University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting Template

THE SANCTUARY OF ASCLEPIUS AT EPIDAURUS IN ROMAN TIMES

DAVID R. HOOT

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2014

To my parents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the faculty, staff and graduate students of the Classics Department at the University Florida. The collegial, inquisitive and generous atmosphere they created as teachers and students made the graduate experience at UF both stimulating and supportive. I am particularly indebted to the members of my dissertation committee, Florin Curta, Kostas

Kapparis and Mary Ann Eaverly, who labored through my initial drafts to help sift the wheat from the chaff. Their ideas, comments and encouragement were invaluable. Special thanks go to my dissertation director, Robert Wagman, whose class on Greek epigraphy supplied the seed for this project and whose constant support, mentoring and friendship have been essential to this endeavor. Others deserving special gratitude are Tim Johnson, Alden Smith, Corey Brennan,

Charlie Chiasson, Todd Bohlander, Dustin Heinen and Andrew Alwine. Finally, this work would not have been possible without the hospitality and assistance of the American School of Classical

Studies at Athens and the Blegen Library.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 6

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 7

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 9

ABSTRACT ...... 10

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 11

Introduction to the Site: Topography ...... 12 History of the Sanctuary ...... 18 History of Scholarship ...... 31

2 THE HELLENISTIC SANCTUARY ...... 50

The Components of the Hellenistic Program...... 51 The Activities of the Sanctuary ...... 80 Summary of the Hellenistic Sanctuary ...... 96

3 CHRONOLOGY OF THE ROMAN BUILDINGS ...... 99

Construction from 146 BC to the Mid-Second Century AD ...... 100 Construction From the Mid-Second Century AD to Abandonment ...... 102 Integrated Chronology ...... 157

4 THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ROMAN SANCTUARY ...... 186

The Asclepieum from 146 BC to AD 152 ...... 186 Renaissance and Acme ...... 205 The Changing Fortunes of the Third Century ...... 231 The Decline of the Fourth Century ...... 242 The New Sanctuary ...... 245 The Overall Effect of Roman Modifications ...... 248

5 CONCLUSION...... 261

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 276

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 289

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1 Comparison of name elements for Antoninus ...... 167

3-2 Material fabric chart ...... 168

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 The central Argolid...... 44

1-2 Area of the Asclepieum ...... 45

1-3 Organization of the Asclepieum and lines of access...... 46

1-4 Plan of the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas on the Kynortion hill...... 47

1-5 The northeast peak...... 48

1-6 The hill north of the sanctuary ...... 48

1-7 Plan of the Asclepieum ...... 49

2-1 The Banqueting Hall ...... 98

3-1 Fabric group one...... 169

3-2 Fabric details of building K ...... 170

3-3 Fabric details of Building Φ ...... 171

3-4 Fabric details of the Skana ...... 172

3-5 Brickwork in Building Φ ...... 173

3-6 Plans of Building K, Building Φ, and the Skana ...... 174

3-7 The Roman House fabric ...... 174

3-8 Stoa with hypocaust...... 175

3-9 Roman palaestra ...... 175

3-10 Tholos terrace retaining wall ...... 176

3-11 Fabric group two...... 177

3-12 Fabric details of the Odeum ...... 178

3-13 Fabric details of the NE Baths...... 179

3-14 Fabric details of NW Complex ...... 180

3-15 Late Roman Perimeteric Stoa ...... 181

3-16 Basilica and Agora...... 182

3-17 The House with Mosaics ...... 182

3-18 Comparison of mosaics from the House with Mosaics and the Basilica I...... 183

3-19 Comparison of mosaics from the House with Mosaics and the Basilica II ...... 184

3-20 The Banqueting Hall ...... 185

4-1 The Skana...... 257

4-2 Building Φ...... 258

4-3 The Roman House...... 259

4-4 Structures around the Abaton...... 260

4-5 The stoa with hypocaust...... 260

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ArchDelt Ἀραιολογικὸν Δελτίον

ArchEph Ἐφημερίς Ἀρχαιολογική

Ergon Tὸ Ἔrgon τῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας

IG IV2 1 Inscriptiones Graecae, Volume IV2: Inscriptiones Argolidis - Epidauros

OEΣME Ομάδα Εργασίας για την Συντήρηση των Mνημείων του Επιδαύρου. The Working Group for the Preservation of the Monuments of Epidaurus.

Prakt Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταίριας

RE Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE SANCTUARY OF ASCLEPIUS AT EPIDAURUS IN ROMAN TIMES

David R. Hoot

December 2014

Chair: Robert Wagman Major: Classical Studies

The Sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus was the most famous healing sanctuary of the ancient world but the history of the site under Roman rule has not been adequately investigated.

This is particularly true for the structures of the Roman period and their effect on the use of the

Asclepieum. Therefore, using archaeological, epigraphic and historical evidence this study constructs a chronology of Roman buildings from 146 BC to the abandonment of the sanctuary in the fifth century AD. Using this chronology as a foundation, the functions of the Roman-era buildings are then examined and the overall effects of the various Roman building phases on the two major activities of the Asclepieum, the public festival and the healing cult, are evaluated.

Finally, each of the Roman building phases is briefly examined in its wider historical context.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

In the early fourth century BC the city of Epidaurus began a massive construction program at a little-developed sanctuary of Asclepius and Apollo about six miles west of the city. A magnificent temple to Asclepius was built followed by numerous other major and minor buildings creating a large and well-equipped sanctuary. This new Asclepieum became one of the most famous and long-lived healing sanctuaries of the ancient world. The reputation of the

Epidaurian Asclepieum persevered into the Roman Empire but further development, even basic upkeep, languished until the middle of the second century AD when a Roman senator named

Antoninus engaged in a large-scale repair and expansion of the sanctuary. These two projects,

400 years apart, were the most extensive building episodes in the history of the Epidaurian

Asclepieum.

The building phase of the late Classical and early Hellenistic period has received substantial study. The architecture, chronology, and function of its buildings has been examined in detail (though some gaps remain) and significant attention has been given to reconstructing the topology and use of the sanctuary overall. The sanctuary of the Roman period, however, has received much less attention. Many Roman buildings have been only partially excavated, or their excavation was incompletely documented. These buildings have elicited little interest from scholars. Even some well-preserved buildings have not been thoroughly studied. Most importantly, however, the Roman buildings of the Aclepeium have, for the most part, been studied in isolation from each other. As a result, little attempt has been made to create an integrated account of the architectural development of the site during the Roman period.

Moreover, without an understanding of the architectural development, attempts to understand the functional development of the site during this period are hamstrung.

This present work, therefore, seeks to redress these deficiencies in our understanding of the

Roman period at the Epidaurian Asclepieum by sythesizing all the available information about the Roman-era buildings, creating a comprehensive chronology of these buildings, analyzing their functions, and examining the functional development of the Roman sanctuary in its historical context. The Chapter 1 will provide an introduction to the site and the history of scholarship concerning it. Chapter 2 will review the architecture and functions of the late

Classical/early Hellenistic Asclepieum as a baseline for understanding Roman developments.

Chapter 3 will analyze all the Roman buildings and build a chronology of the Roman-era constructions efforts. Chapter 4 will debate the functions of the individual Roman buildings and consider the continuities and changes in the use of the sanctuary over its lifetime. Finally,

Chapter 5 will summarize these findings and place them in their historical context.

Introduction to the Site: Topography

The Asclepieum is located in the Argolid about six miles southwest of the city of

Epidaurus (Figure 1-1), in an area where a deep ravine and the Arachnaeum (Ἀραχναῖον) mountain range funnel movement in along an east-west axis between the modern cities of Palia

Epidavros and Nafplio, ancient Epidaurus and Nauplia. The sanctuary is just to the south of this corridor situated in a natural pocket formed by mountains which begin to the northeast and curve south and west to form the southern extent of the site. Hills in the north and west complete the encirclement. The interior of the pocket is about one mile wide by two miles long and consists of a plain that slopes gently downward from east to west and contains numerous small streams

(Figure 1-2). The principal lines of access to this plain, both today and in ancient times, are from the north and northwest on either side of a prominent hill and across the hills to the east (Figure

1-3).1 The northern access was a short distance off the road running between Epidaurus and

Nauplia and appears to have been the main entrance since the sanctuary’s propylon was built along this route. The northwestern approach would have provided more convenient access for those traveling from Argos and the rest of the Peloponnese and the eastern access connected the sanctuary with the road running to the southern Argolid.2

It remains to examine the appeal of this location for a sanctuary of Asclepius. The site’s terrain was not famous for any particular medicinal properties: neither climate, nor native plants, nor especially curative waters.3 Yet the area was not disadvantaged either: the valley climate is typical of inland Greece, the land is fertile and the plain is well-supplied with spring water from the surrounding hills. In addition the visual setting is dramatic though perhaps no more so than the rest of the Argolid. Rather it seems that the choice of location had religious rather than environmental motivations; Apollo, the father of Asclepius, was associated with an early hilltop sanctuary at the edge of the valley and at this site, located on an elevation called the Kynortium

(Kυνόρτιον). Medical instruments were unearthed testifying to the importance of the healing aspect of this cult.4 Asclepius’ natural affinity with the Kynortium cult, therefore, probably encouraged the placement of his new sanctuary nearby.5

1 The hill is called “Theokausto” today (Kavvadias 1900b: 15n2), likely the same as ancient Mt. Titthium; see below. All three routes were in use in the nineteenth century as shown on the maps of Gell (1810: pl. 23) and Leake (1830: vol. 2, pl. 7). Today, however, the main access to the Asclepieum is by a paved road from the northwest.

2 Lambrinoudakis (1975a: 163 and 165) discovered the remains of a road running east from the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas.

3 See Kavvadias 1900b: 17.

4 Hesiod fragments 123, 125 (ca. 700 BC) and Pindar Pythian. 3 (early 5th c. BC) are the earliest accounts in which Asclepius is the son of Apollo. For the medical finds see Lambrinoudakis 1975: 175.

5 The Kynortium sanctuary was founded by Bronze-Age peoples to whom peak sanctuaries had a special appeal; see Lambrinoudakis 1981c: 59-65; 2002: 214.

The best ancient account of the site comes from the travel writer Pausanias, who visited the

Argolid around AD 165.6 From him we learn that the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas on Mt.

Kynortium and the sanctuary of Artemis Koryphaea on a nearby hill, were located near the

Asclepieum (Paus. 2.27.7):

ὄρη δέ ἐστιν ὑπὲρ τὸ ἄλσος τό τε Τίτθιον καὶ ἕτερον ὀνομαζόμενον Κυνόρτιον, Μαλεάτου δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὸν ἐν αὐτῷ. τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῶν ἀρχαίων· τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ὅσα περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Μαλεάτου καὶ ἔλυτρον κρήνης, ἐς ὃ τὸ ὕδωρ συλλέγεταί σφισι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, Ἀντωνῖνος καὶ ταῦτα Ἐπιδαυρίοις ἐποίησεν.

Above the grove are the Nipple [Titthium] and another mountain called Cynortium; on the latter is a sanctuary of Maleatian Apollo. The sanctuary itself is an ancient one, but among the things Antoninus made for the Epidaurians are various appurtenances for the sanctuary of the Maleatian, including a reservoir into which the rain-water collects for their use.7

Then, after a brief digression on Epidaurian serpents Pausanias returns to the topography in

2.28.2:

ἐς δὲ τὸ ὄρος ἀνιοῦσι τὸ Κόρυφον, ἔστι καθ' ὁδὸν Στρεπτῆς καλουμένης ἐλαίας φυτόν, αἰτίου τοῦ περιαγαγόντος τῇ χειρὶ Ἡρακλέους ἐς τοῦτο τὸ σχῆμα. εἰ δὲ καὶ Ἀσιναίοις τοῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀργολίδι ἔθηκεν ὅρον τοῦτον, οὐκ ἂν ἔγωγε εἰδείην, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ ἑτέρωθι ἀναστάτου γενομένης χώρας τὸ σαφὲς ἔτι οἷόν τε τῶν ὅρων ἐξευρεῖν. ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ ἄκρᾳ τοῦ ὄρους Κορυφαίας ἐστὶν ἱερὸν Ἀρτέμιδος, οὗ καὶ Τελέσιλλα ἐποιήσατο ἐν ᾄσματι μνήμην.

As you go up to Mount Coryphum you see by the road an olive tree called Twisted. It was Heracles who gave it this shape by bending it around with his hand, but I cannot say whether he set it to be a boundary mark against the Asinaeans in Argolis, since in no land, which has been depopulated, is it easy to discover the truth about the boundaries. On the top of the mountain there is a sanctuary of Artemis Coryphaea (of the Peak), of which Telesilla made mention in an ode.

The three topographic designations mentioned in these passages, Mt. Kynortium, Mt. Titthium and Mt. Koryphon, appear to be located in or adjacent to the sanctuary itself but due to the

6 For a discussion of the dates of composition of the various books of Pausanias’ Periegesis see Bowie 2001: 21-25.

7 Translation by Jones (1918) for this and the following passage.

changes which occurred across time in local toponomastics, their exact positions are no longer known with certainty. The evidence in each case, however, is sufficient to suggest a location or, at least, narrow the possibilities.

Of the three elevations, the Kynortium is the most firmly identified. Substantial remains including a Roman cistern (Figure 1-4: 12) have been found to the east of the Asclepieum on the middle hump of the mountain spur which descends from a very large peak in the northeast and curves southwest ending at the hill which supports the theater (Figure 1-3). This cistern is positively assigned to the Roman period and is probably the rainwater reservoir of Antoninus which Pausanias mentions.8 The other remains on the hill date from the Roman period and as far back as the Bronze Age, consistent with Pausanias’ report of the site as “an ancient one”.9 In addition, the hill structures are supported by a large artificial terrace which corresponds to a retaining wall listed in two local accounting inscriptions as the “retaining wall of Apollo” (Figure

1-4: 4).10 Recovered from the hill itself are several fifth- and fourth- century BC inscriptions recording dedications to Apollo which strengthen the identification of this site as the

Kynortium.11

Although the site in question is almost certainly the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas on the

Kynortium the question remains whether only the immediate hill was known as the Kynortium or if the large peak in the northeast, and by extension its spurs, were the Kynortium proper. The

8 Paus. 2.27.7. Recorded by Desmonceaux in 1669 (in Defrasse and Lechat 1895: 8). Kavvadias (1900b: 178) identifies the cistern as that of Antoninus based on its Roman construction; Lambrinoudakis (1984a: 229) agrees.

9 For a summary of the Bronze-Age evidence see Lambrinoudakis 1981c: 59-65; 2002: 214.

10 IG IV2 1, 106 C: 37; IG IV2 1, 108: 159.

11 5th c. BC: SEG 26-449 to Pythian Apollo. 4th c. BC: IG IV2 1, 192; SEG 33-302; SEG 38-319; SEG 44-333, to Apollo; IG IV2 1, 150 to Poseidon. Surviving dedications to Apollo Maleatas, however, are late: IG IV2 1, 391 (169 AD); 434 (307 AD); SEG 33-306 (late imperial). The earliest epigraphic mentions of Apollo Maleatas are found in the Sanctuary of Asclepius on the plain and date to the 3rd c. BC: IG IV2 1, 128 (Hymn of Isyllos) and IG IV2 1, 96 (Catalogue of Proxenoi).

early topographers Chandler (1817: 278), Curtius (1852: 424), Clarke (1818: 409-11) as well as the Baedeker guide to Greece (1908: 33) thought the Kynortium referred only to the single hill on which the sanctuary resides or, at most, the hilly back-country behind the theater known today as the Χαρανί. Leake (1830: 425 and map) marks it as the northeast peak. Kavvadias (1900b: 14) and Defrasse (1895: pl. 1) consider the whole east side of the sanctuary to be the Kynortium including the northeast peak and its two lower hills. No further help is forthcoming from the ancient sources; the sole attestation of the name ‘Kynortium’ in either literature or inscriptions is the Pausanias passage quoted above. However, two building inscriptions from the Asclepieum refer to the construction of living quarters using the formula τὰ ἐπὶ Κυνός σκανάματα.12 Since

κύων, the Greek word for ‘dog’, is the base from which Kynortium (Κυνόρτιον) is formed, it appears that the two designations refer to the same topographic feature. Unfortunately, neither inscription adds to our knowledge of its location. Therefore, at a minimum it is clear that the

Kynortium includes the hill with the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas, but any further identification must remain unresolved.

Mount Titthium is the place where, according to Epidaurian legend, the infant Asclepius was left to die but was rescued and suckled by a goat. This provides a reasonable origin for its name, since Titthium means ‘nipple’ or ‘tit’.13 According to Pausanias (2.26.3-7) the girl

Coronis, pregnant by Apollo, gave birth to Asclepius in the country of Epidauria and exposed the child on the Mt. Titthium. A goat nourished the infant Asclepius and the herd dog guarded him.

When the herdsman went to find his missing goat and dog he saw the child radiating lightning.

12 IG IV2 1, 109; SEG XV 207; for the formula see 109 B, line 15 and passim.

13 See Meyer, E. “Titthion” in RE, Pausanias (2.26.4) says that the mountain was previously called “Myrtion”.

This passage and the one quoted before from Pausanias (2.27.7) are the only ancient references to Mount Titthium in extant literature or inscriptions.

Leake (1830: 419-20) is the first visitor to suggest a location for the Titthium placing it southeast of the modern village of Ligurio (Figure 1-2). Kavvadias (1900b: 15 n2) argues for the same hill, adding that in his time it was called Theokausto by the locals, a designation which, he believes, might preserve a memory of the lightning element of the myth. Clarke (1818: 404),

Baedeker (1908: 323), Kiepert (1996: pl. 8) and Meyers (RE “Titthium”) favor the dominant peak, northeast of the sanctuary, which at 856 meters is the highest elevation adjacent to the valley plain. Clarke reasons, “this, from its double summit, consisting of two rounded eminences, may be the mammillary mountain...” though this interpretation of the mountain’s shape is not at all obvious (Figure 1-5). All parties have rejected a location for Titthium in the south of the plain, most preferring to assign this region to Mount Koryphon. Therefore, through lack of a more decisive alternative the argument advanced by Kavvadias has become standard and the moderate hill to the north of the sanctuary is generally labeled the Titthium (Figure 1-6).

On Mount Koryphon, according to Pausanias, there was a sanctuary to Artemis Koryphaia which was mentioned in an ode by the fifth century BC Argive poet, Telesilla.14 In addition,

Aelius Herodianus (180-50 AD) and Stephen of Byzantium (6th c. AD) both list Κορυφαῖον as the sanctuary of Artemis Koryphaea in Epidauria.15 Unfortunately, no sanctuary to Artemis has been found on any of the surrounding hills and the Telesilla passage is not extant. Moreover,

κορυφός and its derivatives mean simply “top” or “summit”. More helpful is Pausanias’ statement that on the mountain was an olive tree called “Twisted” which may have formed the

14 Only nine fragments of her works survive.

15 Aelius Herodianus de prosodia catholica vol. 3.1 p. 370, 19: Κορυφαῖον, ὄρος ἐπὶ τῷ Ἐπιδαυρίῳ, ἐν ᾧ τιμᾶται Ἄρτεμις Κορυφαία. Stephen of Byzantium Ethnika (epitome) p. 377, 6: καὶ τὸ Κορυφαῖον, ὄρος ἐστὶ τῶν Ἐπιδαυρίων, ἐν ᾧ τιμᾶται Ἄρτεμις Κορυφαία.

border between Epidaurus and Asine in the Argolid. Asine is known to have lain on the coast, about twelve miles west–southwest of the Asclepieum (Figure 1-1).16 One would, therefore, expect to find Mount Koryphon in the west or southwest of the valley plain where there is indeed a mountain range just north of the modern town of Adami (Figure 1-2). This is where Curtius

(1852: 419), Bursian (1868: 76), and Talbert (2000: pl. 58) place the Koryphon. Other opinions vary widely. Chandler (1817: 278) believed the sanctuary of Artemis was on the summit just above the precinct of Apollo Maleatas. Leake (1830: 425) says, “Koryphaeum I take to be the mountain which rises above the theatre to the south-east….” Kiepert’s (1996: pl. 8) atlas places it a good deal south of the Asclepieum and Hiller (1929a: 13.89) suggests the northeast peak. Still, these alternate locations, despite their variety, are not as convincing as the southern range of mountains suggested by Curtius, Bursian and Talbert.

History of the Sanctuary

In ancient times the sacred precinct of Asclepius was called variously the Sanctuary of

Asclepius, the Sanctuary of Apollo and Asclepius, the Grove (Alsos), or simply the Sanctuary

(Hieron).17 Pausanias (2.26.3) says this area was especially sacred to Asclepius because the god was born on one of the nearby hills. Indeed, while Asclepius mortal hero and physician of Homer and Pindar was associated with Thessaly, Asclepius the god of healing appears to have originated at the Epidaurian sanctuary.18 Soon Asclepius became the most important god of

16 For a discussion of the legend of the olive tree and Asine, see Barrett 1954.

17 Kavvadias 1900b: 14.

18 Hom. Il. 2.729-31; 4.192-219; Pind. Pyth. 3. Edelstein & Edelstein (1975: 243-250) and Melfi (2007: 520-521) point out that no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the worship of Asclepius predates that of Epidaurus in the 6th c. BC and that almost all known Asclepiea claim to have been founded from Epidaurus. This is consistent with the ancient literary evidence, the balance of which believed Asclepius originated at Epidaurus, e.g. Paus. 2.26.8; IG IV2 1, 128 (which does, however, admit to a cult of Asclepius in Thessaly). Strabo (9.5.17) disagrees, “Now Trikka, where the earliest and most famous temple of Asclepius is ….” See also Aston 2004: 18-32 who argues for the precedence of Thessaly. Nevertheless, the evidence adduced by the Edelsteins and Melfi is compelling.

Epidaurus, and Epidaurus, in turn, became closely associated with Asclepius throughout the

Greek world. How Asclepius came to be worshipped at Epidaurus is not clear. There was an earlier deity, probably Apollo, worshipped on the Kynortium whose competence seems to have included healing.19 Therefore, the establishment of a cult to the famous Homeric physician (now deified) may have been an outgrowth of this function. In any event, after the adoption of

Asclepius, in the sixth century at the latest, the sanctuary became inseparably connected with healing and soon attracted supplicants from across the Greek world. As a result, the sanctuary grew to Panhellenic status and underwent two major construction periods: the first carried out by the polis of Epidaurus in the fourth and third centuries BC; the second initiated by the Roman senator Antoninus in the mid-second century AD. The Asclepieum remained active until the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century AD, succumbing in the end to the new religion of the empire, Christianity.

The Early Sanctuary on the Kynortium

There was a sacrificial site on Kynortium from at least early Mycenaean times (ca. 1650

BC) which combined a monumental, open air altar for burnt sacrifices with an artificial terrace possibly for ritual meals, exemplifying what has come to be called a Bronze-Age peak sanctuary

(Figure 1-4).20 The finds recovered from the altar’s ash layer, which include bull and goat bones, pottery, terracotta figurines, bronze swords and double axes, span the whole Mycenaean period and by their quality and number point to a substantial cult with strong Minoan influence or, at least, contact. Pottery and votive finds in the post-Mycenaean (after 1150 BC) ash layers attest to cult activity again in the Middle Geometric (850-760 BC), Archaic (700-480 BC) and Classical

19 Based on medical tools uncovered there, Lambrinoudakis 1975a: 175.

20 For the Kynortium sanctuary and its finds from the Bronze Age onward: Papadimitriou 1948, 1949a, 1950, 1951; Lambrinoudakis 1981c: 59-65; 2002: 214.

(480-323 BC) periods. Two altars, one from the mid-eighth century BC and one from Classical period, are superimposed upon the Mycenaean one and around 550 BC a temple made of light material was built near the altar in the same location as the later Classical temple. This evidence combined with the architectural embellishment of the site in the Hellenistic period (323-31 BC) and its refurbishment in the second century AD show a sanctuary that was in nearly continuous use from the Mycenaean period to the Roman, with a gap between the 12th and 9th centuries BC.

Which god or gods were worshipped at the sanctuary before the Classical period is difficult to determine. The Mycenaean deity is impossible to identify, but for the Geometric period finds of votive lead wheels and medical implements have lead Lambrinoudakis (2002:

214) to suggest “an early Apollo, god of fertility, welfare and health, was now the main divinity”. In any event, the earliest definite identification comes from the fifth century BC and consists of two dedications, one to Pythian Apollo and one to Poseidon.21 Another four dedications to Apollo (without epithet) characterize the fourth century.22 Apollo Maleatas does not appear epigraphically until the third century BC, once in a catalogue of proxenoi and theorodokoi and again in the Hymn of Isyllos.23 The origin of the name “Maleatas” is something of a mystery. One modern theory derives “Maleatas” from the toponym “Malea” (Μαλέα) used of various locations in the Peloponnese, most prominently that of the southeast cape (the

“Mani”), across from the island of Cythera.24 A second possibility is implied in the Hymn of

Isyllus (IG IV2 1, 128: 27-28) which records Malos (Μᾶλος), the great-grandfather of Asclepius,

21 SEG 26-449 Apollo, IG IV2 1, 150 Poseidon.

22 IG IV2 1, 192; SEG 33-302; SEG 38-319; SEG 44-333.

23 Catalogue: IG IV2 1, 96; Hymn of Isyllos: IG IV2 1, 128, 27 (280 BC). Both inscriptions are from the sanctuary on the plain. The earliest mention of Apollo Maleatas in an inscription from the Kynortium is IG IV2 1, 391 from 169 AD. This is about the same time that Pausanias (2.27.7) informs us that the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas on the Kynortium is τῶν ἀρχαίων “one of the ancient ones”.

24 Hiller 1929a: proleg. 13; see also Auffarth, C. “Maleatas” and Lafond, Y. “Malea” in Der Neue Pauly.

as the founder of the cult of Apollo Maleatas. Wilamowitz (1886: 11) interprets the hymn to mean that “Maleatas” is derived from “Malos”. A final theory suggests “malon” (Doric for

μῆλον, “apple”) as the origin of Maleatas on the pattern of Demeter Malophoros in Selinus,

Sicily and in Megara.25

The Archaic Sanctuary

In the late sixth century BC a second cult center took shape on the plain.26 It consisted initially of an open air altar with a nearby rectangular building (fig.1-7: 47), and, a short distance off, a well (Figure 1-7: 41) with a small, adjoining stoa.27 This layout evolved through the early fifth century by means of several additions. The open air altar was enclosed on three sides and the small rectangular building was incorporated within it producing a structure Kavvadias labeled Building E. South of this, four small buildings (Figure 1-7: 45) of various plans were built along the same axis. In the north, to the west of the well, the small stoa was replaced by a more substantial one with adjoining toilets and kitchens and a building which may have been a bath was added.28 In addition, games to Asclepius are first attested at this time suggesting that the location of the stadium was established by that same time.29 This layout remained unchanged until the late fourth century BC when the grand project of monumentalizing the sanctuary began.

25 Kruse argues for this interpretation in RE “Maleatas”.

26 Dated by pottery finds. For the archaeology of the early sanctuary see Lambrinoudakis 2002: 216-223.

27 All the buildings from the period have the same orientation which is different than the buildings of the later periods. Lambrinoudakis (2002: 221-223 ) using ground resistivity measurements found that a stream once flowed along the same axis, running south side of Building E and the four small buildings and emptying into the cavity of the stadium.

28 Lambrinoudakis 2002: 219-223.

29 Pind. Nem. 6. The stadium is not far from Building E to the south. Tomlinson (1983: 91) notes, “there is no reason to doubt that it was always in the same locality….”

The gods of the new sanctuary can be identified as Apollo and Asclepius based on three inscribed votive offerings uncovered during the initial excavation of the altar’s ash heap.30

Whether one preceded the other is difficult to tell. Two of the three offerings are dedicated to

Asclepius, one from the sixth and one from the fifth, while the third is a dedication to Pythian

Apollo from the sixth century.31 The buildings of the sixth and fifth centuries are consistent with the cult practices of these gods. Building E (Figure 1-7: 47) was used for open-air sacrifice and certain of its characteristics indicate it was used for ritual meals as well.32 If so, the combination of open air altar and ritual meal recalls the arrangements of the cult of Apollo on the Kynortium.

Lambrinoudakis (2002: 219) goes so far as to argue that “…the cult in this place was identical to the one attested in the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas.” One need not go that far, however, particularly in light of the fact that two inscriptions to Asclepius were also found in this building.

Indeed, it has generally been interpreted as the original temple of Asclepius.33 Nevertheless, the dedication to Pythian Apollo found near the altar points to the worship of Apollo in some form in

Building E probably alongside the worship of Asclepius.34

The buildings around the well seem to support a different kind of cult practice. The well itself is the oldest structure in this cluster and in later times, at least, was sacred. The adjacent building to the east (Figure 1-7: 40) served as a bath in the late fourth century sanctuary which

30 Kavvadias 1900b: 129.

31 IG IV2 1, 136 (to Asclepius, 5th c. BC), 142 (to Pythian Apollo, 6th c. BC), 144 (to Asclepius, 5th c. BC). IG IV2 1, 137 (5th c. BC) was also found in this stratum but does not include the name of a god.

32 Summarized by Lambrinoudakis 2002: 216, namely: a water channel running around the floor of the small building presumably to wash away refuse, three sockets cut into the floor of the same to hold a table or couch, stoas to provide shelter for dining worshippers, and pavement in the stoas and around the altar to facilitate cleaning.

33 Kavvadias 1900b: 129.

34 Tomlinson 1983: 75; Lambrinoudakis 2002: 214-216. Kavvadias (1900b: 129) interprets Building E solely as the original temple to Asclepius.

may have been a continuation of its function from this period. The stoa by its form and location recalls the later Abaton (Figure 1-7: 42) which, together with the attached toilets and kitchens, suggests it served as a dormitory. This combination of well, bath and dormitory is characteristic of the healing cult of Asclepius in the next century when it is better attested.35

Whether the adoption of Asclepius into the local cult was contemporary with the founding of the new sanctuary, or even the cause of it, is difficult to judge. There is no evidence for the worship of Asclepius on the Kynortion so it is tempting to reason that the new sanctuary was founded for the new god. At the least, the evidence for his presence on the plain is contemporaneous with the evidence for Apollo so a causal relationship is possible.36 In any event in the fifth century BC, there was, at the sanctuary on the plain, a healing cult centered on

Asclepius with buildings characteristic of that cult.

The Monumentalization of the Fourth and Third Centuries

Although the sanctuary of the fifth century was architecturally modest, it was sufficiently influential that other Asclepiea were founded from it at this time. Cos in the Dodecanese,

Balagrae in Cyrene, and Lebena on Crete imported the cult during this century, so too did Sicyon in the second quarter of the fifth century, Epidaurus Limera by 424 BC and Aegina by 422 BC.37

In 420/19 BC the cult of Asclepius was installed in Athens, from which further daughter sanctuaries were founded throughout Attica.38

35 Lambrinoudakis 2002: 219.

36 Lambrinoudakis 2002: 214.

37 Daughter sanctuaries: Paus. 2.26.8-9; Edelstein 1975: 238; Riethmüller 2005: 232. Terminus ante quem for Aegina: Arist. Wasps 122ff; for Epidaurus Limera: Thuc. 4.56.5.

38 IG II2 4960a records the importation of Asclepius to Athens.

Shortly thereafter, perhaps in response to this popularity, the city of Epidaurus embarked on a building program that dramatically increased the size and quality of the sanctuary.39 A grand

Temple of Asclepius (Figure 1-7: 43) was constructed probably between 375 and 370 BC, followed shortly after by a dormitory, called the Abaton (42), and an elaborate circular building of unknown function known as the Thymele (or Tholos) (44) between ca. 360 and 330 BC.40

Over the next century the sanctuary was fitted out with the magnificent Theater (59), Banqueting

Hall (54), Katagogion or Hotel (58), at least one bath (61), temples, including a major one to

Artemis (50), stoas, cisterns, fountains and various other buildings.41 By 270 BC the building program had drawn to a close and the Asclepieum had taken on the definitive arrangement which it retains today.42

The result of this massive expansion was an Epidaurian sanctuary which could compete in prestige with other famous sanctuaries of the Greek world. Its Panhellenic status is indicated by an inscription dating from around 365 BC which records the various theorodokoi of the sanctuary.43 These were residents of other cities who hosted the sacred envoys, theoroi, of a particular polis. The inscriptions show that the Epidaurians sent theoroi to a large number of cities all over the Greek world; names are recorded for cities as far west as Sicily and as far north as Macedonia and Thrace.

39 For the Asclepieum we are fortunate to have an unprecedented number of inscriptions containing the building contracts and financial accounts of many structures built during this period; see Burford 1969.

40 The Temple of Asclepius took four years and eight months to build and the Thymele about twenty seven years (Burford 1969: 54-59; 63-68; App. I) based on the building accounts found in IG IV2 1, 102 (the temple) and IG IV2 1, 103 (the Thymele). ‘Θυμέλη’ is the name found in building account IG IV2 1, 103: 125 &162 dating to the fourth century BC; ‘θόλος’ is Pausanias’ (2.27.3) term. Lambrinoudakis (2002: 223), on the basis of new excavations, dates the Abaton after the Temple and before the Thymele.

41 For discussion of the buildings in detail see: Kavvadias 1900b, Robert 1935, Burford 1969, Pharaklas 1972, Tomlinson 1983, Riethmüller 2005: 279-318, and Melfi 2007: 23-63.

42 Burford 1969: 79-80.

43 IG IV2 1, 94/ 95.

In conjunction with the expansion of the Asclepieum, the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas

(Figure 1-4) was also remodeled. A new retaining wall (4), or analemma, was constructed sometime between the end of the fourth century BC and the beginning of the third creating a terrace on which a stoa (5) was erected.44 A Temple of Apollo (2) was built southwest of the stoa as was a long, monumental, outdoor altar (6), and a small temenos of the Muses was established to the southeast of the terrace (9).45 Between 290 and 270 BC houses, or skanamata (esp. 11), were constructed on the hill as well as aqueducts, and a stable with a sewage system.46

After the end of the monumental building program in the third century, the Asclepieum’s status continued to expand beyond Greece. In 292 BC in the grip of a plague, Rome sent envoys to Epidaurus where they received the sacred snake of Asclepius and transferred the cult to

Rome.47 The sanctuary also gained recognition from Macedon; the kings Antigonos Doson and

Philip V were honored with statues for their generosity to the Epidaurians, the former in 222 BC and the later in 218 BC.48

The End of the Greek Period

The history of the sanctuary during the second century BC before the Roman conquest is not well attested, but the evidence points to its continued vitality. The wealth of the Asclepieum was still evident in 167 BC, when L. Aemilius Paullus visited Epidaurus after the battle of Pydna

44 Retaining wall: IG IV2 1, 106 C: 30ff; 108:159ff. Stoa: IG IV2 1, 106 C: 60ff. Burford (1969: 74) dates both structures to between 335 and 325 BC based on the lettering and internal evidence of the inscriptions; Lambrinoudakis (1974a: 95) argues for the early third century based on Epidaurian coins found beneath the analemma which date to the fourth century but show signs of long use.

45 Lambrinoudakis 1987/88: 299.

46 IG IV2 1, 109; SEG XV 207; dates assigned by letter style, Burford 1969: 77-79.

47To the Tiber island: Liv. I.10.47; Val. Max. 1.1

48 IG IV2 1, 589; 590.

and, according to Livy, saw the sanctuary rich in dedicatory offerings.49 Diodorus Siculus records that this wealth of gold and silver remained intact until the sanctuary was looted by Sulla in the first century BC.50

The interest which Livy and Diodorus show in the wealth of votive offerings of the

Asclepieum suggests that they might be a useful indicator of the relative success or decline of the sanctuary. Since a dedication is generally the gift of a successful supplication, a survey of the datable votive offerings could serve as a proxy for the fortunes of the sanctuary through time.51

Unfortunately, for all periods at the sanctuary, the number of dedications which cannot be dated to a specific century is a significant portion of the whole: from the sixth to first centuries BC,

45% cannot be placed within a century, and the same holds for 58% of the inscriptions from the first to fourth centuries AD. This distribution discourages any statistical comparison of inscriptions from a particular century with the total from the site. However, since the survival and recovery of inscriptions is more or less random, trends within the datable inscriptions may be generally representative. With this caveat, the dedicatory inscriptions reveal a small number of dedications in the sixth and fifth centuries BC (2 and 10 inscriptions respectively), followed by a large increase in the fourth and third centuries BC (44 inscriptions for each). The number falls again in the second century BC (25 inscriptions). The dedicatory inscriptions, therefore, generally agree with the other evidence: robust activity in the fourth and third centuries as distinct from the two centuries before and the century after. Thus the Epidaurian Asclepieum appears to have risen steadily from modest beginnings in the sixth century BC to considerable success in the third. The advent of Roman rule, however, would challenge this success.

49 Liv. 45.28; Poly. 30.10.4.1.

50 Diod. 38.7.1.1

51 Dedicatory offerings at Epidaurus were also given by priests.

The Roman Period

After the defeat of the Achaean League and the destruction of Corinth in 146 BC, Greece became a Roman province. The introduction of Roman rule was not initially auspicious for the

Epidaurian sanctuary. The same year that Greece lost its independence, the conquering general

L. Mummius visited the Asclepieum and left a dedication to Apollo, Asclepius and Hygieia on a very prominent monument, the so-called ‘ship’s prow’ monument.52 The original inscription on this monument celebrates an Epidaurian naval victory and its re-use by Mummius was perhaps meant to reinforce the dominance of Rome. In any event no support for the sanctuary was forthcoming from Rome in contrast to the situation in Athens.53

In the first century BC circumstances in Greece deteriorated further as a result of the

Roman civil wars. In 86 BC L. Cornelius Sulla sacked the Epidaurian Asclepieum to pay for his war with Mithridates of Pontus.54 Not long afterwards Cilician pirates looted the sanctuary as well.55 Although Livy records that the sanctuary was depleted of its wealth in his time there are indications of modest improvement during the reign of Augustus: Strabo reports that the temple is full of the sick and of votive tablets recording their cures.56 Inscriptions to Livia, the emperor’s wife, to Drusus and Tiberius his stepsons, and to Lucius, his grandson indicate some interest on the part of the imperial family.57 Subsequent members of the Julian line also have dedications: the emperor Tiberius, Drusilla, Caligula’s sister, the emperor Claudius and his wives Agrippina

52 IG IV2 1, 306D.

53 Though as noted above (Diod. 38.7.1.1) the rich votive offerings remained intact.

54 Diod. 38.7.1.1; Plut. Sulla 12; Paus. IX.7.5.

55 Liv. 45.28; Plut. Pomp. 2.24.

56 Liv. 45.28; Livy began writing his history ca. 29 BC and continued until his death in 17 AD. Strabo VIII.6.15.

57 Livia IG IV2 1, 593;594. Drusus IG IV2 1, 595; 596. Tiberius IG IV2 1, 597. Lucius IG IV2 1, 598.

and Messalina.58 The evidence of the dedicatory offerings is ambiguous for the first centuries BC and AD. Three votives are dated to first century AD in contrast to ten from the first century BC, but the sample size is too small to propose any firm trends.

In the second century AD the fortunes of the Asclepieum improved dramatically.

Sometime in the 160’s a Roman senator by the name of Antoninus, almost certainly Sextus

Julius Maior Antoninus Pythodorus of Nysa in Asia Minor, began an expansive renovation of the sanctuary of Asclepius.59 Pausanias (2.27.6-7) records that he built a bath, a house outside the sanctuary for birthing and death, and two temples, one to the Epidotes (or ‘beneficent gods’), and one to Hygieia, Asclepius, and Apollo in their Egyptian aspect. He also repaired the so-called

Stoa of Kotys which had been ruined by the loss of its roof. In the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas,

Pausanias attributes a rainwater cistern to him.

Excavation of the sanctuary has confirmed a large construction program in the second century. In addition to the buildings listed by Pausanias, Roman baths consistent with this period have been discovered, as well as aqueducts, fountains and numerous other buildings.60

Epigraphic evidence shows the construction of a library.61 Indeed the evidence of the Roman-era building program points to a renovation not much inferior to that of the fourth and third centuries

BC, a subject which will be fully explored in Chapter 3. Dedicatory offerings show some recovery in the second century AD (36 inscriptions) compared with the first century AD (3 inscriptions). The numerical increase seems dramatic but should be tempered by the fact that

58 Tiberius IG IV2 1, 599. Drusilla IG IV2 1, 600. Claudius IG IV2 1, 601; 602; Peek 1972, 76. Agrippina IG IV2 1, 602; 603; Peek 1972, 76. Messalina IG IV2 1, 604.

59 Date and identification of Antoninus: Hiller 1929b: 63-68.

60 Kavvadias 1900b: 159-160; and esp. 169-170; Riethmüller 2005: 280- 294 passim; Melfi 2007: 99-121.

61 Library (donated by a Rufus): IG IV2 1, 456.

58% of the dedications (129 inscriptions) from the first through fifth centuries AD cannot be dated to a specific century. Taken together, the evidence indicates that the second century AD was a time of recovery for the Sanctuary of Asclepius and the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas.

From the Third Century until Abandonment

The late Roman period of the Asclepieum’s development has not previously been examined in a thorough manner although several impressive buildings such as the Odeum

(Figure 1-7: 55), the Perimetric Stoa/Wall (Figure 1-7: 36), and the Basilica (Figure 1-7: 20) were known to fall within this broad time frame. The result has been a confused and incomplete picture of this phase of the site. Chapter 3 supplies a comprehensive review of buildings which belong to this era and distinguishes five building phases between the reign of Caracalla (AD 211-

217) and the (possible) Christian phase of the site in the late fifth/early fourth centuries. With a more detailed discussion of the architecture of this period postponed to a Chapters 3 and 4, other developments of these centuries should be mentioned.

In AD 267 the Heruls invaded Greece causing widespread destruction and perhaps got as far as Epidaurus, though if so their impact was not long-lasting.62 Votive dedications from the third century (43 inscriptions) appear as strong as the second (36 inscriptions) insofar as the nature of the evidence allows. During the late third century a Perimetric Stoa/Peribolos Wall

(Figure 1-7: 36) was constructed around the nucleus of the sanctuary reflecting perhaps a diminution in the use of cult space at the site.63

The fourth century presented mounting problems for the Asclepieum and probably saw its demise as pagan cult location. For this century dedicatory offerings are few (13 inscriptions) and

62 Tomlinson 1983: 32.

63 Lambrinoudakis 2002: 224; OEΣME 2000: 97-98; Kavvadias 1926: 139-140; 1927: 52.

mostly restricted to the first half of the century. The last inscription from the site, dated to AD

363, is a dedicatory offering to Artemis.64 In this same decade, two large earthquakes struck

Greece and may have affected the Asclepieum. The first occurred sometime between AD 361 and 363 and caused great damage around the Gulf of Corinth as well as in Nauplia, approximately 18 miles from the Asclepieum.65 The second, in AD 365, was probably located off the coast of Crete but was felt across the eastern Mediterranean.66 The late fourth century also saw the emperor Theodosius I taking an increasingly hard line against all forms of non-Christian worship, even ordering all pagan temples closed. Then the end of the fourth century brought the

Visigoths who, in AD 395, invaded Greece reaching perhaps as far as Epidaurus.67 Considering this combination of factors, the end of the fourth century AD probably brought with it the end of the site as an Asclepieum.

Although use of the site as a sanctuary to Asclepius may have ended the location was not immediately abandoned. A Basilica (Figure 1-7: 20) was built near the edge of the former temenos of the sanctuary in the late fourth/early fifth centuries using the architectural members of the earlier buildings.68 Several other structures including a house and a bath complex were built in the same period. The type of buildings erected and their scale suggests something of a renaissance for the site during the late Roman/early Christian period. The remaining buildings of

64 Peek 1972, 55.

65 Guidoboni 1994: 261-262 (earthquake # 150).

66 Locations affected include Alexandria, Epidaurus (in Dalmatia), Methone (Peloponnese), Gortyna (Crete), and Sicily. Guidoboni 1994: 267-274 (earthquake #154)

67 Kavvadias 1900b: 23.

68 Katakis 2002: 328.

the site seem to have survived intact until the earthquakes of 521/522 and 543 AD.69 At some point the Theater was covered in a landslide preserving it for posterity. Afterward, the sanctuary slipped through the Middle Ages in silence. It resurfaced during Frankish rule in Greece (AD

1205-1432), when numismatic evidence shows that some buildings were used as houses.70

Turkish rule followed Frankish when the sanctuary again shows no evidence of use or occupation. Then toward the end of the Turkish period the Asclepieum was re-discovered by

European travelers whose observations will be discussed in the next section.

History of Scholarship

Modern scholarship of the Asclepieum of Epidaurus begins with the travelogues of western European travelers to Greece. Informed by Pausanias, these visitors recorded their observations about the site while it was still deserted and undisturbed. Then in 1881, systematic excavation of the site began under Panayiotis Kavvadias who produced the first comprehensive report of the archaeological remains in 1900, in a book entitled Τὸ ἱερόν τοῦ Ἀσκλήπιου ἐν

Ἐπιδαύρῳ. Τὸ ἱερόν, in fact, remains the best single source for the buildings of the lower sanctuary despite its interpretive errors and more recent spot excavations. In the epigraphic field,

Frederick Hiller von Gaertringen’s Inscriptiones Graecae: Inscriptiones Argolidis (IG IV2 1) has achieved similar importance. Published in 1929, Hiller’s work focuses exclusively on Epidaurus and contains all Epidaurian inscriptions known at that time, some seven hundred and forty-five.

Although later discoveries have diminished their comprehensiveness, these two works still supply the majority of our evidence for the Epidaurian Asclepieum.

69 Kavvadias 1900b: 24; Guidoboni 1994: 313-314 (earthquake # 201), 328 (earthquake # 212). These earthquakes centered around Corinth.

70 Kavvadias 1900b: 24.

Early Travelogues

The first modern traveler to leave a description of the Epidaurian Asclepieum was Français

Desmonceaux in 1669.71 He records that the sanctuary lay in ruins except for the Theater (Figure

1-7: 59) but the ancient remains were at least free of later settlement. In contrast to all later visitors, Desmonceaux neither follows nor seems aware of Pausanias’ account and, equally unusual, he appears to have entered the sanctuary from the east along the route linking Ligurio with Troezen. His exploration of the sanctuary starts at a cistern matching in size the one near temple L (Figure 1-2: 17), at the eastern extent of the plain. He then ascended the nearby hill and saw there a masonry platform and a vaulted cistern with its associated aqueduct; undoubtedly this was the Apollo Maleatas sanctuary on the Kynortium. From this point he descended to the theater which he reports to be the most intact he had ever seen. The remaining buildings of the sanctuary below the theater he describes as so ruined as to be indistinguishable. Nevertheless he singles out a circular building with a depression in the middle, which we may perhaps identify as the Tholos. After several hours of exploring Desmonceaux was forced to leave by the fear of corsairs who frequently raided the local people. His work was never published in full and his map of the site is lost. Perhaps because Desmonceaux did not use Pausanias as a guide, he mentions no topographic names nor does he attempt to identify any building other than as a general type. Nevertheless, he is the only travel writer to make note of the late antique church in the northeast of the sanctuary, one of the few to notice the remains in the area of temple L and the only traveler other than Clarke (see below) to ascend the Kynortium hill.

The next account of the Asclepieum comes nearly one hundred years later. In 1765 R.

Chandler visited the sanctuary as part of his journey through the lands of ancient Greece which

71 Never published in full. Excerpts of his work by M. Fréret are found in Le Bruyn 1725, vol. 5: 469-472 and more readily in Defrasse and Lechat 1895: 6-9.

he published as Travels in Asia Minor and Greece. Chandler does use Pausanias as guide and attempts without much success to locate the buildings he mentions, thus inaugurating a long tradition for the site. His observations are few and short, though he does add to Desmonceaux’s description by locating the Stadium (Figure 1-7: 62) and two cisterns (Figure 1-7: 26?) in the north of the site. Perhaps most importantly, he is the first to publish inscriptions from the sanctuary. He also records that the sanctuary had been plundered in recent memory for constructions in Nauplia and Argos. These included statues and inscriptions and a marble chair from the theater.

Four travelers visited the Asclepieum almost in rapid succession between 1800 and 1805.

W. Leake visited the sanctuary sometime before 1805 as recorded in his Travels in the Morea. E.

D. Clarke’s Travels in Various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa recounts his visit to the site in 1801 and says that his friend W. Gell, visited the area after him. Gell’s trip occurred sometime between 1801 and 1806 and was published in The Itinerary of Greece. Finally, E. Dodwell reached the region of Epidaurus in December 1805 as he recorded in A Classical and

Topographical Tour Through Greece During the Years 1801, 1805 and 1806. In addition to their contemporaneous exploration of the sanctuary and their nationality these four Englishmen shared further commonalities. They all followed Pausanias’ route and approached the sanctuary from the west. Theirs are the first detailed descriptions and measurements of the Theater. Three of them identified the same building, correctly, as the Tholos. Each located the Temple of

Asclepius in the right general area, on the terrace near the Tholos. All four mention the Stadium but only Clarke and Gell give a full description. Among these four there were also several singular contributions. Clarke, alone, scaled the Kynortium and viewed the remains there. He is also the only one of the four who recorded inscriptions. Leake and Gell produced maps of the

site, though of poor quality. Gell is the first to describe the two buildings north and west of the great cistern (Figure 1-7: 24 & 25) and speculated, erroneously, that the northeastern one (24) was the Portico of Kotys and, correctly, that the southwestern one (25) was a Roman bath. He is also the only traveler to mention a circular reservoir in the west which he suggested might be a naumachia. This structure has never been identified though a landmark consistent with its description is still visible today.

After these travelers of the early 19th century, the site was visited by the Frenchman F. C.

H. L. Pouqueville around 1827. His description in Voyage de la Grèce is brief and the only monument he talks specifically about is the Theater; he does however mention remains surrounded by a portico at the western limit of the sanctuary. This seems likely to be one of the late Roman baths, either the building marked on Figure 1-7 as number 24 or more likely number

25, which were described by Gell. He also records four inscriptions and mentions that, coming from the west from Koroni, there are ruins extending until one reaches the sanctuary, thus hinting at a far larger built area than has been excavated or surveyed for the site.

In 1829 A. Blouet conducted the first modern archaeological work at the Asclepieum. As an excavation it was cursory though it did produce an excellent map of the valley. Aside from a brief introduction Blouet did not write a report of his work but rather chose to record all his finds in plates which he published in Expédition scientifique de Morée. Ultimately, Blouet was disappointed with the results of his work and believed that there was nothing of any significance left to find in the sanctuary. This was perhaps exacerbated by his erroneous belief that the current soil level was lower than the ancient.72

72 Blouet 1833: 163.

Finally, E. Curtius came to the Asclepieum between 1837 and 1840. His account, included in his book Peloponnesos, adds nothing new to the previous travelogues and is less detailed than most. Of more importance is his map which is detailed and of a quality comparable to Blouet’s.

Curtius also has the distinction of being the last of the travel writers to visit the Asclepieum before major excavations began, bringing the era of the travelogues to an end.

Excavations

The major excavation of the Asclepieum began in 1881 under the leadership of Panayiotis

Kavvadias and lasted until his death in 1928. Kavvadias was originally tasked by the

Archaeological Society of Athens with clearing brush and trees from the Theater but using left- over money from that year he began a series of test trenches in the Theater. These were so productive that he returned the next year with additional funding and began to excavate in the nucleus of the sanctuary. Here he unearthed the Tholos (Figure 1-7: 44) in 1882, the Temple of

Asclepius (43), the Abaton (42) and the Temple of Artemis (50) in 1883, and buildings as far south as the Banqueting Hall (54) and as far east as the northeast Roman baths (30) between

1884 and 1900. The excavations of these years, published in the corresponding Proceedings

(Praktika) of the Athenian Archaeological Society, were compiled into two major works,

Fouilles d’Epidaure, of which only the first volume was published in 1891, and Τὸ ἱερόν τοῦ

Ἀσκλήπιου ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ published in 1900.73 The later work is a detailed study of all the buildings uncovered to that point and serves as the starting point for all discussions of the

Asclepieum. Unfortunately, like many excavators of his time in Greece, Kavvadias was

73 Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταίριας, hereafter Prakt, 1881: 1-40; 1882: 75-83; 1883: 45-50; 1884: 54-63; 1885: 29-31; 1891: 26-27; 1892: 54-56; 1893: 9-11; 1894: 13-14; 1895: 20-23; 1896: 31-32; 1897: 28; 1898: 17-18; 1899: 103-105; 1900: 17-19. Ἐφημερίς Ἀρχαιολογική, hereafter ArchEph, 1883: 25-32, 85-92, 147-158, 197- 238; 1884: 21-32, 49-60; 1885: 1-30, 41-53, 65-86, 189-200; 1886: 141-144, 145-178; 1894: 11-14, 15-24; 1895: 179-184; 1899: 1-24. Ἀραιολογικὸν Δελτίον hereafter ArchDelt, 1891: 3, 19, 33, 65-66, 85-96, 97; 1892: 23, 39, 49- 50, 72-73, 81-82. With contributions by Stais: ArchEph 1886: 244-258; 1887: 10-23; 1892: 69-100, 181-184, 205- 212 and Prakt 1886: 79-82; 1887: 67-68.

primarily concerned with uncovering the Classical and Hellenistic remains of the site and gave only spotty attention to the later strata which he had to dig through to get to the Greek material.

As a result, the Roman remains are handled unevenly in his work with a few of the more ostentatious buildings such as the Odeum and the Northeast Baths receiving careful documentation but with the rest receiving little or none. The humble household remains of the

Frankish period were completely ignored (and destroyed). Consequently, a large amount of the post-Hellenistic archaeological data for the Asclepieum is irretrievably lost.

After Τὸ ἱερόν a comprehensive follow-up publication was never produced even though excavations continued at a reduced pace for twenty six more years. The results of these years are published somewhat inadequately in the corresponding Praktika.74 At the end of Kavvadias’ life the nucleus of the Asclepieum and those areas bordering on it had been thoroughly excavated as well as the Theater and the nearby Katagogion (58). Nevertheless, as Pouqueville observed in

1827, the ancient ruins extend over a wide area and much has remained unexcavated even to this day.75

Kavvadias also excavated in the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas on the Kynortium briefly in

1896.76 He explored the cistern and the so-called Skana (Figure 1-4: 11) (or “Priests’ Lodgings”,

σκανὰ ἱερέων, IG IV2 I, 400, 401, and 402) and discovered several inscriptions but deferred further work until the excavations in the Asclepieum were completed.77 It is clear from a plan of

74 Prakt 1901: 49-51; 1902: 78-92; 1903: 20-21, 59; 1904: 61-62; 1905: 23-24, 43-89; 1906: 53-54, 91-119; 1907: 63-64, 183-186; 1908: 65-66; 1909: 63-64; 1916: 39-41, 84; 1918: 21-37; 1919: 19-20; 1920: 7-8; 1921: 9-10, 39- 41; 1922/23: 2-3, 23-25; 1924: 74-75, 116-117; 1925: 12-14, 47-51; 1926: 91, 139-140; 1927: 13, 52. ArchEph 1901: 58-82; 1918: 135-171, 172-195.

75 For example the ancient remains extending southwest of the Stadium along the road to the Hippodrome (Kavvadias 1900b: 119-121).

76 Kavvadias 1896: 32; 1900b: 178-180.

77 Kavvadias 1896: 32.

the site published in 1929 in Hiller’s Inscriptiones Graecae IV2 1 and derived from Kavvadias’ work that a much larger area was investigated. Whether this investigation was done by survey or excavation, in 1896 or later, is not clear since the work was never published.78

In 1948 Joannis Papadimitriou began a more detailed excavation of the northern portion of the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas. From 1948-1951, he cleared and excavated the large retaining wall (Figure 1-4: 4) on the northern edge of the site which supported the terrace of the sanctuary.

The record of this work is published in corresponding Praktika of these years as well as in the

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique.79 One startling result of Papadimitriou’s work was the discovery of pottery, figures and bronze objects dating from the Mycenaean period. These artifacts extend the history of the Kynortium site much farther back than was previously known since the earliest evidence found in Kavvadias’ excavations dates to the sixth century BC.

The excavations of Papadimitriou which uncovered the Mycenaean artifacts were nevertheless limited to one area of the Kynortium and by no means exhausted the potential of the site. In light of this fact, excavations recommenced on the Kynortium in 1974 under the direction of Vassilis Lambrinoudakis. As with Papadimitriou, the terrace and its retaining walls were the initial focus of investigation and multiple phases, from Mycenaean through Roman, were uncovered as well as a wealth of pottery, sculpture and other small finds.80 Excavation of the terrace also revealed a succession of three open-air altars spanning the Mycenaean to late classical periods (Figure 1-4: 3).81 Adjacent to the terrace, the foundations of the Temple of

78 Papadimitriou 1949b: 381.

79 Papadimitriou 1948; 1949a; 1949b; 1950; 1951.

80 Lambrinoudakis 1974a: 92-101.

81 Lambrinoudakis 1976a: 203-209; and esp. 1981c: 157-181.

Apollo (2) were excavated revealing an earlier structure.82 In the 1980’s Lambrinoudakis expanded his excavations to the Skana (11), the cistern of Antoninus (12) and the areas in the south of the sanctuary where a Roman bath complex (15) was discovered. During this period preservation work on the monuments began under the aegis of the newly formed Working Group for the Preservation of the Epidaurian Monuments (OEΣME).83 As main excavations concluded at the end of the 1990’s the preservation work gained greater priority and continues today.

Lambrinoudakis’ work on the Kynortium was published year by year in the Praktika of the

Athenian Archaeological Society and in Tὸ Ἔrgon τῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας.84 He also published an analysis of the Mycenaean evidence in 1981, an overall history of the Sanctuary of

Apollo Maleatas in 1987/88, and a summary of the archaeological work to date in 1992.85 His later publications have focused on the restoration efforts and the evidence they have brought to light.86

In 1984 Lambrinoudakis and OEΣME began restoration and limited re-excavation of the

Asclepieum. This was the first new excavation in the Sanctuary of Asclepius since Kavvadias’ death in 1928. The restoration work, which continues today, has yielded new finds and has clarified the sequence of a number of buildings such as the Abaton (Figure 1-7: 42), Building E

(47) and the late Roman Perimetric Stoa (36). These research and preservation efforts have been

82 Lambrinoudakis 1978a: 111-121.

83 Ομάδα Εργασίας για την Συντήρηση των Mνημείων του Επιδαύρου, formed in 1984.

84 Prakt 1974: 92-101; 1975: 163-175; 1976: 203-309; 1977: 187-194; 1978: 111-121; 1979: 127-129; 1980: 103, 1981: 157-181; 1983: 151-159; 1984: 228-232; 1987: 52-65; 1988: 21-29; 1989: 43-56; 1990: 45-49; 1991: 70-78; 1992: 44-52; 1993: 37-43; 1994: 62-67; 1995: 51-53; 1996: 125-128; 1997: 165-166; 1998: 155-156; 1999: 113- 115; 2000: 67-69; 2001: 57-59. Tὸ Ἔrgon τῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, hereafter Ergon,1974: 57-62; 1975: 101- 107; 1976: 111-118; 1977: 98-105; 1978: 37-42; 1979: 20-21; 1980: 28-29; 1981: 46-48; 1983: 59-64; 1984: 58-59; 1985: 48; 1987: 92-102; 1988: 11-21; 1989: 12-22; 1990: 11-21; 1991: 11-23; 1992: 8-20; 1993: 10-20; 1994: 33- 37; 1995: 24-27; 1996: 38-41; 1999: 56-58; 2000: 52-54; 2001: 44-45.

