EXPLORATION AND IDENTIFICATION

THE PALACE OF THE GIANTS

The most prominent and probably also the latest product of the burst of building activity that occurred in the area of the ancient Agora in the 4th and 5th centuries was the great central complex which we have now labeled the Palace of the Giants (Pls. 52-54).) After a useful life of little more than a century ^(ca.^A.D. 410-530), the building was abandoned and subsequently very thoroughly stripped of its masonry. The part that survived longest was a series of colossal figures, Tritons and Giants, that had adorned its facade (Pls. 56-58). They were saved by their sheer bulk and awkward shape which rendered them unattractive for re-use as building material. One of these figures, a Giant, still stands where it was placed soon after ^A.D.400 (PI. 58:c, d). For centuries it kept a solitary watch over the desolate area of the ancient Agora while the foundations of the enormous building to which it belonged were gradually covered by silt and, from the 11llth century on, by private houses. As a result of damage done to these houses in the War of Independence this Giant and his fallen companions came to light and soon attracted the attention of the Greek archaeological authorities.2

In repeated campaigns (1858, 1870, 1895-1896, 1912) the Archaeological Society in Athens cleared the facade of the building to its full width together with the four piers that had supported the colossal figures.3 It was now evident that six of these had flanked a triple entranceway leading into the building proper. The Society re-erected the torsos of two Tritons that had fallen from their pedestals and replaced on one of these statues a head that had been carried to Eleusis.

Thus matters stood for over two decades during which time scholars were free to speculate as to the form and function of the structure. But under the circumstances to speculate was still to grope in the dark. Little wonder then that the most detailed reconstruction proposed in those years has proved also to be the farthest from the mark: a large basilica lying east-west across the middle of the Agora.4 Walter Judeich, the revered master of Athenian topography, writing in 1931, was more reserved but more prescient. In his opinion the building (Hallenbau) was probably to be thought of as a kind of central point in the area as it was in Late Antiquity without relevance to the boundaries of the market place of the classical period.5

The American excavators reached the area of the Giants in 1934, in the fourth season of the Agora Excavations. In this and the following two seasons the whole extent of the Late Roman

I A draft of this chapter was written by John Travlos in 1975. At that time the initial identification of the complex as a gymnasium was still accepted, and this affected the interpretation at many points. The present version takes into account the new identification as an official residence. But the physical description remains largely unaltered, and only a few minor adjustments have been made in the splendid series of plans left by Travlos.

2 For the history of the Giants up to the middle of the 19th century see C. van Essen, BCH 50, 1926, pp. 210-212;

Judeich2, pp. 230-231; Thompson, "Odeion," pp. 137-139. Especially interesting is the impact made by the standing Giant on Cyriac of Ancona in the 15th century: B. Ashmole, Proceedings of the British Academy 45, 1959, pp. 40-41, pls. XIV-XVI. For the Giant emerging from the ruinous houses see the water color by the Swiss artist J. J. Wolfens- berger, dated 1834: Wycherley (footnote 6 above, p. 1), frontispiece.

3 EVvorTTLKr "EEKuO -Er rv Ilpa6eWv Tis9 'ApxaLoAoyLKs9 EraTaLpedag 1858/1859, pp. 14-19; IIpaKTLKa 1870/

1871, pp. 12, 33 and 1895, p. 19; AM 21, 1896, p. 109; HIpaKTLKa 1912, pp. 91-99.

4 Van Essen (footnote 2 above), pp. 183-212.

5 Judeich2, p. 330.

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

V. THE PALACE OF THE GIANTS

complex was stripped of its heavy overburden, and the ground plan became fairly clear.6 As yet attention was concentrated on the earlier buildings the ruins of which underlay those of the Late Roman complex, viz. the great Hellenistic stoas and the Odeion of Agrippa. A detailed account of the Odeion appeared in 1950. This publication contained a brief description of the late complex with emphasis on the history of the colossal figures which had served both structures.7

The first parts of the great complex to become intelligible in the course of the excavation were the colonnaded courtyard, of which the colossal figures formed the fagade, and a bathing establishment farther south. Since the combination of courtyard and bath is one commonly found in gymnasium- bath establishments of Roman Imperial times,8 the complex was tentatively identified as a gymna- sium, and it was suggested that the rooms opening out of the colonnades might have served as classrooms in a predominantly educational institution.

