THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ELEUSIS' (PLATES 10-12) T HE SOUTH side of the great Eleusinian plain is for the most part open to the sea. The western end of the plain, however, is cut off from the water by a long and moderately high range of hills, the so-called Eleusinian Mountain, which runs from east to west at a very slight distance from the coast.2 In this ridge two separate peaks stand out, one toward the eastern end with a rather gentle, flat top, and the other toward the west more abrupt and with only a small level area on its summit (Fig. 1 and P1. 10). On the western hilltop no traces of ancient habitation have been found except for the remains of a building of the Hellenistic period which was most likely of a military nature. The settlement of Eleusis, from the earliest prehistoric times in which it was founded, was established on the eastern eminence and, in the beginning, more especially on the southern and eastern side of the hill. Only at the beginning of the first mil- lennium before Christ, in the Geometric Period, did it extend also to the north side. This area too was included within the extensive fortified enceinte which appears from that time onward to have protected the settlement. High on the summit of the eastern eminence was the acropolis of Eleusis, forti- fied, at least from Mycenaean times, by a special wall. On the eastern flank of the hill, low"rerdown and outside this fortification wall, was founded in very early times the Sanctuary of Demeter, to which reference is made in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter and which my late teacher, Konstantine Kourouniotes, had the good fortune to locate when he excavated the Telesterion.3 Private habitations began to disappear from the east slope even in the Geometric Period and their places were taken by the expanding Sanctuary of Demeter, which by the time of Peisistratos extended up to and beyond the foot of the hill. In this period the sanctuary was surrounded with a very strong fortification wall which enclosed the settlement as well, in this way serving Athenian political purposes since through this stronghold Athens sought to control a point that was vital to her defence and to dominate the roads which provided communication with the Peloponnese, with Thebes, and indeed with the whole of northern Greece. In the same way the sanc- 1 This article was translated from the Greek by H. A. Thompson and was delivered by him as a paper on behalf of the author at the 49th General Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in Yale University, December 30th, 1947. I am deeply grateful to him for the interest he has taken in my work on Eleusis. 2 Curtius-Kaupert, Karten von Attika, pls. VI and XXVI. K. Kourouniotes, 'ApX. AEXr., XIII, 1930-31, HapapT/?ya pp. 17 f.; G. Mylonas, The Hymn to Demeter and her Sanctuary at Eleuesis, Washington, 1942. American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ELEUSIS 139 -~~~ K -LEtr15TJC~7? ( C zKD \\FO \I' FORTIFICATIOI1 I | ,j/e>f:X\\\\S9WlB ~~~~~AtiCIEJTr- -- SYICS-4 -9$ 3-t 1/r~~~~~Ar) NEMTE C ui NA 1OT ELE CU5IISE -5 Z=TOWARD5 THE 5EA - MEGAPIAN < ~~~_ PYL 5 0~~~ :<X~~~~~~~~~~Z ATF E. GATE3 r10 : X ! X a W; [GAT L TOMAPa ~eO-1=-1 5AriCTUAW I I 11 H--g | i . .7 -^ Ym vI94 .o F;v. lesi atth Ed f heFouthCetuy .C o : ~ ~o Fig. E1. 20 to 500k<ao 140 JOHN TRAVLOS tuary continued to expand,4attaining its greatest extent in the 4th century B.C. while at the same time the settlement spread westward nearly as far as the western summit. The sacred area (Fig. 2) formed a continuation of the settlement, and was included within the outer enceinte; yet from very early times it was separated from the residential area by a second wall. Within the sacred area two divisions are to be distinguished: the sanctuary proper, embracing the sacred court which was dominated by the temple of Demeter and Kore, the Telesterion,5 rising in its midst, and the sub- sidiary area in which were the dwellings of the priests and the administrative buildings of the sanctuary. These two divisions of the sacred area were separated from each cther by still another wall (the diateichisn-a, as it is called in the inscriptions) through which they communicatedby means of a propylon.6 The extent of the sanctuary proper has been defined fairly closely from the circuit wall that has been found. Doubt could exist only regarding the extent of the sub- sidiary area, and in particular as to its western limit in the direction of the town. For the accurate determination of the extent of the sanctuary on this side we are helped by the inscription which