85 Lambrinoudakis 1981c; 1987/88; 1992c.

86 Lambrinoudakis 2002; 2006b.

published by Lambrinoudakis and OEΣME, with a summary of the work from 1984 to 1999 in the 1999 To Ασκληπιείο της Επιδαύρου.87

The Inscriptions

Pausanias (2.27.3) makes the first mention of inscriptions at the site. He specifically refers to the Iamata or “cure inscriptions” which, he says, stood inside the peribolos and listed (in

Doric dialect) the names of the supplicants who had been cured by Asclepius. The first transcriptions of epigraphic material appeared in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century travelogues.88 A number of limited collections followed, along with studies of individual inscriptions; prominent among these are Böckh’s Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum I3 of 1828,

Le Bas’ Inscriptions grecques et latines recueiles en Grèces par la commission de Morée of

1837, Wilamowitz’s study of the Isyllos hymn in 1886, Baunack’s Aus Epidauros of 1890,

Kavvadias’ Fouilles d’Epidaure I of 1891, and Blinkenberg’s 1895 Les inscriptions d’Epidaure.

In addition, numerous studies were published in the annual Ἐφημερίς Ἀρχαιολογική from 1883 on.89 The year 1902 saw a significant advance in the study of the Epidaurian inscriptions with the publication of Fraenkel’s Inscriptiones Graecae IV 1 which edited and published all the known inscriptions from Epidaurus. Over the next few decades a wealth of new material and further scholarship necessitated an updating of Fraenkel’s work and in 1929 Hiller von Gaertringen published Inscriptiones Graecae IV2 1: Inscriptiones Argolidis, which remains the main reference for Epidaurian epigraphy.

87 Lambrinoudakis 2002; 2006a; 2006b; OEΣME 1987; 1988; 1999; 2000.

88 For example in Clarke 1818: 410, 412; Chandler 1817: 278; Pouqueville 1827: 239 & 242; Blouet 1833: 164ff.

89 Kavvadias 1883b: 25-32, 85-92, 147-158, 197-238; 1884b: 21-32, 49-60; 1885b: 1-30, 41-53, 65-86, 189-200; 1886: 141-144, 145-178; 1894b: 11-14, 15-24; 1895b: 179-184; 1899b: 1-24; 1901b: 58-82; 1918b: 115-154. Stais 1886b: 244-258; 1887b: 10-23; 1892: 69-100, 181-184, 205-212. Giamalides 1913: 125-129. Hiller 1925-26: 67-86.

Hiller’s work, in turn, has been augmented in the intervening years by further scholarship.

In 1931 Rudolf Herzog published a study of the cure inscriptions from Epidaurus.90 Werner Peek added substantial revisions to many inscriptions in his publications of 1969 and 1972 and, in the latter, added new inscriptions which had escaped notice in storage.91 Marcellos Mitsos and others have contributed new editions and readings in the pages of Ἐφημερίς Ἀρχαιολογική and studies of the Epidaurian hymns have been published by Bonefas in 1989 and Wagman in 1995 and

2000.92 In addition, new inscriptions and revisions appear in the Supplementum Epigraphicum

Graecum (SEG), a more or less annual publication, which is currently publishing the finds of

2007. Most recently, several new inscriptions have been published by Wagman et al. in the

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (ZPE).93

Studies

In 1895 Alphonse Defrasse and Henri Lechat published restorations of the main monuments of the sanctuary in Epidaure, restauration et déscription des principaux monuments du sanctuaire d’Asclépius. Since it was published before Kavvadias’ Τὸ ἱερόν its artistic reconstructions contain numerous errors but it does include a very informative discussion of the previous travelogues. After 1900 several excellent overall treatments of the sanctuary were published: Fernand Robert’s Épidaure in 1935; Nikolaos Pharaklas’ Epidaurus in 1972; R.A.

Tomlinson’s Epidauros in 1983; and OEΣME’s 1999 Τo Ασκληπιείο της Επιδαύρου. More recent

90 Herzog, R. 1931. Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Religion.

91 Peek, W. 1969. Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros; 1972. Neue Inschriften aus Epidauros.

92 Mitsos 1933: 10-20; 1936: 143-146; 1967: 1-28; 1974: 75-84; 1975: 19-27; 1976: 83-91; 1977: 1-3; 1980: 212- 216. Herzog 1937: 522-526; Papadimitriou 1948/49: 135-145. Bonefas, S. 1989. “The Musical Inscription from Epidauros.” Hesperia 58: 51-62. Wagman, R. 1995. Inni di Epidauro; 2000. L’inno epidaurico a Pan. Il culto di Pan a Epidauro.

93 Nichols, A. and Wagman, R. 2006. “Minima Epidaurica.” ZPE 158: 187-189; Bozia; E., Sangco G. and Wagman R. 2007. “A New Dedication by Diogenes and Other Unpublished Inscriptions from Epidauros.” ZPE 160: 120-122.

discussions of the sanctuary are included in Jürgen Reithmüller’s 2005 Asklepios: Heiligtümer und Kulte and Milena Melfi’s 2007 I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia, both of which have chapters on Epidaurus.94

Significant studies covering select buildings are found in G. Roux’s 1961 L’architecture de l’Argolide aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.-C and Alison Burford’s 1969 The Greek Temple

Builders of Epidaurus both of which focus on monuments of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Individual buildings have also been the recipients of dedicated studies. F. Robert published a study of Building E in 1933 and of the Tholos (Thymele) in 1939.95 Armin von

Gerkan and Wolfgang Müller-Wiener produced a study of the Theater in 1961 and Roberto

Patrucco published Lo Stadio di Epidauro in 1976.96 A revised plan of the Katagogion was published in 1991 by L. Kraynak and in 2002 E. Lembidaki published a new study of the small hypaethral structures.97 The Odeum, too, received new attention in Klimis Aslanidis’ 2003 publication “The Roman odeion at Epidauros.” Finally, OEΣME has produced works on the

Abaton, the Propylon of the Banqueting Hall, the Tholos, and the late Roman Perimetric Stoa as a result of the reconstruction efforts.98

94 Reithmüller 2005: 148-174, 279-324; Melfi 2007: 17-209.

95 Robert, F. 1933. “Le Édifice E d’Épidaure et la topographie du Hiéron d’Asclépios.” BCH 57: 380-393; 1939. Thymélè. BEFAR 147.

96 Gerkan, A. von and Müller-Wiener, W. 1961. Das Theater von Epidauros. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.

97 Kraynak, L. 1991. “The Katagogion at Epidauros: A revised plan.” ArchN 16: 1-8; Lembidaki, E. 2002. “Three Sacred Buildings in the Asclepieion at Epidauros: New Evidence from Recent Archaeological Research.” Peloponnesian Sanctuaries. 123-136.

98 1987. Η Στοά του Αβάτου στο Ασκληπιείο της Επιδαύρου : πρόταση συντήρησης και μερικής αποκατάστασης. Athens: Ministry of Culture; 1988. The Propylon of the “Gymnasium” and the Tholos in the Asklepieion at Epidauros. Athens: Ministry of Culture; 2000. To Yστερορωμαïκό “Tείχος.” Athens: Ministry of Culture.

The Roman Remains

In the spirit of the times, Kavvadias was primarily concerned with excavating and recording the Greek remains in the sanctuary and paid much less attention to later periods. As a result the Roman period at Epidaurus is poorly documented compared to the Greek. The majority of Roman material, excavated after the publication of Τὸ ἱερόν in 1900, received only limited write-ups in the Praktika of each year.99 Consequently, much of the context of the Roman remains and, indeed, some of the remains themselves have been permanently lost making a reconstruction of the Roman Asclepieum necessarily more tentative than that of the Greek.

After Kavvadias’ death in 1926, essentially no further investigation of the Roman remains was conducted until the restoration work of OEΣME from the 1980’s to the present. From these efforts, a study of the late Roman Perimeter Stoa (Figure 1-7: 36) was published and a study of

Building Φ (Figure 1-7: 52) was conducted but not published.100 In the domain of the plastic arts, the sculpture of the Roman period has recently been catalogued and analyzed by S. E. Katakis in a 2002 publication.101

Finally, several more broadly historical investigations have improved our understanding of the Roman-era sanctuary. From 2001 to the present, Marco Galli has published a number of articles exploring the changes in the role of the sanctuary during the Roman imperial period, in particular those changes influenced by the Second Sophistic.102 Melfi’s aforementioned work of

99 For example the two northwest buildings inadequately published by Kavvadias in the Prakt of 1919-1925.

100OEΣME. 2000. To Yστερορωμαïκό “Tείχος.” Athens: Ministry of Culture. Aslanidis, K. and Pinatsi, Ch. 1999. To Ἱερό των Αιγυπτίων στο Ασκληπιείο’ της Επιδαύρου. (Unpublished in the Archives of OEΣME).

101 Katakis, S. E. 2002. Επιδαύρος: τα Γλυπτά των Ρωμαικών Χρόνων από το Ιερό του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα και του Ασκληπιού. Athens: the Archaeological Society.

102 Galli, M. 2001. “Pepaideumenoi am Ort des Heiligen: Kommunikationsformen und euergetische Initiativen in griechischen Heiligtümern Zeit der Zweiten Sophistik.” In Reusser, ed. 43-71; 2004. “Creating Religious Identities: Paideia e religione nella Seconda Sofistica.” In Borg, ed. 315-356; “Pilgrimage as elite Habitus: Educated Pilgrims in the Sacred Landscape During the Second Sophistic.” In Elsner and Rutherford, eds. 253-290.

2007 is a study of the major Asclepiea in Greece from their inception to their abandonment (in the Late Antique period) arguing for a common sequence of developmental phases.

In conclusion, the Roman period of the sanctuary is poorly understood compared to either the Bronze Age or the Greek era and the current approaches to this period have left a methodological gap. That is, the restoration projects in the sanctuary have produced detailed new evidence on individual buildings but no comprehensive analysis of the Roman era overall.

Meanwhile, the wider-ranging historical studies of Roman Greece use the Epidaurian sanctuary as one example of many and so engage the Roman material evidence only so far as is necessary for their broader claims. The following chapters, therefore, set out to examine the Roman evidence at the site in a comprehensive and detailed fashion and to chart the evolution of the

Asclepieum in the Roman period. First, however, it is necessary to briefly examine the Classical and Hellenistic development of the sanctuary so that the Roman material can be put in context.

Figure 1-1. The central Argolid. (Base map: Google, Tele Atlas 2011; locations from Kiepert, H. 1996. Formae Orbis Antiqui. Talbert, R. J. A. ed. Rome: Edizioni Quasar)

Figure 1-2. Area of the Asclepieum. (Base map: Google, Tele Atlas 2011; locations from Kiepert, H. 1996. Formae Orbis Antiqui. Talbert, R. J. A. ed. Rome: Edizioni Quasar)

Figure 1-3. Organization of the Asclepieum and lines of access. (Base map: Google, Tele Atlas 2011; building silhouettes added by author)

Figure 1-4. Plan of the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas on the Kynortion hill. (Adapted from Lambrinoudakis, V. 1996. “Epidaurus, The Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas.” Prakt: 126, Figure 1.)

Figure 1-5. The northeast peak. (Photo courtesy of author)

Figure 1-6. The hill north of the sanctuary. Generally agreed to be ancient Mt. Titthium. (Photo courtesy of author)

Figure 1-7. Plan of the Asclepieum. Color coded by date of construction. (Adapted from current information map at site)

CHAPTER TWO THE HELLENISTIC SANCTUARY

Before examining the Roman-era sanctuary it is necessary to evaluate its Hellenistic precursor. This is the case because, for the most part, the Roman sanctuary did not build over the

Greek one but added to it; this is true both in the sense that completely new buildings were constructed and in the sense that earlier buildings were repaired or improved. Thus, at both the architectural level of individual buildings and the functional level of the sanctuary the Roman construction program is conditioned by the Greek. This chapter, therefore, will provide an overview of the Hellenistic sanctuary, first by examining the buildings themselves and then by surveying the range of activities which the Asclepieum supported.

A preliminary concern in the study of the Epidaurian Asclepieum is the limit of our knowledge about the architectural extent of the sacred area. Pausanias is the only ancient literary source who mentions specific buildings, some inside the Asclepieum proper and some outside of it, not all of which have been identified.1 In addition, numerous inscriptions survive that mention buildings of the sanctuary, a few of which have not been definitely located.2 Moreover,

Kavvadias’ excavations, while thorough for the central area bounded by the late Roman stoa

(Figure 1-7: 36), were less systematic elsewhere and concentrated on structures that were visible at ground level. Thus, while the heart of the sanctuary has been uncovered and most of the

1 The house(s?) for giving birth and dying outside the temenos (Paus. 2.27.6) remains unidentified and a number of others are debated such as the temple of Aphrodite, and that of Themis, as well as the sanctuary of the Egyptian gods.

2 Gymnasia: IG IV2 1, 642; Peek 1972, 20. Lyceum: SEG 35-307; sphaira? IG IV2 1,110.

attested buildings excavated, we must remember that our knowledge of the Asclepieum is still not complete.3

The Components of the Hellenistic Program

As mentioned above, the new construction program of the Roman period was constrained by the sanctuary as it already existed. This can be seen both in the fact that the new Roman buildings match the orientation of the Hellenistic buildings (in contrast to the change in orientation between the Hellenistic and Archaic buildings) and in the fact that the Roman buildings were organized around the earlier buildings – in many cases attached to them.

Therefore, the examination of Roman changes to the site must be based upon an understanding of the sanctuary at the end of the Late Classical/Early Hellenistic building program. The following description, therefore, includes all buildings built in the Greek period which can be identified either archaeologically or from written sources and focuses on their probable functions; architectural details are examined only insofar as they advance this goal or clarify later

Roman modifications. In this process it has seemed convenient to organize the buildings into topographical groupings, moving generally from north to south, as an ancient visitor might have encountered them.

The Main Entrance

At the end of the road from Epidaurus city to the Asclepieum, the traveler approaches the sanctuary from the north. Just south of a small stream stands a monumental entranceway (Figure

5, 21).4 This kind of structure was often called a propylon and was used to embellish the entrance

3 For example, southeast of the Stadium is a road leading to a Hippodrome, the general area of which is marked by a boundary stone. Also along this road is a cemetery (ancient, according to Kavvadias) and two long, parallel walls as well as the remains other buildings – all unexcavated. Kavvadias 1900b: 119-121.

4 For the Propylon see Kavvadias 1893a: 9-10; 1900b: 140-143; Roux 1961: 253-274; Burford 1969: 69-70; Carpenter 1971: 131-136; Tomlinson 1983: 40-47; Lauter 1986: 202-203; Riethmüller 2005: 281; Winter 2006: 43.

to important locations and, in the case of sanctuaries, signaled the crossover to a sacred area.5

The Epidaurian Propylon served as the main entrance to the Asclepieum and was, presumably, placed where the road from Epidaurus city crosses the sanctuary temenos.6 Based on its architectural forms, the Propylon has been dated variously between ca. 340 BC and ca. 250 BC, though a later date, in the first half of the third century seems best supported.7 The building is rectangular, oriented north-south, and consists of one large room bounded by colonnades on the north and south ends, with a second, interior colonnade. Ramps on either end provided easy access to the Propylon and passage through the interior was unhindered by walls or doors.

Tomlinson (1983: 46-47) suggests the ramps would have been convenient for processions, especially those including animals, and the interior room would have been a good place for a ceremonial pause. Thus, he proposes the Propylon was probably designed more for the festivals than for individual visitors.

The Propylon is placed so as to emphasize its function as a monumental entrance. It sits in the middle of the road between two parallel, low poros walls which continue to the north and indicate the edges of a sizable street.8 Just south of the Propylon the ground rises moderately to the level of the sanctuary plateau. Thus, visitors passing through the entranceway would have initially seen only the tops of the sanctuary buildings over the small rise. Then, as they made their way up the hill, the full buildings would have slowly come into view.

5 Carpenter 1971: 1, 197-200; Tomlinson 1983: 45.

6 See chapter 1 for a discussion of lines of access to the sanctuary.

7 Kavvadias (1900b: 142) dates it to the third century generally; Burford (1969: 69-70) to 340-330 BC, in the first phase of the Hellenistic construction; Lauter (1986: 203) to just after 300 BC; and Roux (1961: 274) to 300 to 250 BC. Winter (2006: 43), Tomlinson (1983: 47), and Carpenter (1971: 136) support Roux’s dating.

8 Because the ground north of the Propylon slopes down to a stream (both now and, apparently, in ancient times) Kavvadias (1900b: 140-141) has interpreted these walls as retaining walls for an earth embankment necessary to maintain the road level as it crossed the stream, presumably on a bridge.

On the southern side of the Propylon is an archaic well which dates to the sixth, or at latest, the early fifth century.9 It probably served the dual function of refreshing travelers as well as providing water for ritual purification as indicated by the presence of free-standing washing basins, or perirrhanteria, found throughout the sanctuary. Since the well predates the Propylon, it is likely that the temenos of the sanctuary remained unchanged in this spot.10

The Central Campus

Upon leaving the immediate area of the Propylon the visitor walks up a slight hill to the level of the central Asclepieum. The route south from the Propylon leads directly to the central campus of the sanctuary, a largely un-built, trapezoidal-shaped area demarcated by various buildings on its perimeter. This was the main space for public sacrifice as indicated by the monumental Altar of Asclepius (Figure 1-7: 39) positioned in the south-central portion of the campus as well as the numerous exedrae, or stone seats, used for viewing the public ceremony.

Temple Λ. Between the Propylon and the northern edge of the central campus is a large vacant interval about 100 meters deep. On the southern side of this space, at the northeastern limit of the central campus lies a small eastward-facing temple labeled Temple Λ (fig.1-5: 27) by

Kavvadias (1900b: 135).11 This would have been the first temple that visitors encountered upon entering the Asclepieum through the main entrance. The remains are in a poor state and no decorative architectural members have been found that can be definitely attributed to it. The remains of the three-step crepidoma are still detectable as is a stone foundation for the base of a

9 Date based on Z clamps.

10 Tomlinson 1983: 46.

11 Discovered 1892. For temple Λ see Kavvadias 1892a: 55; 1900b: 135-136; 1906: 104-109; Roux 1961: 242-246; Burford 1969: 73-74; Tomlinson 1983: 47-48.

cult statue in the rear of the cella.12 Roux (1961: 242-246) has conducted the most extensive analysis of its architecture to date and finds that Temple Λ is very similar in size and layout to

Temple L: that is, a small, prostyle temple with a colonnade inside the cella.13

The lack of iconography or inscriptions associated with Temple Λ makes the determination of the deity uncertain. All attempts at identifying the temple have been based on Pausanias

2.27.5,

ἐντὸς δὲ τοῦ ἄλσους ναός τέ ἐστιν Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ ἄγαλμα Ἠπιόνης καὶ Ἀφροδίτης ἱερὸν καὶ Θέμιδος καὶ στάδιον

And in the grove there is a temple to Artemis and a statue of Epione and a sanctuary of Aphrodite and Themis and a stadium.

Since only four temples (Asclepius, Artemis, Λ and L) have been found in the excavations on the plain, and two of these have been identified (Asclepius and Artemis), the remaining two temples (Λ and L) have been variously assigned to Aphrodite and Themis, the only other temples mentioned by Pausanias. Based on the meagre evidence available, Temple Λ may well belong to either deity or to an altogether different one.14

The date of the temple is likewise difficult to gauge. Kavvadias speculates on a date in the second half of the fourth century BC.15 Burford (1969: 73) narrows this date to the 320’s BC based on the construction of the temple of Themis in Athens, which presupposes Kavvadias’

12 Kavvadias 1900b: 135.

13 Temple L (discussed below) is located about half a kilometer to the east of the main area of the Asclepieum. See Figure 1-3: 17.

14 Kavvadias (1900b: 136) first assigned temple Λ to Aphrodite but then changed (1906: 109) to Themis. Roux (1961: 240-242) prefers Aphrodite and argues for a temenos to Aphrodite in which sits Temple Λ. Tomlinson (1983: 47), with reservations, proposes Themis, while Burford (1969: 47) agrees with Themis more decisively.

15 Kavvadias 1906: 114-115, based on the similarity in plan between Temple Λ, Temple L and the temple of Artemis.

identification is correct. Nevertheless, Roux’s (1961: 242-246) architectural study generally agrees with an origin in this period thus supporting a date in the late fourth century BC.

Stoa of Kotys. The northern border of the campus is defined by a rectangular building

(Figure 1-7: 28) extending east-west and consisting of a central courtyard surrounded by rooms.16 The southern and western exterior of this structure comprises an L-shaped, two-aisle stoa facing south and west. Roux (1961: 302) identifies this building as the Stoa of Kotys, mentioned by Pausanias, since it is the only other stoa in the Asclepieum besides the Abaton.

The stoa appears to have been built in the first half of the third century and, if the identification is correct, fell into ruin sometime before the second century AD when Antoninus rebuilt it.17 At the same time the eastern rooms of the building were incorporated into a bath building.

The building’s use remains unclear; Kavvaidas (1922/23: 24) interprets the courtyard with surrounding rooms as a traveler’s inn, as does Riethmüller (2005: 282) and Melfi (2007: 60).

However, Roux (1961: 291), Pharaklas (1971: 29) and Coulton (1976: 47 n3) characterize the rooms as “shops” without going further.18 Of course, these uses need not be mutually exclusive.

Stoas used for a variety of purposes in the Greek world precisely because they were such versatile buildings.19 Thus the Stoa of Kotys may have housed shops and travelers’ rooms (as well as other functions) as the need arose.

16 Traces of the northern, southern and western rooms remain but the (probable) eastern rooms have been replaced by later, Roman works. For the stoa see Kavvadias 1894a: 13; 1900b: 158-159; 1922/23: 23; Roux 1961: 291-302; Burford 1969: 80, 83; Pharaklas 1971: 29-31; Coulton 1976: 239; Tomlinson 1983: 48; Lauter 1986: 127, 161; Riethmüller 2005: 282; Melfi 2007: 60.

17 The date of construction is based on style of the Doric and Ionic capitals: Roux 1961: 296; Coulton 1976: 239; Tomlinson 1983: 48. Paus. 2.27.6: “He [Antoninus] moreover restored the portico that was named the Portico of Cotys, which, as the brick of which it was made had been unburnt, had fallen into utter ruin after it had losts its roof.”

18 In any event, it seems that the rooms opened onto the courtyard rather than the stoa.

19 Among the stoa’s uses, Coulton (1976: 9-11) lists inn, sheltered display for dedications, incubation, the housing of temple servants, civic functions, food selling and shops.

Other Structures Bordering the Campus

The other borders of the central campus are less well-defined than the north and the west.

In the southwest the campus blends into the sanctuary nucleus while in the southeast a relatively open space extends to the southern buildings of the Banqueting Hall (Figure 1-7: 54) and

Katagogion (Figure 1-7: 58). The eastern side of the campus, however, does contain a small, irregular collection of structures. Here, to the southeast of the Stoa of Kotys, lie two fountains

(Figure 1-7: 32 & 32a) and two shrine-like buildings (Figure 1-7: 31 & 34).

The “Doric” and “Holy” fountains. The so-called Doric Fountain (Figure 1-7: 32a) and

Holy Fountain (Figure 1-7: 32) are part of the same third century construction phase which overhauled and enlarged the supply of water for the sanctuary.20 An aqueduct from a spring at the base of the Kynortion hill brings water first to the Doric Fountain which then channels it to the Holy Fountain and from there eventually to the large Hellenistic Cistern (Figure 1-7: 26) on the northwest side of the sanctuary. Both fountains continued to function into the Roman period when they were repaired and expanded.

The Epidoteion. Just behind the two fountains lies a square building with a single entrance in the south (Figure 1-7: 31).21 The visible remains of this building are a Roman reworking of a

Greek precursor. The plan of the original structure, dated to the late fourth century BC, is maintained by the Roman structure.22 Inside, the building is divided into two equal spaces by a raised row of foundation stones. The northern space contains a semi-circular, limestone pedestal

20 For the fountains see Kavvadias 1900b: 165-168; Roux 1961: 289-291; Burford 1969: 80; Tomlinson 1983: 50- 51; OEΣME 1999: 49-50.

21 For the Epidoteion see Kavvadias 1900b: 137-139; 1906: 117-119; Roux 1961: 282-284; Burford 1966: 290-292; 1969: 74-75, 209; Tomlinson 1983: 49-50; OEΣME 1999: 47-48; Lembidaki 2002: 129-133; Riethmüller 2005: 282; Melfi 2007: 106-111.

22 Lembidaki 2002: 129-130. IG IV2 1, 108, which Burford (1969: 209) has dated to 335-325 BC, provides a fragmentary building account of the Epidoteion.

which served a base for a statue group the central image of which was a larger-than-life statue of

Asclepius found in situ. The southern room contains a drain and a single door in the middle of the south wall.23 The two rooms were probably divided by a wooden balustrade or a low wall set on the raised foundation stones.24

Pausanias (2.27.6) says that one of the projects which the senator Antoninus completed was the refurbishing of the Epidoteion, or “sanctuary of the helper gods.”25 Based on the presence of a statue group (consistent with the worship of a group of gods such as the epidotes) and the obvious Roman remodeling, our building has been identified as that Epidoteion.26 For the earlier structure, a building account (IG IV2 1, 108) dated 335-325 BC confirms an Epidoteion for the Hellenistic period.27

Building Π. To the southeast of the Epidoteion is a square hall with an antechamber at its entrance in the west (Figure 1-7: 34).28 The antechamber, which has the remains of a fountain and basin in its southeast section, provided access to the hall through three doors.29 The recent re-excavation of the building has found pottery sherds and coins which date the building’s construction to the late fourth or early third century BC.30

23 The drain may indicate that the southern room was unroofed (Tomlinson 1983: 50) or the presence of a purificatory basin (Lembidaki 2002: 130).

24 Balustrade: Lembidaki 2002: 130; low wall: Tomlinson 1983: 50.

25 ὁπόσα δὲ Ἀντωνῖνος ἀνὴρ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐποίησεν, ἔστι μὲν Ἀσκληπιοῦ λουτρόν, ἔστι δὲ ἱερὸν θεῶν οὓς Ἐπιδώτας ὀνομάζουσιν: “A Roman senator, Antoninus, made in our own day a bath of Asclepius and a sanctuary of the gods they call Bountiful.”

26 Kavvadias 1925: 50 and Roux 1961: 282-284. See, however, Riethmüller 2005: 282 who suggests this is a temple for the Egyptian Asclepius-Imhotep and Melfi 2007: 106-111 who argues for a shrine to Telesphoros.

27 An epidoteion is also mentioned in an undated inscription (Peek 1973, 23).

28 For Building Π see Kavvadias 1894a: 13; 1900b: 161; Roux 1961: 277-279; Burford 1969: 63; Tomlinson 1983: 51; Lauter 1986: 228; OEΣME 1999: 47; Lembidaki 2002: 133-136.

29 Lembidaki 2002: 135.

30 Found in the foundation trenches. OEΣME 1999: 47; Lembidaki 2002: 134.

From its initial excavation, the building has been interpreted as a place of worship and the more recently identified fountain and basin in the antechamber support this view. Kavvadias

(1900b: 161) believed it to be the sanctuary of the Egyptian gods mentioned in Pausanias 2.27.6:

“He [Antoninus] made also a temple to Health, Asclepius and Apollo, the last two surnamed

Egyptian.” He based this identification on the discovery of two inscribed dedications to Isis and

Sarapis found inside, however, the building is Hellenistic in origin.31 Roux (1961: 279n1) suggests it might be an anakeion, or “temple to the Dioscuri,” based on the presence of such a building in the sanctuary as attested in IG IV2, 1 480 and 742. Lembidaki (2002: 136) notes that the building is morphologically similar to those used by mystery cults. Despite these hypotheses the identification of the building remains uncertain.

Both the Epidoteion and Building Π sit on a slightly higher level than the central campus since the ground rises toward the east. The Epidoteion faces south and is rather hidden behind the fountains while the larger Building Π faces west towards the Altar of Asclepius. Upon first appraisal the topography would have afforded Building Π a superior view of the proceedings on the campus, and this may indeed have been the case but we must remember that the Asclepieum was also called the sacred grove, ἄλσος, of Asclepius.32 Therefore, with such a large area between Building Π and the altar, the presence of trees must be considered.

The Sanctuary Nucleus

In its southwest corner, the campus merges into the area that formed the topographic and ritual core of the sanctuary. It is here that the first and most important buildings of the fourth century BC construction program are located, in particular the Temple of Asclepius, the Abaton,

31 IG IV2 1, 534 and 535. Lembidaki 2002: 134.

32 Pausanias 2.27.1.

and the Thymele. For two of these buildings, the Temple of Asclepius and the Thymele, we are fortunate to have inscriptions recording the contracting of the construction work.33 These building accounts are complete enough to help identify the buildings and estimate the time it took to complete them.

The Temple of Asclepius. The largest temple in the Asclepieum (Figure 1-7: 34) was excavated in the second and third years of the excavation, 1882-1883, and identified by

Kavvadias as the Temple of Asclepius.34 The identification is based on the temple’s location next to the Abaton and the Thymele, as Pausanias (2.27.2-3) indicates, and the character of the remains excavated.35 The excavation, in agreement with the building account, reveals a Doric peripteral temple of modest size and elaborate decoration. It was erected over a period of four years and eight months, probably between 375 and 370 BC.36 The associated monumental altar

(Figure 1-7: 39) appears to have been built at the same time but at some distance from the temple entrance, in the previously mentioned campus area, and somewhat off-center from the axis of the temple.37 The last factor is probably due to the presence of the pre-existing Building E (Figure 1-

7: 47) nearby.38 Together the temple and the altar provided the essential facilities for the cult of

Asclepius which, as was normal for Greek cults, centered on sacrifice.

33 Temple of Asclepius - IG IV2 1, 102; chryselephantine cult statue - SEG 15, 208; Thymele - IG IV2 1, 103.

34 For the temple of Asclepius see Kavvadias 1882: 80-82; 1884a: 54-58 and Figure 2; 1891b: 16-17 and pl. 6; 1900b: 34-48; 1905: 44-46; Roux 1961: 83-130; Burford 1969: 54-55; Tomlinson 1983: 54-60; Melfi 2007: 31-32.

35 Paus. 2.27.2-3: “Over against the temple is the place where the supplicants of the god sleep. Near has been built a circular building of white marble, called Tholos, which is worth seeing.”

36 Construction time based on internal evidence in the building account (IG IV2 1, 102). Date from Burford (1969: 54-55); Foucart (1890: 592) dates it between 380 and 370; Keil (1895: 75) 399/8 to 394/5; Kavvadias (1900b: 36 n. 4) between 390 and 380; and Roux (1961: 130) around 370.

37 Kavvadias 1900b: 47; 1905: 51-63; Tomlinson 1983: 54-55.

38 Tomlinson 1983: 55

The Abaton. Just north of the Temple of Asclepius is a long stoa (Figure 1-7: 42) which was built at approximately the same time.39 Pausanias reports that near the Temple of Asclepius and the Tholos (Thymele) was a building where “the supplicants of the god sleep”; in the

Epidaurian cure inscriptions this place is called the Abaton.40 Based on this correlation between

Pausanias and the cure inscriptions the long stoa (Figure 1-7: 42) has been identified as the

Abaton.41 It is composed of two parts: an older (early fourth century BC) eastern part and a later

(late fourth century BC) two-story part.42 Internally, the eastern section was divided into two aisles separated by a partition. In the southeast corner of the one-story section is a well (Figure 1-

7: 41) which dates from the sixth century BC.

According to the cure inscriptions the Abaton was the central building of the healing ritual.

The sick would spend the night or “incubate” in the building in hopes of being visited by the god in either a dream or waking vision. In these appearances, Asclepius or one of his representatives

(dogs and snakes are the most common) would heal the supplicant, or the god would recommend a course of therapy which brought about healing.43

Bath adjacent to the Abaton. The building (Figure 1-7: 40) directly east of the Abaton and abutting it was built during in a later phase of the temple of Asclepius replacing an earlier

39 For the Abaton see Kavvadias 1884a: 58-61; 1891b: 17-18, pl. 7; 1896: 31-32; 1900b: 121-128; 1905: 63-89; Martin & Metzger 1942/43: 328-332; Roux 1961: 302, 404; Burford 1969: 62-63; Coulton, J. J. 1976: 237-238; Tomlinson 1983: 67-68; OEΣME 1987; 1999: 28-33; Lambrinoudakis 2002: 223; 2006: 39-40 Riethmüller 2005: 285-286; Melfi 2007: 42-43.

40 Paus. 2.27.2-3. Cure inscriptions: IG IV2, 1 121-123 compiled perhaps in the late fourth century BC. See also IG IV2 1, 126 of the second century AD. Once in the cure inscriptions an “adyton” is mentioned. Both abaton and adyton mean “not to be entered” - except, it seems, by supplicants. A related term, “enkoimeterion,” is found twice (in SEG 41-308 and IG IV2 1, 127) and may refer to the same building.

41 Kavvadias (1900b: 124-5) was the first to do so and this identification has gained general acceptance; see Riethmüller 2005: 286.

42 For the dates see Lambrinoudakis 2006a: 39.

43 For the healing ritual see Edelstein 1945: 139-180.

structure of the fifth or sixth century.44 Both the earlier building and the fourth century one appear to have been baths and thus mark the site of the earliest baths of the Asclepieum. The proximity of the baths with the sacred well (Figure 1-7: 41) and the Abaton (Figure 1-7: 42) reinforces the supposition that ritual cleansing was part of the healing process.

The Thymele. Located near the Temple of Asclepius to its southwest is a distinctive circular building (Figure 1-7: 44) called the Thymele in the fourth century BC building accounts and the Tholos by Pausanias.45 Begun around 365-360 BC construction lasted for at least twenty- seven years, ending perhaps around 335 BC.46 The Thymele is unusual in that it is a completely circular building (“tholos” means circular) which are rare in Hellenistic architecture with the notable exceptions of those at Olympia and Delphi. 47 Of these tholoi, the one at Epidaurus is the largest and most elaborately decorated. However, it’s purpose and use is not clear; Pausanias mentions only that it housed two notable paintings, one of Eros and one of Drunkeness; there is no other ancient testimony to its use.48 The early name “Thymele” used in the building accounts means “covered hearth” though its connection with the purpose of the building is unclear.49

During the excavations, there was discovered a labyrinth-like structure beneath the building

44 For the bath adjacent to the Abaton see Kavvadias 1900b: 157; Burford 1969: 51; Tomlinson 1983: 67; Lambrinoudakis 2002: 219-220. For the dating Lambrinoudakis (2002: 219) notes the foundation fill is composed of fragments from the stone working of the temple of Asclepius. Kavvadias and Lambrinoudakis label this building the “Bath of Asclepius.”

45 IG IV2 1, 103; Paus. 2.27.3. For the Thymele see Kavvadias 1882: 77-81; 1883a: 49-50; 1891b: 13-16, pls. 4-5; 1900b: 48-71; 1907: 183-186; Robert 1939; Roux 1961: 131-200; Burford 1969: 63-68; Tomlinson 1983: 60-67; Seiler 1986: 72-89; Riethmüller 1986; OEΣME 1988: 225-237; 1999: 22-27.

46 See Burford 1969: 63-68 who gives the most complete examination of the Thymele’s date.

47 Tumuli are also round but their relation to tholoi is not clear.

48 Paus. 2.27.3: “In it is a picture of Pausias representing Love, who has cast aside his bow and arrows, and is carrying instead of them a lyre that he has taken up. Here there is also another work of Pausias, Drunkenness drinking out of a crystal cup. You can see even in the painting a crystal cup and a woman’s face through it.”

49 See Burford 1969: 66-67 for a discussion of these.

consisting of three rings with doorways connecting them. There is only one path through the labyrinth, mitigating its characterization as a maze. This combination of factors has led to much speculation about the purpose of the building including fountain house, altar, snake house, and hero tomb.50 At present its function cannot be determined with any certainty but its importance is clear from its expense and central placement within the sanctuary.

Building E. One final building completes the nucleus of the sanctuary. This is the so- called Building E (Figure 1-7: 47).51 Components of this structure date back to the sixth century

BC, specifically the small shrine in the northwest corner and the open-air ash altar.52 This shrine and altar were part of the earliest sanctuary on the plain though they were formed into a contiguous building (Kavvadias’ Building E) only in the fifth century BC. At this time, the area surrounding the altar became a courtyard which was enclosed on the north and east sides by stoas and on the south side by a wall; the west side was left open. The small shrine was incorporated into the northwest corner of the northern stoa.53

In the excavations of the ash layer of the altar, several inscribed votives were discovered, two of which (IG IV2 1, 136 and 144) bear dedications to Asclepius and date to the fifth century

BC. A third (IG IV2 1, 142) bears a dedication to Pythian Apollo and dates to the sixth century

BC. Based on these dedications, the early building E has been interpreted as either an early

50 Fountain – Defrasse and Lechat 1890; altar – Robert 1939: 355; place for keeping the sacred snakes – Holwerda 1904: 532 and Kerényi 1959: 102; hero tomb – Tomlinson 1983: 66-67.

51 As labeled by Kavvadias. For Building E see Kavvadias 1885a: 29-31; 1891a: 26; 1900b: 128-131; 1905: 51-63; Holwerda 1902: 289-293; Frickenhaus 1912: 140-142; Robert 1933; Martin and Metzger 1942/43: 332-334; Burford 1969: 48-51; Tomlinson 1983: 72-75; Lambrinoudakis 2002: 214-219; Riethmüller 2005: 286.

52 Robert (1933: 381-394) first identifies the small shrine. The open-air altar is defined only by a ring of stones and a pile of burned animal remains; Tomlinson (1983: 75) is skeptical that it is an altar and suggests it may be a dumping ground for the ashes of the nearby monumental square altar (Figure 5, 46).

53 Burford dates the origin of Building E to ca. 430 BC.

sacred area of Apollo in the lower sanctuary to which Asclepius added in the fifth century, or as a worship space dedicated to both Apollo and Asclepius from the beginning.54

In the fourth century, as part of the sanctuary’s monumental building program, Building E was modified again. The small shrine was rebuilt with better stonework and probably a small atlar-table was added to the inside.55 In addition, the southern wall was expanded into a long room. In the later Hellenistic period, the western side of the courtyard was closed and a small propylon added.56 Also, a zig-zag retaining wall was building in the courtyard to contain the refuse from the altar. This is the final form which Building E was to keep, aside from some

Roman modifications, throughout the lifespan of the Asclepieum.57

Finally, a short distance to the west of Building E and aligned with it is a monumental square altar (Figure 1-7: 46).58 The core of this altar is from the sixth century BC with the exterior dating to late Hellenistic or early Roman.59 This is the earliest monumental altar in the sanctuary and is almost certainly associated with Building E based on its proximity and orientation. There is general agreement that this is the Altar of Apollo and/or Asclepius and

Robert (1933: 393) and Burford (1969: 50) further propose that this was the original Altar of

Apollo which was reassigned in the fifth century to Asclepius.60

The interpretation of the Building E complex poses some difficulty. The original sixth- century shrine, ash altar, and monumental altar were used for sacrifice – this much is clear. But

54 See esp. Kavvadias 1900b: 129; Robert 1933: 393; Tomlinson 1983: 73; and Lambrinoudakis 2002: 220.

55 Lambrinoudakis 2002: 216.

56 Tomlinson 1983: 73; Lambrinoudakis 2002: Figure 2.

57 Roman-era changes were minor: Lambrinoudakis 2002: Figure 2.

58 Square monumental altar: Robert 1933: 393; 1939: 344; Martin and Metzger 1942/43: 334; Burford 1969: 48-50.

59 Robert 1939: 344; Martin and Metzger 1942/43: 334.

60 We know of an altar to Apollo in the Asclepieum from IG IV2 1, 40 dated to ca. 400 BC.

what purpose did the subsequent modifications serve? Based on the building’s connection with

Asclepius as indicated by the dedications discovered in it, Holwerda (1902: 289-293) and

Frickenhaus (1912: 140-142) argue that the fifth century stoas served as the original abaton for those performing incubation. Tomlinson (1983: 73) and Lambrinoudakis (2002: 220) see the long southern room as the abaton and the stoas as areas for the ritual banquet.61 The building thus interpreted would have served, by itself, most of the needs of the cult of Asclepius (sacrifice, incubation, and sacred meal) which were later housed in dedicated buildings.62

From the foregoing we can conclude that the nucleus of the fourth-century BC sanctuary contained the buildings most important to the cult of Asclepius: the Temple of Asclepius, the

Abaton, the adjacent bath and the early well.63 These buildings were architectural enhancements of locations in the earlier sixth- and fifth-century BC sanctuary which the nucleus completely encompassed.64 However, not all the activities of the earlier sanctuary remained in the

Hellenistic nucleus; some, like the public sacrifice and the ritual meal, migrated to areas specially designed for them, namely, the new monumental altar in the main campus and the

Banqueting Hall. What did remain in the nucleus were all the facilities necessary for the healing ritual: the temple, the Abaton, the well and the baths. Thus, while still remaining important for the public cult (the temple of Asclepius was, of course central to both public and private

61 Evidence for the ritual banquet is summarized by Lambrinoudakis 2002: 216, namely: a water channel running around the floor of the small shrine presumably to wash away refuse, three sockets cut into the floor of the same to hold a table or couch, stoas to provide shelter for dining worshippers, and pavement in the stoas and around the altar to facilitate cleaning.

62 See, however, Kavvadias (1900b: 129) who argues that the conversion into a courtyard building signals the transformation into a house for priests. Likewise, Riethmüller (2005: 286) dissents from the popular interpretation and finds the matter currently intractable.

63 The Thymele, too, was undoubtedly important though we don’t know why.

64 To summarize, the earlier sanctuary included a campus (the later site of the Temple of Asclepius and the Thymele), an outdoor altar (Figure 5, 46) and a temple (the northwest room of Building E), a well and bath (Figure 5, 41 and 40), areas for incubation (the stoa under the Abaton and perhaps the long southern room in Building E) and possibly an area for a ritual banquet (the stoas of Building E).

worship) the fourth-century nucleus acted as the center of the healing ritual of the Hellenistic sanctuary.

The Temple of Artemis and Hypaethral Shrine Y

Just south of the sanctuary nucleus sit a temple and a small shrine which are topographically awkward, at least to the modern viewer. The temple is very near Building E, but it is approached from the east (the back of Building E) so that it does not readily communicate with the buildings of the nucleus. Indeed, for viewers in the nucleus and in the campus, building

E obscures the temple. Therefore, as Tomlinson (1983: 75) notes, “it had its own area.” This may be due to constraints inherited from older patterns of worship at the site.65 In the same vicinity and most directly communicating with the temple is a small hypaethral Shrine Y, (Figure 1-7:

49) and it is tempting to speculate about a relationship between these two buildings. First, however, we will examine both buildings.

Temple of Artemis. The temple mentioned above (Figure 1-7: 50) is the second largest temple in the Asclepieum after the Temple of Asclepius.66 This temple is a prostyle temple with an interior colonnade and a ramp at the entrance leading to the main altar, very similar in design to Temples Λ and L. Based on the style of its architectural features the temple has been dated to around the end of the fourth century BC.67

65 Tomlinson (1983: 75) – “an earlier altar may be concealed on the south side of the present altar.”

66 For the Temple of Artemis see Kavvadias 1884a: 61-63; 1891b: 18-19, pl. 17; 1900b: 132-134; 1906: 94-104; Roux 1961: 201-222; Burford 1969: 48, 70-73; Tomlinson 1983: 75-77.

67 So Tomlinson (1983: 75) and Burford (1969:70) who date the temple to 330 BC and 330-310 BC, respectively. Kavvadias (1906: 96) places it in the second half of the fourth century and Roux (1961: 221-22) dates it more generally at the end of the fourth- or beginning of the third century BC. In addition to architectural dating, Burford argues that IG IV2 1, 106 refers to the temple of Artemis and uses its letter style to arrive at her above-mentioned date of 330-310 BC.

From its first discovery in 1884, this temple has been identified as that of Artemis based on three pieces of evidence. First, Pausanias (2.27.5) notes in the Asclepieum a Temple of Artemis which he describes using the term ναός. Now Pausanias uses both ναός and ἱερόν to describe structures devoted to divinities but Kavvadias (1900b: 134) argues that these terms are used to distinguish between two different kinds of sacred buildings: ναός is the term for a temple as it came to be defined architecturally in the Classical period while ἱερόν is used for any other sacred enclosure. There are only two Hellenistic (non-Roman) ναοί mentioned in Pausanias’ description of the Asclepieum: the ναός of Asclepius and ναός of Artemis. Since the temple in question is the second largest temple in the sanctuary and since the Temple of Asclepius has already been determined, Kavvadias argues that this ναός must be the Temple of Artemis.68 A second piece of evidence consistent with this identification is a Roman-era altar found in situ along the eastern side of the temple bearing the dedication AΡTAMITI, “To Artemis.”69 The proximity of the dedication to the temple is thought to be inconsistent with the temple belonging to anyone other than the dedication’s divinity.70 Finally, the gutter spouts of the temple have the shape of wild boars’ heads instead of the heads of lions as elsewhere in the Asclepieum and the wild boar is thought to be more in keeping with the iconography of Artemis.71 Based on these arguments,

Kavvadias’ identification has become generally accepted.

If this is the temple of Artemis, is the size of her temple consistent with her importance in the sanctuary? Artemis does have the third largest number of dedications (after Asclepius and

68 Excavations on the sanctuary plain (excluding the Kynortion) have uncovered only four temples which meet Kavvadias’ definition of ναός: the Temple of Asclepius, the Temple of Artemis, Temple L and Temple Λ.

69 Kavvadias 1884: 62; IG IV2 1, 493, undated but assigned to the Roman era on the basis of letter-style.

70 Kavvadias (1900b: 134) also notes that a Roman-era, three-bodied statue of Hecate was found between the temples of Artemis and of Asclepius with the inscription “To Artemis Hecate the harkener, Phaboullos.” IG IV2 1, 499.

71 Kavvadias (1900b: 133); originally interpreted as dogs’ heads but later corrected (Kavvadias 1906: 96).

Apollo) from the Asclepieum in both the Greek and Roman periods. We also know that Artemis was present within the Epidaurian sanctuary as early as ca. 400 BC (before the main building phase) because of a sacred law that prescribes sacrifices for Leto and Artemis upon the altar of

Apollo.72 So it does appear that her role in the sanctuary was significant.73 Indeed, it is not unusual that a sanctuary originally associated with Apollo and expanded to include his son would also include other family members. Perhaps, as Kavvadias (1900b: 134) suggests, she assisted with the healing function of the sanctuary; her most common dedicatory titles are Soteira

(savior), Enodia (of the way), Saronia (of king Saron), Lycaia (the Arcadian), and Orthia (of the steeps), at least some of which imply the protection of supplicants.74 Melfi (2007: 37) suggests that Artemis was involved in the sacrifices preliminary to healing (prothysis) as she was at

Pergamum.75

Hypaethral Shrine Y. The small shrine to the east of the Temple of Artemis (Figure 1-7:

49) had a rectangular floor plan divided into two rooms of equal size, one in the east and one in the west.76 The rooms were divided from each other by a wall and each had its own door, eastern room on the east side and the western room on the west side. The whole structure was unroofed.77 The eastern room preserves the rectangular base of an altar along with a groove on

72 IG IV2 1, 40. “To Apollo sacrifice a bull, and a bull to the gods who share his temple. On the altar of Apollo sacrifice these things, and a hen to Leto and another to Artemis….” (trans. Edelstein 1945: 314)

73 Furthermore, excavations have discovered only four temples proper in the Asclepieum (those of Asclepius, Artemis, temple L and Λ) and only three shrines (Figure 5, 31, 34, 49) which date to the Hellenistic era. Inscriptions, however, show that a large number of gods (at least 21) were the subject of dedications. To have her own temple, Artemis must have had a significant role in the sanctuary.

74 Although most dedications to Artemis have no ephithet.

75 A dedication of the 3rd c. BC to Artemis Prothyraia was also found at Epidaurus (IG IV2 1, 276).

76 For hypaethral Shrine Y see Kavvadias 1990b: 136-137; 1906: 115-117; Roux 1961: 279-282; Burford 1969: 68; Tomlinson 1983: 76-78; OEΣME 1999: 46-47; Lembidaki 2002: 123-129; Riethmüller 2005: 288.

77 Lembidaki 2002: 123.

its western edge for liquid offerings. The western room has a pebble floor and its door (in the western wall) opens toward the temple of Artemis. Grooves on the north and south sides of the structure serve to channel rainwater away from the interior. The most recent study of the shrine dates it after the mid-fourth century BC based on pottery sherds.78

The building’s identification as a worship space seems secure based on the evidence for an altar in the eastern room and its similarity to other open air shrines.79 However, the remains provide little help in determining to which deity it belonged and few scholars have hazarded a guess. Of those that have, Kavvadias (1900b: 137) originally thought this structure to be the temple to Themis mentioned in Pausanias 2.27.5, though he later (1906: 115-117) suggested it might be the sanctuary of Epione mentioned in the same passage. Lembedaki (2002: 128-129), however, thinks it may be a dual cult, Olympian and chthonic, and that the east room served for bloodless sacrifices and west room for a ritual meal.

As mentioned before, the Temple of Artemis and Shrine Y are not well integrated with other areas of the sanctuary and communicate most directly with each other. Therefore, the identification of Shrine Y may be related to the Temple of Artemis. A survey of inscriptions from the Asclepieum provides meager evidence: Artemis is connected once with Zeus (IG IV2 1,

516) and once with Leto (IG IV2 1, 40). However, an inscription from the Roman period (IG IV2

1, 742) seems to point to a metrôon, or “shrine of the mother goddess”, in the location of the

Temple of Artemis/Shrine Y.80 Now metrôa are normally associated with Cybele or Demeter, but can also be associated with other mother-goddesses. In the Asclepieum it would make sense

78 Lembidaki 2002: 125.

79 Roux (1961: 282) notes its similarity to the altar of the twelve gods at Athens and Tomlinson (1983: 78) to the altar of Augustan Peace at Rome.

80 For a full discussion of IG IV2 1, 742 see chapter 3.

for a metrôon to be devoted to Leto, the mother of Apollo and Artemis. Further, we are assured of the worship of Leto in the sanctuary in the Hellenistic period by two inscriptions: IG IV2 1,

300 and 301.81 As a final note, metrôa do not seem to have a defined typology: the one at

Olympia was a Doric peripteral temple while the one at Athens was a simpler, rectangular building with four interior rooms, three of which served as the public archive.82 Therefore, the identification of the hypaethral Shrine Y as a metrôon seems plausible.

The Southern Buildings

South of the Temple of Artemis and Shrine Y is a small open area. On the other side of this area, in the direction of the Theater, sits the Banqueting Hall (Figure 1-7: 54) with the nearby

Hellenistic Bath (Figure 1-7: 61) and, a little further south and east, a large hotel, or Katagogion

(Figure 1-7: 58). This was the principal area of expansion for the Hellenistic building program.

Indeed, the relatively un-built location allowed the construction of the two largest buildings in the sanctuary, the Banqueting Hall and the Hotel. Thus, a large investment was made in this area, one function of which was, undoubtedly, to link the rest of the sanctuary with the Theater.

The southern propylon. The first structure encountered in the southern area is a second propylon (Figure 1-7: 54a) facing north and attached to a large courtyard building (Figure 1-7:

54).83 It is not as long as the northern propylon but taller and perhaps more impressive to the ancient viewer.84 This monumental propylon was not an original feature of the building to which it is attached but was added sometime after the construction of the latter’s foundation; pottery

81 IG IV2 1, 300 (4th c. BC): Λατοῦς. IG IV2 1, 301 (3th c. BC): Λα τοῦς.

82 The Olympic metrôon was built in the middle of the fourth century BC and was dedicated to Rhea or Cybele. The Athenian was built in the second century BC and was sacred to Cybele or Demeter.

83 For this propylon see Kavvadias 1884a: pl. 1; 1891b: 9, pl. 1; 1900b: 145-146; Tomlinson 1983: 78-79; OEΣME 1988: 36-43; Lambrinoudakis 1988a: 301; Danali 1994: 255-298; OEΣME 1999: 36-39; Riethmüller 2005: 289; Melfi 2007: 57.

84 Kavvadias 1891b: 9; Tomlinson 1983: 79.

and coins discovered in the propylon’s foundation date the construction to 230-210 BC.85 Danali

(1994: 272-274) has proposed that the propylon was a gift of Antigonos Doson, king of

Macedon, whose status in the Peloponnese rose considerably after his alliance with the Achaean

League in 224 BC, however, the evidence is not conclusive. The propylon was clearly meant to embellish the main entrance to the courtyard building (fig.1-5: 54) but its attachment was off- center to the west. This asymmetry was probably meant to align the entrance with the main axis of the sanctuary and the procession route.86

Banqueting Hall. The large courtyard building (Figure 1-7: 54) to which the propylon provided the only entrance, at least originally, was built around 300 BC.87 Its structure consists of a square peristyle court surrounded on all sides by rooms of various sizes, with a double stoa in the north (Figure 2-1). Each side of the building had one long rectangular room (all dissimilar) and numerous smaller, generally square rooms. On the northern side of the courtyard the long room (J) opens to the courtyard through three doors and contains a niche in the northern wall.

The function of the room is uncertain but the niche may have held a cult image.88 The discovery of two bathtubs in the northeastern corner of the building led Kavvadias (1901a: 50) to identify a

85 Tomlinson 1969: 110; OEΣME 1988: 36, 44 (for ca. 300). For the ceramic and numismatic evidence see Danali 1994.

86 OEΣME 1988: 37; contra Kavvadias (1900b: 146) who argues that the asymmetry is because of the pre-existence of building Φ which later excavations have shown to date to the second century AD. More on the procession route in the second part of this chapter.

87 For the Banqueting Hall (formerly “Gymnasium”) see Kavvadias 1891a: 26; 1892a: 55-56; 1898a: 17; 1900b: 143-149; 1901a: 49-51; Frickenhaus 1917: 131-132; Delorme 1946: 108-119; 1960: 95-99; Tomlinson 1969:106- 117; 1983: 78-84; Burford 1969: 79; Lambrinoudakis 1987: 301; OEΣME 1988: 21-35, 44-47; 1999: 34-36; Riethmüller 2005: 289-291. Date based on architecture and pottery and coins found in the foundation bedding (OEΣME 1988: 22).

88 Kavvadias (1900b: 143-149) thought the room an apodyterion, or changing room, and the niche a pantry. Delorme (1946: 116-119) is tentative about the apodyterion but shows that the niche was for a cult image, possibly Asclepius. Both interpretations rest on the identification of the building as a gymnasium which recent excavation has overturned.

bath in this area. Delorme (1946: 109-113), however, points out the tubs are movable and instead traces a drainage channel to the four rooms N, O, P, and Q which he identifies as a bath complex.

On the eastern side of the building two doors, one in the northeast (door 6) and one in the southeast (door 7), were added after construction was complete.89 Tomlinson (1969: 107n11;

1983: 80) argues that these doors date to the second century AD and were made necessary by the

Roman modifications to the building.90 Recent excavations, however, have uncovered a fountain

(Figure 5, 56) of the third or second century BC just outside the southeastern door.91 This date is consistent with the addition of the propylon by Antigonos Doson and may indicate a more extensive embellishment by the king. If so, then these doors probably date to that period as well, particularly since the southeastern door provides immediate access to the fountain.

The building as a whole was originally identified as a gymnasium by Kavvadias (1900b:

143-145), Frickenhaus (1917: 114-133) and Delorme (1946: 108-109). More recently,

Tomlinson (1969: 106-117) has argued convincingly that it was a hestiatorion, or banqueting hall, based on (1) surviving stone fittings for dining couches, κλίναι, in the large hall (F) in the middle of the eastern side, (2) traces of similar stone fittings in the large southern hall (V) and

(3) the off-center doors on many of the small rooms (e.g. S, T, U, B, A) which would allow the placement of couches.92 In support of this identification, excavations conducted in the late

89 The NE door, says Tomlinson (1969: 108), “…appears to me to be a later alteration, as the sides of the outer door are not formed from the usual squared blocks, while the threshold of the inner door is also of an abnormal type, and may be a later replacement.”

90 He reasons the addition of the Odeum would have cut off access to the southern part of the building requiring the southeastern door, while conversion of the propylon to the Temple of Hygieia would have necessitated another entrance for the northern part. See also OEΣME 1988: 34 n6.

91 As yet unpublished.

92 Tomlinson 1969: 106-109. See also Frickenhaus, A. 1917. JdI 32: 114-133. who was the first to record the stone supports for κλίναι in the east hall and the traces of similar supports in the south hall. Tomlinson (1969: 109) further suggests that the west wing was probably used for dining too though no supports have been found. For the small rooms as dining spaces, Tomlinson compares similar small spaces with off-center doors at Corinth and Troizen.

1980’s uncovered two hearths in the courtyard of the building along with numerous carved cavities and pits in the bedrock.93 The hearths pre-date the building though they may have continued in use after the construction was complete.94 The excavators suggest that these hearths point to the use of the area for collective meals before the construction of the banqueting hall.95

Katagogion. On the east side of the Banqueting Hall sat the largest building in the sanctuary, a square structure consisting of four courtyards (Figure 1-7: 58).96 Based on architectural elements this building has been dated to the late fourth/early third centuries BC.97 It was entered by two main doors on its western side, one providing access to the northwestern courtyard and the other to the southwestern.98 Corridors connected the western courtyards with the eastern ones but there was no north-south communication until the Roman period when the central area was modified.99 On the eastern side of northeastern and southeastern courts, small doors led outside bringing the total number of building entrances to four.

Inside the building, each courtyard was nearly identical and consisted of a peristyle with ten Doric columns on each side surrounded by rooms of roughly equal size which opened into the peristyle. Based on this arrangement the building has been identified as a hotel.100 Since each

93 The hearths are located in the northwest and southwest corners of the peristyle, OEΣME 1988: 32.

94 OEΣME 1988: 32.

95 OEΣME 1988: 32.

96 For the Katagogion see Kavvadias 1893: 10; 1900b: 162-165; Burford 1969: 77/83; Tomlinson 1983: 84-85; Kraynak 1991; d’Arrigo 1996: 98; Riethmüller 2005: 293-4; Melfi 2007: 56-7.

97 Kraynak 1991: 1; early 3rd century – Tomlinson 1983: 85; 4th century – D’Arrigo 1996: 98.

98 See revised plan in Kraynak 1991: 3 fig.2.

99 Kraynak 1991: 2-7.

100 See esp. Kavvadias 1900b: 163 who called it a “katagogion” following Thuc. 3.68. His identification is based on the fact that (1) all rooms are about the same size, (2) none of them connect with one another, and (3) all have private access to their respective courtyards.

courtyard supported 20 rooms (not including entrances and corridors) and there was no upper floor, the number of rooms in the building totals 70, each housing two to perhaps six guests.101

The large capacity of this building makes it the largest preserved example of a hotel from the

Classical or Hellenistic periods.102

The layout and location of the hotel raise several questions about its operation and clientele. First, the complete lack of communication between the north and south pairs of courtyards has suggested to some that the sexes were separated.103 Kraynak (1991: 6-7), however, suggests that the division was a mechanism to allow half of the hotel to be closed during periods of low demand. Second, the distance of the hotel from the sanctuary nucleus seems pronounced.104 Kavvadias (1990b: 162) believes it to have been constructed outside the sanctuary temenos. Riethmüller (2005: 295) sees its position as exclusive, suitable for privileged or upper-class pilgrims. Finally, Melfi (2007: 56) suggests that its placement near the Theater would be convenient for festival-goers. Of course, none of these ideas are mutually exclusive though even this building’s high capacity (140 to 420 guests) is dwarfed by that of the Theater

(14, 000) lending support to suggestion that it was meant for special travelers.105

Hellenistic Bath. Just south of the Banqueting Hall is a rectangular building that appears to be a bath (Figure 1-7: 61) based on its hydraulic arrangements.106 Entered by a single door in the southwest, the building consists of a central courtyard surrounded on three sides by rooms

101 Kraynak 1991: 7.

102 Kraynak 1991: 1.

103 Riethmüller 2005: 295.

104 The topography of the site would not have inhibited closer placement.

105 D’Arrigo (1996: 107) suggests that this entire class of building (katagogia) may have been reserved for elites

106 For the Hellenistic Bath see Kavvadias 1898: 17-18; 1900b: 154-155; Ginouvès 1962: 359; Burford 1969: 79, 210; Tomlinson 1983: 84; OEΣME 1999: 51-52.

containing bathtubs, pools and water supply and drainage systems. The original building had a second story, but further details of the building’s layout are obscured by its poor state of preservation.107

Based on the similarity of its construction methods to the Banqueting Hall, the bath is dated to the early third century BC.108 It continued to function into Roman times since the eastern part of the building was then renovated, including the addition of two pools, several basins and a row of square pillars in the courtyard.109 At some later time, parts of the baths’ structure were incorporated into other buildings of the sanctuary.110

It is tempting to see these buildings as a traveler’s center: hotel, meal area and bath.