More complete excavation and study, however, have made it apparent that the whole southeast- ern part of the complex with its two additional colonnaded courtyards each bordered by rooms is unquestionably of a residential character, quite comparable with the large houses of the same peri- od that have now come to light on the slope of the Areopagus just to the south (PI. 6). It has now become obvious, too, that the bath was scaled to the needs of a residence rather than of a gymnasium of the size suggested by the great north courtyard. Since all these elements were contemporary and parts of one design, the inference seems inescapable that the north courtyard is to be regarded as ancillary to the residence, serving ceremonial needs. Since in its overall scale the establishment as thus envisaged far exceeds any conceivable private residence, we are driven to the conclusion that we have to do with an official institution, the function of which will be explored below (pp. 110-

116). These considerations, we believe, justify the change of name from "Gymnasium" to "Palace".

LOCATION

The Palace was planted boldly in the very middle of the area once occupied by the Agora (Pl. 6).

At the time of its construction the east side of this area was firmly defined by the Post-Herulian Wall and the west side by the Hellenistic Metroon, now partially rebuilt probably as a synagogue (above, p. 59). Southward the new structure was carried up to the still lofty back wall of South Stoa II which at this time supported an aqueduct. Northward the great complex looked down the Panathenaic Way.

In the placing of the Palace marked attention was paid to the Panathenaic Way, the age-old thoroughfare which still ran diagonally through the area from northwest to southeast (above, pp. 26-29). For the visitor, normally approaching from the northwest, the upward grade of the road made the facade of the new structure seem truly monumental (PI. 55:a). The terrain had been similarly exploited already by the builders of the Odeion of Agrippa which had previously occupied the site (PI. 55:c). It was also the pull of the Panathenaic Way that induced a striking departure from axial symmetry in the overall design of the Palace: the southern part was shifted eastward so

6 Hesperia 4, 1935, pp. 360-363, pi. III; 5, 1936, pp. 6-15, fig. 13; and 6, 1937, pp. 357-358, pl. IX (Shear, Sr.).

Details of the Palace complex were elucidated in the course of subsequent exploration of the earlier buildings on the site, e.g., Hesperia 22, 1953, pp. 40-41 and 35, 1966, p. 45 (Thompson).

7 Thompson, "Odeion," esp. pp. 134-139. For brief general accounts of the Palace see Agora XIV, pp. 211-213;

Agora Guide3, pp. 110-115; J. Camp, The Athenian Agora, London 1986, p. 200.

8 On the blend of gymnasium and thermae, see Ward-Perkins, Architecture, pp. 292-296 with bibliography. The phenomenon is well illustrated by the great gymnasia of the cities of Asia Minor. See for example F. Miltner, Ephesos, Vienna 1958, pp. 58-68 (Gymnasium of Vedius) and F. K. Yegul, Archaeological Exploration of Sardis, Report 3: The Bath-Gymnasium Complex, Cambridge, Mass. 1986, esp. pp. 147-151. See also W. Heinz, R6mische Thermen, Munich 1983, passim, and bibliography, pp. 209-215.

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

EXPLORATION AND IDENTIFICATION

that the suite of rooms (33-41; see PI. 54) in the southeast block might overlook the famous old street. This arrangement also facilitated access to the "kitchen entrance" below that suite.

The continuing importance of the Panathenaic Way is evident also in the placing of the structures to the north of the Palace (PI. 6). The fact that a freestanding wall was carried northward from the northwest corner of the Palace to the site of the Temple of Ares indicates that some structure stood at this time on the foundations of the temple, probably the temple itself.9 North of the temple site an enigmatic square building with peristyle court faced eastward on the Panathenaic Way (above, p. 66), while the round or apsidal structure still farther north was placed in the angle between the Way and the ancient west road of the Agora (above, p. 60).

This row of new buildings that bordered the west side of the Panathenaic Way definitely turned their backs on what was probably a rather bleak area to the west. On the east they were to be screened before long from an equally unattractive area by a freestanding wall against which was set the aqueduct that carried water to a series of flour mills (above, pp. 80-82).

