In 396 Alaric's forces inflicted heavy damage from the Dipylon all along the Panathenaic Way and into the Agora,91 after which the lampmakers returned and took up their trade once more

FROM DIOCLETIAN TO THE VISIGOTHIC INVASION

THE BUILDINGS

3) In 396 Alaric's forces inflicted heavy damage from the Dipylon all along the Panathenaic Way and into the Agora,91 after which the lampmakers returned and took up their trade once more

Himerius saw the Panathenaic procession, but what actual buildings did he see? Certainty exists only in the case of the long stoa bordering the Panathenaic Way on the south side just before the street enters the Agora. Its predecessor, built at the end of the 1st or in the 2nd century, was de- stroyed in 267, and no rebuilding took place before the middle of the 4th century.92 Moreover, this

86 For these see below, p. 60.

87 For the definitive publication of the Pompeion in all periods, see Hoepfner. The report on the investigation and dating of the latest phase, from which the present account is largely drawn, will be found on pp. 176-199, with refer- ences. The two new buildings will be referred to as the "Late Pompeion" (Hoepfner's Hallenstrasse) and Festtor, retaining his term for what was evidently a ceremonial gateway, perhaps similar to one at the entrance to the stadium at Delphi.

88 Some doubt has been raised as to whether the gate was ever finished, since no pieces of the superstructure were discovered, but all the material may have been carried away for use in other buildings, with a thoroughness not unpar- alleled elsewhere in Athens.

89 See also Agora VII, p. 20, for the early 4th-century recovery of the lamp industry.

90 Above, pp. 23-24.

91 Hoepfner attributed the damage to the earthquake of 375 rather than to Alaric on the basis of Zosimus' report that Alaric left Athens unharmed. But Athens escaped serious damage in the earthquake, and there is now ample evidence of destruction in 396 in the Agora (below, p. 52) and in the Kerameikos, where coins going down to the reign of Arca- dius (A.D. 383-408) attest to destruction at that time (Agora VII, p. 63).

92 For the evidence, see below, p. 28. Its counterpart on the north side of the street undoubtedly dates from this same time, but it is in too fragmentary a state to permit close dating (below, p. 28).

© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.

THE BUILDINGS

is the only stretch of the street that answers to Himerius' description of "dividing the stoas on either side". Disturbances caused by the lampmakers removed most of the evidence for the date of the Late Pompeion. A 4th-century date for the Festtor seemed to be established by the deep filling in its foundation trench, but a few sherds attributed to the late 4th or 5th century in the same filling seem to undermine the earlier dating and therefore bring both buildings down to the 5th century.93 This evidence cannot be ignored, and so the question must be reopened.

A 5th-century date presents grave difficulties. Although the Late Pompeion cannot be dated pre- cisely by either pottery or coins, a sequence of developments can be traced between stages 1 and 3 noted above. The cessation of activity of the lampmakers, so well entrenched through the first half of the 4th century, implies some reason, such as clearing the ground for new construction. On the more positive side, the Late Pompeion shows two distinct periods, with a rebuilding almost from the ground. A new floor was laid, ca. 0.30 m. higher than the first, and on the stump of the south wall a new one was superimposed (PI. 18). The new building was evidently of flimsier construc- tion, its wall being only 0.60 m. thick. It extended six meters farther to the east, perhaps to compen- sate for greater destruction at the west end, close to the city wall. That the destruction was caused by Alaric was left in no doubt by the massive debris, all over the area, abandoned by the lamp- makers who once more moved in immediately after the disaster.94

The Festtor was evidently destroyed by Alaric (if, indeed, it was ever completed) and never re- built. Although the evidence for its construction is contradictory, its destruction and plundering can be fixed with some certainty in the first half of the 5th century by coins found in the northern part of the remaining foundations.95 The walls of the second phase of the Late Pompeion carried right up to the foundations of the Festtor and consequently postdate its destruction. Hoepfner concludes therefore that the second phase dates from the first half of the 5th century. The columns that were found over and around the Late Pompeion were very likely used in both phases of its construction.