However, this interpretation weakens under scrutiny. First, the Banqueting Hall is a structure more usually associated with festival meals rather than routine dining. Second, the lines of communication between these three buildings are curiously inconvenient. The original

Banqueting Hall had only the main entrance in the north and even the later two entrances on the east side do not seem to take into account the Katagogion or the bath. For its part, the

Katagogion’s main entrances are both directed southwest, only generally in the direction of the bath. The northeast doors run directly into a retaining wall that channels all traffic roughly north- south, toward the eastern side of the central campus or the Theater. Finally, the Hellenistic

Bath’s only entrance is in the southwest corner.

107 OEΣME 1999: 51.

108 Hellenistic, Kavvadias 1900b: 155; early Hellenistic, OEΣME 1999: 51; third century BC, Tomlinson 1983: 84; 290-270, Burford 1969: 79, 210 who that construction of this bath is recorded in the fragmentary IG IV2 1, 103c. See also Riethmüller 291 n88.

109 OEΣME 1999: 51 and building plaque at the site.

110 OEΣME 1999: 51, which unfortunately does not specify which buildings or attempt a timeline.

What then is the logic of the arrangement? The Banqueting Hall was oriented from its inception to align along the central axis of the Asclepieum which passed from the northern

Propylon, in front of the Temple of Asclepius and Building E, and was probably a procession route for the public festival.111 The addition of the two doors in the third or second century seem intended to meet the localized needs of the building (such as water) more than facilitate traffic between buildings. The Katagogion, on the other hand, is well-positioned to provide convenient access to the Theater, based on its proximity and the generally southern orientation of its main approaches. The Hellenistic Bath, however, is more difficult to integrate. If it was used primarily for ritual cleansing then the bath is very far away from the cult nucleus and pointed in the opposite direction. If, however, it was intended to serve the guests of the Katagogion then the communication between the two buildings is workable, though it is puzzling that the bath is so far away from the hotel, while being so close to the Banqueting Hall with which its foundation is aligned.112

The Competitive Venues

All sanctuaries of Panhellenic fame incorporated games and competitions into their major festivals. It is no surprise then, considering its Panhellenic aspirations, that the Epidaurian

Asclepieum went to great expense to provide facilities for the same kinds of competition as the other major sanctuaries. The end result of this effort was a stadium, a hippodrome and a theater second to none in the Hellenistic world.

Theater. To the southeast of the Asclepieum on the natural slope of a low hill lies one of the most magnificent and best-preserved Hellenistic theaters in the Greek world (Figure 1-7:

111 See below on the procession.

112 In contrast, Melfi (2007: 57) sees the three buildings as a nexus, connecting the eastern zone of the sanctuary with the Theater and connecting the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas with the healing center (nucleus) and the Stadium.

59).113 Pausanias (2.27.5) comments, “The Epidaurians have a theatre within the sanctuary, in my opinion very well worth seeing. For while the Roman theatres are far superior to those anywhere else in their splendor, and the Arcadian theatre at Megalopolis is unequalled for size, what architect could seriously rival Polycleitus in symmetry and beauty? For it was Polycleitus who built both this theatre and the circular building.” The visual appeal of the Theater, then as now, derives both from its view, looking northwest across the Asclepieum and toward Mt.

Arachnaion, and from its design, composed of a circular orchestra and greater than semi-circular cavea opposite a long stage house.

The attribution of the Theater to Polycleitus has led Kavvadias (1900b: 72) and Burford

(1969: 75) to date the theater’s construction to the mid-fourth century BC, concurrent with the completion of the Thymele. However, Gerkan and Müller-Wiener (1961: 77-80) make a convincing case that the Polycleitus who constructed the Theatre was the son of the architect who built the Thymele and thus that the Theater was built later, toward the end of the fourth century BC or even the beginning of the third.114 Over a century after its initial construction, in approximately the mid-second century BC, the Theater’s cavea was widened and the seating increased.115

The inclusion of a large stage house from its initial construction indicates that the Theater was built for full-scale plays of the Athenian type.116 Moreover, we know from Plato’s Ion that

113 For the Theater see Kavvadias 1881: 1-40; 1882: 75-77; 1883a: 46-48; 1891b: 10-13, pl. 2-3; 1900b: 71-96; 1903: 59, Figure a; Gerkan, Müller-Wiener 1961; Burford 1969: 75-76; Tomlinson 1983: 85-90: Isler 1994: 209- 211; OEΣME 1999: 39-41.

114 Kavvadias (1900b: 72) dates the Theater to the mid-fourth century BC, Burford (1969: 75) to ca. 360 BC, Tomlinson (1983: 87) to last part of the fourth century BC, Riethmüller (2005: 294) to 330 BC, Gerkan and Müller- Wiener to the early fourth/beginning of third century BC, and Isler (1994: 209) to beginning of third century BC.

115 Gerkan, Müller-Wiener 1961: 80-81; Isler 1994: 209; OEΣME 1999: 39; Riethmüller 2005: 294.

116 Tomlinson 1983: 88.

the Asclepieum’s Theatre was the site of artistic competitions for rhapsodies and τῆς ἄλλης γε

μουσικῆς.117 The artistic competitions must have been part of the festival program as was the case at other locations and festivals (e.g. the Panathenaic festival at Athens, the Pythian at

Delphi, etc.) though plays may have been performed year around for the benefit of supplicants.118 In any event, recent estimates place the Theater’s designed capacity at around

14,000 seats, a number which would have been reached only during festivals.119

Stadium. Southeast of the Thymele at a slightly lower level than the main sanctuary lies the Stadium (Figure 1-7: 62).120 It is situated in a horse-shoe shaped depression at the end of a long flat area carved out by an ancient stream. The beginnings of this Stadium are difficult to date archaeologically since, like other early stadia, it consisted simply of a long, flat rectangle with sloping earth embankments for seating – here along the north and south sides as well as east end. However, we know that as early as the fifth century BC athletic competitions took place in the Asclepieum; Pindar’s Nemean 5 celebrates a certain Themistios for his double victory in the pankration at Epidaurus. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the Stadium was in use by the fifth century BC.

In the fourth century BC the Stadium underwent significant architectural enhancement.

Stone seating was added to the embankments on the north, south and east sides and the track was improved with stone starting blocks, distance markers and water channels. By the second half of

117 Plat. Ion 3-4. “other music” but see Miller (1981: 1) who translates ἄλλης as “the rest of.”

118 Hartigan 2009: 29, 36. See discussion below.

119 Tomlinson 1983: 90.

120 For the Stadium see Kavvadias 1895a: 20-23; 1896: 32; 1900a: 17-18; 1900b: 96-118; 1902: 78-92; Patrucco 1976; Tomlinson 1983: 90-92.

the fourth century BC these modifications were complete and the Stadium had reached its definitive form.

Nevertheless, work continued on the Stadium. In the early third century BC a vaulted passage way was made through the northern embankment leading from the level of the track to a training area (palaestra) in the north. To that century belongs also an inscription which lists a fine against the contractor of the starting gates for the Stadium.121

Palaestra. The vaulted passage mentioned above leads to cluster of buildings to the north of the Stadium (Figure 1-7: 63). Here there is a double stoa dating to the fourth century, partially covered by a later Roman building.122 This complex is probably a palaestra, or training area for athletes, but, unfortunately, its excavation was not well-documented.

Hippodrome. Horse races were also a part of the athletic competitions at the Asclepieum and for these a large track, or hippodrome, was needed.123 Equestrian competitions at the

Asclepieum are attested by an honorary inscription (IG IV2 1, 629) for an Epidaurian named

Socrates celebrating his victories in various games including the horse race in the Asclepieian games. This inscription dates to the second or first centuries BC (it mentions the “Roman games”) and so can only imply the existence of earlier equestrian races. However, the earlier existence of the Hippodrome, itself, is attested by a stone inscribed “boundary of the hippodrome” using letters of the fifth or fourth century BC.124 This stone was found some

121 IG IV2 1, 98.

122 For this complex see Kavvadias 1900a: 18; 1926: 91, 139-140; Burford 1969: 80, 83.

123 The Stadium was too small. For the Hippodrome see Kavvadias 1900b: 118-121; Pharaklas 1972: 51.

124 IG IV2 1, 153: [ὅρ]ος τοῦ ἱπ[π]οδρόμ[ος]

distance southwest of the Asclepieum but no further investigation was conducted.125 As a result, the exact location of the Hippodrome is uncertain.

The Isolated Temple L

Along the path to the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas, in the foothills about halfway between it and the sanctuary of Asclepius sits a small temple (Figure 1-3: 17) near a Hellenistic cistern.126

This temple was first discovered in 1902 by Kavvadias who labeled it Temple L.127 The current state of the temple is much dispersed; blocks from it lie strewn down a nearby slope all the way to a creek below. In addition, components were used in the construction of the Basilica (Figure

1-7: 20) to the east and north of the main Propylon.128 In more modern times, parts of the temple uncovered by local farmers have been incorporated into nearby terrace walls.

Roux (1961: 223-240) has conducted the most extensive study of the temple and reconstructs a pseudo-peripteral temple on a four-step crepidoma with a ramp at the entrance.129

The base of the cult statue still remains in the cella as does the base of the altar to the east of the ramp. Based on these architectural components Temple L has been variously dated. Kavvadias

(1906: 114-115) assigns the temple to 350-300 BC, Burford (1969: 73) narrows this range to

330-310 BC, Tomlinson (1983: 94) places it ca. 300 BC, and Roux (1961: 240) dates it between

299 and 250 BC. Therefore a date around 300 BC seems reasonable.

125 Kavvadias (1900b: 119) locates it about half an hour southwest of the Stadium near a spring in the stream called “Bathu.” Pharaklas (1972: 51) estimates 1 mile.

126 For Temple L see Kavvadias 1903: 21; 1906: 109-115; Roux 1961: 223-240; Burford 1969: 73; Tomlinson 1983: 93-94.

127 Kavvadias 1906: 109.

128 See Roux 1961: 223 and 229 who first identified parts of Temple L in the Basilica and the terrace walls.

129 He notes (Roux 1961: 223) that this style of temple is unique in the Peloponnese.

As to the identification of the deity of Temple L there is no clear evidence. The only inscription found in the area is an unpublished dedication on a perirrhanterion that does not mention the god to whom it is dedicated.130 Nevertheless, Kavvaidas (1906: 114) identifies this temple as the temple of Aphrodite mentioned in Pausanias 2.27.5 (see Temple Λ above) and in

IG IV2 106, 22-23. The latter inscription is a fragmentary building account which records the contract for the transport of poros stone to the Aphrodition.131 Kavvadias interprets these lines to mean that the Aphrodition is some distance from the main sanctuary. Burford (1969: 73) agrees based on the reconstruction ἀναγωγὰν meaning “carting up or away”. Tomlinson (1983: 94) and

Roux (1961: 224) consider any identification to be mere speculation.

The Activities of the Sanctuary

In the description above, the study of each building has focused on its uses. Moreover, the grouping of sanctuary buildings into topographic regions has further suggested that structures with complementary functions were often placed together. Since the use of sanctuary space is an important lens through which to evaluate the Roman reconstruction, the foregoing building descriptions must now be synthesized into a coherent account of how the sanctuary was used. In general, the buildings can be categorized as those used for the public festival of Asclepius, those used for the healing cult, and those serving the needs of those staying in the sanctuary.

The Asclepieia

Like other Greek cities, Epidaurus hosted a public festival in honor of its patron god. This festival was called the Asclepieia and is always mentioned in connection with athletic contests.

The games are first attested on victor monuments from the early fourth century BC but probably

130 See Roux 1961: 224. The dedicants are Lachares and Socrates, hieromnamones (cf. IG IV2 181-182).

131 Lines 22-23: τὰν [ἀναγωγὰν τ]ὰν τ[ῶ]ν πώρων τῶν εἰς τὸ Ἀφροδίτιον ἀγομένων.

date back to the sixth century BC.132 According to the scholia to Pindar Nemean 3.147, the

Asclepieia occurred nine days after the festival of Poseidon at Isthmia, roughly at the end of

April. The close scheduling would allow spectators and participants from the Isthmian festival, which was part of the great Panhellenic game circuit, to attend the Epidaurian one, about thirty miles away. The Isthmian games were held biennially which suggests the same for the

Asclepieia. However, the scholia to Pindar Nemean 3.147 state the Asclepieia took place at five- year intervals. Sève (1993: 320-322) argues that the scholia refer to a special celebration of the

Asclepieia performed every four years (five counting inclusively) but that the normal Asclepieia was annual.133 He supports his argument by noting two Epidaurian inscriptions which refer to a

Megala, or Greater, Asclepieia.134 Although these inscriptions come from the second and third centuries AD, the pattern of annual festivals with a special celebration every four years is not uncommon in Greek cities (e.g. the annual Panathenaia with the Greater Panathenaia every four years).

Since no complete account of the Epidaurian Asclepieia has survived, its program must be reconstructed from the available evidence. The general similarity among Greek agonistic festivals helps this task by providing a pattern of common events. In general, festivals began with a procession to the god’s temple. There the priest performed the animal sacrifice on an outdoor altar in view of the assembled townspeople. Following the sacrifice the meat was divided, cooked and eaten by the attendees then the competitions were held (sometimes over

132 See Perlman 2000: 92n107. Earliest attestation of the name at Epidaurus: IG IV2 1, 99 II (2nd c. BC). For the development of the Asclepieia and the continuity of the name see Sève 1993 esp. 305-306. The existence of the athletic competitions in sixth century are supported by Pind. Nem. 5.489.

133 Perlman (2000: 93) agrees and suggests that the contests were only held at the penteteric festival as with the Panathenaia.

134 IG IV2 1, 691, 693.

several days). This sequence might be altered slightly depending on local customs and some of the steps repeated in multi-day festivals. The Epidaurian Asclepieum provides fragmentary evidence for each of these activities and their explication is important for understanding how the individual buildings functioned in their intended contexts. Moreover, the overall organization of the sanctuary was shaped in ways that can only be appreciated through the examination of the requirements which the Asclepieia festival placed on it.

The procession. Evidence for a procession is found in a fourth-century BC inscription from Epidaurus, IG IV2 1, 47, recording the privileges of a colony of Epidaurus, which includes participation in the city’s procession and sacrifice:

θεός, τύχα ἀγαθά. ἔδοξε τοῖς Ἐπιδαυρίοις Ἀστυπαλαιεῦ- σιν ἀποίκοις Ἐπιδαυρίων ἐοῦσιν καὶ εὐεργέταις ἀτέ- 5 λειαν εἶμεν πάντων καὶ ἀσυ- λίαν καὶ ἐν ἰράναι καὶ ἐν πο- λέμωι καὶ κατὰ γᾶν καὶ κατὰ θάλασσαν καὶ τὰ ἱαρ [ε]ῖα τὰ τ ῶν Ἀστυπαλα [ι]έων πέμπεσ- 10 [θ]α ι σ ν τᾶ[ι τῶν] Ἐπιδαυρίων [πο]μ πᾶι καὶ θύεν τοῖς θεοῖ[ς] [τοῖς] ἐν Ἐπι[δαύρωι — — —]

God, good fortune. It was decreed by the Epidaurians that the inhabitants of Astypalaea, who are colonists of the Epidaurians and their well-wishers, have exemption from all state burdens as wells as asylum both in times of war and in times of peace, both on land and on the sea, and that the sacrificial animals of the people of Astypalaea be included in the procession of the Epidaurians and that they sacrifice to the Epidaurian gods….135

The context of this honorific decree indicates that the procession was an important event: participation in the procession is seen as an honor for the Astypalaeans equivalent to ἀσυλία, territorial inviolability, and ἀτέλεια, tax-free status; the procession is described as “the

135 Translation Edelstein and Edelstein 1945: T563.

procession of the Epidaurians” (lines 10-11); and the procession is followed by a sacrifice “to the

Epidaurian gods”, a sequence consistent with agonistic festivals. This procession, therefore, was probably part of the Asclepieia.

Although there is no literary or epigraphic evidence for the route of the procession, we can be certain that it terminated at the sanctuary since, as we will see, all the facilities for the various festival activities are located there. The procession would have started in the city and wound its way around the six-mile route, finally approaching the sanctuary from the north. Tomlinson

(1983: 16) suggests that paeans, a song type specific to Apollo, would have been sung along the way.136

Once it entered the sanctuary, the path of the procession must be inferred from topographic clues. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the northern monumental Propylon marks the boundary where the procession crossed into the sacred area of the sanctuary. From this point, the procession route appears to follow a straight path southward, passing between Temple Λ (Figure

1-7: 27) and the Stoa of Kotys (Figure 1-7: 28), then between Building K (Figure 1-7: 37) and a row of exedrae, positioned to face it, and then to the area between the Temple of Asclepius

(Figure 1-7: 43) and his altar (Figure 1-7: 39). It is possible that the procession ended here; with the processors and the sacrificial animals at the altar, the stage would be set for sacrifice, normally the next event of festival programs. Moreover, the open area of the central campus would allow the procession, until now arranged in a line, to fall out into a group. Tomlinson

(1976: 97-99), however, would have the procession continue south, past the front of Building E

(Figure 1-7: 47), behind the Temple of Artemis (Figure 1-7: 50) and either into the Banqueting

Hall (Figure 1-7: 54) or along the west side of it. Indeed, there does seem to be a space created

136 Examples include Sophocles’ paean to Asclepius (IG II2, 4510) from Athens, and the Hymn of Isyllus (IG IV2 1, 128) from Epidaurus.

along this north-south axis ending at the Banqueting Hall’s propylon, itself set to the extreme west of the structure, presumably to line up with this axis. In addition, Tomlinson (1976: 99) notes that the propylon’s ramp would be very convenient for a procession, especially one with animals. Nevertheless, a large procession would be ungainly in its attempt to navigate the

Banqueting Hall, particularly in the years when there was only one entrance.

If there was a continuation of the procession to the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas as suggested by Tomlinson (1976: 99) and Melfi (2007: 58), then its course has left no trace in the sanctuary. The Kynortion sanctuary did have the normal facilities for public cult including a monumental altar (Figure 1-4: 6), and a terrace and stoa (Figure 1-4: 5) to accommodate worshippers. However, it would have been difficult to service both sanctuaries in the same day

(especially if procession, sacrifice, and ritual meal had to be repeated) so that the Kynortion ceremonies probably had a special day reserved for them.

Therefore, the processional element of the Asclepieia influenced the development of the sanctuary in two ways. Topographically, it required a clear route through the sanctuary’s middle along a north-south axis. Architecturally, certain structures of the Asclepieum were designed primarily to enhance or accommodate the procession: the north Propylon, with its large ramp and open interior; the exedrae, placed to view the procession; and the propylon of the Banqueting

Hall, shifted to an unusual position to align with the route and also equipped with a ramp.

The sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was the central act of most ancient worship and was especially important for public festivals. During these festivals, the residents of a city (and sometimes visitors) would gather at the altar of the god to witness the killing of the sacrificial animal. The animal was butchered and the meat divided according to a predetermined system.

The crowd, usually seated in a large open area, would then cook and eat the meat. All three of

these stages (sacrifice, division of meat, and cooking and eating of the meat) are attested at

Epidaurus and played a role in the design of the sanctuary.137

The animals to be sacrificed and the division of meat are specified in an inscription from ca. 400 BC (IG IV2 1, 41):138

To Asclepius sacrifice a bull, and a bull to the gods who share his temple, and a cow to the goddesses who share his temple. On the altar of Asclepius sacrifice these things and a cock. Let them dedicate to Asclepius as his portion a medimnus of barley, a half medimnus of wheat, one-twelfth medimnus of wine. Let them set before the god one leg of the first bull. Let the hieromnemones take the other leg. Let them give one leg of the second to the members of the choir, and the other to the guards, as well as the entrails.139

The animals would have been killed on the monumental Altar of Asclepius (Figure 1-7: 39) which dominated the central campus. As is usual, the altar is to the east (the front) of the temple

(Figure 1-7: 43) so that the god can view the sacrifices. Because of the importance of the act of sacrifice to the public cult, the Altar and Temple of Asclepius occupy a privileged location in the center of the sanctuary. Their importance is reinforced by the fact that the Temple of Asclepius was the first building constructed as part of the new building program of the fourth century BC, with the altar being built shortly thereafter.140 In addition, both were built in monumental style; the altar was large and elaborate and the temple was the most expensive building of the

Hellenistic program.141

137 Schmitt-Pantel 1990: 14.

138 A second inscription, IG IV2 1, 40, applies to the sacrifices to Apollo, presumably performed on the Kynortion.

139 Trans. Edelstein and Edelstein 1945: 315. In addition to the expense of the sacrifices, the presence of the hieromnemones, who were city officials, supports the association of this inscription with the public festival (Tomlinson 1983: 18).

140 Burford 1969: 54-55.

141 Burford (1969: 82) estimates over 73 talents for the construction and fitting out of the Temple of Asclepius compared to 40-60 for the next most expensive building, the Thymele.

The second part of the sacrificial ritual involves the apportioning of meat. While the inscription above deals only with special groups, the hieromnemones (public officials and caretakers of the sanctuary), the aoidoi (choir or bards), and the phrouroi (guards), it is certain that a much wider audience was present.142 Tomlinson (1983: 90) suggests 13,000 to 14,000 attendees based on the theater’s capacity. Moreover, the presence of visitors at the festival sacrifice is attested by the above inscription, IG IV2 1, 47, which permits the Astypalaeans to include their animals in the Epidaurian procession and to participate in the sacrifice.143 If we can assume a large crowd of attendees, it is likely that the meat was divided among them on an equal basis as was the common practice at ancient festivals.144 The resulting mass banquet has implications for the organization of the sanctuary since a large open area is necessary for the crowd to sit and eat. The space requirements are highlighted by the fact that at the Asclepieum, as Pausanias (2.27.1) informs us, the sacrificial meat was not removed from the temenos.145

Indeed, the positioning of the Altar of Asclepius at a distance from the temple and the maintenance of a large open area around the altar seems intended to accommodate this kind of large public dining.

Thus, at the Asclepieia the sacrificial ritual followed the general practice of Greek festivals in which the killing of the sacrifice was followed by the apportioning of the meat and its subsequent preparation and consumption. The act of sacrifice was emphasized by the central

142 As was normal for ancient Greek festivals for it was part of their purpose to involve the whole community. See Schmitt-Pantel 1993: 22 and Marinatos 1993: 228.

143 Lines 11-12: καὶ θύεν τοῖς θεοῖ[ς] | [τοῖς] ἐν Ἐπι[δαύρωι — — —]

144 Schmitt-Pantel 1993: 19, 22.

145 τὰ δὲ θυόμενα, ἤν τέ τις Ἐπιδαυρίων αὐτῶν ἤν τε ξένος ὁ θύων ᾖ, καταναλίσκουσιν ἐντὸς τῶν ὅρων: - All the offerings, whether the offerer be one of the Epidaurians themselves or a stranger, are entirely consumed within the bounds (trans. Jones 1918).

location and visual impressiveness of the Temple and Altar of Asclepius. The public banquet, in turn, was accommodated by maintaining a wide space around the altar. These two design considerations are central to the organization of the sanctuary.

Special dining. While the crowd at the Asclepieia may have eaten outdoors on the campus, the research of Tomlinson (1969) and the Committee for the Preservation of the Epidaurian

Monuments (OEΣME 1988) has shown that a smaller group ate indoors in dedicated facilities.

The Banqueting Hall (Figure 1-7: 54) could accommodate approximately 250 diners on couches in its three halls and various small rooms.146 Similar eating facilities are found in the Asclepieia of Corinth, Troizen, Delos, and Athens and in each case they appear to have been reserved for a smaller crowd during public festivals.147 Whether participation in these special dining arrangements was based on social status or some other criterion is open to speculation.

Nonetheless, the Banqueting Hall, and therefore the mode of dining it enabled, was clearly an important element in the Hellenistic program judging from the structure’s large size (rivaled only by the Katagogion and the Theater) and its placement at one possible terminus of the sacred way.

Competitions. As discussed in the first part of this chapter, we have good evidence for both athletic and artistic competitions at the Asclepieia. A pankration is attested for the fifth century and it seems likely boxing, wrestling, and the single- and double-stade races were also included even if the earliest mentions of these events are somewhat later.148 The Stadium itself dates at least back to the early fifth century BC as does the Hippodrome.149 The Theater was

146 Tomlinson 1969: 109.

147 At Delos based on IG XI 144 A68 which mentions a hestiatorion. The West Building at Athens is argued by Tomlinson 1969 112-117. At Corinth the east side of the peristyle court of Lerna. At Troizen the peristyle building in the ‘sanctuary of Hippolytus.’

148 Patrucco 1976: 18; Séve 1993: 322-323.

149 Based on the fifth-century BC lettering of a boundary stone to the Hippodrome, IG IV2 1, 153.

completed late in the fourth century BC or early in the third and was the venue for rhapsodic and other musical competitions according to Plato’s Ion.150 Together, these three structures provided the space for competitive performances as well as seating capacity for thousands of spectators.

The competitive venues had special requirements both in terms of space and topography. A suitable area for the Stadium was found at the edge of the sanctuary where a stream, running down from the higher level of the central campus, had created a natural depression with a level floor about a stade long. The Theater, on the other hand, required a natural cavea in a hillside, the nearest of which was at some distance from the sanctuary nucleus. Finally, the Hippodrome needed a large level area two stades long and one wide which was only possible near a stream about a mile from the Asclepieum. Thus, the overall effect of the Asclepieia competitions was to expand the sanctuary far beyond what would have been necessary without competitive requirements.

Considering the number and scale of the buildings created to accommodate the various festival activities, one might imagine that the Asclepieia was the main impetus for the monumentalization of the sanctuary in the fourth and third centuries BC. Certainly the city of

Epidaurus went to great lengths to promote the Asclepieia, regularly sending special ambassadors (theorodokia) throughout the Greek world to announce it.151 The requirements of the festival produced a sanctuary with a large open area, an impressive temple and altar to

Asclepius, and a sacred way which ran unencumbered from the main Propylon to the propylon of the Banqueting Hall. In addition, the need for competitive venues created a sanctuary which covered a very large area. Nonetheless, the day-to-day role of the sanctuary as a healing center

150 Plat. Ion 3-4.

151 Perlman 2000.

imposed its own requirements which were no less influential to the development of the sanctuary.

The Healing Cult

In contrast to the public festival of the Asclepieia, the healing cult of Asclepius addressed the needs of individuals and operated throughout the year. On the one hand, the healing ritual had needs which were distinct from the public festival and both the topography of the sanctuary and its architecture were employed to accommodate these. On the other hand, certain needs were similar and the healing cult emphasized or modified the facilities.

Our best evidence for the healing ritual is the group of Epidaurian inscriptions which purport to record the cures of individual supplicants of Asclepius.152 These cure inscriptions begin with the name of the supplicant and their malady and end by recording their cure. The contents of the cure inscriptions point to an established procedure for supplicants, though the sequence of some stages is unclear. The most well-attested activity of the healing ritual is incubation, during which the supplicant slept in the Abaton in hopes of receiving a visitation from Asclepius. This stage of the healing ritual is mentioned in almost all the cure inscriptions – far more than any other stage. Before incubation two other stages sometimes appear in the cure inscriptions: prothysis (preliminary sacrifice) and purificatory bathing. Their relative order is uncertain. The final stage of the cure was the dedication in the sanctuary of a thanks offering by the supplicant. The offerings ranged from the inexpensive (food or leaves) to the elaborate

(inscribed statues).

Prothysis. Prior to incubation the supplicant was required to make preliminary sacrifices.

This stage of the ritual, called prothysis, took place at an altar (or altars) and consisted of both

152IG IV2 1, 121-124 (4th c. BC).

animal sacrifice and bloodless offerings. Our information on the Epidaurian prothysis comes from three inscriptions which together testify to the existence of the practice and reveal some details about its cost. The impact of this activity on the sanctuary’s design is difficult to gauge, however, since the inscriptions are silent about its topographic footprint.

The earliest mention of prothysis comes from a cure inscription dated between 350 and

300 BC which describes a voiceless boy who “performed the preliminary sacrifices” before he regained his voice.153 This inscription both confirms the existence of prothysis as early as the fourth century and the fact that it occurs before the cure. A second Epidaurian inscription, the

Hymn of Isyllos ca. 280 BC, refines the sequence even further by specifying that the preliminary sacrifices take place before incubation.154 Finally, a sacred law (Peek 1969 n336) from the end of the fourth or beginning of the third century BC lists some of the supplies for prothysis and their costs.155

These inscriptions make clear that prothysis was an important prerequisite for obtaining a cure but they are less helpful in determining its impact on the sanctuary’s organization. It has been suggested that the two groups of small altars the east and northeast of Building E were used for prothysis and that, by extension, this area of sanctuary, including the Temple of Artemis and

153 IG IV2 1, 121: 41-48 (cure 5): “A voiceless boy. He came as a supplicant to the Temple for his voice. When he had performed the preliminary sacrifices (προεθύσατο) and fulfilled the usual rites, thereupon the temple servant who brings in the fire for the god, looking at the boy’s father, demanded he should promise to bring within a year the thank-offering for the cure if he obtained that for which he had come. But the boy suddenly said, ‘I promise.’ His father was startled at this and asked him to repeat it. The boy repeated the words and after that became well.” Emphasis mine. Translation: Edelstein and Edelstien 1945: 230-231.

154 IG IV2 1, 128: 29-31: “Not even in Thessalian Tricca would you attempt to go down into the Adyton of Asclepius unless you first sacrifice (πρῶτον…θύσαις) on the holy altar of Apollo Maleatas.” The adyton or abaton is the place of incubation, see below. Emphasis mine. Translation: Edelstein and Edelstein 1945: 292-293.

155 Lines 5-9: grain and a wreath for half and obol, firewood for young pigs for half an obol and for grown pigs for a full obol.

Shrine Y, was dedicated to preliminary sacrifice.156 Nonetheless, only the Hymn of Isyllus mentions a specific location, the altar of Apollo Maleatas, which is presumably the monumental altar on the Kynortion.157 In either event, the process of prothysis seems to have had a minimal influence on the sanctuary’s layout since the small altars were placed where space was available and the monumental altars were already used for the public cult.

Bathing. A number of activities at a sanctuary required ritual cleansing. Before entering a sacred area it was common to purify oneself with water.158 Washing was also common before sacrificial meals.159 In most Asclepiea, bathing was also a prerequisite for seeking a cure.160 At the Epidaurian Asclepieum we lack explicit evidence for bathing as part of the healing ritual but the presence of perirrhanteria and bath buildings point to this practice.

Perirrhanteria are wide, shallow basins on stands which are used to wash portions of the body (probably hands and face). At Epidaurus they are usually offered in thanks for a successful cure and, in fact, are the most common dedications during the Hellenistic period.161 About thirty- five of them have been found spread throughout the sanctuary.162

The sanctuary’s two bath buildings however, were used for full-body baths. The oldest bath (Figure 1-7: 40) is situated directly adjacent to the Abaton on its east side where the sacred well (Figure 1-7: 42) is located. This proximity to the place of incubation as well as the fact that

156 Petropoulou 1991: 27- 29; Lembidaki 2002: 129n15; Melfi 2007: 28-29, 37-40.

157 IG IV2 1, 128: 31.

158 Tomlinson 1976: 45.

159 Bookidis 1993: 52.

160 In Pergamum supplicants could not go up to the temple of Asclepius until they had bathed (Paus. 5.13.3). Bathing is the first stage of the healing ritual at Athens’ Asclepieum as depicted in Ar. Plut. 656-658.

161 Melfi 2007: 27.

162 Those whose find spot is known were found in areas as diverse as the Banqueting Hall, the Basilica, the area west of the Tholos, the entrance to the Theater, the Stadium and the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas.

bathing facilities in this spot date back to the sixth century suggest that this bath was used as part of the healing process. The Hellenistic Bath (Figure 1-7: 61) south of the Banqueting Hall was probably used in the same way though it may also have functioned as a recreational bath for those staying in the nearby Katagogion.

The need for water in the sanctuary was originally met by wells, but the Hellenistic building program added a robust water distribution system. The most important part of this system was a new water line running from a spring in the foothills of the Kynortion to the cistern

(Figure 1-3: 16) near Temple L (Figure 1-3: 17) and then to the Doric and Holy Fountains

(Figure 1-7: 32 & 32a) on the east side of the central campus. From here water was distributed throughout the sanctuary.163 The addition of the needs of the healing cult on top of the other water requirements for sanctuaries and festivals resulted in an extensive water supply system for the sanctuary and the inclusion of two dedicated bath buildings in the site’s organization.

Incubation. The central activity of the healing ritual was a special kind of sleep, incubation, in which the supplicant would pass the night near the Temple of Asclepius in hopes of receiving a curative dream.164 The need for the sick to incubate required a special building which was peculiar to Asclepieia. This building was called an abaton, adyton, or enkoimeterion and usually took the form of a closed stoa.

At Epidaurus the Abaton (Figure 1-7: 42) served for incubation as is copiously attested in the cure inscriptions.165 Its place in the early construction sequence of the Hellenistic program combined with its close placement to the Temple of Asclepius and the Thymele point to its

163 The main paths of distribution were westward (toward the baths adjacent to the Abaton and Hellenistic cistern (Figure 5, 26)) and southward (toward the Banqueting Wall). See Peppa-Papaioannu 1988 and 1992.

164 Edelstein and Edelstein 1945: 139-173.

165 IG IV2 1, 121-124 (4th c. BC)

importance for the functioning of the sanctuary. Moreover, the Abaton forms the northern border of the sanctuary nucleus and so had a large impact on the organization of the sanctuary (the area north of it seems almost completely un-used in the Hellenistic sanctuary).

Dedications. Following a successful cure, supplicants dedicated a thanks offering to

Asclepius. These offerings could take many forms, from animal sacrifice to more permanent votives.166 Sometimes payment was involved (a drachma in IG IV2 1, 123 cure 54 and a mina of silver in IG IV2 1, 124 cure 68). Our evidence is not sufficient to tell what kinds of offerings were expected or if there was an expectation, though to make a vow and not fulfill it made one subject to divine wrath.167

Over 300 thank-offerings have been found in the Asclepieum from the Classical and

Hellenistic periods. Most were placed around the perimeter of the central campus and the rest can be found almost any place in the sanctuary. There is no evidence that the accommodation of these thank-offerings had any influence on the design of the sanctuary and their concentration around the central campus probably reflects a desire on the part their dedicators or the sanctuary management to advertise their successful cures.

In conclusion, the healing ritual to a certain extent required different facilities than the public festival, especially for the activities of incubation and washing. Thus, the elements of the healing ritual had an effect on both the organization of the sanctuary and the facilities employed.

Though this influence was perhaps not as great as the public festival, it nevertheless had a significant effect on the nucleus of the sanctuary through the addition of the Abaton for incubation and the adjacent bath for washing. Indeed, the need for water for the healing process

166 For the variety of offerings consider IG IV2 1, 121 cure 4 (silver pig), 10 (goblet), and 15 (stone); IG IV2 1, 123 cure 46 (animal sacrifice); and the numerous statuettes, altars and perirrhanteria found at the site.

167 IG IV2 1, 123 cure 47: A fish carrier vowed a tenth of his fish to Asclepius but then reneged. He was surrounded by gnats until he made good the vow.

on top of its other uses in the Asclepieum had a large impact on the sanctuary’s development as the extensive waterworks attest.

Boarding facilities. One final matter to be addressed is the accommodation of those staying in the Asclepieum. Cure-seekers came to the sanctuary from across the Greek world and some had prolonged stays.168 Therefore, the healing cult by its nature and success encouraged the provision of facilities for those staying there either short- or long-term. To tend to the needs of these visitors as well as the general upkeep of the sanctuary probably required a resident staff whose daily needs would also have been filled by the boarding accommodations. Furthermore, if the Asclepieia lasted for multiple days this would have reinforced the need for at least some boarding arrangements. Individuals in each of these circumstances needed places to sleep and store belongings, dining arrangements, and water for drinking and other uses. The impact of the water requirements on the Asclepieum’s organization has already been noted above, but the effect of the other habitation facilities on the layout of the sanctuary must be examined next.

Of the buildings in the Asclepieum which may have served boarders, the most certain and the largest is the Katagogion (Figure 1-7: 58). This four-courtyard hotel could sleep an estimated

140 to 430 guests, as previously discussed. The total capacity seems large if its clientele were only cure-seekers but is certainly too small to house more than a fraction of festival-goers. This discrepancy has led some to suggest that Katagogion was used at the festival by elites.169 The answer may lie in the design of the Katagogion which provides no internal connection between the northern and southern halls, allowing half of the building to be closed without affecting the

168 The cure inscriptions record supplicants from Thessaly (cure 6), Sparta (cure 21), Athens (cure 3) and elsewhere. IG IV2 1, 123 cure 64 records a stay of four months.

169 Riethmuller 2005: 295; D’Arrigo 1991: 107.

other half effectively scaling the building to meet the current need.170 This would allow it to serve elites at festival times and supplicants or sanctuary personnel throughout the year.

A different interpretation reserves the Katagogion for only festival elites while supplicants were housed in the Stoa of Kotys (Figure 1-7: 28).171 This stoa, as discussed above, may have served as a small hotel or market or a combination of the two. Its position closer to the sanctuary structures used in healing (the Temple of Asclepius, the Abaton, and its adjacent bath) would be more convenient for supplicants while the Katagogion’s proximity to the Theater would be more convenient for festival attendees.172

Near the Katagogion, between the sanctuary nucleus and the Theatre, stood another building which may have provided boarding facilities. The Banqueting Hall (Figure 1-7: 54) served as the location for a ritual meal during the Asclepieia festival but the extent to which it was used at other times by those in the sanctuary is unknown. It does not have facilities for regular meal preparation, instead whatever cooking was done in the building appears ad hoc.173

Like the Katagogion, it seems scalable since it contains two distinct types of dining rooms: large ones with many couches and small rooms for about eleven.174 This variation could allow it to serve a large group during the festival and smaller numbers in the rest of the year but whether it was used in this way is impossible to tell.

The Hellenistic Bath (Figure 1-7: 61) may also be intended primarily for boarders. Its location to the south is rather out of the way for purification or curative purposes but very close

170 Kraynak 1991: 7.

171 Riethmuller 2005: 295.

172 Melfi 2007: 57.

173 No regular food preparation areas have been uncovered in the Asclepieum.

174 See Tomlinson (1969: 109) who compares it with a similar arrangement at Troizen.

the Banqueting Hall and the Katagogion. Therefore, it may have served as an amenity for the clientele of these two neighboring buildings. This would be consistent with the rising popularity of social bathing in the Greek world in the fourth and third centuries BC.175

The need to accommodate those staying in the sanctuary (whether for long or short terms) produced the three largest covered buildings in the sanctuary. Aside from the Stoa of Kotys, which defines the northern border of the central campus, the other boarding facilities are clustered south of the sanctuary nucleus on the way to the Theater. The capacity of the

Banqueting Hall and the Katagogion, which is too small for all festival attendees but too large for the putative normal flux of supplicants, suggests they were used by a special group. This may have been elites at festival time or perhaps the resident staff of the Asclepieum, or both. If, however, the seeming compartmentalization of these buildings allowed certain parts of them to be closed off in order to scale them to current demand then it is possible the buildings were used by supplicants as well. In any event, the need for room and board generated a very large footprint in the Asclepieum, equal to that required by either the healing cult or the Asclepieia festival, most of which was positioned at a distance from the central sanctuary.

Summary of the Hellenistic Sanctuary

The Hellenistic building program created a sanctuary organized around two main activities: the Asclepieia festival and healing. In addition, a variety of buildings seem dedicated to the accommodation of visitors, which would have supported both functions. The template thus created would define the sanctuary for almost the next four centuries, until the renovation of the sanctuary by the senator Antoninus. It seems beyond doubt that his renovation had a significant effect on the architectural composition of the Asclepieum (though even this has not been

175 Yegül 1992: 6-29.

adequately quantified) but its effect on the activities of the Asclepieum remains very poorly understood. The situation is even more confused for later Roman building phases. Accordingly,

Chapter 3 will examine all the Roman structures of the Asclepieum in detail and integrate them into a coherent chronology for the entire Roman period at the site. Then Chapter 4 will compare the functions of the Hellenistic and Roman sanctuaries and consider how the Roman program modified the Hellenistic sanctuary.

Figure 2-1. The Banqueting Hall. Hellenistic building in gray, Roman additions in black. (Adapted from the Banqueting Hall information placard on site)

CHAPTER THREE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ROMAN BUILDINGS

The destruction of Corinth by L. Mummius in 146 BC signaled the end of Greek political independence. The resulting expansion of Roman rule incorporated the Peloponnese and with it the city of Epidaurus and the sanctuary of Asclepius. Initially, Roman sponsors such as the emperors Augustus and Hadrian did not show the same level of interest in the Epidaurian

Asclepieum as they did in other famous Panhellenic sites. Indeed, little investment at all is evident in the sanctuary until the mid-second century AD when a major building program was begun by a Roman senator whom Pausanias names simply as “Antoninus”. From Pausanias’ description the improvements Antoninus initiated were extensive, comparable only, perhaps, to the late classical/early Hellenistic building program discussed in Chapter 2. The large number of

Roman archaeological remains found in the Asclepieum has tended to reinforce this comparison.

The dating of sanctuary’s many Roman structures, however, has been contentious and for some buildings only the most cursory attempt has been made. Moreover, it is difficult to reconcile

Pausanias’ account with the archaeological and epigraphic evidence and to determine the true extent of Antoninus’ effect on the sanctuary. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, will be to synthesize the Roman evidence into a coherent chronology in order to form the most comprehensive view to date of the architectural changes of the Roman period, in particular those of Antoninus.

Roman buildings in the sanctuary have been treated by previous scholarship in an isolated fashion, if at all, and a comprehensive study is overdue.1 The situation is exacerbated by the fact that Kavvadias paid little attention to Roman material during his excavations with the result that a great deal of evidence was discarded or not recorded. Re-excavations of several Roman-era

1 Tomlinson 1983: 8.

structures such as Building Φ and the Perimetric Stoa/Wall have ameliorated this deficit somewhat.2 Also, a recent work by Milena Melfi has breathed new life into the examination of the Roman buildings but even her treatment is not comprehensive.3 The scale of the problem is considerable: at least twenty seven structures in the Asclepieum are known to date from the

Roman period. Of these approximately twenty two survive or are known from archaeological remains while six are known only from inscriptions or from Pausanias’ account. Integrating this large number of Roman-era structures into a coherent chronology faces the fundamental hurdle of reconciling the various, often inconsistent, dates proposed for the individual buildings. Since the Roman period of the sanctuary spans more than five hundred years, from 146 BC to the late fourth or early fifth century AD, it will be examined here in two roughly equal chronological halves. The first half, covering the three hundred years from 146 BC to ca. AD 150, shows little construction or maintenance and will be assessed first. The second half, spanning about two hundred and fifty years from ca. AD 150 to the Christian era, is when the overwhelming majority of Roman structures were constructed and will comprise the bulk of the chronological analysis.

Construction from 146 BC to the Mid-Second Century AD

The roughly three hundred years between the Roman conquest of Greece in 146 BC and the beginning of the Roman building program under Antoninus in the middle of the second century AD provide evidence for only two limited construction efforts. One took place in the

Stadium (Figure 1-7: 62) where small modifications were made to the southern seating. Patrucco

(1976: 48) dates these alterations to the first centuries BC or AD. 4 Then, there are Roman-era

2 See OEΣME 187 (abaton), OEΣME 1988 (propylon of Banqueting Hall and the Tholos), OEΣME 2000 (Perimetric Stoa/Wall).

3 Melfi 2007: 17-148.

4 See also Patrucco 1976: the chart on p. 122 (appendix I).

100

modifications and repairs to the Hellenistic water supply system which transported water from the fountains in the northeastern part of the Asclepieum to the Banqueting Hall and Hellenistic

Bath further south.5 The only firm terminus ante quem for the Roman work is the construction of

Building Φ whose porch transects the ducting and renders the system useless. Based on arguments to follow, the construction of Building Φ is dated to the mid-second century AD.

Other evidence from the Asclepieum suggests that the first half of the Roman era was a time of architectural decay. L. Cornelius Sulla and, later, Cilician pirates looted the sanctuary in the first century BC.6 In the same century the Banqueting Hall was burned (perhaps as a result of the looting), the water supply system north of it fractured then repaired, and several buildings on the Kynortion destroyed.7 Moreover, Pausanias (2.27.6) writes that Antoninus repaired the Stoa of Kotys (Figure 1-7: 28) which had fallen into ruin because of the loss of its roof, implying a general lack of maintenance in the Asclepieum in the preceeding years (decades?).8

Most conspicuous in this period is the absence, in both the literary and archaeological record, of involvement by the emperors Augustus and Hadrian who elsewhere in Greece were very active builders, especially at Panhellenic sites.9 This lack of attention may explain the seeming lull in architectural work at the Asclepieum during these years. As a result, the material

5 Structure B in Peppa-Papaioannou 1992: 260, 261-263. See also, Peppa-Papaioannou 1988: 554.

6 Sulla in 86 BC to fund his campaign against Mithridates (Diod. 38.7.1.1; Plut. Sulla 12; Paus. 9.7.5.); the pirates shortly afterward (Liv. 45.28; Plut. Pomp. 2.24).

7 Banqueting Hall: OEΣME 1988: 23 and n.21 (in which the “1st century AD” is printed in error), Lambrinoudakis 1988: 301, and Aslanidis 2003: 302n9. Based on the ash layer, the fire was severe enough to but the Banqueting Hall out of use (OEΣME 1988:23). Water system: Peppa-Papaioannou 1992: 265. Kynortion destruction layer: Lambrinoudakis 1988: 299a.

8 Damage to two other buildings has been assigned to this period but not confirmed: Building Π (Lembidaki 2002: 136) and the Katagogion (Kraynak 1991: 1).

9 There are numerous inscriptions at Epidaurus concerning emperors and their families but there is no evidence that any emperor commissioned any structure at the site.

101

condition of the Asclepieum at best held steady during the first three hundred years of Roman rule and by the end of this period had definitely declined.

Construction From the Mid-Second Century AD to Abandonment

The second half of the Roman era at the Asclepieum is populated by a large number of new constructions as well as modifications and repairs to previous buildings. Thanks to the account of the sanctuary recorded in Pausanias’ Hellados Periegesis, a Roman senator referred to simply as “Antoninus” has become the central figure in this period of the sanctuary’s history.

The passage in question is found in Pausanias 2.27.6-7:

[6.1] ὁπόσα δὲ Ἀντωνῖνος ἀνὴρ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς ἐφ' ἡμῶν ἐποίησεν, ἔστι μὲν Ἀσκληπιοῦ λουτρόν, ἔστι δὲ ἱερὸν θεῶν οὓς Ἐπιδώτας ὀνομάζουσιν· ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ Ὑγείᾳ ναὸν καὶ Ἀσκληπιῷ καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι ἐπίκλησιν Αἰγυπτίοις. καὶ ἦν γὰρ στοὰ καλουμένη Κότυος, καταρρυέντος δέ οἱ τοῦ ὀρόφου διέφθαρτο ἤδη πᾶσα ἅτε ὠμῆς τῆς πλίνθου ποιηθεῖσα· ἀνῳκοδόμησε καὶ ταύτην. Ἐπιδαυρίων δὲ οἱ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν μάλιστα ἐταλαιπώρουν, ὅτι μήτε αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν σκέπῃ σφίσιν ἔτικτον καὶ ἡ τελευτὴ τοῖς κάμνουσιν ὑπαίθριος ἐγίνετο· ὁ δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ἐπανορθούμενος κατεσκευάσατο οἴκησιν· ἐνταῦθα ἤδη καὶ ἀποθανεῖν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τεκεῖν γυναικὶ ὅσιον. [7.1] ὄρη δέ ἐστιν ὑπὲρ τὸ ἄλσος τό τε Τίτθιον καὶ ἕτερον ὀνομαζόμενον Κυνόρτιον, Μαλεάτου δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερὸν ἐν αὐτῷ. τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῶν ἀρχαίων· τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ὅσα περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Μαλεάτου καὶ ἔλυτρον κρήνης, ἐς ὃ τὸ ὕδωρ συλλέγεταί σφισι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, Ἀντωνῖνος καὶ ταῦτα Ἐπιδαυρίοις ἐποίησεν.10

A Roman senator, Antoninus, made in our own day a bath of Asclepius and a sanctuary of the gods they call Bountiful. He made also a temple to Health, Asclepius, and Apollo, the last two surnamed Egyptian. He moreover restored the portico that was named the Portico of Cotys, which, as the brick of which it was made had been unburnt, had fallen into utter ruin after it had lost its roof. As the Epidaurians about the sanctuary were in great distress, because their women had no shelter in which to be delivered and the sick breathed their last in the open, he provided a dwelling, so that these grievances also were redressed. Here at last was a place in which without sin a human being could die and a woman be delivered. Above the grove are the Nipple and another mountain called Cynortion; on the latter is a sanctuary of Maleatian Apollo. The sanctuary itself is an ancient one, but among the things Antoninus made for the Epidaurians are various appurtenances for the sanctuary of the Maleatian, including a reservoir into which the rain-water collects for their use.

10 Text and translation from Jones 1918.

102

In this passage Pausanias attributes at least six buildings to Antoninus: a bath of Asclepius, a temple to the helper gods (epidoteion), a temple or temples to Hygieia, Asclepius and Apollo in their Egyptian aspect, the repair of the stoa of Kotys, a building to house the dying and women giving birth, and on the Kynortion hill a rainwater cistern along with other, unspecified buildings. Yet, six buildings accounts for only 22% of the buildings known for this half of the

Roman period. This fact raises the question of the overall significance of Antoninus’ involvement: were Antoninus’ buildings only a part of the Asclepieum’s growth or did Pausanias omit some of his works? To answer these questions it will first be necessary to secure the dates of Antoninus’ activity in Asclepieum which in turn can only be done by better identifying the man. With this chronological anchor established, the work of sorting the architectural remains into a building sequence can begin.

Pausanias (2.27. 6) writes that the work sponsored by Antoninus was done “in our own day” (ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν) which suggests it was accomplished not long before Pausanias’ visit. The date of Pausanias’ travels in book two is difficult to fix exactly but has generally been assigned to ca.

AD 165.11 This date is based on two considerations. The first is the proposed dates of the previous and latter books of the Hellados Periegesis: Pausanias (7.20.6) tells us that book one was completed before Herodes Atticus began construction of the Odeum in Athens, which has been dated by other means to ca. AD 161 while books five and six can be dated more precisely at

11 Gurlitt 1890: 1, 59n3; Robert 1909: 270; Hiller 1929a: xxxv.105; Comfort 1931: 314; Bowie 2001: 21.

103

AD 174 and 175 respectively.12 The second is the career of the aforementioned Antoninus whose identification must be further examined before his dates can be secured.13

Several pieces of evidence discovered in the Asclepieum confirm the activity of an

“Antoninus” and shed some light on his identity. Roof tiles discovered in Building K, Building

Φ, the Skana on the Kynortion and the Epidoteion bear the stamp Ἀντωνείνου, “of Antoninus”, indicating the person responsible for their manufacture.14 An “Antoninus son of Maior” is mentioned in two short dedicatory inscriptions from the site (IG IV2 1, 514 & 614) while an honorary decree (IG IV2 1, 684) proclaims “Julius Antoninus son of Maior” a benefactor

(euergetes) of the Epidaurians.15 While there is no internal evidence to date these attestations, neither their letter style nor any other characteristics are inconsistent with the mid-second century AD. Therefore, based on the onomastic similarities and the lack of any dating conflict it is reasonable to agree with Fränkel, Hiller, and Peek that the tile stamps and the three inscriptions refer to a Julius Antoninus son of Maior and that he is the senator Antoninus mentioned by Pausanias.16

Two other inscriptions from the Asclepieum are thought to bear Antoninus’ name. The first is IG IV2 1, 454, a fragmentary, eight-line dedication to Apollo Maleatas and Asclepius

Soter, which records the restoration or construction of a “steam bath” (πυρια[τήρια) as well as an

12 For discussion of these dates see Bowie 2001: 21. The only other internal evidence for the date of book two is the mention of the Asclepieum at Symrna (Paus. 2.26.9) which was completed in September AD 147 providing a terminus post quem.

13 His identification as the emperor Antoninus Pius is refuted by Kavvadias (1900b: 22n18).

14 IG IV2 1, 715/6 and SEG 41, 307. For the Epidoteion see Lembidaki 2002: 133n26.

16 See Fränkel’s notes and restorations for IG IV1,1311, 1391, 1416; Hiller 1929a: xxxiv; 1929b: 63-68; Peek 1969: #177,# 209, #266, #298; 1972: #22. Pausanias (2.27.6), however, is the only source which calls him a senator (ἀνὴρ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς).

104

unidentified building which was repaired or built “from its foundations” (ἐκ θεμελ[ίων). The author of this dedication (---]ωνῖ ν[ --) has been reconstructed by Hiller (IG IV2 1, 454) and Peek

(1969: 177) as “[Julius Maior Ant]onin[us son of Julius]”.17 In a second, very fragmentary dedication recording the repair or furnishing of some unknown building or buildings, Peek

(1972: 22) also reconstructs “Julius Maior Antoninus” as the subject.18 “Julius Maior Antoninus

(son of Julius)” and “Julius Antoninus son of Maior,” while they might at first seem to name different individuals in the same family, can refer to the same person if the expanded form of the name is Julius Maior Antoninus son of Julius Maior, and indeed in 1929 Hiller found evidence that this is the case.

From the area of Nysa in Asia Minor, Hiller (1929b: 63-68) located several inscriptions which bear on the identification of the Antoninus in question. These are dedications inscribed on the bases of statues honoring members of the imperial household.19 Five were dedicated by a

Julius Antoninus Pythodorus.20 A sixth inscription records that “Julius Antoninus Pythodorus son of the consul Julius Maior” honors his sister and a seventh honors “Sextus Julius Maior

Antoninus Pythodorus, son of the consul Julius Maior.”21 A comparison of the Epidaurian nomenclature with the Nysean (Table 3-1) reveals the importance of the last inscription, Nysa 42, as a bridge between the two corpora: the agnomen “Pythodorus,” present in all the Nysean inscriptions, is not found in any of the Epidaurian ones whereas “Maior” is listed in two of the

Epidaurian ones and none of the Nysean. Nysa 42 therefore links the two groups which would

17 Hiller line 4 [Ἰούλιος Μαΐωρ Ἀντ]ωνῖ ν [ος, υἱὸς Ἰουλ(ίου) Μαΐορος]. Peek line 4 [Ἰούλιος Μαΐωρ Ἀν]τ ωνῖ ν[ος, Ἰουλίου υἱὸς].

18 Peek 1972, 22: [Ἰούλιος Μαίωρ Ἀντωνῖνο]ς ἐπεσκ[εύασε———]

19 Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, Faustina the Younger and Domitia Faustina.

20 Nysa 24-28 from McCabe 1991.

21 Nysa 41 & 42 from McCabe 1991.

105

otherwise only overlap in the use of “Julius” and “Antoninus” (and more fully in the father’s name discussed in greater detail below). Thus, Hiller (1929b: 67) establishes that “Sextus Julius

Maior Antoninus Pythodorus” is consistent with all other forms from both Nysa and Epidaurus and must be the full name of the Antoninus mentioned in Pausanias.

Notwithstanding the articulation of his full name, the details of Antoninus’ life are still vague. Fortunately, the dates and accomplishments of his parents are better recorded. Indeed, both his mother and father supply important information about his identity and dates, especially regarding the beginning of his activity at Epidaurus. Three inscriptions (IG IV2 1, 514; 614; 684) from Epidaurus record him as the “son of Maior”; a fourth (IG IV2 1, 454) lists his father as

“Julius Maior”. This last inscription also provides a fragmentary paternal cursus honorum (lines

5-7):

ὑπάτου [ωμαίων, ἡγεμονεύσ]α ντος τῆς [Νουμιδίας? καὶ] Μυ- σίας τῆ [ς κάτω καὶ τῆς ἄνω καὶ] Συρίας, ἀνθ[υπατεύσαντο]ς Αγ[— — — — vacat? τῆς Ἀσία]ς.

Roman consul, governor of Numidia, and Moesia upper and lower and Syria, proconsul of Asia.

This career matches that known for a Sextus Julius Maior who was governor of Numidia from

AD 123 to 126, consul suffectus 126, governor of Moesia inferior (as distinct from the Mysia inferior of the inscription) 130-134, governor of Syria c. 136 or 137 and proconsul of Asia 141/2, not long after which he died.22 He was probably Syrian judging from his devotion to Jupiter

Dolichenus and he married into the a very wealthy Nysean family.23 Thus Sextus Julius Maior’s

22 Sextus Julius Maior = PIR2 I 397. Groag (RE X 665 333) was the first to propose the paternal relationship. Syme (1980: 13, 14; 1983: 273, 287) substantially revised his dates (used here). Concerning his death, Myers (2012a: 154) argues that he predeceased his wife, Julia Antonia Eurydice, who seems to have died ca. 148.

23 He built a temple in Lambaesis (in modern-day Algeria) to Jupiter Dolichenus, a combination of Jupiter and Baal popular in the second and third centuries AD. His wife was a descendent of Pythodorus of Tralles (orginally from

106

public career ran from the 120’s to the 140’s. If we suppose that this career carried him from his

40’s to his 60’s, it would be likely that his son was just entering public life at the time of the father’s death – a chronology consistent with the proposal that Antoninus’ activity in the

Asclepieum pre-dates, by a little, Pausanias’ visit to Epidaurus in the early to mid-160’s.

Antoninus’ mother, named in six of the seven Nysean dedications discussed above, was

Julia Antonia Eurydice, a member of a wealthy and famous family at Nysa.24 She descended from a line which included the wealthy Pythodorus of Tralles, mentioned earlier, and Antonia, the daughter of Marcus Antonius the triumvir. She apparently inherited a great deal of wealth since the seven statues which her son dedicated, as well as the building on which they were displayed, were funded from her will; the common phrase used in the dedications is ἐκ διαθήκης

Ἰ(ουλίας) Ἀντωνίας Εὐρυδίκης τῆς αὑτοῦ μητρός (“from the will of Julia Antoninia Eurydice, his mother”).25 Meyers (2012a: 151) has dated the dedication of this statue group to AD 148-150 based on the imperial titulature used and the birth of Domitia Faustina in 147. Julia Antonia

Eurydice’s death necessarily preceded this dedication, perhaps only by as much as the necessary construction time of the gerontikon and Hiller (1929a: xxxiv) puts her death, not unreasonably, at

AD 140.

Since the gerontikon is the first building that can be attributed to Antoninus, and the statues the first dedications, it is likely that he did not begin his activities as a euergete until the death of his mother had provided him with sufficient funds, ca. AD 140. In addition, Antoninus

Nysa), an extraordinarily wealthy man of the first century BC and a friend of Pompey the Great (Strabo. Geo. 14.1.42).