An interesting and significant element in the overall design of the Palace was the inclusion of extensive "garden" areas to east and west of the southern half of the building complex (Pls. 6, 55:a).

The bounding walls, of poor rubble concrete, extended out from the southeast and southwest cor- ners of the North Court. Thence the walls could be traced to the northeast and northwest corners of the Middle Stoa. Farther south no actual remains have survived, but both walls undoubtedly con- tinued south to the line of the ancient roadway that bordered the south side of the ancient Agora.

Although no traces of planting have been detected in these much ravaged areas we may suppose that they were indeed planted with trees and shrubs for the delectation of the residents of the Palace.

With its overall limits thus established the Palace is seen to occupy most of the triangular space bounded to east, west, and south by three of the oldest roads known in Athens, the lines of which were perpetuated in important thoroughfares until our own times.

The Palace sprawled over the thoroughly stripped foundations of a number of ancient buildings (PI. 53): the Odeion of Agrippa, the Middle Stoa, South Stoa II, and the two shadowy temples that once rose between those two stoas.10 For the most part the builders of the 5th century after Christ paid little attention to the ancient foundations. In the case of the Odeion of Agrippa, however, there appears to have been some conscious relationship between the old and the new. Not only did the North Court of the Palace assume the same axial emplacement as the Odeion, but in its shape and dimensions it closely approximated its predecessor. One is tempted in fact to suppose that the origi- nal intention was to have the North Court coincide completely with the Odeion, but that for some reason the court was shoved northward in court was shoved northward in the final design by 13.60 m. Inasmuch as the emplace- the ment of the North Court in relation to the Odeion resulted in little or no saving in the cost of con- struction, the close physical relationship may be taken to suggest a deliberate effort to revive in some measure a famous ancient monument.

OVERALL PLAN

The plan of the Palace comprised four major parts: the North Court, the South Court complex, the Southeast Court complex, and the Bath. In addition may be noted the elaborate connecting link

9 The Temple of Ares certainly suffered in the Herulian raid of ^A.D. 267 as shown by the re-use of some of its marble in the Post-Herulian Wall. See W. B. Dinsmoor, Hesperia 9, 1940, p. 52; M. H. McAllister, Hesperia 28, 1959, pp. 1-64, esp. p. 41. But the fragments found in the Wall derive from the ceiling of the temple, probably all from its east end. Fragments of other parts of the building (steps, walls, columns, entablature, roofing, and akroterion) were found scattered around the foundations. One must therefore consider the possibility that the temple had been repaired after the Herulian raid and that it was still standing 150 years later when the Palace was built.

10 Agora Guide3, p. 160.

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

V. THE PALACE OF THE GIANTS

between the North and South Courts (Rooms 9-12) and the walled, presumably garden areas to east and west of the main block. All these parts belong to the original plan; only minimal adjust- ments and repairs have been detected.

The North Court (Rooms 1-8), monumental in scale and in its sculptural adornment, has the appearance of an area for receptions and formal exercises. The smaller South Court (Rooms 13- 20) also has a suggestion of formality, especially in the presence of the spacious room opening off its south colonnade. The still smaller Southeast Court, bordered by rooms on three sides (Rooms 22-41), has an intimate, genuinely residential character. We shall find reason to believe that the principal living rooms of the master and his family occupied the piano nobile of the eastern side of the Southeast Court complex; these rooms looked out across the Panathenaic Way. The bathing facilities to the west of the South Court (Rooms 42-49), balancing the Southeast Court complex, were presumably intended primarily for the use of the residents, but the plan suggests that they were also meant to be conveniently accessible from the North Court.

The overall dimensions of the Palace are 84 meters from east to west and 129 m. from north to south. The building proper covered an area of ca. 5000 sq. m. while the whole establishment, including the enclosed garden spaces, measured ca. 13,500 sq. m., i.e., about one quarter of the total area of the old Agora.

STATE OF PRESERVATION

The present state of the building comes out in general from the photographs (Pls. 52, 57). The foundations of rubble concrete are preserved throughout with few gaps, thus permitting an almost complete restoration of the plan. In only a very few places, however, do the walls still rise above floor level: in the east wall of the North Court, in the Bath, and notably in the semibasement rooms in the east block of the Southeast Court complex where they are preserved to a height of 2.60 m.