contains the long account of the overseers (epistatai) of Eleusis of the year 329/8 B.C. and especially by the following section of the inscrip- tion: /uoOcTrE' rov 8tarEtXt'a-,arog avEXonrFra o-arpa KaF TWv lvpy&V Kat 701rvXAcvorov Kaa roD Trapa Trv K-qpV'KwV OLKOVa cxp T71TrvAX8og Tr?S dravTpoKv OV 8oAXiov.7 It is generally believed that the cross-wall (diateichisma) mentioned in the in- scription was the old Peisistratean wAallwhich was preserved for a long time, even after the northeastern extension of the sanctuary occurred in the time of Kimon, as an inner enceinte around the sanctuary proper.8 Noack, who supposed that the Peisis- tratean wall came to an end in front of the Cave of Pluto, was of the opinion that the repair mentioned in the inscription concerned this section of the wall.9 When the northward continuation of the Peisistratean wall came to light, Kourouniotes logically supposed that this continuation of the wall should also be regarded as a cross-wall, and to it he referred the latter part of the passage in the inscription.10 Kourouniotes came to this conclusion because, like Noack, he believed that the gate (Pylon) men- 4For the form of the Sanctuary in its various periods, see K. Kourouniotes, " Das eleusinsiche Heiligtum von den Anfangen bis zur vorperikleischen Zeit," Archiv fur Religionswissenschcft, XXXII, pp. 52 if. K. Kourouniotes and J. Travlos, TEXEor ptov Kat Nao? A'\POS, 'ApX. AEXr., XV, 1933-35, pp. 54 ff. 6 This propylon was replaced in Roman times by the " Lesser Propylaia," as they have been called to distinguish them from the " Greater Propylaia " which were in the outer peribolos. 7I.G., II2, 1672, lines 23-25. 8 For a plan of the Sanctuary in this period see Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, XXXII, p. 67. 9 F. Noack, Eleusis: die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des Heiligtun's, Berlin, 1927, pp. 210 f., pl. 15. 10K. Kourouniotes,'Avau7Ka4a' 'EAEvorvos, 1934, 'ApX. AEXT.,XV, 1933-35, ]IcPapa?,pa, p. 13 (with plan). L E $ 0 b t \ w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ASTYl |SAItCTUAPYOFORTHERN PART OF | DEMETEPANDKOPE TOW | END OF FOURTH CENTURY B.C. LL.o ~~ACflOPOL1I5 ,/ S~ GACRED URT lo __ ~~~~~~~~~~~0 N t t __ sU ? ~~~~~~~t a> I /v ~ I GATE,5I .N. ~j~f~\' *tORTH/ | ?l H 31? { |m. _TRYLON J | OUTM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U -~~~~~Fg 2.y Sacur fEessa h ndo h orhCnuyBC2 0 5LO 100.T'VL- 27-X-i?47 Fig. 2. Sanctuaryof Eleusis at the End of the Fourth CenturyB.c. p 142 JOHN TRAVLOS tioned in the inscription was the old Peisistratean entrance which was covered over in the middle of the first century B.C. by the Lesser Propylaia. Granted, however, that the inner Peisistratean entrance is referred to in an earlier inscription as the " Propylaia of Demeter and Kore," "' it follows that by the term gate (Pylon) in the inscription of 329/8 B.C. iS meant some other gateway, presumably the principal entrance of the sanctuary in the outer wall, which at a much later date (the middle of the 2nd century A.D.) was replaced by the Greater Propylaia. Hence the repairs mentioned in the former part of the passage from the inscrip- tion (puto-OcwrdZrovi 8tarEaxio-pcaros aVEXov n ra u-airpaKa& r6v -rnpywv Ka&Tov 'irvMXcvos) had to do with the whole section of the old Peisistratean wall (diateichisma) as far as the gate (Pylon) which, as we have seen, is to be found in the outer enceinte (AB on the plan in Fig. 2). In the second part of the passage from the inscription, as Kourouniotes also observed, since the loan which was made on account of the works was related specifi- cally to the repair of the cross-wall (ro` rpoo-SavEa-OEv EFs ro 8&arLEXwc-/a),we are justi- fied in supposing that the section from the House of the Kerykes to the postern was regarded as another separate cross-wall, so that the phrasing of the passage in the inscription would be clearer if it were written KaF rov &arExlo-paroa rov arapa rov KqpV'KW0V 07Kov axp T7719 wvXALo T771)cacravTpOKV TOO 8oXiXov. Nor is it difficult to identify the section of cross-wall meant by the inscription. In the course of our most recent excavations the discovery of a boundary stone sn situ inscribed " Limit of the Sanctuary" (opog tEpoi) made it clear that all the area previously excavated to the west of the Lesser Propylaia also belonged to the Sanc- tuary.12 This section of the Sanctuary is comprised between the hill of Eleusis and the fortification wall of the enceinte, and its limit toward the west must have been fixed by a separate wall by which, moreover, the sanctuary would have been separated from the town (P1.