24 Nysa 24 probably does as well but the text is too fragmentary to be sure. For further discussion see Meyers 2012a.

25 Nysa 24-28, 41, 42 with the following exceptions: Nysa 24 is incomplete after ἐκ διαθήκης and Nysa 42 omits αὑτοῦ. The building was a gerontikon, a meeting place for the city’s gerousia or council of elders. Its plan is similar to a Roman imperial theater as was common for this type of building in Asia minor in the second century AD (Meyers 2012b: 462)

107

is named as an euergetes in an inscription from Pergamum which can only be generally dated to the second century AD.26 Using this information, the dates of his activity at Epidaurus can be narrowed down. If Antoninus was occupied at Nysa until the completion of his mother’s testament, he would have turned his attention to Pergamum and Epidaurus after approximately

AD 150 (the upper date of the dedicatory statues). Since Pausanias saw the results of Antoninus’ euergetism around AD 165, the Asclepieum improvements must necessarily have been carried out between AD 150 and AD 165. For these dates a further, though more tentative, refinement is possible. It is likely that Antoninus turned his attention to Pergamum before Epidaurus due to its proximity to Nysa. The extent of Antoninus’ euergetism at Pergamum is not recorded, therefore it may have detained him for a few months or a few years. A reasonable minimum duration at

Pergamum plus travel time would have him commencing work at Epidaurus around AD 152.

Because of the extent of the construction in the Asclepieum and the time required to complete it, dates for its commencement later than AD 155 become unlikely.27 Finally, there is an inscription from the Asclepieum, IG IV2 1, 88, that is exactly dated to AD 163 but its attribution to

Antoninus is uncertain.28 It is a letter to the consuls Marcus Laelianus and Lucius Pastor which, though fragmentary, seems to present measures to safeguard the benefactions of the author as well as the letter itself and to ensure that the letter is read publicly once a year. A bronze

Asclepius with a golden staff and silver snakes entwined around it, dedicated by the author, is

26 Inschriften von Pergamon III 23.

27 Any estimation of the time required for completion of the building program is problematic. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that only the cistern on the Kynortion can be be unambigously linked to the account in Pausanias. The baths of Asclepius probably required the greatest effort along with perhaps the temple(s) to Egyptian Apollo, Asclepius and Hygieia. However, all six buildings which Pausanias lists are considerable projects. If, in addition, the buildings of fabric group one (discussed below) are correctly assigned to Antoninus, then ten years does not seem an inordinate amount of time for the completion of the building program. For comparison, consider that the Hellenistic temple of Asclepius took four years eight months to complete (Burford 1969: 54-55) while the Thymele, apparantly plagued by funding problems, took around twenty seven years (Burford 1969: 64).

28 The inscription dates itself (line 22) to the fourtieth year since the first visit of Hadrian to Greece (in AD 124).

108

mentioned in the letter. Hiller (IG IV2 1, 88) suggests the author is the senator Antoninus, as does

Lambrinoudakis (2002: 224) whose publication of a new fragment containing the last nine lines is pending. Since this does indeed look like an effort by Antoninus to protect (and periodically remind the public of) his donations, his building activity in the Asclepieum must have concluded by AD 163. Therefore a narrower, though more tentative, range for the new construction in the

Epidaurian Asclepieum is the decade between AD 152 to 163.29

With the date of Antoninus’ euergetism in the Asclepieum localized between AD 152 and

163 the dating of individual buildings can now be addressed. Unfortunately, a consistent dating and sequencing of the buildings has eluded researchers. Most discussions of the Roman structures have focused on trying to reconcile Pausanias’ list with the archaeological remains and this approach has resulted in a confused and piecemeal view of the Roman period. A broader, more comprehensive approach is needed. The following section will sort the Roman buildings of the Asclepieum according to their construction methods and materials, their ‘fabric’, and organize them into ‘fabric groups’. The various proposed dates of the members of each fabric group will be compared to determine if they can be reconciled and if the consistency of the fabric groups holds, they will be correlated to build a relative chronology.

In general, the Roman buildings of the sanctuary can be recognized by their use of concrete. When concrete is used to bond unworked stones of various sizes it is termed “rubble masonry” and this construction technique is found, to varying degrees, throughout all the Roman buildings of the Asclepieum.30 If one examines the fabric of the Roman structures in greater

29 OEΣME (2000: 26) proposes, without argument, that Antoninus’ construction work began a little before the year 163 AD or, perhaps, 160. Yet, this seems to allow too little time to build the structures which Pausanias saw ca. 165.

30 I avoid the term ‘opus incertum’ because the rubble masonry in almost all the Roman buildings is arranged in courses or semi-courses; see Ginouvès 1992: 95 – the technique applied in the Asclepieum falls in between his ‘coursed rubble’ which displays regular parallel courses and alternating joints, and his ‘uncertain rough’ which has no courses.

109

detail, three definite groups emerge. The first group has walls constructed almost entirely of rubble masonry with minor use of brick. The second group marries rubble masonry with extensive brick construction (i.e. opus mixtum). The third group is built predominately of re-used materials removed from Hellenistic buildings in the Asclepieum.

Fabric Group I

Three buildings, Building K (Figure 1-5: 37), Building Φ (Figure 1-7: 58) and the Skana on the Kynortion (Figure 1-4: 11), are characterized by walls of mostly unworked stones supplemented with occasional brick, the whole of which is joined by cement mortar.31 This rubble masonry (Figures 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4) is arranged in semi-courses, that is in courses which for the most part maintain their distinct identity but which occasionally merge and then re- separate during the length of the wall. The use of brick in all three buildings is sparse and irregular: there are no true brick courses in the walls but only occasional, thin, horizontal runs of brick, brick fragments and ceramic fragments which start and stop within a few feet according to no discernible pattern.32 Occasionally, brick and ceramic fragments are interspersed into the rubble masonry at various angles. All three buildings also show a preference for constructing door posts using large, squared blocks stacked vertically or single orthostats (at least some of which appear to have been taken from earlier structures).

31 Fabric references: Building K – Kavvadias 1900b: 157, “κοινῶν παντοίων λίθων καὶ πλίνθων μετ’ ἀσβέστου” “all sorts of common stones and bricks with lime (mortar).” Building Φ – Kavvadias 1900b: 155, “παντοίων κοινῶν λίθων καὶ πλίνθων μετ’ ἀσβέστου”; Roux 1961: 302, masonry walls; Tomlinson 1983: 78, “mortared rubble work”; OEΣME 1999: 56, rubble walls. Skana – Kavvadias 1900b: 178, “παντοίων λίθων μετὰ πλίνθων, κεραμίδων καὶ ἀσβέστου”; Lambrinoudakis 1992: 44, rocks, brick fragments and second-use blocks in critical places.

32 All three buildings have wall sections that survive to a height sufficient to allow meaningful comparison. Building K’s walls are mostly destroyed but segments remain that rise as high as the beginning of the ceiling arch. The majority of the walls of Building Φ are hip-high or lower though the east wall in places rises to shoulder height and the circular room preserves part of the curve of the ceiling arch. The Skana walls are best preserved with some portions of the ceiling arch intact in the area of the bath.

110

Some individual variation is noticeable in the fabric of the three buildings. Localized, coherent brickwork appears above the niche in the circular (steam bath) room in Building Φ

(Figure 3-5) and both Building Φ and the Skana appear to have somewhat more material in second use than Building K.33 Details, especially decorative, of the buildings differ as well.

Building Φ has two areas which contain floor mosaics.34 In the Skana some walls were covered with marble revetment, rooms Θ and M had cement floors and a lead pipe supplied water to a niche in the courtyard.35 Overall, these differences are slight compared to the similarity of the three structures.

In addition to the affinity that Building K, Building Φ and the Skana share because of their construction fabric, other evidence supports their grouping. First, roof tiles bearing the stamp of

Antoninus have been found in all three buildings. Second, all three buildings share a similar, and unusual, plan. Third, for none of the buildings has any evidence been found which is inconsistent with a build date for all three in the mid-second century AD.

Roof tiles stamped with ANTΩNEINOY, “of Antoninus,” have been found only in

Building K, Building Φ, the Skana and the Epidoteion (Figure 1-7: 31).36 The case of the

Epidoteion and its fabric will be discussed later in the context of repaired Hellenistic structures

(page 155). The other three structures produced multiple tiles: in the Skana these tiles were

33 Material in second use – for the Skana: (1) squared blocks in the cirucular room and bath (Lambrinoudakis 1992a: 44), (2) the base along the SE wall of room I (Lambrinoudakis 1989a: 51), (3) orthostats in the front of the building and stone half-columns in the courtyard (OEΣME 1999: 7), (4) threshold in room Γ (Lambrinoudakis 1990a: 47); for Building Φ: (1) orthostats along the front of the building taken from building Z (Roux 1961: 300, 302), (2) benches from the abaton (Roux 1961: 300). Building K has no documented second use material but the squared blocks used in the walls may be elements from other, earlier buildings.

34 OEΣME 1999: 56.

35 Kavvadias 1900b: 178; Lambrinoudakis 1989a: 51, 53; Lambrinoudakis 1993a: 41.

36 Epidoteion – one tile (Lembidaki 2002: 133n6). Building 25 (Figure 5, 25) in the northwest Roman bath complex contained a single tile bearing the imprint AN///////////O, possibly “Antoneinou” (Kavvadias 1921:39-40).

111

discovered “in abundance”; for Buildings Φ and K, Kavvadias (1900b: 156, 157) records that stamped tiles (in the plural) were found.37 These stamped roof tiles suggest that all four buildings were built during the reconstruction program of Julius Maior Antoninus around the mid-second century AD.

A similar layout also links Building K, Building Φ and the Skana. The floor plan, in all three cases, consists of an entry courtyard surrounded on three sides by a variety of rooms or spaces the most unusual of which is a circular room with a domed ceiling (Figure 3-6). No other buildings in the Asclepieum or on the Kynortion have this combination. Melfi (2007:118) suggests that the unusual domed space is a pyriaterion or dry steam bath and points out that the term appears in the aforementioned Epidaurian inscription which lists the structures dedicated by

Julius Maior Antoninus (IG IV2 1, 454; see p.104 above).38 Melfi uses this insightful connection to date the Skana to the mid-second century AD although it is more likely that IG IV2 1, 454 applies to Building K.39 In any event, the inscription lends support to the attribution of the buildings to Antoninus’ building program.

For Building Φ the mid-second century date is also supported by the study of the water system in the area of the building. Hellenistic stone gutters with Roman additions were destroyed when the porch of Building Φ was built, providing a terminus post quem for the porch. Pottery fragments in these Roman additions date to the mid-second century AD at the latest.40 Therefore

37 For the abundance in the Skana see Lambrinoudakis 1990a: 14. For building Φ and K see also IG IV2 1, 715 & 716.

38 Melfi (2007: 118) identifies the space as a laconicum (see esp. Vitr. De arch. 5.10.5). That laconicum = pyriaterion, as she suggests, is logical but not absolutely certain. Galli (2004: 332) sees the space as fulfilling some ritual function, possibly purification.

39 The find location of the inscription is unrecorded but it was first mentioned in 1881 (see IG IV2 1, 454), the first year of excavation, suggesting it was discovered in the Asclepeium rather than the Kynortion. Hiller (IG IV2 1, 454: commentary) sees its connection with Building K as unproblematic.

40 Peppa-Papaioannou 1988: 554.

112

the porch and probably the entire Building Φ were constructed before the middle of the second century AD. Later, a new water supply conduit was routed around the southwest corner of

Building Φ. The pottery fragments in this aqueduct date after the mid-second century AD to, possibly, the early third, and provide a terminus ante quem for the building.41 These two termini indicate Building Φ was built at or before the mid-second century AD, consistent with the probable date of the building program of Antoninus.42 The Skana and Building K have fewer independent chronological indicators than does Building Φ. In the Skana three dated inscriptions were found as components of the doorposts.43 The texts refer explicitly to the Skana and date to the late second and early third centuries AD. The earliest, IG IV2 1, 393 (AD 183), constitutes a terminus ante quem for the construction of the Skana.44 For Building K the only terminus ante quem is supplied by the late Roman Perimetric Stoa/Wall which was later attached to it. This stoa dates to the late third century or later (see page 130). There is no evidence for a terminus post quem for either building.

Thus, based on their similar fabric, the shared (and exclusive) presence of roof tiles stamped with Antoninus’ name and the other chronological evidence, Building K, Building Φ and the Skana should be considered contemporaneous constructions executed during the building

41 Peppa-Papaioannou 1988: 554.

42 A second terminus ante quem is the construction of the late Roman Perimetric Stoa/Wall; the stoa abuts the northern wall of Building Φ but does not join it. Moreover, the foundation of the Stoa/Wall is significantly higher than that of Building Φ. See OEΣME 2000: 29 & Appendix Z, Figure 2.

43 IG IV2 1, 393 (AD 183), IG IV2 1, 400 (AD 206 AD), IG IV2 1, 401 (after AD 206). Another inscription of the same type and find location (IG IV2 1, 402) has not been dated.

44 It should be noted that there were later modifications to the Skana, creating possibly three phases overall (Lambrinoudakis 1994a: 63-64). Only the first, which saw the original construction of the building (atop two separate Hellenistic buildings), is dated to the mid-second century AD (Lambrinoudakis 1990a: 45). The other phases made limited alterations to the internal layout (Lambrinoudakis 1989a: 50-54; 1990a: 45-58; 1991a: 74; 1992a: 44-49) and of these only the third can be dated: ashes, bones and lamps found covered by third phase modifications date to the third century AD providing a terminus post quem for that final phase (Lambrioudakis 1989a: 51; 1990a: 47).

113

program of Julius Maior Antoninus, around the mid-second century AD. This dating confirms previous scholarship, which, while it has not attempted to date these buildings as a group, has generally settled on the mid-second century AD for each individually.45

Four other structures are similar enough in fabric to the Skana, Building K, and Building Φ that their inclusion in fabric group I should be carefully considered. These are the Roman House

(Figure 1-7: 35), the Stoa with Hypocaust (Figure 1-7: 51), the Roman Palaestra (Figure 1-7: 64), and the Roman repair of the northern retaining wall for the Tholos terrace (Figure 1-7: 44a). The wall fabric of these structures, just as that of fabric group I, consists of unworked stones joined by cement mortar arranged in semi-courses with occasional horizontal “string” lines of ceramic and brick fragments. In addition, the remains of all the buildings with the exception of the retaining wall contain orthostats, in most cases definitely used as doorposts.

Roman House. On the eastern side of the Asclepieum and slightly upslope from it is a

Roman House (Figure 1-7: 35) built on the south side of the Hellenistic Building Π (Figure 1-7:

34) and incorporating that building’s external southern wall.46 This house, labeled Rho (P) by

Kavvadias (1900b: 162), is organized around two spaces, a large, peristyle courtyard in the west and a smaller atrium or foyer in the east. The entrance of the house is on the west side and leads into the main courtyard.

45 Though often by default – Roman buildings without firm dates are generally attributed to Antoninus. Skana assigned to 2nd c. AD by Kavvadias 1900b: 178; Lambrinoudakis 1990a: 45; OEΣME 1999: 71. Building Φ: Kavvadias 1900b: 156; Delorme 1960: 485; OEΣME 1999: 55; Lambrinoudakis 2002: 224; Riethmüller 2005: 289. Building K: Kavvadias 1900b: 157; Tomlinson 1983: 67; OEΣME 2000: 29. Building Φ has caused more disagreement than the other two: Roux (1961: 301) prefers it belong to the fourth century AD, OEΣME (2000: 29n76) concludes it is second century AD but admits it could be much later and Melfi (2007: 140,141) dates it to the end of third century. She assigns building K the same date (Melfi 2007: 140) and pushes the third phase of the Skana to between the mid-third century AD and the end of the fourth (Melfi 2007: 116-117).

46 For the Roman House (P) see Kavvadias 1900b: 162; Roux 1961: 277; Pharaklas 1971: 26; Tomlinson 1983: 51, 53; modern on-site map # 46. The Harvard Visual Library has an good collection of color photographs of the remains.

114

Few details have been published about the house. Kavvadias (1900b: 162) describes it as cheaply built using stone blocks from a previous building together with ceramic tiles and mortar and Roux (1961: 277) notes the presence of unspecified spolia. The house, itself, survives in relatively good condition compared to the other buildings in the Asclepieum. Examination of the wall fabric (Figure 3-7) reveals both semi-coursed and uncoursed rubble masonry combined with cut ashlar blocks from a previous (probably Hellenistic) structure. A small amount of brickwork is evident in the house at the corners of the main courtyard. Some doorposts are orthostats, others are rubble masonry and single, thin string courses of tile or brick fragments are visible in some walls. Spoila include orthostats, ashlar blocks, and column bases, drums and capitals, all of which are apparently Hellenistic in origin and appear in slightly greater abundance than in

Building K, Building Φ, or the Skana (but not nearly so abundant as in fabric group III). Based on these characteristics the building fabric of the Roman house is very close to that of fabric group one (table 3-2) with the main discrepancies being the presence of uncoursed rubble masonry along with the semi-coursed and the slightly larger amount of spolia.

As a member of fabric group I the Roman House should be assigned to the construction program of Antoninus between AD 152 and 163. This dating is at odds with the conventional view of the building as late Roman, which in any event was never well-explained.47 On the other hand, it is consistent with the modern on-site map which dates the house simply to between the first century BC and the third century AD. In addition, Dunbabin (1999: 308) assigns this kind of house, designed around one or more courtyards with rooms opening off them, as the typical wealthy town house of the Mediterranean world from the second century AD onwards while

47 Tomlinson (1983: 51, 53) classifies the house as late Roman without explanation, and Roux (1961: 277) considers it to belong to the same epoch as the late Roman stoa and modifications to the northeast baths based on construction technique, but he does not elaborate.

115

Ellis (1988: 565) argues that peristyle houses such as this became uncommon after AD 550.

Therefore between them, Dunbabin and Ellis bracket the date of this kind of house in the eastern provinces between AD 100 and 550, which is compatible with the mid-second century AD date of fabric group I.

Stoa with Hypocaust. Near the southwest corner of the Temple of Artemis lies the eastern wall of a stoa which extends to the southwest along the same axis as the temple (Figure 1-7: 51;

Figure 3-1: area B/C 4/5).48 A small room in the southeast corner contains the remnants of a hypocaust system whose former extent cannot now be judged based on the limited remains. A heated room or rooms as part of a stoa is a unique design among the buildings of the

Asclepieum. OEΣME (2000: 19) characterizes the fabric of the structure as similar to the late

Roman Perimetric Stoa to which it was attached and considers it to have been built at the same time. The modern site map, however, distinguishes two phases of the Stoa with Hypocaust: (1) the stoa proper including the hypocaust room which is dated between the first century BC and the third century AD and (2) the two row of rooms on each side of the stoa which connect it to the fourth century AD perimetric stoa. The site map is silent on the evidence for this division and a survey of the visible portions of the walls today is inconclusive on this point. Classification of the stoa’s fabric is difficult; the stoa walls are nowhere more than a few stones high. However, in the room with the hypocaust where the walls are the highest (Figure 3-8) the section of the wall above floor seems to show coursed or perhaps semi-coursed rubble masonry with contiguous brick work forming the foundation of the corners. In addition, this small section of the wall shows the remnant of a thin string course of brick or ceramic fragments. The stoa remains also contain a few orthostats from the Banqueting Hall but the overall state of the remains is so poor

48 This stoa is first documented in OEΣME 2000: 19, 25, 27, but only briefly. The only other source and the only drawing is the modern site map (on which it is building number 10).

116

that their placement and use remains ambiguous.49 Nevertheless, if this small sample of the fabric is representative of the stoa as a whole then it is very similar to fabric group I (table 3-2) though with slightly more extensive brick work where the hypocaust is concerned (though not nearly so much as fabric group II).

The section of wall from which the fabric was determined is part of phase one of the Stoa with Hypocaust. This phase should therefore be included in fabric group I and dated accordingly

(AD 152-163). Phase two of the stoa joined it with the later Perimetric Stoa/Wall (Figure 3-1: area B/C 4/5) and should be dated as contemporaneous with that larger structure (fabric group

III). There was also a third phase for the stoa in which the hypocausts were purposely blocked with stones and mortar, however this phase is not readily datable.

Roman Palaestra. The Roman Palaestra (Figure 1-7: 64) is located north of the Stadium and appears to be a complex of several Roman buildings built in addition to and over earlier

Hellenistic ones. Unfortunately, the excavation of this area was never published in any detail nor has it been re-excavated or described in any detail.50 Today it is largely overgrown and difficult to study. Nevertheless, some of its walls are clearly visible and these bear strong affinity to fabric group I (Figure 3-9). They are composed of semi-coursed rubble masonry with at least two string courses of ceramic or brick fragments and they incorporate orthostats as doorposts (table 3-2).

No brickwork or spolia are visible (unless the orthostats are Hellenistic) nor have accounts of either been published in connection with the palaestra. Therefore, the sections of the Roman

Palaestra that can be observed today strongly commend its inclusion in fabric group I.

49 OEΣME 2000: 19, 25, 27.

50 For the Roman Palaestra see Kavvadias 1900a: 17-19; 1926: 139-140; Patrucco 1976: 102; Tomlinson 1983: 69; Riethmüller 2005: 293; modern site map #21

117

Northern retaining wall of the tholos terrace. Recently re-excavated and documented in

OEΣME 2000: 18, 20, the wall is readily accessible to the modern visitor (Figure 1-7: 44a).51

The classification of the retaining wall’s fabric is somewhat confused because of the multiple repair episodes layered onto the original classical or Hellenistic wall(s) but the overall view

(Figure 3-10) is consistent with fabric group I: semi-coursed rubble work with string courses

(two) and the inclusion of some earlier Hellenistic work (table 3-2). While no brickwork or orthostats are visible and there are no doorways to compare, the general fabric is so similar to fabric group I that it should be associated with that group and included in the renovations of

Antoninus.

In the final tally, fabric group I includes eight structures: Building K, Building Φ, the

Skana on the Kynortion, the Roman House, the Stoa with Hypocaust, the Roman Palaestra, and the Roman repairs to the northern retaining wall of the tholos terrace. Three members, Building

K, Building Φ, and the Skana, form the core of this group because of their strong mutual affinity not just in fabric but in layout and in their use of the stamped roof tiles of Antoninus. The ability

(because of the roof tiles) to positively assign the core buildings to Sextus Julius Maior

Antoninus Pythodorus combined with the fact that all available evidence concerning the other structures is consistent with this attribution supports the argument that those buildings which share the fabric of group I also share a similar construction date: between AD 152-163.

Fabric Group II

Four buildings in the Asclepieum form the second fabric group in which the previously described Roman rubble masonry is augmented with extensive brick work in a technique called

51 For the northern retaining wall of the tholos terrace see OEΣME 1987: 8; OEΣME 2000: 18, 20; and Lambrinoudakis 2002: 224..

118

‘opus mixtum’.52 These buildings are the Odeum (Figure 1-7: 55), the Northeast Baths (Figure 1-

7: 30), and the two buildings which form the Northwest Complex (Figure 1-7: 24 & 25). All four buildings exhibit walls of semi-coursed, unworked stones joined with cement mortar interspersed with horizontal brick courses between three and six bricks wide (Figure 3-11; 3-12; 3-13, 3-14).

Door posts and wall ends are composed of large, worked stone blocks on the bottom half and dense brick work on the upper half, especially in the bath buildings. The Odeum sometimes adheres to this door-post form but also uses rubble work for the bottom half.

Some differences in fabric are visible among these buildings. The Northeast Baths have some internal walls which are composed entirely of brick with no rubble masonry. Conversely, the southern vestibule of the Odeum is built entirely of re-used orthostats and poros blocks from the surrounding Banqueting Hall with no brick work; this, however, is thought to be a later addition.53 Indeed, the use of spolia within this second fabric group is confined mainly to the

Odeum which incorporates a variety of parts from the Banqueting Hall, including the western, northern and eastern colonnades of the courtyard in which it was built, orthostats from the internal and external walls, poros slabs from the stylobate and poros wall blocks.54 The

Northwestern Bath Complex incorporates a fourth or third century BC inscription as part of the stylobate but no other second-use material is recorded.55 The Northeast Baths make no discernible use of earlier material.56 The use of spolia in the Odeum as opposed to its relative

52 Ginouvès 1992: 100.

53 Aslanidis 2003, 305.

54 Kavvadias 1900b: 150-151; OEΣME 1988: 21, 32, 44; Aslanidis 2003: 303n10.

55 IG IV2, 1, 204.

56 Although Kavvadias (1922-23: 24) says the Northeast Baths re-use portions of the foundation of an earlier stoa upon which it was partially built, I believe this is due to confusion over the later incorporation of the baths into the late Roman Perimeter Stoa/Wall.

119

absence from the two baths is explained by a difference in the availability of resources - the

Odeum, built in a dilapidated building, used the earlier material at hand while the Northeast

Baths and Northwest Complex, without any ruined buildings nearby, did not. Overall, none of these variations is sufficient to detract from the general fabric similarity of these structures.

With the second fabric group defined, the next step is to assess its date and determine its place in Asclepieum’s architectural sequence. Since the Odeum, Northeast Baths, and two buildings of the Northwestern Bath Complex have never been considered a group there has been little effort to compare their dating. A re-examination of the chronological evidence, however, will show that there is a great deal of compatibility between the four.

The Odeum shows three phases of construction.57 The majority of its structure belongs to the first phase, including the stage, cavea, and cryptoporticus. The second phase, identified by the non-integration of the vertical wall joints at all points of contact with the original phase, consists in the construction of a dedicated postscaenum and the addition of external stairs on the north and south side which lead directly to the cavea.58 The third phase, identified by a different construction method (orthostats supporting rubble masonry), adds a vestibule of unknown purpose to the south side of the orchestra/stage area.59

Kavvadias (1900b: 150 and n1) found the building difficult to date but nevertheless assigned the original construction to the renovations of Antoninus in the second century AD, notwithstanding the omission of the building in Pausanias’ account.60 More recent findings,

57 Alandis 2003: 309.

58 OEΣME 1988: 22; Aslanidis 2003: 309.

59 Aslanidis 2003: 309.

60 Kavvadias (1900b: 150n1) considers the wall fabric unremarkable (though his analysis is cursory) but then assigns it to Antoninus’ program without explanation. This is typical of the way Roman structures in the Asclepieum are dated to the second century AD by default. On the omission of the building: Pausanias sometimes omits even

120

however, shift the date of the first phase of the Odeum to the end of the second century or beginning of the third.61 First, renewed excavations in the 1980’s found pottery inside and outside the Odeum, in the stratum associated with its construction, that dates to the end of the second/ beginning of the third century AD.62 Second, a re-evaluation of the orchestra mosaic dates the style of this work to turn of the third century AD. 63 Third, the latest assessment of the cavea considers it a third century AD design.64 Finally, Wagman (1995: 33-34) makes a compelling argument that the Epidaurian hymn inscriptions (IG IV2 1, 129-135; SEG 30, 390), which survive as fragments from a single whole, were inscribed on a wall member of the Odeum while still in place. Based on the letter style he assigns the inscription to the second or third centuries AD.65 While it could be the case that either the mosaic or the hymns, or both, are an addition of one of the later phases, it is unlikely that the cavea is.66 Thus the original phase of the

Odeum probably dates to the late second or early third centuries. The nature of the second phase improvements suggests that they took place after a noticeable interval, since they point to the correction of design elements which would have shown their inadequacy through repeated use: namely the lack of a backstage and the inefficient method of access for the audience. The third phase is completely undated.

important buildings at sites; this is particularly true of Roman buildings. Aslanidis (2003: 309) counters that since Pausanias was particularly interested in Antoninus’ works he would have mentioned the Odeum if it were one of them.

61 See Meinel (1980: 229), OEΣME (1988:22), and Aslanidis (2003: 310).

62 OEΣME 1988: 22, 44.

63 Meinel 1980: 229.

64 OEΣME 1988: 22.

65 Wagman 1992: 280 – 283; 1995: 20; 1999: 875; 2000: 83.

66 OEΣME 1988: 22.

121

Considering the concurrence of the evidence, a date for the original phase of the Odeum around the turn of the third century seems secure. The chronology of the other two buildings in this fabric group, however, is more difficult to establish. The construction date of the Northwest

Complex can be narrowed using inscriptions discovered in situ but that of the Northeast Baths can only be estimated.

For the Northeast Baths, the only terminus post quem is the Hellenistic Stoa of Kotys, which it abuts without any attempt to integrate the material of the two structures. However, the construction of the Northeast Baths is quite obviously Roman. Later additions to these baths, in the form of a latrine in the northwest corner, additional bathing rooms in the southwest corner, and the blockage of multiple interior doorways may date to the late fourth or fifth century AD.67

More specific dates have been proposed. In his excavation report, Kavvadias (1900b: 159) dated the Northeast Baths to the late Roman period, though without supplying a rationale for the dating or explaining the exact meaning of “late Roman”. Ginouvès (1955: 141) dates the original stage to the second century AD based on his association of opus mixtum with this period.68

Tomlinson (1983: 53) similarly considers the wall fabric (mortared stone with brick string courses) as conclusive evidence for second century date. OEΣME (1999: 53) dates the structure to the second half of the second century AD based on its tentative identification as the “Akoai” mentioned in IG IV2 1, 126.

Since Kavvadias’ dating cannot be analyzed for the reasons stated above, and since the inscription used by OEΣME can be assigned to any date after AD 117, the only productive approach is that taken by Ginouvès and Tomlinson: the analysis of the building’s fabric.

67 Dating of modifications – Ginouvès 1955: 141. See also for latrine – OEΣME 1999: 53; additional bathing – Tomlinson 1983: 53; interior blockages – Tomlinson 1983: 53,

68 opus mixtum, however, can be used to describe variety of fabrics over larger time frame.

122

Unfortunately, both Ginouvès and Tomlinson compare the mixed rubble and brickwork of the

Northeast Baths only with evidence from other sites, overlooking the possibility of local parallels. Moreover, their description of the fabric as “opus mixtum” (Ginouvès 1955: 146) and

“stone with brick string courses” (Tomlinson 1983: 53) does not fully account for the variety which mixed stone-and-brick work can take. This is problematic since, as argued above, a detailed inspection reveals there are very close analogues for the fabric of the northeast baths at

Epidaurus itself – in the Odeum and Northwest Complex. The similarities in the fabric of these buildings are so close that the Northeast Baths and the Odeum are very likely to share a similar construction date in the late second or early third centuries.

Like the Northeast Baths, the Northwest Complex, consisting of two closely associated buildings (Figure 1-7: 24 & 25), provides little evidence to fix its date of construction. Kavvadias

(1920: 7-8, 1924: 116) was convinced that both structures were built at the same time as part of one planned complex. Unfortunately, the record of their excavation is meager and the drawings of their layouts were never published.69 The only datable find is a twice-inscribed statue base found in situ on the stylobate of the northeastern building (Figure 1-7: 24). The first inscription,

IG IV2 1, 612 A, makes clear that the base was originally the support for a statue of the emperor

Caracalla.70 Later, the base was turned upside down and, as the new inscription, IG IV2, 612 B, shows, it was reused for a statue of Severus Alexander. Since the base was found in situ with the dedication to Severus Alexander face-up, the building must have been completed during or before this emperor’s reign, AD 222-235. If the base was moved to building 24 from somewhere else, then this is the earliest terminus ante quem for the building. If, however, the base was not

69 See Kavvadias 1921:39.

70 Kavvadias (1920: 7-8) originally thought the inscription referred to M. Aurelius and therefore associated the building with the improvements of the senator Antoninus recorded in Pausanias.

123

moved, as it seems more likely in terms of economy, then the earlier (now upside down) dedication to Caracalla would have originally stood in the base’s current location and the new terminus ante quem would be in or before the years 211-217.

Indeed, the reign of Caracalla supplies an attractive origin for the construction of fabric group II. The dating of the Odeum and the Northeast Baths between the end the second and beginning of the third centuries AD is consistent with his term as emperor. Moreover, Caracalla spent his entire reign after AD 213 in the provinces, especially the eastern ones. There he required a large number of expensive building projects at the expense of senators.71 He also incubated at the Asclepieum in Pergamum and struck coins with the images of himself and

Asclepius.72 Finally, there are three inscribed statue bases from the Asclepieum which honor

Caracalla: IG IV2 1, 610, IG IV2 1, 611, and IG IV2 1, 612A, which, as mentioned, above was found in the Northwest Complex. Only Hadrian and Claudius (with nine and four inscriptions respectively) have a larger number of inscriptions concerning them surviving in the

Asclepieum.73 Therefore, the buildings of fabric group II, the Odeum, the two buildings of the

Northwest Complex, and the Northeast Baths, were most likely projects of the reign of Caracalla,

AD 211 to 217.

Fabric group III

The amount of building material from Hellenistic and Classical structures reused in the fabric of Roman buildings at Epidaurus varies considerably. In some buildings (the Northwest

Complex, original phase of the Northeast Baths) almost no reused material has been found, while

71 Cass. Dio 78.9.4; Downey 1939: 370.

72 Hdn. 4.8.3.

73 But no building activity in the Epidaurian Asclepieum can be definitely attributed to Claudius or Hadrian so Caracalla’s epigraphic abundance should not be stressed too far. The vicissitudes of survival for inscriptions also diminish the weight of this statistic.

124

in others (Building Φ, the Odeum) it forms an important, though never extensive, part of the overall fabric. But one structure in the Asclepieum makes extensive use of earlier material in second-use: the Perimetric Stoa/Wall. This fabric is unusual enough that it can be considered to be in its own category.

This stoa with its rear peribolos wall forms a closed, L-shaped polygon surrounding the temples of Asclepius and Artemis with their altars, Building E with its altar, and the Tholos

(Figure 1-7: 36; 3-15). On all sides the stoa faces inward and is marked by a uniform width, column type, and column spacing. The rear wall effectively blocks all access to the area contained by the stoa except where entrances allow. In the south, phase II of the Stoa with

Hypocaust (Figure 3-1: area B/C 4/5) appears to be an integral part of the southern stoa wing.

On its southern, eastern, northern and northwestern sides, the Perimetric Stoa/Wall is built primarily of elements from the Katagogion.74 Conversely, the two parts of the western side, the lower cryptoporticus/retaining wall for the Tholos terrace and the upper stoa, make almost no use of the Katagogion.75 Instead, the cryptoporticus/retaining wall uses poros blocks from the earlier Hellenistic and Roman retaining walls, augmented by orthostats from the Banqueting Hall and a set of frieze blocks from the Katagogion (the only use of the Katagogion in the western wing), while the stoa above it employed, for the most part, various elements from the Banqueting

Hall as well as dedication bases, disassembled exedrae, and two trapezoidal blocks from

Building Z.76

74OEΣME 2000: 18-19 - consisting of the stylobate, entablature, euthynteria and the 144 columns and capitals of the latter building. In addition, the eastern stoa/wall uses elements from hypaethral Shrine Y (OEΣME 2000: 33) and the southern stoa incorporates the foundations of Building Z and hypaethral Shrine Y (OEΣME 2000: 18).

75OEΣME 2000: 18.

76For the retaining wall see OEΣME 2000: 18, 20 and Figure 12 (which documents the Katagogion frieze blocks). For the stoa see OEΣME 2000: 18, 19n27, 20. Parts from the Banqueting Hall include orthostats from throughout the building and column drums from the southern side of the courtyard (the side un-used by the Odeum).

125

The stoa and wall seem to have been built together as part of the same program, but not all wings of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall were built at the same time.77 It appears that its western wing was built separately from the other wings.78 In the southwest corner, where the western wing meets the southern wing, the material fabric of the two sides is not interwoven.79 Also, the difference in building material (re-used Banqueting Hall parts for the west but re-used

Katagogion parts for the other sides) supports the idea that the western wing was not built as part of the same project as the other wings. OEΣME (2000: 29) argues that the western section was built first, based on the supposition that the Banqueting Hall was dismantled to build both the western stoa and the Odeum (original phase) at the same time (ca. AD 200), in contrast to the rest of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall which OEΣME (2000:30) dates to AD 361-363 (see p. 129 below). Lambrinoudakis (2002: 224), however, concludes that the west wing was constructed last, as part of the final terracing of the ground around the Tholos, which included the renovation and westward extension of the north retaining wall of the Tholos terrace (Figure 1-7: 44a).80

Neither argument marshals much evidence. Lambrinoudakis’ reliance on the northern retaining wall to date the western one is unsustainable. As noted earlier, the northern retaining wall is most similar in fabric to the structures of the first fabric group (the Skana, Building K and

Building Φ), which would date it to the mid-second century AD – a chronology which undermines Lambrinoudakis’ sequence. More importantly, the fabric of the northern retaining

77 OEΣME 2000: 29.

78 OEΣME 2000: 29.

79OEΣME 2000: 18. In the northwest corner, the western wing attaches to the much older abaton.

80A cryptoporticus/retaining wall supports the western stoa and appears contemporaneous with it since they both re- use construction material from the same buildings. This wall was the third such wall maintaining the Tholos terrace, replacing an early Roman wall which it turn replaced a classical/Hellenistic one. The erosion of the poros stone of the previous wall may have necessitated this third and final repair, though it seems that the level of the Tholos terrace was raised as well. See OEΣME 2000: 18, 20 and Lambrinoudakis 2002: 224.

126

wall is entirely dissimilar to the fabric of the western Perimetric Stoa/Wall, undermining the argument for a contemporaneous building date altogether. Indeed, the most important fact bearing on the chronology of the western section of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall is that its fabric of re-used materials is more similar to the other sections of the Stoa/Wall than to any other structure in the Asclepieum. This fact blunts OEΣME ’s dating of the western section to the same period as the construction of the Odeum since, notwithstanding the use of Banqueting Hall parts in both, the construction methods and therefore fabric of both buildings is in no way similar.81 Thus, while the western side of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall was clearly built at a different time than the other sides, the affinity of fabric suggests that its construction was not chronologically distant from the other sections or at least closer to them than to any other structures in the Asclepieum.

The pattern of economy and re-use of earlier material found in the fabric of the structure is also evident on the topographic level: the Stoa/Wall incorporates other buildings to complete its circuit, taking advantage of resources already at hand. Where the Perimetric Stoa/Wall encounters the Northeast Haths, the ‘Holy’ and Doric fountains, the ‘hieron’ loutron, and

Building K, the stoa portion of the Stoa/Wall attaches to the front of the building forming a porch.82 Where the Stoa/Wall encounters another stoa, such as the Abaton, the Stoa of Kotys, and the Hellenistic peribolos in the northwest, it matches up with and incorporates the pre- existing stoa.83

This superposition of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall on the other structures it encounters, together with its re-use of material from earlier buildings, places it late in the sequence of

81 In addition, the western section uses the column drums from the southern side of the Banqueting Hall courtyard – the one side which the Odeum did not incorporate (OEΣME 2000:29). This suggests that the western Stoa/Wall was built after the Odeum.

82OEΣME 2000: 19.

83OEΣME 2000: 19.

127

constructions in the sanctuary. Estimates of the date have varied considerably. Kavvadias

(1900b: 171) thought it to be a product of the fourth century AD, Papadimitriou (1948: 93) of the fifth century AD and Roux (1961: 87, 292) considered it Byzantine. Others have simply assigned it to the late Roman period.84 The most firm terminus post quem is the visit of Pausanias, attributed to ca. AD 165.85 Not only does Pausanias not mention the Perimetric Stoa/Wall, but he states that the temenos of the sanctuary is marked by boundary stones, not a wall. Likewise, events of the late fourth century AD provide a probable latter limit on the Asclepieum’s life.86

Within these dates, other considerations must be used to narrow the time frame.

The Perimetric Stoa/Wall is superimposed upon Building Φ in the southeast, Building K and the Northeast Baths in the northwest.87 Buildings Φ and K date to the building program of

Antoninus, AD 152-163, (fabric group I) and the Northeast Baths date to the rule of Caracalla,

AD 211-217, (fabric group II). Since all evidence points to the northern, eastern, and southern sections having been built at the same time, their terminus post quem can be pushed to the date of Caracalla’s reign. The western section, as argued above, is roughly contemporaneous with the other sections.

Limited ceramic evidence has also been discovered which bears on the dating. Pottery sherds, twelve in number, found in the foundation of the eastern stoa date to sometime between the second half of the third century AD and the early fourth.88 If this dating is correct, then the

84 Tomlinson 1983: 38, 68, 69; OEΣME (1999: 59) dates it no later than the fourth century.

85Bowie 2001: 21.

86 Such as the earthquakes in the AD 360’s, the Theodosian decrees from AD 389-392 outlawing pagan worship, and the Visigoth invasion of AD 395. See p. 20 above.

87 OEΣME 2000: 29.

88 OEΣME 2000: 30 and Appendix A, 101-108.

128

Stoa/Wall must have been built after they were deposited, shifting the terminus post quem for the structure to between the later part of the third century and the mid-fourth century AD.

OEΣME (2000: 30-31) finds the mid-fourth century an attractive date for the construction of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall. In nearby Nauplia and Corinth earthquakes caused extensive damage in the 360’s.89 If the destruction they caused in those cities is indicative of their extent, then one or both may have affected Epidaurus. The resulting damage (or further damage) to the

Katagogion, Banqueting Hall, and other brick-on-plinth buildings in the Asclepieum may have freed material for the construction of the Stoa/Wall.90 Moreover, the reign of the emperor Julian falls within this period, AD 361- 363. In a century dominated by Christian emperors, Julian alone took an interest in reviving ancient cults (and was the last to do so). These factors have led

OEΣME (2000: 30-31) to propose that Julian was the impetus for the construction of the

Perimetric Stoa/Wall.

The reign of Julian was very short, however, (less than three years) and it seems unlikely that such a large project would have been completed in that time and more unlikely that it would have continued after him given the Christian opposition to his pagan revival. Moreover, the date of the Nauplia and Corinth earthquakes is much debated and may well have occurred after

Julian’s reign in AD 363 or 365.91 The greatest objection to the Julian dating of the Perimetric

Stoa/Wall is that it compresses the latter chronological sequence of the Roman sanctuary to a nearly unbearable brevity. As will be discussed more fully below, sometime after the construction of the stoa, the propylon of the Banqueting Hall falls into disuse and is plundered to

89OEΣME (2000: 30) dates these earthquakes to AD 361 and 365.

90 The earthquakes, however, would not explain the re-use of non-brick-on-plinth material such as exedra and bases (OEΣME 2000: 30).

91 Guidoboni 1994: 261 (#150).

129

construct internal walls in the northern long room of the Banqueting Hall (Figure 3-20 room J).

Following this the entire northern side of the Banqueting Hall ceases to be frequented at some point during or shortly after the reign of Constantine II (AD 337-340) whose coins are the last found there. Considering that nearly continuous evidence of occupation throughout the Roman period is found in the northern Banqueting Hall, the cessation of all further trace of use after

Constantine II creates a limited time horizon for all these evolutions to occur. It is possible that the sequence outlined above could just be beginning in AD 361-363 but it seems improbable.

A better candidate for the period of the Perimetric Stoa’s construction is the reign of the emperor Diocletian, AD 284-305. He brought to an end the crisis of the third century, a period of internal war and rapid succession of emperors, providing the first stable environment for large- scale construction in fifty years.92 Lactantius, a Christian apologist and contemporary of the emperor, characterized Diocletian as having “a certain endless passion for building” the expense of which was ruinous to the provinces.93 At Epidaurus, Diocletian’s name and titulature appears in a fragmentary, unpublished inscription.94 Moreover, since the period of his rule was over a

92 Among the more outstanding examples of the architectural activity of his reign are the Baths of Diocletion in Rome, the emperor’s palace at Split, Croatia, and the re-shaping of Nicomedia as an imperial administrative center.

93 Lactantius De Mortibus Persecutorum 7.8-12: “Huc accedebat infinita quaedam cupiditas aedificandi, non minor provinciarum exactio in exhibendis operariis et artificibus et plaustris, omnia quaecumque sint fabricandis operibus necessaria. Hic basilicae, hic circus, hic moneta, hic armorum fabrica, hic uxori domus, hic filiae. Repente magna pars civitatis exciditur. Migrabant omnes cum coniugibus ac liberis quasi urbe ab hostibus capta. Et cum perfecta haec fuerant cum interitu provinciarum, "non recte facta sunt", aiebat, "alio modo fiant." Rursus dirui ac mutari necesse erat iterum fortasse casura. Ita semper dementabat Nicomediam studens urbi Romae coaequare.”

“To this there were added a certain endless passion for building, and on that account, endless exactions from the provinces for furnishing wages to labourers and artificers, and supplying carriages and whatever else was requisite to the works which he projected. Here public halls, there a circus, here a mint, and there a workhouse for making implements of war; in one place a habitation for his empress, and in another for his daughter. Presently great part of the city was quitted, and all men removed with their wives and children, as from a town taken by enemies; and when those buildings were completed, to the destruction of whole provinces, he said, "They are not right, let them be done on another plan." Then they were to be pulled down, or altered, to undergo perhaps a future demolition. By such folly was he continually endeavouring to equal Nicomedia with the city Rome in magnificence.” Translation: Roberts and Donaldson 1886.

94 Wagman, forthcoming.

130

decade long, there was sufficient time to complete large projects such as the Perimetric

Stoa/Wall. Finally, the previously mentioned pottery fragments found under the eastern section of the Stoa/Wall date between the second half of the third century AD and the early fourth.95

The Three Fabric Groups

As the foregoing discussion has shown, when organized by material fabric three coherent groups of Roman buildings emerge: fabric group I (Buildings K and Φ, the Skana on the

Kynortion, the Roman House, the Stoa with Hypocaust phase I, the Roman Palaestra, the final stage of the northern retaining wall of the Tholos terrace) which corresponds to the building activity of Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus Pythodorus in AD 152-163; fabric group II (the

Odeum phases I and II, the Northeast Baths, the two buildings of the Northwest Complex) which aligns closely with the reign of Caracalla (AD 211-217); and fabric group III (all sections of the

Perimetric Stoa/Wall, the western retaining wall of the Tholos terrace, phase two of the Stoa with

Hypocaust) which dates to the late third or early fourth centuries AD, most probably the reign of

Diocletian (AD 284-305). The coherence of these groups is reinforced by non-fabric characteristics such as shared layout and roof tiles for the core buildings of fabric group I, the correspondence in the independent dating of the component buildings in fabric group II, and the design unity of fabric group III. The concurrence of all these factors provides some confidence that Roman buildings in the Epidaurian Asclepieum which share a similar fabric are generally contemporaneous. Not all Roman structures, however, can be classified into one of these fabric groups either because their remains are not sufficiently observable, or because their fabric is unique, or because they are known only from literary sources. The following sections will examine these buildings and assess their place in the chronology of the sanctuary.

95 OEΣME 2000: 30 and Appendix A: 101-108.

131

Buildings of Similar Mosaic Work

Two of the Asclepieum’s buildings contain floor mosaics which are very similar in style.

These are the Basilica (Figure 1-7: 20; Figure 3-16) and the House with Mosaics (Figure 1-7, 23;

Figure 3-17).96 Based on the similarities in the mosaic works, Kavvadias (1918b: 191) concluded that both buildings were constructed at the same time. This judgment has remained unexplored in subsequent scholarship although its re-examination holds clues to the chronology of both buildings. Moreover, the dating of the buildings, especially the Basilica, has followed two divergent tracks: one which interprets them as Roman imperial and one which sees them as early

Christian. A reassessment and comparison of the evidence for each interpretation is long overdue and will provide a more informed basis for their chronology.

The mosaics of both buildings are made of marble tesserae in five colors, white, black, red, yellow and brown.97 White, black and red are a common combination but the addition of yellow and brown is unusual.98 All of the mosaics are ‘carpet pattern’, that is they cover an entire room with a unified design.99 The mosaics from both structures also share a number of motifs (Figure

3-18 & 19).100 The smaller of the two house mosaics, Figure 3-18 A, has an outer border with an ivy scroll which is identical to that of the outer border of one of the Basilica mosaics, Figure 3-

18 C. The next (inner) register of the same house mosaic is composed of a repeating pattern of

96 For the Basilica see Kavvadias 1918b: 172-195; 1919: 19; 1920: 7; Sotiriou 1929: 198-201; Robert 1935: 41; Roux 1961: 223, 229; Krautheimer 1965: 91-92, 211; Sodini 1970: 705; Pharaklas 1971: 31; Tomlinson 1983: 47; OEΣME 2000: 31; Riethmüller 2005: 281n7. Modern information map at site #36. For the House with Mosaics see Kavvadias 1916: 40; 1918b: 191; Pharaklas 1971: 31; Tomlinson 1983: 47; Riethmüller 2005: 281n7. Modern information map at site (shown but not labeled).

97 Kavvadias 1918b: 191 & figs. 19-35.

98 Kavvadias 1918b: 191.

99 Dunbabin 1999: 342.

100 My evaluation of these mosaics is admittedly inexpert but to my knowledge no specialist study of them has been attempted.

132

alternating ellipses, one oriented along the line of the register and two perpendicular to it, the so- called ‘bead-and-reel’ pattern.101 This motif is the same found in the outermost border of the

Basilica mosaic shown in Figure 3-18 B. Both house mosaics (Figure 3-18 A; 19 A) have a wave band which is also found in one of the mosaics from the Basilica (Figure 3-18 C). An alternating triangle pattern appears in the small house mosaic (Figure 3-18 A) as well as in two Basilica mosaics (Figure 3-18 B & C) as does a three-strand braid or ‘guilloche’. Finally, the outer register of the large house mosaic (Figure 3-19 A) is very similar to that of the Basilica mosaics shown in Figure 3-19 B. This artistic similarity between the two groups of mosaics suggests that they, and by extension the Basilica and the House with Mosaics, date to the same period.

Kavvadias (1918b: 191) considered the two structures to have been built at the same time based on his comparison of both their mosaics and the buildings’ wall fabrics. Unfortunately, the current state of both buildings precludes confirmation of Kavvadias’ assessment of their fabrics.102 Subsequent scholarship has not developed Kavvadias’ proposed relationship between these two buildings; on the contrary, it seems to have largely ignored it. Only Pharaklas (1971:

31) and Riethmüller (2005: 281n7) allow that both buildings may be contemporaneous. The rationale for abandoning the connection between these two buildings is not clear and is complicated by the fact that after Kavvadias’ excavation no further study of the House with

Mosaics occurred; rather, it has been completely neglected by all but a few sources.103 Yet, considering the correspondence of the mosaic designs, the unusual set of colors common to both

101 Dunbabin 1999: 340.

102 Kavvadias’ written descriptions of the fabrics are also inconclusive. The House with Mosaics is described as made of irregular stones with mortar plus stones from older monuments (Kavvadias 1918b: 191, “…γενομένην δι ἀσβέστου καὶ ἐκ μικρῶν ἀκανονίστων λίθων, παρεμβαλλομένων ἐνιαχοῦ καὶ λίθων ἐξ ἀρχαίων μνημείων….”) while the Basilica is described as common stones and stones of ancient monuments (Kavvadias 1918b: 182, “ὁι τοῖχοι…συγκείμενοι ἐκ κοινῶν λίθων καὶ ἐκ λίθων (ἐν μεγάλῃ ἀφθονίᾳ) ἐξ ἀρχαίων μνημείων.”) These observations are too vague to make a definitive comparison of their fabrics.

103 Discussed below.

133

sets and Kavvadias’ opinion of the general agreement of building fabric there is no good reason to doubt his conclusion that they are contemporaneous.

Fitting the two buildings into the chronology of the sanctuary is problematic since most scholarship after Kavvadias has decoupled them, seemingly inadvertently. Two separate interpretations of the buildings and their dates have emerged, one led by Kavvadias which sees the Basilica and the House with Mosaics as late Roman, and another, followed by most later scholars, which characterizes the Basilica as early Christian and generally ignores the House with Mosaics.

Kavvadias’ original excavation of the Basilica complex identified three phases.104 The first was the initial construction of the Basilica and the adjacent courtyard which he interpreted as a

Roman basilica with agora. He elaborates (1918b: 175) that “it is known that colonnaded buildings, the sort called a Basilica, were normally built in the Agora of the cities, where they were used as centers of commerce and emporia, as lawcourts and as a convenient place in the

Agora for making speeches.”105 Thus, Kavvadias saw the original phase of the Asclepeium’s

Basilica as a standard Roman imperial basilica directed toward secular functions rather than

Christian religious building. This agrees with his date for this phase which he places, based on the construction methods, sometime between Antoninus’ building program and the late Roman era.106 The second phase consisted of the addition of two rooms on the northern side of the

Basilica, the larger of which had water piped underground to its center.107 The walls of phase II

104 Kavvadias 1918b: 175.

105 “Γνωστὸν δ’ εἶνε ὅτι στωϊκὰ οἰκοδομήματα, οἷα ἡ καλουμένη Βασιλική, ἐκτίζοντο συνήθως ἐν τῇ Ἀγορᾷ τῶν πόλεων, ἔνθα ἐχρησίμενον ὡς κέντρον συναλλαγῶν καὶ ἐμπορίου, ὡς δικαστήρια καὶ ὡς τόπος ἀνέσεως τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀγορᾷ ποιούντων τάς διατριβάς.”

106 Kavvadias 1918b: 182.

107 Kavvadias 1918b: 179, 182. The two rooms are labeled K and Θ by Kavvadias (1918b: 173, Figure 13).

134

do not interweave with the walls of the Basilica, but their construction methods are very similar to those of phase I leading Kavvadias (1918b: 179) to consider both phases nearly synchronous.

Phase III was the construction of the small church of St. John within the apse of the Basilica which Kavvadias (1918b: 183) declines to date. This dating schema for the Basilica was used by

Kavvadias (9181b: 191) to assign the House with Mosaics to the same period as phase I of the

Basilica, between the mid-second century AD and late Roman times, based on the correspondence of the fabric and mosaics of both buildings.

Robert (1935: 41) follows Kavvadias in believing that the Basilica was used initially as a market and court rather than a church but he dates it to the end of the fourth century AD. No other scholars have supported Kavvadias’ earlier dates. For the House with Mosaics, only the modern site map has stayed relatively close to Kavvadias’ dates, assigning it to the Roman period (1st cent. BC – 3rd cent. AD), while Tomlinson (1983: 47) and Pharaklas (1971: 31), the only others to offer a date, have described it as “late” and “fifth century” respectively.

Nevertheless, there is some evidence which could support Kavvadias’ dating. The first is an inscription discovered in the remains of the House with Mosaics, a dedication (IG IV2 1, 417) of

Diogenes the hierophant inscribed on a small altar base, dated exactly to AD 297.108

Unfortunately, Kavvadias (1918b: 191) does not record whether it was found in the material of the walls as spolia, installed in a room as on display, or simply laying in the structure. Therefore its chronology in relation to the house cannot be determined. The second piece of evidence is a statement by Kavvadias (1921: 40) that there are mosaics in the Northwest Complex (Figure 1-7:

25) that resemble those in the Basilica.109 Since it has been argued above (page 118) that the

108 Kavvadias 1918b: 191, 192.

109 “Tὸ ἕτερων τούτων (μωσαϊκῶν) ὁμοιάζει…κατά τε τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὸ σύτημα τῆς διακοσμήσεως πρὸς τὰ μωσαϊκὰ…ἐν τῷ Ἱερῷ Βασιλικοσχήμου περὶ τόν Ἅγιον Ἰωάννην οἰκοδομήματος.”

135

Northwest Complex belongs in fabric group II with its date in the late second/early third centuries AD, a correspondence between the mosaics of these two structures would support a similar date for the Basilica. However, the drawings of the mosaics of the Northwest Complex were never published and the mosaics themselves were covered with a protective layer of dirt at the end of the excavation with the result that this affinity cannot now be verified. Therefore,

Kavvadias’ case for a mid-second century AD to late Roman date for both the Basilica (phase I and II) and the House with Mosaics rests primarily on his assessment of the fabric of both buildings.

The interpretation of the Basilica as an originally Christian structure enjoys more widespread support. Sotiriou (1929: 201) was the first to propose this, dating the building to the end of the fourth century. Roux (1961: 223, 229) goes farther afield in labeling it ‘Byzantine’ though he mentions it only in passing. Krautheimer (1965: 91-92, 211) and Pharaklas (1971: 31) return to Sotiriou’s date and classify it as early Christian.110 Similiarly, Tomlinson (1983: 47), without hazarding a date, calls it as an early Christian church of the usual basilical type while

OEΣME (2000: 31) considers it a church of the fifth century.111 Finally, Riethmüller (2005:

281n7) describes it as early Christian. The majority of authers, in sum, consider the Basilica to be Christian in origin and point to an early fifth century date. Unfortunately, none argues their interpretation in any detail, but the characteristics they use as evidence, i.e., the mosaic style, the design of the Basilica complex, and the building fabric, can be examined further.112

110 Pharaklas 1917: sanctuary plan #30.

111 OEΣME (2000: 31) is also the only source to attempt to date the third phase, assigning it to the sixth century.

112 The two most fulsome arguments are that of Sotiriou (1929:201) “Ὡς πρὸς τὴν χρονολογίαν τοῦ μνημείου, τὸ ὅλον σχῆμα τῆς βασιλικῆς, τὰ σχέδια καὶ ἡ τεχνοτροπία τῶν μωσαϊκῶν δαπέδων καὶ τὰ ὀλίγα διασωθέντα γλυπτὰ ὀδηγοῦσιν ἡμᾶς εἰς τὰ τέλη τοῦ 4οῦ αἰῶνος - As to the chronology of this monument, the whole plan of the basilica, the layout and the workmanship of the floor mosaics and the few recovered statues lead us to the end of the fourth

136

Sotiriou (1929: 201) claims that the mosaics in the Basilica date to the end of the fourth century and Krautheimer (1965: 91) puts their date at c. AD 400, but neither provides arguments or comparanda.113 Certainly, there is nothing in the content of the mosaics which is distinctly

Christian; rather, all the design motifs, the wave band, triangle band, bead and reel, etc., are common to mosaics in Greece as far back as the fourth century BC.114 Also, while it is generally agreed that Christian mosaics of the late fourth and early fifth centuries AD show a preference for geometric designs and ‘carpet patterns’ such as those found in the mosaics under discussion, these features are by no means unique to the Christian era.115 In general, dating mosaics by style has proven elusive for the Roman imperial period.116 Nevertheless, it is possible to narrow the chronological range of the Epidaurian mosaics. Polychromatic mosaics became established in

Greece in the mid-second century AD, providing a terminus post quem for the Basilica and

House with Mosaics. Similarly, human figures came to dominate Christian mosaics by the end of the fifth century AD, providing a terminus ante quem.117 Therefore, at the current state of research, the mosaics in the Basilica and the House with Mosaics are consistent with any date after c. AD 150 but before c. AD 499.

The design of the Basilica is discussed in some detail by Kavvadias (1918b: 174-191),

Sotiriou (1929: 198-201) and Krautheimer (1965: 91-92) but neither scholar uses it to draw

century AD,” and Krautheimer (1965: 91) “The style of the pavement mosaics in nave and narthex leaves little doubt regarding their date, about 400.”

113 There are no other independent attempts to date the Epidaurian mosaics.

114 The triangle and wave bands show up as early as the end of the fifth century BC in the Centaur Bath at Corinth (Dunbabin 1999: 6). For other motifs of the Classical period in Greece see Dunbabin 1999: 5-17.

