlies
the hard limestone cap. Where it approaches the reservoirsthe runnel had to be cut through
this limestone cover (PLATE 53a). At this point it is formed simply by the cutting in the rock.
Further east it has to pass at a higher level above the bedrock, and through the natural red
subsoil. Here it is built (PLATES 53b, 55a). The method seems to have been as follows. A trench,
wider and deeper than the intended runnel was cut into the soil. A layer of lime mortar was
placed at the bottom of the trench, and in it were set flat stones or fragments of tile, which
formed the actual bottom of the runnel, while other stones and tile fragments were set upright
to form the sides, usually I m. apart. The space between the outer faces of these stones and
the side of the trench waso.filled with the same mortar. The depth of the runnel varies from
I 0 to 15 centimetres. The most restrictedsection measuredwas I Ix i o centimetres.The runnel
was then covered with tile fragments, either pieces of pantile broken to the right size, or ridge
tiles. The width of the runnel seems to have been determined by the size of the available
ridge tiles.70 These are not separate ridge tiles, but the ridge part broken off from tiles
in which pan and ridge were combined. Less frequently sections of curved tile were found.
Specimens of both types were taken to the Corinth Museum, where they were identified as
belonging to the fifth century B.C.,the curved ones to the early part, the others to the later part.
There can be little doubt that they are second-hand, and give no more than a terminus postquem
for the construction of the runnel. They would have come from a building at Perachora,
presumably the adjacent temple Z IV. (The numerous tile fragments that litter the soil in
70 A similar runnel exists in the temenos of Poseidon at with fragments of roof tiles taken from the classical temple
Isthmia. An earlier runnel there appears to have been simply (damaged by fire in 394 B.c.), and also covered with them.
cut in the clay and lined with plaster; rounded edges in- See O. Broneer, Hesperiaxxviii (1959) 306.
dicate that it was not covered. A later loop was constructed
the vicinity of the runnel may well be the builders'trimmingsfrom the tiles used in construction
of the runnel itself.) In the rock-cut section the top of the runnel still consists of tile fragments,
here exclusively pantiles, resting on steps cut in the sides of the rock and cemented into place.
No waterproofingwas necessaryin the rock-cut section.
Near its beginning, by the deep shafts, the runnel was constructedon the surface,in order to
give a sufficient head of water on a steady gradient down to the reservoirand fountain house.
The starting point must also have been determined by the arrangementsfor filling the runnel
at the shaft-heads, presumably through troughs which would also have been above ground.
As a result, the first few metres of the runnel have been completely destroyed by ploughing.
We were able to follow the alignment of the runnel by means of the flecks of mortar which
still survive from its foundations; and though it cannot actually be traced right up to the shafts,
there can be no doubt that it once reached them.
The gradient of descent is constant until the runnel comes to the cap of hard rock over the
triple storage cistern. Here for a while the gradient is reversed, so that the water had to flow
slightly uphill. The result is that the runnel here constitutes a pressure pipe, though I doubt
whether this was intentional. The system of covering the runnel with tiles cemented into
position means that a section of uphill flow would not seriously impair its efficiency.
As far as possible the runnel runs on a straight alignment. There are two changes of direction,
both of them in the first part near the shafts. It is not now certain why the runnel initially
runs almost due west, before making the first change to the north-west.The direction is possibly
dictated by the need to collect in a single runnel water from all three shafts. The explanation
of the changes of alignment would then be the need to avoid the well-shaft on the one side,
and the temple on the other; or, if the latter was a ruin from which tiles could be taken, at least
the sacred enclosure, together with the adjacent houses, would be avoided.
At its far end the runnel issues directly into a small tank (PLATE 55b), I14 X "105m., the floor
of which is on a level with the floor of the runnel. At the opposite side another channel takes the
water out of the tank. Again, the floor of this channel is at the same level as that of the runnel
and the tank, but rock projecting on either side probably markswhere a movable board could
be inserted. No precautions can be discerned at present to prevent dirt entering the tank from
outside, or the channel, or the shaft through which the water dropped into the storagechambers.
There are no traces of a cover at any of these points. The tank was cut directly into the rock,
with no smoothing of the surface at the edges where a wooden cover could have rested. It is
possible that the original surface of the rock has here been completely worn away, taking with
it all traces of any covers that may have existed.
The shaft into the storage chambers has two sections side by side, one down which the water
fell, the other, with hand- and foot-holdsin the sides, to facilitate human access to the chambers
and to enable water to be drawn from the section of the storage system which it enters, since,
as will be seen below, this does not feed directly into the fountain house. With the original west
wall of the storage chambers intact, there were only two other points of entry to the under-
ground parts: the adjacent rectangular shaft, and a second shaft which enters over the wall
dividing the northern from the central chamber,7' which also has entry foot-holds.
THE STORAGE CHAMBERS AND THE FOUNTAIN HOUSE
The general plan of the storage chambers and fountain house appears on FIG. 19.
In this area the upper plain divides into two: an uppermost part, so to speak, to the south,
'1 For these, see below p. 207.
204 R. A. TOMLINSON
z-
METRES
10
,0
I1
FIG.
CHAMBERS
STORAGE
AND
PERACHORA
HOUSE
FOUNTAIN
where slight remainsof buildingswere noticed (see above pp. 172-3) and which gives accessto the
platform on which stands Ay. Nikolaos's chapel and, more abruptly, to the head of the Heraion
valley; and a lower part to the north, along which the modern road leads to the lighthouse.
These two parts are separated from each other by a steep scarp, produced by the ending of the
hard limestone cap at this point, and the consequent more rapid erosion of the softer rock
underneath. The top of the scarp is formed by the edge of the limestone cap, and beneath it
comes the softer rock.
This soft rock is, of course, most easily quarried, and one of the reasons why the storage
chambers were constructed at this point was to take advantage of this geological formation.72
The hard cap of limestone constituted a natural ready-made roof. The underlying rock was
easily removed to form the storage chambers, while the steep face of the scarp itself was an
ideal position for the fountain house. The result is that the fountain house is an inconvenient
distance from the main agglomeration of houses, though it is by no means certain how many
of these were still in existence when the waterworks system was constructed. The fountain
house, however, is close to the line of the later road which runs from the west side of the lake
towards the cape, and which, a little to the west of the fountain house, is on the same line as
the modern road. Its exact course in the vicinity of the fountain house is uncertain. Payne
thought it swept round to the north of the reservoir, and this is very likely.73
The storage reservoir consists of three main chambers running east to west (PLATES56a-b:
Section, FIG. 20). Parts of them were known in Payne's day, and they appear on the plan in
Perachorai. At that time their western end was unknown, and they were thought to be parallel.
Our excavations have shown that they in fact converge towards the west. The width of the
chambers is 1-67 m. (north chamber), 1.79 m. (central chamber), and 1.77 m. (south chamber)
measured internally. They are 2-46 m. high, from the floor to the highest point of the roof,
which, being rock-cut, is slightly curved in section. The lengths vary. The northernmost
chamber is 29 m. long, and runs from the west to the east walls. The middle chamber also
runs between these walls: it is 28-3 m. long, and includes (at its eastern end) a return to the
north (only I 18 m. wide), which is separated from the northern chamber only by a dividing wall.
The southern chamber is shorter, 26 m., and runs from the west wall up to the wall that divides
it from a small north-south chamber measuring 670o x I .I7 m. The total capacity, assuming
that the chambers were filled to the top of their masonry lining (i.e. 2o05 m. above the floor),
is: north chamber 99'3 cu. m.; central chamber i I234 cu. m. (including the return); south
chamber 94'34 cu. m.-; cross chamber 16-04 cu. m. Total 332-o2 cu. m., or, if the draw-basins
are included, 348-77 cu. m. This compares with Lerna, where the chambers and draw-basins
hold 34I cu. m. (Roebuck, Corinthxiv, 106). All the chambers are lined with heavy masonry
"3o6
walls, of large ashlar blocks in four courses. The bottom course projects slightly into the chamber.
The top course does not quite reach the ceiling, the small intervening space being filled with
rubble and plaster. The reason for this is probably to facilitate the placing of the uppermost
course of ashlars.The faces of the blocks were carefully pecked with a pick to key in a rendering
of waterproofplaster. The intersticesbetween the blocks were recessed so that the plaster there
formed a thicker plug for the joints. The ends of the blocks were given anathyrosis,to assure
perfect contact, and the hollowed spaces between the contact surfaces were also filled with
72 For the technique of removing a soft layer from be- pl. 137. West of the fountain house this line has been in-
neath a harder cap which is left to form a roof, cf. the corporated into the modern road. In Ig66 we were able to
fountain of Lerna at Corinth (Roebuck, Corinthxiv, Ioo, the draw and photograph some of the ancient ruts then still
corridor). visible before they were damaged by a bulldozer re-levelling
73 The remains of this road which were still visible in the road. In 1968 the modern road was remade, and the
the 1930s are shown on Payne's general plan, Perachorai, ruts completely buried.
206 R. A. TOMLINSON
a plug of plaster. Where the lower course projects forward, the plaster cover was also brought
forward with a plain 450 splay. The floors were constructed of broken rubble with a plaster
rendering, and are convex in section, so that when the cisterns were emptied the water would
run to the edges, and down towards the front.
0 1
METRE
FIG. 20. SECTION ACROSS NORTH STORAGE CHAMBER.
Water entered through the shaft already described,into the small north-south crosschamber.
From here it entered the southern chamber, by way of a hole 0-o8 m. in diameter, in the centre
of the dividing wall and at the top of the second course, some o090m. above the floor. As far
as we could see, there was no similar inlet from the cross chamber to the central chamber.
The water would thereforehave to pass into the central and northern chambers by way of the
draw-basins. From the south chamber to the south draw-basin there is an inlet at floor level.
This basin would therefore fill at the same time as the chamber behind it. When the water
in this basin reached a depth of 0o90m. it reached a hole 0-06 m. in diameter linking the
south draw-basin with the central one, and water would then flow into that, and into the
central chamber behind (which was also linked with its draw-basin by an inlet at floor level).
The flow could then continue until the central part of the systemwas filled to a depth of 0o90o
m.,
when the inflow would be able to enter the northern draw-basin and storage chamber in the
same way. When this was filled to the depth of 0-90m., the waterlevel would thereafterrise
simultaneouslyin all three chambersand draw-basinsuntil they were full. As has been re-
markedalready,abovethe top of the masonrylining(the fourthashlarcourse)the sidesof the
chambershave a layer of brokenstone sealedwith waterproofplaster,which is also applied
to the rockof the roof.This, however,wouldbringthe waterlevel above the presumedtop of
the draw-basinfront,so thatit wouldspilloveron to the fountainhousefloor.The depthof the
draw-basins,2-05m., is equatedwith thatof the storagechambersup to the top of the masonry,
and this is obviouslythe level to which they were filled. The waterproofingabove this level
may havebeendonesimplyto sealthe storagesystem,perhapsagainstthe possibilityof surface
waterseepingthroughinto them.
As can be seen fromthe plan, the east wall of the centralchamberrunsacrossthe entrance
to anothertunnel, irregularand curving.There is a spill-overhere, the markson the outer
side of whichshowthat waterwould have flowedfromthe centralchamber,when it was full,
into the tunnel.This leads to an irregularchamberthat held perhapssome20-25 cu. m. Here
there is no trace of a carefullybuilt lining wall, or, as it survivesat present,of a rendering
of waterproofplaster.The chamberis at presenthalf-filledwith debrisand the floorcannotbe
seen. It has the appearance(whichcannot,however,be confirmed)of being an afterthought.
The originalchambermay have been enlargedthroughcollapseof its roof and walls. In the
roofof this chamberis a long rectangularshaftwith curvedends,open to the sky (PLATE 55c).
This chamber,with its shaft,is describedin the preliminaryreports,and in Perachora i, as a
catchpit.Since, however,the markson the wall which dividesit from the centralchamber
show clearlythat waterflowedfrom the storagereservoirinto it, it must be a chamberfrom
which watercould be drawnwhen needed, and not one throughwhich waterwas collected.
On the rock surfaceby this rectangularopeningare markssuggestiveof the seatingfor an
apparatusto drawwater-in all probability,judgingfromthe shapeof the opening,a wheel.
Also cut into the rock surfaceare the beginningsof what appearto be troughsor channels,
thoughtheymaybe simplyslotspreparedto holdtimberbeams.It seemsstrangethatmachinery
was neededto raisewaterto the samelevel at which, only a few metresaway, it was flowing
beforeit enteredthe cistern.The explanation,which will be elaboratedbelow, may well be
that the watersourcesupplyingthe runnelwas intermittent,and couldnot be dependedon to
coincidewith the seasonwhen water was neededfor the purposesfor which the rectangular
shaft,withits apparatus,wasconstructed.Whatthispurposewasis not absolutelycertain.Since
it would appearthat humanneedswere adequatelycateredfor at the fountainhouse,it must
be eitherfor animalsor irrigation,and in all probabilitythe former,unlessthe flow down the
runnelcould be maintainedin the irrigationseason.
Near this rectangularopeningis a secondshaftgiving accessto the storagechambers.In
planit hastwo straightsidesand semicircularends,and descendsto a positionoverthe dividing
wall betweenthe northchamberand the northreturnof the centralchamber.Thispartappears
to be coveredwith a secondaryrendering,probablyRoman,and it is not possibleto makeout
the originalarrangements.The shafthas footholdsin its sides, and gives accessto the north
chamber,and possibleaccessto the centralchamber;thoughthereare no corresponding foot-
holds in the lining of the chambers at this point, thus making it impossible to climb from the
storage chamber floors to the bottom of the shaft without a ladder. The purpose of this shaft
is not certain. To enter the south chamber it would be necessary to climb with the aid of a
ladder over the dividing wall from the north-south cross chamber (itself entered by the shaft
from the runnel and tank, which has the necessary footholds). It would be no more difficult
by the same means to pass from the cross chamber to the central chamber, and from the
208 R. A. TOMLINSON
METRES
surface
0
PLAN.
floor
to
edge HOUSE:
Existing
FOUNTAIN
THE
I.
21
FIG.
-
t /
s..
II/ ii
I I
. .
II
i
I _
I
o
I r
I, I
I _ 1 ._.
..
Ic
I
I, I
5>
I
IItI'
_ _ _ _ _
,,
FIG. 22. THE FOUNTAIN HOUSE: THE FA9ADE RESTORED
I I
' I
I
7 7 7 7 -117'-
"i
'
______________________ ___________
L\1Li0
____ ____________/
central chamber to the north chamber, so that the second shaft seems unnecessary. It may
therefore be a later addition, made when the functioning of the storage system was altered
(see below p. 242) and intended to serve as a well. Since there are footholds provided where
access to the system was considered necessary-that is, to the cross chamber and the draw-
basins-and since the cross chamber itself would have acted as a settling tank, it may well
be that the original intention was that the main storage chambers were to be virtually inacces-
sible (they could not be completely sealed off since the plasterers would have had to leave
after they had finished waterproofingthem).
The fountainhouse(FIGs. 2 I, 22, 23, 24; PLATES56c-dand 57) is situatedon the lowerlevel
at the foot of the scarp, which was trimmed back vertically to accommodate it. It consisted
OF ROOF
NB DETAILS
CONJECTURAL
ROMANWALL
ROMANFLOOR HELLENISTIC
FLOOR
kELLENISTIC
(EXTERIOR) LEVEL
GROUND DRAWBASIN STORAGECHAMBER
1
METRES
FIG. 23. SECTION THROUGH THE FOUNTAIN HOUSE.
of a hexastyle prostyle Ionic fagade. At the back are the three draw-basinsalready mentioned,
behind which comes the rear wall that divides the fountain house from the storage chambers
that supply it. The floor of the fountain house was originally almost level with the ground
to the west. (See section, FIG. 23.) The main structure is formed by the rear wall and the two
short side walls that project forward from it. The rear wall rises from the bottom of the draw-
basins, which is level with the floor of the storage chambers, and some 1 m. below the level
of the fountain house floor. It was impossible to investigate the foundations.50 on which this wall
stood without destroying the finely preserved plaster floor of either the draw-basins or the rear
chambers. Since the bottom course projects forward both in the storage chambers, as already
C 6659 P
210 R. A. TOMLINSON
described, and in the draw-basins, it may well rest simply in a level trench cut into the soft
rock, which would certainly be firm enough at this depth. This is the method used with the
euthynteriaunder the colonnade. At present the rear wall survivesto a total height of five courses.
The heights of these are, from bottom to top: (I) 0-44 m. (the visible part of the block only);
(2) 0-54 m.; (3) 0-54 m.; (4) o056m.; and (5) o060m. The thickness of the wall is 0.54 m. It
extends a little beyond the two outer storage chambers, and then returnsto form the side walls.
At first the side walls form the outer ends of the north and south draw-basins, and here they
descend to correspondwith the rear wall. Outside the draw-basinsthe walls rest on a toichobate
of normal type, level with the fountain house floor. The toichobate course continues forward
in front of the antae that terminate the side walls, to form the stylobate of the Ionic fagade.
The stylobate rests on a single euthynteria course which appears to extend also under the toicho-
bate proper.
These walls are preserved only to the full height of the storage chambers. Either as a result
of the collapse of the storage chamber roofs at the western end, or of deliberate destruction,
blocks of the upper courses have fallen from the rear wall where it crosses the front of each
storage chamber. These would be the weakest points of the wall. The side walls of the storage
chambers are bonded into the rear wall, and this undoubtedly has helped to preserve it. The
blocks used in the rear wall are of the same massive character as those that line the storage
chambers.
The rear wall must once have continued higher than the present topmost course. Cuttings
where the original rock is preservedin situ at the southern end of the fountain house wall show
that the rear wall was carried up in front of the rock roof of the storage chambers. In all
probability it continued up to the original upper ground level at this point, that is, to the top
of the limestone cap. At the nearest point where the original surfaceof this cap can be measured
by levelling, the western extremity having here collapsed into the storage chambers, it is
6-76 m. above the floor of the fountain house. This gives an approximate indication of the
original height of the rear wall.
Between the side walls, and immediately in front of the rear wall are the three draw-basins.
The back of these, and the outer sides of the north and south basin are, as already described,
formed by the rear and side walls respectively. The front of the basins is also built of large
slabs of stone 0-54 m. thick. These are still covered on their inner side with the waterproof
plaster lining of the basins, or lie concealed below the plaster floor; being unwilling to damage
either feature, we were unable to obtain further details of their dimensions. The impression
given is of immense slabs, three times the height of the normal wall courses. One of these
slabs, where the plaster has fallen away a little, has a A inscribed on it, presumably a mason's
mark. The front of the basins is as high as the walls of the storage chambers (otherwise
the chambers could not have been filled to this level). It therefore rose above the fountain
house floor, forming a low parapet.74This upper part was not as thick as the lower, being
only 0o32m.; the floor overlies part of the thicker lower section (see FIG. 23). The parapet
section has mostly been knocked away, and is best preserved at the southern end, where part
had been incorporated into a Roman structure which later occupied the site of the fountain
house (see below p. 242). Recesses cut into the north and south side walls show where, at the
top, the balustradewas bonded into them. The top surfacewas slightly rounded. The individual
basins were divided from one another by slabs running between front and rear walls. These
74 Compare the similar parapet in front of the draw- the fountain house fagade was higher than that of the
basins of the 'fountain of Theagenes' at Megara (Gruben, drawbasins and storage chamber behind.
ADelt 19 (1964) A 39 and plan I). There also, the floor of
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CM
FIG. 24. THE FOUNTAIN HOUSE: DETAILS OF THE ORDER.
212 R. A. TOMLINSON
are 0-32 m. thick, and are positioned to make the draw-basins 2-93 m., 3-22 m., and 2-94 m.
long respectively, from north to south. The width of each draw-basinis o90om. The dividing
slabs were bonded into the rear wall in the same way that the front slabs were bonded into the
side walls, and like them they do not survive much above the general level of the fountain
house floor. The sides of each basin are completely lined with waterproof plaster o-oi m.
thick, containing grit. This also covers the floors, presumably over rubble in the usual way.
The plaster lining is finished with a continuous splay running round the bottom of each basin,
and there is another splay at the top of the first course of the rear wall forming a skirting and
correspondingto that on the other side of the wall, in the storage chambers. This skirtingoccurs
only at the back and at the sides of each basin, not acrossthe front, where there was not a wider
bottom course to the masonry. Each basin was connected with the storage chamber behind
by the small entry holes at floor level. These holes are quite roughly made, and interrupt the
lower splay. This splay is also interrupted at the bottom of the front slabs by similar holes,
which would have enabled the draw-basins to be drained for cleaning. Similarly the draw-
basins at Megara (Gruben, loc. cit.) had draining channels leading from them. A trench dug
outside the fountain house (to avoid spoiling the floor) on the alignment of the hole from the
central basin failed to reveal a pipeline carrying off the surpluswater. Either the pipes connect
under the fountain house floor and run out at a different point, or the pipe at this point has
been destroyed by the digging of a large later pit which we found here. Each draw-basin has
one of these drainer holes, arranged so that it is not directly opposite the hole communicating
with the storage chamber. None of these holes is centrally placed, either in the draw-basinsor
in the front of the storage chambers.
Other provision was made for the draw-basins to be cleaned out periodically. A series of
footholds was cut at the southern end of each draw-basin, in the front and rear walls. The
actual footrest is formed in the rear wall, by part of the upper surface of the second and third
courses, the cutting being made in the bottom of the course above. Below this the projecting
skirting would have served as a foothold. This represents the final element in the elaborate
arrangements to keep the water clean.
As already indicated, the fagade to the fountain house consisted of six Ionic columns, which
stood on a stylobate coming immediately above the euthynteria. This euthynteriacourse was made
from blocks I-o3 x I 03 0o46 m., the blocks at either end being 1-54 m. long. They were placed
directly in a trench7 cut in the soft rock, the bottom of which had been accurately levelled
to receive them. The width of the fountain house, measured on the euthynteria, which is com-
pletely preserved, is I 1-37 m. The front of the euthynteria
is 5.63 m. west of the rear face of the
rear wall. The surfacesof the euthynteria
blocks have been neatly trimmed. There is no indication
on the front face of an original ground level.
The stylobate returns at each end to become the toichobate under the antae and side walls.
Of this only the two corner blocks, and those behind them at either side remain in situ. Pryholes
and, rarely, marking-outlines on the upper surfaceof the euthynteria show the dimensionsof the
missing blocks. Two of
fragments stylobate blocks were found built into the later structures
that overlie the fountain house. The front of the stylobate is set back o. 1I7m. behind the outer
line of the euthynteria.
The lower part of the vertical face carries two drafted bands, of which
the surfaces are inclined slightly. The upper band continues right to the end of the stylobate,
the lower not quite to the end. The two fragments not in situ prove that these bands were con-
tinuous for the entire length of the stylobate, not being interrupted at the end of each block.
The stylobate is m. high, and 0-72 m. from front to back. The two blocks next to the corner
o.I8
75 Cf. the similar technique in the temple of Asklepios, Corinth: Roebuck, Corinthxiv, 30.
PERACHORA: THE REMAINS OUTSIDE THE TWO SANCTUARIES 2I3
ones were longer, I'I-175m., to compensate for the shortness of the corner blocks, which are
virtually square. Otherwise, the stylobate blockswere rectangular,and 1i04 m. long. The blocks
that remain in situ are still sound; but those re-used in the later structures, set on end, have
been damaged as a result and rendered very friable.
The upper surface of the south corner block is damaged; that at the north corner is covered
by the wall of the Roman house, which we did not want to remove, so that there is no evidence
of setting-out marks for the columns. Clearly, the columns were not dowelled to the stylobate.
The measurements and arrangements of the stylobate blocks show that each alternate block
carried a column centrally placed. There were thus six columns with a lower shaft diameter
of 0-43 m. and with their axes regularly 2-o5 m. apart.
Of the columns we found the following parts (FIG. 24):
I. A base, together with the attached lower part of the shaft. This had been turned upside
down, and reused in a Roman blocking wall in the north draw-basin. A separate fragment of
a torusmoulding found in the debris overlying the northern part of the fountain house floor
belongs to this same base. This base has been put back in position on the one stylobate block
remaining available, that is, in the south corner; though from the find spots of the two frag-
ments we should imagine that it originally came from the northern end, possibly the north
corner.
2. Two other fragments of shaft, one small, the other o.99I m. long with one end preserved,
complete with empolion hole. This appears to be the top of the shaft, and enables us to measure
the upper diameter, 0-37 m.
3. A badly damaged fragment of one of the capitals which, nevertheless, has clear indica-
tionsof the main dimensionsand form (PLATE 57e-f).
The columns had straightforwardbases of Attic type, over a low off-set ring, and no indica-
tion of a plinth. The bases were carved in one piece together with the lower part of the shaft.
There were twenty flutes of elliptical section with flat arrises; in fact, what we would expect
in an Ionic column in a Peloponnesian context.76The upper diameter of the shaft shows a
diminution of c. 14 per cent. The height of the columns is not certain. In the drawing it is
restored at nine times the lower diameter, that is, 3-87 m. The inner columns of the south stoa
at Corinth which, as we shall see, is almost contemporary, have a height equal to nine and
three-quarter lower diameters.77It is unlikely that the architectural nature of a fountain
house would demand columns much heavier in proportion than this. On the other hand, the
particularly slender proportionsat Corinth may arise from the peculiar character of the south
stoa, where the constructionof two storeysof rooms was contrived behind a single storey faaade,
thus making essential columns of a particular height, while it was not felt desirable to enlarge
the diameter of the shafts so that they encumbered the inner space of the stoa.78It is also
noted that Dr. Hugh Plommer restores the columns of the temple of Hemithea at Kastabos
at nine and a half lower diameters:79this temple, though in a differentpart of the Greek world,
is roughly contemporary with our fountain house.
The illustrationsshow how badly damaged is the capital. It is possible to discern the diameter
of the short section of fluting, and the spread of the echinusstarting above a damaged bead
moulding. Two faces of a volute can also be made out, the beginning of one of the curves which
76 Cf. Roux, L'Architecture,
chapter xi, 333. of the porch.
77 0. Broneer, Corinth iv, 'The South Stoa' 79 Cook and Plommer, The Sanctuary
I. 46. of Hemitheaat Kasta-
78 Similarly the very slender proportions of the north bos 89. Though the heyday of this sanctuary, i.e. the
porch columns of the Erechtheion (9'52 diameters) are Hellenistic age, is later than that of the Perachora Heraion,
caused by special circumstances, the positioning and level it forms in many ways a useful comparison.
R. A. TOMLINSON
2I4
would have linked it to its neighbour, and the palmette that concealed the junction of the
volute and the echinus.The general character of the capital is clear enough. As we might
expect from the number of flutes on the shaft, and the date and locality of the building to
which it belonged, it is probably of Peloponnesian type, that is, with four two-faced volutes
like those of a Corinthian capital.s8
The shaft and capital alike are carved from the local hard limestone. The shaft was given
a coat of stucco, parts of which still survive. It is difficult to discern the decoration of the
capital. The bead moulding under the echinus,and the echinusitself along with its palmette,
appear to be plain, but this may be the result of damage. The original decoration may, how-
ever, have been simply painted on to the flat surfaces,rather than carved.8' It is just possible
to see part of the carved volute scroll.
Of the entablature we have:
I. A fragment only of the architrave. This comes from the corner of a block, and since it
has stucco on two sides it comes presumably from a corner of the architrave itself. It gives the
full height of the lowestfascia (o-o8 m.), and the projection of the second. The height of this
secondfascia, and of the third, together with the moulding that crowned the architrave must
remain matters for conjecture. There is a second block, less well preserved, that appears to be
a bottom fascia, of much greater height (o.-19im.). This may be the back of an architrave
block, or else its resemblance to an Ionic architrave is entirely fortuitous.
2. Three fragmentsof the dentil frieze and geison(PLATE 57c), which were combined on single
blocks. One of these fragments is quite well preserved, except for the vertical face of the geison
and its crowning moulding. This, however, is preserved on a second fragment, so that the
complete frieze and geisoncan be restored. The third fragment, badly worn, consists of part
of the dentil frieze and the stub of the geison.The height of these blockswas o'252 m. The upper
surface is flat, and there are no surviving traces of beam slots.
Like the columns these parts were carved in the local hard limestone, and were stuccoed.
There is no apparent trace of carving on the moulding between the dentil frieze and the geison.
The upper surface of the best preserved frieze and geisonblock has a cutting for ar . clamp.
Some of the lead infillings for these clamps were found in the debris overlying the destroyed
fountain house.sz
There is no evidence for the existence of a continuous frieze. In view of the fact that only
scanty fragmentsof the entablature have been found, this is not conclusive proof that there was
no such frieze; but in the circumstances, it is most unlikely that there was one, and none is
restored in the drawing of the facade in its original form.
Over the geisonthere was a continuous sima in terracotta, with antefixes. Of the sima two
fragments are preserved, giving the complete profile. (PLATE 57a). This is a cymarecta,with
vertical or near vertical bands above and beneath. The simaprojectedforward slightly over the
geison; the projecting under surface, which is flat, is decorated with the painted impression
of a bead and reel moulding. The lower vertical band has a complex meander pattern, also
painted, incorporatingchequer squares. Immediately above this comes the main curved section
of the profile, with the customary lotus and palmette pattern which is in painted decoration
only. The upper vertical band carries a painted egg-and-dart pattern. The antefixes (PLATE
57b) have the shape of the outer profile of a palmette. The palmette itself is moulded in relief,
and painted.
so Roux op. cit. 345. now on display in the Agora Museum.
81 Cf. the fifth-century capital from the Athenian Agora, 82 See below.
The position of these parts in relation to the roof is discussed below.