Some additions may have been necessary, which would perhaps account for the presence of two impost blocks,96 imposts not being known in Greece before the 5th century.97

The published studies of impost blocks are directed mainly toward the decorated type, well in- tegrated with the general architectural scheme, rather than the undecorated, purely utilitarian form designed to effect a transition from the capital to the arch. It might be noted that Greece, where the chief source of columns in Late Antiquity was the cannibalization of ancient buildings, would have been a fertile ground for e ro the type, since the columns in late buildings (as in the Pompeion) were often of disparate heights, which could be rectified by the use of the impost.

To revert to the contradictory evidence for the construction of the Festtor, i.e., the 5th-century sherds from the foundation trench, some doubt may be entertained about its validity. The rest of the fill, which was deep, was uniformly of the earlier part of the 4th century. The stratification was

93 This was pointed out to me by J. P. Binder.

94 Some 16,000 lamps were found on the site. First thought to have been from Alaric's destruction, they are now attributed to these artisans, according to J. P. Binder's dating of the lamps of this period, revised from that published in Agora VII. (For a note on the redating see H. Williams, Kenchreai, V, The Lamps, Leiden 1981, p. 104.)

95 Six were of the period 395-450, one each from the time of Valentinian II (A.D. 388-396) and Honorius

(A.D. 413-423), and one from the Middle Ages.

96 Hoepfner, p. 179, fig. 193 and p. 185, fig. 200.

97 F. W. Deichmann, Studien zur Architektur Konstantinopels im 5. und 6. Jahrhundert nach Christus (Deutsche Beitrdge zur Altertumswissenschaft 4), Baden-Baden 1956, pp. 41 ff. Deichmann notes, however, that the subject has not been thoroughly studied and that little chronological evidence has been found. He is of the opinion that the origin of the type is probably to be found in Greece.

© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.

III. FROM DIOCLETIAN TO THE VISIGOTHIC INVASION

very complicated, and the possibility of human error cannot be excluded.98 In view of the activity of the plunderers, e.g. the coins cited above, some intrusion might be another explanation.

Closely related to the problem is the history of the Panathenaic Way. The stoa bordering the south side of the Way between Dipylon and Agora had a long history. Built in the second half of the 1st to the early 2nd century, it was in use, with several modifications, until 267.99 It was almost completely destroyed by the Heruli, who left heavily burnt debris over the floors, followed by an ac- cumulation of pottery of the first half of the 4th century, with coins of Constantine II (A.D. 337- 341) and Constantius II (350's). The stoa was refurbished in a substantial way, evidently in the middle of the 4th century, including, probably, the large statue base in the propylon at its south end.

This must have been one of the stoas seen by Himerius, since the site had lain desolate after the de- struction of its predecessor. Destruction in 396 is well attested by layers of ash and debris over the floors, with coins of the 380's. 100 This stoa, then, and Phase I of the Late Pompeion may be consid- ered contemporary. The Festtor may be included with these because of the close architectural rela- tionship and the fact that it was already destroyed and being plundered by the time of Phase II.

Might not the plunderers, in fact, have been the builders of Phase II?

The three buildings, Late Pompeion (Phase I), Festtor, and the stoa on the Panathenaic Way, form a well-integrated group. They can easily be thought of as part of the revival of Athens during the reign of Constantine and a little later, which, incidentally, coincides with the time of the known benefactors of the city with their emphasis on "celebrations".'01 The Panathenaia, as the most im- portant of Athenian festivals, might be expected to receive the highest priority. A desire to enhance the appearance of the main entrance to the city may also have played a part.

Remains of the stoas on the north side of the street between the Dipylon and Agora have been uncovered over a considerable stretch.1'02 They are in too ruinous a state to provide any useful evi- dence of their date, but they were probably part of the same program. A Late Roman bath (5th century?) was built over one part, and so here at least there was no rebuilding. The final stretch had no stoa on the north side owing to the continued presence of an Early Roman temple and a monu- mental altar of the classical period, discovered in the 1980-1982 campaign of the Agora Excava- tions.103 These were destroyed, probably in 396, and their place was taken by a 5th-century stoa which abutted against the west wall of the Stoa Poikile.104

The course of the Panathenaic Way after it entered the Agora was more informal (Pl. 6). Its eastern edge remained more or less stable, along the line later followed by the Long Late Roman Wall and the mill aqueduct.105 But the western edge became quite undefined in Late Antiquity, particularly in the northern section where the graveled surface suffered continually from the accu- mulated silt brought by the torrents rushing down the slopes as the drainage system became less and less effective.