(PI. 60:b). In none of the courtyards, however, is the stylobate sufficiently preserved to indicate the spacing or the form of the columns, and in only a few cases is there evidence for the precise position or width of the doorways.

Slight remnants of marble wall revetment remain in the Bath (Pls. 64, 65), and a few detached fragments found in the east block of the Southeast Court complex must come from an upper room in that area (PI. 63:a). A few tesserae (PI. 63:b) from floor mosaic found along with these bits of revetment are the only evidence for the use of mosaic in the whole complex, a surprising fact. Some terracotta floor tiles are still to be seen in Rooms 14, 17, and 18, opening off the south colonnade of the South Court (PI. 59:a) and in the open area of the Southeast Court (22). Of the six colossal figures re-used in the entrance facade only one, a Giant, as noted above, has survived in place; the torsos of two Tritons found on the spot have been re-erected. The head of one of these Tritons has been found at Eleusis and reattached to its torso; the head of another Triton, likewise found at Eleusis, is now exhibited in the Stoa of Attalos. Several non-joining fragments found on the site are likewise preserved in the Stoa.

CONSTRUCTION

The Palace with its multiple parts was laid out on the ground with a fair degree of care. The North Court, to be sure, is ca. 0.40 m. longer on the east than on the west side, but this deviation would not have been noticeable. The masonry also, insofar as it is preserved, shows good, honest workmanship.

The foundations were everywhere carried down to bedrock. Beneath the contemporary ground level they consisted of small, unworked stones set in an abundance of strong, white mortar made of

EXPLORATION AND IDENTIFICATION

sand and lime. This part was poured in a trench without forms and so is readily distinguishable by reason of its rough and irregular faces from the carefully finished part above ground level. The clear line of demarcation is a useful indication of the ground level at the time of construction. The foundations are normally only a few centimeters thicker than the upper wall.

The walls above floor level consist for the most part of unworked stone set in the same white mortar as that used in the foundations. The stone masonry is interrupted at intervals by courses of red burnt brick measuring 0.42 x 0.21 x 0.04 m. (Pls. 60:b-62:a). The bricks are well made and were apparently manufactured expressly for this building. No stamps have been noted. Bricks occur normally in single courses, occasionally in two, rarely in three. The individual bricks were set in both faces of the wall, sometimes as stretchers and sometimes as headers. The normal thickness of the wall is 0.67-0.68 m. with slight variations. Bricks were also used extensively at special points:

especially to reinforce corners and door openings, in the construction of vaults, and probably also in the arcading of the peristyle courts. In addition to the rectangular bricks, use was also made of square bricks of the same consistency measuring 0.30 m. to the side; these occur, apparently indis- criminately, in certain parts of the building.

In the construction of the foundations and upper walls, in addition to the unworked stone, many ancient blocks were employed. Some of these were salvaged from the ruins of the earlier buildings on the site. They were normally fragmentary: small pieces of limestone or poros preserving only one worked face. A number of step blocks from the Middle Stoa were also incorporated, notably in the foundation for the east wall of the Southeast Court (PI. 60:b). A few fragmentary column drums and capitals from the Odeion have been noted in the foundations of the North Court. Finally, some large river boulders were included in the concrete of the walls.

One would have expected the wall surfaces above floor level to be plastered, yet no trace of plaster has been observed on either the inside or outside faces of the, admittedly very slight, remains of the walls. This may be due to chance in survival, to economy in construction, or to incompletion, most probably the last. A dozen fragments of marble revetment of various kinds found in the basement rooms of the Southeast Court complex undoubtedly derive from the piano nobile above. The same may be said of a few fragments of floor mosaic found in the same place. Marble revetment was used freely in both the floors and the walls of the Bath.

Throughout most of the complex the floors were apparently of clay. This applies to both of the larger courts and to most of the adjacent rooms. In the small Southeast Court, however, the exca- vators found remnants of terracotta-tile flooring, as also in the five rooms (14-18) adjoining the

Im Dokument THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS (Seite 113-128)