The entablature was carried round the corner, and extended to the antae and over the wall.
The lower parts of the antae, and their bases, remain intact, though the mouldings on the
bases are badly damaged. It is clear, however, that the anta bases had the same Attic profile
as did those of the columns. A separate fragment of stone (PLATE 57d) appears to be part of an
anta capital. It is not clear whether the lower section representsthe line of the anta, or a projec-
tion from it, as would normally be expected. The upper surface of the fragment is smooth,
and does not mark an accidental break. The upper moulding that one would expect over the
ovolo must thereforehave been carved, if it existed, on a separate piece of stone. Again there is
no evidence of carved decoration on the mouldings of the preservedfragment.
The form of the roof presents an insoluble problem. The existence of a normal terracotta
sima suggests a normal type of roof, and there is nothing in the plan of the building, which is
essentially a straightforwardprostyle porch, to contravert this. We should therefore expect
a pediment over the fagade. Because of the width of the structure the principal roof timbers
would have to run from front to back, supported by the pediment and the rear wall. These
would either have to be close enough together to support the tiles at their top and bottom, or
else would in turn have to support secondaryraftersrunning in the normal direction from ridge
to eaves, spaced according to the width of the tiles. Numerous fragmentsof the tiles were found,
but we were unable to obtain their full dimensions. The width of a tile is m.
a an o.58
On the other hand, pediment might be considered awkward feature this particularin
position. It would seem that an attempt was made to fit the fountain house into the natural
line of the rock. The fagade seems as far as possible to preserve the original edge of the scarp,
and the roof might better have conformed with the line of slope of the upper surface, which
here is from east to west. A pent roof is therefore more probable, with the colonnade recalling
not the fagade of a temple, but the continuous portico of a stoa, and though there is no absolute
proof of this it has been restored thus in the drawing.83
Of the internal arrangements,apart from the draw-basinswhich have already been described,
little need be said. The floor was similar to that in the draw-basins and storage chambers, a
plaster rendering over small broken rubble. It was on the same level as the top of the stylobate.
It is fairly well preserved, but in places the upper rendering has been damaged, probably
when the Roman house was constructed and occupied. The best-preserved sections of
floor are against the draw-basin balustrade, where the most wear would have been expected.
This is an indication of its quality, which is similar to modern terrazzoflooring, containing
numerous small hard pebbles and chippings.
The interior walls appear to have been decorated. A small fragment of an original plaster
finish is still in position at the foot of the northern side wall. This was painted black, and still
preserves a lustrous, almost glass-like finish. It is presumably part of the 'dado band', which,
painted black, is a common constituent of decorative paintwork on Greek walls. The height
of this painted band cannot be recovered. It may have extended to the full height of the anta
base. Fallen fragments of very hard plaster which presumably came from this decorative
scheme were found. They have the same almost glazed finish, and are painted to give an effect
of green marbling. It seems not unlikely that paint was also used to decorate the numerous
mouldings that now are plain.
The attempt to blend the fountain house into the rock scarp was continued even outside
the limits of the main structure. Behind the antae less substantial walls ran out from the side wall.
83 Our impression is that pent roofs are normal in foun- rock or wall, as so many of them are. This point is not
tain houses set against vertical surfaces, whether natural adequately discussed by B. Dunkley (BSA xxxvi, 142).
216 R. A. TOMLINSON
These are of irregular masonry, with blocks of differing sizes; the style, as far as is discernible,
is exactly similar to that of the support walls on either side of the entrance to the staircase of the
deep shafts. After a distance of 1I28m. these walls make a right-angled turn forwards.That on
the south has been destroyed by a late and crude kiln which probably incorporatesblocks taken
from the wall; that to the north was demolished when a room of the Roman house was con-
structed in this area, outside the platform of the fountain house. However, its footing survives,
set in a cutting in the soft rock. It is not clear how far forward either of these walls extended.
They presumably diminished in height in accordance with the natural slope of the rock behind
them. The blocks of these walls have rusticated surfaces. The space behind them, up to the
natural rock, was filled with boulders and rubble. The soft rock behind the northern return
wall has been trimmed down to form a flat platform or step; the foundation of the wall is sunk
in this, but it is not clear whether it was part of the original construction, or of the arrangements
of the Roman house. The effect and purpose of these walls is to mask the otherwise abrupt
transition from the natural rock to the artificial structure of the fountain house; hence the
irregular coursing of the return walls, and their rusticated surfaces.
The area in front of the fountain house was partly cleared in elucidating the structure of the
Roman house. It presented no distinctive features, other than the large pit already alluded to
in connection with the drainage of the draw-basins. This pit contained stone rubble, tile
fragments, and a little Roman pottery of the same date as that found in the Roman house.
It runs in part under the wall of the Roman house, and should therefore be earlier than that
building; but in view of the pottery it contained, it seems more likely that it was made im-
mediately prior to the construction of the Roman house. It cannot have anything to do with
the earlier fountain house. There was no sign of any prepared floor or paving outside the
fountain house.
CHRONOLOGY
For the date of the fountain house we are entirely dependent on its architectural forms and
details. Kenny cut a section through the floor of the north storage chamber in 1933, but found
no dating material beneath it. We did not dig under the floor of the fountain house itself.
As it is situated on ground where the original surface has been deliberately removed and
levelled, it seems unlikely that much of significance would be found; certainly not enough to
warrant the destructionof the original floor. A quantity of material was found in the levels that
had accumulated over the floor and in the draw-basins.Since this also contained architectural
fragments,it is all clearly to be dated after the abandonment and decay of the original structure.
This material is therefore described with the structural remains of the Roman house, since
for our purpose it gives only a vague terminusantequemtowards the end of the Hellenistic age
for the construction of the fountain house.
The date of the rest of these structures,the runnel, and the deep shafts, with the ancillary
tunnels, is difficult to determine independently, though this is desirable before we attempt to
reach any conclusions on the question whether the waterworkssystem was conceived and con-
structed at one time as a single, coherent unit. The 1933 excavation of the entrance to the
staircase produced no dating material. Dunbabin's excavations in the eastern shaft did not
progress beyond the top of the filling rubble. The sections which we cut back into the platform
on the south side of the eastern shaft were more significant. Sherds were found here dating
from the seventh century B.c. onwards, but ending in the fourth century n.c. Most of these
came from the superficial level over the platform of debris from the shaft, but some were in
the debris itself, and some were stratified in the level immediately underneath. These sherds
indicate the material that was lying around in this area when the shafts were dug, and point
to the end of the fourth century for this event.
The analysis of architecturalforms in the fountain house is rendered difficult by the absence
of crucial information on two important matters: the precise height of the columns, and the
precise details of the architrave,both of which have had to be supplied by analogy in the restored
drawing, and argued in the text above. We can, however, usefully compare details of the
fountain house with those of the other building at Perachorawhich makes extensive use of the
Ionic order, namely the stoa by the harbour, published by J.J. Coulton.84
The Ionic columns are not strictly comparable.Those of the fountain house are free-standing;
those of the stoa are half-columns engaged against piers. The stoa columns, moreover, belong
to an upper storey, placed over a ground-floorDoric order.
Nor can the bases be compared. None survived in the stoa, and the base shown in Coulton's
restorationis hypothetical. He argues for the existence of a single torusonly, so that the resting
surface of the base, which has left a mark on the 'stylobate' top of the Doric geisonneed only
be a little larger than the shaft in diameter. It should perhaps be pointed out here that the full
Attic base of the fountain house has an off-set ring under the lower torus,which gives a resting
surface little larger than the shaft diameter, so that it is possible that the stoa in fact had a full
base.
The shafts seem exactly similar. The fluting is of similar proportions, and the stoa half-
column, with nine flutes and two half-flutes is an exact half of the twenty-fluted column that
we have at the fountain house.
The capitals are not exactly the same. That from the stoa illustrated by Coulton from draw-
ings by Piet de Jongss is, or rather was, better preservedthan the single capital fragmentfrom the
fountain house. However, it seems probable that the fountain house capital had the normal
ovolo profile for its echinus,not the complex cymareversaplus ovolo of the stoa capital.86There is
also in the fountain house example a palmette, or at least the stone shape on which a palmette
was probably painted, masking the gap between volute and echinus;the stoa capital has none.
On other points certainty is impossible. The stoa capital has opposed volutes on one side,
volute with pulvinuson the other. Opposed volutes are found on one other stoa fragment, a
pulvinuson two. The fountain house capital has definitely two opposed volutes where it is
preserved, but this is only one corner of the four. The lower line of beading linking the volutes
appears to be similar in both examples; the upper line in the fountain house capital, which is
perhaps just discernible in the broken stone, would appear to be flat, not having the Bassae-
like curve of the stoa capital. Further, if the level top surfaceof the fountain house capital where
it is preserved shows that we have the line, at least, of the top of the abacus,even though
its shape and proportions cannot be determined, it indicates that it cannot have had the
abnormally high proportions deriving from the Bassae type, seen in the stoa capital.
Nothing of the architrave, frieze, or geison of the stoa survives, so again comparison is
impossible. The roof terracottas, however, are much more helpful. The profiles of the sima,
though not the same, are very similar. The painted designs, although again not exactly the
same, are similar, particularly the lotus and palmette on the main part. There are slight
differences in the arrangement of the key pattern underneath the lotus and palmette design,
while the pattern above is an egg-and-dart in the fountain house, and a bead-and-reel in the
84 BSA lix (1964) Ioo f. See also C. Llinas, BCH lxxxix 86 For general comment on Peloponnesian Ionic capitals
(1965) 484 f. see Roux, L'Architecture 339 f. He defines this form of the
85 Coulton, op. cit. fig. 7. echinusas one of the peculiarities of his Peloponnesian type.
218 R. A. TOMLINSON
stoa. The antefix with its palmette in relief is again similar to that of the stoa, though each side
of the palmette has five lobes, while that of the stoa has only four.
There are other features that are similar in both buildings. The stylobate of the ground floor
(Doric) order in the stoa has a drafted band at the bottom, though this is single, not the double
band of the fountain house. In general technique the buildings are similar. The tiles are com-
parable, both use 'r- clamps set in lead, while in both the floors consist of rubble covered with
a rendering of plaster.
It therefore seems unlikely that there is any considerable difference in date between the
stoa and the fountain house. They both seem to be part of the same general redevelopment of
the Heraion at the end of the fourth century B.C., the date to which the stoa is assigned by
Coulton. This is consistent with the material excavated in the platform behind the east shaft.
This, and the similarity in walling techniques between the entrance to the staircase and the
walls to either side of the fountain house, point to a similarity of date for all three parts of
the system. From this it follows that in the functioning of the system all three parts must be
dependent on each other, and all must be of the same date. Their functioning is discussedin
the next section.
There are indications of subsequentalterationto the fountain house and the storagechambers,
but all these appear to belong to the Roman period, and are therefore described on p. 242,
along with the Roman house. There is therefore only one phase that can be assigned to the
Hellenistic period before the abandonment of the system, which took place before any altera-
tion was needed. The whole system must have gone out of use the moment the lifting apparatus
ceased to function. Pottery at the bottom of the draw-basins,where it would first accumulate
when the fountain house was abandoned, appears to be of early Roman date, and results
from the construction of the Roman house, when the draw-basins were deliberately filled.
There is no other evidence to show how long this complicated systemfunctioned. The Hellenistic
age at Perachoraseems to have been one of markeddecline, and it is unlikelythat these elaborate
and expensive works would function any longer than when there was a pressingneed for them.
OTHER WATERWORKS
The three deep shafts with their ancillary works were not the only place on the Heraion
promontory where water was raised to the surface. In addition the following are known (in
order westwardsfrom the lake: most have already been described),87
I. A shaft, with underground storage chamber and an approach staircase, to the north
of the ancient road, and some 250 m. west of the lake (FIG.25).
2. A bottle cistern with oval opening, immediately adjacent to Dunbabin's house XIV.
3. Another cistern, close to the probable line of the ancient road, 770 m. west of the lake.
4. The well shaft on the upper plain, linked to the deep shafts by the tunnel system.
5. The well shaft west of the fountain house.
Of these 2, and probably 3, are independent and served to store rainwater collected at the
surface. 2 certainly served the adjacent house. It is suggested below (p. 236) that 3 also served
a similarly isolated house. 4 certainly taps the same water source as the deep shafts, and the
possibility has been raised that I does also, and that it is linked by underground tunnel to the
deep shafts; further, that the tunnel running westwards from the deep shafts to well-shaft 4
continued beyond this point, tapped by a series of shafts, and possibly supplied water to the
87 There is also a bottle cistern on the acropolis summit by the lighthouse (see below p. 241i).
sanctuary. The accidental discovery of well shaft 5 with its measurable depth of I I metres
brings additional support to this theory.
Shaft I was briefly described in Perachora i. It has been relined with cement in recent years,
and still holds water, but has now been abandoned since the construction of the motor road
had made it possible for tanker lorries to deliver Loutraki water in bulk to the ever-increasing
number of buildings at this end of the lake. It is not now regularly cleaned out, and its contents
are refused even by thirsty animals. It does not now dry out in summer, and the presence of
water in the storage chamber and the foul smell made it difficult to plan.
TUNNELT
'9CI
TANK
f
N
o 1 2 3
o
IIMETRE
METRES
WATER
LEVEL
SUMMER
1965
FIG. 25. SHAFT AND STORAGE CHAMBER I
The cistern consistsof an access stairway, a well shaft, and an undergroundstorage chamber.
Our illustration shows the section through the staircase and shaft, together with the entrance
to the stairway. It was not possible for us to plan the undergroundparts. Access is by way of the
staircase or down the well-shaft, where there are foot- and hand-holds.
The entrance to the stair is surroundedby a low wall, consisting of a single course of blocks.
Cuttings in the upper surface of these blocks suggest that the wall did not extend any higher,
at least on one side. The area enclosed by the wall is larger than the emergent section of stair-
case. Inside this enclosure the topsoil has been removed, and the bedrock exposed. There are
at present 24 steps visible in the staircase, and there are probably another four concealed at the
bottom. They are covered with modern cement, and it is impossible to tell whether the original
steps are cut into the natural rock or, as in the staircase leading to the deep shafts, made from
separate blocks placed in position. The width of the staircase is m. The height to the top
o.8o
in
of the roof, which is rock-cut and curved section, is m. It is thus higher than the staircase
2"2
leading to the deep shafts, and there is sufficientheadroom for people to move up and down the
stairs balancing water pots on their heads.
The shaft also is surroundedby a low wall, less regular than that at the head of the staircase.
The shaft is oval in plan, as is the later Roman entrance shaft at the triple storage chambers of
the upper waterworkssystem.
Over the shaft at ground surfaceis a large block or well-head slab with the actual entrance to
220 R. A. TOMLINSON
the shaft, circular in plan, and cut in it. At a short distance from the shaft, on the surface, is
a settling tank. A channel, partly rock-cut, partly built, and now covered with modern cement,
still brings water to this tank. The channel from tank to shaft runs under the cover slab.
The storage chamber, which we did not explore, goes off at right-anglesto the entrance stair-
way in both directions.
There are obvious points of similarity to the system on the upper plain, but here the storage
chamber is much closer to the surface, and it is obvious that water could, and would be carried
up the staircase. The function of the well shaft is less certain. At present, and at some time
in antiquity, it would appear to have been the way water was allowed to enter the storage
chamber. The makeshift way in which the channel from the settling tank passes under the
covering slab may lead us to suspect that the original function of the shaft was that of a well,
from which water could be drawn. The shape of the hole in the cover slab again suggests a well-
head, and presumably it continued to have this function even when it was also used as the way
to enter. It is not absolutelycertain, however, that this cisternwas not always filled by way of the
shaft. The modern rendering of cement makes it impossible to study the geology of the rocks
in which the cistern is cut, and it is not clear whether or not it descends to a water table, though
the general lie of the land would suggest that it does not. However, in arrangement it is closer
in form to the deep shafts of the upper plain, which definitely do descend to a water table,
than to the normal ancient form of cistern designed to store water collected on the surface,
which is either bottle-shaped or a cutting roofed over in some way. It is to be suspected that
it was intended, at least, that this well should tap an underground water supply, possibly
brought to it by a tunnel.
According to Kenny, who investigated this cistern during the original Perachoraexpedition,
traces of an ancient plaster rendering were then visible. Such a rendering would be necessary
only if it was designed to store water fed into it rather than to give access to an underground
supply-in other words, it was a cistern in the true sense, not a well. In this respect we can see
a clear contrast with the system of the deep shafts, in which there is no trace of a plaster render-
ing at all (though, of course, there is in the storage chambers behind the fountain house).
However, there is no indication that the older plaster rendering seen by Kenny was an original
part of this system, and it seems to us more likely, in view of the general similarityof design, that
this was intended to function in a manner similar to that of the deep shafts of the upper plain,
though without the complex lifting arrangements,and with direct access by way of the staircase
to the water level for those who wished to draw water. Presumably this proved unsatisfactory,
perhaps as a result of an inadequate water supply from the tunnel, and it was found necessary
to convert it, by blocking the tunnel, to a storage cistern for water collected on the surface, and
brought to it by the secondary works described above.88
More informationis needed beforewe can fully understandthe extent of these tunnel systems,
and their relation to the lifting arrangements. It has been suggested that the original system
was similar to the Persian qanat,89that is, an extended, slightly rising tunnel driven into rising
ground to tap an underground water source. In Persia such a source is found where alluvial
deposit overlies impermeable strata, and runs up against a rock formation that emerges above
the alluvial level in abrupt-sidedhills. This is not at all dissimilarto the situation at Perachora,
where permeable deposits overlie the impermeable marl, and run up against the rock formation
88 Mr. Megaw tells me that he was able to enter the been blocked off subsequently, and plastered to serve as
storage chamber. The section to the left (south) of the a cistern.
entrance tunnel was short. That to the right (north) was 89 This suggestion was made by Mr. Megaw. Qanats are
much longer, and curved away to the west, giving an im- described by H. E. Wulff in his article 'The Qanats of
pression that it was once a tunnel. He suggests that it had Iran' in ScientificAmerican,April 1968, 94
f.
of the steep-sided hills on the south side of the upper plain. It was presumably an awareness
of the significance of these geological features that led to the original construction of the
waterworks at Perachora. Whether the Greeks learnt this from the Persian and other near
eastern examples as a result of Alexander'sconquests,or whether they already had the necessary
knowledge, we cannot tell. The system of Lerna at Corinth is essentially a qanat.90In a qanat
vertical ventilation shafts are sunk at approximately 15-metre intervals. These are essential
during the construction of the horizontal tunnel, and in any subsequent cleaning or repair
operations. They are not used as well shafts. Shafts of this sort are found at Lerna. If there is
a qanatsystem, or systems, at Perachora, many more shafts must await discovery.
It is possible that the western tunnel of the deep shaft system extends beyond the adjacent
well shaft and the similar shaft 5 to emerge in the Heraion Valley. Even if such a qanatexisted,
it is impossible to say for certain whether its construction came before or after the deep shafts
and the lifting system. In Persia a vertical shaft, often much deeper than the shaftsat Perachora,
is sunk at a position where it is likely that a water source exists, before the excavation of the
qanatproper begins. The rate at which this shaft fills with water determines whether or not it is
worthwhile to complete the qanat.Thus there is no need for the tunnel system at Perachora
to have existed before the decision was made to construct the lifting apparatus. We must
suppose that the probable existence of a water source could have been recognized on the surface,
and confirmed by a single trial shaft (perhaps the well shaft 4). It may seem less likely that an
existing qanatwould have been tapped at its source by the lifting apparatus, than that the lifting
system proved difficult or impossible to maintain and operate, and so was replaced by a qanat.
It is possible that clearing the underground parts may resolve this problem.
Since the possible qanatsystem is beset by so many unresolved problems, the next section on
the functioning of the waterworksconcerns only the lifting apparatus and its related works.
THE FUNCTIONING OF THE WATERWORKS