Toward the southeast corner of the Agora the course of the road was deflected westward to avoid the towers of the Post-Herulian Wall and the mill aqueduct, reverting to its original line only after

98 Dr. Hoepfner, who was present at the excavation, kindly gave this opinion in answer to an inquiry from me about the details.

99 For its final exploration see Hesperia 42, 1973, pp. 370-382 (Shear, Jr.), with earlier references.

100 For details, see below, p. 54, and Shear, op. cit., p. 380.

101 Above, p. 21.

102 Vanderpool (footnote 22 above, p. 15), pp. 289-297; Y. Nikopoulou, <TowoypaLcKa 'AOvwv?v>, AAA 4, 1971, pp. 1-9.

103 Hesperia 53, 1984, pp. 24-37 (Shear, Jr.).

104 Ibid., p. 16, fig. 10.

105 Below, pp. 80, 81.

© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.

THE BUILDINGS

the latter had turned east to pass through the wall.106 Above this point the road followed the old Dromos, even though Towers W 3, W 2, and W 1 (proceeding southward) stood squarely in the middle (Pls. 5, 9). The difficulty was not serious, however, because the ground levels of the road and of the area between its west side and the Antonine aqueduct were the same, and the intervening space was ample to make up for the loss caused by the towers.

Traffic over the road diminished greatly after the Slavic invasion of the late 6th century, when the stretch on the slopes became gradually covered over with a layer of silt. During the 7th century the road was used by the inhabitants of the makeshift houses built over the ruins on either side: those of the "schools" on the west and miscellaneous buildings on the east.107 But these buildings were short- lived. Most of the houses on the east side of the street were destroyed by fire, those on the west by neglect. The western area was not rebuilt until Turkish times, but the east became one of the most prosperous residential districts in the 1 1th and 12th centuries.

WATERWORKS Water Supply

Throughout Late Antiquity, from the 4th century down to the Slavic invasion of the 580's, an effort was made to keep in working order at least some of the fresh-water and drainage systems of the classical period. In some cases a thorough cleaning was all that was needed; in others the Heru- lian damage was so severe as to necessitate substantial rebuilding, usually, however, permitting re- use only in a much reduced degree.

Of the water systems of the classical period only the Antonine aqueduct survived the destruction of 267. It too was seriously damaged but was put back into service on a diminished scale. In connec- tion with that aqueduct an elaborate system of reservoirs, chambers, and passages dating from the 1st century had been incorporated on both sides of the Panathenaic Way.108 Being largely under- ground they survived the Herulian attack and continued in use at least through the 5th century and perhaps into the 6th, but no later. Another source of water in the 6th century was a huge cistern constructed against the inner face of the Post-Herulian Wall, apparently a successor to one of the classical period immediately below the Klepsydra, called by A. W. Parsons the Paved Court.109 Parsons attributed the rehabilitation of the Klepsydra system in this much reduced form to Jus- tinian's interest in the problem of the water supply (Procopius, de aed. LV.2.24). He could find no evidence for the duration of the re-use beyond the fact that after an apparent period of disuse the ancient source was sought and found in the 10th or 1 1th century.

Mention should be made too of an independent water line whose sole purpose appears to have been to furnish water for three mills along the east side of the Agora.1 0 The other major source of water was the great number of wells sunk in the Agora itself but more especially in the environs.

Drainage

The Great Drain, with its main north-south line along the west side of the Agora throughout the classical period, continued to function, but with decreasing efficiency, through the 5th century (PI. 17:b). In the beginning it had been frequently cleaned out, but as time went on the layers of accumulated debris and silt became thicker. A stretch of the south branch, after it crosses Piraeus

106 Below, p. 81.

107 Below, pp. 117-120, for these buildings.

108 Hesperia 7, 1938, p. 329 and 8, 1939, p. 218 (Shear, Sr.).

109 "Klepsydra and the Paved Forecourt of the Pythion," Hesperia 12, 1943, pp. 191-193.