115 Dunbabin 1999: 219.

116 Dunbabin 1999: 209.

117 Polychromatic mosaics, Dunbabin 1999: 211. Human figures in Christian mosaics, Dunbabin 1999: 219.

137

explicit conclusions about the Basilica’s date. Nevertheless, the building’s organization should be examined both for the sake of thoroughness and because it no doubt influenced previous datings of the building, even if implicitly. The Asclepieum’s Basilica (Figure 3-16) is, in fact, a complex of two structures, a basilica in the east and an open air courtyard in the west. From their earliest beginnings in the second century BC, basilicas were usually located adjacent to a forum to provide a place to do business, both legal and mercantile, in the event of inclement weather.118

This arrangement survived into the Christian era but the courtyard was termed an ‘atrium’ and was used as a forecourt for the church.119 Both Roman and Christian uses of this combination are similar enough that no definite determination can be made as to which category the basilica at

Epidaurus belongs. Likewise, the internal features of the Epidaurian Basilica are common to both

Roman and Christian designs: the entrance to the building proper, a transverse hall (Figure 3-16) called a ‘narthex’ in Christian architecture, is common to Roman basilicas as well;120 the far end of the Basilica has an apse which in Christian basilicas housed the ‘cathedra, or throne of the bishop, but in Roman times was where the magistrate sat to hear cases;121 finally, the Epidaurian

Basilica has a double row of supports on each side dividing the Basilica into five aisles but, again, this layout was common in both Roman and Christian basilicas.122 The only space in the

Basilica of the Asclepieum which seems specifically Christian is room K, in the second phase addition (Figure 3-16). Kavvadias (1918b: 79) noted that there was ducting under the floor of K

118 Ward-Perkins 1974: 20, 96; Vitruvius De arch. 5.1.4. The earliest known basilica was built by M. Porcius Cato in 184 BC. The oldest surviving basilicia is that of Pompeii (c. 120-100 BC).

119 Krautheimer 1965: 19.

120 Ward-Perkins (1974: 22) describes it as occurring early in Roman basilica design. See for example the basilica at Pompeii (120-100 BC).

121 See, for example, the Basilica Ulpia in the Forum of Trajan at Rome (dedicted AD 113) and that of Lepcis Magna (AD 216) both with double apses.

122 Krautheimer 1965: 91.

138

to bring water into the center of the room and Sotiriou (1929: 198) has interpreted the space as a baptistry, which seems likely.123 Yet, if the Basilica was built as a Christian church in phase one, why was the baptistry only added in phase two? Even if Kavvadias (1918b: 179) is correct that both phases are roughly contemporaneous, it seems odd to leave the baptistry as an add-on.

Therefore the question of the Basilica’s original purpose, whether a Roman civic building or a

Christian church, must remain in doubt.

Despite this ambiguity of function, there is still reason to prefer a late date for this building: the stylobate of the Basilica is composed of blocks removed from the stylobate of the

Perimetric Stoa/Wall.124 OEΣME (2000: 31) suggests that this material became available after the earthquakes of AD 365 or AD 400 destroyed the Perimetric Stoa/Wall. Thus the Basilica likely (but not conclusively) dates to the early fifth century.

Other Buildings Contemporary or Later Than the Perimetric Stoa/Wall

Besides the Basilica and House with Mosaics, some other Roman works which do not share the fabric of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall of the fourth century AD can nevertheless be assigned to the period of its construction or a little later. The relationship between these structures and the stoa is based mainly on superposition though in some instances fabric is a contributing indicator. These structures are (1) Shrine T, (2) modifications and additions to the

Stoa of Kotys and northern Stoa/Wall, and (3) modifications to room J in the Banqueting Hall.

123 Though not certain. The Skana on the Kynortion also has water supplied via piping to a niche, in this case in the entry courtyard (Lambrinoudakis 1993: 41-42).

124 The stylobate of the Perimetric Stoa, in turn, came from the Katagogion (Kraynak 1991: 2). Kavvadias 1918b: 83, Roux 1961: 223, and Sotiriou 1929: 198 mention material in second use in the structure though it is not always clear whether they are referring to the Basilica or the later church of St. John. In comparison, OEΣME (2000:31) seems to maintain a distinction between the two buildings but treats the evidence only in passing with the result that the matter is still confused.

139

Of Shrine T (Figure 1-5: 48; Figure 3-15, area D4) little remains beyond its crepidoma, although Kavvadias (1900b: 140) reported finding rubble stones with brick and mortar during the initial excavation.125 He dated the structure simply to a “later” period. Pharaklas (1971: 26) labels it as ‘probably’ Roman.126 The geology of the site, however, provides a relative date.

During the late Roman period, sediment transported from the surrounding mountain slopes gradually raised the level of the land on the eastern side of the Asclepieum. When Shrine T was constructed the new ground level was 0.4-0.7 m higher than that of nearby Hellenistic Shrine Y.

The ground level of the nearby eastern wing of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall is elevated by the same amount. Therefore the construction of Shrine T must be contemporaneous with or later than the eastern wing (OEΣME 2000: 17, 27). Based on the dating of Perimetric Stoa/Wall, Shrine T should be assigned to the reign of Diocletian, AD 284/5-305.

An area that seems to be distinctly later than the Perimetric Stoa/Wall is found along its northern side. The modifications here include the addition of what is possibly a small propylon with nearby rooms to the northern wing of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall and an intercolumnal wall added to the Doric (outer) colonnade of the Stoa of Kotys.127 Although the original organization of these structures remains unclear,128 a summary of the evidence will show that they almost certainly postdate the adjacent structures.

On the north side of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall (Figure 3-15 zone D1) are the remains of walls which may form a propylon and various adjacent small rooms though the layout is very

125 For Shrine T see Kavvadias 1900b: 139-140; Pharaklas 1971: 26; OEΣME 2000: 17, 27. Current map at site #48.

126 The current site map at the Asclepieum assigns it to the Christian era (5th-6th centuries AD), but no published arguments support this view.

127 For its interpretation as a propylon see OEΣME 2000: 19.

128 The re-excavation of this area occurred as part of the research into the late Roman Perimetric Stoa conducted between 1993 an 1997 under the auspices of the Working Group for the Preservation of the Monuments of Epidaurus (OEΣME ) and is documented in OEΣME 2000 (see especially pp. 19, 21, 30, 33).

140

confused. These walls incorporate elements from two buildings which the Perimetric Stoa/Wall did not use. The first are Ionic column bases from the Stoa of Kotys, suggesting that this building was no longer intact at the time. In contrast, the rest of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall uses no spolia from the Stoa of Kotys and the great pains taken to align both stoas during the construction of the perimetric stoa would imply that the Stoa of Kotys was still in use. The second unusual element found in the additions to the northern wing is a fragment from a Corinthian column which

OEΣME (2000: 21) assigns to the Temple of Artemis. No part of any of the Classical/Hellenistic temples of the Asclepieum was used in any other section of the Perimetric Stoa, almost certainly because they were still in use.129 The presence of this column fragment indicates the structure into which it was incorporated was built after the abandonment of the Temple of Artemis and therefore after the construction of the Perimetic Stoa/Wall. Taken together, the bases from the

Stoa of Kotys and the column fragment from the Temple of Artemis seem to imply that the propylon and associated rooms are a later addition to the Perimetric Stoa/Wall.

In addition to the above modifications, an intercolumnal wall was also added to the Doric

(outer) colonnade of the Stoa of Kotys. OEΣME (2000: 30) proposes that both this wall and the spolia in the small propylon and nearby rooms may be contemporaneous. It is theorized that a late fourth century earthquake may have wrecked portions of the Stoa of Kotys and the Temple of Artemis, thus freeing material for reuse while at the same time necessitating the reinforcement of the outer colonnade in the Stoa of Kotys by means of a intercolumnal wall. In any event, it seems that the reshaping of the northern wing of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall postdates the construction of the stoa itself.

129 OEΣME 2000: 21.

141

A final area which seems later than the Perimetric Stoa/Wall is the northernmost room of the Banqueting Hall, room J, (Figure 3-20). This space was subdivided by the addition of internal walls, some of which used ashlar blocks from the walls of the hall’s propylon.130 Since neither the late Roman Perimeter Stoa nor any earlier structure uses parts from this propylon, it was likely intact when the stoa was constructed (probably during the reign of Diocletian, AD 284-

305, as argued above).131 Besides propylon blocks, the reuse of which is not attested anywhere else in the Asclepieum, OEΣME (1988: 150n66) records that the walls were made of unworked stones joined without mortar.132 This “dry” construction is cheap and poor quality; in addition, it is found in only one other Roman building in the Asclepieum: the rebuilt stage and skene of the

Theater, which Gerkan and Müller-Wiener (1961:82) date to sometime later than the third century AD.133 This terminus post quem can be further defined by two coins of Maximinus and

Constantine II found in the remains of the propylon which led OEΣME (1988: 37) to conclude the propylon was not destroyed until after the mid-fourth century. Finally, pottery remains in the northern wing of the Banqueting Hall confirm that the northern rooms of the Banqueting Hall were in continuous use until at least the fourth century AD but fell out of use sometime later.134

130 For Room J see unpublished except for the site plan of Kavvadias 1900b, the modern site map #10, site placard for Banqueting Hall (the most detailed) and brief remarks in OEΣME 1988: 29 plan 6, 32, 37, 44, 46 & plan 7, 125, 150n66. Use of ashlar blocks from the propylon in OEΣME 1988: 44, 125, plan 6, and plan 7.

131 For lack of propylon parts in late Roman Perimetric Stoa/Wall see OEΣME 2000: 21. In addition, coins of Maximinus (AD 308-313) and Constantine II (AD 337-340) found in the debris of the propylon confirm it was destroyed only after their reigns (OEΣME 1988: 37).

132 Broken members of the Banqueting Hall’s propylon were found to the west of the monument during the excavation of OEΣME (1988: 37) but it is not clear whether these materials were part of the small western annex (Figure 1.5, 53a) or simply scattered in the field.

133 Gerkan and Müller-Wiener’s (1961: 80-82) brief remarks on the Roman-era rebuilding of the stage and skene of the Theater of Asclepieum are the main source for this phase of the structure. They note that the Theater was never turned into a Roman theater (80) and that the skene was destroyed to its foundation and all new material used (82). They judge that the poor quality of the work (82) precludes a date before the third century AD.

134 OEΣME 1988: 32.

142

Taken together, this evidence suggests that the second half of the fourth century walls saw the modification of room J of the Banqueting Hall (probably soon after the mid-century) and perhaps also its disuse (at end of the fourth century, based on the cessation of ceramic evidence). It is notable that the reign of Julian (AD 361-363) falls within this time frame and it is tempting to see both the internal re-arrangement of room J and the rebuilding of the Theater’s stage as inspired or at least facilitated by the emperor’s promotion of traditional religion.

Structures Dependent on the Banqueting Hall

The Banqueting Hall (Figure 1-7: 54) was reused in a number of later Asclepieum structures in various ways. We have already seen how spolia from the Banqueting Hall were employed in the Stoa with Hypocaust (AD 152-163), the construction of the Odeum (ca. AD

211-217), the erection the western retaining wall of the Perimetric Stoa (ca. AD 284-305), and the rearrangement of the northern entrance of the same stoa; and how the interior of room J was reorganized for other purposes (probably during the reign of Julian, AD 361-363). These, however, are not the only works which make structural use of the Banqueting Hall. The annex attached to the northwest of the Banqueting Hall (Figure 1-7: 53a) incorporates the latter’s external northwestern corner, while the northeastern annex (Figure 1-7: 53) is built against the

Banqueting Hall’s external north wall. In addition, the hall’s propylon (Figure 1-7: 54a) was blocked by a wall and turned into a temple at some point in the Roman period. Although these buildings do not form one coherent fabric group which might be assigned a single date, they can be arranged in a very general chronological framework by closely examining their relationship with the Banqueting Hall and each other.

Banqueting Hall propylon. At some point during the Roman period or after, the propylon of the Banqueting Hall (1-5: 54a) was partitioned off from the hall itself and turned into a

143

temple.135 Kavvadias (1900b: 148) reports a wall on the southern side of the propylon built of blocks and common stones joined with mortar. No additional description, photographs or physical remains of this structure are preserved, as the wall was removed in a later phase of the excavations.136 Immediately in front of it, at the rear of the propylon, a foundation for a statue base was found in situ.137 The fact that it was closed off to traffic and a statue was placed in its interior turns the proplyon into a building very much resembling the cella of a temple. The further discovery of an altar base located 4.5 meters from the entrance and bearing an inscription to Hygieia from the late Roman period led Kavvadias to identify this phase of the propylon as the Temple of Hygieia built by Antoninus.138 However, the altar eludes any dating more accurate than simply “Roman imperial.” This, combined with the inability to assess the lost wall and statue base foundation, has produced doubts about whether the modification of the propylon should be associated with Antoninus.139

A different way to approach the dating of this phase of the propylon is to consider the functional effect of its blockage. The propylon was the main entrance to the Banqueting Hall in both the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Compared to the two eastern doors added during the

Hellenistic period, the propylon accomodated a larger volume of traffic and its orientation

135 For the wall and statue base see Kavvadias 1900b: 148-149. For the altar to Hygieia see Kavvadias 1891b: 58#34; 1900b: 149; IG IV2 568; Peek 1969: #238. For the identification as Temple to Hygieia see Kavvadias 1900b: 149; Tomlinson 1983: 82; OEΣME 1988:38; Riethmüller 2005: 291; Melfi 2007: 111-115.

136 Kavvadias 1900b: 148n1.

137 Kavvadias 1900b: 149. This object has also been lost (OEΣME 1988: 38).

138 Paus. 2.27.6.1.

139 See especially OEΣME 1988: 38 and Melfi 2007: 111-115. I would add that all of Antoninus’ efforts invovled either repairing dilapidated buildings or constructing new ones. There are no confirmed examples of him re- purposing existing buildings.

144

allowed more efficient access from the rest of the sanctuary.140 Similarly, the four small doors opened in the external wall of room J are also inferior to the propylon. Three of the doors are only large enough to admit one person at a time making them inadequate as a processional entry.141 Moreover, these doors only lead into room J which has three even smaller doorways connecting it to the interior portico of the Banqueting Hall, unlike the propylon and the northeastern side door which both connect to the major northern hallway of the interior.142

Therefore, the blockage of the propylon would have significantly reduced access to the interior of the Banqueting Hall, a reduction which the other entrances would not have compensated.

Although this may not have been a concern during the periods when the Banqueting Hall was partially destroyed or in disuse, it would have been a major factor in the construction of the

Odeum since the audience would have needed the best possible access.143 It is difficult to see how the builders of the Odeum would have tolerated a blocked propylon (if the blockage were previous to the Odeum’s construction), or why the propylon would have been walled-in while the Odeum was still in use. Thus, it seems that the closing of the propylon must have happened after the Odeum had been abandoned.

Banqueting Hall annexes. On the northern side of the Banqueting Hall, against or overlapping its external walls, lie two multi-room structures, one in the northwest (Figure 1-7:

140 The southeastern door’s penetration was about one-third the width of the propylon’s and the northeastern about two-thirds. Moreover, both doors opened to east, away from the main sanctuary, and onto an area constrained between the Banqueting Hall and a steep upward incline to the east. The southeastern door seems meant simply to serve an adjacent Hellenistic fountain (Figure 1-5, 56).

141 The fourth door is smaller than the other three and is located on the east side of the small vestibule of room J.

142 The date of these doors is uncertain. They were opened after the outer wall of the Banqueting Hall had been built (ca. 300 BC) but before the addition of the northeastern annex in the Roman period, since one of its walls blocks the easternmost door.

143 Estimated at 1300 maximum (Aslanidis 2003: 309). The later re-working of the Odeum’s stairways to allow better traffic flow to the seating sections reveals the importance of access arrangements (OEΣME 1988: 22; Aslanidis 2003: 309).

145

53a) and one in the northeast (Figure 1-7: 53).144 In the case of the northwestern annex a long corridor connects approximately five rooms on its north side. The location of the entrance(s) is not clear. The east side of this annex appears to penetrate through the northeast corner of the

Banqueting Hall.145 The northeastern annex is in a more confused state but seems to contain about ten rooms. It uses the northern external wall of the Banqueting Hall as its southern support wall and it is apparently by means of the doors in this wall that entry to the annex was gained.

These two annexes are in such a poor condition that their fabric can be only tentatively characterized, but for both structures there is evidence that the walls were constructed of rubble masonry incorporating orthostats as doorposts. Neither these orthostats or other materials have been identified as spolia from other buildings. Too little of the walls remains to determine if the masonry was laid in courses and there is no evidence of brickwork. Therefore, to the extent which their material fabric can be assessed, the northwestern and northeastern annexes appear to be similar. This tentative correlation of building fabric, combined with the similarity in size, the encroachment of both structures on the Banqueting Hall, and the fact that they both seem to form a perimeter around an open area in front of Building Φ, suggests that they were contemporaneous.

The lack of evidence associated with these annexes makes dating them problematic. The

Asclepieum’s site map places them in the Roman period (first century BC to third century AD) but no evidence has been published to support even this broad date range. The only positive chronological terminus relies on an aqueduct which curves around the southwest corner of

144 Research on these buildings is almost non-existent. The only published information is (1) the excavation map of Kavvadias (1900b) which contains a drawing of the walls of the northeastern annex only, (2) the current site map displayed at the Asclepieum and (3) the information placard at the Asclepieum for the Banqueting Hall. Most of the following analysis is based on my own observations of the structures.

145 Based on the map at the site and observation.

146

Building Φ (Figure 1-7, 52) and thence between Φ and the northeastern annex (Figure 1-7, 53).

This water channel was built after Building Φ since it alters its course around it, but before the northeastern annex since the annex extends right up to it but does not obstruct it.146 Therefore the northeastern annex must have been built after Building Φ. It also seems that the same annex must have been built after four new doors were opened in the northern room of the Banqueting Hall, since they are its only obvious entrances. Yet the easternmost of these doors is blocked by one of the annex walls (Figure 3-20: door 5), which suggests that the doors preceded the construction of the annex and were opportunistically used by its builders. Consistent with this theory is the westernmost door (Figure 3-20: door 2) which was not incorporated into the annex at all.

Therefore the northwestern annex and, if their similarity is valid, the northeastern annex were built after Building Φ (mid-second century AD) and after the four doors were opened in the northern wall of the Banqueting Hall (date unknown).

A new sequence. The foregoing analysis of each of the structures (proplyon, northeast and northwest annexes) built onto the north side of the Banqueting Hall reveals chronological links between them. The links, up to this point, can be summarized as follows. The northeastern annex, Figure 1-7: 53, was likely built after the four doors were installed in the northern wall of the Banqueting Hall. Supposing, based on fabric, that the northwestern annex, Figure 1-7: 53a, is roughly contemporaneous with the northeastern annex, it too must have been built after the addition of the doors. Since these doors were not added for the annex they must have been added for some previous contingency. The most likely modification that would have required new access to the Banqueting Hall is the closing of the propylon and its conversion into a temple.

Since the propylon was the major access to the Banqueting Hall and since the four new doors

146 Peppa-Papaioannou 1988: 554.

147

cannot reasonably be considered a substitute for it, the propylon must have been blocked only after use of the Odeum was discontinued. Therefore the order of events would be

(1) Odeum out of use,

(2) propylon closed,

(3) four doors opened in the Banqueting Hall’s northern wall,

(4) annexes 53 and 53a built.

If this sequence is correct, then all of these changes must have occurred at some point after the early third century, when the Odeum was constructed (probably many decades later considering its three building phases), but before the destruction of the propylon after the mid-fourth century, since none of these modifications use parts from it.

Buildings From Literary and Documentary Sources

The primary literary source on the buildings in the Asclepieum is the passage by Pausanias quoted at the beginning of this chapter (Paus. 2.27.6).

147 Text and translation from Jones 1918.

148

made had been unburnt, had fallen into utter ruin after it had lost its roof. As the Epidaurians about the sanctuary were in great distress, because their women had no shelter in which to be delivered and the sick breathed their last in the open, he provided a dwelling, so that these grievances also were redressed. Here at last was a place in which without sin a human being could die and a woman be delivered. Above the grove are the Nipple and another mountain called Cynortion; on the latter is a sanctuary of Maleatian Apollo. The sanctuary itself is an ancient one, but among the things Antoninus made for the Epidaurians are various appurtenances for the sanctuary of the Maleatian, including a reservoir into which the rain-water collects for their use.

Pausanias’ account does not seem to be a comprehensive catalogue of Antoninus’ building program but rather a list of highlights. In many places it is frustratingly vague. In the translation above, Jones (1918) limits the adjective Αἰγυπτίοις (Egyptian) to Asclepius and Apollo only, omitting an Egyptian Hygieia. However, this is not required by the syntax and, as suggested by the common association of these three during the second century AD with the Egyptian gods

Osiris, Horus and Isis, is probably wrong – all three deities were probably housed in one temple.148 Thus, the buildings attributed to Antoninus total at least six: a bath, two temples, a reconstructed stoa, a building for dying and childbirth, and, on Mt. Kynortion, a cistern along with other unspecified works. Besides the cistern on the Kynortion, none of these works can be positively identified, but a full discussion of proposed correlations between the archaeological record and Pausanias will be pursued in Chapter 4.

In addition to Pausanias’ record, four inscriptions from the Asclepieum itself mention

Roman buildings in the sanctuary. Two of these inscriptions (IG IV2 1, 454 and IG IV2 1, 456) are dedications of new buildings and date to the same period as the renovations of Antoninus.

Indeed, one of them, IG IV2 1, 454, is explicitly associated with Antoninus. The other inscription attests the existence of a hot water bath (IG IV2 1, 126).

The inscription ascribed to Antoninus is IG IV2 1, 454:

148 OEΣME 1999: 55; Lambrinoudakis 2002: 224.

149

Ἀπόλλωνι Μα[λεάτᾳ καὶ] Ἀ σκλαπ[ιῷ Σωτῆρι ἐπεσκεύασεν] ἐκ θεμελί[ων — — — — —]ΤΑΤΟΥ[— — — — — — — — — —] ι α καὶ πυρια[τήρια — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —] μένοις πᾶσ[ιν Ἰούλιος Μαΐωρ Ἀν]τ ωνῖ ν[ος, Ἰουλίου υἱὸς] 5 ὑπάτου [ωμαίων, ἡγεμονεύσ]α ντος τῆς [Νουμιδίας? καὶ] Μυ- σίας τῆ [ς κάτω καὶ τῆς ἄνω καὶ] Συρίας, ἀνθ[υπατεύσαντο]ς Αγ[— — — — vacat? τῆς Ἀσία]ς. Χαιρ[— — — — — —] μ[— — — — —] τοῦ [— — — — — —]

To Apollo Maleatas and to Asclepius Savior, Julius Maior Antoninus, son of Julius consul of the Romans, commanding Numidia and lower and upper Mysia and Syria, proconsul of … Asia supplied … from the foundations … and the steam baths … for all ...

Due to the fragmentary condition of the text, the structure which Antoninus built “from the foundations” cannot be identified with certainty, but Melfi (2007:118) has argued convincingly that the πυριατήρια or “steam baths” are to be equated with the circular bath rooms known in the archaeological record as laconica, of which the Asclepieum has three possible examples (in

Building Φ, Building K, and the Skana). She specifically links this inscription with the Skana but there is no reason it could not as well apply to Building K or Building Φ. If so, then the foundations mentioned in the inscription may be those of any or all three of the laconicum- containing buildings.

A second inscription, IG IV2 1, 456, attributed to an otherwise unknown Gaius Rufus is dated to the same period (second century AD) based on letter form. The text records Rufus’ dedication of a library to Apollo Maleata and Asclepius.

[Γ. ]οῦφος Γ. [εν]α ίου [το]ῦ Σα [λεν]- τίνου υ ἱὸς Ν[εαπολίτης(?) Ἀπόλλω]- νι Μαλεάτᾳ κα [ὶ Ἀσκληπιῷ τὴν] βιβλιοθήκην [καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ βιβλί]- 5 α ἀνέθηκεν - εἱ[εραπολήσας δὶς] καὶ ἀγω [νοθετήσας].

G(aius) Rufus of Neapolis, son of G(aius) Zenaios of Salentos, dedicated the library and the books in it to Apollo Maleatas and to Asclepius – when he was chief priest for the second time and president of the games.

150

No building in the sanctuary has been confidently identified as a library. Kavvadias (1900b: 158) thought it was the rectangular structure on the east side of Building K where this and many other inscriptions were discovered but that structure has since been identified as part of the late Roman stoa in which the inscriptions were probably set for display.149

The final inscription, IG IV2 1, 126, does not record a new construction but does attest the existence of bath which seems to be Roman in origin. This text records the healing of Marcus

Julius Apellas from Asia Minor. In it, Apellas describes a curative regimen which includes three references to a bath:

A) lines 9-10 πρὸς | ταῖς ἀκοαῖς ἐν βαλανείῳ προστρίβεσθαι τῷ τοίχωι,

to rub myself against the wall near the waters in the bath,

B) lines 12-13 πρὶν ἐνβῆναι ἐν τῶι βαλανείῳ εἰς τὸ θερμὸν ὕδωρ | οἶνον περιχέασθαι

to pour wine all over myself before climbing into the hot water in the bathing establishment

C) line 18 ᾤμην <ν>ά|πυϊ καὶ ἁλσὶν κεχρειμένος ὅλος ἐξιέναι κατὰ τὰς ἀκοὰς ἐκ τοῦ ἀβάτου,

I was walking out of the abaton, rubbed with salt and mustard all over, in the direction of the Aquae

The term βαλανείῳ (“bath”) associated τὸ θερμὸν ὕδωρ (“the hot water”) in passage B would seem to indicate a heated Roman bath. Although some Greek baths were heated, this amenity is more usually associated with the hypocaust-heated Roman design. Moreover, the transliteration

ταῖς ἀκοαῖς in passage A and τὰς ἀκοὰς in passage B for the latin “aquis” and “aquas” reinforces

149 OEΣME 2000: figs. 1, 6, & 7. In any event, ancient libraries were designed to hold perishable texts such as those recorded on papyrus scrolls and tablets, not inscriptions.

151

the idea that the building was Roman in origin. The identification of this bath with one of the five bath complexes in the Asclepieum (Figure 1-7: 24/25, 29, 30, 40, 61) is problematic. The inscription is dated between the reign of Hadrian (AD 117-138) and several decades later based on the fact that the priest, Publius Aelius Antiochus, during whose tenure the inscription is dedicated, was the son of a man who was priest under the reign of Hadrian.150 This dating eliminates the late antique Roman baths, (Figure 1-7: 29; late but not specifically dated, see below) as well as the bath complexes belonging to fabric group II (dated to the early third century) respectively in the northwest (Figure 1-7: 24 & 25) and northeast (Figure 1-7: 30) sectors of the Asclepieum. Of the two remaining baths, the Hellenistic Bath (Figure 1-7: 61) and the bath adjacent to the Abaton, (Figure 1-7: 40) only the latter was extensively renovated in

Roman times, specifically as part of fabric group I under the program of Antoninus in the mid- second century BC. Finally, the fact that Apellas was coming out of the Abaton (Figure 1-7: 42) when he was walking toward the “aquae” (passage C) would support the identification of the latter with the baths adjacent to the Abaton (Figure 1-7: 40).

Taken together, the six buildings listed by Pausanias and the three listed in the inscriptions only account for 33% of the buildings known for the Roman period. Moreover, the literary attestations of buildings are difficult to reconcile with the archaeological remains. Nevertheless, the literary evidence plays an important role in the chronological discussion of the sanctuary since most of it can be specifically dated. Its contribution will be important in Chapter 4, too, where the functions of buildings will be examined along with the changing use of the

Asclepieum.

150 Line 1: ἐπὶ ἱερέως v Πο(πλίου) v Αἰλ(ίου) v Ἀντιόχου. For the date see Hiller 1929a: #126n1.

152

The Remaining Roman Buildings

Finally, there are some Roman structures in the Asclepieum that do not fit in any of the above categories. Some are substantial new constructions such as building Δ1 (Figure 1-7: 66), the rooms behind the Abaton (Figure 1-7: 37a), Shrine I (Figure 1-7: 38), the structure inside

Building Π, and the Late Antique Baths (Figure 1-7: 29). Others are repairs or reorganizations of

Hellenistic buildings such as the Epidoteion, the Katagogion, the Hellenistic Bath, Building E, and the Abaton.151

Building Δ1. Adjacent to the Abaton, on its west side, is a structure composed of a

Hellenistic and Roman remains (Figure 3-21) and labeled Δ1 by Kavvadias (1900b: 128).152 The

Roman remains are now largely lost or covered, and no description of their material fabric was made with the result that it is impossible to compare them with other Roman structures.153 The current on-site map, the only source to attempt a date, places the Roman structure between the first century BC and the third century AD – a date which cannot be improved upon at this moment.

Rooms behind the Abaton. To the north of the Abaton is a building complex that has not been fully excavated.154 Accordingly, the total extent of the structure is unknown and its

151 The rebuilding of the Theater’s stage and skene is discussed with the modifications to room J of the Banqueting Hall above.

152 For Δ1 see Kavvadias 1900b: 128, Pharaklas 1971: 15, OEΣME 2000: 25, Riethmüller 2005: 286-7 & n49. Plans: Kavvadias 1900b: map, OEΣME 1987: Figure 2, OEΣME 1988: Figure 71, OEΣME 1999: Figure 1, modern on-site map #19.

153 The most that can be said is that no orthostats or spolia are visible or documented.

154 Excavation noted briefly in Kavvadias 1904: 61 without any specifics. Layout first shown in a plan from the archives of Kavvadias published in OEΣME 1987: fig.2 (also a photo, pl. 3). Subsequent drawings and photos in OEΣME 1988: Figure 71, OEΣME 1999: Figure 1 (overhead photo), and on the modern on-site map. Brief mention in Riethmüller 2005: 286-287. The description of the fabric is my own based on personal observation.

153

relationship to Building K (Figure 1-7: 37) and the structure west of the Abaton, Building Δ1

(Figure 1-7: 66), cannot be determined. The majority of the excavated remains are still visible from the Abaton though some portions further north have become overgrown (Figure 3-22). The walls survive up to a considerable height and display a fabric composed of large and small stones arranged completely without coursing, though one wall does show a lone ceramic string course.

No orthostats or spolia are visible or have been recorded. This fabric is unlike any other in the

Asclepieum in its lack of orthostats without compensating brickwork. Given these limitations the structure can be dated only generally to sometime within the Roman period.

Shrine I. North of the monumental long altar of Asclepius are the foundations of a small rectangular building, labeled “I” in the original excavations, (Figure 1-7: 38), which Kavvadias

(1900b: 140) interprets as a ναός having an entrance in the west.155 Kavvadias describes the material fabric of this “shrine” I in exactly the same terms as Shrine T (Figure 1-7: 48): rubble stones and brick joined with mortar. In the building’s current state that description cannot be verified. According to Kavvadias (1900b: 140), Shrine I belongs to later Roman times and, if the similarity in fabric can be relied on, Shrine I should date to the same period as Shrine T: it should be contemporaneous, that is, with the Perimetric Stoa/Wall (assigned above to the reign of

Diocletian).156

The structure inside Building Π. Sometime after the first century BC, when Hellenistic

Building Π went out of use, and the third century, a Roman structure was built inside the main interior space of Building Π (Figure 1-7: 34).157 Lembidaki (2002: 136) interprets this structure

155 Shrine I has hardly been published at all. Kavvadias (1900b: 139-140 & map) first records it and the current on- site map includes it but unlabeled.

156 See argument above for Shrine T. The on-site topographical map, however, dates the Shrine I between the first century BC and the third century AD but without any published rationale.

157 Lembidaki 2002: 134-136. See also Roux 1961: 279.

154

as the new, smaller home of the original (undetermined) cult of Building Π. Strata from the excavation show that it was destroyed in the third century AD.

Late Antique Baths. To the northeast of the Northeast Baths a bath complex (Figure 1-7:

29) has recently been uncovered.158 The modern site map classifies it as late antique (fourth to fifth centuries AD) in agreement with the excavator, S. Petrounakes (whose publication of the complex is forthcoming). Lambrinoudakis (2002: 224) suggests the bath may have continued operating into Christian times.

The Epidoteion rennovation. The small, nearly square building (Figure 1-7: 31) abutting the south wall of the Northeast Baths was originally a Hellenistic shrine later refurbished with

Roman work.159 The earlier fabric, mainly poros foundation slabs, orthostats and ashlar masonry, comprises the foundation up to the lower walls and is the majority of the extant structure; the middle and upper walls do not survive. The Roman remains consist mainly in decorative work: a pebble mosaic covering the floor and red stucco walls. Other, isolated examples of Roman cemented rubble masonry can be found in the interior of the building but overall they are insufficient to make a detailed analysis of fabric of the Roman phase. Statuary found in the building along with pottery sherds recovered from beneath the renovated floor, and most importantly, a roof tile bearing the name of Antoninus date the Roman phase of the building unambiguously to just after mid-second century AD.160

Kavvadias (1925: 50) first proposed the identification of this building with the Epidoteion that Pausanias attributes to Antoninus. The evidence for a group of cult statues placed on a

158 For the Late Antique Baths see Lambrinoudakis 2002: 224, the modern site map #43, and the excavation report of Petrounakes, S (forthcoming).

159 Lembidaki 2002: 129-132.

160 Lembedaki 2002 133n26.

155

semicircular platform at the back of the building supports this conclusion as does the dating of the building to Antoninus’ rennovation.161 Lembedaki’s (2002: 130) conclusion that the plan of the Hellenistic building was not altered in the Roman period and that the second use material is used in its original location modifies Pausanias’ statement that Antoninus “built” the Epidoteion; it seems, rather, that he “re-built” it just as he did the Stoa of Kotys. Finally, Lembidaki (2002:

132) found evidence that the building was destroyed in the mid-fourth century AD.

Internal modifications to the Katagogion. At some point during the Roman era, the

Katagogion (Figure 1-7: 58) was altered to allow communication between all four courts in the center of the building; in the previous Hellenistic building, the north and south courts did not connect internally.162 Also, the walls of all four courts show evidence of Roman repair work. In the southeast court new walls reshaped the interior space dramatically, though this may be from a different Roman phase. No dates for these modifications have been proposed.

Reorganization of the Hellenistic Bath. In Roman times the eastern part of the

Hellenistic Bath (Figure 1-7: 61) underwent modification.163 The level of invasiveness is now difficult to judge based on the poor state of the remains. However, it is clear that two pools, several basins and a row of square pillars in the courtyard were added. No attempt has been made to date these changes.

Building E additions. Lambrinoudakis (2002: Figure 2) published a drawing of Building

E (Figure 1-7: 47) showing Roman modifications but without accompanying discussion.

According to this drawing, a second retaining wall was constructed in the south of Building E closing the courtyard. Also, a small area in front of the small northwest shrine was paved. A few

161 Lembidaki 2002: 130.

162 Kraynak 1991.

163 OEΣME 1999: 51 and building plaque at the site.

156

other small modifications appear on the drawing but are indistinct. These changes are labeled

“Antonine” on the figure.

Abaton repairs. Cement was found the walls of the Abaton (Figure 1-7: 42) attesting to

Roman repair work.164 These repairs were not extensive, however, and no change was made to the building’s layout. These repairs has not been dated.

Integrated Chronology

Having examined each building individually and having made the best chronological determinations that the evidence allows, it is now time to collate all the Roman-era constructions together in a single chronological framework. The evidence for construction (or destruction) in the Asclepieum during each period of the Roman era will be discussed in order. A condensed version of the finished work is found in Table 3-3.

The Early Roman Period

During the latter first century BC and the first century AD minor construction projects were carried out in the Asclepieum. The water supply system of the sanctuary was modified and improvements were made to the Stadium’s seating arrangements. At the same time the

Asclepieum endured destructive episodes such as its sacking by Sulla and, later, by Cilician pirates. By the middle of the second century AD, some structures of the Asclepieum had slid into disrepair.

The Program of Antoninus

In the mid-second century AD a wealthy senator from Asia Minor, Sextus Julius Maior

Antoninus Pythodorus, embarked on a massive building program in the Asclepieum which spanned about a decade. During this construction project, a large number of structures were built,

164 OEΣME 1987: 8.

157

at least thirteen of which we have evidence for. These are the buildings of fabric group I

(Building K, Building Φ, the Skana, the Roman Palaestra, the northern retaining wall of the

Tholos terrace, the Roman House (P), and phase I of the Stoa with Hypocaust), as well as those listed by Pausanias (the baths of Asclepius, the temple(s) to Hygieia, Apollo and Asclepius, the new Epidoteion, a house for birthing and dying, the repair of the Stoa of Kotys, and, on Mt.

Kynortion, the rainwater cistern and other structures). Also connected with this building phase is a library attributed to one Rufus. Of all the Roman-era building episodes, this one is the most confidently dated, from AD 152 to 163, based on Pausanias and the epigraphic evidence of

Antoninus’ life.

The Caracallan Improvements

Approximately fifty years later, the Asclepieum underwent another construction period during which the buildings of fabric group II were erected. The three buildings of this group, the

Odeum, the Northeast Baths, and the two buildings of the Northwest Complex made substantial use of brick and are the most attractive and well-built Roman buildings in the sanctuary. This construction phase most likely occurred during the reign of the emperor Caracalla, sole emperor

AD 211-217, as discussed above (fabric group II), and may even have been initiated by him since he is said to have keep the senatorial class in check by requiring them to build elaborate amenities at his various stops around the eastern provinces.165

Severus Alexander

The relative stability (and architectural activity) of the Caracallan period was followed by five years of turmoil first under Macrinus, then Elagabalus. After Elagabalus’ death, Severus

Alexander came to power and restored order to the empire throughout his thirteen-year reign

165 Cass. Dio 78.9.4;

158

(AD 222-235). No changes to the Asclepieum’s structures can be recognized for the period of

Macrinus or Elagabalus, as one might expect for a period marked by unrest. However, neither is there clearly datable evidence for architectural activity in the Asclepieum under the much more favorable rule of Severus Alexander. Nevertheless, the period of stability under Severus

Alexander provides a convenient timeframe to locate certain developments in the sanctuary.

The first of these is the third phase of the Odeum. This phase consists of the addition of a vestibule to the southern side of the building which was built of orthostats from the Banqueting

Hall with rubble masonry on top. This fabric is very different than that of phases I and II of the

Odeum and so should not be assigned to the rule of Caracalla but sometime later. The reign of

Severus Alexander is the next stable period after Caracalla and thus the earliest plausible period for this third phase of the Odeum. The construction of phase III could have occurred later, in the reign of Diocletian or Julian, except for the fact that Odeum almost certainly went out of use during the crisis of the third century, AD 235-284 (see arguments below). Thus, the construction of the Odeum’s third phase should properly be assigned to the reign of Severus Alexander.

Also to this period probably belong the internal repairs and modifications to the

Katagogion. Since this building was disassembled to construct the Perimetric Stoa/Wall which is dated the era of Diocletian, the Katagogion most likely went out of use in the crisis of the third century and any modifications must have occurred before this. While the Katagogion could have been altered earlier, the major redesign of the interior looks out of character with the Caracallan architectural phase, which was mainly focused on the construction of new buildings, and the

Antonine program, which combined new construction with restoration, but generally avoided altering the layout of the buildings it restored.

159

If, based on the characteristics of the Odeum’s third phase and the changes to the

Katagogion, the era of Severus Alexander in the Asclepieum can be thought to represent a period of optimization of existing buildings, then perhaps the modification of the Hellenistic Bath and the Skana (phase II) belong here as well. The eastern interior of the Hellenistic Bath was redesigned to add pools and structural support for the second story and phase II of the Skana improved the stairway to the second story and internally rearranged the northeast corner to added more rooms. All of these changes were presumably made to improve the utility of the buildings in light of current needs without the kind of deference to the original plan which the Antonine renovations show. As mentioned before, such a bold rearrangment of existing spaces is not characteristic of the known Antonine or Caracallan activities in the sanctuary. Nonetheless, the dating of the Roman alterations to the Hellenistic Bath, or the Skana phase II to the reign of

Severus Alexander must remain speculative.

The Crisis of the Third Century

Two periods might be thought especially difficult for the Asclepieum: the fifty years of unrest following the death of Severus Alexander, AD 235-285, commonly called “the crisis of the third century”, and the rule of Constantine and his sons, AD 312-361. Consequently, these two periods provide plausible chronological frameworks in which to locate the decline and disuse of various buildings in the Asclepieum. For the first of these periods, the crisis of the third century, there is good reason to believe that the unstable circumstances encouraged the end of four buildings: the Odeum, the Katagogion, the Roman structure inside Building Π and Shrine Y.

Certain events in the building sequence push the end of the Odeum to the period before the ascension of Constantine. The Odeum must have been closed before the propylon of the

Banqueting Hall was refashioned into a temple (since it is unlikely that so important a

160

passageway would have been blocked when the Odeum was still in use). Therefore, the chronology of the temple in the propylon must be pursued first, before a final date for the Odeum can be derived.

The key event in the chronology of the propylon temple is its dismemberment for use as building material in the new internal walls of room J of the Banqueting Hall. Since, for reasons to be discussed below, the new walls in room J likely date to the reign of Julian, AD 361-363, the propylon of the Banqueting Hall must have been destroyed before Julian. Indeed, of the coins found in excavation of the propylon, the latest date to the reign of Constantine II, AD 337-340.

Therefore, the propylon, and the temple within it, ceased to function sometime between ca. AD

340 and ca. 361. Consequently, the propylon’s conversion into a temple must have occurred before this event. Yet, the installation of a new pagan temple seems unlikely during the rule of

Constantine or his sons. On the other hand, such a project would be plausible under the earlier reign of Diocletian. Therefore, the temple in the propylon should probably be dated to the late third century, under Diocletian. This result fixes an upper date on the survival of the Odeum for the reasons mentioned above. Finally, Diocletian’s rule was directly preceded by the crisis of the third century and this turbulent era seems an appropriate setting in which to date the abandonment of the Odeum.

The destruction of the Katagogion should also be attributed to the crisis of the third century. The fact that it was plundered for parts to construct the Perimetric Stoa/Wall provides a terminus ante quem for its disuse. Since the Perimetric Stoa/Wall dates to the period of

Diocletian, AD 284-305 and since the crisis of the third century, directly preceding his reign, is the most traumatic half century the empire had yet seen, it is reasonable to assign the

Katagogion’s destruction to this tumultuous period, AD 235-284.

161

Another building to be dated within this timeframe is the Roman structure inside the ruins of Hellenistic Building Π. Lembidaki (2002: 135) found a destruction layer of roof and wall rubble which dates to the third century AD. Based on this evidence, we can be almost certain that the structure went out of use in the same period as the Odeum and Katagogion.

Finally, Shrine Y (Figure 1-7: 49) was probably abandoned in this period, as well. Due to the erosion from the nearby slope, the ground level of the area around Shrine Y increased about half a meter by the time the eastern wing of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall was built (late third century).166 This change in ground level would have effectively disabled the shrine. Probably as a result, Shrine Y was dismantled and its components used in the western wing of the Perimetric

Stoa.167

The Reign of Diocletian

Following the crisis of the third century, Diocletian brought stability to the empire. During his rule, AD 284-305, fabric group III was erected consisting of the western retaining wall of the

Tholos terrace, the Perimetric Stoa/Wall, and the second phase of the Stoa with Hypocaust. In addition, Shrine T was built at this time and probably Shrine I as well. Also during the period the propylon of the Banqueting Hall was turned into a temple and the northeastern and northwestern annexes to the banqueting hall were attached.

Fabric group III has been discussed extensively above as has its relation to Shrine T. It will suffice here to say that Kavvadias (1900b: 140) described the fabric of Shrine T and I as identical. Therefore Shrine I is assigned to the same period here.

166 OEΣME 2000: 7 & Figure 2; Lembidaki 2002: 126.

167 OEΣME 2000: 20-21.

162

The propylon of the Banqueting Hall went out of use after Constantine II, AD 337-340, but before Julian was emperor, AD 361-363. Its conversion into a temple must have occurred before this but probably not during the reign of the Constantine when Christianity was on the ascent.

Moreover, its conversion must postdate the Odeum’s end which fits best in the crisis of the third century. Therefore the temple in the propylon and the near-contemporaneous Banqueting Hall annexes should be dated to the rule of Diocletian.

The Reign of Constantine

The victory of Constantine in AD 312 and his subsequent support for Christianity inaugurated a period of uncertainty for pagan sanctuaries from which the Epidaurian Asclepieum would surely not have been immune. The pressure intensified after his edict outlawing pagan sacrifices in AD 324 and continued under his sons. Two structures seem certain to have succumbed to disuse during this period: the Epidoteion and the temple in the propylon of the

Banqueting Hall, while another, the Temple of Artemis, seems likely.

Based on the rubble layer found in the Epidoteion, Lembidaki dates its destruction to the mid-fourth century AD. This corresponds to the end of the Constantinian dynasty (the rule of

Constans or Constatius II). Likewise, the temple in the propylon was destroyed sometime after coins of Constantine II (AD 337-340), found in the upper level of the propylon, were minted but before its structure was mined for the ashlar blocks used in room J of the Banqueting Hall, best assigned to the reign of Julian. Therefore, both these buildings went out of use at about the same time, namely, in the decade or two preceding Julian’s rule.

The final days of the Temple of Artemis may belong to this period as well. If the

Corinthian capital incorporated into the northern entrance to the Perimetric Stoa/Wall belongs to the temple and if the entrance was built during Julian’s reign, as will be argued below, then the

163

Temple of Artemis would have had to cease functioning beforehand. This is all the more likely considering that both the Temple of Artemis and the Banqueting Hall propylon are of similar, sturdy, ashlar construction (the Epidoteion’s upper construction is uncertain) and would have survived longer than buildings made of orthostats topped with mud bricks such as the

Katagogion.

The Reign of Julian

For a brief, three-year period, from AD 361 to 363, Julian set the stage for a revival of traditional Greek and Roman religion. This would be the last time paganism enjoyed official support under the Roman empire. Accordingly, the reign of Julian is probably the period in which the Theater stage and skene as well as the internal walls of room J of the Banqueting Hall were constructed.

Gerkan and Müller-Wiener (1961: 82) date the Theater modifications to after the third century AD based on the “dry” construction employed (no mortar was used). The only other use of this technique in the Asclepieum are the walls in room J. Pottery found in the northern

Banqueting Hall indicates that room J went out of use in the fourth century or later. While neither of these structures can be definitely dated to the Julian period, they fit well here. The time frame meets the dating criteria of both buildings and the pagan resurgence under Julian provides an valid argument for new construction in the Asclepieum.

The northern entrance to the Perimetric Stoa/Wall with its surrounding rooms and the intercolumnal wall in the Stoa of Kotys may belong in the reign of Julian as well. These certainly would have been built before the Perimetric Stoa/Wall went out of use since they are functional additions to it. Yet, all that can be said about the end of the Stoa is that it preceded the building of the late fourth-/early fifth-century Basilica which uses a substantial amount of material from

164

it. It could indeed have fallen into disuse during the rule of Constantine and his sons. However, the entrance and the intercolumnal wall would have had to have been constructed during the later part of Diocletian’s reign, though they do not match the fabric of the rest of the Perimetric

Stoa/Wall, or during Constantine’s reign when paganism came under increasing pressure.

Instead, these structures seem to belong to a later period, the best candidate for which is the reign of Julian.

The Late Roman or Early Christian Period

The late fourth or early fifth century saw one last building spree in the Asclepieum. It was preceded by the disuse of the northern rooms of the Banqueting Hall (based on the chronology of pottery finds), and by the destruction of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall and Temple L (since they were incorporated into some of the later structures). Three new buildings and one renovation belong to this period; the three new constructions are the Basilica with its courtyard, the House with

Mosaics, and the Late Antique Baths, all of which date to the late fourth/early fifty centuries and have been discussed above. The renovation concerns the Northeast Baths and includes the addition of a latrine in the northwest, new rooms in the southwest and the blockage of some interior doorways to create more rooms.168 Ginouvès (1955: 146) dates these changes also to the late fourth/early fifty centuries. None of these structures are pagan religious buildings and the only distinctly Christian feature is the baptistery added later to the Basilica. Therefore, the character of this new building phase, whether late Roman or early Christian, cannot be conclusively determined based on the architectural data. However, the Chapter 4 will show that the functional profiles of these buildings favor a Christian interpretation.

168 For the northeast bath modifications see Ginouvès 1955: 135-152.

165

With the integrated chronology completed the overall scope of the Roman-era architectural activity in the sanctuary can be summarized. Construction and repair episodes in the Asclepieum seem to have been occurred in pulses. Four major efforts can be detected: the first at the initiative of Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus Pythodurus (AD 152-163), a second during the reign of

Caracalla (AD 211-217), a third under Diocletian (AD 284-305), and the fourth during the

Christian period (late fourth/early fifth century). Smaller interventions take place in the first century BC, as well as under Severus Alexander (AD 222-235), and Julian (AD 361-363).

Chapter 4 will examine how each of these episodes diminished, enhanced or otherwise changed the functions of the sanctuary as they are known from the Hellenistic period.

166

Table 3-1. Comparison of name elements for Antoninus. Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus Pythodorus [Nysa 24] [Nysa 24] [Nysa 24] Nysa 25-28 Nysa 25-28 Nysa 25-28 Nysa 41 Nysa 41 Nysa 41 Nysa 42 Nysa 42 Nysa 42 Nysa 42 Nysa 42 [IG IV2 1, 454] [IG IV2 1, 454] IG IV2 1, 454 IG IV2 1, 514 IG IV2 1, 614 IG IV2 1, 684 IG IV2 1, 684 [Peek 1972, 22] [Peek 1972, 22] [Peek 1972, 22] IG IV2 1, 715/6 SEG 41-307 Note: Brackets indicate reconstruction of the name in the inscription.

Table 3-1. Continued. Son of: Julius Maior Consul Nysa 41 Nysa 41 Nysa 41 Nysa 42 Nysa 42 Nysa 42 IG IV2 1, 454 IG IV2 1, 454 IG IV2 1, 454 IG IV2 1, 514 IG IV2 1, 614 IG IV2 1, 684

167

Table 3-2. Material fabric chart. Material Coursing Brickwork String Doorposts Spolia course(s) Building K, Unworked Semi- occasional Yes Orthostats Small Building Φ, stones, coursed amount Skana cement Roman Unworked Semi- None Yes (two) Orthostats Unknown. palaestra stones, coursed observed cement Tholos terrace Unworked Semi- None Yes (two) None Previous retaining wall stones, coursed Hellenistic cement wall Roman house Unworked Semi- At least Yes Orthostats Ashlar stones & coursed one blocks, ashlar fountain columns blocks, corner cement Stoa with Unworked Semi- Hypocaust, Yes Unknown, Orthostats? hypocaust stones, coursed base of orthostats cement corners present Odeum, Unworked Semi- Large brick  Brick Odeum – NE Baths, stones, coursed courses yes. NW Baths significant Others – brickwork, little. cement Structure Δ1 Ashlar, Uncoursed None None None Previous unworked observed observed observed Hellenistic stones, ashlar cement Area behind Unworked Uncoursed None Yes (one) None Unknown abaton stones, observed observed cement NE annex Unworked Too little None None Uncertain, Unknown Banqueting stones, to tell observed observed Orthostats? Hall (53) cement NW annex Unworked Too little None None Orthostats Unknown Banqueting stones, to tell observed observed Hall (53a) cement Odeum phase Orthostats Too little Unknown Unknown Unknown Banqueting III below, to tell Hall rubble orthostats above Agora/Basilica Ashlar, Coursed Some Yes Orthostats Major use unworked corners stones, cement

168

Figure 3-1. Fabric group one. Examples of wall fabrics for each building. A) Building K. B) Building Φ. C) Skana. (Photos courtesy of author)

169

Figure 3-2. Fabric details of building K. Red indicates course merging or transition (semi- courses), blue points to brick/ceramic insertions, and yellow brackets enclose doorposts made of orthostats or stacked, squared blocks. (Photos courtesy of author)

170

Figure 3-3. Fabric details of Building Φ. Red indicates course merging or transition (semi- courses), blue points to brick/ceramic insertions, and yellow brackets enclose doorposts made of orthostats or stacked, squared blocks. (Photos courtesy of author)

171

Figure 3-4. Fabric details of the Skana. Red indicates course merging or transition (semi- courses), blue points to brick/ceramic insertions, and yellow brackets enclose doorposts. (Photos courtesy of Robert Wagman)

172

Figure 3-5. Brickwork in Building Φ above the niche in the circular room. (Photo courtesy of author)

173

Figure 3-6. Plans of Building K (Left), Building Φ (Middle), and the Skana (Right). All three shown at same scale and oriented with north at top. (Adapted from Kavvadias, P. 1900. Τὸ ἱερόν τοῦ Ἀσκλήπιου ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ. Athens: The Perrē Brothers: map 1; Roux, G. 1961. L’architecture de l’Argolide aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.-C. BEFAR 199: Figure 92; Lambrinoudakis, V. 1990. Prakt: Figure 1)

Figure 3-7. The Roman House fabric. (Photo by Helmut Koester, courtesy of Harvard Divinity School)

174

Figure 3-8. Stoa with hypocaust. (Photo courtesy of author)

Figure 3-9. Roman palaestra. Yellow indicates doorpost and blue points to brick/ceramic insertions. (Photos courtesy of author)

175

Figure 3-10. Tholos terrace retaining wall. Red indicates course transitions and blue points to brick/ceramic insertions. (Photo courtesy of author)

176

Figure 3-11. Fabric group two. A) Odeum. B) Northeast Baths. C) Northwest Complex. (Photos courtesy of author)

177

Figure 3-12. Fabric details of the Odeum. Red indicates brick courses; yellow, doorposts. (Photos courtesy of author)

178

Figure 3-13. Fabric details of the NE Baths. Red indicates brick course; yellow, doorposts. (Photos courtesy of author)

179

Figure 3-14. Fabric details of NW Complex. Red indicates brick courses; yellow, doorposts. (Photos courtesy of author)

180

Figure 3-15. Late Roman Perimeteric Stoa (in blue). (Adapted from OEΣME. 2000. To Yστερορωμαïκό “Tείχος”. Athens: Ministry of Culture: Figure 1)

181

Figure 3-16. Basilica and Agora. (Adapted from Kavvadias, P. 1918. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ.” ArchEph: Figure 13)

Figure 3-17. The House with Mosaics. (Adapted from Kavvadias, P. 1918. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ.” ArchEph: Figure 32)

182

Figure 3-18. Comparison of mosaics from the House with Mosaics and the Basilica I. A) House with Mosaics, small room. B) Basilica. C) Basilica. (Photos from Kavvadias, P. 1918. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ.” ArchEph: figs. 34, 27 and 28. Public domain)

183

Figure 3-19. Comparison of mosaics from the House with Mosaics and the Basilica II. A) House with Mosaics, large room. B) Basilica. (Photos from Kavvadias, P. 1918. “Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ.” ArchEph: figs. 35 & 26. Public domain)

184

Figure 3-20. The Banqueting Hall. Hellenistic building in gray, Roman additions in black. (Adapted from the Banqueting Hall information placard on site)

185

CHAPTER FOUR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ROMAN SANCTUARY

The Asclepieum emerged from the Hellenistic building program with its two most important activities, the public festival of Asclepius and the healing cult, firmly established in their modes of practice and in their architectural model. These templates remained unchanged until the renovation of the sanctuary by the senator Antoninus in the second century AD. As

Chapter 3 showed, the mid-second century brought considerable architectural change to the

Asclepieum but the effect of this change on its activities has not yet been investigated. Indeed, the impact of the Roman period as a whole merits closer study. Therefore, Chapter 4 will trace the development of the public festival and the healing cult throughout the Roman period and consider how the architectural changes of each age affected them.

The Asclepieum from 146 BC to AD 152

The period following the battle of Corinth in 146 BC until the building program of the senator Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus Pythodorus in the mid-second century AD produced little architectural development in the Asclepieum. The public festival and healing cult seem to have inherited and maintained their Hellenistic facilities with little or no loss until the first century

BC. Nevertheless the sanctuary as a whole seems to have recovered quickly in the first century

AD before again showing signs of distress in the late first- through the early second centuries AD just prior to the intervention of Antoninus.

The Second Century BC after the Roman Conquest

The Asclepieum provides a fairly large amount of evidence for its uses in the second century BC. Several key inscriptions attest sanctuary activities in this century and votives are plentiful. Unfortunately, most of this evidence cannot be dated more specifically than “second century BC” and therefore the main difficulty in assessing the activities of the Asclepieum in the

186

decades after Roman conquest lies in determining which materials should be assigned before 146

BC and which after. While the current state of the evidence does not allow a definitive solution for this problem, some progress can be made by a close examination of the available inscriptions.

Of the roughly two dozen inscriptions from the Asclepieum which may belong to the second century BC only three can be dated to specific years.1 Of these one is particularly important to recovering the activities of the Asclepieum: IG IV1 1, 63 dated to 114/5 BC which records honors accorded to Archelochos son of Aristophanes an ambassador to Rome:

ἐπεὶ Ἀρχέλοχος Ἀριστοφάντου ἀνὴρ καλὸς κἀγαθὸς ὑπάρχων τάν τε ἀναστροφὰν καὶ πολιτείαν πεπο ίηται καλῶς καὶ ἐνδόξω[ς] καὶ κατασταθεὶς πρεσβευτὰς εἰς ώμ[α]ν ὑπὲρ φιλίας καὶ συμμα- χίας τὰν πᾶσαν σπουδὰν καὶ ἐπιμέλειαν ἐποιήσατο ποτικα[ρ]- 5 τερήσας, καὶ ἐγενήθη φιλία καὶ συμμαχία ποτὶ ωμαίους τᾶι πό- λι τῶν Ἐπιδαυρίων, καὶ τοῦ δόγματος τοῦ γενομένου καὶ παρα- δοθέντος εἰς τὸ ταμιεῖον καὶ τᾶς συμμαχίας ἀνατεθείσας ἐν πίνακι χαλκέῳ ἐν τῷ Καπετωλίῳ, τούτων δὲ ἀντίγραφα ἀποδέδωκε εἰς τὸ δαμόσιον, ἔδοξε τοῖς συνέδροις καὶ τῷ δάμῳ, 10 ἐπαινέ(σαι) Ἀρχέλοχον Ἀριστοφάντου ἐπὶ τᾶι καλοκαγαθίαι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς συντετελεσμένοις ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γράμμασιν καὶ στ(ε)φανῶσαι αὐτὸν ἰκόνι χαλκέαι, στᾶσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ τὰν εἰκόνα ἐν τῷ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ τόπωι τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ Ἀσκλαπιοῦ· ὁ δὲ ταμίας ὁ κατεσταμένος ὁ τὸ τέταρτον καὶ τριακοσ{ο}τ(ὸ)ν ἔτος δότω τὸ ἀνάλωμα τᾶς εἰ- 15 κόνος καὶ βάσιος καὶ ἐγ δότω ὁ ἐ[πι]μελητάς, ἔμεν δὲ καὶ αὐτῶι καὶ ἐγόνοις ἀτέλειαν καὶ ἀνεισφ[ορί]αν, καλεῖν δὲ αὐτο ς vac. εἰς προεδρίαν ἐν τ[ο]ῖς ἀ[γῶσιν, οἷς] ἄγει ἁ πόλις· γραψάτω δὲ τὸ ψάφισμα ἐπὶ τ ὰν βάσιν [ὁ γραμματε]ύς.

Since Archelochos son of Aristophanes being a good and noble man managed his conduct and his tenure of office well and with distinction and since after he was restored as an ambassador to Rome on a mission of friendship and alliance he accomplished his duty and charge with tenacity and the friendship and alliance with the Romans was brought about for the city of the Epidaurians, and since after the decision was made and turned over to the quaestor, and the treaty was set up on a bronze notice board on the Capitoline he displayed the transcript of these things to the demos, it seemed good to the council and to the people to honor

1 These three are: an edict honoring Archelochos, ambassador to Rome, (IG IV1 1, 63) dated to 114/5BC, and two dedications from Lucius Mummius, conqueror of Greece, (Peek 1972, 47 and IG IV2 1, 306d) dated to 146/5 BC. The Mummius inscriptions do not contribute to the present discussion.