However the shaft and storage chamber i near the lake was supplied with water, it was not
difficult to bring it to the surface. If it was not raised by rope and pot by way of shaft, it was
a simple matter to enter the storage chamber by the approach stair to draw water. There is
sufficient headroom (2-2 m.) in the stair tunnel to make it possible to balance a water pot on
one's head, the usual method of carrying water.
The deep shaft system of the upper plain is a different matter. Not only does the staircase
descend a much greater distance than in the system by the lake (in practical terms, I6o as
opposed to 24 steps) but the headroom is less (I-85 m.) making it impossible to balance a pot
on one's head. While the stair tunnel of the first system admits enough light to the storage
chamber, this is not so in the deep system of the upper plain and though there are niches for
lamps it is unlikely that constant illumination was provided underground. Here it is more
likely that water was raised by way of the shafts.
Turning to the other end of the system, the fountain house, we see that water was there made
readily accessible in the draw-basinswhich were supplied from the storage reservoirsbehind.
These reservoirs are analogous in shape and, in their relation to the fountain house, to the
rock-cut chambers that extend behind Lower Peirene at CorinthI--to quote only the nearest
90 Roebuck, Corinthxiv, loc. cit. shafts. But this system differs from ours, since at Corinth
91B. Hodge Hill, CorinthI. vi. Compare also the foun- the supply tunnels are deep underground, whereas the
tain of Lerna at Corinth (Roebuck, op. cit.), where Roe- Perachora runnel is close to the surface, and was obviously
buck suggests that water was collected on the surface, and closed for its entire length, so that water could only enter
entered the underground supply tunnels through vertical it at its beginning, near the deep shafts.
222 R. A. TOMLINSON
example.The essentialdifferenceis that whereasthe chambersof Peireneare cut simplyto