110 Below, pp. 80-81.

III. FROM DIOCLETIAN TO THE VISIGOTHIC INVASION

Street, may be taken as representative.111 Here at the bottom lay a late Hellenistic deposit only 0.20 m. thick. Above it was a layer of pre-Herulian times 0.50 m. thick and on top of that a post- Herulian accumulation 0.60 m. thick with coins dating down to the middle of the 3rd century.

Debris gradually settled on top of this, rising very nearly to the top of the drain. That water con- tinued to run at this high level is demonstrated by the heavy water wear and lime deposit on the under surfaces of the cover slabs. Coins from this level went down as late as the 5th century. Wheth- er the drain continued in use into the 6th century is uncertain; if so, it could have allowed no more than a trickle, and it was certainly not functioning after the 6th century. This pattern can be paral- leled in the stretch of the drain in front of the Tholos.112

Baths

The Agora area was well supplied with unpretentious baths from the end of the 4th century until the end of the 6th. With the exception of the small bath built in connection with bath built in connection with the Palace of the the Palace of Giants, all were located in the southwestern section.113 The baths had much in common. At least two were built on the sites of earlier baths. All except one were small, compact establishments intended for use by only a few people at a time. All conformed to standard practice in their in- stallations while differing in minor matters of arrangement and decoration. The hypocaust columns were invariably made of circular tiles. In most cases evidence was found, in the presence of tegulae mammatae, for the circulation of warm air through the wall cavities as well as under the floors.

Their use in all the baths may be presumed.

Methods of construction were similar, at least for the rooms requiring the use of water, the walls being made of rubble masonry with hard, gray lime mortar. The pools themselves were lined with a hard, pinkish cement with much ground-up tile mixed with it.

In the center of the industrial district, in the low ground at the northwest end of the Areopagus, were two small baths, both in use during the 4th andth hcenturies.114 The more elaborate of the two, the East Bath, was originally built in the 2nd or early 3rd century, destroyed in the Herulian raid, and rebuilt in the form in which it was found sometime in the 4th century (PI. 19:b). No evidence remained of an earlier phase for the West Bath on account of the deep disturbances made all around it in Byzantine times, but it is not impossible that the two buildings were contemporary.

In view of this probability and their proximity it has been suggested that the East Bath was for men and the West for women. 1 1 ⁵

The East Bath overlay the Great Drain, its east foundations resting on the east wall of the drain. 1 16 The building measured ca. 10 x 20 m. overall and consisted of the normal elements. The main entrance led into the apodyterion from the west by way of a long rectangular courtyard. From the apodyterion one passed successively through twofrigidaria, the tepidarium, and the caldarium.

The first and larger frigidarium contained two pools, one in the west, apsidal, end and another in the east. The smaller frigidarium had an apsidal pool at the east end; at the west a doorway led into a service court in which was a well, undoubtedly for the use of the bath. The tepidarium was

111 Young, "Industrial District," p. 285.

112 Hesperia, Suppl. IV, p. 121.

113 For this bath, see below, pp. 107-108; for the bath in House C see below, p. 87.

114 Young, "Industrial District," pp. 279-283, with detailed descriptions of both baths. Cf. Hesperia 17, 1948, plan, p. 164, fig. 6 (Thompson).

115 Thompson, op. cit., p. 169.

116This section of the drain had gone out of use after Sulla's attack in 86 ^B.C. (Young, "Industrial District,"

pp.279-283).

THE BUILDINGS

comparatively small, almost square. The much larger caldarium had two adjacent pools along the north wall.

The bath, although small, seems to have been fairly luxuriously appointed, even in its final phase.

The apodyterion was paved with marble slabs of various colors, laid in cement. The largerfrigi- darium was paved in marble between the two sunken pools, and a thin revetment of white, green, and pink marble covered the walls. The concrete bedding with impressions of the paving tile and slots for the revetment was preserved only in the eastern end but presumably covered the entire area (PI. 20:a).

The West Bath, which lay to the west of the Street of the Marble Workers (PI. 3: B 18), was apparently smaller and simpler, although it must have been larger than the present remains indicate. When discovered, it consisted of only three rooms, two along the east side and another at the northwest. That the southernmost of the east rooms was the caldarium was shown by the

Im Dokument THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS (Seite 44-67)