187

Archelochos son of Aristophanes for his nobleness and for the documents completed by him and to honor him with a bronze likeness, and to set up the likeness of him in a most conspicuous place of the sanctuary of Asclepius. And let the treasurer appointed for the 34th year pay the expenses of the likeness and base, and let the responsible official pay it out, and let there be for him and for his children tax-free status and freedom from the eisphoria, and let them be called to the front seats at the games which the city puts on; and let the scribe write the decree on the base.2

The circumstance of this honorary decree, a recently concluded treaty of alliance between the

Epidaurians and Rome, suggests that Epidaurus was successfully navigating its new political environment.3 At the very least, the fact that Archelochos’ statue was to be put “in a most conspicuous place of the sanctuary of Asclepius” (lines 12-13) indicates that the sanctuary was frequented in 115/4 BC and apparently a good place to publicize an honorary decree. More enlightening is line 17 in which Archelochos and his children are to “be called to the front seats at the games which the city puts on.” These “games” are almost certainly the contests of the

Asclepieia festival which must have been current.

Three other inscriptions of imprecise dating may expand on the Asclepieia festival during this period: IG IV1 1, 99 II, assigned to the second century BC, IG IV1 1, 99 III and 629, both assigned to second or first centuries BC. Although these inscriptions have been only generally dated to this era their internal evidence suggests they can be arranged into a sequence rooted in the second half of the century (after the events of 146 BC). The key to this sequence is IG IV1 1,

99 III which lists the penalties for performers who fail to perform in the Asclepieia:

2 This and all following translations are my own unless otherwise noted.

3 Melfi (2010a: 330; 2014: 144, 148-9), however, interprets Archelochos’ mission and subsequent diplomatic efforts by the Epidaurians as failures since Epidaurus never received from Rome the status (e.g. liberi et immunes) or support that other Greek cities, such as Delphi and Corinth, did.

188

24b ἕ[ξ]. v τραγωιδὸς Ἱππόσ[τρατος] Κα[ύ]κωνος Κ νί[διος μνᾶν] 25 ἕξ. v κωμοιδὸς Διονύσιος Διονυσίου όδιος μνᾶν τεσσάρων.

When Sostratos son of Patrocleida was judge of the games of the Asclepieia and Apollonia, the penalties of the artists because, having received pay, they did not compete: … of Lindos six mina. The tragic performer Hippostratos of Cnidos son of Kaukonos six mina. The comedic performer Dionysios of Rhodes son of Dionysios four mina.

In line 21 the words “καὶ Ἀπολλωνίων” have been written in superscript after Ἀσκλαπιείων. This revision is chronologically significant for two reasons. First, of the three inscriptions under consideration, this is the only one to name an Asclepieia and Apollonia together (to be understood, it appears, as one festival), the other two name the festival simply the Asclepieia.4

Indeed, IG IV2 1, 99 III is the first inscription of any date at the Asclepieum to explicitly attest a festival of Asclepius and Apollo.5 This paired nomenclature becomes standard throughout the next two centuries though with Apollo mentioned first.6 Therefore it may be that the superscript addition of the Apollonia in 99 III line 21 begins a new naming convention for the festival – one followed and refined throughout the first centuries BC and AD. If so then the two inscriptions which name the festival simply the Asclepieia, IG IV2 1, 99 II and 629, should precede 99 III.

This is supported in the case of 99 II by the judgment of Peek (1969: #44) and Fränkel (1902:

#1508) who think it slightly earlier than 99 III.

The second reason the superscript of IG IV1 1, 99 III is significant is the spelling of the festival of Apollo: Ἀπολλωνίων, genitive plural of Ἀπολλωνία (Apollonia). Only one other

4 This is also the first attestation in the Asclepieum from any period for the term Apollonia (a festival of Apollo) of any spelling. See also chapter two p. 83.

5 Though such a combination may be implied in IG IV2 1, 57 and 60, both of the fourth century BC, which list theorodokoi of Apollo and Asclepius.

6 Probably following the pattern common in all periods in which the sanctuary is called that of Apollo and Asclepius.

189

inscription spells the festival of Apollo this way, IG IV1 1, 65, an honorary decree of the first century BC. Subsequent inscriptions exhibit τῶν Ἀπολλωνιείων (Apollonieia) in the first century

BC and the first century AD, then Ἀπολλώνεια (Apolloneia) in the remaining inscriptions of the first century AD.7 The chronological consistency of the spelling variations indicates that the version ‘Apollonia’ belongs early in the first century BC or before. This consideration combined with the orthographic and stylistic dating of IG IV1 1, 99 III to the second century BC (Hiller

1929) suggests the inscription should be dated late in the second century BC.

Therefore two inscriptions, IG IV1 1, 99 II and 629, are prior to IG IV1 1, 99 III. Of these,

IG IV1 1, 99 II is judged by Peek (1969: #44) and Fränkel (1902: #1508) to just pre-date IG IV1

1, 99 III and therefore can be placed between the mid- and late second century BC.

Consequently, IG IV1 1, 629 will tentatively be assigned the same mid- to late century date as well. Therefore, IG IV1 1, 99 II, III and 629 should be placed in the following sequence. First, those two naming the Asclepieia only:

IG IV2 1, 629 (formerly assigned to the second or first centuries BC, now mid-to late second)

ἁ πόλις τῶν Ἐπιδαυρίων ἀνέθηκε Σωκράτη Σωκράτεος τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου Ἐπιδαύριον νικάσαντα παῖδας μὲν Ἀσκλαπίεια ἵππιον, Νέμεα ἵπ πιον, ἄνδρας δὲ Λύκαια δίαυλον καὶ 5 ὁπλίταν, Ἐλευθέρια τὰ ἐμ Πλαταιαῖς ἵππιον Ἀλέαια δίαυλον, Πυθάεια καὶ ώμαια τὰ ἐμ Μεγά- ροις ἵππιον καὶ ὁπλίταν, Δῖα καὶ Αἰάντεια [κα]ὶ ώ- μαια τὰ ἐν Ὀποῦντι δίαυλον, Ποσείδαια [καὶ] ώ- μαια τὰ ἐν Ἀντιγονείαι δίαυλον.

The city of the Epidaurians sets up [this statue for] Socrate the Epidaurian, son of Socrates Apollonius, victor of the boys’ horse race at the Asclepieia, and the horse race at Nemea, as well as the men’s double-stadion race and hoplite race at the Lycaia, and in the Eleutheria at Plataea the horse race and at Aleaia the double- stadion race, in the Pythian and Roman games at Megara the horse race and

7 The festival of Apollo is not attested after the first century AD.

190

hoplite race, in the Goddess and Aiantia and Roman games at Opounti the double- stadion race, at the Poseidonan and Roman games at Antigoneia the double- stadion race.

IG IV2 1, 99 II (formerly assigned simply to the second century BC, now mid- to late second)

ἐπὶ ἀγωνοθέτα τῶν Ἀσκλαπιείων Κλεαιχμίδα τοῦ 15 Ἀριστοκλέος κατάδικοι οἱ γενόμενοι τῶν ἀθλη- τᾶν διὰ τὸ φθείρειν τὸν ἀγῶνα ἕκαστον στατῆρ- σι χιλίοις Ταυρίδης Τελεσίου Σολε ς ἀνὴρ στα- διαδρόμος, Φίλιστος Καλλισθένους Ἀργεῖος ἀπ’ Ἀ- χαΐας, ἀνὴρ πένταθλ ος, Σίμακος Φαλακρίωνος Ἠπει- 20 ρώτης ἀπὸ Θεσπρωτῶν ἀνὴρ πανκρατιαστής.

When Kleaixmida son of Aristokleos was judge of the games of the Asclepieia, the penalties of the athletes because they rigged each game for a thousand stators: Taurides of Soleus son of Telesios the men’s stadium-runner, Philistos the Argive son of Kallisthenos from Achaia the men’s pentathlete, Simakos son of Phalakrionos the Epeirote from Thesproton men’s pancratiast.

Finally, IG IV2 1, 99 III (formerly second or first centuries BC, now late second) with its superscript addition of the Apollonia, presented above but reproduced again here for convenience:

ἐπὶ ἀγωνοθέτα τῶν Ἀσκλαπιείων καὶ Ἀπολλωνίων Σωστράτου τοῦ Πατρο- κλείδα κατάδικοι οἱ γενόμενοι τῶν τεχνιτᾶν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἀγωνίξασθαι κεκομισμένοι τὸν μισθὸν 24a Μ [․․7-8․․․]ΩΝ [․]Σ[— — 10-11 — —]ου Λ ίνδ ιος [μ]νᾶν 24b ἕ[ξ]. v τραγωιδὸς Ἱππόσ[τρατος] Κα[ύ]κωνος Κ νί[διος μνᾶν] 25 ἕξ. v κωμοιδὸς Διονύσιος Διονυσίου όδιος μνᾶν τεσσάρων.

Combined, these three inscriptions give a fairly detailed view of the festival contests. IG IV2 1,

99 II attests the stadium-run, the men’s (as opposed to youth’s) pentathlon, and the men’s pancration. IG IV2 1, 629 adds the boy’s horse-race which must have occurred in the

191

Asclepieum’s hippodrome. Finally, IG IV2 1, 99 III reveals that both tragic and comedic performances were part of the Asclepieia. Therefore, the Asclepieum of the post-146 BC period hosted a full-fledged agonistic festival on the model of other Panhellenic games such as the

Olympics and the Pythian games continuing a tradition begun in the Classical period.

Although the athletic and dramatic contests were only two components of the public festival of Asclepius the survival of the other elements – the procession, the public sacrifice, and the communal banquet – is likely for two reasons. First, the Asclepieum of the mid-second century BC inherited the buildings of the Hellenistic period intact. The earliest known loss of any

Hellenistic buildings occurs in the first century BC when Building Π and the Banqueting Hall

(see below) are seriously damaged. The dilapidation of the Stoa of Kotys, recorded by Pausanias

(2.27.6), may also date to the first century BC. Thus the facilities were available to perform all of the functions of the public cult. Second the procession, the public sacrifice and the ritual meal were integral parts of Greek festivals; indeed the public sacrifice was the one absolutely necessary component of a god’s celebration. Therefore the survival of the Asclepieia fairly requires the continuation of these elements.

For the private, healing cult of Asclepius the evidence is less clear. As with the public cult, the facilities of the healing cult – the Abaton, the bath adjacent to the Abaton, and the Temple of

Asclepius – appear to have survived in working order though no explicit evidence of their use has been uncovered. Votive inscriptions for this period are substantial (for the Roman era) totaling between 22 and 28, but only two can be definitively dated to after the Roman conquest.8

Moreover, none of the votives records the occasion of the dedication. Nevertheless, with two exceptions they appear to be the offerings of private individuals (just like the Hellenistic era

8 The two dedications of Lucius Mummius which date to 146/5 BC: Peek 1972, 47 and IG IV2 1, 306d.

192

healing votives) as opposed to the dedications of priests or officers as becomes common from the second century AD onward.9 In addition, almost all are dedicated to Apollo and Asclepius with a few to Asclepius only. In the Classical and Hellenistic eras, dedications such as these, by private individuals to Asclepius and Apollo, were usually votives offerings given as thanks for a successful cure. Therefore it is likely that most of these second century dedications are as well.

Taken as a whole then, the evidence tends to encourage the view that the healing cult of

Asclepius continued to operate after the Roman conquest. Still, the fact that only two of the votive inscriptions can be proven to be post-146 BC means that the continuity of the healing cult of Asclepius in the decades immediately following 146 BC cannot be determined with certainty.

It appears, then, that the Asclepieum in the first half century of Roman rule continued to function in the public sphere much the same as it did in the Hellenistic period. The central act of the public cult, the Asclepieia festival, survived, at least in the latter part of the century along with full program of competitions including equestrian and dramatic. The other elements of the festival, the procession, the public sacrifice, and the communal meal, are not attested but were probably a normal part of the festival. The healing cult, however, while certainly in use for part of the second century BC, leaves no unequivocal proof that it continued to function after 146 BC, though on the whole the votive inscriptions are consistent with its continuation.

The First Century BC

The first century BC appears to have been a difficult time for the Asclepieum. The sanctuary was looted twice: once in 86 BC by Sulla to supply his troops for the Mithridatic War and again, sometime later, by pirates.10 In 74 BC Marcus Antonius “Creticus” used Epidaurus as

9 The exceptions are two inscriptions of Mummius.

10 Sulla: Diod. 38.7.1.1; Plut. Sulla 12; Paus. IX.7.5. Pirates: Plut. Pomp. 24.

193

a supply base for his ineffective war against the pirates creating a severe food shortage.11 Livy

(45.28) reminds his readers that during his time (meaning probably the late first century BC) the sanctuary was bereft of the offerings with which it was once filled. The archaeological record confirms that some physical destruction occurred in and around the Asclepieum: fire consumed the south and east sides of the Banqueting Hall, the Hellenistic water system north of the

Banqueting Hall was disabled, Building Π went out of use and a number of buildings on the

Kynortion were destroyed.12 Additionally, only nine dedications can be confidently attributed to this century though a further eight or so may belong to it. This is lower than the second century

BC (19-25 dedications) but higher than the first century AD (5-13). Of course, this disparity may be due to disproportionate survival of inscriptions from different time periods.

Despite the apparent material decline outlined above, the activities of the sanctuary seem to have incurred little harm. The festival of Apollo and Asclepius are named in four inscriptions of the first century BC: IG IV2 1, 65, 66, 67 and 100. The first, IG IV2 1, 65, records the honors the city of Epidaurus presented Aristoboulos for his public service. It orders, among other honors, that he is to be publicly recognized (lines 21-22) “in the games of the Apollonia and Asclepieia during each festival assembly” (ἐν τῶι ἀγῶνι τῶν Ἀπολλωνίων καὶ Ἀσκλαπιείων καθ’ ἐκάσ[ταν

πανάγυρι]ν). The spelling “Apollonia” is only found in one other inscription, the previously

11 An Epidaurian, Euanthes son of Eunomos, alleviated the crisis by providing subsidized grain to the citizens over the ten-month period of occupation as recorded in his honorary decree (IG IV2 1 66).

12 Water system: Peppa-Papaioannou 1992: 265. Kynortion destruction layer: Lambrinoudakis 1988: 299a. Banqueting Hall fire: OEΣME 1988 23. The text says the fire dates to the 1st c. AD but the corresponding note 21 contradicts this and places it in the 1st c. BC. See also p. 301 which supports the 1st c. BC date. Other proposed but unsubstantiated damage in the first century BC: Building Π (Lembidaki 2002: 136) and the Katagogion (Kraynak 1991: 1).

194

discussed IG IV2 1, 99 II (in which Apollonia was added in superscript). This suggests that 65 is the earliest of the first century BC inscriptions.13

The next two inscriptions record honors given to Euanthes, son of Eunomos, the

Epidaurian who in 74 BC subsidized grain sales to the people of Epidaurus during a severe food shortage. The crisis was the result of the Roman general Marcus Antonius “Creticus” (IG IV2 1,

66 line 25) stationing a garrison in the city during his anti-piracy campaign. Both inscriptions, IG

IV2 1, 66 and 67, list the same honors in very similar wording. The relevant section of 66 (the most complete of the two) are lines 47-72:

ἐφ’ οἷς καὶ πᾶσιν ἔδοξε καὶ τοῖς [ἄρ]- χουσι καὶ τοῖς συνέδροις· ἐπαινέσαι Εὐάνθ η Εὐνόμου [Ἐ]- πιδαύριον ἐφ’ ἇι πεπόηται φιλαγαθίαι εἰς τὰν πόλιν καὶ δε- 50 δόσθαι αὐτῶι τιμάς, στεφανῶσαι δὲ αὐτὸν χρυ[σ]ῷ στε- φάνωι· στᾶσαι δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰκόνα χαλκέαν ἐν τῶι ἱερῷ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος τοῦ Μαλεάτα καὶ τοῦ Ἀσκλαπιοῦ καὶ ἀν[αγ]ο- ρεῦσαι τὸν στέφανον ἐν τῶι ἀγῶνι τῶν Ἀπολλωνιείων κα]ὶ Ἀσκλαπιείων καθ’ ἑκάσταν πανάγυριν, διότι "στεφ[α]νοῖ 55 [ἁ] πόλις ἁ τῶν Ἐπιδαυρίων (Εὐάνθη Εὐνόμου Ἐπιδαύριον) χρυσῶι στεφάνωι ἀρετᾶς ἕνε- [κ]εν καὶ εὐνοίας ἇς ἔχων διατελεῖ εἰς αὐτάν". τᾶς δὲ ἀνα- γορεύσιος τοῦ στεφάνου τὰν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι το ς ἀεὶ ἀντιτυνχάνοντας δαμιοργο ς καὶ τὸν ἀγωνο- [θ]έταν καὶ το ς ἑλλανοδίκας· καλεῖσθαι δὲ καὶ εἰς προεδρί- 60 [αν] Εὐάνθη Εὐνόμου καὶ ἐγγόνους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τᾶι πανα- [γ]ύρει τῶν Ἀπολλωνιείων καὶ Ἀσκλαπιείων, καὶ οἱ δαμιορ- γοὶ διδόντω τῷ ἀγωνοθέτᾳ ἐν τᾶι ἀπογραφᾶι μετὰ τῶν ἄλ- λων, ὧν ἂν δόξῃ καλεῖσθαι εἰς προεδρίαν μετὰ τὸ ἀνα- κληθῆμεν το ς εὐεργέτας τῶν ωμαίων. εἶμεν δὲ αὐ- 65 τῶι καὶ προπομπείαν ἐν τοῖς Ἀπολλωνιείοις καὶ Ἀ[σκλ]απι- είοις καὶ ἐγγόνοις αὐτοῦ καὶ πομπευέτω καὶ Εὐάνθεος βοῦς. στεφανούσθω δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπὶ πόλιος θεωρικοῖς Διονυ- σίοις καὶ μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τὰς σπονδὰς καὶ στεφαν[ω]θ[ῆμ]εν το ς εὐεργέτας, καὶ καρυξάτω ὁ κᾶρυξ διότι "ἁ πόλις ἁ τῶ[ν Ἐ]πι- 70 δαυρίων στεφανοῖ Εὐάνθη Εὐνόμου Ἐπιδαύριον χρυσῷ στεφ[ά]νωι ἀρετᾶς ἕνεκεν καὶ καλοκαγαθίας ἇς ἔχω[ν] διατελεῖ εἰς αὐτάν".

13 In general the sequence is: Apollonia – late second/early first centuries BC; Apollonieia – first century BC/AD; Apolloneia – first century AD.

195

For all these things it seemed good to both the leaders and the council to commend Euanthes, son of Eunomos, the Epidaurian for the good things which he has done for the city and to give him honors and to crown him with a gold crown and also to erect a bronze statue of him in the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas and of Asclepius and to proclaim the crown in the games of the Apollonian and Asclepiean festival during each festival assembly, that “the city of the Epidaurians crowns Euanthes, son of Eunomos, the Epidaurian with a gold crown because of his virtue and the goodwill which he exercised toward it.” And that forever the demiorges whoever they happen to be and the president of the games and the game judges see to the announcement of the crown. And that Euanthes Eunomos and his children be called to the front seat in the festival assembly of Apollo and Asclepius, and let the demiorges [give his name] to the president of the games in the census list with the others, whom it seems good to be called to the front row after the recognition of the euergetai of the Romans. And that there be also a prominent place in the procession for him in the Apollonian and Asclepian festivals and for his children also and that the ox of Euanthes also have a prominent place in the procession. And let him be crowned in the theoroi proceedings of the Dionysian festival at the city after the drink offerings and the crowning of the euergetai and let the herald announce that “The city of the Epidaurians crowns Euanthes, son of Eunomos, the Epidaurian with a golden crown on account of his virtue and the goodness which he has accomplished toward it.”

Lines 53-54 and 60-61 explicitly name the Apollonieia and Asclepieia (τῶν Ἀπολλωνιείων καὶ

Ἀσκλαπιείων) confirming the survival of the public festival in 74 BC, even after the depredations of Sulla and M. Antonius. As with IG IV2 1 65, the festival is that of Apollo and Asclepius with

Apollo taking precedence. Unlike 65, the spelling of the festival of Apollo is now “Apollonieia” vs. “Apollonia”. This new spelling will be standard until the first century AD. The other inscription for Euanthes, IG IV2 1, 67, seems to corroborate these developments but the relevant lines (6 and 12-13) require significant reconstruction.14

Besides attesting the survival of the public festival in the first century BC, the two

Euanthes inscriptions also provide details of the festival program. Inscription 66 lines 53-54 confirm the presence of the contests, or agon (ἐν τῶι ἀγῶνι τῶν Ἀπολλωνιείων κα]ὶ

14 Line 6: τῶν Ἀπολ[λωνιείων καὶ Ἀσκλαπιείων]. Lines 12-13: [τοῖς Ἀπολλωνιείοις καὶ Ἀσκλαπι]είοις.

196

Ἀσκλαπιείων). These same lines also reveal an award or recognition ceremony as part of the festival. First, the festival officials are “to announce [Euanthes’] crown in the contests of the

Apollonieia and Asclepieia during each festival assembly” (ἀν[αγ]ορεῦσαι τὸν στέφανον ἐν τῶι

ἀγῶνι τῶν Ἀπολλωνιείων κα]ὶ Ἀσκλαπιείων καθ’ ἑκάσταν πανάγυριν, IG IV2 1, 66 lines 52-

54).15 Then “Euanthes Eunomos and his children are to be called to the front seat in the festival assembly of the Apollonieia and Asclepieia” (καλεῖσθαι δὲ καὶ εἰς προεδρί[αν] Εὐάνθη Εὐνόμου

καὶ ἐγγόνους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τᾶι πανα[γ]ύρει τῶν Ἀπολλωνιείων καὶ Ἀσκλαπιείων, IG IV2 1, 66 lines 59-61).16 Inscription 66 further reveals (lines 63-64) that this is to take place “after the recognition of the euergetai (benefactors) of the Romans” (καλεῖσθαι εἰς προεδρίαν μετὰ τὸ

ἀνακληθῆμεν το ς εὐεργέτας τῶν ωμαίων). Inscription 67 confirms the precedence of the

Romans and adds that Euanthes’ name, father’s name and deme be announced (καλεῖσθαι εἰς

προεδρί]αν, καὶ τὸ Εὐάνθε[ος ὄνομα πατρόθεν καὶ τὸν δᾶμον] αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνακλ[ηθῆμεν δὲ αὐτὸν

μετὰ τὸ ἀνακλη]θῆμεν το ς εὐε[ργέτας τῶν ωμαίων, lines 8-11). Recognition or award ceremonies like this one are known for other public cult festivals such as the Panathenaia.

However, it is not earlier attested for the Asclepieia. Using the evidence above, this part of the

Asclepieia can be reconstructed as follows: at some point in the competition (ἐν τῶι ἀγῶνι) the festival-goers gathered to publicly recognize those honored by the city with an announcement of their honors, publicizing their name, family and deme, and by calling them forward to the best seats along with their children. Romans were recognized first, then others. The presence of

Roman euergetai and their precedence in the ceremony suggests that the Asclepieum had

15 IG IV2 1, 67 lines 1-4 are reconstructed with a similar meaning: [τᾶς δὲ ἀναγορεύσιος τᾶς τοῦ στεφάνου] τὰν ἐ[πιμέλειαν ποιεῖσθαι το ς ἀεὶ ἀντιτυνχάνον]τας δαμιοργο [ς καὶ τὸν ἀγωνοθέταν καὶ το ς Ἑλ]λανοδίκας “And that forever the demiorges whoever they happen to be and the president of the games and the game judges see to the announcement of the crown.”

16 IG IV2 1, 67 lines 4- 6 read identically: καλ[εῖσθαι δὲ καὶ εἰς προεδρίαν Εὐάν]θη Εὐνόμου καὶ ἐγ[γόνους αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τᾶι πανα]γύρει τῶν Ἀπολ[λωνιείων καὶ Ἀσκλαπιείων.

197

attracted the aid of certain Romans in the first century BC, though the details of their contributions have not survived.17

Another part of the Apollonieia and Asclepieia confirmed for the year 74 BC by IG IV2 1,

66 and 67 is the festival procession. In inscription 66 (lines 64-67) Euanthes, his children and his ox are allowed to lead the procession (εἶμεν δὲ αὐτῶι καὶ προπομπείαν ἐν τοῖς Ἀπολλωνιείοις καὶ

Ἀ[σκλ]απιείοις καὶ ἐγγόνοις αὐτοῦ καὶ πομπευέτω καὶ Εὐάνθεος βοῦς).18 This is corroborated by nearly identical wording in inscription 67, lines 11-14.19 It is likely that the procession kicked off the Asclepieia.20 Its route probably began in the city of Epidaurus and proceeded along the road to the Asclepieum, entering the sanctuary through the northern Propylon, passing Building K, the

Stoa of Kotys, numerous exedrae and the Temple of Asclepius, where it perhaps terminated. The

Hellenistic procession apparently continued on into the Banqueting Hall’s courtyard but that building’s partial destruction in this century may have required the train to stop further north.21

One final inscription may shed further light on the public festival in the first century BC:

IG IV2 1, 100 which records the penalties for those who did not perform their contracts in the

Asclepieia. Hiller (1929: #100) assigns this inscription to the second or first century BC based on

17 “suggests” rather than “proves” since these euergetai may have focused on the city of Epidaurus rather than the Asclepieum.

18 Cf. IG IV2 1, 47, on p. 84. This fourth century BC inscription honors the city of Astypalaea, a colony of Epidaurus by granting (lines 8-11) that “the sacrificial animals of the people of Astypalaea be included in the procession of the Epidaurians.”

19 IG IV2 1, 67 lines 11-14 εἶμεν δὲ αὐτῶι] καὶ προπομπεία[ν τοῖς Ἀπολλωνιείοις καὶ Ἀσκλαπι]είοις καὶ ἐνγόνοι[ς αὐτοῦ καὶ πομπευέτω καὶ Εὐάνθε]ος βοῦς.

20 See chapter two p. 84.

21 For the Hellenistic procession see p. 84. The Banqueting Hall is thought to be the Hellenistic terminus since (1) its propylon is distinctly offset to line up with the procession route, (2) the propylon has a ramp rather than steps which seems logical for animals, and (3) the courtyard of the Banqueting Hall would make a good “falling out” space for the procession.

198

orthography but if his reconstruction τῶν Ἀπολλωνιείω]ν in line 5 is correct, it should fall in the first century BC:22

[— — — — — — — — — —]λας [Φ]εν[εάτας] [— — — — — — — — Ἀρ]γ εῖος τραγωιδὸς [— — — — — — — — Ἀπ]ολλᾶς Βίωνος Φ ενεάτας [— — — — — — — — — ἐ]ρ[γολα]βήσας ἔλιπε. vacat 5 [ἐπὶ ἀγωνοθέτα τῶν Ἀπολλωνιείω]ν καὶ Ἀσκλαπιείων [τοῦ δεῖνος· ὀφείλουσι τῶι θεῶι ζα]μιωθέντες καὶ πε- [— — — — — — — — — — — — — —] Ἀντιφίλου Ἀθηναῖος [— — — — — — — — — — — — — ἐργο]λαβήσας ἔλιπε [— — — — — — — — — — — — — —] Ἀρίστας αὐλη[τὴς] 10 [— — — — — — — — — — — ἐργολα]βήσας [ἔ]λιπε.

… the Pheneatan … the Argive tragic performer … Apollas son of Bionos the Pheneatan … having accepted the contract he abandoned it. vacat. During the presidency of the Apollonian and Asclepian games … those fined are in debt to the god and … son of Antiphilos the Athenian … having accepted the contract he abandoned it … Aristas the flutist … having accepted the contract he abandoned it.

The Asclepieia is explicitly mentioned and the Apollonieia reconstructed in line 5 (τῶν

Ἀπολλωνιείω]ν καὶ Ἀσκλαπιείων). More interestingly, the listing of the τραγωιδὸς in line 2 and the αὐλη[τὴς] in line 9 point to the continued importance of drama and music in the festival.

Thus the public festival of Asclepius continued to be celebrated in the first century BC even after the crises created by Sulla and M. Antonius.23 Most of the major components of the

Hellenistic model are attested for the first century BC: the procession, the games, and dramatic performances (the last two also attested for the second century BC) along with a previously unknown component, the recognition or award ceremony. For the two remaining components,

22 In any event it is later than IG IV2 1, 99 III (late second century BC) since the festival of Apollo is written first.

23 The first century BC also provides the first evidence for a second Epidaurian festival, this one dedicated to Dionysus (IG IV2 1, 66, lines 67-68: στεφανούσθω δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπὶ πόλιος θεωρικοῖς Διονυσίοις and IG IV2 1, 67, lines 14-15: στεφαν[ούσθω δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπὶ πόλιος θε]ωρικοῖς Δι[ονυσίοις— —]). According to the inscription this festival was held in the city of Epidaurus and not in the Asclepieum.

199

the public sacrifice and communal meal, their survival seems implied by the very nature of the

Greek civic festivals; animal sacrifice was their central activity and the public participated by consuming the sacrificial meat together. Certainly the facilities for public sacrifice, the Temple of Asclepius and his monumental altar, were intact in the first century BC.24 Only a large open area was necessary for the communal meal and the area east of the monumental altar was maintained unobstructed since Hellenistic times as a place where the festival-goers could sit and eat. Yet for some diners, the communal meal of the first century BC must have deviated from the

Hellenistic model with the loss of the majority of the Banqueting Hall to fire in this century.

With its limited capacity, the building’s destruction would have affected only a small portion of the festival attendees, probably local and visiting elites (discussed in Chapter 2, p. 70). This group must have found other accommodations in the first century BC.25

Though the survival of the public festival is certain for the Asclepieum in the first century

BC, the evidence for the sanctuary’s healing activities is less conclusive. A single cure inscription, IG IV2 1, 440, can probably be assigned to this century.26 This dedication, once gilded, displays two small ears and reads “Cutius the Gaul had once vowed these ears to you,

Child of Apollo, and healthy he has placed these little ears.”27 The inscription is definitely a votive offering for a successful healing and if it is, indeed, first century then this is explicit proof of the continuation of the healing activity at the sanctuary. In addition to the cure inscription, ten to eighteen votive dedications can be dated to the first century BC. These inscriptions have much

24 The temple and the altar remained structurally intact throughout the lifetime of the Asclepieum.

25 Since no replacement for the Banqueting Hall was ever built.

26 Hiller (1929) notes that Sboronus (Ath. Nat. Mus. 430, 126) conjectures this Cutius to be M. Julius Cottius son of king Donnus, who dedicated a bow to Augustus in 9/8 BC (RE 2X 576, 197).

27 “Cutius has auris Gallus tibi voverat olim, Phoebigena, et posuit sanus ab auriculis.”

200

the same character as votives from the last four centuries: they are primarily dedicated to Apollo and Asclepius by private citizens, mostly Epidaurian, on behalf of a member of a family member.28 While these dedications do not explicitly mention healing, their content is consistent with petitions or thanksgivings for cures. Thus, the continuation of the Asclepieum’s healing activity in the first century BC seems likely but not certain.

Finally, the effects of building losses on the sanctuary during the first century BC should be explored. Lembidaki (2002: 136) suggests Building Π was destroyed in this century. This structure is almost certainly a shrine or temple (Lembidaki 2002: 133-134) though no convincing evidence survives for the original cult which, nevertheless, has been variously speculated to belong to the Dioscuri (Roux 1961: 279n1), the Egyptian aspects of Apollo, Asclepius and

Hygieia (Kavvadias 1900b: 161), and an unknown mystery cult (Lembidaki 2002: 136).29

Considering this inability to identify Building Π, the impact of its loss on the Asclepieum’s activities cannot be determined. The Banqueting Hall was also lost in the first century BC when fire destroyed its southern, eastern, and probably western parts.30 Since these wings contained its dining rooms, the building was no longer a functional hestiatorion.31 To the extent that the

Banqueting Hall was built to accommodate local and visiting elites during the communal banquet (probably its primary function) its purpose could have been substituted by ad hoc dining arrangements during the festival period. Inasmuch as the Banqueting Hall may have been used for the normal dining of visiting cure-seekers in off-festival periods (possible but uncertain) its

28 IG IV2 1, 212 is typical: “Archo Astylaida the Epidaurian for Echekrateia daughter of Damocles the Epidaurian, her mother, to Apollo, to Asclepius.”

29 For a complete discussion of Building Π see chapter two p. 59.

30 OEΣME 1988: 23.

31 For the Banqueting Hall see chapter two p. 72.

201

loss probably had little effect on either the healing program or the popularity of the Asclepieum for supplicants; meals could be taken elsewhere (banqueting halls, made for special dining, were not necessary for normal boarding) and the desire to be healed would naturally override any calculation of amenities at the sanctuary. Therefore, the loss of Building Π and the Banqueting

Hall probably had little practical effect on the activities of the Asclepieum either for the public cult or for private healing.

The First Century AD

The Asclepieum fares well in the first century AD judging by the success of the public festival which is better attested for this period than any other. In other categories, however, the status of the sanctuary is less certain. There does not seem to be any new construction and only minor improvements to one building, the Stadium, are indicated, though no buildings are known to be lost. As with the second and first centuries BC, evidence for the healing cult is slight. One curious development is a dramatic change in character of votives at the end of the century.

Nine inscriptions mention the festival or the games, the largest number for any century. In seven of them the festival has been renamed the games of Apollo, Asclepius and Caesar.32 The addition of the “Caesareia” is unique to the first century AD and we are fortunate to have an inscription referring to its founder, IG IV2 1, 652:

ἁ πόλις τῶν Ἐπιδαυρίων Γναῖον Κορνήλιον Σωδάμου υἱὸν Νικά- ταν, v ἱερέα τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ Καίσα- ρος δίς, ἀγωνοθετήσαντα πρῶ- 5 τον τὰ Ἀπολλωνίεια καὶ Ἀσκλα- πίεια v κτίσαντά vv τε τ [ὰν] Καισα- ρείων πανάγυριν καὶ ἀγῶνας καὶ πρῶτον ἀγωνοθετήσαντα, ἀρετᾶς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας 10 τᾶς εἰς αὐτάν.

32 Ἀπολλωνεῖα καὶ Ἀσκλαπεῖα καὶ Καισάρεια in IG IV2 1, 675, lines 4-5.

202

The city of the Epidaurians [honors] Gnaeus Cornelius Nikatas, son of Sodamos, twice the priest of Caesar Augustus, first president of the Apollonian and Asclepieian games, and founder of the Caesarian festival and games and first president of them, on account of his virtue and his goodwill toward the city.

The exact date of this inscription is not given but the earliest dated inscription naming the

Caesarian games (IG IV2 1, 101) is from AD 32/33 and therefore the founding of the new festival must be earlier.33 The death of the Emperor Augustus in AD 14 was undoubtedly the impetus for these games, a conclusion reinforced by the fact that Cn. Cornelius Nikatas was twice the priest of Augustus. A further six inscriptions attest these games but only one other is precisely dated:

IG IV2 1, 675 of the year AD 79/80.34 Therefore, for at least forty-seven years a new triple festival was celebrated which, based on its copious attestation, seems to have been very popular.

The renovation of the southern seating of the Stadium, which Patrucco (1976: 48) dates to the first centuries BC or AD, was probably spurred by this expanded festival and should be dated to this century.

While the epigraphic evidence for public festival in the first century AD is the most numerous for any period, the healing cult is not explicitly attested at all. There are no cure inscriptions for the first century AD though there are between five and fifteen inscribed dedications extant. The plurality of these offerings are dedicated to Asclepius and most seem to be the votives of private individuals. One of these (IG IV2 1, 380) dated to 10 or 11 AD shows a formula similar to the cure votives though it does not explicitly mention illness or treatment. In it one Alexa son of Diodotos, an Argive and Epidaurian, offers a statue to Asclepius on behalf of

33 It is not clear what is meant by the “first president of the Apollonian and Asclepieian games.” Perhaps the contests had fallen out of practice at the end of the first century BC or the very beginning of the first century AD and had to be re-founded or perhaps πρῶτον should be understood adverbially, i.e. he was president of the Apollonan and Asclepieian games before he founded the Caesarian.

34 IG IV2 1, 654; 664; 674; 675; Peek 1972: 86 & 89. In addition, IG IV2 1, 27 mentions the “games of the emperors”.

203

his wife. In addition, two of the inscriptions of possible first century AD date state that they were offered according to a dream, which is normally connected with incubation.35 Together this evidence points tentatively to the continuation of the healing cult in the first century AD.

Though the dedicatory offerings say little about the functioning of the healing cult, they reveal a stark change in the character of such offerings between the end of the first and the beginning of second centuries AD. Up to the first century AD, religious officials accounted for only a small percentage of the dedicators of these offerings, with supplicants making up the majority. At the end of the first century, this formerly private genre of inscription now becomes dominated by the holders of religious offices in the Asclepieum, especially the priest of Apollo, the priest of Asclepius and the pyrophoros.36 Specifically, of the five dedications definitely dated to the first century AD, none are commissioned by religious officials but for the eight that are indeterminate between the first and second centuries AD, four are dedicated by a priest or pyrophoros. The percentage attributed to priests continues to rise throughout the second century and remains high for the remaining life of the Asclepieum.

The Early Second Century

From the beginning of the second century AD to the visit of Hadrian to Greece in AD 124 little evidence survives from the Asclepieum. Only one votive offering (SEG 39-358) dates to this period, a dedication to “Holy Night” commemorating the emperor Trajan’s victory in

Moesia. Unfortunately, this inscriptions sheds no light on the activates of the sanctuary. In fact, there is no evidence at all for the healing cult or the public festival in this period. Likewise the material condition of the sanctuary buildings is unknown. This lack of evidence does not

35 SEG 11-440 (1st c. BC or AD) to Asclepius; IG IV2 1, 544 (1st or 2nd c. AD) to Apollo and the Nymphs.

36 pyrophoros = “fire-bearer”. Presumably an assistant to the priests since he is always presented as lower in rank. In later centuries he is often the son of the priest of Asclepius.

204

necessarily mean that the functions of the sanctuary languished at this time but the fact that

Hadrian was hailed as a new founder by the Epidaurians may indicate the sanctuary was in distress.

Renaissance and Acme

In the mid- to late second century AD the Asclepieum experienced massive architectural development. The majority of this construction was due to Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus

Pythodorus whose building program was the largest of the Roman period and almost rivaled the

Hellenistic monumentalization. This expansion reached its acme under Caracalla’s reign which produced some of the most impressive structures to be built in the Roman era at the site. The result of these efforts was nothing less than the architectural renaissance of the Asclepieum.

Unfortunately, the effect of this construction boom on the activities of the sanctuary is not as clear, but there is reason to believe that the public festival and the healing cult were revitalized during the second century as well. Indeed, a renewal of these two functions seems to have begun even earlier than the architectural renaissance, under Hadrian.

Hadrian

In September of AD 124, Hadrian stopped at the Asclepieum on his tour through Greece.

As a result of this visit, the Epidaurians named him the savior and founder of the city (ἡ πόλις

τὸν ἑαυτῆς σωτῆρα καὶ οἰκιστήν.) and thereafter adopted a dating system beginning with the year of Hadrian’s arrival.37 Whether these honors were the result of some extraordinary benefit

Hadrian bestowed on the Epidaurians or were simply formalities is not clear but Melfi (2007: 83-

86; 2010a: 333) makes a good case that Hadrian refounded the public games.38 She notes that the

37 IG IV2 1, 606: 8-9. The first year of the Hadrianic era at Epidaurus is calculated as running from September AD 123 to September AD 124 (Hiller 1929a XXXIII).

38 Cf. Sève 1993: 317-318 who gives an overview of the evidence but does not discuss Hadrian’s possible role as “founder.”

205

best evidence for this comes from a limited run of local coinage that has recently been assigned to the reign of Hadrian. Amandry (1993: 329-332) has connected five coin dies with the

Hadrianic era, three obverses and two reverses. One of the obverses displays the bust of Hadrian while the other two show a bust of Asclepius. All three obverses have the superscript IERAC

EΠIΔAYPOU. The Hadrian obverse is linked to two different reverses, one showing

Thrasymedes’ seated Asclepius, which was the cult image in the Temple of Asclepius in the

Asclepieum, and the other showing a laurel crown with ACKΛ/HΠEI/A written in the middle.

All of the Asclepius obverses share this later reverse using the same die and can therefore be dated to the about the same date as the Hadrian coins. The choice of the laurel wreath with

“Asclepiea” as a reverse for the Hadrianic coinage suggests that the emperor provided some new support or impetus for the public festival. Melfi (2007: 85) adds that Hadrian revised several

Panhellenic festivals so such attention to the Asclepieia would not be unprecedented.39 If Hadrian did refound the games, the downturn in their celebration must have occurred in the early second or very late first centuries AD based on the lack of attestation for those periods.40

Clear evidence for the healing cult is absent for this period. There are eleven dedicatory inscriptions that can be definitely dated to Hadrian’s reign but only three were not dedicated by priests and two of these are too fragmentary to determine the dedicator. Therefore, only one, IG

IV2 1, 519, appears to be from a private individual but it is addressed to Zeus and not Asclepius making it an unlikely candidate for a healing votive.

39 Melfi (2007: 84n6) also argues, based on IG IV2 1, 89, that Hadrian overhauled the priest selection process, changing it to an annual rotation. Its former, multi-year repetition by members of the same family, she suggests, points to a crisis of the priesthood which may have precipitated the refounding. Her argument would be compelling but IG IV2 1, 89 cannot yet be confidently connected with Hadrian’s reign; as it stands the inscription may belong to either the second or the third century.

40 The last previous evidence for the celebration of the games is IG IV2 1, 675 dated to AD 79/80. Thus there is a possible 44 year interval in which the games may have subsided.

206

Overall then, based on Hadrian’s title as “savior and founder” and the iconography of the limited issue coinage, his visit in AD 124 seems to have significantly benefited the Asclepieum in general and the public games in particular though it cannot now be determined what state he found the sanctuary in or how much help he gave it. More important perhaps was the attention

Hadrian brought to the Asclepieum which undoubtedly influenced, some twenty-eight years later, the wealth senator from Nysa, Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus Pythodorus, to choose the

Epidaurian sanctuary as a beneficiary of his euergetism.

After Hadrian the next three decades until the renovations of the senator Antoninus offer little information about the sanctuary. From this interval five votive offerings survive, all dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius and all dedicated by priests. The only evidence for the major activities of the sanctuary comes from AD 143/4, when according to one honorary inscription

(Peek 1972: 87), T. Statilius Lamprias was the president of the games.

The Senator Antoninus

The development of the sanctuary by the senator Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus

Pythodorus started in the middle of the second century AD and spanned perhaps a decade.

Antoninus’ building program was the most extensive the sanctuary had seen since its monumentalization in Hellenistic period and would remain unrivalled throughout the rest of the

Asclepieum’s life. The program amounted to a full-scale structural renovation of the Asclepieum and this construction program, more than any other, formed the basis of the sanctuary’s architectural renaissance in the Roman period. While the architectural significance of Antoninus’ project is clear, its effect on the activities of the sanctuary is less well-understood. This section, therefore, will examine the functions of the new buildings in combination with analysis of the

207

epigraphic evidence in order to determine how the program of Antoninus affected the functions of the Asclepieum.

The public cult. Some of the new construction under the senator Antoninus seems directed toward expanding the facilities for the public cult. In the area north of the Stadium a new athletic training complex (Figure 1-7: 64) was constructed, labeled here the Roman

Palaestra.41 This collection of structures, poorly documented after excavation and now difficult to decipher, consists of at least three buildings. The easternmost is built over the north side of the

Hellenistic Palaestra to which it adds a number of small rooms.42 Directly west is a courtyard building which Riethmüller (2005: 283) suggests may have provided quarters for the athletes. A third, unclassified, building sits to the south of the courtyard building and according to

Riethmüller (2005: 283) more, unmapped buildings lie further west and south. As a whole, this complex significantly expands on the previous Hellenistic facilities available for the athletes in the public games. Meanwhile, on the Kynortion Hill a new cistern (Figure 1-4: 12) substantially increased the amount of water available in the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas and seems to have anticipated a larger attendance at the ceremonies in this location.

Also related to the public cult are three buildings whose classification and purpose have been much debated; these are Building K, Building Φ and the Skana on the Kynortion. As discussed in Chapter 3, this trio have a similar, distinctive design (Figure 3-6) characterized by a foyer placed immediately off the entrance surrounded by a number of other rooms, almost all smaller, including an unusual circular room towards the back corner of each building. Though similarities between these buildings have been noted before, their interpretation would benefit

41 See also chapter two p. 80.

42 Kavvadias 1900a: 17-19; 1926: 139-140; Patrucco 1976: 102; Tomlinson 1983: 69; Riethmüller 2005: 293.

208

from a more systematic comparison which acknowledges the origin of all three in the mid- second century AD.

The Skana (Figure 4-1) is the most readily identifiable of the three buildings. Four inscribed doorposts, two found in situ, supply both the name of the building and its function. IG

IV2 1 393 is representative:43

θεός, ἀγαθὰ τύχα. σκανὰ ἱερέως Ἀρχιμή- δους τοῦ Ἱλάρου, να- κόρου Παραμόνης τῆς 5 Ἀβασκάντου, πυροφό- ρου Ἱλάρου τοῦ Ἀρχιμή- δους, ζακόρου Λανπρο- τύχης, ναυφυλάκων Εὐτύχου Ͻ καὶ Δάφνου, 10 ἱερεωσάμενοι ξ ἔτει. τοῖς θεοῖς εὐχαριστοῦ- μεν.

God, Good Fortune. The Skana of the priest Archimedos son of Hilaros, of the neokoros (temple custodian) Paramone son of Abaskantos, of the pyrophoros Hilaros son of Archimedeos, of the zakoros (temple attendent) Lanprotuche, of the nauphulakoi (temple guards) Eutuchos and Daphnos, serving as priests in the 60th year. We give thanks to the gods.

A “skana” is a building to house people and in this case at least five officials lived here. The inscription dates to the 60th year after the visit of Hadrian, i.e. AD 183/4, which places it only slightly later than the construction of the original phase of the Roman Skana built in this period by Antoninus.44 The other inscriptions are later; IG IV2 1, 400 dates to 206 AD and IG IV2 1, 401 to slightly after 206 AD (IG IV2 1, 402 is undated) indicating a continuity of purpose into at least the early third century.

43 IG IV2 1, 393, 400, 401 and 402. The first two found in situ.

44 The Roman building was built over the foundations of two Hellenistic buildings (Lambrinoudakis 1990: 47). The presence of a Hellenistic Skana is shown by IG IV2 1, 109 (290-270 BC) and SEG XV 207 (ca. 300 BC) which mention skanamata on the Kynortion (see Lambinoudakis 1992: 48).

209

While later centuries would modify the Skana, producing at least three phases total, the original phase, belonging to the period under discussion, had the greatest influence on the building’s plan. Nevertheless, interpretations of the Skana’s individual rooms (Figure 4-1) in this first building phase are still largely speculative. The first room reached through the main entrance is a vaulted foyer supported by a row of columns in the middle.45 This is the largest space in the Skana and controls access to the rest of the building. In the south wall of the foyer before the columns is a niche to which water was supplied via a lead pipe.46 When excavated, the foyer contained small statues of Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia and Artemis as well as votives to

Apollo Maleatas, Poseidon and Artemis of various centuries.47 Across the foyer, opposite the entrance, are four rooms (Θ, Z, M, I) which form an inverted T accessed by room Θ which has wall niches for statuettes. In the easternmost room, labeled “I”, Lambrinoudakis (1989: 51-52) found what he believed to be evidence of a sacrificial area – statue niches and bases and a water drainage duct along the southern wall – though these cannot definitely be dated to the original phase of the Skana.48 To the left of the foyer are the apparently residential apartments which extend up to a second floor via a stairway in room Δ.49 Finally, the right side of the foyer leads to two bathing rooms, O and Π, one of which is a distinctive round room, Π, which Melfi (2007:

118) convincingly argues is a dry steam bath or laconicum. South of the bathing rooms there is a stairway leading from the Skana into the nearby cistern, also built by Antoninus.50

45 Lambrinoudakis 1990: 48.

46 Lambrinoudakis 1993: 41-42.

47 Kavvadias 1900b: 179.

48 Also found were the remains of small lamps mixed with burnt fragments of animal bones dating to the 3rd century AD (Lambrinoudakis 1989: 51).

49 Lambrinoudakis 1994: 64; OEΣME 1999: 71.

50 Lambrinoudakis 1994: 64.

210

As Kavvadias (1900b: 179-180) originally pointed out, the door-post inscriptions confirm this building as a residence for priests. Others, however, have not seen this classification as incompatible with other uses. Thus, Lambrinoudakis (1989: 53) argues that the cult of the

Egyptian Apollo, Asclepius and Hygieia, attributed to Antoninus by Pausanias, was located here, based on the tripartite arrangement of rooms Z, Θ, and M before the sacrificial room I and the remains of lamps, perhaps indicating nocturnal rites. But as Melfi (2007: 118) points out the lamps and much of the evidence for sacrifice cannot be dated earlier than the third century AD.

She suggests the building was purely a residence for priests with the middle rooms used as offices. Galli (2004: 332-333) sees the building as the home of a religious micro-community.

The same design elements which define the Skana are also found in Building Φ (Figure 4-

2). The main entrance leads directly to a large, central space, room A, which directs passage to the rest of the building. On its west, south and east sides, this central room connects to a number of smaller rooms which extend two-deep in the south. The southwest corner of the building contains a circular room just like the dry steam bath in the Skana. Unlike the Skana, Building Φ has a large, rectangular hall, room B, adjoining central room on the north side. The line of four columns down the center of room B indicate it was completely covered while the four column square in the center of room A suggests an opening in the roof (though there is no impluvium on the floor).51 The only distinctive contents which might point to function are found in the central room A. Opposite the main entrance, along the back wall of the center aisle is a large base for statues. To its right is an altar. Along the northern aisle, on each side, are two rows of benches

51 Kavvadias 1900b: 155; Roux 1961: 300.

211

without backs (taken from the Abaton) ending at a stone table which has a bench with a back behind it.52

Kavvadias (1892a: 155-156) considers this building a Hellenistic gymnasium due to the long hall north of the central “courtyard” and identifies it as the Stoa of Kotys mentioned by

Pausanias.53 Roux (1961: 300-302) dismisses Building Φ’s classification as a stoa or a gymnasium, as does Delorme (1960: 485), and shows the building is originally Roman, without any Hellenistic under-layer. Yet Roux prefers to assign it to the fourth century AD and interprets the southern rooms as a habitation area. He suggests it might be a communal living space dedicated to an unspecified cult but allows it might belong to the construction phase of

Antoninus in which case he judges it to be the temple of the Egyptian Apollo and Asclepius.

OEΣME (1999: 55), Lambrinoudakis (2002: 224), and Riethmüller (2005: 288-289), bolstered by the building’s re-excavation in 1998, follow Roux’s idea that it is the temple of the Egyptian deities based on the three isles of the central foyer (its tripartite nature), the presence in the same room of a table and altar, and the small circular bath.54 Galli (2004: 343-344) and Melfi (2007:

141-143) prefer Roux’s theory of a community house with a religious character, that is, a communal structure where a group of people whether priests, intellectuals, or pilgrims could come together for reunion, banqueting, celebration and worship. Melfi (2007: 143-144) further proposes it may have become a seat for a neoplatonic school in the fourth century.

Building K is the most confused of these buildings since its excavation was only superficial. As a result the connections between rooms are not certain and even the location of

52 Roux 1961: 300; OEΣME 1999: 56; Lambrinoudakis 2002: 224; Melfi 2007: 141.

53 Kavvadias (1900b: 156n1) claims gymnasia could be called “stoas” and that Kotys may have been a famous athlete.

54 The 1998 excavation report by Aslanidis, K. and Pinatsi, Ch. remains unpublished in the archive of the Committee for the Preservation of the Epidaurian Monuments; non vidi.

212

the entrance is not without doubt. Nevertheless, Kavvadias (1900b: 157) reported a courtyard near the middle of the building with the base of a statue, in situ, through which water flowed into a basin.55 Kavvadias (1900b: 157; 1921: 41) did not distinguish Building K from the baths on its south side (Figure 1-7: 40) and so labeled the whole as the Baths of Asclepius attributed to

Antoninus by Pausanias. Staïs (1886: 79-80), Tomlinson (1983: 54) and Riethmüller (2005: 283) follow suit. Building K is indeed closely associated with the Roman renovation of the earlier baths adjacent to the Abaton but Melfi (2007: 143) sees the arrangement of courtyard and surrounding rooms, as well as its resemblance to the Skana, as serving a residential function for priests. The statue base in the courtyard she interprets as serving a cult function. Therefore she sees a multifunction building where priests were housed and religious rites performed. Based on two inscriptions found in the building and her late (end of third century AD) dating of the structure she further proposes that the building may have been the home of a neoplatonic school

(as an alternative to Building Φ).

The similar design features of Building K, Building Φ and the Skana – on the one hand their organization around a primary foyer or atrium as in Roman houses, and on the other hand the unusual circular “steam bath” at one corner – comprise a distinctive layout which is not duplicated in the Asclepieum. This shared design combined with the fact that they were all built in the same building program by the senator Antoninus suggest that all three buildings are the same type of structure. Since the Skana is explicitly attested as a house for priests it is seems certain that Building K and Building Φ serve the same function. Consistent with this role the layout of all three buildings is fundamentally domestic. Each building is organized around a

55 In and around the structure were found four large and thirty small statues as well as approximately seventy inscriptions – the richest trove of such materials to be discovered in the Asclepieum – including statues of Apollo, Asclepius, Aphrodite, Athena and Hygieia. Unfortunately, they were not found in situ but probably collected here in post-classical times, perhaps as fuel for a lime-kiln.

213

entry foyer which controls access to a variety of internal rooms. Some of these internal rooms, for example the northeastern rooms in the Skana and perhaps the southern rooms in Building Φ seem to have been used for habitation, others may have been used for offices or storage. The purpose of these buildings as priestly residences does not necessarily preclude the use of one or more of them as cult locations. For example as the locus of the Egyptian cult of Apollo,

Asclepius and Hygieia (proposed for Building Φ as well as the Skana). Indeed, there is evidence of cult practice in each building: stone bases for an altar and statues as well as stone table in the foyer of Building Φ, wall niches, statue bases and remains of third century AD sacrifices in room

I of the Skana, and the statuary base in the foyer of Building K.56 Nevertheless, despite the confused state of the information, it seems most straightforward to assign the Skana to the priest of Apollo Maleatas, Building Φ or K to the priest of Asclepius and the remaining building perhaps to another priest of Apollo since his cult was also present in the Asclepieum. This allotment draws some support from inscriptions since, if we assume that Building K and Φ followed the Skana in being the home of a hiereus and pyrophoros, the most common pairings of hiereus are with Asclepius and with Apollo, and the single instance in which pyrophoros is connected to a specific god it is linked to Asclepius.

Therefore the construction of these five structures, the Roman Palaestra, the cistern on the

Kynortion, Building K, Building Φ and the Skana, point to the improvement and expansion of the facilities for the public cult as a major goal of the construction program of Sextus Julius

Maior Antoninus Pythodorus in the mid-second century AD. Whether this augmentation was a response to current demand is difficult to answer. The public festival is documented for the second century in several inscriptions but only two can be confidently dated. One is the

56 Though I know of no precedent for using a fountain statue as a cult image.

214

previously mentioned honorary decree, Peek 1972: 87, of AD 143/4 which refers to T. Statilius

Timocrates as “president of the games” (α γω ν οθετήσαντ α , line 3) and pre-dates the renovations of Antoninus. The other is a victory list from Rome, IGUR I 240, naming one M. Aurelius

Asclepiades a victor at Epidaurus in the Asclepeia (Ἀσκλήπεια, line 32). The inscription can probably be assigned to AD 179 and must certainly postdate Antoninus’ intervention. Another three inscriptions are less precisely dated. A second victory list from Rome, IGUR I 254, originated in the second half of the century and records the victory of a boxer at Epidaurus while two other inscriptions, IG IV2 1, 456 and 673, both dated simply to the second century AD, record the names of agonothetes (presidents of the games). Although this epigraphic corpus is strong evidence for the vitality of the public festival throughout the second century, it does not add much information about Antoninus’ effect on the public festival, though the earlier attestation of the games in AD 143/4 indicates that he did not need to resurrect the games.

However, one final inscription, IG IV2 1, 691, which dates to the second century sometime after

AD 138, is particularly noteworthy. It names Quintus Aelius Epictetus as “president of the Great

Asclepeia” (ἀγωνοθέτην τῶν μεγάλων Ἀσκληπείω ν , lines 2-3). Now in the whole history of the

Asclepieum the name “Great Asclepeia” occurs only here and in a third century inscription.57

This “Great Asclepeia” was probably a special production of the Asclepieia put on at multi-year intervals like the Great Panathenaia as Sève (1993: 320-322) and Perlman (2000: 93) argue.58

Since the “Great Asclepeia” first occurs in an inscription which hovers so closely around the period of the Asclepieum’s architectural expansion it is tempting to associate the new nomenclature with the senator Antoninus. Perhaps the rationale for expanding the public cult

57 IG IV2 1, 693.

58 They both suggest every four years (five counting inclusively).

215

facilities was to promote a larger, periodic festival. If so, it may be that the periodic festival replaced the annual one since the normal festival names of the preceding centuries, the unmodified Asclepieia (of any spelling), the Apollonieia, and the Caesareia, never occur again.

The healing cult. In addition to expanding the facilities for the public cult, the construction program of the mid-second century AD also provided new buildings for the healing cult. Several buildings attributed to Antoninus relate to the curative process: the Baths of

Asclepius, the Epidoteion and a house for the sick to die and for women to give birth. In addition, votives and inscriptions, particularly the “Cure of Apellas” provide insight into the healing activities of the Asclepieum during this period.

An important part of the healing process was bathing, both for purification and therapy.

Pausanias (2.27.6) notes that “A Roman senator, Antoninus, made in our own day a bath of

Asclepius.” Current opinion identifies the Baths of Asclepius with the Roman improvements to the bath adjacent to the Abaton (Figure 1-7: 40).59 This area east of the Abaton was important for a well which dates from the beginnings of the healing cult on the plain in the sixth century BC.

In the fourth century BC, the well was expanded into a bath house and this, in turn, was renovated and enlarged in Roman times. Since this Roman phase was apparently part of the construction of Building K, it should be attributed to Antoninus. Moreover, because no other baths were built or restored in this period, the baths adjacent to the Abaton must be the Baths of

Asclepius listed by Pausanias.60 Considering the significance of the ancient well and repeated upgrading of the baths from the fourth century BC onward, the renovation of the facility by

59 So Kavvadias 1900b: 157; Tomlinson 1983: 54; OEΣME 2000: 19; Riethmüller 2005: 283.

60 Also apparently called the “Akoai” (“Aquae”) in the cure to Apellas, IG IV2 126 (Riethmüller 2005: 283).

216

Antoninus points to a desire to secure, or perhaps revitalize, the healing ritual as it was performed in the Hellenistic period.

Pausanias (2.27.6) also attributes to Antoninus a “sanctuary of the gods they call

Bountiful” or an epidoteion. This building has been identified as the rectangular building (Figure

1-7: 31), Hellenistic in origin, just north and east of the Doric and “holy” fountains against which the southern wall of the Northeast Baths would later be built.61 Only the bottom section of the walls survive along with remains of the floor. The Roman phase of this building appears to be a reconstruction of the earlier shrine since the Hellenistic material was reused in original locations.

The base of a wall across the middle of the shrine shows it was divided into two parts. In the northern part is a large, curved base probably for cult statues. Roman additions include sections of opus mixtum, red stucco on the walls and opus tessellatum on the floor. The building is thought to be the sanctuary of the epidotes, or “helper” gods, because of the curved base suitable for multiple cult statues and because roof tiles of Antoninus were found in the rubble.62 Melfi

(2007: 106-110) convincingly argues that the Epidoteion played a role in the prothysis (or preliminary sacrifice) part of the healing ritual which was further revitalized at this time by the renewed practice of dedicating small altars in the area east of the Temple of Artemis. If so, the rebuilding of the Epidoteion seems aimed at restoring the practice of prothysis to its Hellenistic model.