facilitatethe constantflow of waterfroma naturalundergroundreservoir,thoseat Perachora
are carefullylined and waterproofed, to retainan intermittentsupplyenteringat groundlevel.
Of the possiblepointsof entry,we must rejectthe oval-sectionedshaft,which has no traces
of any arrangementto bring water to it, and also the nearbyrectangularshaft, since this,
thoughdescribedin Perachora i as a catchpit,has been demonstrated to be a draw-shaftsupplied
with water overflowingfrom the storagechambersthemselves.This leaves the shaft in the
south-eastcorneras the only pointat whichwatercouldenterthe storagechambers,and from
this it followsthat the sole sourceof supplymusthave been the coveredrunnel.
It is possible,on the analogyof the much crudersurfacechannelthat now feedsthe cistern
by the lake, that the functionof the runnelwas to lead rainwatercollectedat the surfaceto
the cisterns.Thisseemsunlikely.Withthe uncertaintyof rainfallin thispartof Greeceit would
be necessaryto take full advantageof the occasionalperiodsof prolongedor heavy rain in
order to fill the large storagechamberssuppliedby the runnel.The runnelwould therefore
need to be capableof dealingwithintermittentbut heavyflows.To do thisit wouldhave to be
quite large, as, for example,is the drainsupplyingthe double-apsidalcisternin the Heraion
Valley, which clearlywas filled by surfacecatchment.The actual dimensionsof the runnel
suggesta differentfunction.
Secondly,thereis the problemof catchment.This runnelleadsfromthe hills at the southern
edge of the upperplain, and musthave takenits waterfromthemif its functionwas to collect
rainwaterat the surface.Any rain fallingon the steepslopesof thesehills would have run off
quicklyinto the plain. It would have to be collectedand impoundedin orderto directit into
the runnel.Thoughit is not possibleto be absolutelycertainthatsuchcatchmentworksdid not
exist,thereis no tracewhateverof them. Moreover,in its last traceablealignmentthe runnelis
makingfor the northside of the deepshafts,whichwouldconstitutea barrierto the collection
of surfacewaterfromthe south,and whichdo not leaveroomforseparatecatchmentworkson
the surface.
This last traceablealignmentof the runnelsuggeststhat it runsfromthe deepshaftsand it is
a reasonablehypothesisthat it was suppliedfromthem;theirform,and the formof the runnel
itself,is consistentwith this.It followsthereforethat all threeelementsin the waterworks system
are interlinkedand interdependent,part of one generalschemeconceivedas a single entity.
The functionof the deep shaftswas to give accessto the water,the functionof the runnelto
conveyit to the storagereservoirs,the functionof the reservoirsto storeit so that it could be
drawn at the fountainhouse when required.More particularly,it was the functionof the
deep shaftsto facilitatethe raisingof waterfromthe considerabledepthsto whichthey extend
in orderto tap the naturalwatersupply.The uniqueinterestof the systemspringsfromthis
function.
The heightof the lift involved,and the shapeand dimensionsof the shaftsimplythat water
was raisedby machinery.Fromthe accountsgiven by Vitruviusin his tenth book, and from
actual examplesdiscoveredin Roman mines,chieflythose of Spain, we know of three main
types of water-liftingmachinerythat were employedin antiquity:the force-pump,the snail
(Archimedeanscrew),and variousformsof wheel.92
92 Vitruvius x.
4-7. A description of wheels and Archi- includes some serious errors (see below). There is a brief
medean screws from Spain is given by R. E. Palmer, account of a series of Archimedean screws, wheels, a bucket
Transactionsof the Institutionof Mining and Metallurgyxxxvi chain, and a force-pump in an article by G. Gosse', Am-
(1926-7) 299 (TIMM). This forms the basis of the account purias iv (1942) 50 f. See also A. G. Drachmann, The
in R. J. Forbes, Studiesin AncientTechnologyvii. 211 (hence- MlechanicalTechnology of Greekand RomanAntiquity.
forward Studies vii; cf. also Studies ii) which, however,
The force-pump directs water upwards through pipes. It is unlikely in the extreme that it
could have raised water to the height required at Perachora, and it would not explain the
particular shape of the deep shafts. This cannot have been used there.
Archimedean screws, if arranged in series, can raise water to considerable heights. They
have to be placed on an incline, which in Roman examples may be as much as 300, but is
more frequently in the range I5-20'.93 If they were used at Perachora they would have been
placed in the staircase tunnel. Since there are no signs of the necessary fittings there, and since
the use of the staircase in this way would have made the deep shafts unnecessary, we can be
certain that water was not raised by this means. If the ancient tradition is correct, it is unlikely
that either the force-pump or Archimedean screw was known to the Greeks at the time the
Perachora waterworks were constructed.
No one person is credited with the invention, or even the improvement, of the water-raising
wheel, which suggests that its development belongs to a remoter antiquity than the Greeks
could recall and, as will be suggested below, to the Near East rather than Aegean Greece.
Vitruvius describes three versions. In his original text drawings were included to clarify the
somewhat confusing and abbreviated verbal descriptions. These, of course, are now lost along
with all the original illustrations to his book. This is his description of the three types of wheel:94
'Nunc de organis, quae ad hauriendam aquam inventa sunt, quemadmodum variis generibus
conparentur, exponam. Et primum dicam de tympano. Id autem non alte tollit aquam, sed
exhaurit expeditissime multitudinem magnam. Ad tornum aut circinum fabricatus (axis)
capitibus lamna ferratis, habens in medio circa se tympanum ex tabulis inter se coagmentatis,
conlocatur in stipitibus habentibus in se sub capita axis ferreas lamminas. In eius tympani cavo
interponuntur octo tabulae transversae tangentes axem et extremam tympani circuitionem, quae
dividunt aequalia in tympano spatia. (2) Circa frontem eius figuntur tabulae, relictis semi-
pedalibus aperturis ad aquam intra concipiendam. Item secundum axem columbaria fiunt
excavata in singulis spatiis ex una parte. Id autem cum est navali ratione picatum, hominibus
calcantibus versatur et hauriendo per aperturas, quae sunt in frontibus tympani, reddit per
columbaria secundum axem supposito labro ligneo habente una secum coniunctum canalem.
Ita hortis ad inrigandum vel ad salinas ad temperandum praebetur aquae multitudo. (3) Cum
autem altius extollendum erit, eadem ratio communicabitur sic. Rota fiet circum axem eadem
magnitudine, ut ad altitudinem, quae opus fuerit, convenire possit. Circum extremum latus
rotae figentur modioli quadrati pice et cera solidati. Ita cum rota a calcantibus versabitur,
modioli pleni ad summum elati rursus ad imum revertentes infundent in castellum ipsi per se
quod extulerint. (4) Sin autem magis altis locis erit praebendum, in eiusdem rotae axe involuta
duplex ferrea catena demissaque ad imum libramentum conlocabitur, habens situlos pendentes
aereos congiales. Ita versatio rotae catenam in axem involvendo efferet situlos in summum, qui
(cum) super axem pervehuntur, cogentur inverti et infundere in castellum aquae quod ex-
tulerint.'94
'Now I shall explain about those machines which have been invented for the raising of water,
and of their various types. First of all I will speak of the tympanum. This does not lift the water
to a great height, but it draws up a great quantity very quickly. An axle is turned on a lathe or
with compasses, its end plated with iron hoops, having at the middle a drum made of boards
joined together. It rests on posts which have iron plates on them under the ends of the axle.
In the hollow of this drum are placed eight cross pieces extending from the axle to the circum-
ference of the drum, dividing the space in the drum into equal compartments. (2) Planks are
nailed round the face of it leaving apertures half a foot wide to admit the water. At one side
93 Studiesvii. 214. 94 The text is that of Fensterbusch (Darmstadt, 1964).
224 R. A. TOMLINSON
of it adjacent to the axle there are holes, as in a dovecot, one for each compartment. After
being smeared with pitch like a ship, the machine is turned by treading men, and, drawing
in the water through the aperturesin the face of the drum, it gives it out through the holes next
to the axle into a wooden trough placed beneath them and leading to a channel. In this way,
a large quantity of water is provided either for irrigation in gardens, or for saltworks. (3) But
when it has to be raised higher, the same principle will be modified as follows. A wheel should
be made round an axle of a diameter large enough to reach the height required. All round the
face of the wheel there will be placed squared boxes, made watertight with pitch and wax.
So when the wheel is turned by the treading men, the boxes are carried up full to the top and
as they turn over to return to the bottom they of their own accord dischargeinto the head-tank
what they have carried up. (4) But if it has to be supplied to a still greater height, an endless
double iron chain, which will reach the water level when let down, is placed round the axis
of a similar wheel, with hanging bronze buckets attached, each holding about three litres.
The turning of the wheel by winding the chain round the axle will carry the buckets to the
top, and as they turn over the axle they must tip over and deliver into the head-tank what they
have carried up.'
No example of the compartment wheel survives. It would seem to have no application to
the deep shaft system at Perachora, though a wheel of this sort (or, more likely, the second,
modified type) was probably used in the rectangular slot by the storage chambers.
The second type is commonly used in Roman mines, particularlythose of Spain; a fragment
of such a wheel has also been found in the Roman goldmines at Dolaucothi in Wales.95Some
of the Spanish examples were sufficiently well preserved for detailed engineering drawings to
be made of them-these appear in the Transactions of theInstitutionof MiningandMetallurgy,and
have been reproduced elsewhere, e.g. by Forbes. A reconstructed working version of one
wheel from the Rio Tinto mine was made, and a photograph of it appears as fig. 72 of Palmer's
article.96These wheels lifted water to a height a little less than their diameter, and therefore,
like the Archimedean screw, were generally employed in batteries. A battery of eight pairs in
the Rio Tinto mine lifted water a total height of 29 metres, the diameter of the individual
wheels being 5 metres, with thirty buckets at the circumference. These wheels were turned
on the treadmill principle by cleats attached to the circumference.Palmer calculates that such
a wheel would raise 189 lb. (I8.9 gall.) of water through a height of 12 feet per minute.97This
is well within the working capacity of one man.
The arrangement of the battery of wheels at the Rio Tinto mine is shown by Palmer in his
fig. 24. The water flows from the collecting troughs (or 'launders') near the top of each pair
into a sump for the next pair. The illustration shows them in section, with each pair in its own
horizontal tunnel. Boon and Williams suggest that this drawing is simplified,and that the wheels
may in fact have been some distance apart. Whether this was so or not, this arrangementsuggests
that it was not desirable that the wheels should be accommodated in a vertical shaft. If a
battery of wheels of this sort was employed at Perachoraone would imagine them of a diameter
not greater than half the length of the shaft, and arranged alternatelyat either end. This would
have entailed a considerable amount of wooden construction inside the shaft to support the
wheels, the launders, and the sumps, and though it is not possible, without clearing the shaft,
to state positively that such woodwork did not exist, it would appear to be unnecessarily
complicated a solution to the problem solved more easily in the Roman mines. We would
95 G. C. Boon and C. Williams, JRS Ivi (1966) 122 f. not a modern copy.
96 This photograph was reproduced by Forbes, who 97 Forbes, Studies vii. 216, misquotes this as I31 lb.,
erroneously describes it as a wheel 'used by the Romans', through 12 feet per minute, a most misleading error.
also have to postulate access by wooden ladders, perhaps, to the various stages at which the
wheels were set, so that the workmen who would have to turn them by treading could reach
them: this makes the tunnel access somewhat superfluous.It would appear, therefore,from the
form of the shafts and the access staircase that although a battery of these wheels could have
raised water to the required height (as is proved by the wheels of the Rio Tinto mine), this
was not in fact the system used at Perachora.
We are left with the third system, the endless chain of pots. An example of this system was
found in the Sotiel Coronada mine in Spain, and is shown by Goss6 in a rough sketch form
(Ldminaxiii). Bronze jars (eleven are shown) are attached to a rope. They turn over a wheel
that appears to be only I metre in diameter, and descend to a depth of approximately8 metres.
The pots empty into the lowest sump of a series of Archimedean screws, which raise the water
still further. The pots are simply suspended in the shaft; there is no additional wheel or other
arrangement at the bottom. No indication is given of the method of turning the wheel (though
presumably it is effected by a treadmill), nor of the capacity of the bronze pots. At first glance
it appears that the apparatus could raise water at a rate comparable to that of the Archi-
medean screw which it supplied. The advantage of this system, particularly in mines, is that
it lifts the water in one stage, by way of a single vertical shaft. Its disadvantage, as Vitruvius
points out, is that it is relatively slow. It is possible that the Archimedean screws at Sotiel
Coronada had another source of supply, beside the endless chain of pots; and in any event,
since the Romans appear to have preferredbatteries of wheels of the second type or of Archi-
medean screws, these other forms were presumably more efficient, given a cheap supply of
manpower to turn them. This, notoriously, was readily available in the Roman mines.
There seems little doubt, judging from the proportion and shape of the shafts, that this third
type of wheel, carrying an endless chain of containers, was used at Perachora. Nevertheless,
there are difficulties.Foremostis the size of the shafts. Accepting that it was consideredfeasible
to raise water from a depth of 30 or so metres by a single lift (and this should not be prejudiced
by the Roman experience which avoided single lifts of this sort), it is still necessary to explain
why such long shafts were constructed. The immediate answer to this is, of course, that the
upward and downward sections of the bucket chain were widely separated, and thus must have
resulted from the chain turning over a wheel of large diameter, comparable to the width of
the shaft. At Sotiel Coronada a lift of 8 metres is achieved, as we have seen, by a wheel that
appears to have a diameter of I metre only. The wheels of Type Two described by Palmer and
Forbes have a diameter of 4 or 5 metres, or thereabouts, only one-third of the length of the
largest shaft at Perachora. Assuming that wheels were turned on the treadmill principle, that
power was applied at the rim rather than the hub, and that the lift was achieved by the bucket
chain turning at the rim, the amount of lift is equal to the downward thrust exerted on the
treadmill, irrespectiveof the size of the wheel. The only advantage in having a large wheel is
when the power is applied at the rim, and the lift is achieved at or close to the axle, when the
force of the lift is proportionatelygreater. This appears to be the principle that was applied to
the wheel described by Vitruvius 'in eiusdem rotae axe involuta duplex catena',98assuming
that this wheel, like the compartmented or Type Two wheel, is turned by a treadmill. It is
clearly not the principle applied at Perachora,since it would not require a shaft equal in length
to the diameter of the wheel, and we would have to explain the length of the shaft by postulating
98 The meaning of 'duplex catena' is uncertain. Fen- schlungen?' It is preferable to think of two separate chains,
sterbusch: 'Unklar bleibt, ob die Kette duplexgenannt wird, attached to either side of the rectangular buckets or con-
weil sie bis zum Wasserniveau hinunter und wieder bis tainers, corresponding to the two sides of the drum. 'A pair
zur Welle emporreicht, oder ob damit 2 nebeneinander of' seems a legitimate translation of 'duplex'.
laufende Ketten gemeint sind. Oder 'doppelt herumge-
C 6659
226 R. A. TOMLINSON
a wheel of colossal and altogether fantastic dimensions, considerably larger than the shaft.
It is possible that a treadmill of more normal size was attached to the wheel at its side: if this
was so, the wheel at its circumference would move faster than the treadmill, but with pro-
portionately reduced lifting-power. In view of the height of lift required, this seems perverse,
though in principle it is the only logical explanation of the size of the wheel: that is, that
power was applied at or close to the axle, and the greater size of the wheel increased the speed
at which the bucket chain moved.
If this is so, the power must have been greater than that supplied by the man-operated tread-
mills envisaged by Vitruvius and demonstratedby the wheels in the Roman mines. Such power
can only have been supplied by animals. The difficulty here lies in the application of animal
power to such a wheel.
Evidence that animal power was applied to water-raisingwheels in antiquity is offered by
a wall painting found in a tomb in the West Necropolis of Alexandria, and now transferredto
the Graeco-Roman Museum there.99
The date of the tomb to which it belonged is uncertain. Nothing was found in it of chrono-
logical significance, and tombs in this necropolis can be either Hellenistic or Roman. The style
of the painting, of the rather sketchy character not unusual in tombs, is equally of uncertain
date. The context is in general Hellenistic, a scene of everyday Egyptian life, though this by
no means rules out the possibility that the painting may have been done after the Roman
occupation.
In the foregroundis a pool, with ducks, water plants, etc. Behind this is a platform supported
by a low masonry wall, in plan apparently circular, or at least semicircular. On this platform
are two oxen, with halters, attached to either end of a horizontal pole. At its centre this is
lashed to a vertical pole. Behind the vertical pole, but in front of the rear ox is a waterwheel,
with an outer rim and spokesradiating, in a somewhat sketchy fashion, from the centre. To the
left of this, where the painting is less well preserved, a man stands, presumably directing
operations. At the right-hand side, at the perimeter of the platform, is a large upright post,
with a vine trailing round it. Fixed to the post is another horizontal bar, presumably extending
the full diameter of the platform to a similar post on the other side, not visible in the preserved
part of the painting. The vertical pole, turned by the horizontal pole attached to the oxen,
must have pivoted on this bar, but again the relevant part of the painting is not preserved.
Riad suggests that the perimeter post also supported a trellis which would have provided wel-
come shade on the platform, but the scene as painted shows sunlight falling on the platform,
and the shadows thrown by man, beast, and apparatus are clearly visible.
The apparatus depicted is clearly a water-raising wheel turned by oxen. Riad considers
that the water foregroundrepresentsa canal or pond, the source from which the water is raised.
Unfortunately the precise form of the lifting apparatus is not clear. It possibly belongs to
Vitruvius' second category, in which case the source of the water could well be at the level
suggested by the foreground; but there are difficulties, the solution of which depends on the
degree of accuracy which we may suppose the artist to have employed in this somewhat slap-
dash painting. The platform as it emerges from the water level is low. Two courses of blocks
can be seen, of no great height compared with the general dimensions of the duck, the oxen,
and the man. The wheel itself is small. The part visible above the platform level, apparently
about half the wheel, is about half the height of the man and the oxen, so that the total diameter
99 H. Riad, Archaeology
xvii, no. 3 (Autumn, 1964). I am Alexandria, for drawing my attention to the existence of
most deeply indebted to my colleague Mr. R. F. Willetts, this wall-painting.
who saw the original in the Graeco-Roman Museum at
envisaged for the wheel would not appear to be more than about 2 metres. Since the wheel
is spoked, the water must be carried at the circumference.There is no visible sign of a trough
or launder to collect the water, but we can be certain that it was not above the level of the
platform; for if it were it would get in the way of the oxen, which are clearly depicted as walking
round the wheel, on the platform. The trough through which water flows after being lifted
must be within the platform, and covered so that the oxen can walk over it. In the perimeter
wall of the platform is a low arched opening, passing through the thickness of the blocks here
depicted in false perspective by cross-hatched shading. Riad thinks this is to allow water to
flow into the wheel system. It is preferableto see in it the end of a channel through which the
raised water is allowed to flow out. The pond or canal, therefore, representsnot the source of
the water, but the upper level into which the water is poured. If this is so the diameter of the
wheel cannot representthe full height of the lift, and we must thereforesuppose that the wheel
turned an endless chain of buckets. We have, therefore, in this picture a representationof an
ancient sakia or Persian wheel, a device which continues to provide water for irrigation pur-
poses down to the present day. Although it has now largely been supersededby pumps driven
by internal combustion engines, it can occasionally still be seen working in Greece.
This apparatus depends on the ability to transmit power from a vertical axle turned by the
animals to the horizontal axle of the wheel. This has to be done by means of crown and pinion
type gear-wheels, or rather, more primitive ancestors of these. It is unfortunate that the gear
arrangements cannot be seen in the Alexandrian tomb painting, but, since the apparatus
so closely resembles later examples of the primitive sakia,we may presume that they were the
same. Short sections of rod are fixed in a circle on the side of the wheel, close to the axle. Two
circular boards fixed together by a circle of similar rods at their circumferenceare attached to
the vertical pole which is turned by the animals. The rods between these boards engage the
rods fixed to the wheel, and transmit the movement. That the teeth were rods, rather than
gear teeth as we know them, is suggested by the word used in one of the Greek texts to describe
a gear-wheel of this sort, KUTv-rtA.I0oo The same system of gearing was used in the watermill
described by Vitruvius--tympanumdentatum.
Drachmann'o' seems to suggest that the invention of gear-wheels comes relatively late in
the Hellenistic period and denies that [Aristotle] MechanicalProblemsproves that cog-wheels
were known when that treatise was compiled. Forbesaozstates that as far as our evidence goes
gear-wheels certainly cannot be very much older than 500 B.c. though he does not make it
clear what that evidence is. Absence of documentary proof should not preclude the use of
such gears early in the Hellenistic age.
It would be mistaken to assume that Vitruvius' ignorance of the application of gears to
water-raisingimplies that this was not discovered until later (the Alexandrian painting, which,
we think, proves the use of such gears, could be Roman in date). It is rather that the source of his
information, which may well have been theoreticalrather than practical, did not know of them.
The distinction between KVKAlKiKiVT'jis and e0Eila KiVroiS,and the general content of Vitruvius
x, chap. I seem to imply the theoretical character of his Greek source.
The logical sequence of development for these wheels seems to be:
i. The wheel with buckets at the rim, worked on the treadmill principle.
2. The compartment wheel, again worked by a treadmill. Despite the order in Vitruvius,
this seems more sophisticated than the wheel with buckets at the rim.
00oo Hero, Dioptra34. This point is made by Drachmann, 'o0 Op. cit. 200 f.
op. cit. 202, who also refers to a figure (in the manuscript) 1oz Studiesii. 32.
illustrating Hero, Pneumaticsii. 32.
228 R. A. TOMLINSON
3. The endless chain of buckets, turning on a wheel, but still worked by a treadmill.
4. The application to these systems of animal motive power through gear-wheels.
Vitruvius x suggests that this last development took place little, if at all, before the end of the
first century B.c. The importance of the Perachora waterworksis that they show that it must
have happened much earlier.
At present there are no physical remains of the chains and buckets known at Perachora.
It is possible that when the system ceased to function they fell to the bottom of the shaft and
were abandoned there; if so, they may remain, buried under a considerablequantity of rubble
and earth. If they were constructed of valuable material, such as Vitruvius' iron for the chains
and bronze for the buckets, it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to fall to the
bottom of the shafts, or that, if they did, they would have been left there undisturbed. Either
the apparatus would have been carefully dismantled, and the materials salvaged, or if they
did collapse to the bottom of the shaft, they would have been removed by way of the staircase
and tunnels which then, at least, would have given easy access to them. If, however, they were
of less valuable material, for example, of rope with earthenwarepots, there may still be some-
thing left. We cannot tell for certain the materials from which the chain and buckets were
constructed. Though the weight on the chain would have been considerable, it could have
been adjusted by spacing the water containers more or less widely apart. It is not improbable
that ancient ropes were capable of taking the strain imposed by lifting water in this way;
anchor ropes would have had to take a not inconsiderablestrain, to say nothing of the massive
ropes used by Xerxes in his bridge of boats. It is therefore by no means impossible that ropes
were used here. On the other hand, unless the original of Vitruvius' description is a fanciful
and theoretical elaboration of what was actually done (this is not unlikely), we must presume
that iron chains and bronze bucketswere sometimesused in these machines; Perachora, with its
considerable lift, is as likely a place as any.
It is noticeable that the openings of the shafts are of differentlengths, suggesting that wheels
of different sizes were used. Although precise measurement was not possible for the western
and central shafts, it is clear that the western was the smallest and the eastern the largest of the
three. If the power transmitted to all three wheels was the same, we would expect the eastern-
most chain to have moved the fastest, but this would depend on the weight of water that each
chain was supposed to lift. It would also be possibleto control the powertransmittedto the wheel.
Both the western and central shafts appear to have bridges of stone from side to side, the
western c. 3 metres from its western end, the central c. 2 metres from its western end. These
are at the same depth, probably about 3 metres, but we could not approach close enough to
measure accurately. The purpose of these bridges is uncertain. What they do make clear is
that here at least the wheel cannot have been contained, to any great extent, within the rock-cut
part of the shaft. We must suppose that it came entirely above the bridge where it existed, that
its axle was not at or near the top level of the rock, but higher, and that the wheel was sup-
ported by a framework,presumably of timber. The chain of buckets could then pass to either
side of the bridge. The absence of such a bridge in the east shaft may suggest that there, where
the diameter of the wheel was greatest, it was found necessaryto insert it deeper into the shaft.
On the other hand, the rock immediately below the surface appears to have crumbed away
completely, and if a bridge had once existed, the rock fall could have taken it with it.
The framework supporting the wheel evidently rested on sleeper beams placed in the
cuttings of which we found evidence at the east shaft. The rock surface was not trimmed to
a single level, but flattened in a series of steps which run in sequence round the top of the shaft.
The lowest sleeper beams would thus act as a levelling or packing, and they would also ensure
that the frameworkwas firmly clamped to the rock surface. Over them there must have come
continuous beams running the full length of the shaft on either side, and fixed with cross-
beams, also perhaps resting on packing, at either end. Into these foundation beams would have
fitted the uprights holding the wheel, and risinlgtimbers to brace the uprights against the
weight and vibration of the wheel.103
41
s
c
3
u
11I/
0metres
FIG. 26. THE LIFTING MACHINERY: DIAGRAMMATIC RECONSTRUCTION.
The reasons for this arrangement seem sensible. With the length and weight of the con-
tinuous chain of buckets a certain amount of vibration would have been set up in operating
the machine. The provision of a considerable but well-fixed wooden framework would have
given a degree of springing which could partially have absorbed this. Moreover the character
of the rock on which the apparatus stood is variable. The eastern shaft has a cap of the
harder limestone, but this is thin, and in places it has cracked and completely fallen away. The
complete collapse of the sides of the other two shafts at the top suggests that there the lime-
stone cap was even thinner. A braced wooden frameworkwould have deadened the movement
of the wheel somewhat, and prevented the possible disintegration of the rock. This may also
1o3 The tentative restoration (FIG. 26) gives essentially a simplified and schematic version of what the arrangements
may have been.
230 R. A. TOMLINSON
be a further clue to the reason for the use of wheels of different sizes; the larger wheel
would set up greater vibration and so could be used only where the limestone cap appeared
reasonably solid.
The form of the wheel can only be guessed at. It is not unlikely that it was of the open type
with spokes, like those in the Roman mines of Spain, and presumably similar to that in the
wall painting from the Alexandrian tomb, but, of course, much larger. There may also have
been a second wheel at the bottom of each shaft, to keep the upward and downward sections
of the chain apart, in view of the great depth to which the shaft descends. On a chain of this
length the 'up' side must have been out of balance with the 'down' side, and a second wheel
would probably be necessaryto keep sufficienttension on the chain, and to prevent oscillation
which might otherwise have damaged both the apparatus itself and the sides of the shaft.
This would explain why it was necessaryfor each shaft to be approachable at two places from
the tunnels.104
To the south of each shaft is the large level platform. The excavations at the east shaft have
proved that this is of artificial construction, made from the debris excavated from the shaft,
and retained in place probably by a wooden revetment. There can be no doubt that the con-
struction of the platform is deliberate. If it was desired merely to dispose of the debris it could
have been scattered on either side of the shaft. It could be argued that if scattered to the north
it would have spoiled agricultural land, but this applies equally to the south side where it
actually was deposited. The platform therefore ought to be connected functionally with the
water-raising machinery. If so, it should be compared with the circular platform depicted in
the Alexandrian tomb painting, which there surrounds the waterwheel and provides level
ground on which oxen, walking in a circle, develop the motive power for the lifting apparatus.
There can be little doubt that it fulfilled the same function at Perachorasince, as we have seen,
it is unlikely that the wheel could have been turned by a treadmill.
The type of machinery turned by the oxen depends in part on the arrangement of the plat-
form-or rather the reverse, but we are using the evidence of the platform to determine the
type of machinery used. In the Alexandrian tomb the wheel is small, and the animals are able
to walk right round it. The beam which they turn passes over the wheel, and transmits the
circular motion to an upright shaft immediately adjacent to the wheel. This type could not
have been used at Perachora, where the platform is to one side of the wheel only. The size of
the wheel, and the fact that it does not seem to have been contained within the shaft, also make
it unlikely that the beam turned by the oxen could have passed over it.
We must therefore suppose that the oxen walked only to one side, the south side, of the
wheels, and that the upright pole to which they transmitted their circular motion was at the
centre of the platform. The oxen therefore passed between this turning pole and the wheel.
The movement would have to be transmitted to a horizontal pole, and this must have been
through a simple pair of cog-wheels, engaging at 9o'. This horizontal pole must have passed
either under the oxen, in a covered cutting, or above them. No cutting was visible in the section
we excavated, though it should have been if it had ever existed. It is to be presumed, therefore,
that the pole passed over the oxen. As the horizontal pole is more likely than not to be a
104 In the
modern, but still primitive version, (i.e. the Alan Moorehead in The White Nile, of Khartoum in the
sakia or Persian wheel), the water containers-earthenware I860s). But the height to which these wheels raise water is
pots-are attached to ropes suspended from the wheels, modest, compared with Perachora. There the dimensions
but there are no wheels at the bottom. 'The only supply of of the shaft suggest that the upward and downward sections
water was a muddy fluid brought up from the river by of the chains were constantly spaced an even distance from
Persian wheels with hanging earthernware jars that were each other, and this suggests that they were kept apart at
worked by circling oxen' (Sir Samuel Baker, quoted by the bottom as well as at the top.
continuation of the axle of the waterwheel-otherwise another set of gears would be necessary,
reducing the efficiency of the apparatus-this also suggests that the wheels were set compara-
tively high, on a frameworkabove the deep shafts.
Even though the evidence is not as complete as one would like, failing the recovery of the
machinery itself and a full investigation of the platform, it does seem certain that the water
was raised by machinery of this type, and that therefore cog-wheels engaging at 90o to each
other were known about three hundred years before the time of Vitruvius (FIG. 26).
The final element in the machinery concerns the collection of water after it has been raised.
The only evidence of this is the runnel. The runnel is untraceable up to a point some 15
metres from the western shaft. If it were still intact at this point it would emerge above the
ground surface, and this would seem to have been what happened originally, since as we have
noted, the ancient ground surface seems to have been identical with that of the present day.
The first part of the runnel would thereforehave been above ground, a fact which again points
to the wheels rising to a not inconsiderable height above the rock-cut parts of the shafts. It is
also noticeable that as the runnel goes downhill from east to west, so also does the height of
the wheels decline, and this also may be a factor in explaining why the wheels have decreasing
diameters as one goes from east to west. The section of the runnel above ground might have
been of similar construction to the part built underground, with stone and broken tile set in
plaster; but it could not have been made in the same trench-built method of the buried part.
It would have needed an increasingly substantial wall, no traces of which remain. In all prob-
ability the first part of the water-collecting channel was wooden, leading from wooden troughs
set against the side of each wheel-presumably the north side to avoid obstructing the turning
apparatus. If the containers attached to the chains had suitable holes in their sides, as in
Vitruvius' tympanum, the flow of water could easily be directed to one side, as is shown in our
reconstruction. If so, the wheels must have turned anti-clockwise, as seen from the platforms.
The channel from the eastern shaft would have passed to the north of the central shaft, avoiding
its platform and machinery. It could then run directly to the preserved part of the runnel,
being joined en route by the branch channels coming from the central and western shafts.
It is possible to make approximate calculations of the rate of flow along the runnel from its
dimensions (at their minimum point) and its over-all gradient, a total fall of o.50 m. over a
length of approximately 193 metres. This is necessarily the maximum rate which the runnel
could cope with, assuming that it was full. There is no reason to suppose that it was deliberately
and scientifically designed for this flow. The dimensions are in part dictated by the fact that
re-used ridge tiles were employed to cover part of it, and the width had to be adjusted to their
dimensions. Comparisonwith runnels at the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia suggeststhat this
is a standardsize, and that the carrying capacity of a runnel with these approximate dimensions
was well known.
By calculation on Chezy's formula (which is not applicable to metric measurements),
the runnel could carry a flow of approximately 2 cu. ft. per minute, that is, approximately
o-o6 cu. m. Thus the storage chambers, with their capacity of approximately350 cu. m., could
be filled in some 97 hours, assuming that the lifting apparatus was working continuously. Or
assuming a working day of twelve hours, the machines would need to operate for about eight
days.
We need not suppose then that the machines worked continuously, day in day out through-
out the year; indeed, the size of the storage chambers suggests that a large quantity of water
had to be stored there because the machines operated only for brief periods. (The question
of the consumption of the water is discussed below.) Since it seems that the water-bearing
232 R. A. TOMLINSON
levels at the bottom of the deep shaftsdo not hold water constantly,'osit can be understoodwhy
water had to be stored behind the fountain house, and why it had to be raised as quickly as
possible. This explains the need for three machines.
Since we do not know the size of the water containers on each bucket chain, nor the distance
at which they were spaced, nor the rate at which the machines turned, we cannot calculate
precisely the output of each machine. Palmero06reporting the reconstruction of one of the
Centenillo wheels states that it could raise 189 lb. of water through I2 ft. every minute, being
turned by one man, and that at this rate a man could reasonably work for eight hours. From
this it is possible to form some impressionof the potential lifting capacity at Perachora.Assum-
ing that the constant effort exerted by an ox (the most likely motive power applied to these
machines) is roughly six times that of a man,'07one ox ought to be able to raise 14o lb. of water
through Ioo ft. each minute. If there were two oxen to each machine, this gives a total of
280 lb. of water per machine per minute: that is, 41 cu. ft. or o0-33 cu. m. per minute, or, from
each machine, twice the amount with which the runnel could cope. But this calculation does
not allow for:
(a) The lower efficiency of turning a chain over a wheel.
(b) The greatly reduced efficiencyresultingfrom the transmissionof power through a primitive
gear-wheel rather than a treadmill fixed to the wheel itself. It has been pointed out that
this loss of efficiency would have been considerable.
(c) The more ponderous nature of the Perachora system compared with the smaller wheels
of the Roman mines, which would increase the resistance caused by friction on the axle-
bearing.
Any allowance made for this can only be by guesswork, but it does not seem unreasonable
to suggest that three machines were needed to operate simultaneously in order to maintain
a proper flow down the runnel.
The waterworks represent a considerable technological achievement, particularly in the
development and application of machinery. If the date suggested for them is correct, they
form an early example of the advance in practical engineering of Hellenistic times. So far as is
known, there is nothing comparable in Greece of earlier date. This raises two problems:
who was responsible for the creation of this elaborate system, and whence did he obtain the
idea for it. At the end of the fourth century B.c. Demetrius Poliorceteswas in control of Corinth
and its territory. His interest in mechanical devices is recorded by Plutarch, in addition to his
skill with siege engines of memorable complexity. Coulton has already suggested that Deme-
trius may have been responsiblefor the extensive activity at Perachora at the end of the fourth
He is as likely a person as any of whom we have knowledge to have instigated the
century.oSa
waterworks.
If Demetrius was responsible for the waterworks, he may well have found his inspiration
in the Near East. In 312 B.c. he had been in command of a raiding force that captured and
plundered Babylon. It is not in the least unlikely that he then inspected the Hanging Gardens,
one of the Seven Wonders of the World, and, if so, he must have seen the machines for lifting
water that are described in Strabo and Diodorus.Io0
0osIn late spring 1933 when Kenny investigated the By Feb. 1967, after a summer when there was some rainfall,
underground structures there was no water in the system and a wet winter, the water level appeared to have risen.
at all. In late summer 1966, when the investigations here 106 TIMM loc. cit.
published were carried out, the western tunnel held water, 107 A
figure based on the table in Forbes, Studiesii. 83.
and while we were working in it underground we could 108 Coulton BSA lxii
(1967) 369.
hear the occasional and intermittent dripping of water from lo9Demetrius' raid on Babylon: Diodorus xix. ioo. The
the roof. The spring of that year had been particularly wet. Hanging Gardens: Strabo xvI. i. 5; Diodorus ii. io. Strabo
THE NATURE OF THE SETTLEMENT IN THE UPPER PLAIN

Both Payne and Dunbabin thought of the settlement at the Heraion as a town. Payne devotes
a section of his first chapter to 'The Topography of the Town and Sanctuary'. Dunbabin calls
his unfinished chapter simply 'The Town'. In it he contemplates an estimate, not actually
carried out, of its population, which he clearly believes to have been considerable, running
into thousands. He thought that the scale and capacity of the waterworks supported this
figure. The impression they formed seems to have been that the greater part of the area
between the lake and the lighthouse was originally covered with houses.
This impression is surely erroneous. In the first place it is clear that the waterworks,though
supplying a fair quantity of water, are later in date than the majority of the buildings, of whose
chronology we can form some idea. Secondly, since it is now certain that the deep shaftsand the
storage chambers are part of the same single system, not of two distinct reservoirs,it follows that
they were not designed to supply two separate parts of the upper plain. Thirdly, it appearsthat
certain considerable areas of the upper plain were in fact devoid of buildings. The pattern of
settlement appears to be:
I. Dunbabin's house XIV, between the deep shafts and the lake. Dunbabin records in his
field notes another house, XV, which he states was partly destroyed by peasants in search of
graves. As the numbering sequence (which is partly shown on the plan, pl. 137 of Perachora i)
appears to run from west to east, this should be east of house XIV, perhaps in the area of the
shaft and storage chamber I.
2. Storage cistern 3, perhaps designed to serve a house that has not been found, some 770
metres to the west of the lake. There are fragmentary wall foundations surrounding a pebble
concrete floor, 2-.7 m. to the west of this.
3. The buildings of the upper plain (as defined in pp. 172 f. above, n. 50).
These buildings are few in number, and apart from the occasional isolated structure follow
the apparent line of the ancient road to the head of the Heraion valley. They are thus limited
to the lower slopes of the steep hills that mark the southern boundary of the plain and their
continuation towards the lighthouse. The central part of this plain bears few traces of building.
The northern part, where the limestone cap is thickest, is covered with small quarries. None
of the buildings in this area is situated conveniently for the fountain house.
There are occasional buildings further to the west, up to the low acropolis on which the
present lighthouse stands, but as far as can be discerned from their visible remains, these were
not numerous.
The arrangement of these buildings does not suggest a town, but a sporadic scatter of struc-
tures of quite widely different dates. It is most unlikely that the earliest buildings were still
used at the end of the fourth century B.c. The earliest of all would seem to have gone out of
use after some fifty years at the most. Apart from the small temple (which does not in itself
calls the water-lifting machines KoxXdas, Diodorus 6pyava. each side'. Koldewey supposes this to have been for a chain
Both authors say they raised water from the Euphrates, pump. Unfortunately he gives no further details, neither
but Diodorus says the machines were concealed uiE8sv6o -rSy the size of the openings, nor the depth of the shafts. As the
Ecoew~br6 ylv6aPvovouvibiv UVwacpvov. A structure iden- shafts are contained within a rectangular room it may be
tified by R. Koldewey as the Hanging Gardens contained doubted whether the machine could be turned by animals.
wells in one room (R. Koldewey, Excavationsat Babylon Oldfather, in his note on Diodorus, loc. cit. (Loeb edition)
91 f.). These wells comprise three shafts 'placed close to supposes the central square shaft to have served as an
each other, a square one in the centre, and oblong ones on inspection chamber.
234 R. A. TOMLINSON
indicate urban development), the public buildings that one would associate with a town are
lacking. There is no agora,aIOand no administrative buildings, even though we do now have,
at a late date, an extremely elaborate fountain house. It cannot be believed that such buildings,
which ought to have been of more substantial construction than those described in pp. 175 f.,
have disappeared without leaving any discernible traces on the surface, particularly as the
present ground level seems generally not to differ from that of antiquity. (The position, at least,
of the fountain house was indicated by the known and visible remains of the storage chambers,
which suggested the presence of a structure here.)
In addition, there is no trace of a cemetery. In his draft chapter Dunbabin considers this.
He points out that an extensive search was made during the original excavation for a cemetery,
completely without success. Although the inhabitants of Perachora village are known to have
discovered the apparently extensive ancient cemeteries in the vicinity of the village itself,
they have found only a few graves nearer the Heraion; even these are at the eastern end of the
lake, and presumably belong to the archaic houses that we found overlying the Early Helladic
settlement by the canal linking the lake with the sea. It seems unlikely, as Dunbabin remarks,
'that an extensive cemetery has escaped the searches, not only of the British School, but also
of the Perachora tomb-robbers of forty years ago (i.e. c. 19OO)'.I1IThe presumption must be
that there was no cemetery at all on the Heraion promontory.
This promontory is not a suitable locality for a town. Payne discussedthis point in volume i
of Perachora.1Iz He concluded that the purpose was military, that it was essential for Corinth's
safety that the Heraion promontory should not fall into the hands of an enemy; he considered
this enemy to have been Megara. He realized that this was a weak argument, since it was not
necessaryfor military safety that the promontoryshould become the site of a sizeable town,
but he had no other explanation to offer.
The disadvantage of the site are considerable. Foremost is the problem of a water supply."3
The complexity of the late fourth-century system, as well as the size of the double-apsidal
cistern by the sanctuaries, is a clear indication of the lengths to which the Greeks had to go
in this region to obtain, for whatever purpose, a reasonable water supply. The promontory is
naturally waterless, and until these works were constructed, anyone living in this area would
be dependent on rainwater trapped in smaller surface cisterns. There are, in fact, remarkably
few of these cisterns, and none that we discoveredin the area of the upper plain where building
remains are densest. This suggests that, until the late fourth-century waterworks were con-
structed, the population of the promontory must have been small. It is inconceivable that
a town existed on this site before 300 B.c. The military purpose that Payne suggests would
easily have been satisfied by a garrison, and the simpler cisterns on the acropolis would be
sufficient for this.I14
S10 It is now clear that the west court
by the harbour, town, including a Doric building, perhaps a temple, about
once called the 'agora' is nothing of the sort (Coulton, If kilometres from the modern village of Perachora, along
BS4 lxii (1967) 353). In any case it is too far from the upper the road to Bissia.
plain to be considered part of the settlement there. "13 This would be a different matter if the water in the
"I This perhaps requires some modification, now that lake, prior to the cutting of the canal which links it to the
an Early Helladic cemetery has been found at the western sea, had been drinkable. As it seems unlikely that a con-
end of the lake; but this was revealed only by the construc- siderable body of fresh water would have been deliberately
tion of a new road. Archaic or Classical graves would have contaminated by admitting the sea, one imagines that
been more easily recognized: see Payne's account of the the lake has always been brackish and undrinkable. The
grave-robbing in the area of the modern village. construction of the cisterns, ancient and modern, by the
"2 Perachora i. 23. The argument depends largely on lake would not make sense if drinking water could have
Payne's contention that the Heraion was the only town on been taken straight from the lake.
the Perachora promontory, and therefore responsible also "4 For the fortifications at the Heraion, see below, p.
240o.
for the Peiraion. There is good evidence for an ancient
There is no economic reason for a town to be located on the promontory."s The 'harbour'
is ludicrously small, and can have had no commercial significance."6 Commerce, anyway,
would have been directed towards the larger population on the south side of the gulf. The
harbour could accommodate a few fishing boats, but lacking artificial breakwatersit is dan-
gerously exposed to the occasional strong winds that blow from the south. Such breakwaters
could not be built further out than the modern jetty and the rougher line of boulders on the
other side of the harbour, since beyond this line the sea-bottom drops with cliff-like abruptness,
and the area enclosed is therefore necessarilyvery limited.
Further, this part of the promontory is of minimal significance from the point of view of
agriculture. The cultivable area is small in extent, unless we include the fields on the other
side of the lake; it would be further reduced if the upper plain were occupied by a town. But
these fieldswere probablyworkedeither by people living in isolatedfarmsand the smallsettlement
by the canal, or from the denser settlement of Peiraion. The only logical place for a village
or a small town, in antiquity as at the present day, is in the vicinity of the modern village,
which has fair water supplies, and is in the centre of an extensive area devoted to agriculture.17
When we turn to the meagre literary evidence, we can find no certain proof of the existence
of a town. The raid of Agesilaos was directed against the Corinthians, and their livestock, who
had originally taken refuge in the area of Peiraion. They surrenderedimmediately Agesilaos
had corneredthem in the Heraion, presumablybecausethey could neitherdefend it normaintain
themselves there, a strange situation if Heraion was the site of a sizeable town. The other
referencesquoted by Payne mention the existence of a sanctuary, not a town, the only exception
being the passage from Plutarch, Quaestiones Graecae17, which refers definitely to a village,
xcopli, inhabited by people called the Heraieis; but he refers to this as one of the constituent
of
parts Megara, not of Corinth. It may perhaps be doubted whether the promontory, Heraion
and Peiraion, was ever part of Megarian territory at all. Certainly, there is no archaeological
evidence to suggest that it was, for the finds even in the Geometric levels of the sanctuary,which
appreciably antedate the earliest evidence for the supposed town in the upper plain, point to
a Corinthian foundation. As Payne realized,"Isthe use by Plutarch of the name Peiraieis in
this passage suggests not a division of the Megarid but a region described from the point of
view of Corinth, and that he is using the historical names for this region. The passage may,
therefore, derive from a Megarian attempt to justify a claim to this region, made perhaps in
Hellenistic times. (It is noticeable that Strabo"19also defines as the Megarid the land im-
mediately to the north of the Isthmus of Corinth, which should logically include the Perachora
promontory.) The later Megarians may have imagined that in early archaic times there was
a village in the vicinity of the Heraion. It does not prove that there actually was one.
The various buildings outside the sanctuary proper have therefore to be treated more or
less as isolated structuresrather than as parts of a developed community. The area has three
discernible functions:
(i) It is concerned with the exploitation of the economic possibilitiesof the area.
(ii) It is concerned with the functioning, in the widest sense, of the sanctuaries.
(iii) At certain periods of Greek history the promontory achieved some military significance.
"s Dunbabin (Perachoraii, Appendix I, 528) describes (1966) 192.
the slight evidence of manufactures at Perachora. This 117 The site of an ancient town near Perachora has been
evidence suggests some activity connected with the sanc- noted above. Perachora itself at present draws most of its
tuary, but cannot possibly be considered as evidence of water from the vicinity of Bissia, higher up under Geraneia.
the carrying out of manufacturing processes on a commer- There is also an independent and old fountain behind
cial scale, and it is not necessarily to be connected with the the upper part of Perachora village.
existence in the area of a town. 118 Perachora i. 21.
116 For the 'Harbour' see now D.
J. Blackman, BSA lxi "9 Strabo ix. 390.
236 R. A. TOMLINSON
(i) The economic importance of the promontory is restricted. If we do not believe that the
entire area was given up to the urban development, limited agriculture is quite feasible, as it
clearly was later in Roman times. For this we would expect isolated farmhouses. We have, it
is to be believed, one certain example of this, and can see the area of two or three others.
The certain one is Dunbabin's house XIV, which seems to have been an isolated structure.
This would have been concerned with the farming of the land immediately to the west of the
lake. A second farmhouse may be suspected near the cistern 3. Between this cistern and house
XIV the plan in Perachora i marksthe line of a wall which Payne and Dunbabin regarded as the
western fortification of the town. The wall is now in a badly ruined state, but does not seem
to have been strong enough to act as a fortification.It may be rather a field or estate boundary,
separating the territory of the two farms. The second farm might have extended as far as the
beginning of the upper plain. The third area for a farm is in the subsidiary valley formed
by the southern ridge of hills, which forks into two at its eastern end. This valley is shown on
Payne's plan, along with the lines of several walls. If it does not belong to a separate farm,
it may go with the land belonging to house XIV. There may be room for another farm in the
western part of the promontory, but even the few buildings that exist in the upper plain cannot
all have been devoted to agriculture.
The northern part of the upper plain is covered with small quarries, exploiting the good
stone of the hard limestone cap. They are not extensive, and the stone taken from them may
well all have been used in the immediate vicinity, particularly for the later structures. The
limestone does not exist in sufficientquantity to havejustified continuous exploitation. Quarry-
ing can hardly have formed more than a temporary occupation in this area, and had no con-
tinued economic significance.
Fishing is the third possibility, but that is limited by the inadequacies of the harbour that
have already been described. It would form a secondary pursuit for the occupants of the farms
at either end of the lake, but it would again be a mistake to describe the settlement on the
upper plain as a fishing village.
(ii) The waterworksare the most important single feature outside the sanctuaries.These are
on a scale not justified by the apparentlysmall population of the promontory; moreover, the
promontory appears to have functioned satisfactorilyfor at least four hundred years without
the need for artificial waterworks on this scale. We must therefore suppose either that the
function of the promontorychanged with the constructionof the waterworks,or that the water-
works are a convenience, not a necessity. If the promontorywas, as it seems, virtually waterless
at the time of Agesilaos' raid, we have an immediate explanation of the Corinthians' rapid
surrenderthe moment he reached the Heraion. They and their animals could not endure being
put under a state of siege because of the shortage of water. Apart from this the Heraion is
a natural stronghold. The approach by land is very limited, since there are only three narrow
and easily defendable routes, to either side of the lake, and to the north of the mountain.120
It is even more difficult to approach by sea: the cliffs are abrupt, and, on the north coast,
undercut by the action of the waves working on the softer strata of rock. The only feasible
landing place is at the small harbour by the Heraion, and perhaps at the artificial landing
stage a little to the west. Neither has any attraction to a would-be attacker. The water supply
could have been arranged to turn this region into a practical stronghold. The discovery of
an elaborate fountain house makes this unlikely, since it was not necessary to have such an
ornate and well-constructed architectural facade to supply water for a Hellenistic army, any
more than for the purposes of agriculture.
120
Each of these routes is marked by an ancient made road.
We thus have an apparent anomaly, a large, elaborate, and expensive water system to
supply a non-existent large civilian population. The only possible conclusion is that the civilian
population has not left behind traces that can be discerned by the archaeologist as evidence
of habitation. It follows from this that the population was a temporary one, not normally
requiring permanent dwellings.
Many Greek cities had religious sanctuaries which lay outside the boundaries of the town
itself. The chief sanctuary of Argos would appear to have been the Heraion some o kilometres
distant. The town of Samos is located at the eastern corner of an extensive coastal plain;
the temple of Hera is at the western corner. Even if the reason for the siting of such sanctuaries
was originally purely local, they were quite obviously frequented mostly by people from the
cities some distance away. It is obvious that the Heraion of Perachora, though never a major
sanctuary comparable with those just mentioned, had more than a strictly local significance.
The offerings are made there in quantities which suggest a not inconsiderable pilgrimage.
Some of these pilgrims must have come from the Peiraia; the majority certainly came from
Corinth itself.
We know nothing of the details of Hera's festivals at this Heraion. It seems possible that the
shrine was oracular: Strabo calls it pacv-r'iov;and if this is correct there would presumably
be a constant coming and going of people to consult the oracle.121But even oracular gods and
goddesses have particular days of festival, at which crowds would attend and make their
offerings, even if they had no particular need to consult for the future. Agesilaos found it
possible to march from the Isthmus to the Heraion and back again in a single day; but ordinary
people would not be under such compelling necessity, and if, as is reasonable, the pilgrims
included wives and children, their rate of progress may well have been much slower. We do
not know how long the festival lasted, but it seems altogether unlikely that participants who
travelled by land would have made the journey from Corinth, taken part in the festival, and
returnedhome all in a single day.I22We might suppose, then, that they would spend the night-
perhaps more than one night-in the vicinity.123The whole purpose of the remains outside the
sanctuary seems to be concerned with the needs of some, at least, of these people.
Some may have been allowed to pass the night in the sanctuary itself, in the west court
possibly, or in the angled stoa. There would presumably have to be a special reason for this,
probably a religious one. Otherwise we must suppose these structures to be concerned solely
with the normal functions of the sanctuary. The majority of pilgrims, provided that the season
of the year was suitable, would, one imagines, have camped out in the open. They would need
water supplies which before the construction of the waterworks,would have been inadequate;
possibly they then brought their water with them. They would have left litter, broken pottery
and the like, in the fields where they camped; that is, in the upper plain rather than anywhere
else.124For the most part they would not expect to stay in permanent houses. Here we have
our large but temporarypopulation, which has left only uncertain archaeological evidence of its
existence.
If this theory is correct, the functions of the various buildings (other than the waterworks)
should be more narrowlyspecialized than if they were everydaydwelling housesin a normal town
or village. Some permanent population, serving the sanctuary, is likely enough, particularly
121
For the oracle, see Dunbabin, BSA xlvi (1951) 61. valley, south of the line of the modern (and, here, the
122
Some-but how many?-could have come by boat. ancient) road. Like the other continuous walls of the pro-
123 Ancient Greek festivals were, of course, by no means montory, this seems too slight to have had a military
limited to single days. function, and appears rather to mark the limit of the sacred
124 There is a wall, shown on the plan Perachorai, pl. 137, area. It is noticeable that the ordinary houses, etc., are all
which runs along the ridge to the north of the Heraion outside this line.
238 R. A. TOMLINSON
if it was oracular; but there are remarkably few buildings that bear any resemblance to
Greek houses as we know them elsewhere. House XIV, which is not in the upper plain, is
not dissimilar in general arrangement to the late-fifth-century house near the Dema wall in
Attica.125It is this similarity of plan that suggests that house XIV, like that at the Dema, is
an isolated farmhouse, and not really anything to do with the sanctuary.
Of the other houses, only A I is at all comparable in arrangement. This too is rectangularin
plan with the front longer than the side. There are rooms certainly to the back of the courtyard,
and structures of some sort on the western side, but the internal arrangements are not well
preserved, and cannot be said definitely to resemble those of house XIV or of the Dema house.
Of the other buildings, none resembles the normal Greek courtyard house in plan. The
oldest, B II, has already been discussed.As a simple megaron it does not bear comparisonwith
the later structuresof more specialized function. It may be regarded as evidence of permanent
occupation at an early date; but, if so, it appears to be isolated. Some of the later structures
are even more simple rectangular rooms or sheds, again with no discernible function.
The remaining and most interesting structuresconform to a single type: two rooms placed
side by side and opening off a courtyard.126The plan may be regular, with walls at right angles
to each other, as in buildings Z I, II, and III, or less regular as in building B IV, but the
general arrangement is the same. These could be very simple dwelling houses of a pattern not
discerned elsewhere. They are comparable, except for the forecourt, to the simpler houses of
many modern Greek villages; there are examples in Perachora itself. If this is so, we must
imagine that the meagre land of the promontorywas, at least in the late fourth century, divided
up amongst several families. These houses, except B IV, were probably in use at the same time
as house XIV, and if the remarks on the territory of that farm are valid, the land available
for these other houses must have been verylimited indeed. If we add anotherfarm near cistern3,
the area available becomes even smaller, so that the situation is not comparable with that at
the end of the nineteenth century, when a small cluster of houses existed near the site of the
fountain house (these are now completely ruined except for one); their occupants perhaps
inhabited them for the summer season only and probably farmed the whole of the Heraion
promontory. Even three peasant families seems an excessive number for the more restricted
area available in the late fourth century.
The houses may have been concerned with the waterworks which must have required a
maintenance staff; for, unlike natural springs, they could not be left to look after themselves.
The arrangements there point to elaborate provision for servicing and cleaning. The under-
ground passages would need to be kept clear of marl; the settling tanks and storage chambers
would have to be cleared out periodically. The machinery itself would require some main-
tenance, and its operation would have to be supervised. The oxen would have to be tended.
Even if it is unlikely that the machinery was in constant operation, it may well have required
a permanent staff to look after it and the other works, and these people would require per-
manent dwellings.
This does not explain one feature of this group of buildings found, for example, in B IV and
Z III; further excavation might also reveal it in the others. One of the two rooms, or pre-
sumed pair of rooms in the case of Z III, is clearly marked off as a dining-room or andron,
with low platforms around the walls on which would stand the wooden couches for the diners,
in an arrangement which immediately recalls the more permanent and elaborate equipment
in the hestiatorionbetween the sanctuaries. Formal dining-rooms of this type are known, of
125
J. E. Jones, L. H. Sackett, and A. J. Graham: 'The Dema House in Attica', BSA Ivii (1962) 75 if.
126 It is possible that A I is also basically of this type.
course, elsewhere in Greek houses, though in none of so early a date as that of building B IV.
They exist in the town houses of Olynthus,127where their function is clearly private. The Olyn-
thus houses belonged to reasonably well-to-do people. Even if they were farmers,their houses
were more elaborate than those at Perachora, for they have more rooms, and may even have
had mosaic floors. Moreover, they occur in a sizeable town, where it would be normal to expect
guests for dinner parties. (The androndoes not appear to be the room in which the family
would normally take its meals, since it is not universally found.) If the permanent popula-
tion of Perachora was small, there can hardly have been enough potential guests to justify
the construction of a special dining room for them. When we remember also that this special
room is one of two rooms and not, as at Olynthus, an additional room in an already fully
equipped house, we may wonder whether the purposeof the entire structureis that of a straight-
forwardnormal private residence. If it is not, then it must be assumed that the location of these
structuresis relevant to their function, and that they are, directly or indirectly, connected with
the religious associations of the promontory. The fact that the three later buildings are im-
mediately adjacent to the little temple (indeed, they appear to incorporate in part of their
structure a wall that undoubtedly belongs to the religious precinct), may well support this
connection. Despite their comparatively humble character, these structuresare more likely to
be hestiatoriathan private houses with their own andrones.
Prominent citizens-magistrates, priests, individuals especially honoured by decree-and
distinguishedvisitors, were granted privileged positions at the religious festivals. Special shares
of the meat from the sacrificialvictims might be allotted to them,12sand they might also have
where there would be reservedfor each of them
the right of eating in one of the officialhestiatoria,
a KlaiaC EV'lliOS.I29 Such, for example, is the hestiatorionat the Argive Heraion; and though
we cannot tell who were privileged to dine in it, from the fact that it accommodated only
perhaps thirty-threeguests, we must assume they were specially selected.130The corresponding
building at Perachora is the hestiatorion below the sanctuary of Hera Limenia.
The hestiatoria in the upper plain, like the temple itself, are much humbler structures.They
are smaller, their platforms are simply of earth and rubble, and there are no plastered floors.
Of the benches they once contained we know nothing, except that the number accommodated,
though surely too many for a family party, was too few for public ceremonial occasions.
We seem to have here an intermediate status; less important people would use these structures
when visiting the Heraion. Alternatively, they may reflect the simpler character of a local
festival at the small temple they adjoin. Whether they were intended to provide superiorprivate
accommodation for more well-to-do pilgrims, or whether they had any official function at
by the sanctuary, these places can only at best have catered for a minority.
all like the hestiatoria
The majoritywould probably celebrate in the manner describedin Athenaeus'Deipnosophistae.131
Thus it seems that the Heraion promontory is far from being the locality of a large and
flourishing town; it must have been in antiquity, as it still was in Payne's day before the con-
struction of the motor road, quiet and deserted. On the occasion of the festival the upper plain,
at least, would receive its crowds, but they would come only for the time of the festival itself.'3Z
127 Robinson and Graham, Olynthusviii. 171 f. been used all the year round, had provision for heating
128 Cf. IG ii2. 334 them in winter (Roebuck, Corinthxiv. 54; Welter, Troizen
129 P. Roussel, Les Cultesegyptiens
ai Dilos, no. 216 (p. 204). und Kalaureia 32). That there was nothing of this sort at
130 See
above, pp. 169 f. the Heraion suggests that the rooms there were used only
131 iv. 138 f., -r$vAaKCOVIKvoavpwoicov. in the summer. This slight evidence points to a season
aTEpl
132 It is worth noting that the dining-rooms of the when the majority of the pilgrims could camp out in the
Asklepieion at Corinth (see above p. 169) like those at open without undue hardship.
Troizen, which, as healing centres, would presumably have
240 R. A. TOMLINSON
They would sleep, most of them, in the open air. They would make their offering to the goddess;
they would undoubtedly enjoy their outing, which would be in the nature of a true holiday,
and return to their homes and their labour suitably refreshed,as their fellows must have done
from countless other small sanctuariesup and down the Greek world,'33and, of course, as their
modern descendants still do at the present day. The great international shrines, Delphi, Delos,
and, closer to Perachora, Isthmia, have their modern equivalents. The modern minor panegyris
of the isolated church, attended by the people of the surrounding countryside and the neigh-
bouring town, must also have had its ancient counterpart.
(iii) The military function of the promontory is largely concerned with the fortification on
the Acropolis by the lighthouse.
Dunbabin considered that there were two elements in the fortification of the Heraion:'34
firstly, the garrison points on the acropolis and the platform on which stands the chapel of
Ay. Nikolaos, and secondly, the outer defences that protected the town. It has already been
suggested that the outer walls are so slight in character that their military nature is suspect,
and that they are more likely to be farm or estate boundaries.'35
Concerning the garrison point at the lighthouse there is no room for doubt. The highest
point of this acropolis is to the east of the lighthouse and some 60 metres above sea level.
To the south the cliffs are sheer and unscalable, so that no artificialfortificationwas necessary.
On the north side there is a substantialwall, the blocks of which are trapezoidal with a tendency
to coursed arrangement (PLATE 58a-b). This wall runs across the eastern neck of the acropolis,
beginning at the sheer southern cliff. The ancient track to the acropolismust have come by this
way, as does the modern path to the lighthouse. When the modern path was constructed to
give easy access to the lighthouse for the transportof supplies, it largely destroyed the ancient
remains at this spot. There are, however, indications of the gateway that one would naturally
expect to find here, with a room immediately to the south, at the edge of the cliff.I36
From the gateway the wall turns westwards.Along the top of it runs the modern track to the
lighthouse. This is the best-preserved section, and it is some 30 metres in length. The line
undoubtedly continued beyond its present end, where the rock appears to have been under-
mined, and the wall carried away. The complete original length must therefore remain un-
certain.
Dunbabin states that there is a landing point on the northernedge of the cape, used when the
weather is from the south or south-east. But this northern coast is very broken, with jagged
rocks, and offers no approach of military significance. The purpose of the fortification was to
prevent an overland assault on the acropolis itself, rather than to repulse a landing by a sea-
borne enemy. Its existence presupposesno major obstacle to invasion overland from the east.
The remains of buildings and cisterns within the fortification are to be associated with a
permanent garrison,since the cape is far too exposed, at least in winter, for ordinaryhabitation.
Some digging was carried out here during the original excavations.
Built against the well-preservedsection of the fortificationwall is a series of small chambers
of very rough masonry, including a re-used piece, part of an engaged Ionic half-column from
the stoa by the harbour.'37Hellenistic sherds were found here, and Dunbabin considered the
chambers to be Hellenistic in date. Coulton has now dated the destruction of the stoa to the
'33 It is in this respect, particularly, that the sanctuary observations. 135 See above.
of Hemithea at Kastabos affords a useful comparison with 136 Dunbabin thought this was of re-used blocks. The
the Heraion of Perachora. See The Sanctuaryof Hemitheaat sherds found in it were, with one exception, all Hellenistic,
Kastabos(J. M. Cook and W. H. Plommer). and so Dunbabin dates it to the third century B.C.
134 In the projected chapter on the fortifications. This '37 Presumably not one of the half-drum fragments listed
section is based largely on Dunbabin's work, with my own by Coulton, BSA lix (1964) 12.
time of Mummius' sack of Corinth, so these walls can hardly be earlier.'38There is no further
information about the sherds.
The other buildings are on the highest and most exposed part of the acropolis,or immediately
to its side. The site is approached from the south by a staircase cut in the rock (PLATE 59d).
There is a narrow water channel on its western side, io centimetres wide. At the summit,
which is tolerably flat, is a bottle-shaped cistern cut into the rock. This is within a walled
enclosure, some 15 metres in length, and in width ranging from 3'40 m. at the eastern end to
5'75 m. at the west. During the original excavations, sherdsof the fourth and third centuries B.c.
were found in the cistern, along with 'yellow and pink roof tiles which should be older'. Pre-
sumably part (at least) of the enclosure was roofed, and the rainwater so collected was fed into
the cistern. Dunbabin describes the structure as a house, but in this otherwise unnecessarily
exposed position a military function must have been paramount. Since it is on the highest
point of the acropolis it should be a look-out point. A small building on the slightly lower plat-
form to the west may have housed the garrison. It is of irregular shape, its greatest length and
width being respectively 5-8 m. and 3.5 m. Further west still is a larger house, consisting of
a number of small rooms side by side, and a porch which Dunbabin thought was of third-
century date.
Beyond this was another cistern, which we did not examine. The following description is
from Dunbabin's account: 'The east wall is native rock left in its original state; the other walls
are built of small squared stones; the north wall has been badly patched. Its length from north
to south is eight metres, its greatest width c. seven. The walls are thickly coated with plaster,
the floor covered with plaster filled with small pebbles; in its south part it is patched with
a rude tesselation of fragments of red and yellow tiles. The floor is uneven, and rises very
irregularly towards all walls, especially the high uneven east wall. This is perhaps to stop
mud from settling in the corners. The roof was supported by Doric columns, of which there are
three fragments not in position; the diameter varies from 36 to 42 cm. The columns have
twenty flutes; the chord of the flute being 8-aI-82 cm.' Dunbabin considered this cistern
to be of the same date as most of the other buildings in the acropolis:that is, of the third century,
with Roman patching. Presumably it collected water from the roofs of the buildings already
described, and from the runnel by the steps, though this has not been traced beyond the foot
of the steps.
Dunbabin and Payne also considered that the platform above the head of the Heraion
valley, on which the chapel of Ay. Nikolaos now stands, had a military function. This platform
is artificially formed of short stretches of wall linking outcrops of rock with the intervening
space filled. The best section of wall is on the north side, some 31 metres long, built of large
blocks. The approach to this platformis from the north, where indications of a road leading from
the upper plain can be traced, in all probability startingfrom the ancient road that runs through
the middle of the scatter of houses there.139
On this platform the original excavators found traces of only one building c. 6-6o x 3-80 m.,
of massive blocks like the wall, its back wall cut in the rock. A small cave to the east had been
turned into a cistern.
The military character of this platform remains dubious. Even with its massive north wall,
it does not appear to be defensible against a determined enemy approaching along the ridge
to the east which, though difficult, is not inaccessible. A watch-tower or beacon station would
138 Until Coulton proved otherwise, the stoa was con- 139 Dunbabin described this as a 'scrambling way'. It
sidered to be of the early fourth century, and its destruc- seems to me to be a carefully constructed, wide path.
tion by early Hellenistic times was then possible.
C 6659 R
242 R. A. TOMLINSON
be sensible, and the fortification of the acropolis shows that there was always risk of attack.
One is, however, puzzled by the approach road from the upper plain, given that it is more than
the scrambling way seen here by Dunbabin. The possibility of a sanctuary on this platform
had been suggested even before Payne's excavations.140Payne and Dunbabin are both certain
that there was none; certainly there are no material remains now discernible. But now that
there is a temple known on the upper plain itself, while the predominantly religious nature
of the promontory is more apparent, we do not feel that we should be quite so certain that a
religious function for this platform should be excluded from consideration.
The date of the military development is uncertain. Dunbabin argued that the promontory
had its greatest military significance in the years around the middle of the fifth century when
the Athenians kept a naval base at Megarian Pegae, on the Halcyonic Gulf. There is nothing
in the character of the fortificationon the acropolis that makes this date impossible or improb-
able. An advanced look-out post at this point makes sense when there was a risk of seaborne
attack from waters invisible at Corinth itself. Warning from the Heraion would enable the
Corinthians to put their defences in a prepared state.
An alternative date might be sought in the 370s when Sparta, with Corinth as ally, was
waging war against Thebes and the revived Boeotian league. During this campaign the Hal-
cyonic Gulf was of considerable importance, particularly after the Thebans had succeeded in
blocking the passes over Cithaeron. The Spartan army which fought at Leuctra was pre-
viously transportedto Phocis by sea; and in his advance to that battlefield, Cleombrotus seized
Creusis, where the Thebans had stationed a squadron of triremes.'4'A large enclosure on the
slopes of Mt. Mavrovouni (Goulas), by the sanctuary of Artemis Agrotera in Southern Boeotia,
is almost certainly military in character,and may well representa major Spartan base connected
with this campaigning.I42From it the Heraion promontory is clearly visible, and a signal
station there would constitute a vital link between the base in Boeotia and the Peloponnese.
According to Dunbabin much of the material from the acropolis, and from several of the
structures there, belongs to the third century B.c. The description of the cistern with Doric
supports suggests, as Dunbabin himself argues, that it was built at the same time as the double
apsidal cistern in the sanctuary below, and thus would confirm a date of about 300 B.c. This
material suggests longer occupation, when the promontory again served as an advanced post
for a defensive system based on the acropolis of Sikyon and the Acrocorinth, though evidence
at Schoinos (the ancient Oenoe) suggests a more elaborate system of posts designed to repel
seaborne attacks on the Perachora promontory and the region north of Geraneia. It seems
logical to connect this with the occupation of the Corinthia by Demetrius Poliorcetes and his
son Antigonus.
THE ROMAN HOUSE