The last of the buildings tied to the healing cult is a house for the sick to die and for women to give birth. Pausanias (2.27.6) records,

61 For the Epidoteion see Kavvadias 1900b: 137-139; 1906: 117-119; Roux 1961: 282-284; Burford 1966: 290-292; 1969: 74-75, 209; Tomlinson 1983: 49-50; OEΣME 1999: 47-48; Lembidaki 2002: 129-133; Riethmüller 2005: 282; Melfi 2007: 106-111.

62 Kavvadias 1925: 51; Lembidaki 2002: 130.

217

Ἐπιδαυρίων δὲ οἱ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν μάλιστα ἐταλαιπώρουν, ὅτι μήτε αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν σκέπῃ σφίσιν ἔτικτον καὶ ἡ τελευτὴ τοῖς κάμνουσιν ὑπαίθριος ἐγίνετο· ὁ δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ἐπανορθούμενος κατεσκευάσατο οἴκησιν· ἐνταῦθα ἤδη καὶ ἀποθανεῖν ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ τεκεῖν γυναικὶ ὅσιον.

As the Epidaurians about the sanctuary were in great distress, because their women had no shelter in which to be delivered and the sick breathed their last in the open, he provided a dwelling, so that these grievances also were redressed. Here at last was a place in which without sin a human being could die and a woman be delivered.63

Dying or giving birth was prohibited within the Asclepieum since these events caused ritual pollution. Therefore those near death or birth had to be moved out of the comforts of the sanctuary to an apparently undeveloped area – hence the relief recorded by Pausanias at having a suitable accommodation for those individuals. The archaeological remains of this building have not been determined though it would logically be located outside the sanctuary temenos. Based on this criterion alone, Kavvadias (1920: 8) identified it as the two buildings of the Northwest

Complex (Figure 1-7: 24 & 25) but this cannot be the case since the complex dates to Caracalla.

Pausanias characterizes the building as an unprecedented amenity (“here at last”) but surely the problem of pollution by death and childbirth was a longstanding consideration for the

Asclepieum. Was there a previous building or buildings outside the temenos, unknown to

Pausanias, which met this need or was the problem handled altogether differently in earlier periods? If the former, then the new building is consistent with Antoninus’ overall restoration of the sanctuary according to the Hellenistic template. If the later, then it is an uncharacteristic innovation which added new capabilities to the healing cult.

Finally, a library was constructed in the Asclepieum around this time (second century AD) known only through an inscription by one Gaius Rufus, IG IV2 1, 456:

[Γ. ]οῦφος Γ. [εν]α ίου [το]ῦ Σα [λεν]-

63 Text and translation from Jones 1918.

218

τίνου υ ἱὸς Ν[εαπολίτης(?) Ἀπόλλω]- νι Μαλεάτᾳ κα [ὶ Ἀσκληπιῷ τὴν] βιβλιοθήκην [καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ βιβλί]- 5 α ἀνέθηκεν - εἱ[εραπολήσας δὶς] καὶ ἀγω [νοθετήσας].

G(aius) Rufus the Neapolitan?, son of G(aius) Zenaios of Salentinos, dedicates the library and the books in it to Apollo Maleatas and to Asclepius – when he was chief priest for the second time and president of the games.

Kavvadias (1900b: 158) thought the library was the rectangular structure on the east side of

Building K where this and many other inscriptions were discovered but that structure has since been identified as part of the late Roman Perimetric Stoa in which the inscriptions were probably set for display.64 Currently, no building is identified as the library and, considering the mention of Apollo Maleatas in the inscription, a location on the Kynortion cannot be ruled out. Melfi

(2007: 122-123) points out that a libraries existed in the Asclepiea at Cos and Pergamum and were probably a standard amenity of the newer Asclepieia. She proposes they were built to help the sick pass the time while awaiting their cure. At Epidaurus, the “Cure of Apellas,” IG IV2 1,

126, from this period, records that Apellas is stricken with a headache while studying. Melfi takes as a reference to this library of Rufus. While this may ask too much of the Apellas inscription, she is probably right that the library represents an updating of the sanctuary to the new standard for Asclepieia.

The previously mentioned “Cure of Apellas,” IG IV2 1, 126, is the only cure inscription for this century. Dated to shortly after AD 160 it gives an expansive account of the healing process for one Marcus Apellas, an otherwise unknown individual from Asia minor:

ἐπὶ ἱερέως v Πο(πλίου) v Αἰλ(ίου) v Ἀντιόχου Μ(ᾶρκος) Ἰούλιος Ἀπελλᾶς Ἰδριε ς Μυλασε ς μετεπέμφθην ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, πολλάκις εἰς νόσους ἐνπίπτων καὶ ἀπεψί-

64 OEΣME 2000: figs. 1, 6, & 7. In any event, ancient libraries were designed to hold perishable texts such as papyrus scrolls, not inscriptions.

219

αις χρώμενος. κατὰ δὴ τὸν πλοῦν ἐν Αἰγείνῃ ἐκέλευσέν 5 με μὴ πολλὰ ὀργίζεσθαι. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐγενόμην ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, ἐ- κέλευσεν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέρας συνκαλύψασθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐν αἷς ὄμβροι ἐγένοντο, τυρὸν καὶ ἄρτον προλαβεῖν, σέλει- να μετὰ θρίδακος, αὐτὸν δι’ αὑτοῦ λοῦσθαι, δρόμῳ, γυμνάζε- σθαι, κιτρίου προλαμβάνειν τὰ ἄκρα, εἰς ὕδωρ ἀποβρέξαι, πρὸς 10 ταῖς ἀκοαῖς ἐν βαλανείῳ προστρίβεσθαι τῷ τοίχωι, περιπάτῳ χρῆ- σθαι ὑπερῴῳ, αἰώραις, ἁφῇ πηλώσασθαι, ἀνυπόδητον περι- πατεῖν, πρὶν ἐνβῆναι ἐν τῶι βαλανείῳ εἰς τὸ θερμὸν ὕδωρ οἶνον περιχέασθαι, μόνον λούσασθαι καὶ Ἀττικὴν δοῦναι τῶι βαλανεῖ, κοινῇ θῦσαι Ἀσκληπιῷ, Ἠπιόνῃ, Ἐλευσεινίαις, 15 γάλα μετὰ μέλιτος προλαβεῖν· μιᾷ δὲ ἡμέρᾳ πιόντός μου γά- λα μόνον, εἶπεν· "μέλι ἔμβαλλε εἰς τὸ γάλα, ἵνα δύνηται διακό- πτειν." ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐδεήθην τοῦ θεοῦ θᾶττόν με ἀπολῦσαι, ᾤμην <ν>ά- πυϊ καὶ ἁλσὶν κεχρειμένος ὅλος ἐξιέναι κατὰ τὰς ἀκοὰς ἐκ τοῦ ἀβάτου, παιδάριον δὲ ἡγεῖσθαι θυμιατήριον ἔχον ἀτμίζον 20 καὶ τὸν ἱερέα λέγειν "τεθεράπευσαι, χρὴ δὲ ἀποδιδόναι τὰ ἴατρα." καὶ ἐποίησα, ἃ εἶδον, καὶ χρείμενος μὲν τοῖς ἁλσὶ καὶ τῶι νάπυ- ϊ ὑγρῶι ἤλγησα, λούμενος δὲ οὐκ ἤλγησα. ταῦτα ἐν ἐννέα ἡμέ- ραις ἀφ’ οὗ ἦλθον. ἥψατο δέ μου καὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς χιρὸς καὶ τοῦ μαστοῦ, τῇ δὲ ἑξῆς ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιθύοντός μου φλὸξ ἀναδραμοῦ- 25 σα ἐπέφλευσε τὴν χεῖρα, ὡς καὶ φλυκταίνας ἐξανθῆσαι· μετ’ ὀ- λίγον δὲ ὑγιὴς ἡ χεὶρ ἐγένετο. ἐπιμείναντί μοι ἄνηθον με- τ’ ἐλαίου χρήσασθαι πρὸς τὴν κεφαλαλγίαν εἶπεν. οὐ μὴν ἤλ- γουν τὴν κεφαλήν. συνέβη οὖν φιλολογήσαντί μοι συνπλη- ρωθῆναι· χρησάμενος τῷ ἐλαίῳ ἀπηλάγην τῆς κεφαλαλγί- 30 ας. ἀναγαργαρίζεσθαι ψυχρῷ πρὸς τὴν σταφυλὴν —— καὶ γὰρ περὶ τούτου παρεκάλεσα τὸν θεὸν —— τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ πρὸς παρίσθμια. ἐκέ- λευσεν δὲ καὶ ἀναγράψαι ταῦτα. χάριν εἰδὼς καὶ ὑγιὴς γε- vac. νόμενος ἀπηλλάγην.

In the priesthood of Publius Aelius Antiochus. I, Marcus Iulius Apellas, from Mylasan Idrias was sent for by the god, for I was often falling into illnesses and suffering from indigestion. During voyage, in Aegina, he told me not to become angry so often. When I entered the sanctuary he told me to keep my head covered for two days; it was raining during this time. (He also told me) to eat bread and cheese and celery with lettuce, to bath without any assistance, to run for exercise, to take lemon and soak it in water, to rub myself against the wall near the “waters1”, to go for a walk on the ‘Upper Portico’, to swing on a swing [or to engage in passive exercise?], to smear myself with mud, to walk barefoot, to pour wine all over myself before climbing into the hot pool in the bathing establishment to bathe all alone, to give an Attic drachma to the attendant, to offer a joint sacrifice to Asclepius, Epione, and the goddesses of Eleusis and to drink milk with honey. One day when I drank only milk, the god said: ‘Put honey in your milk, so it can strike through’ [or, have the right effect, i.e., act as a laxative]. When I urged the god to heal me more quickly, I had a vision: I was

220

walking out of the sanctuary toward the “waters:1” rubbed with salt and mustard all over, and a little boy was leading me, and the priest said to me: ‘You are cured; now you pay the fee.’ I did what I had seen [i.e., acted out my vision]. When they rubbed me with salt and liquid mustard, it hurt, but after I had taken a bath, it hurt no longer. All this happened within nine days after my arrival. The god touched my left hand and my breast. On the following day, as I was offering a sacrifice, the flame leapt up and burned my hand so that blisters appeared. After a while my hand healed. I stayed on, and the god told me to use anise with olive oil for my headache. Actually, I had no headache. But after I had done some studying it happened that I suffered from congestion of the brain. Taking olive oil, I got rid of my headache. [I was also told] to gargle with cold water for my swollen uvula – for I had asked the god for help with this problem, too – and the same for the tonsils. The god also told me to write all this down. I left, feeling grateful and restored to health.65

The healing procedure described above shows, in fact, four cures. The first and most detailed for gastrointestinal distress, another for second degree burns on his hand, a third for a headache and the last for swollen uvula/tonsils. The first cure is the main subject of the inscription and it shows all four stages of the Hellenistic cure: prothysis, bathing, incubation, and dedication/payment.

Apellas is told to sacrifice to Asclepius, Epione, Demeter and Kore (line 14) and to bathe on two separate occasions (lines 8 and 12-13). He then incubates, has a vision, and is cured (lines 18-

19).66 Afterwards Apellas pays a fee (line 20) and sets up this dedication (line 32). Just as in the

Hellenistic procedure, prothysis and bathing are done prior to incubation, and it is the vision from the god received during incubation that cures the supplicant. Overall then, the “Cure of

Apellas” shows that the healing ritual in the years just after Antoninus’ building program follows the Hellenistic practice.

Apart from the “Cure of Apellas” the epigraphic evidence is silent concerning the healing activities of the sanctuary. There are eight dedications from the reign of Marcus Aurelius (AD

161-180)– roughly the period during and immediately after the Antoninus renovation. All of

65 Translation Galli 2005: 279-280.

66 Galli translates “I had a vision: I was walking out of the sanctuary” but the text reads ἐκ τοῦ ἀβάτου “out of the abaton".

221

them are dedicated by sanctuary officials, as became the rule from the beginning of this century onwards and only three are directed to Asclepius (and one of these is a building dedication). It is therefore difficult to see any of these dedications as votive offerings for a successful cure.

For the healing cult, therefore, the building program of Antoninus seems to have aimed at restoring the facilities enjoyed by the sanctuary in its Hellenistic prime. The renovation of the

Baths of Asclepius and Epidoteion secured or revitalized the traditional functions of these buildings in the sanctuary. The same may be true of the accommodations built for the terminally ill and expectant mothers if there was a earlier building that filled this role or perhaps it created a new responsibility for the sanctuary. Only the library clearly departs from the Hellenistic model by providing a resource the earlier Asclepieum did not have.67 Finally, whether this architectural program succeeded in preserving or restoring the Hellenistic practices of the healing cult in the sanctuary is difficult to judge. That it did is supported by the thoroughly Hellenistic “Cure of

Apellas” but without any corroborating literary or epigraphic evidence this cannot be certain.

Auxiliary functions. A third set of improvements can be considered part of the general infrastructure of the Asclepieum. The repair of the Stoa of Kotys is one such improvement.

Pausanias records (2.27.6) that “He (Antoninus) moreover restored the portico that was named the Portico of Kotys, which, as the brick of which it was made had been unburnt, had fallen into utter ruin after it had lost its roof.” As discussed in Chapter 2 (p. 55), the L shaped stoa probably had shops on its exterior and rooms off its interior courtyard for the accommodation of visitors.

Its repair would have been a boon both to festival-goers and year-round supplicants. Similarly, the renovation of the subterranean water system in the area of Building Φ would have been

67 Of course, it was not built by Antoninus.

222

beneficial both for the public festival as well as for the day-to-day cult activities in the sanctuary, especially healing.68

Perhaps related to this category of general improvements is the Roman House (Figure 1-7:

35). The structure is a peristyle house set to the east of the main assembly on a slight rise which overlooks the monumental altar of Asclepius (Figure 1-7: 39). The house (Figure 4-3) is built directly onto the southern side of Building Π and consists of rooms surrounding both a peristyle courtyard in the west (near the entrance) and an adjacent atrium or foyer space to the east. Its close structural relationship to Building Π, seat of an unidentified cult, could indicate a connected function, perhaps the residence of the cult officials, however, it seems likely that

Building Π was no longer in use after the first century BC.69 Moreover, unlike the other priestly residences (Buildings K, Φ and the Skana) the Roman House is laid out as a typical courtyard- style house. As such, the Roman House may have functioned as a private home, perhaps the local residence of Antoninus.

Finally, the Stoa with Hypocaust (Figure 1-7: 51) just south and west of the Temple of

Artemis was, in its original phase, definitely a stoa (southward-facing) but beyond this its purpose is not clear.70 Most of the stoa is gone now and cannot be examined in detail but there are remains of a hypocaust in the south-easternmost room whose extent cannot now be determined (Figure 4-5). The combination of stoa and hypocaust is not known for any other building in the Asclepieum and seems an inexplicable combination. The stoa was built over the remains of fifth century BC buildings which may have been workshops or treasuries. It is

68 Peppa-Papaioannou 1988: 553-554.

69 Lembidaki 2002: 135-136.

70 This stoa is first documented in OEΣME 2000: 19, 25, 27, but only briefly. The only other source and the only drawing is the modern site map (on which it is building number 10).

223

perhaps possible that the stoa served as their replacement though the hypocaust is still an anomaly. Alternatively, OEΣME (2000: 19, 25, 27) suggests the stoa may be the south propylon of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall or perhaps a residential complex to replace the Katagogion, though both of these ideas are based on the stoa’s phase II configuration (rooms around a courtyard) which belongs to the reign of Diocletian.

Overall then, the impact of the building program of Antoninus, which was so significant architecturally, is difficult to assess for the activities of the sanctuary. In his structural renovations Antoninus seems focused on restoring the Hellenistic facilities and not retasking them and this sensibility may have extended to the Asclepieum’s functions as well. The public festival seems to have continued as before considering how well-attested it is for the second century but how much help it needed from Antoninus is not clear. Certainly new constructions such as the Roman Palaestra cannot have failed to enhance the games. The “Great Asclepeia” may signal a change to a larger but less frequent event and this should perhaps be attributed to

Antoninus. The healing cult seems to have been maintained as well and the cure of Apellas confirms its adherence to the Hellenistic model in the later years of Antoninus’ project.

Therefore aside from the “Great Asclepeia” only the library of Rufus and house of birthing and dying point to any departure from the Hellenistic model for the sanctuary’s activities and of these only the library is certainly unprecedented.

For the remaining decades of the second century AD and up to the reign of Caracalla in

AD 211, there is no certain evidence for either the public festival or the healing cult. Inscriptions dated generally to this century referring to the games have been discussed above. Dedications for these years are meager and ambiguous.71 Almost all are authored by officials and only four are

71 From the reign of Commodus (AD 180-192), four dedications, all by priests and none to Asclepius. From the reign of Septimius Severus (AD 193-211), seven dedications, all by priests and two to Asclepius. Generally dated to

224

possibly those of private individuals. Of these only one seems a good candidate for a cure votive,

IG IV2 1 453, which reads “To Apollo, Asclepius. Claudianus.”

Caracalla AD 211-217

In the early third century, most likely during the reign of Caracalla, the three buildings of fabric group II were constructed: the Northeast Baths, the Odeum and the Northwest Complex.

This trio are the most expensive and well-executed Roman buildings in the sanctuary and, as a group, add significant luxury to the Asclepieum. Caracalla made a circuit through the eastern provinces from AD 213 until his death in 217 and was said to demand expensive accommodations be built for him by the senatorial class at every stop. Cassius Dio (78.9.4) relates:

But apart from all these burdens, we were also compelled to build at our own expense all sorts of houses for him whenever he set out from Rome, and costly lodgings in the middle of even the very shortest journeys; yet he not only never lived in them, but in some cases was not destined even to see them. Moreover, we constructed amphitheatres and race-courses wherever he spent the winter or expected to spend it, all without receiving any contribution from him; and they were all promptly demolished, the sole reason for their being built in the first place being, apparently, that we might become impoverished.

While the emperor can be placed in Macedonia in AD 214, there is no conclusive proof he made it to Epidaurus. However, there are three inscriptions in his honor from the Asclepieum paid for by the Epidaurians. That number of surviving honorary inscriptions is the largest for any of the emperors except Claudius and Hadrian and may indicate that he visited, or planned to visit, the sanctuary.72 In any event, as Dio says above, Caracalla demanded lavish accommodations even in places he never visited to keep the senatorial class in check.

the second century: eight total, two possibly private, IG IV2 1, 453 (discussed above) and 511 (to the Seafaring Dioscuri). Possibly second or third centuries AD: seven total, two possibly private, IG IV2 1, 513 (to Mercy according to a dream) and 483 (a thank offering to Asclepius). These last two seem good candidates for cure votives but may be third century.

72 IG IV2 1, 610, 611, 612.

225

The Northeast Baths. Abutting the eastern side of the Stoa of Kotys (Figure 1-7: 30) sit the best preserved Roman-style baths in the Asclepieum.73 The main entrance, on the west side, opens onto to a hallway with an apse at the far end, serving as a plunge bath.74 On the south side of the hallway are four rooms for cold baths, the frigidarium, and on the north side are six hypocaust-heated rooms.75 Floor mosaics decorate the hallway and the cold rooms and marble revetment survives on the lower part of the hallway walls. Kavvadias (1925: 47) and OESME

(1999: 53) identify these baths as the “Akoai” of the “Cure of Apellas” but the baths are later than the inscription. The extensive hypocaust heating system of the Northeast Baths is unmatched in the earlier Hellenistic Baths (Figure 1-7: 61) south of the Banqueting Hall and the

Baths of Asclepius next to the Abaton (Figure 1-7: 40). The advanced design of the Northeast

Baths must have significantly enhanced the bathing experience in the Asclepieum.

The Odeum. Inside the courtyard of the banqueting hall, a small, covered theater was built during this period.76 Structures of this type were called odea by the Romans and were used for small-scale performances: dramatic, musical and rhetorical.77 Following this nomenclature

Kavvadias labeled the theater an odeum, though neither this word nor any other reference to the structure appears in the ancient sources in connection with the Epidaurian Asclepieum.78

73 For the Northeast Baths see Staïs 1887: 67-68; Kavvadias 1893: 10; 1900b: 159-160; 1922/23: 24; 1925: 47-51; Ginouvès 1955: 135-152; Roux 1961: 277, pl. 26 Figure 88; Pharaklas 1971: 29; Tomlinson 1983: 52-54; OEΣME 1999: 53; Riethmüller 2005: 282.

74 Tomlinson 1983: 53

75 Staïs 1887: 67-68.

76 For the Odeum see: Kavvadias 1891a: 26; 1892a: 55-56; 1900b: 150-154; 1904a: 61-62; Robert 1937: 80; Delorme 1960: 96; Ginouvès 1972: 192, 203, 242-243; Meinel 1980: 225-230; Tomlinson 1983: 83; OEΣME 1988: 21-34 and 44; Izenour 1992: 119-125; Isler 1994: 211-212; Aslanidis 2003: 301-311.

77 Kavvadias 1900b: 153; Robert 1937: 80; Izenour 1992: 19-20. The Greek original, odeion, means “a place for odes.”

78 Kavvadias 1900b: 150-152.

226

However, there is no question that this theater was covered and therefore odeum seems an appropriate label.79

The Odeum occupied the entire northern half the peristyle courtyard (Figure 3-20). Built on a rectangular plan, it was oriented east-west with the seating, cavea, in the east and the stage, pulpitum, in the west.80 With a capacity estimated at 1300, it was a moderately-sized odeum.81

The orchestra is covered with a mosaic – a somewhat unusual embellishment for this type of building.82 Somewhere nearby, perhaps in the remaining peristyle of the courtyard, there seems to have been a partition wall inscribed with hymns drawn from earlier periods of the

Asclepieum’s history.83 There is a notable lack of a dedicated postscaenum, or backstage area, which is a normal component of odea, but this appears to have been made up for by the use of the west wing of the banqueting hall.84 Access to the seating was provided by an axial staircase running from the orchestra to the top of the seating as well as by two stairways leading to the praecinctio, or mid-seating division. Izenour (1992: 124) points out that this entry/exit arrangement is inefficient but sees it as consistent with the design of the Odeum which sacrificed convenience for seating capacity. The second phase built just after the first phase and apparently seeking to correct its shortcomings adds a dedicated postscaenum and better access to the seating section.85

79 Izenour 1992: 123; Aslanidis 2003: 306-307.

80 For a full description of its plan see Kavvadias 1900b: 150-154; Izenour 1992: 119-125; Aslanidis 2003: 301-311. Plans: Kavvadias 1904: Figure A (though with errors) and Aslanidis 2003: 308 Figure 9.

81 Aslanidis 2003: 309.

82 Kavvadias 1900b: 152; 1904a Figure A; Aslanidis 2003: 306.

83 Wagman 1992: 280-283; 1995: 33-38.

84 Aslanidis 2003: 307.

85 OESME 1988: 22; Aslanidis 2003: 309.

227

The Epidaurian hymns, IG IV2 1, 129-135 and SEG 30-390, engraved on what Wagman

(1999) has convincingly proposed is a partition wall originally installed in the Banqueting Hall, are a corpus of sacred poetry from various periods in the Asclepieum’s history collected and inscribed probably in the early third century AD at the same time as the construction of the

Odeum. The text includes hymns to “all the gods,” to Pan, to the Mother of the gods, and to

Pallas, as well as to Apollo, Asclepius and Hygieia. The hymns to the former appear to be for special occasions while those in honor of the later were to be sung daily, as the inscription itself tells us. Since these hymns were probably sung in the Odeum it means that the venue was used for both daily choral music and for special occasions.86

Northwest Complex. The two buildings (Figure 1-7: 24 and 25) located in the northwest corner of the sanctuary are difficult to interpret due to their inadequate publication after excavation.87 The structures are connected at one corner and sit at approximately a forty-five degree angle to one another. They were built at the same time and of the same fabric.88 Both buildings exhibit sturdy vaulting and rose to two, perhaps three, stories. The interior rooms preserve a great deal of marble flooring and revetment on the lower walls as well as multiple floor mosaics.89 Each building has a large, colonnaded entry courtyard and a bathing suite with hypocaust. In the larger of the two (Figure 1-7: 24) the hypocaust system heated three of the

86 Whether the Odeum was used for other kinds of performances in addition to musical is difficult to determine. Tomlinson (1983: 83-84) is certainly right that the Odeum never replaced the Theater for dramatic performances though he does propose that the Odeum may have been used for “solemn religious ritual with a dramatic content” perhaps continuing a practice which in earlier centuries was located in the Banqueting Hall courtyard.

87 It is often not possible to determine which of the two buildings Kavvadias is describing in his excavation reports. Although a detailed drawing was apparently made (according to Kavvadias 1921: 39), the only published plan is on the visitors map at the site.

88 Kavvadias 1924/25: 116.

89 See Kavvadias 1919: 19, 1920: 7-8 and 1921: 39-40 for the larger building 24. For the western building 25 see Kavvadias 1922/23: 23. For both see Kavvadais 1924/25: 166; Tomlinson 1983: 69; Riethmüller 2005: 282; and Melfi 2007: 114-115.

228

rooms on the east side and a fourth, connected room served as a cold bath. In the more western building (Figure 1-7: 24) two of the smaller interior rooms were hypocaust-heated baths. Vertical notches for piping in the walls of both structures indicate that certain second-story rooms were also heated. Based on these characteristics and its location at the northwest limit of the sanctuary

(presumably outside the temenos), Kavvadias (1920: 8) first considered the Northwest Complex to be the house of birthing and dying built by Antoninus; he then later interpreted it as the Baths of Asclepius (1922-23: 23). Tomlinson (1983: 69) suggested without argument that it might be a sanctuary to Isis. Melfi (2007: 114-115) builds on Tomlinson’s suggestion and interprets it as the temple to Asclepius, Apollo and Hygieia in their Egyptian aspect built by Antoninus.

Riethmüller (2005: 282) classifies it simply as a secondary sanctuary area. However, the layout of the buildings – an entry courtyard surrounded by numerous smaller rooms, multiple stories and small bathing suite – calls to mind a luxurious house or villa, perhaps a local palace, rather than a religious building, bath or hospice. Indeed, a statue base found in situ in building 24 bears an honorary inscription to Caracalla (IG IV2 1, 612 I) suggesting the Northwest Complex was built by the city as residence for the emperor during his visit.90 Such an accommodation at local expense would be consistent with Caracalla’s reputation. Cassius Dio (78.9.4) reports “But apart from all these burdens, we [senators] were also compelled to build at our own expense all sorts of houses for him whenever he set out from Rome, and costly lodgings in the middle of even the very shortest journeys; yet he not only never lived in them, but in some cases was not destined even to see them.”91

90 A similar inscription to Alexander Severus (IG IV2 1, 612 II) on the opposite side of the base (the side found upright in the excavation) suggests the complex continued to be used as a villa/palace at least a decade or so after Caracalla.

91 Loeb translation.

229

If the Northeast Baths, the Odeum and the Northwest Complex were built for Caracalla’s travels, then they represent the preferences of the emperor rather than improvements to the

Asclepieum per se. Nevertheless, these buildings were not abandoned after the occasion passed for which they were built. The Northeast Baths were still in use as late as the fourth or fifth century when they were further compartmentalized. The Odeum continued into the reign of

Severus Alexander (AD 222-235) when it underwent a third building phase and lasted perhaps until the end of the third century. Also under Severus Alexander, the base of Caracalla’s statue in the Northwest Complex was re-inscribed to honor the new emperor indicating that the building was still in use. Thus, whatever their original rationale, the three Caracallan buildings were soon assimilated to the purposes of the Asclepieum. Certainly, the Northeast Baths fit into the established ritual of bathing as part of seeking a cure. In addition, the Epidaurian hymns contain daily songs to Asclepius, Apollo and Health suggesting that the Odeum became part of the everyday healing experience of supplicants.

Finally, while there is no evidence that can be confidently dated to this period for public games, two inscriptions from the third century mention the “Great Asclepeia” (τῶν μεγάλων

Ἀσκλη[π]είων, IG IV2 1, 693 lines 3-4 and μεγάλων [Ἀσκληπίων], Corinth VIII 3, 230 lines 4-

5). Therefore it seems likely the public festival would have continued amid the lavish expansion of the sanctuary under Caracalla. Likewise, no cure inscriptions survive from this period and only two dedications, neither of which is a cure votive. Yet, two cure inscriptions from AD 224, just after Caracalla, indicate that the healing function of the sanctuary was continuing unabated.92

Therefore from AD 124 to 217 the sanctuary embarked on a structural renaissance which started slowly under Hadrian, accomplished most of its growth under the senator Antoninus and

92 The only two dedications from Caracalla’s reign are dedicated by a pyrophoros (AD 211) and a chief priest (AD 215) and are addressed to Apollo and Artemis respectively; IG IV2 1, 403 and 404.

230

reached its acme under Caracalla. The physical expansion of the sanctuary supplied a number of impressive structures designed to enhance both the festival function of the sanctuary (the Roman

Palaestra and a new water system from the senator Antoninus) and the healing cult (the Baths of

Asclepius, the Epidoteion, the Library and a house for birth/death from Antoninus and the

Odeum and Northeast Baths from Caracalla’s reign). The number and quality of these construction works would seem to indicate a parallel renaissance in the festival and healing functions of the sanctuary. Unfortunately the epigraphic evidence is rather muted in comparison with the boldness of the architectural works but it nevertheless confirms the continued vitality, at least, of these functions even if it is not sufficient to prove a true renaissance.

The Changing Fortunes of the Third Century

Whereas the five and a half years of Caracalla’s reign from December AD 211 to April 217 supply two dedicatory inscriptions and three large buildings, the following five years, during which first Macrinus, then Elagabalus ruled, leave no epigraphic or archaeological trace at all in the Asclepieum. It is only during the rule of Severus Alexander (AD 222-235) that evidence again comes to light in the sanctuary. The healing cult continues under his reign and some architectural work occurs but no new buildings are added. After his death in AD 235 the empire destabilizes for the next fifty years with negative consequences for the Asclepieum including the end of several buildings. This empire-wide crisis is not reversed until the very end of the century when Diocletian assumes power. Under his reign the Asclepieum undergoes a major topographical reorganization.

Severus Alexander 222-235

The reign of Severus Alexander appears to be time of continued vitality for the

Asclepieum. Two cure inscriptions testify to the activity of the healing cult and indirect evidence points to the continuation of the public festival as well. In addition, the Northwest Complex

231

seems to have been prepared in expectation of an imperial visit.93 Yet this time is also a period of transition between the acme of the second and early third centuries and the fluctuations and eventual decline of the third and fourth. In contrast to the preceding sixty years, the sanctuary does not expand physically under Severus Alexander. Though construction occurs, it is limited to the upkeep and modification of existing buildings.

The continuation of the healing cult is attested by two cure inscriptions (IG IV2 1, 127 and

475) both dedicated by the same individual, Ti. Claudius Severus, and dated to the year AD 224.

The first inscription, IG IV2 1, 127, is an altar on which Claudius Severus gives thanks to Apollo

Maleatas and Asclepius Soter for a curative dream he received ἐν τῷ ἐνκοιμητηρίῳ (lines 7-8); this is most likely the Abaton. The second inscription, on a statue base, is a briefer version of the first. Seven additional dedications also survive which is a rather high number for a thirteen year period. All are by priests and none seem to be concerned with healing yet their numbers at least suggest a certain vitality for the sanctuary in general.

At the same time that the healing cult and the general health of the sanctuary seem robust, the architectural expansion of the sanctuary halts. No new buildings are constructed under

Severus Alexander. Instead, existing buildings, such as the Katagogion and Odeum, and possibly the Hellenistic Bath and the Skana are enlarged or reorganized. The center of the Katagogion

(Figure 1-7: 58) is opened to allow movement between the northern and southern courtyards.

Previously, one had to leave the building entirely and re-enter it to move between the north and south wings. Thus the new design promotes better internal circulation of patrons.94 The Odeum

(Figure 1-7: 55) in this its third and final phase acquires a vestibule on the south side of the

93 IG IV2 1, 612B- a statue base of Severus Alexander found in situ in the Northwest Complex. The text is inscribed on the same base as Caracalla’s statue but on the opposite side (the base was flipped and reused with Severus Alexander’s statue replacing Caracalla’s).

94 Kraynak 1991.

232

orchestra/stage area which may also have improved movement within the rather cramped building.95 These two modifications, which can with some confidence be assigned to the period in question, are very modest compared to the renovations of the second and early third centuries and seem to focus on optimizing existing internal space. They also differ in character. Under the senator Antoninus and the emperor Caracalla the internal arrangement of pre-existing buildings was not altered. Rather the goal in these periods seems to have been to repair and restore older buildings in their original configuration or construct wholly new buildings.

If construction activities in this period can be characterized by the redesign of the interior space of existing buildings without regard for their original plans, then perhaps the modification of the Hellenistic Bath (Figure 1-7: 61) and the Skana (phase II) belong here as well. Both buildings were modified to increase the number of people they could accommodate. For the

Hellenistic Baths this consisted of the addition of an upper story and more pools on the ground floor.96 In the Skana the stairway to the second story was rearranged to take up less space and the northeast section was redivided into more but smaller rooms.

If indeed all these modifications can be assigned to the reign of Severus Alexander then the combination of improved internal circulation in the Katagogion and Odeum and the increased capacity for accommodation in the Hellenistic Bath and the Skana may point to increased visitation of the Asclepieum in this period. Since the Katagogion and the Skana can be connected with the public cult and since the Odeum and Hellenistic bath were probably important attractions for festival attendees, the modification of these buildings for greater capacity suggests the public festival was flourishing in this period. A roughly contemporaneous inscription from

95 Aslanidis 2003: 309. The Odeum will go out of use in next fifty years as indicated by the lack of access to the interior of Banqueting Hall exhibited in the Diocletian-era modifications.

96 OEΣME 1999: 51 and building plaque at the site.

233

Corinth (Corinth VIII 3, 230) may support this conclusion. It records an agonothete (president of the games) for the “Great Asclepeia” at Epidaurus and has been dated between AD 225 and 250.

Therefore the inscription may indeed belong to Severus Alexander’s reign.97

Crisis of the Third Century 235-284/285

The majority of the third century was a period of architectural decline for the Asclepieum.

During the fifty years between AD 235 and 284/5 the Odeum seems to have fallen out of use, the structure in Building Π was destroyed, Shrine Y was gradually buried by hillside erosion and the

Katagogion became derelict.98 The latter two buildings were eventually disassembled and their parts reused in the constructions of the reign of Diocletian which followed. Whether this structural devolution signals a corresponding decline for the public festival and healing cult is difficult to determine but it seems likely for most of the period under discussion. The only reliable evidence for the major sanctuary activities comes from the reign of Valerian (AD 253-

259). For the remaining years, the epigraphic evidence is slight and uncertain and only five dedications from this entire fifty year period survive.99

A good place to begin examining this empire-wide crisis is in that period which preserves the only definite evidence for the public festival and the healing cult: the reign of Valerian. An inscription from Athens (IG II2 3169-3170 lines 17-18) lists Valerios Eclectos of Sinope as two- time victor in the Olympia of Epidaurus (Ὀλύμπια ἐν | Ἐπιδαύρῳ). The naming of the games the

Olympia occurs in two other inscriptions from the third century which cannot be more precisely

97 Another inscription, IG IV2 1, 693, from the Asclepieum itself, references the “Great Asclepeia” and is dated broadly to the third century AD.

98 For the chronology of the Odeum see chapter three p. 161. Concerning the building inside Pi, Lembidaki (2002: 135) found a destruction layer of roof and wall rubble which dates to the third century AD. The burial of Shrine Y is noted in OEΣME 2000: 7 & Figure 2 and Lembidaki 2002: 126. The dating of the end of the Katagoion is discussed in chapter three p. 162.

99 Three of the five dedications belong to the reign of Valerian (AD 252-259). An additional twelve can only be dated generally to the third century and may belong in this period.

234

dated.100 One of these, FD III 1, 555, from Delphi, expands the name of the contests to

Ἀσκλήπεια Ὀλύμπια ἐν Ἐπιδα[ύρ]ω. Subsequent lines list the Heraklean Olympia in Thebes, the

Trophonean Olympia in Lebadeia, etc. Therefore it seems the convention of the mid-third century was to use Olympia as the generic term for “games.” Other support for the continuation of the public festival under Valerian is found in an inscription (IG IV2 1, 91) from the

Asclepieum which, though very fragmentary, seems to list the provisions the president of the games must supply or which must be supplied to him. This text dates to sometime after the mid- third century so it may possibly have originated in the reign of Valerian.

Evidence for the healing cult comes from one of the five surviving dedications from this fifty-year period, IG IV2 1, 414, of the year AD 254, which seems to refer to a cure. It reads,

“The mistress has set up an altar to Apollo, Asclepius and Herakles as a thanks offering in the

[εὐχ]αριστήρι| [ον] ἔτους ρλα). The unknown woman is not an official of the sanctuary but, one surmises, a private supplicant. This, combined with the fact that Apollo and Asclepius figure prominently in her votive, point to the healing cult. Therefore, the reign of Valerian stands out from the rest of the crisis period in having the only, and indeed last, firmly dated evidence for both the public festival and healing cult.

The effect of the third century building losses on the activities of the sanctuary can only be tentatively deduced. The Odeum, which had existed for perhaps half a century more or less, seems not to have been essential to either the public festival or the healing cult (in contrast to the

Stadium and Abaton, for example) so its absence would probably not have hindered them.101 The

100 SEG 27-843 (sometime after AD 217) and Fouilles de Delphes (FD) III 1, 555 (2nd c. AD). See Sève 1993: 319- 320.

101 This is especially true if the Odeum was built primarily to entertain Caracalla.

235

function of the structure in Building Π is unknown so the effect of its loss cannot be assessed.

The same is true of Shrine Y, though it is interesting that during Diocletian’s reign there is a resurgence in the construction of small temples or shrines, one of which (Shrine T or Shrine I) may have replaced Y. The Katagogion, however, had performed an important function in the

Asclepieum since the third century BC and its destruction must have had the most impact. Since no other hotel was built to replace it, sanctuary’s ability to house visitors must have been dramatically reduced. This would have affected the public festival most of all since it attracted the largest crowds. The healing cult probably suffered the loss of the Katagogion with less disruption since the only other accommodation in the Asclepieum, the Stoa of Kotys, though it could have handled only a fraction of the Katagogion’s capacity, would probably have been sufficient for the smaller numbers of supplicants in the sanctuary at any given time.

Undoubtedly, the crisis of the third century dealt a significant blow to the material condition of the Asclepieum. In number and size the building losses exceed those of any period until the end of the pagan sanctuary after Julian. Equally bleak is the epigraphic evidence for this period: just five inscriptions from fifty years. The fact that three of those dedications and all the firm evidence for the public festival and the healing cult come from the short (six year) reign of

Valerian point to an Asclepieum in distress. Indeed, since no evidence of the games from any source appears to post-date AD 257, this period probably saw the celebration of the public festival reduced or ended, either as a result of the Asclepieum’s diminished material state or as the cause of it. On the other hand, while there is also no unequivocal proof of the healing cult after Valerian, developments under Diocletian as well as a number of fourth century dedications provide some tentative basis for believing it continued. Therefore the Asclepieum of the mid- to late third century is a sanctuary of much-reduced capacity, one which can perhaps no longer

236

sustain its earlier status as a Panhellenic festival site but has instead contracted around its less resource-intensive healing cult.

Diocletian 284/5-305

The reign of Diocletian saw a major reorganization of the sanctuary through the construction of a ‘L’-shaped stoa which completely enclosed the central area of the site.

Moreover, there is a resurgence of shrines or small temples as three are built in this period.

However, evidence for the traditional functions of the Asclepieum is absent or ambiguous. Other new buildings of this period, such as the two Banqueting hall annexes, are poorly understood and the epigraphic evidence consists of fourteen dedicatory inscriptions which, while numerous by the standards of the Asclepieum, are not particularly enlightening in their content. Nevertheless, it is clear that the late third century is a watershed for several aspects of the history of the

Asclepieum. It is the last major pagan construction episode, and the last resurgence of the epigraphic habit. Moreover, for the first time sanctuary structures are built primarily out of spolia.

The most significant new construction of the Diocletian era is the Perimetric Stoa/Wall

(Figure 1-7: 36). This structure encloses the central area of the Asclepieum in a continuous barrier which, for almost all of its length, has an inward facing stoa. It incorporates a number of pre-existing structures into its run – the Abaton, the Temple of Artemis, the Hellenistic fountains, the Northeast Baths, the Stoa of Kotys and Building K – and encircles the central religious structures of the sanctuary such as the Temple of Asclepius and its altar, the Thymele and Building E and its altar. Entry into the enclosed area was through one of four gates: in the north by the Stoa of Kotys, in the east by the fountains, in the west along the Abaton and perhaps in the south near the Temple of Artemis. Near the latter, the Perimetric Stoa/Wall reaches out to

237

incorporate the Stoa with Hypocaust (creating phase II of this structure). Altogether, the

Perimetric Stoa/Wall was a massive undertaking which left the Katagogion almost completely depleted of material and the Banqueting Hall mostly so.

The purpose of this monument originally seemed clear. When Kavvadias excavated it, he

(1900b: 171) considered the structure to be a double defensive wall and speculated that it was necessitated by the barbarian invasions of late antiquity.102 Later (Kavvadias 1926: 91, 139-140) he reassessed the remains as a stoa or track though some subsequent scholars continued to identify it as a defensive wall.103 In 2000 the re-excavation of the monument confirmed it was not a fortification but a rear support wall for an inward-facing stoa. This excavation report

(OEΣME 2000) suggests that Perimetric Stoa/Wall constituted the new temenos of a greatly contracted Asclepieum and served to protect the sanctuary nucleus from encroachment by new buildings. They suggest, in addition, that the stoa may also have satisfied a fourth-century aesthetic sense which preferred fenced piazzas.

The beautifying effect of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall must certainly have been part of the motivation for its construction. But since it was not a construction of the fourth century AD, perhaps its aesthetic effect consisted more in blocking the view of the growing number of dilapidated buildings such as the Banqueting Hall. In any event the aesthetic function must have been secondary, considering the amount of effort involved, since with the same industry it would have been possible to restore any number of ruined buildings to their pristine condition. The second proposed role of the Stoa, as a barrier to the crowding of the central sanctuary, does not survive scrutiny. In the reign of Diocletian the Asclepieum is in the middle of an approximately

102 He suggests the Goths.

103 Tomlinson 1983: 38, 68, 69.

238

two-century period when little or nothing new is built. Encroachment, if so it was viewed, by buildings such as the Roman house, the Northeast Baths, Building K and Building Φ was already an established fact for fifty or more years. Instead, the function of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall must be sought in its two obvious effects: it limits access and it encloses the complete healing cult.

The Perimetric Stoa need not have been built with a wall on one side as open porticoes were well within the capabilities of third century architecture. The decision to limit access to four gates is deliberate and may have been prompted by a number of reasons. On the one hand, there may have been a desire to limit the number or type of visitors to the Asclepieum. Yet this seems out of character with the historical uses of the sanctuary – the openness of the healing cult and the attraction of the (probably now defunct) public festival. On the other hand, perhaps the goal was not to reduce traffic into the site but to keep a closer eye on it. Since throughout the

Asclepieum’s history fees were paid to sanctuary officials for successful cures, perhaps now admission was charged on entry. More importance, however, should be attached to the most obvious characteristic of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall: it contains all of the buildings necessary for the healing cult and little else. If the public festival were failing or extinct by this point, then it would make sense to form a new sanctuary which consolidated the remaining function of the sanctuary, the healing cult. In this context, OESME’s suggestion that the Stoa/Wall is a new temenos may be correct.

In addition to the Perimetric Stoa/Wall, three small religious buildings were added during this period. Two of them, Shrines I and T, were new constructions located in the area inside the

Perimetric Stoa. The third was the propylon of the Banqueting Hall which was converted into a temple. Shrines I and T are comparably-sized rectangular structures oriented roughly east-west.

Shrine I (Figure 1-7: 38) appears to be a cella with a small porch covering its entrance in the

239

west.104 Shrine T (Figure 1-7:48) on the other hand survives only as far as the base of its foundation so its interior plan cannot be determined. Due to its proximity and similar size to

Shrine Y, and its construction on the same stratum as the Perimetric Stoa/Wall (which is higher than Shrine Y), OEΣME (2000: 27) suggests that Shrine T may have been built as a replacement for Shrine Y. Kavvadias (1900b. 139-140) speculated that either Shrine I or T might be the temple to the Dioscuri, or Anakeion, attested in inscriptions but there is no evidence to tie these buildings to that specific cult. South of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall, the propylon of the Banqueting

Hall (Figure 1-7: 54a) was converted into a small temple. A wall was constructed at the back of the Propylon cutting it off from the Banqueting Hall and a cult image was added just in front of the wall.105 The discovery of the base of an altar dedicated to Hygieia just 4.5 meters from the entrance of the propylon led Kavvadias (1900b: 149) to attribute the propylon-temple to the same goddess but this identification cannot be certain.

The construction of these three small temples or shrines seems to be the second major preoccupation (after the Perimetric Stoa) of the Diocletian era at the site. Because of their small size these buildings may have been devoted to minor or secondary gods of the Asclepieum. If so, perhaps the new constructions were used to replace earlier ruined shrines whose remains have escaped the archaeological record, or perhaps there was an impetus to provide worship spaces for gods who did not previously have them. The surviving dedicatory inscriptions do show a larger than normal variety of gods, but it is perilous to draw conclusions based on only fourteen inscriptions especially since all but one are dedicated by just two individuals.106 More likely,

104 Kavvadias 1900b: 140.

105 The base of this statue was discovered in situ (Kavvadias 1900b: 149) but has now been lost (OEΣME 1988: 38).

106 Besides dedications to Asclepius (1), Hygieia (2) and Apollo (2) there are dedications to Zeus (3), all the gods (3), Helios (2), Athena (2), Hera (1), mother of the gods (1), Telephoros (1), Selene (1), Bacchus (1) and Persephone (1).

240

these shrines were important as auxiliary gods for the healing cult, perhaps as part of the preliminary sacrifices.

Other structural works in the Asclepieum are of indeterminate purpose. Attached to the

Banqueting Hall, on its northeast (Figure 1-7: 53) and northwest (Figure 1-7: 53a) sides, two annexes were built. The northwest building consists of five rooms connected by a hallway while the northeast one contains at least ten rooms of confused layout owing to their superficial excavation. The modern visitor map rather optimistically labels these as workshops and auxiliary spaces. More importantly, they were built outside the Perimetric Stoa/Wall indicating (along with the conversion of the Banqueting Hall propylon) that this extra-mural area was not abandoned. Lastly, the walls of the southern Perimetric Stoa were extended to attach to the Stoa with Hypocaust. Rooms were included in these new wings forming a rectangular building with an open, courtyard-like middle. The wall of the Perimetric Stoa framed the north side of this building, the stoa (phase I) allowed access from the south and the east and west sides contained the new rooms (phase II). OEΣME (2000: 19, 25, 27) suggests this combination may have formed a propylon for the south side of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall or perhaps a residential complex to replace the Katagogion. If the latter, the capacity of the building would only have been a fraction of the Hellenistic hotel and would seem better suited for the lodging of cure- seekers rather than festival-goers.

Therefore, the main effect of the Diocletian-era construction seems to have been to protect and reinforce the healing cult. The Perimetric Stoa wall enclosed the main facilities of the cult and the three new shrines may have revitalized the worship of gods connected with healing.

Further, if the second phase of the Stoa with Hypocaust was a new hotel, its small size would suggest it was built for supplicants. This is consistent with the epigraphic evidence immediately

241

following Diocletian: of the six extant dedications ranging from AD 306 to 308 all but one are dedicated to Apollo, Asclepius or both. While none are cure votives, they show the continued relevance of the main gods of the Asclepieum. In contrast, the public festival probably did not survive to the reign of Diocletian. All of the buildings thought to be built for the festival visitors such as the Katagoion, Banqueting Hall, Palaestra as well as all of the competitive venues are completely excluded from or reused in the Perimetric Stoa/Wall.

The Decline of the Fourth Century

After the reign of Diocletian, evidence from the Asclepieum lessens dramatically in quality and quantity until the erection of Christian monuments signals the end of the pagan sanctuary.

The largest number of dedications for this century comes from the years just after Diocletian, from AD 306 to 308, and total just six inscriptions.107 Only two dedications date to subsequent years. One of these is the latest inscription of any type from the Asclepieum: a dedication from a pyrophoros to Artemis from the year 363. No fourth century inscription mentions either the public festival or the healing cult. The end of the epigraphic habit at the Asclepieum greatly hinders the investigation of the sanctuary’s functions and forces reliance on the archaeological evidence which is only slightly less meager and vague. Therefore few conclusions can be drawn with any certainty about how the Asclepieum was used during the fourth century. Nevertheless, a broad outline of the Asclepieum’s fortunes can be sketched with some confidence. Under

Constantine and his sons (AD 312-361) the dilapidation of monuments continues. In the mid- fourth century (AD 361-363) the emperor Julian reversed the dominance of Christianity in the imperial court and attempted to save traditional Roman religion. In the Asclepieum a number of rather shoddy repair attempts can be dated to this interval. After Julian, the Sanctuary of

107 Discussed just above at the end of the last section.

242

Asclepius seems to have rapidly gone out of use but it was not abandoned. Instead, at the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth centuries major new Christian buildings appear which convert the old sanctuary to new religious use and bring an end to the Asclepieum of Epidaurus.

Constantine and sons AD 312-361

Under Constantine and his sons (AD 312-361) the Asclepieum saw the destruction of the

Epidoteion (mid-fourth century), the Banqueting Hall propylon, now a temple (not long after

Constantine II, AD 340), and probably the Temple of Artemis (sometime before Julian, AD

361).108 Each of these three buildings was originally constructed during the grand fourth century

BC building program and were long-standing components of the sanctuary. However the effects of their loss is not easy to quantify since we are poorly informed about the role of these three cults in the Asclepieum. These buildings may have been associated with the healing cult since all three can theoretically be connected to the preliminary rites of the healing ritual, the prothysia, but nothing can be said for certain.109 In any event, if the healing cult survived the loss of these buildings, it leaves no evidence.

Julian AD 361-363

The reign of Julian (AD 361-363) seems the most likely time to date certain low-grade modifications and repairs in the Asclepieum.110 These consist of two examples of poor-quality, mortar-less construction – the new Theater stage and skene, and modifications to room J of the

Banqueting Hall – as well as modifications to the northern wing of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall (the re-designed northern entrance to the stoa and the intercolumnal walls in the Stoa of Kotys).

108 See chapter 3 p. 165.

109 This is consistent with the fact that the healing cult seems to have survived through Diocletian’s reign, whereas the public festival likely ceased shortly after Valerian.

110 See chapter 3, p. 166.

243

The Theater stage and skene were completely rebuilt from the foundation using new but low-quality material and no mortar (so-called “dry” technique).111 Also built in the “dry” technique are the internal walls in the northern room (J) of the Banqueting Hall.112 These walls

(Figure 3-20) divide the room into compartments though their exact configuration is unclear.

Pottery remains found here which date from the fourth century AD suggest it may have been used for storage.113 By this time, room J seems to be the only part of the Banqueting Hall still in use. On the northern side of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall a new extension of the structure is probably a propylon (Figure 3-15: D1).114 It and the adjoining rooms were constructed of re-used material, a small amount of which comes from the Stoa of Kotys and perhaps one column base from the

Temple of Artemis. Nearby, the outer colonnade of the Stoa of Kotys was filled in to create a continuous wall.115 This intercolumnal wall may have been built to strengthen the colonnade, perhaps after an earthquake.116

These four construction projects can be viewed as part of the regular maintenance of a sanctuary still in general use: that is, built to meet current demand for their particular functions.

However, the nature of this construction effort can be viewed in another way. Two of these projects, the complete rebuilding of the Theater stage and the addition of a new propylon to the northern entrance of the Perimetric Stoa, seem because of their scale and visibility to be better understood as an attempt to revitalize the sanctuary. Perhaps all four building were built in

111 Gerkan, Müller-Wiener 1961: 32, 80-83; Isler 1994: 209.

112 See chapter 3, p.144 .

113 OEΣME 1988: 32.

114 OEΣME 2000: 19. See chapter 3, p. 144.

115 See chapter 3, p. 144.

116 OEΣME 2000: 30.

244

anticipation of a revival of the Asclepieum trusting in the continuation of favorable conditions under Julian.

There is only one inscription from Julian’s reign, a votive dated to AD 363 recording a dedication to Artemis by a pyrophorus. This the last definitely dated inscription of any type from the Asclepieum. The mention of the pyrophorus shows that the cult of Asclepius, at least, was still functioning.

After Julian the material decline of the Asclepieum accelerates. The northern rooms of

Banqueting Hall cease to be used in the last part of fourth century AD. This completes the abandonment of the Banqueting Hall. Temple L is allowed to decay and its parts are incorporated into the later Basilica. The same fate awaits the material of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall which must have fallen into ruin in this period as well. Considering this general destruction and the lack of evidence for activity in the sanctuary, perhaps the Asclepieum had by the late fourth century reached the end of its life.

The New Sanctuary

Between the end of the fourth century AD and the beginning of the fifth, new construction once again occurred in the Asclepieum giving rise to several impressive buildings: the large

Basilica and Courtyard in the north of the Asclepieum, the House with Mosaics just south of the

Basilica, and perhaps a new bath complex, the Late Antique Baths. In addition to these new constructions, the Northeast Baths were extensively modified. The late date of these buildings suggest they may be Christian in origin but the only explicitly Christian evidence is a probable baptistery located in a second-phase addition to the Basilica. This question of origin, whether the buildings and modifications are late Roman or early Christian, has important implications for the interpretation of the functions of the structures and the sanctuary during this period and must be examined more closely.

245

Whether the Basilica and Courtyard (Figure 1-7: 20 & 20a) was originally built as a

Christian church or secular Roman basilica has been discussed in detail in Chapter 3 (p. 136) but in summary there is not much evidence to privilege either interpretation. The best evidence for its Christian origin are traces of plumbing for a fountain in the middle of the northernmost room.

Sotiriou (1929: 198) has interpreted this installation as a baptistery, which seems likely, but the room itself is a second phase addition to the Basilica.117 Even if phase II was constructed very soon after phase I, as Kavvadias (1918b: 179) believes, it is curious the baptistery was not included in the original building. The choice of origin produces radically different interpretations of the Basilica and Courtyard. If these buildings are considered late Roman then originally the

Basilica would have been used for legal and mercantile business and the Courtyard would have been a market, as was common for basilica-agora combinations in the late empire. If these buildings are considered Christian in origin then the Basilica functioned as a church from the start and the Courtyard as church’s forecourt or “atrium”.

Just south of the courtyard of the Basilica is a peculiar building named the House of

Mosaics.118 From the plan of this building (Figure 3.17) it is not at all obvious that this is a house. The entrance is on the west side and proceeds through a long hall which bisects the building. To the right of this hall (south) are two large, square rooms arranged in tandem and decorated with floor mosaics. These give access to various smaller rooms. On the left of the entry hall are two rows of rather large, though ill-defined, rooms. The northwest part of the house with an irregular wall Kavvadias (1918: 191) believed to be a garden. Kavvadias (1916:

40), Pharaklas (1971: 31), Tomlinson (1983: 47) and Riethmüller (2005: 281n7) all agree in

117 The walls of the addition do not interweave with those of the Basilica but the fabric is the same (Kavvadias 1918b: 179, 182).

118 For the House with Mosaics see Kavvadias 1916: 40; 1918: 191; Pharaklas 1971: 31; Tomlinson 1983: 47; and Riethmüller 2005: 281n7.

246

describing it as a house. The two mosaic rooms do resemble the foyers or atria of domestic architecture in being large, decorated rooms which control access to the surrounding house.

Moreover, houses with a single bisecting hallway and rooms on each side have been found in

Ostia. Overall then, the House with Mosaics more closely resembles domestic architecture than any other option.

If the House of Mosaics is indeed a home then who lived there? Kavvadias (1916: 40) and

Pharaklas (1971: 31) think it a private dwelling but do not elaborate. Riethmüller (2005: 281n7) connects it with the (Christian, in his view) Basilica, but parsonages are not a feature of late antique basilicas.119 If the house is late Roman then it is probably useful to compare it with the

Roman House (Figure 1-7: 35) of the mid-second century AD. Like that earlier house, the House with Mosaics may have been the local residence of the financial backer of the associated construction phase. Alternatively, it may not have been a private home but the residence of sanctuary officials, perhaps religious like buildings K, Φ, and the Skana, or legal/political in association with the Basilica as a law court. In any event, the occupants of the House of Mosaics must remain unknown for the present.

Also at the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century the Northeast Baths (Figure

1-7: 30) underwent repair (due to earthquake damage, OESME 1999: 53) and remodeling

(perhaps prompted by the earthquake repairs) which included the addition of a latrine in the northwest, new rooms in the southwest and the blockage of some doorways to further partition the interior.120 The internal division of the baths is particularly intriguing. Ginouvès (1955: 146)

119 I would like to thank Florin Curta for his insight on this point.

120 For the northeast bath modifications see Ginouvès 1955: 135-152, Tomlinson 1983: 52-54 and OEΣME 1999: 53.

247

interprets this increased subdivision as indicating a shift from communal to personal bathing.

Tomlinson (1983: 52-54) suggests the segregation may have been for women.

Finally, a bath complex, the Late Antique Baths, (Figure 1-7: 29) has been recently excavated just east of the Stoa of Kotys but remains unpublished.121 Only a very rudimentary outline of bath complex is shown on the current on-site map and the preliminary dating is very general (fourth or fifth centuries AD). If this bath is late fourth century or early fifth it will be interesting to compare its internal arrangement with the modifications to the Northeast Baths.

If these new buildings are interpreted as late Roman constructions then the Asclepieum experienced a dramatic revival after the decline of the fourth century. Moreover, the Basilica and

Courtyard, if viewed as a law court and a market, represent a tremendous shift in the functions of the Asclepieum, giving it a mercantile and legal center. If the buildings are Christian in origin then the history of the Asclepieum had reached its end and a different era had begun under the empire’s new religion. The adoption by Christians of pagan religious sites, especially those associated with healing, was not uncommon and the modification of the Northeast Baths as well as the construction of the new bath complex suggest continuity in the curative use of the site.

This period then, at the end of the fourth century AD or beginning of the fifth is probably a

Christian building phase.

The Overall Effect of Roman Modifications

The Hellenistic program of monumentalization amplified two functions of the Asclepieum above all others, the public festival and the healing cult. The Roman-era sanctuary inherited these functions, and the buildings that housed them, relatively intact. The stewardship of this

121 For the Late Antique Baths see Lambrinoudakis 2002: 224, the modern site map #43, and the excavation report of Petrounakes, S (forthcoming).

248

inheritance through the Roman era has been examined in detail above and now a more concise account of the public festival and the healing cult can be offered.