There is no evidence to show how long the waterworkssystem, with its complicated lifting
machinery, functioned. Once that machinery had gone out of use, the fountain-house must
have become derelict. Its remains were subsequently incorporated into a building of inferior
construction, presumably a farmhouse. FIG. 27 shows this later structure and its relationship
with the remains of the fountain house. Judging from the paucity of architectural fragments,
the ruin of the fountain house must have been virtually complete.
The southern and central storage chambers were abandoned, and the draw-basins in front
140 Cf. Perachorai. I4. 142
J. R. McCredie and A. Steinberg, Two Boeotian
'~4 Xen. Hellenicavi. iv. 3. Dedications, Hesperiaxxix (i960) I23.
THE
IN SHOWN
IS
INDIVIDUAL
HAVE
FALLEN
ROCK IN ROCK
NOT STRUCTURE
INCORPORATED
00
PLATFORM
CUT
ROCK
WALLSROMAN
BLOCK
NATURAL MARKED
HOUSE
BY
ONE
HELLENISTIC
ROMAN BLOCK
BLOCKS
ADDITIONAL
UNEXCAVATED
NOTIE
ROOM
NORTH-WEST METRES
1
3I
PLAN.
2I
HOUSE:
1
TWO
euthvnteria
ROMAN
ROOM 0
former
of
THE
line
27.
Front
FIG.
THREE
ROOM
.INED
STONEBASIN
KILN
NATURAL
ROCK/
244 R. A. TOMLINSON
of them filled and buried under the floor of the later structure, their parapets being largely
removed. The northern draw-basin was also filled, but not to the level of the floor. Above the
filling, but still within the draw-basin, a rough curved wall was built of irregular stones and
re-used blocks from the fountain house, cemented together (PLATE 59c). Between this wall and
the line of the wall that had divided the draw-basin from the storage chamber was a floor
made from re-used Hellenistic tiles, set in cement. Up to the level of this floor, the old rear wall
of the fountain house was intact, except that one block in the uppermost course preserved
had been removed or fallen at some time; this gap was filled with rough masonry, including
tile fragments cemented together. Behind this, the northern storage chamber was cleared and
put into service again. In the few places where it had been damaged, the plaster lining was
made good. The chamber could once more hold water, at least to the level of the blocking
wall built in the former north draw-basin. Blocksof stone placed against the wall at the western
end facilitated access when the chamber was empty. The well-shaft at the eastern end, entering
above the wall that divides the north chamber from the end section of the central chamber,
would seem to have been refurbished, though the shaping of the new plaster suggests that it
was envisaged that water would be drawn only from the northern chamber. The remainder
of the storage system was abandoned, except that the smaller settling chamber in the south-east
corner was carefully sealed off (PLATE 59b) from the southern chamber; thus it may have been
used as a cistern, the water being drawn through the old entry shaft of the Hellenistic system.
The water stored in these two chambers presumably came from surface catchment: the north
chamber, at least, could have been filled with rainwater collected on the roof of the adjacent
farmhouse.
The farmhouse (FIG. 27) consists of a series of rooms extended over the fountain-house floor,
with a western wall situated c. 1-28m. in front of the former euthynteria. There is at least one
more room to the west of this wall, at the northern end; but this was not completely excavated.
How far this wing extended to the west is not certain, but the lie of the land suggests that it
cannot have gone very far.
The northernmost room of the main series lies outside the original fountain-house. Its
southern wall is formed by the former northern wall of the fountain-house, with its anta.
This wall is continued, though not in a straight line, to the west, mainly based on the original
north stylobate. The eastern wall of the room is the old rusticated wing of the fountain-house.
The north wall was not traced. The section of rusticated wall which originally ran east-west
had been carefully removed except for the lowest corner, leaving clearly visible the line where
it had been formerly bonded into the remaining section. Its line could be seen in the level
of soft rock, which had here been trimmed back to form a platform. At the western end a door
led through to the west wing.
The main room appears to be the next in the series, to the south. It occupies the greater
part of the fountain house floor, including the northern draw-basin with the rearrangements
already described, and the central draw-basin. The west wall is made of fairly large squared
blocks presumably taken from the fountain house, laid in position without any foundations.
The wall crossesthe large pit, already described, in front of the former euthynteria. The weight
of the blocks has compressedthe filling of the pit, and they are in consequence no longer level.
To the north of the pit part of an upper course of similar blocks is preserved on this wall.
The south wall of this room is of very flimsy character: that is, random blocks, none of any
appreciable size, packed with earth and clay.'43 The wall was not continuous, and must have
143 This wall, which would not have survived once it was exposed to the elements, and which seriously obstructed the
fountain house floor, was removed.
included the doorway into the room, since the other walls are sufficiently well preserved to
show that no door could have existed there. A gap in this wall does occur, where it first crosses
the fountain house floor, but the original doorway need not have been quite so large. The
northern part of the floor was covered with dense-packed rubble, up to the level of the top of
the curved wall built in the north draw-basin. This may represent the true Roman floor, or at
least its make up. Where it had survived, it had preserved the Hellenistic floor in perfect
condition.
The remaining room of this series occupies the southern third of the old fountain-house and
the space beyond, up to the southern east-west rusticated wall. The arrangements here are
partly obscured by a crude kiln which has destroyed the outer part of the rusticatedwall. We
did not find the western wall of this room. The room still contains the original antawall though
apart from the lower courses still preserved, this may well have collapsed before the house
was built. Between the antawall and the wall dividing this from the main room was a crude
stone-lined basin which here preserved part of the former parapet in front of the south draw-
basin.
The construction of the walls of this house varies, according to the material available, from
re-used ashlar blocks to rubble and clay. The workmanshipis universallycareless.The number
of random stones found without any mortar in the destruction levels suggests that the upper
parts that have now fallen were all of rubble and built with mud-mortar. The rooms have
no inner supports, and the roofs would have rested on beams extending from wall to wall.
The only tiles found-with insignificant exceptions-were those from the original fountain-
house. While it is possible that these were re-used, it is unlikely that enough had survived the
collapse of the fountain house in usable condition. It is more likely that the roof was of thatch,
or a flat terrace sealed with clay daub. There were no made floors other than those of the
fountain house, and the level of earth and rubble in the central room. Where areas beyond
the fountain house were incorporated, they seem to have been given simple beaten-earth
floors.
The house is little more than a simple farmhouse. The quantity of loom-weights suggests
that sheep or goats were kept, and their wool woven in the house.
The chronology of this structure is determined by the pottery and other objects found in
it, which are catalogued below. Particularly significant is the series of terracotta lamps found
sealed under the concrete filling of the north draw-basin. The surprisingnumber of lamps found
in this limited space suggests that they had been used to give illumination when the north
chamber was cleared and refurbished.Several are of the plain wheel-made type (Corinth Type
XVI),I44 which Broneer dates to the first century A.D. There is also a moulded example of
Corinth Type XXII, so the wheel-made lamps should be fairly late in the series. This archaeo-
logical evidence seems to indicate a date in the second quarter of the first century A.D. for the
cleaning of the north storage chamber and the blocking of the adjoining draw-basin. There
seems no reason to doubt that the house was built at the same time. Similar material is found
in the debris over lying the house, and there seems no reason to suggest a prolonged period of
occupation.
'44 0. Broneer, CorinthIv. ii, 'Terracotta Lamps' 56 f., 149 f.
246 R. A. TOMLINSON
CATALOGUE OF FINDS FROM THE ROMAN HOUSE
Smallobjects
The objects found in the Roman house were mostly fragmentary and unidentifiable. Only
the more important are fully described in the following catalogue.
Coins
I. IR (silver plate on bronze) Coinageno. 1117, though there Apollo is accompanied
Obv. Head of Apollo r., laur. Hair in knot, falling in by a lyre, of which there is no sign on this coin. P.
two locks. Clodius issued coins in about 41 B.c. Found lying on
Rev. Female, standing front, holding upright objects in the top of the reversed column base incorporated in
each hand. (Lucifera, holding lighted torches.) the blocking wall in the north drawbasin.
on r. P. CLODIVS 2. 2E. Illegible. D. oo0175 m. Th. o00oo3m.
on 1. M. F. In north draw-basin.
A plated denarius. The surface on the reverse is cor- 3. JE. Illegible. D. ooi 85 m.
roded, and the details of the figure are not clear, but In Roman level outside(west)room 2.
the coin is similar to Sydenham, The RomanRepublican
Bronze
I. Fibula, fragmentary.
In north draw-basin.
2. Part of instrument, perhaps the handle of a strigil.
L. 0o077 m. W. at ends o0o17 m. and c. oo020om. 0I 1I 2I 3I 4I
, CMS
Roman level over floor in room 2.
3. Spoon (FIG.28, left). Part of the bowl is missing. Flat
handle. Over-all L. oo78 m. Original L. c. o0Io m.
L. of handle 0-05 m. Maximum Th. of handle 0-oo005 m.
4. Ring. D. 0-027 m.
5. Ring. D. o.o22 m.
Over floor of room 2.
6. Terminal, perhaps from earring, pin, or spit. Piriform.
L. 0o032 m. Maximum D. 0-0115 m.
Over floor.
7. Pin. L. m. D. of head o-o m.
17
8. Head ofo.112
pin. Flat disc. D. o-oI9 m.
Superficial level.
9. Head of large pin (or spit?). L. o-o24m. D. o-oI4m.
Superficial level. FIG. 28
Also: Six bronze nails, maximum L. 0-o86 m., with flattish,
rounded heads; together with several fragments. Fifteen
miscellaneous fragments of bronze sheet and strip.
Three fragments of bronze rod.
Iron
I. Large knife-like implement or weapon. Very badly 5. Ring, broken in half.
corroded and in fragments. L. c. 35 cm. W. c. 6 cm. Superficial level.
In north draw-basin. 6. Ring, in two parts.
2. Blade in two fragments. Total L. o0II m. W. 0-028 m. In north draw-basin.
Traces of two rivet-holes. Also: Four nails, complete, with flattish, rounded heads,
Superficial level. maximum L. o0Io5 m., and twenty-one fragments.
3. Two more fragments of a blade. W. 0-039 m. Forty miscellaneous fragments of iron sheeting, strip,
Over floor. etc. from unrecognizable objects.
4. Tool fragments (mattock?). Badly corroded.
In the stone-lined basin in room 3.
Lead
I. Filling for iron n clamp. L. o0I69 m. In Roman level outside the house. Again, probably
On the floor. This obviously comes from the demolition of from the Hellenistic building.
the Hellenistic fountain house, as does the next example. 4. Another possible fragment of dowel.
2. Part of filling for r clamp. On the floor in room 2.
In north draw-basin. Also: three fragments of lead strip, and other indeterminate
3. Fragment of dowel? Fan-shaped, maximum dimensions fragments.
0-076 x 0-042 m.
2- 3 4
I 5
8 9
10
11
11
Ian~m~
2N
541
10
0 5 10 15 20
CMS
FIG. 29. Scale

I:5.
Terracotta
lamps(FIG. 29, top) Broneer type XVI
a. Complete,or almostcomplete. i. Plain, wheel-made. Buff clay, partly blackened.
All except one of these (no. 7) came from the north draw- Nozzle broken. Strap handle intact. Surviving L.
basin, where they were in the fill covered and sealed by 0o088 m. W. 0o.o062m. H. of body, excluding handle,
the Roman blocking wall. Presumably they had been 0-030 m. High raised rim. Broneer's third group.
used to give illumination when the north chamber was 2. Plain, wheel-made. Orange clay. Blunt nozzle. Handle
cleaned out and refurbished. The type numbers are missing. Fairly high rim everted. Surviving L. 0o079 m.
those given to the lamps found at Corinth by Oscar W. 0-055 m. H. of body 0-o3I m.
Broneer, CorinthIV part ii, 'Terracotta Lamps'. Third group.
248 R. A. TOMLINSON
3. Plain, wheel-made. Orange clay. Blunt nozzle. Handle Probably a later example of the type, judging from
missing along with part of one side. High everted rim. the shape of the nozzle and the flat base; it should
Surviving L. o-o95m. W. 0-o62 m. (restored). H. of date to the middle of the first century A.D.
body 0-031 m.
Third group. Corinth type XXVII ? (Broneer p. go)
4. Plain, wheel-made. Orange clay. Blunt nozzle. Handle i I. Complete. Moulded. Orange clay. The normal type
missing. Everted rim. Surviving L. o-o82 m. W. of handle is replaced by finger-holds at either side of
o-o6I m. H. of body 0-031 m. the body. The top is again a bowl shape, with a very
Third group. small central filling hole. The nozzle, which is rounded,
5. Plain, wheel-made. Orange clay. Blunt nozzle. Handle makes only a slight projection from the body circle.
missing. Low rim, slightly everted. Surviving L. The top of the rim is raised, and decorated with an
0o082 m. W. 0o057 m. H. of body o-o26 m. impressed ovolo pattern. L. o-o88 m. W. o-o88 m.,
Third group.
including finger-holds. H. 0o030m.
6. Plain, wheel-made. Orange clay. Blunt nozzle. Handle Corinth type XXVII is the closest of Broneer's
missing. High everted rim. Surviving L. o0o79m. W. categories to this lamp, but there are certain differences:
0-054 m. H. 0o031 m. the finger-holds instead of a normal handle, and the
Third group.
shape of the nozzle. Type XXVII seems to belong to
7. Plain, wheel-made. Orange clay. Long, probably blunt- the second century A.D., and this lamp would then
ended nozzle, but the tip is missing, as is the handle. appear to be later than the others. It may therefore
Surviving L. o0103 m. W. 0-059 m. H. of body 0o038 m. be a very early example, deriving from the type of
Possibly Broneer's first group. This lamp was found in our lamp Io, before type XXVII reached its definitive
the debris over the floor of room 2. form.
Broneer dates the third group of his type XVI to the
period from Augustus to the end of the first century A.D. b. Fragments
Variant blunt-nozzle type Broneer type XVI
8. Plain, probably wheel-made. Orange clay. Sides curve Six blunt-ended nozzles; one from the north draw-basin,
the remainder from the levels immediately overlying
up to the filling hole. Vertical strap handle, now mostly
Hellenistic floor, and the corresponding level outside to
missing. Surviving L. 0oo95 m. W. o-o6o m. H. of body
the west.
o0o31 m.
Corinth type XIX, 'Ephesian type' (Broneer pp. 66, 159, Moulded lamps
and pl. vi (lamp no. 316))
I. Fr. of a top disc, and part of the attached side. Thin
9. Yellowish clay. Body decorated with two rows of yellowish clay. Figure of a horseman with helmet and
applied blobs. Nozzle missing, as is most of the vertical flying cloak. To one side, a sword. Another small fr.
strap handle. Surviving L. o-o7o m. W. 0o055m. H. of with the legs of the horse appears to be from the same
body 0-030 m. lamp.
An imported type (from the east, but whether or not From the north draw-basin.
from Ephesus does not appear to be known). Broneer 2. Fr. of top disc, and part of the side attached. Wafer-thin
thinks they came in when Caesar refounded Corinth, yellowish clay. Head of an animal, probably a dog.
and ceased to be imported in the reign of Augustus. From the north draw-basin.
Three other frs., with parts of decorative geometric
Corinth type XXII (Broneer, p. 76) patterns; and four plain frs., from similar lamps, also from
Io. Moulded. Yellow clay. The top is a deep bowl shape, the north draw-basin.
with a very small filling hole at the centre. There is
no sign of a handle. Nozzle with curved end and sides, Handles
carrying a moulded spiral decoration. The base is flat, Two vertical strap handles, from the levels above the
L. o0I03 m. W. 0o076m. H. 0o032 m. floor.
These lamps seem to provide a consistent body of material and appear to give a date in
the first century A.D. to the clearing of the north draw-basin and the constructionof the house.
A date about the middle of that century seems most probable, and this is consistent with the
evidence of the pottery, but not, as we shall see, with the likely date of the terracotta loom-
weights.
Loom-weights
(FIG. 29, bottom)
Conical
I. H. o0o92 m. Maximum D. o-o65 m. Corinthian clay. a human face. The other, on the bottom bevel, has the
Unglazed. This weight carries two stamps, one oval word MEAII.
containing a circular object, perhaps a fruit, or even From the fill over the central draw-basin.
2. H. (top broken off) 0-070 m. Maximum D. 0-0o57m. Pyramidal
Unglazed. Corinthian clay. Oval stamp. Mostly broken 6. H. o0126m. Base 0-056 x 0-42 m. (slightly incurved).
off, and with no discernible pattern. Unglazed. Coarse brownish clay.
Fill of central draw-basin. In the Roman level over the floor in room 2.
3. H. (top worn down) o-o63m. Maximum D. 0-042 m. 7. H. oI12om. Base o0o58x0o48m. Unglazed. Coarse
Unglazed. Corinthian clay. brownish clay.
North draw-basin. In the same level as weight 6.
4. H. (as preserved) o0o74m. D. of base 0-043 m. Corin- 8. H. o- I 16 m. Base 0-053 x 0-045 m. (in two joining frag-
thian clay. Traces of red glaze. ments). Unglazed. Coarse brownish clay.
In the Roman level to the west of room 2. In the same level as weights 6 and 7.
5. H. as preserved m. D. of base 0-032 m. Of hard, 9. H. Base o0o54x0o'43m. Unglazed. Coarse
dark stone. This 0"025 o.-I8m.
weight is strictly conical, being without brownish clay.
the bevel at the base as on the terracotta examples. Over north draw-basin.
The hole is vertical, not horizontal and at the top, as Io. H. 0-12 m. Base o0o50ox 0o42 m. Unglazed. Coarse
in the others. brownish clay.
From the fill over the north draw-basin. Over north draw-basin.
These pyramidal weights are all so alike in every respect that they must surely come from
a single set of weights.
The archaeology of Greek loom-weights has been discussed by Gladys R. Davidson in
Hesperia,Supplement vii ('Small Objects from the Pnyx'), section viii, 65 ff.
The conical type appears to be of Corinthian origin, and to predominate in that city;
according to Miss Davidson 'nine-tenths of all the loomweights found at Corinth are of this
shape'. It is therefore a little surprisingthat in our Roman house we have as many pyramidal
as conical weights; but with a total of only ten examples it would be foolish to come to any
statistical conclusions. Miss Davidson also notes that only one pyramidal weight of the Helle-
nistic period was found on the Pnyx, and that nowhere was this shape so popular as the
conical or discoid during the Hellenistic period.
All our examples, with the possible exception of no. 5, which may not be a loom-weight at
all, would appear to be late; the pyramidal weights are all of the large type, around 0-I2 m.
in height, which Miss Davidson considers to be typical of the Hellenistic age. The conical
examples have the bevelled edge to the base which distinguishes them from earlier varieties,
which take the form of a true cone. They do not, however, have the debased pear-shape which
'was the general type in the early days of the Roman empire'. All our examples are well made,
and with the exception of no. 5, already noted, of similar size within the two categories, suggest-
ing that they come from sets. In any other context, there can be no doubt that they would be
assigned to a Hellenistic date.
However, the levels in which they were found are strictly Roman, as the associated pottery
makes abundantly clear, and as has already emerged from the study of the lamps which go
with the original construction of the house. There is no evidence whatever to suggest earlier
Hellenistic occupation of the fountain house site of a sort that would require loom-weights.
If the weights are of Hellenistic date (and there seems no reason to doubt this) they must already
have been old when they were brought to this site. They belong to a type of loom that was
already on the verge of obsolescence when the Roman house was constructed (according to
Miss Davidson it went out of use towards the end of the first century A.D.). As they were
found in the occupation debris-even those from the north draw-basin were found over the
Roman construction, not sealed underneath it, as was the majority of the lamps found there-
there can be little doubt that a loom, or perhapstwo looms, of this type was deliberately brought
and installed in the Roman house. It is by no means impossible that the looms themselves
were as old as the sets of weights that went with them, and that they were perhaps as much
as 200 years old, or even older when they were moved into the new house. If this is so they
250 R. A. TOMLINSON
form an instructive example of the longevity of household equipment in ancient Greece. Such
looms were likely to be family heirlooms, handed down from generation to generation, and in
all probability had not moved far when they came to our Roman house. I should imagine
therefore that when the sanctuary ceased to function as such, the land around it became freely
available for farming, and that eventually a family already long established in the vicinity,
perhaps at Peiraion, moved in and took over the land.
Otherterracotta
objects Glass
i. Frs. of a large vessel. Probably a large bowl or basin I. Tall-necked flask. Fig. 28, right. Complete and intact.
standing on three or more feet. Of it survive: Flaring rim, folded up and over. Base flat. Clear glass,
with greenish-yellowish tinge. H. o-o83 m. D.: of rim
(a) One of the feet. H. 0o052 m., W. 0-031 m., Th. o0o25
m., terminating in a lion's paw, and decorated with m.; of neck, 0-o I3 m.; of body 0-054 m.; of base
o0-0o24
an impressed ovolo pattern on the sides and top. 00o25 m.
Cf., the bottle from the Pnyx (HesperiaSuppl. vii. 112)
(b) Frs. of the rim, decorated with impressed gad- which has a different form of base.
roons. In the Roman level in the north-west room.
(c) Two joining frs. of the body, decorated with four 2. Fr. of slightly flaring neck, with small out-turned rim.
horizontal ridges, two carrying an impressed zigzag Minimum D. of neck oo014 m. D. of rim o-oi9 m.
pattern, and an impressed cable pattern. From the Roman level on the floor of room 2.
From the Roman level on the floor of room 2. 3. Fr. of base of bottle. o0-o3I o0o21m.
2. Fr. of an architectural moulding, possibly a hawksbeak, From the Roman level on the floor of room 2.
but badly damaged. No surviving painted decoration. 4. Small fr. from neck of a small bottle.
In Roman level outside the house. From the Roman level on the floor of room 2.
3. Sherd of black glaze ribbed ware, cut as a gaming piece.
D. about 0-10o3m. Eight other fragments of glass vessels, two with moulded
Fr. from the Roman level on the floor of room 2. ribbing. One piece of glass rod, semicircular in section, and
twisted (broken in two, but joining). Total L. 0-029 m.
D. 0oo0045m. From the Roman level outside the house.
The scatter of fragments, one in the north draw-basin, one in the Roman stone-lined basin
in room 3, shows that the use of glass was contemporarywith the occupation of the house. The
complete flask found in the north-west room was presumably part of the domestic equipment
when the house was abandoned, and should therefore belong to the second century A.D.
Ivory Obsidian
Fr. of rod, semicircular in section. L. o0o24 m. D. 0oo005m. Three fragments of blades, from the superficial levels. Since
From the Roman level on the floor of room 2. these are found all over the Heraion promontory and its
upper plain, they are here of no particular significance.
Bone They must have originated from the Early Helladic settle-
ment by the lake, where we found them in abundance in
Part of a spout (?), drilled in bone. L. 0o052 m. D. about our trial trench.
oo015 m. Bi-conical bore, starting at either end.
From the north draw-basin.
Stone
Fragment of a quern. Radius o I48 m. Th. 0oo063m.
From the Roman level outside the house.
Also three other quern fragments.
Potter,
No complete vessels were found belonging to the Roman house and very few of which the
fragments were sufficient to enable us to restore the complete profile. The more important are
described individually. The remainder are classifiedaccording to rim profile, and given a brief
description, including the probable shape of the original pot, an indication of its size, the
type of clay used, and any special finish given to it.
3 4.
1
2
5
11
'7
8 9
10
12
\
13 28
15
16
20 23
T7
19
27
21 25
5 10 15 20
CMS
22 \
FIG. 30
Vesselswith restorableprofile
I. Cup with vertical handle(s). FIG. 30, I. attached at neck and on body. Buff clay, no glaze.
D. at rim c. Io cm. High rim, with curved handle Early first century A.D.
attached at the neck and on the body. Buff clay, with In north draw-basin.
thin brown glaze on exterior and on part of the in- 3. Cup with vertical handle. FIG.30, 3.
terior. D. at rim 7 cm. Bent handle, attached to rim and
In the fill above the north draw-basin. shoulder. Very thin, brittle fabric, fired brown.
2. Cup with vertical handles and ring-base. FIG. 30, 2. Early-mid first century A.D., cf. Agorav, M 3.
D. at rim 8 cm. H. 8-8 cm. High rim. Curved handle In south draw-basin.
252 R. A. TOMLINSON
4. Cup with vertical handle. FIG. 30, 4. 19. Large bowl. FIG 30, 19. D. 36 cm. Flat, outward-
D. uncertain, probably in range 8-i I cm. Bent handle, turned rim, decorated with painted red triangles on
attached to rim and shoulder. Very thin, brittle fabric, the upper surface, and a red band at the top of the
fired buff. Early-mid first century A.D., cf. no. 3. interior. Buff clay.
In the level above the floor. Above the floor.
5. Cup with vertical handle. FIG.30, 5. Fragment only. 20. Large bowl, FIG. 30, 20. Similar to 19, but with an
Curved handle attached to rim. Orange clay. undercut rim. Outward-turned rim, D. 34 cm, decor-
Above the floor. ated with painted red triangles on the upper surface,
There are also fragments of at least two similar cups. and a red band at the top of the interior. Buff clay.
6. Cup with vertical handle, FIG.30, 6. Above the floor.
D. at rim 8cm. H., upright rim. Curved handle 21. Large bowl, FIG. 30, 21. Similar to 19. Outward
attached at bottom of rim. Yellow-white clay. turned rim, D. 38 cm., decorated with brown triangles
On the floor of the north storage chamber. on the upper surface. Buff clay.
7. Cup with horizontal handle. FIG.30, 7. D. at rim 1II In the pit outside the west wall.
cm. Buff clay. 22. Large bowl, FIG.30, 22. Similar to I9. Outward-turned
Above the floor. rim, decorated with brown triangles on upper surface.
8. Cup with horizontal handle, FIG. 30, 8. Only the D. c. 30 cm. Buff clay.
handle is preserved, with part of the cup attached. Outside the west wall.
The outer part of the handle is twisted up and over 23. Vase with vertical handle, FIG. 30, 23. Moulded rim,
itself. Orange clay. D. 20 cm. Grey clay.
Above the floor. In the north draw-basin.
9. Platter, FIG.30, 9. Vertical and outward-curved edge, 24. Handle. Deep red-brown clay, brown exterior. Twisted
with plain rim, with a diameter of 17-6 cm. Plain ring- shape; cf. Agora v, G 114-
base. Buff clay, red glaze, brown at the edges and Above the floor.
underneath. Impressed rouletted ring inside. Early 25. Handle, FIG. 30, 25. Buff clay, black exterior. Twisted
first century A.D. shape. cf. no. 24.
From a superficial level. Fill of central draw-basin.
Io. Platter, FIG. 30, Io. Edge curved outwards slightly, 26. Jug. Plain rim, diameter uncertain. Flat-sectioned
moulded inside. D. 24 cm. Pale orange clay, with thin vertical handle, with thumb-print decoration, and
orange glaze. vertical flutes. Orange clay. Painted red chevron
In south draw-basin. decoration. Second century A.D.
I I. Platter, FIG. 30, I I. Rim missing. Original full D. c. Above the floor.
20 cm. Ring base, with diameter of 9 cm. Gaulish red 27. Tall-necked flask, FIG. 30, 27. Outward-turned lip,
glaze. Possibly Dragendorff form 15/17. Augustus- D. 2-5 cm. Maximum D. 3-6 cm. D. of flat base 2-o cm.
Tiberius. H. 7-5 cm. Yellowish clay, buff exterior with brown
From the level over the top of the central draw-basin. paint at the neck. The shape is similar to that of the
12. Platter, FIG.30, 12. Vertical edge, with incisions. D. glass flask (see above, small objects Glass. I).
I8cm. Ring base (with step inside), D. II cm. Buff In the fill of the central draw-basin.
clay. Brown surface, with red and black painted bands 28. Globular bowl, FIG.30, 28. Deep, slightly overhanging
on the interior of the rim. rim. D. 24 cm. Indented base. Dull orange clay,
In the central draw-basin. blackened exterior decorated with horizontal incised
13. Small flat dish, FIG. 30, 13. D. cm. Buff clay. lines.
In the south draw-basin. 4"4 In the debris at the top of the central draw-basin.
14. Kalathos. D. cm. Flat base. Buff clay, decorated
5"5paint. Probably Protocorinthian, and
with lines of red Amphoranecks.The diameter given is that at the rim. For
so an intruder in a Roman level. the shapes, see FIG.31.
In the south draw-basin. A I. Buff clay. D. 14 cm, painted in red on the exterior
15. Dish, FIG.30, 15. Plain rim, slightly undercut. D. 14'4 pXu(Phleious ?).
cm. Ring-base, D. 6-4 cm. Interior convex at bottom. Above the floor.
Yellow clay, with black glaze. Probably another survival, A 2. Buff clay. D. 15 cm.
but this time later Corinthian. Above the floor.
In the central draw-basin, under the Roman sealing. A 3. Orange-brown clay. D. II cm.
16. Bowl, FIG. 30, 16. Plain rim, D. 34cm. Buff clay, Above the floor.
with orange-brown glaze. A 4. Grey clay. D. 8-9 cm.
Two frs., one from a superficial level, the other from Above the floor.
the north draw-basin. A 5. Pink-buff clay. Internal D. 10-4 cm.
17. Vase with vertical handle, FIG.30, 17. Flat, outward A 6. Buff clay. D. Io cm.
turned rim. D. 20 cm. Buff clay. On floor of north storage chamber.
Above the floor. A 7. Orange clay. D. 14 cm.
I8. Vase with vertical handle. D. I7cm. Coarse grey North draw-basin.
clay, containing much grit. A 8. Pale orange clay. D. 7 cm.
Above the floor. South draw-basin.
4,
1 .2
10
5
8 9
6 7
5 7
/.
3
1 8
15 6 11
12
14
13
C D
1 r;
B
1 2
3 5
6 7
2
I
2
10
6 9
3 5 6 7
1
F
L 5
2. 3 6
7
10 12 13 14 16
8 9 11
15
1
G
7 8
3, 5 6
:2
I. 0 5 10 15
CMS.
9 10
FIG. 31
254 R. A. TOMLINSON
A 9. Coarse buff clay. D. iI cm. D 4. Bowl? D. 22 cm. Coarse brown clay.
South draw-basin. Above the floor.
A Io. Pale orange clay. D. 5 cm. D 5. Bowl. D. c. 36 cm. Very coarse brown clay.
Above the floor. Above the floor.
D 6. Bowl. D. c. 30 cm. Buff clay.
Pots classifiedaccordingto the shapeof the rims North draw-basin.
D 7. Bowl. D. c. ii cm. Coarse orange clay.
The diameters, unless stated otherwise, are those at the Above the floor.
rims. D 8. Bowl. D. 8-4 cm. Coarse brown clay.
Plain rims, forming a continuous curve with the body of Above the floor.
the pot. FIG. 31.
B I. Bowl? D. 6 cm. Orange clay, with thin orange Outward-turned rims, plain. FIG.31.
glaze. E i. Neck of jug? D. 9 cm. Pale orange clay.
South draw-basin. South draw-basin.
B 2. Bowl? D. I6cm. Pale orange clay, with body E 2. Bowl. D. 26 cm. Coarse buff clay.
thicker than B i. Above the floor.
Above south draw-basin. E 3. Jug? D. 6 cm. Pale orange clay, with brown glaze.
B 3. Bowl. D. 20 cm. Coarse grey clay, with much grit. Above the floor.
On floor of north storage chamber. E 4. Jug? D. 9 cm. Buff clay, brown glaze.
B 4. Bowl. D. 38 cm. Orange clay. Above the floor.
Above floor. E 5. Jug? D. 8 cm. Buff clay, brown glaze.
B 5. Cup? D. 9 cm. Buff clay. Above the central draw-basin.
Above floor. This pot possibly Archaic or Classical. E 6. Deep round bowl. D. 12 cm. Buff clay with orange
B 6. Bowl. D. I5 cm. Buff-brown clay. glaze.
Above floor. Above the central draw-basin.
B 7. Bowl. D. c. 24 cm. Buff clay with orange-brown glaze. E 7. Cooking-pot. D. I2.2 cm. Fine buff clay, with dark
Above floor. brown exterior.
B 8. Cup with vertical handle. D. 8 cm. Buff clay. In central draw-basin.
In the Roman stone-lined basin. E 8. Cooking-pot. D. Ii cm. Orange clay.
B 9. Bowl. D. unknown. Orange clay, red exterior, In central draw-basin.
blackened at rim. E 9. Cooking-pot. D. 9'4 cm. Buff clay, dull brown ex-
Over central draw-basin. terior, blackened at the rim.
B 10. Bowl. D. unknown. Orange clay with orange glaze. Central draw-basin.
Over the central draw-basin. E IO. ? D. uncertain. Buff clay with black glaze.
B ii. Bowl. D. 21 cm. Orange clay, red exterior. Above the floor.
Over the central draw-basin.
B 12. Bowl. D. 15 cm. Orange clay with orange slip. Outward-turned rims with flat, horizontal top surface.
Above the floor. FIG. 31.
B 13. Bowl. D. I6 cm. Buff clay, with orange and black F I. Cooking-pot. D. I1-2 cm. Buff clay. Ridged inside.
glaze. Over the central draw-basin.
Above the floor. F 2. Cooking-pot. D. 14-2 cm. Dull red clay, brown ex-
B 14. ? D. 14 cm. Orange clay. terior.
South draw-basin. Over the central draw-basin.
B 15. Bowl. D. II cm. Brown clay. F 3. Cooking-pot. D. II cm. Orange clay, red exterior.
South draw-basin. Over the central draw-basin.
F 4. ? D. 8 cm. Brown clay.
Plain rims, but not forming a continuous curve with the Above the floor.
body of the pot. FIG. 3'. F 5. Pot. D. Io cm. Orange clay.
C I. Bowl? D. 24 cm. Buff clay, with brown-red glaze. Above the floor.
North draw-basin.
F 6. ? D. 16 cm. Coarse buff clay.
C 2. Bowl? D. 22 cm. Buff clay, with brown glaze. Above the floor.
Above the floor.
F 7. Cooking-pot. D. 28 cm. Buff clay, orange slip.
Above the floor.
F 8. Bowl. D. 30 cm. Orange clay with orange glaze.
Rims formed by thickening the body to a flat top. FIG. 3'. Above the floor.
D i. Bowl. D. 22-2 cm. Coarse yellow clay, with black F 9. Cooking-pot. D. 9-3 cm. Buff clay.
exterior. Above the floor.
Over the central draw-basin. F IO0.Cooking-pot. D. Io cm. Buff clay, with brown sur-
D 2. D. 24 cm. Coarse brown clay. face.
From the Roman stone-lined basin. Above the floor.
D 3. Bowl? D. 132 cm. Grey clay. F I 1. Storage-jar. D. c. 40 cm. Orange-pink clay.
Above the floor. In the north draw-basin.
F 12. Cooking-pot. D. I8 cm. Coarse yellow clay with H 8. Bowl. D. 15cm. Pale orange clay with orange
black exterior. glaze.
F 13. Bowl. D. Io cm. Orange clay. H 9. ? D. uncertain. Brown clay.
F 14. ? D. 14 cm. Buff clay, brown glaze. H io. ? D. 13 cm. Buff-orange clay.
Above the flooir. Above the floor.
F 15. Deep basin. D. 38 cm. Upper surface of rim fluted. H I. ? D. 7-5 cm. Coarse grey clay.
Buff clay. Above the floor.
Above the floor. H 12. Bowl? D. cm. Orange clay.
F 16. Jar. D. I I cm. Orange-brown clay, with grit. Above the9"5floor.
Above the floor. H 13. ? D. 17 cm. Buff clay.
Above the floor.
H 14. Cooking pot? D. 24cm. Upper surface of rim
Outward-turned rims with flat but not horizontal top sur- notched. Buff clay.
face. FIG.31. Over the central draw-basin.
G I. ? D. 20 cm. Buff clay. H 15. Bowl. D. 12 cm. Coarse grey clay.
Above the floor. Over the central draw-basin.
G 2. ? D. c. 20 cm. Coarse orange clay. H 16. Storage-jar. D. 20 cm. Buff clay with brown glaze.
G 3. Cooking-pot. D. I I cm. Grey clay. H 17. Storage-jar? D. 12 cm. Grey clay.
G 4. Cooking-pot. D. 12 cm. Grey clay with black sur- H 18. ? D. 5 cm. Buffclay.
face. Above the floor.
Over the central draw-basin. H g9. ? D. c. 13 cm. Coarse grey clay.
G 5. Bottle. D. 7cm. (D. of the neck 24 cm.). Orange Above the floor.
clay. H 20. ? D. 4.8 cm. Orange clay.
In the central draw-basin. In the south draw-basin.
G 6. Cooking-pot. D. c. 20 cm. Coarse brown clay, fire-
blackened. Overhanging rims. Again, these vary considerably in pro-
Above the floor. file; for the exact forms, see the drawings, FIG. 32.
G 7. Bowl. D. 6-4 cm. Orange clay. I I. Bowl. D. 30 cm. Buff clay, surfaces black, rim red
In the Roman stone-lined basin. and black with incised lines.
G 8. Bowl. D. I6 cm. Brown clay with dark brown slip. North draw-basin.
Above the floor. I 2. Bowl or dish. D. 32 cm. Buff clay, orange glaze.
G 9. ? D. io cm. Orange clay, with thin slip. Central draw-basin.
Above the floor. I 3. Cooking-pot. D. 11 cm. Buff clay with black surfaces.
G 10.Jar with attached handle. D. c. 20 cm. Very coarse In the central draw-basin.
brown clay. I 4. Storage-jar. D. 28 cm. Orange clay.
In the north draw-basin. In the north draw-basin.
I 5. Storage-jar? D. 25-6 cm. Orange-buff clay.
In the south draw-basin.
Rounded rims. These vary considerably in profile; for the I 6. ? D. 30 cm. Pale orange clay.
exact form of each, see the drawings, FIG.32. In the south draw-basin.
H I. Cooking-pot? D. Io cm. Outer edge of the rim I 7. Amphora? D. 18 cm. Pale orange clay.
incised. Buff clay. Above the south draw-basin.
In the pit outside the west wall. I 8. Jug? D. 4 cm. Orange clay.
H 2. ? D. c. 18 cm. Brown clay. In north draw-basin.
Above the floor. I 9. Bowl? D. 17 cm. Buff clay.
H 3. Cooking-pot. D. c. 13 cm. Orange clay. In north draw-basin.
Above the floor. I io. Bowl? D. c. 20 cm. Orange-buff clay.
H 4- ? D. c. 20 cm. Rim turned outwards. Pale orange Above the floor.
clay. I iI. Bowl? D. 22 cm. Buff clay.
H 5. ? D. cm. Rim turned outwards. Buff clay with I 12. Cooking-pot? D. 17 cm. Very coarse brown-orange
Io.6
thin orange-brown glaze. clay.
H 6. Large bowl with handle. D. c. 30ocm. Handle I 13. Cooking-pot? D. 26 cm. Coarse brown clay.
attached to rim. Coarse orange clay. Above the floor.
Above the floor. I 14. Cooking-pot? D. I2 cm. Orange-brown clay.
H 7. Small bowl. D. Io cm. Orange clay with deep red Above the floor.
glaze. I 15. Cooking-pot? D. 23 cm. Coarse buff clay.
In the Roman stone-lined basin. Above the floor.
256 R. A. TOMLINSON
H
2 4 6 7 9
3 8
10
17 18
19 20
13 15 16
12
14
11
2 4
3 64 8
9
k 5
1 11 1
12
15
I 7 18
13 14 1%
16
17
I 2 A4 5 i 7
3
K
4'
5 8 9
20 r3 13
11 12 I 14
1 10
715 16
19
20
21 22
17
23
18
28j
26
31 24
27
42
42
37 f40
30
29
34
32 33
38
35 36
I41 r3
45 46
50
49
'47 48 5F1
39 r52
44
FIG. 32
I I6. ? D. '7 cm. Grey, gritty clay. K 17. ? D. I8 cm. Buff clay.
I 17. Cooking-pot. D. 19 cm. Coarse, fire-blackened clay, K 18. ? D. 14 cm. Buff clay.
I 18. Jar? D. c. 20 cm. Grey clay. K I9. ? D. 17 cm. Brittle brown clay.
K 20o. Dish. D. 9 cm. Orange clay with red glaze.
Turned-over rims. These are similar to the rounded rims, Above the floor.
but are undercut, to give an effect rather like a hawks- K 21. Jar. D. 8 cm. Brown clay.
beak moulding. FIG.32. Above the floor.
K 22. Dish? D. uncertain. Orange clay with red glaze.
J i. ? D. II cm. Grey clay. Above the floor.
Above the floor.
K 23. ? D. c. 24 cm. Coarse grey clay.
J 2. ? D. 9 cm. Brown clay. Above the floor.
Above the floor.
K 24 Bowl. D. 26 cm. Orange clay.
J 3. ? D. uncertain. Buff clay. Above the floor.
Superficial level. K 25. ? D. uncertain, probably between 20o and 30 cm.
J 4. ? D. 9 cm. Brown clay. Buff clay, brown glaze.
Above the floor.
Above the floor.
J 5. Cooking-pot. D. I7 cm. Brown clay with white grit. K 26. ? D. I6 cm. Coarse grey-black clay.
Above the floor.
Above the floor.
J 6. ? D. I3 cm. Buff clay. K 27. ? D. c. 13 cm. Brittle, brown clay.
Above the floor.
Above the floor.
J 7. ? D. c. 14 cm. Buffclay. K 28. ? D. cm. Orange clay.
Above the floor.
Above Io.6
the floor.
K 29. Jar. D. 9-8 cm. Coarse brown clay.
Moulded rims. These are of various complex profiles. For Above the floor.
the details see the drawings. FIG. 32. K 30. Bowl. D. 38 cm. Fine orange clay, with thin orange
K I. Shallow bowl. D. 16 cm. Orange clay. glaze.
Over the central draw-basin. Above the floor.
K 2. Bowl. D. 25 cm. Fine orange clay with red glaze. K 31. Bowl. D. 16 cm. Dark buff clay.
In the central draw-basin. Above the floor.
K 3. Deep bowl. D. 10-2 cm. Yellow clay with brown K 32. Jar. D. 6 cm. Brittle, coarse brown clay.
paint. Above the floor.
Over the central draw-basin. K 33. Plate. D. c. 38 cm. Yellow buff clay, decorated
K 4. Jar. D. 12 cm. Fine orange clay with red surface. with a wavy streak made in the clay before firing.
In the north draw-basin. Above the floor.
K 5. Jar. D. 7 cm. Buff clay. Rouletting on the exterior. K 34. ? D. 20 cm. Coarse orange clay, fire blackened.
In the north draw-basin. Above the floor.
K 6. Deep bowl. D. 8 cm. Buff clay with brown surfaces. K 35- Jar. D. I8 cm. Fine orange clay, with orange and
In the north draw-basin. brown mottled glaze.
K 7. Cup? D. uncertain. Coarse, dull red clay, blackened Above the floor.
at the rim. K 36. Bowl. D. 30 cm. Buff clay, with thin brown slip
In the north draw-basin. inside.
K 8. Bowl? D. I I cm. Buff clay. Above the floor.
In the pit outside the west wall. K 37. ? D. I6 cm. Coarse orange clay.
K 9. Amphora? D. c. I I cm. Pale orange clay. Above the floor.
Above the floor. K 38. ? D. c. 20 cm. Coarse grey clay.
K Io. Jug. D. uncertain. Red clay, with black surface. From a superficial level.
In the Roman stone-lined basin. K 39. ? D. i cm. Buffclay.
K I i. Amphora? D. uncertain. Orange clay. Superficial level.
In the Roman stone-lined basin. K 40 ? D. c. Io cm. Brown clay.
K 12. ? D. io cm. Buffclay. Above the floor.
In the Roman stone-lined basin. K 41. Bowl. D. 16 cm. Buff clay with grey surface.
K I3. ? D. 9 cm. Buff clay. Above the floor.
In the Roman stone-lined basin. K 42. Bowl? D. c. 33 cm. Orange-buff clay.
K 14. Bowl. D. 13 cm. Pale orange clay, with orange Above the floor.
glaze. K 43. ? D. I2 cm. Yellow-buff clay.
K I5. ? D. 5 cm. Buff clay. K 44. Jar. D. 12 cm. Pinkish-buff clay.
K I6. ? D. c. 20 cm. Buff clay. K 45. ? D. 8 cm. Brown clay with grey surface.
C 6659 S
258 R. A. TOMLINSON
K 46. ? D. c. 28 cm. Buff clay, fire-blackened. K 51. Jug? D. 20 cm. Grey clay. In the northdraw-basin.
Above the floor. K 52. Bowl. D. c. 32 cm. Pale orange clay.
K 47. Bowl. D. 12 cm. Buffclay with deep red glaze. In the south draw-basin.
In the north draw-basin.
K 48. ? D. Io cm. Orange-buffclay. Miscellaneous
K 49. Cup? D. 8 cm. Brittlebrownclay. L I. Fragment of carinated bowl, with moulded and
In the north draw-basin. inciseddecoration.Brown clay with orange glaze.
K 50. Amphora?D. 16'5 cm. Buffclay. Above the floor.
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 45
(b)
SANCTUARIES
TWO
THE
OUTSIDE
REMAINS
THE
PERACHORA:
(a)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 46
(a)
(c)
(b) (d)
PERACHORA: THE REMAINS OUTSIDE THE TWO SANCTUARIES
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 47
(b)
SANCTUARIES
TWO
THE
OUTSIDE
REMAINS
THE
PERACHORA:
(a)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 48
(5)
(d)
SANCTUARIES
TWO
THE
OUTSIDE
REMAINS
THE
(a)
PERACHORA:
(c)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 49
(d)
(b)
SANCTUARIES
TWO
THE
OUTSIDE
REMAINS
THE
PERACHORA:
(a)
(c)
B.S.A. 64
PERACHORA
THE UPPER PLAIN
iP 0 1 metres
NOTE Broken lines represent underground structures.
0 = Olive trees. Pine trees not shown.
Contours (surveyed from arbitrary base) at 1 metre intervals.
PLATE
PLATE 50
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 51
(c)
SANCTUARIES
TWO
THE
(b) (e)
OUTSIDE
REMAINS
THE
PERACHORA:
(d)
(a)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 52
(b)
(d)
SANCTUARIES
TWO
THE
OUTSIDE
REMAINS
THE
(c)
(a)
PERACHORA:
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 53
(c)
SANCTUARIES
TWO
THE
OUTSIDE
(b)
REMAINS
THE
PERACHORA:
(a)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 54
(a) (b)
(d)
(c) (e)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 55
(a) (b)
(c)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 56
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 57
(b)
(a)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 58
(a)
(b)
B.S.A. 64 PLATE 59
(b) (d)
SANCTUARIES
TWO
THE
OUTSIDE
REMAINS
THE
PERACHORA:
(a)
(c)