In the years following 146 BC, the public festival weathered the loss of Greek independence with no apparent interruption judging by its frequent attestation in inscriptions from the first two and a half centuries of Roman rule. Initially, the festival is named the

“Asclepieia” (“Asclapieia” in the original Doric) but in the first century BC the name changes to include Apollo. The “Apollonia and Asclepieia” becomes the standard nomenclature until early in the first century AD when the “Caesareia” is added. The “Apollonia, Asclepieia and

Caesareia” then remains the festival’s name throughout the first century AD.122 The public festival seems to have flourished in this century judging by the fact that it is attested in nine inscriptions, the most of any century.123

After the first century AD, the evidence for the public festival becomes spotty. The last inscription of the first century AD attesting the festival dates to AD 79/80 while the next attestation comes from coins celebrating the visit of Hadrian in AD 124. The silence of the forty- four intervening years may be due simply to the uneven survival of inscriptions from the site or it may signal the decline of the festival. In favor of the latter is the fact that Hadrian was named by the Epidaurians as the city’s savior and founder (ἡ πόλις τὸν ἑαυ τῆς σωτῆρα καὶ οἰκιστήν) which in combination with a series of coins bearing Hadrian’s head on the obverse and

Ἀσκλήπεια on the reverse may indicate that he restored the games from a period of lapse.124 In any event, the festival once again becomes simply the “festival of Asclepius” (now spelled

122 During these two and a half centuries the names of the festival undergo a number of minor but consistent spelling changes.

123 Compared with four inscriptions of the second century BC, four of the first century BC, five of the second century AD and five of the third century AD.

124 IG IV2 1, 606.

249

Asclepeia). In the second half of the second century AD, the festival seems to be flourishing once again due undoubtedly to the intervention of the senator Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus

Pythodorus. Five inscriptions, both from the Asclepieum and elsewhere, testify to its vitality in this period. Interestingly, from the time of Antoninus’ activity at the Asclepieum until about the middle of the third century, whenever the festival is named it is called the μεγάλα Ἀσκληπεία or

“Greater Asclepeia.” Several possibilities might explain this new naming convention. On the analogy of the Greater Panathenaia at Athens, the μεγάλα Ἀσκληπεία may have been a special performance of the public festival which occurred only at multi-year intervals. If so, then it either existed previously but only shows up in this narrow time frame due to the chance survival of evidence or, more likely, it is a new creation, probably of the senator Antoninus judging from the time frame. In addition, the fact that no “normal” festival names (i.e. the Ἀσκλήπεια) overlap chronologically with the “extraordinary” festival suggests that the μεγάλα Ἀσκληπεία replaced the Ἀσκλήπεια, either to add a more majestic ring to the normal festival or perhaps shifting the annual festival to a less frequent schedule. After the second century AD, the public festival is only mentioned twice until the reign of the emperor Valerian (AD 253-259) when it shows up in three non-local inscriptions which again rename it. Now it is called the “Olympia” of Epidaurus or the “Olympia Asclepeia.” Based on the fact that these same inscriptions list the “Olympia” of other cities, it seems the term has become generic for “festival games.” No evidence for the public festival postdates Valerian and it can be assumed that the crisis of the third century brought a permanent end to the celebration.

The Hellenistic festival as reconstructed in Chapter 2 consisted of a number of interrelated activities which were found commonly in the public festivals of Classical and Hellenistic Greece.

There are the procession, the public sacrifice, the ritual meal and contests both athletic and

250

artistic. Unfortunately, the program of individual events for the Roman-era festival can only be partially reconstructed for any one century because of the scattered nature of the evidence.

However, a synchronic approach, applied cautiously, can fill in some of the gaps and allow a more complete account of the festival overall which might then be compared with its Hellenistic precursor. The athletic contests are by far the most frequently attested component of the festival in the Roman era and a variety of competitions are found in the inscriptions (primarily in those from the second and first centuries BC but also in others scattered through different periods): the stadium run, double stadium run, pentathlon, pancration, boxing and horse race, in both youth and adult categories, as well as tragic, comedic and musical contests. A festival procession is also mentioned in two inscriptions of the first century BC and in these same inscriptions a recognition ceremony in which benefactors of the city are called to the front seats of the games.

Interestingly, this is the first record of a recognition ceremony as part of the Asclepieia and it is unclear if it is an innovation or simply unattested for earlier periods. Finally, two very late (third or fourth century) inscriptions record a list of banquet items and may refer to the ritual meal. The act of public sacrifice is not recorded at all for the Roman period but must have been present since sacrifice was the central act of worship in both Greek and Roman religion. Overall then, the festival program seems to have remained consistent from the Hellenistic period through the

Roman, remarkably so if the banquet inscriptions do in fact refer to the ritual meal and the recognition ceremony was carried over from Hellenistic times.

The effect of the various building programs on the public festival is difficult to judge in most instances but a few observations can be made. From the 146 BC to the building program of

Antoninus (AD 152-163) the competitive venues and other essential festival buildings seem to be maintained with only two exceptions: the loss of the Banqueting Hall to fire in the first century

251

BC and the neglect of the Stoa of Kotys, later restored by Antoninus. The only known architectural improvement to festival-related venue is the modification of the seating on the south side of the Stadium in the first century AD. Under the senator Antoninus, the athletic and festival-related infrastructure are significantly improved and expanded. This includes the repair of the Stoa of Kotys and the construction of a new Roman Palaestra complex, a new rainwater cistern on the Kynortion, and a new aqueduct system north of the Banqueting Hall. After the second century AD, the architectural record becomes ambiguous. There is reason to believe that some buildings, most importantly the Katagogion, were modified for greater access during the reign of Severus Alexander which may indicate greater crowds in the Asclepieum, perhaps festival-related. Finally, in the reign of Diocletian (AD 285-305) the construction of the

Perimeter Stoa/Wall, which surrounds the facilities of the healing cult but excludes many of the festival venues, seems to confirm the extinction of the public festival after Valerian (AD 359).

The healing cult is considerably less attested than the public festival with only six unambiguously cure-related inscriptions across the whole Roman period. The earliest, from the first century BC, is the votive of Cutius the Gaul written in Latin. The next inscription, the cure of Apellas, comes from the period of the Antoninus’ renovation of the sanctuary, just after AD

160 and records the healing process in detail. In the next century, two cure votives dedicated by the same individual, Tiberius Claudius Severus Sinope, can be dated to the year AD 224 and two other votives, both celebrating the healing of a child named Gorgios, can only be assigned broadly to the third century. This limited pool of epigraphic evidence can be somewhat augmented by including votives which probably refer to successful cures even though the disease or cure is not explicitly mentioned. Dedications to Apollo and Asclepius by private individuals can tentatively be considered inscriptions of this type. These kinds of dedications dominate the

252

first and second centuries BC, and range in number from nineteen to twenty-five in the second century to between ten and eighteen in the first. This number of probable votives, combined with the votive of Cutius constitute a firm case for the continuation of the healing cult up to the first century AD.

Dedications number slightly fewer in the next century, five to fifteen, though any conclusion drawn from such small sample sizes would be tenuous at best. Now only a plurality of inscriptions meet the criteria for possible cure votives but one of them (SEG 11-440) make a particularly strong case. It reads, “Erotis son of Demetrios the Corinthian to Asclepius according to the dream.” The fact that Erotis is Corinthian suggests he may be a visiting supplicant and the phrase “according to the dream” recalls the incubation process. On the whole, the evidence for the first century leans in favor of the continued operation of the healing cult. At the end of the first century AD a dramatic change occurs in the character of the dedications which, to the extent that it dominates, renders them useless for information on the healing cult. This change is the almost total displacement of private dedicators by sanctuary officials, mainly priests and assistants. While the dedications of private individuals to Asclepius might be construed to result from a healing experience, the motives of the official dedications are less clear and may simply have been a customary part of the magistracies. Therefore from the end of the first century AD until the building program of Antoninus in the mid-second century there is no good evidence for the healing cult.

By the 160’s AD the healing cult appears strong. The “cure of Apellas” details the contemporary operation of the cult which seems well-maintained (the altars are functional and the priests are collecting healing fees) as well as the use of multiple facilities such as the baths and the Abaton. Moreover, the new construction program produces a number of buildings which

253

directly enhance the healing cult such as the Baths of Asclepius, the Epidoteion, the House for

Birthing and Dying, and the Library (Apellas, for example, records that he passed his time reading). After the period of Antoninus’ renovations, the healing cult is not again attested for the remainder of the second century AD.

The third century provides no fewer than four cure votives, two of which date to the reign of Severus Alexander (AD 222-235) and two of which cannot be more definitively dated. It seems likely, therefore, that the healing cult must have continued during the reign of Caracalla

(AD 211-217) to make such a strong showing in the decades following. This is especially true if the two broadly dated cure votives are assigned to the early third century which is not unreasonable since after Severus Alexander the state of the empire was not generally conducive to travel or material upkeep. The last inscription which might be considered a probable cure votive (IG IV2 1, 414) comes from the year 254, during the reign of Valerian, and records the dedication of an unnamed woman to Asclepius, Apollo and Herakles.

Despite the end of its epigraphic record, the healing cult almost certainly survived into the reign of Diocletian, for it is too great a coincidence that the major new construction of that period, the Perimetric Stoa/Wall perfectly encapsulates the curative facilities and little else.

Nevertheless, the healing cult, if it passed deeper into the fourth century, must have been diminished by the loss of the Epidoteion, the Temple of Artemis, and finally the Perimetric

Stoa/Wall. Even so, the end of the healing cult cannot be definitively located and the curative tradition of the site may have continued into the Christian era.

With so little explicit evidence the actual healing procedure of the Roman-era cult is difficult to reconstruct. The best attested part of the curative process is incubation which shows

254

up in four inscriptions.125 Moreover, the dedication of Apellas (IG IV2 1, 126) specifically mentions his use of the Abaton while that of Ti. Claudius Severus (IG IV2 1, 127) records his incubation in the enkoimeterion (almost certainly the same building). Other components of the healing process included bathing (IG IV2 1, 126), diet (IG IV2 1, 126), exercise (IG IV2 1, 126), medicinal treatment of the body (IG IV2 1, 126), sacrifice (IG IV2 1, 126), payment of a fee (IG

IV2 1, 126) and offering of a votive inscription (IG IV2 1, 126; 127; 440; 455; 475 and Peek

1972, 52). When compared with the healing procedure from the Hellenistic period the two are remarkably similar. Both involve one or more sacrifices, incubation (usually with the Abaton mentioned), bathing (the cure of Apellas adds hot-water baths), monetary payments to sanctuary personnel (attendants or priests) and a the display of a thanks-offering.

Thus the public festival and healing, the two major cult activities received from the

Hellenistic sanctuary, retained their primacy in the Asclepieum of the Roman era. They survived, in the main, until at least the reign of Valerian in the mid-third century when both are last positively attested. The healing cult probably continued into the beginning of the fourth century since it seems implied by the construction of the Perimetric Stoa/Wall in the reign of Domitian, and perhaps even longer if the Christian development of the site was due to its reputation for miraculous cures.

Construction in the Roman era generally acted to maintain or restore these two activities as they were in the Hellenistic period. As a result of these efforts, the sanctuary grew over time but the Hellenistic template of the sanctuary remained constant. There were enhancements however: the senator Antoninus provided a house for those giving birth and dying and the reign of

Caracalla added the Odeum, the Northwest Complex and the heated facilities of the Northeast

125 IG IV2 1, 126; 127; 475 & Peek 1972, 52.

255

Baths. Although each of these was a type of building new to the Asclepieum (the Northeast

Baths were the first Roman hypocaust baths) none of them constituted a major departure from

Hellenistic model, especially in respect to the public festival and the healing cult.

Nonetheless, the Hellenistic model did falter over time, though not as a result of deliberate modification. The earliest example of this is the Banqueting Hall which was largely lost in the first century BC. In the Hellenistic period, the building seems to have been a place where local and visiting elites could share the communal meal of the public festival, but after its loss in the

Roman era it was never rebuilt nor replaced. Later, as building losses mounted in the mid-third century, Hellenistic visitor facilities suffered a major blow as the Katagogion fell into ruin. Other losses followed and as the state of the Asclepieum grew more dire, the Perimetric Stoa/Wall of

Diocletian’s reign was built to preserve the Hellenistic buildings of the healing cult. Still later, the dismal repairs to the Theater under Julian seem a forlorn attempt to resurrect the Hellenistic sanctuary. Finally, the Christian era brought its own beliefs, activities and buildings to the site finalizing the end of a long tradition of devotion to the patterns of worship magnified and fixed during the great monumentalization of the fourth and third centuries BC.

256

Figure 4-1. The Skana. (Adapted from Lambrinoudakis, V. 1990. Prakt:: Figure 1)

257

Figure 4-2. Building Φ. (Adapted from Roux, G. 1961. L’architecture de l’Argolide aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.-C. BEFAR 199: Figure 92)

258

Figure 4-3. The Roman House. (Adapted from Kavvadias, P. 1900. Τὸ ἱερόν τοῦ Ἀσκλήπιου ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ. Athens: The Perrē Brothers: map 1)

259

Figure 4-4. Structures around the Abaton. (Adapted from Kavvadias, P. 1900. Τὸ ἱερόν τοῦ Ἀσκλήπιου ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ. Athens: The Perrē Brothers: map 1)

Figure 4-5. The stoa with hypocaust. (Adapted from OEΣME. 2000. To Yστερορωμαïκό “Tείχος”. Athens: Ministry of Culture: Figure 1)

260

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION

The Epidaurian Asclepieum continued as one of the most famous healing centers of the ancient world through the Roman era. However, scholarship on this important period of the sanctuary’s life has been relatively neglected. Consequently, this work has focused on two questions fundamental to the study of the Roman Asclepieum: the chronology of the Roman buildings and the effects of the Roman construction phases on the public festival and the healing cult. While the goals of this work have been relatively narrow, they comprise the crucial building blocks for future investigation of this period in the Asclepieum’s life. The following section will summarize those findings and consider them briefly in a larger, historical context.

Immediately following the defeat of the Achaean League in 146 BC the Asclepieum seems to have continued much as it did before. The buildings of the Hellenistic sanctuary appear to have survived without harm though new construction is absent. The public festival is well- attested and sometime in the latter part of the century its name changed from the Asclepieia to the Apollonia and Asclepieia. The festival inscriptions of this period supply better detail about the games than those any other century and list a variety of events such as the stadium run, the men’s pentathlon, the men’s pancration and the boy’s horse race as well as tragic and comedic competitions. Evidence for the healing cult is less definitive but suggests its activity continued.

The vitality of the Asclepieum in this period contrasts with the fate of other Greek localities following the Achaean War. Rome punished a number of the belligerents in the

Peloponnese and Boeotia, especially cities of the Achaean League of which Epidaurus was a member, and the general state of Greece seems to have been thrown into confusion.1

Nevertheless, apart from a pair of rather impetuous inscriptions from L. Mummius, the

1 See Alcock 1993: 13.

261

Epidaurian Asclepieum does not seem to have suffered the same hardships that visited other areas.2 This favorable situation probably continued into the early first century, but deteriorated soon after.

In the first century BC the Asclepieum suffers its first major building losses: the

Banqueting Hall is partially destroyed by fire, the water distribution system to its north is fractured and Building Π is damaged. In addition, a number of buildings on the Kynortion are devastated. Nonetheless, healing cult and public festival appear as healthy as in the preceding century. The Apollonia and Asclepieia festival is generously attested in the epigraphic record along with details of its program including the games, dramatic competitions and procession.

Furthermore, one of the few healing accounts of the Roman period, that of Cutius the Gaul, is tentatively assigned to this century.

This functional stability seems at odds with the historical circumstances of the sanctuary since it suffered depredations in both the Mithridatic War and in the instability generated by the

Roman civil wars. Around 86 BC, the Asclepieum was looted by Sulla, then in 74 BC, Epidaurus labored to provide supplies for the soldiers of Marcus Antonius “Creticus” who were quartered in the city. At an unknown later date, the sanctuary was looted again by pirates and toward the end of the first century BC, Livy describes it as thoroughly pillaged. Yet, the century was not unremittingly hostile: in 44 BC, Julius Caesar refounded Corinth signaling a renewed Roman interest in the fortunes of Greece; in 31 BC, the Roman civil wars ended bringing stability and imperial investment to the region; and in 27 BC the Roman province of Achaea was created.3

While these events began to reverse the deleterious effects of the previous decades in certain

2 Melfi (2010a: 330; 2014: 144, 148-9) argues that Epidaurus was indeed punished since it was never declared liberi et immunes but this is a tenuous conclusion when compared with evidence for a thriving public festival and healing cult.

3 Alcock 1993: 13-14.

262

areas of Greece, it is not clear whether they encouraged interest in the Asclepieum. Only one fragmentary inscription, dated generally to the first century BC, touches on the relationship between Epidaurus and Rome.4 It praises the Epidaurian ambassadors who had returned from

Rome but is unfortunately silent on the outcome of their mission.

In the first century AD the recovery begun at the end of last century continues. The public festival in this period is the most attested of any century and is now a triple festival to Apollo,

Asclepius and Caesar. Ten celebrations of this Apolloneia, Asclepeia and Caesareia are recorded spanning from AD 32/33 to AD 79/80. Improvements to the southern seating of the Stadium almost certainly date to this century as well. The success of the public festival could be due to the attention Greece received from the Julio-Claudian emperors, and indeed the Asclepieum does preserve a number of honorary inscriptions from the Epidaurians to the imperial family.5

However, the emperors themselves are not well represented. For the first century BC only

Tiberius, Claudius and possibly Nero appear as honorees, with Claudius as the addressee of the majority (three). 6 Claudius’ prominence is peculiar since in AD 45 he returned the province of

Achaea to the senate against the wishes of the locals. Overall, this odd coterie seems a weak basis on which to posit Julio-Claudian aid to the Asclepieum and so the matter must rest unresolved.

In contrast to the public festival, the healing cult leaves no certain trace during this period.

Moreover, from the second century BC to the end of the first century AD there is a halving of

4 IG IV2 1, 64.

5 Tomlinson 1983: 31. These include dedications to Livia, the wife of Augustus, his stepsons Drusus and Tiberius, and his grandson Lucius. Drusilla, the sister of Caligula, also receives a statue in her honor as do Agrippina and Messalina, the wives of Claudius.

6 The three honorary inscriptions of Claudius are the most of any emperor except Hadrian and Caracalla who each also have three.

263

private dedications to the gods approximately every century. This diminution ends with a fundamental shift in the nature of the dedications at the end of the first century in which private votives are almost entirely replaced by those of sanctuary officials. What this change indicates is difficult to judge, but the new practice prevails until the epigraphic habit ends in the Asclepieum in the late fourth century.

In the second century AD two events of major importance for the Asclepieum occur: the visit of the emperor Hadrian in AD 124 and the construction program of Sextus Julius Maior

Antoninus Pythodorus. Hadrian’s visit to the Asclepieum came as part of a general tour of

Greece and was commemorated by the Epidaurians with a new official dating system beginning on the year of his arrival. Moreover, three extant honorary inscriptions are dedicated to him, one of which names him the savior and founder of the city. Unfortunately, whatever specific benefits

Hadrian brought to the Epidaurians have left little trace, but coins from the Asclepieum bearing

Hadrian’s image on the obverse and “Asclepieia” (the festival) on the reverse suggest that he may have refounded the public games.7 Such intervention would be in keeping with Hadrian’s activities elsewhere in Greece and Asia Minor where he was a prolific founder of new public festivals but it does seem at odds with the Asclepieia’s vitality throughout the first century AD and would seem to indicate that either the refounding was symbolic or honorary or that the

Epidaurian festival succumbed to some otherwise unattested downturn between its last known celebration in AD 79/80 and AD 124.8 Apart from the public festival no other activities of

Hadrian can be confirmed in the Asclepieum.9 No new structures are dated to this period rather

7 Melfi 2007: 83-86; 2010a: 333.

8 Boatwright 2000: 100.

9 Though, in a broader context, Hadrian included Epidaurus in his new Panhellenion.

264

the Stoa of Kotys either falls into ruin at this time or, if already ruined, is not repaired. Finally, no evidence for healing cult can be ascribed to the entire first half of the second century AD.

In the mid-second century, between AD 152 and 163, the Asclepieum was remodeled by a

Roman senator from Asia Minor named Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus Pythodorus. The main examples of this intervention are the buildings of fabric group I which are distinguished by rubble masonry supplemented with occasional brickwork. The buildings of this group are the priests’ houses (buildings K, Φ and the Skana), the Roma Palaestra, the renovation of the northern retaining wall of the Tholos terrace, the Roman House, and the Stoa with Hypocaust phase I. In addition to the buildings of fabric group I, Pausanias attributes to Antoninus

Pythodorus an Epidoteion (which archaeology has shown to be a renovation of a Hellenistic building), a Bath of Asclepius (probably the bath on the east side of the Abaton), a Temple to

Hygieia, Apollo and Asclepius in their Egyptian aspect (so far unassigned), a structure for those dying and giving birth (also unlocated), the repair of Stoa of Kotys and, on the Kynortion mount, a cistern and other, unspecified buildings. A library was also apparently built in the sanctuary around this time by one Rufus.

The construction efforts of Antoninus all seem to support one goal: to restore and in some cases expand the Hellenistic facilities which supported the public festival and healing cult.10 A singular characteristic of the Antonine program is that there is no retasking of pre-existing buildings nor alterations of their internal plan. The only buildings whose functions may have been unprecedented in the Hellenistic sanctuary are the house for birthing and dying and the

10 Melfi (2010a: 337) considers the purpose of Antoninus to be threefold: (1) to give back to the Asclepieum its original appearance and all the buildings necessary for cult; (2) to reinvigorate the traditional cult of Apollo and Asclepius as well as the minor deities (e.g. the epidotes); and (3) to make it comparable to the Asclepieum at Pergamum. Architecture figures prominently in this last point; the Bath of Asclepius (the NE Baths for her), the Temple of Egyptian gods (the NW Complex for her), the Odeum, and the library signal, in her opinion, an attempt to upgrade the Epidaurian facilities to equal those of Pergamum. This argument is not without merit, however, most of the actual structures she refers to are, in fact, Caracallan in origin.

265

library. Interestingly, this copious new construction does not seem to signal a dramatic increase in the performance of the public festival or the healing cult, though this is not to say the festival and the healing activity declined. The public festival is well-attested for the second half of this century but no more so than for the preceding century. However, the earliest mention of the

“Great Asclepeia” belongs to this period and may be an innovation of Antoninus. Likewise, the

“Cure of Apellas” ca. AD 160 shows a fully functioning healing cult at this time but the change in votives from private to public origins obscures the broader state of healing activity at the sanctuary.

The building program of Antoninus Pythodorus was the largest construction effort in the

Asclepieum since the Hellenistic period and would remain unequalled throughout the Roman era. The unusual magnitude of the project raises the question of its impetus. One phenomenon which may have influenced the actions of Antoninus is the cultural movement called the “Second

Sophistic.” Primarily a literary movement, the Second Sophistic privileged an idealized version of the Hellenic past as the authentic Greece.11 Sites of great antiquity, particularly those of a religious nature, were especially revered. The appeal of the Asclepieum at Epidaurus to such a cultural outlook is easy to see. Nevertheless, interpreting an architectural program in terms of a literary movement is extremely problematic and perhaps the most that can be confidently said is that the Second Sophistic created an environment favorable to Antoninus’ endeavor.

Another trend which may have had some impact on the building program of Antoninus is the civic euergetism phenomenon which peaks in the mid-second century.12 Across the empire, but especially in the Greek east, local elites were building public buildings at an unprecedented

11 Anderson 1993; Swain 1996; Porter 2001; Borg 2004; Whitmarsh 2005.

12 Zuiderhoek 2009.

266

rate. The type of structures being built – public amenities such as baths and fountains as well as civic prestige structures such as temples and sporting venues – are similar to those constructed by Antoninus at roughly the same time. Yet, civic euergetism was overwhelmingly local in nature; the elites concentrated on improving their own hometowns and winning the praise of their fellow-citizens. Indeed, Antoninus Pythodorus participated in just this kind of euergetism in his hometown of Nysa, but he does not appear to have had any previous connection to Epidaurus.

What then may have impelled Antoninus to invest so heavily in the reconstruction of the

Epidaurian Asclepieum? In addition to the civic euergetism phenomenon, there seems to have been a geographically broader prestige competition on the part of a select class of Roman elites.13 Herodes Atticus, for example, furnished magnificent buildings for the people of Athens,

Corinth, Olympia, Delphi and elsewhere. This “international” euergetism focused on sites of ancient Panhellenic importance. If Sextus Julius Maior Antoninus Pythodorus aspired to this kind of competition he could hardly have found a better location that the sanctuary at Epidaurus.

First of all, it was untouched by other Roman elites and therefore in its new form would be associated solely with him. Secondly, the fact that Epidaurus was debatably the locus classicus for the healing cult of Asclepius would have increased the prestige of the project since both the

Antonine emperors and the Second Sophistic in general showed great affinity for Asclepius.

The architectural expansion of the sanctuary begun by Antoninus achieved its acme during the reign of Caracalla. The three buildings of fabric group II, the Odeum, the Northwest Bath

Complex and the Northeast Baths, belong to this period. Characterized by substantial use of brick, these buildings are the highest quality Roman buildings in the sanctuary as well as being some of the largest. Each of them is a building type new to the Asclepieum, and this break with

13 See Galli 2004 and Zuiderhoek 2009 for a preliminary discussion of this broader phenomenon.

267

the Hellenistic template suggests they may have been due to the predilections of Caracalla rather than the needs of the Asclepieum. For Caracalla spent most of his rule in the provinces where he forced senators to build luxury amenities for him at each of his planned stops (many of which he never actually visited) as a means of keeping their power in check.14 In any event, even if the buildings of fabric group II originated with the emperor, they were not abandoned after the occasion of Caracalla’s visit passed but instead were incorporated into the normal cult life of the sanctuary.15 The Odeum appears to have been used for both daily (i.e. healing) and periodic (i.e. festival) functions and the Northeast Baths with their new Roman system of bathing seem to have been readily adopted into the lustral environment of the sanctuary. The Northwest Complex survived to be rededicated to Severus Alexander and perhaps lasted much longer though its later function is unknown.

For the five and a half years of Caracalla’s reign and the five years of instability which followed under Macrinus and Elagabalus there is no evidence for either the public festival or the healing cult. This situation changes under Severus Alexander when the healing cult is definitely attested and the public festival probably so. In addition, this period of stability is an attractive place to assign certain third-century construction activities.

The regime of Severus Alexander restored relative calm to Roman politics, so recently outraged by the policies of Elagabalus, and provided the stable environment to which several construction efforts can probably be assigned. The first is phase III of the Odeum which added a vestibule to its south side, perhaps to improve access to the venue. The second is the internal modification of the center of the Katagogion to allow the northern courtyards to communicate

14 Cassius Dio 78.9.4.

15 Caracalla may indeed have visited or planned to visit since three honorary inscriptions to him remain, the most of any emperor except Claudius and Hadrian who also have three each.

268

with the southern ones. Both alterations seem designed to improve the ability of these structures to accommodate crowds which suggests the buildings may have been experiencing increased use. In addition, these modifications rearrange the original plan of the earlier buildings, in contrast to the building programs of Antoninus and Caracalla which did not alter original layouts. Based on these characteristics, two other third century renovations may also date to this period: the second phase of the Skana which redivided internal space to produce more rooms, and the remodeling of the Greek Bath which likewise reapportioned the ground floor to create more basins and also added an upper story. If indeed these four projects were a response to the need for increased capacity then the most likely cause is increased attendance for the public festival and/or the healing cult during this period. The operation of the healing cult, in any event, is independently corroborated by two cure inscriptions from AD 224.

Following the death of Severus Alexander in AD 235 the Roman empire faced a series of short-term emperors who were, for the most part, inadequate to the challenges of the third century. Wars of succession, financial crisis, plague and barbarian invasions brought the empire close to collapse and were only successfully addressed when Diocletian came to power in 284.

These fifty years of crisis are reflected in the Asclepieum by the loss of several important buildings. Sometime in this period the Katagogion and the Odeum fell into disuse (to be dismantled under Diocletian), the Roman structure in Building Π was destroyed, and Shrine Y was buried by soil deposited from the higher terrain to the east. Though none of these buildings was essential to either the public festival or the healing cult, their loss, combined with the general lack of evidence for the public festival and the healing cult during this period, indicate a sanctuary in distress. Only the reign of Valerian, from AD 253 to 259, provides clear evidence for the public festival and the healing cult during the crisis of the third century. Three

269

inscriptions, one from Athens, one from Delphi and one from Ancyre, record victors in the

Olympia or Olympia Asclepeia at Epidaurus. Based on the games of other localities recorded as

“Olympia” in these same inscriptions it seems this was the generic third-century term for public games. A final inscription from the Asclepieum itself lists the products which must be supplied to (or by, the inscription is very fragmentary) the president of the games. Evidence for the healing cult comes from a single inscription dated to AD 254 in which an apparently private individual dedicates a thanks offering to Apollo, Asclepius and Herakles. Though a cure is not explicitly mentioned, the inscription follows the usual form of a healing votive. These documents from Valerian’s reign provide the last definite evidence of the public festival and the healing cult for the remaining lifespan of the Asclepieum. The visibility of both activities during this brief period is curious since the rule of Valerian is often described as the nadir of the third century crisis. The Germans, Goths and Scythians plundered Roman lands extensively and, moreover, made significant territorial gains, while the Persians pressed Rome in the east and eventually captured and executed the emperor himself. Nevertheless, the general turmoil of the empire did not seem to discourage the maintenance (or revival?) of the Asclepieum’s main activities.

Following Valerian’s reign the public festival and the healing cult, which for so long dominated the use of the sanctuary, may have come to an end. In any event, they are never again positively attested. Yet, the fact that the Asclepieum continues to operate for at least a century and a half more suggests that at least one of these activities survived; moreover, certain architectural developments under Diocletian point to this activity being the healing cult.

The reign of Diocletian (AD 284-305) brought an end to the crisis of the third century and, according to Lactantius, “a certain endless passion for building” which produced “here public

270

halls, there a circus, here a mint, and there a workhouse for making implements of war.” 16 At

Epidaurus, fabric group III, characterized by the substantial reuse of material from other buildings especially the Katagogion and Banqueting Hall, is assigned to this period. The single representative of this fabric is the Perimetric Stoa/Wall which forms an inward-facing stoa surrounding the main area of the Hellenistic sanctuary. The buildings enclosed by this stoa are primarily those of the healing cult – the Temple of Asclepius, its altar and nearby open area, the

Abaton and adjacent bath – suggesting that cures were still being sought.

Several other structures can also be dated to the era of Diocletian though they do not belong to fabric group III. These are the Stoa with Hypocaust phase II, Shrine T, Shrine I,

Banqueting Hall annexes 53, 53a, and the Banqueting Hall Propylon-as-Temple. The focus on small shrines or temples, three total, may indicate a revitalization of smaller cults, perhaps ancillary to the healing cult. Therefore the building activity of the Diocletian period seems geared to preserving the healing cult by augmenting its auxiliary cults and isolating its facilities from the rest of the sanctuary which may have been in significant material decline by this time.

In the early fourth century, Constantine’s rule and Christianity’s resulting rise in prominence surely put pressure on many pagan sanctuaries, particularly after his edict in AD 324 outlawing pagan sacrifice. Nevertheless, at Epidaurus evidence of distress in the Asclepieum only begins to be seen during the rule of his sons. Shortly after Constantine II (AD 337-340) the

Banqueting Hall Propylon-as-Temple is disassembled and in the mid-fourth century the

Epidoteion falls into disrepair. The Temple of Artemis may also have been severely damaged around this same time. Appropriately, the only inscription from the period of Constantine and his

16 Lactantius De Mortibus Persecutorum 7.8-12. Translation: Roberts and Donaldson 1886.

271

sons is a dedication of AD 355 to Asclepius of Aegae, a city in Asia Minor whose Asclepieum

Constantine had destroyed in AD 330.17

Several low-quality repairs and modifications to various structures in the Asclepieum probably date to the reign of Julian who, coming to power after the death of Constantius II in AD

361, promoted a short-lived return to traditional religion. A structure which seems to be a propylon was added to the external wall of the northern Perimetric Stoa/Wall and the external colonnade of the Stoa of Kotys was filled with an intercolumnal wall. Elsewhere in the

Asclepieum, the Theater’s stage was completely rebuilt and room J of Banqueting Hall was subdivided by new walls. Both of these renovations were done in a mortar-less “dry” construction technique.

All four of these assemblies are of poor quality and may therefore represent a very preliminary attempt to reforge some of the Asclepieum’s former appeal; certainly, the focus on the Theater and the northern propylon seem to point to a desire to attract visitors once again. If these construction efforts were taken in the hope that Julian’s reign would bring prosperity back to traditional worship sites such as the Asclepieum, it was shortly proven false when Julian died in 363. The last dated inscription from the sanctuary comes from this period: a dedication of AD

363 to Artemis Limneatis.18

Following the death of Julian, the epigraphic habit at the Asclepieum comes to an end and the chronology of the site becomes obscure. At some point between the late fourth century and the early fifth more buildings are lost: the north rooms of Banqueting Hall fall out of use, completing that building’s demise and Temple L, to the east of the Asclepieum, along with the

17 IG IV2 1, 438.

18 Peek 1972: 55.

272

Perimetric Stoa/Wall must have slipped into a state of disrepair since they are soon cannibalized for the Basilica.

Several factors may account for the material decline of this period. At least one earthquake struck the Peloponnese between AD 361 and 363 causing damage in Delphi, Corinth and

Nauplio. Then in AD 365, a truly catastrophic earthquake, the so-called “Universal” earthquake, radiated from its epicenter just off the coast of Crete across the entire eastern Mediterranean, causing widespread damage and a deadly tsunami. Besides natural disasters, political changes may have also precipitated the loss of buildings in the Asclepieum. From Theodosius I onward, a succession of anti-pagan laws were enacted which, at times, included the destruction of pagan temples. Finally, the Visigoths under Alaric invaded the Peloponnese in 395/6. Whether they got to Epidaurus is unknown but they did reach Athens, Megara, Corinth, Argos, and Sparta where they caused enormous damage.

After the destruction of the early fourth century, a new construction boom occurred at the site which, by the early fifth century, had produced the Basilica, the House with Mosaics, the

Late Antique Baths and compartmentalization of the Northeast Baths. Whether or not these buildings mark a continuation of the traditional Asclepieum or a new Christian use of the site is a difficult to answer. The only building which might be seen as distinctively Christian is the

Basilica with its attached baptistery. While probably near-contemporaneous, the baptistery, nevertheless, belongs to a second phase of the building which leaves open the question of the original purpose of the Basilica. Ultimately, the resurgence of the Asclepieum at so late a date, and with such a change in focus that it now needs a law court/business center (Basilica) and marketplace (the Forecourt or Agora), is hard to credit and this new building phase probably confirms the end of the Epidaurian Sanctuary of Asclepius in the late fourth century.

273

In conclusion, the chronology of the Roman era in the Asclepieum is more complex than previously thought with four major building phases: the building program of Sextus Julius Maior

Antoninus Pythodorus, the Caracallan and Diocletian constructions and the possible Christian final phase. From 146 BC through the intervention of the senator Antoninus, the goal of new construction seems to have been to restore or expand upon the sanctuary template established in the Hellenistic period. The Caracallan phase began a trend of deviation from the Hellenistic model by adding novel types of buildings, yet it did not alter the use of pre-existing ones.

Subsequently, less and less attention was paid to the architectural choices of the past. The

Diocletian phase reorganized the sanctuary and cannibalized major Hellenistic buildings while the late fourth/early fifth century saw the sanctuary, at the very least, reimagined if not entirely reshaped into a Christian site.

Perhaps because of the seeming respect paid to the Hellenistic pattern of the sanctuary throughout much of its Roman history, the effect of the new construction on the two major activities of the Asclepieum appears marginal in the sense that the public festival and the healing cult seem to stay true to their Hellenistic forms and no new major activities were added. This is the case both for architectural additions and losses; the additions did not significantly alter the practice of the public festival or healing cult and the losses did not affect critical buildings such as the temples, the Abaton, or the competitive venues, all of which appear to outlast the

Asclepieum itself.

Finally, the waxing and waning of the Asclepieum does not necessarily correspond to contemporaneous trends in the rest of Greece. For example, the general punishment of Greece after the Achaean war in the second century BC does not seem to have affected Epidaurus.

Likewise, the Asclepieum does not seem to have benefited much from the affection which the

274

Julio-Claudian emperors showed the rest of Greece. Most paradoxically, the sanctuary seems resurgent just when the empire was at its worst under Valerian. Thus the Asclepieum provides a useful reminder that phenomena often considered general may have had significant local variations.

275

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alcock, S. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——, Cherry, J., and Elsner, J. eds. 2001. Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Amandry, M. 1993. “Un Monnayaga d’Hadrien à Épidaure.” REG 106: 329-332.

Anderson, G. 1993. The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire. Routledge: Routledge University Press.

Aslanidis, K. 2003. “The Roman Odeion at Epidauros.” JRA 16.1: 300-311.

——, and Pinatsi, Ch. 1999. To Ἱερό των Αιυπτίων στο Ασκληπιείο’ της Επιδαύρου. (Unpublished in the Archives of OEΣME).

Aston, E. 2004. “Asclepius and the Legacy of Thessaly.” CQ 54.1: 18-32.

Baedeker, K. 1908. Griechenland: Handbuch fūr Reisende. Leipzig: Karl Baedeker.

Barrett, W. S. 1954. “Bacchylides, Asine and Apollo Pythaieus.” Hermes 82: 421-444.

Baunack, I. 1890. Aus Epidauros. Eine epigraphische Studie. Leipzig: Druck von Otto Dürr.

Blinkenberg, Chr. 1895. “Les inscriptions d’Epidaure.” Nordik Tidsskrift for Filologie. 3.3: 153- 178.

Blouet, A. 1833. Expédition scientifique de Morée. 3 vols. Paris: House of Firmin Didot Frères.

Boatwright, M. T. 2000. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Böckh, A. 1828. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Vol. 1. Fasc. 3. Berlin: George Reimer.

Bonefas, S. 1989. “The Musical Inscription from Epidauros.” Hesperia 58: 51-62.

Bookidis, N. 1990. “Ritual Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth: Some Questions.” In Murray, ed. 86-94.

—— 1993. “Ritual Dining at Corinth.” In Marinatos, N. and Hägg, R. eds. Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches. New York: Routledge. 45-61.

Borg, B. ed. 2004. Paideia: The World of the Second Sophistic. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Bowersock, G. 1974. Approaches to the Second Sophistic, Papers Presented at 105th Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association. University Park, PA: American Philological Association.

276

Bowie, E. 1970. “Greeks and Their Past in the Second Sophistic.” P&P 46: 3-41.

—— 2001. “Inspiration and Aspiration: Date, Genre, and Readership.” In Alcock, Cherry, and Elsner, eds. 21-25.

Bozia, E., Sangco, G., and Wagman, R. 2007. “A New Dedication by Diogenes and Other Unpublished Inscriptions from Epidauros.” ZPE 160: 120-122.

Burford, A. 1966. “Notes on the Epidaurian Building Inscriptions.” BSA 61: 254-334.

—— 1969. The Greek Temple Builders of Epidaurus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bursian, C. 1868. Geographie von Griechenland. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.

Cancik, H. and Schneider, H. eds. 1996-2003. Der Neue Pauly. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.

Carpenter, R. 1971. The Propylon in Greek and Hellenistic Architecture. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms (University of Pennsylania dissertation).

Chandler, R. 1817. Voyages dans l’Asie mineure et en Grèce. 3rd ed. 2 vols. London: J. F. Dove.

Clarke, E. D. 1818. Travels in Various Countries of Europe, Asia and Africa. 11 vols. London: R. Watts.

Clarke, J. R. 1991. The Houses of Roman Italy 100 B.C. – A.D. 250. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Comfort, H. 1931. “The Date of Pausanias Book II.” AJA 35.3: 310-318.

Cooper, F. and Morris, S. 1990. “Dining in Round Buildings.” In Murray, ed. 66-85.

Coulton, J. 1976. The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Curtius, E. 1852. Peloponnesos. 2 vols. Gotha: Verlag von Justus Perthes.

Danali, K. 1994. “Η ελληνιστική κεραμική από το Πρόπυλο του Γυμνασίου.” ArchEph: 255- 298. D’Arrigo, M. 1996. “Il Katogogion: un Edificio tra il Pubblico e il Privato.” In D’Andria, F. and Mannino, M. eds. Richerche sulla Casa in Magna Grecia e in Sicilia. Galatina: Congedo. 89-107. Defrasse, A. and Lechat, H. 1895. Epidaure, restauration et déscription des principaux monuments du sanctuaire d’ Asclépius. Paris: Librairies Imprimeries Réunies.

Delorme, J. 1946. “Recherches au Gymnase d’Épidaure.” BCH 70: 108-119.

—— 1960. Gymnasion. Paris: Boccard.

277

Dodwell, E. 1819. A Classical and Topographical Tour Through Greece During the Years 1801, 1805 and 1806. 2 vols. London: Rodwell and Martin.

Downey, G. “The Work of Antoninus Pius at Antioch.” CPhil 34.4: 369-372.

Dunbabin, K. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edlestein, J. and Edlelstein, L. 1975. Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies. 2 vols. New York: Arno Press.

Ellis, S. 1988. “The End of the Roman House.” AJA 92.4: 565-576.

Elsner, J. and Rutherford, I. eds. Seeing the Gods: Pilgramage in Greco-Roman and Early Christian Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fraenkel, M. 1902. Inscriptiones Graecae: Aeginae, Pityonesi, Cecryphaliae, Argolidis. Berlin: George Reimer.

Frazer, J. G. 1897. Pausanias’ Description of Greece I-VI. New York: Biblo and Tannen.

Frickenhaus, A. 1912. “Archäologische Gesellschaft au Berlin: Mai-Sitzung 1912.” AA: 140- 142.

—— 1917. “Griechische Banketthäuser.” JdI 32: 114-133.

Galli, M. 2001. “Pepaideumenoi am Ort des Heiligen: Kommunikationsformen und euergetische Initiativen in griechischen Heiligtümern Zeit der Zweiten Sophistik.” In Reusser, ed. 43- 71.

—— 2004. “Creating Religious Identities: Paideia e religione nella Seconda Sofistica.” In Borg, ed. 315-356.

—— 2005. “Pilgrimage as elite Habitus: Educated Pilgrims in the Sacred Landscape During the Second Sophistic.” In Elsner and Rutherford eds. 253-290.

Gell, W. 1810. The Itinerary of Greece, with a Commentary on Pausanias and Strabo and an Account of the Monuments of Antiquity at Present Existing in that Country. London.

Gerkan, A. von and Müller-Wiener, W. 1961. Das Theater von Epidauros. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.

Gimialdes, X. 1913. ArchEph: 125-129.

Ginouvès, R. 1955. “Sur un aspect de l’évolution des bains en Grèce vers le IVe siècle de notre ère.” BCH 79: 135-152.

—— 1962. Balaneutikè. BEFAR 200. Paris: E. de Boccard.

278

—— 1972. Le Théâtron a Gradins droits et l’Odéon d’Argos. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.

—— 1992. Dictionnaire méthodique de l'architecture grecque et romaine. Tome II. Paris, Rome: École Française d'Athzènes/École Française de Rome.

Goldhill, S. 2001. Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Guidoboni, E. 1994. Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century. Rome: Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica.

Gurlitt, W. 1890. Über Pausanias: Untersuchungen. Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky.

Habicht, C. and Wörrie, M. 1969. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions, Altertümer von Pergamon VIII 3. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Hartigan, K. 2009. Performance and Cure: Drama and Healing in Ancient Greece and Contemporary America. London: Duckworth.

Herzog, R. 1931. Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Religion. Leipzig: Dieterich'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

—— 1937. ArchEph: 522-526.

Hiller, F. 1925. ArchEph: 67-86.

—— 1929a. Inscriptiones Graecae: Inscriptiones Argolidis. Vol. 4. Ed. 2. Fasc. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter.

—— 1929b. “Antoninus?” Hermes 64: 63-68.

Holwerda, I. 1902. “Das Epidaurische Abaton.” AM: 289-293.

Isler, H. 1994. “Epidaurus.” In Rossetto, P. and Sartorio, G. eds. Teatri Greci e Romani: alle origini del linguaggio rappresentato. Rome: Edizioni Seat. 2.209-212.

Jones, W. H. S. 1918. Pausanias. Description of Greece. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

Katatkis, S. 1991. Τα Γλυπτά των Ρωμαικών Χρόνων από το Ιερό του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα και του Ασκληπιού. University of Athens dissertation.

—— 2002. Επιδαύρος: τα Γλυπτά των Ρωμαικών Χρόνων από το Ιερό του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα και του Ασκληπιού. Athens: The Archaeological Society.

Kavvadias, P. 1881. Prakt: 1-40.

—— 1882. Prakt: 75-83.

279

—— 1883a. Prakt: 45-50.

—— 1883b. ArchEph: 25-32, 85-92, 147-158, 197-238.

—— 1884a. Prakt: 54-63.

—— 1884b. ArchEph: 21-32, 49-60.

—— 1885a. Prakt: 29-31.

—— 1885b. ArchEph: 1-30, 41-53, 65-86, 189-200.

—— 1886. ArchEph: 141-144, 145-178.

—— 1891a. Prakt: 26-27.

—— 1891b. Fouilles d’Epidaure. Vol 1. Athens: S. C. Vlastos.

—— 1891c. ArchDelt: 3, 19, 33, 65-66, 85-96, 97.

—— 1892a. Prakt: 54-56.

—— 1892b. ArchDelt: 23, 39, 49-50, 72-73, 81-82.

—— 1893. Prakt: 9-11.

—— 1894a. Prakt: 13-14.

—— 1894b. ArchEph: 11-14, 15-24.

—— 1895a. Prakt: 20-23.

—— 1895b. ArchEph: 179-184.

—— 1896. Prakt: 31-32.

—— 1897. Prakt: 28.

—— 1898. Prakt: 17-18.

—— 1899a. Prakt: 103-105.

—— 1899b. ArchEph: 1-24.

—— 1900a. Prakt: 17-19.

—— 1900b. Τὸ ἱερόν τοῦ Ἀσκλήπιου ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ. Athens: The Perrē Brothers.

—— 1901a. Prakt: 49-51.

280

—— 1901b. ArchEph: 58-82.

—— 1902. Prakt: 78-92.

—— 1903. Prakt: 20-21, 59.

—— 1904. Prakt: 61-62.

—— 1905. Prakt: 23-24, 43-89.

—— 1906. Prakt: 53-54, 91-119.

—— 1907. Prakt: 63-64, 183-186.

—— 1908. Prakt: 65-66.

—— 1909. Prakt: 63-64.

—— 1916. Prakt: 39-41, 84.

—— 1918a. Prakt: 21-37.

—— 1918b. ArchEph: 135-171, 172-195.

—— 1919. Prakt: 19-20.

—— 1920. Prakt: 7-8.

—— 1921. Prakt: 9-10, 39-41.

—— 1922/23. Prakt: 2-3, 23-25.

—— 1924. Prakt: 74-75, 116-117.

—— 1925. Prakt: 12-14, 47-51.

—— 1926. Prakt: 91, 139-140.

—— 1927. Prakt: 13, 52.

Keramopoullos, A. 1903. “Νομισματικόν Εύρημα εξ Επιδαύρου.” ArchEph: 97-116.

Kerényi, K. 1959. Asklepios: Archetypal Image of the Physician’s Existence. Trans. by R. Manheim. New York: Pantheon Books.

Kiepert, H. 1996. Formae Orbis Antiqui. Rome: Edizioni Quasar.

Krautheimer, R. 1965. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. New York: Penguin Books.

281

Kraynak, L. 1991. “The Katagogion at Epidauros: a Revised Plan.” ArchN 16: 1-8.

Lambrinoudakis, V. 1974a. Prakt: 92-101.

—— 1974b. Ergon: 57-62.

—— 1975a. Prakt: 163-175.

—— 1975b. Ergon: 101-107.

—— 1976a. Prakt: 203-309.

—— 1976b. Ergon: 111-118.

—— 1977a. Prakt: 187-194.

—— 1977b. Ergon: 98-105.

—— 1978a. Prakt: 111-121.

—— 1978b. Ergon: 37-42.

—— 1979a. Prakt: 127-129.

—— 1979b. Ergon: 20-21.

—— 1980a. Prakt: 103.

—— 1980b. Ergon: 28-29.

—— 1980c. “Staatskult und Geschichte der Stadt Epidauros.” Archaiognosia 1.1: 39-63.

—— 1981a. Prakt: 157-181.

—— 1981b. Ergon: 46-48.

—— 1981c. “Remains of the Mycenean Period in the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas.” In Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. eds. Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. 59-65.

—— 1983a. Prakt: 151-159.

—— 1983b. Ergon: 59-64.

—— 1984a. Prakt: 228-232.

—— 1984b. Ergon: 58-59.

—— 1985. Ergon: 48.

282

—— 1987a. Prakt: 52-65.

—— 1987b. Ergon: 92-102.

—— 1988a. “Excavation and Restoration of the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas and Asklepios at Epidauros, II.” In Πρακτικάτου Γ´ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. Peloponnesiaka Suppl. 13. 298-304.

—— 1988b. Prakt: 21-29.

—— 1988c. Ergon: 11-21.

—— 1989a. Prakt: 43-56

—— 1989b. Ergon: 12-22.

—— 1990a. Prakt: 45-49.

—— 1990b. Ergon: 11-21.

—— 1991a. Prakt: 70-78.

—— 1991b. Ergon: 11-23.

—— 1992a. Prakt: 44-52.

—— 1992b. Ergon: 8-20.

—— 1992c. “Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο της Τελευταίας Δεκαετίας στο Επιδαύριο ερό του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα και του Ασκληπιού.” In Πρακτικάτου Γ´ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών. Peloponnesiaka Suppl. 19: 449-464.

—— 1993a. Prakt: 37-43.

—— 1993b. Ergon: 10-20.

—— 1994a. Prakt: 62-67.

—— 1994b. Ergon: 33-37.

—— 1994c. “L’eau medicale à Épidaure.” In Ginouvès, I. et al. L’eau, la santé, la maladie dans le mond grec. BCH Suppl. 28: 225-236.

—— 1995a. Prakt: 51-53.

—— 1995b. Ergon: 24-27.

—— 1996a. Prakt: 125-128.

283

—— 1996b. Ergon: 38-41.

—— 1997. Prakt: 165-166.

—— 1998. Prakt: 155-156.

—— 1999a. Prakt: 113-115.

—— 1999b. Ergon: 56-58.

—— 2000a. Prakt: 67-69.

—— 2000b. Ergon: 52-54.

—— 2001a. Prakt: 57-59.

—— 2001b. Ergon: 44-45.

—— 2002. “Conservation and Research: New Evidence on a Long-Living Cult. The Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas and Asklepios at Epidauros.” In Stamatopoulou, M. and Yeroulanou, M. eds. Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece. Oxford: Beazley Archive. 213-224.

—— 2006a. “To έργο της Επιτροπής Συντήρητης Mηημείων Eπιδαύρου.” In To έργο των Eπιστημονικών Επιτροπών. Athens: TDPEAE (the Treasurer of Management of Funds for the Accomplishment of Archaeological Works). 37-57.

—— 2006b. “Το έργο συντήρησης στο ιερό του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα και Ασκληπιού της Επιδαύρου: η θεωρία, η πράξη και ο προβληματισμος.” In Α΄Αρχαιολογική Σύνοδος Νότιας και Δυτικής Ελλάδος, Patra 9-12 Joun 1996. Athens. 355-364.

Lauter, H. 1986. Die Architektur des Hellenismus. Darmstadt: Wissesnschafltiche Buchgesellschaft.

Leake, W. 1830. Travels in the Morea. 3 vols. London. Reprint 1968 Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.

LeBas, Philippe. 1837. Inscriptions grecques et latines recueiles en Grèces par la commission de Morée. Paris.

—— 1870. Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure : fait par ordre du gouvernement français pendant les années 1843 et 1844, Inscriptions. Paris: Firmin-Didot frères.

LeBruyn, C. 1725. Voyage au Levant. Paris.

Lembidaki, E. 2002. “Three Sacred Buildings in the Asclepieion at Epidauros: New Evidence from Recent Archaeological Research.” In Hägg, R. ed. Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults. Stockholm: Paul Åströms Förlag. 123-136.

284

Marinatos, N. 1993. “What Were Greek Sanctuaries? A Synthesis.” In id. and Hägg, R. eds. Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches. New York: Routledge: 228-233.

Martin, R. and Metzger, H. 1942/43. “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en Grèce en 1942.” BCH 66/67: 320-345.

McCabe, D. 1991. Nysa Inscriptions. Texts and Lists. Princeton: The Institute for Advanced Study.

Meinel, R. 1980. Das Odeion: Untersuchungen an überdachten antiken Theatergebäuden. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Melfi, M. 2007. I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia.Vol. 1. Roma: “L’Erma” de Bretschneider.

—— 2010a. “Rebuilding the Myth of Asklepios at the Sanctuary of Epidauros in the Roman Period.” In Rizakis, A. and Lepenioti, CL. eds. Roman Peloponnese III: Society, Economy, and Culture under the Roman Empire. Vol. 63 of the Research Institute for Greek and Roman Antiquity. Athens: Diffusion de Boccard. 329-339.

—— 2010b. “Ritual Spaces and Performances in the Ascklepieia of Roman Greece.” BSA 105: 317-338.

—— 2014. “Religion and Communication in the Sanctuaries of Early-Roman Greece: Epidauros and Athens.” In Galli, M. ed. Roman Power and Greek Sanctuaries: Forms of Interaction and Communication. Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene. 143-341.

Meyers, R. 2012a. “Reconsidering Opportunities for Female Benefactors in the Roman Empire.” L’Antiquité Classique 81: 145-159.

—— 2012b. “Female Patronage.” In James, S. and Dillon, S. eds. A Companion to Women in the Ancient World. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 461-463.

Miller, A. M. 1981. Plato’s Ion. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr Commentaries.

Mitsos, M. 1933. ArchEph: 10-20.

—— 1936. ArchEph: 143-146.

—— 1967. ArchEph: 1-28.

—— 1974. ArchEph: 75-84.

—— 1975. ArchEph: 19-27.

—— 1976. ArchEph: 83-91.

—— 1977. ArchEph: 1-3.

—— 1980. ArchEph: 212-216.

285

Murray, O. ed. 1990. Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Nichols, A. and Wagman, R. 2006. “Minima Epidaurica.” ZPE 158: 187-189.

OEΣME. 1987. Η Στοά του Αβάτου στο Ασκληπιείο της Επιδαύρου : πρόταση συντήρησης και μερικής αποκατάστασης. Athens: Ministry of Culture.

—— 1988. The Propylon of the “Gymnasium” and the Tholos in the Asklepieion at Epidauros. Athens: Ministry of Culture.

—— 1999. Τo Ασκληπιείο της Επιδαύρου: η έδρα του θεού γιατρού της αρχαιότητας. Athens: D&G Kalopholias Publishing.

—— 2000. To Yστερορωμαïκό “Tείχος.” Athens: Ministry of Culture.

Papadimitriou, J. 1948. Prakt: 90-111.

—— 1948/49. ArchEph: 135-145.

—— 1949a. Prakt: 91-99.

—— 1949b. “Le Sanctuaire d’Apollon Maléatas à Épidaure.” BCH 73: 360-383.

—— 1950. Prakt: 194-202.

—— 1951. Prakt: 204-212.

Patrucco, R. 1976. Lo Stadio di Epidauro. Rome: L. S. Olschki.

Pauly, A. and Wissova, G. eds. 1894-1980. Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stutgart: J. B. Metzler.

Peek, W. 1969. Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Epidauros. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

—— 1972. Neue Inschriften aus Epidauros. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Peppa-Papaioannou, R. 1988. “New Archaeological Evidence for the Water Supply and Drainage System of the Asklepieion at Epidauros.” In Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. 553-554.

—— 1992. “Nέα Αρχαιολογικά Στοιχεία Σχετικά με την Oικοδομική Δραστηριότητα στο Ασκληπιείο Επιδαύρου κατά τη Ρωμαϊκή Εποχή.” In Peloponnesiaka Supplement 19. Athens: 257-271.

Perlman, P. 2000. City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht.

286

Petropoulou, A. 1991. “Prothysis and Altar: A Case Study.” In Étienne, R. and LeDinahet, M. L’Espace Sacrificiel dans les Civilisations Méditerranéennes de l’Antiquité. Paris: de Boccard. 25-31.

Pharaklas, N. 1972. Epidaurus: The Sanctuary of Asclepios. 2nd ed. Athens: Lycabettus Press.

Porter, J. 2001. “Ideals and Ruins: Pausanias, Longius, and the Second Sophistic.” In Alcock, Cherry, and Elsner, eds. 63-92.

Pouqueville, F. 1827. Voyage de la Grèce. 2nd ed. 6 vols. Paris: Père and sons.

Reithmüller, J. 1996. “Die Tholos und das Ei.” Nikephoros 9: 71-109.

—— 2005. Asklepios: Heiligtümer und Kulte. Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte.

Reusser, C. ed. 2001. Griechenland in der Kaiserziet. Neue Funde und Forschungen zu Skulptur, Architektur und Topographie. Hefte des Archäologischen Seminars der Universität Bern, Beiheft 4, Bern.

Robert, C. 1909. Pausanias als Schriftsteller. Berlin: Weidmann.

Robert, F. 1933. “Le Édifice E d’Épidaure et la topographie du Hiéron d’Asclépios.” BCH 57: 380-393.

—— 1935. Épidaure. Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres”.

—— 1939. Thymélè. BEFAR 147.

Robert, L. 1937. Etudes Anatoliennes. Paris: E. de Boccard.

Roberts, A. and Donaldson, J. 1886. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A. D. 325. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Roux, G. 1961. L’architecture de l’Argolide aux IVe et IIIe siècles avant J.-C. BEFAR 199.

Schmitt-Pantel, P. 1990. “Sacrificial Meal and Symposion: Two Models of Civic Institutions in the Archaic City?” In Murray, ed. 14-33.

Seiler, F. 1986. Die Griechische Tholos. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

Sève, M. 1993. “Les concours d’Épidaure.” REG 106: 303-328.

Sodini, J. 1970. “Mosaïques paléochrétiennes de Grèce.” BCH 94.2: 790-93.

Sotiriou, G. 1929. “ Ἁι παλαιοχριστιανικαὶ βασιλικαὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος.” ArchEph: 198-201.

Stais, I. 1886a. Prakt: 79-82.

—— 1886b. ArchEph: 244-258.

287

—— 1887a. Prakt: 67-68.

—— 1887b. ArchEph: 10-23.

—— 1892. ArchEph: 69-100, 181-184, 205-212.

Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 50-250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Syme, R. 1980. “Hadrianic Proconsuls of Africa.” ZPE 37: 1-18.

—— 1983. “The Proconsuls of Asia under Antoninus Pius.” ZPE 51: 271-290.

Talbert, R. 2000. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tomlinson, R. A. 1969. “Two Buildings in the Sanctuaries of Asklepius.” JHS 89: 106-117.

—— 1976. Greek Sanctuaries. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

—— 1983. Epidauros. New York: Granada Publishing.

Wagman, R. 1992. “An Inscribed Architectural Block from Epidauros.” Epigraphica 54: 280- 283.

—— 1995. Inni di Epidauro. Pisa: Giardini.

—— 1999. “The Inscription of the Epidaurian Hymns. A Tentative Location.” In XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina, Roma, 18-24 Settembre 1997, Atti 1. Rome. 873-880.

—— 2000. L’inno epidaurico a Pan. Il culto di Pan a Epidauro. Pisa: Giardini.

Whitmarsh, T. 2005. The Second Sophistic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilamowitz, U. von. 1886. “Isyllos von Epidauros.” Philologische Untersuchungen 9. Berlin.

Winter, F. E. 2006. Studies in Hellenistic Architecture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Yegül, F. 1992. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Zuiderhoek, A. 2009. The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire: Citizens, Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

288

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

David Hoot received his BA in Classics from Baylor University, his MA in Classics from

Bryn Mawr College and his PhD in Classical Studies from the University of Florida. His research interests include ancient religion, the Roman Empire, and Roman archaeology. David currently teaches Latin and classical civilization courses at the University of North Carolina

Wilmington.

289