Tomlison Perachora: The Remains Outside The Two Sanctuaries 1969 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

Tomlison Perachora: The Remains Outside The Two Sanctuaries 1969 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perachora: The Remains outside the Two Sanctuaries

I See also Dunbabin's preface to Peraihoraii.

THE DOUBLE-APSIDAL CISTERN

SECTION LOOKING WEST (pier 5)

FIG. 3. THE DOUBLE APSIDAL CISTERN: SECTION

FIG. 4. THE HESTIATORION: PLAN (ACTUAL STATE).

FIG. 5. THE HESTIATORION: RESTORED PLAN.

It is not possible to reconstructthe superstructureof this building. If the vestibule continued

32 C. Roebuck, Corinthxiv, 'The Asklepieion and Lerna' 36 Waldstein, The

Such specialized dining-roomswould appear to be a not uncommon feature of Greek sanc-

THE BUILDINGS IN THE UPPER PLAIN

THE TEMPLE, BUILDING Z IV (FIG. 6; PLATE 5Ia-c)

FIG. 6. Scale 1:250

FIG. 8. SECTION THROUGH BUILDING B II.

Kotyle (FIG. IO)

BUILDING B IV (PLAN, FIG. 7; PLATE 52C)

BUILDING A I (PLAN, FIG. I I; PLATE 52a).

foundin buildingsZ I, II, andIII

Phiale mesomphalos Gamingpiece

Materialfoundin BuildingB III

BUILDINGS TO THE WEST OF THE UPPER PLAIN

FIG. 12. BUILDINGS ON THE RIDGE ABOVE THE SANCTUARIES.

DUNBABIN'S HOUSE (XIV) (PLAN, FIG. 13)

FIG. 13. DUNBABIN'SHOUSEXIV.

DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERWORKS OF THE UPPER PLAIN

FIG. 14. SHAFT AND STAIRCASE PLAN

MIDDLE SHAFT SECTION 1

FIG. 14. SHAFT AND STAIRCASE PLAN

FIG. 16. EAST SHAFT: ORIGINAL STATE (AXONOMETRIC RECONSTRUCTION).

SANDSTONE AND MARL D

Here the are obscured

Between these points the west wall

THE STORAGE CHAMBERS AND THE FOUNTAIN HOUSE

FIG. 20. SECTION ACROSS NORTH STORAGE CHAMBER.

FIG. 22. THE FOUNTAIN HOUSE: THE FA9ADE RESTORED

FIG. 23. SECTION THROUGH THE FOUNTAIN HOUSE.

FIG. 24. THE FOUNTAIN HOUSE: DETAILS OF THE ORDER.

The position of these parts in relation to the roof is discussed below.

FIG. 25. SHAFT AND STORAGE CHAMBER I

THE FUNCTIONING OF THE WATERWORKS

example.The essentialdifferenceis that whereasthe chambersof Peireneare cut simplyto

FIG. 26. THE LIFTING MACHINERY: DIAGRAMMATIC RECONSTRUCTION.

THE NATURE OF THE SETTLEMENT IN THE UPPER PLAIN

THE ROMAN HOUSE

'44 0. Broneer, CorinthIv. ii, 'Terracotta Lamps' 56 f., 149 f.

CATALOGUE OF FINDS FROM THE ROMAN HOUSE

FIG. 29. Scale

NOTE Broken lines represent underground structures.

0 = Olive trees. Pine trees not shown.

Contours (surveyed from arbitrary base) at 1 metre intervals.

PERACHORA: THE REMAINS OUTSIDE THE TWO SANCTUARIES

You might also like