Sacred Square II

The Altar of Zeus

About 10 m. east of the ramp of the Temple, a long low Free of limestone blocks forms the foundation course of an altar. Sacrifice, the central part of ancient Greek worship, usually took place at an altar in front of a temple rather than inside it and was visible to all the worshipers standing around the altar. The unusually long Altar of Zeus (at least 41 m. when complete) runs along the entire facade of the Temple, with which it is aligned, and continues beyond the line of its north-em side. The remains of another similarly long altar are preserved at the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia.^[91]

[91] Broneer, op. cit . (n. 37) 98-101.

The end of the Altar is missing, as is shown by the anathyrosis on the northern end of the northernmost block, indicating that another stone was once set next to it. We will never know its actual length. Farmers in the Early Christian period probably ripped out the missing end; the remains of the Altar were never very deeply covered, and the last few stones at the north were gouged by recent plowing.

The triglyph altar in the museum courtyard (A 71; p. 72) was found about 35 m. northeast of this end of the Altar, and the base on which it has been placed (A 70 a, b), which probably supported it in antiquity, was uncovered about 7 m. northeast of the end of the long altar. The sanctuary probably extended in this direction where this altar, and doubtless other dedications still unexcavated, stood in an open area.

Near the northern end of the Altar, east of the last four hard limestone blocks, are the remains of softer stones, with channels cut in their tops. These seem to be reused blocks, perhaps from a water channel, here employed as curbing for the Altar, like the narrow rectangular blocks east and west of the Altar further south.

The part of the Altar north of the ramp of the Temple (Fig. 55) was composed of dose-set horizontal courses of hard limestone rectangular blocks. Fragments of small votive vessels (like the ones on the top shelf, left, in case 5 in the museum; p. 30) found between stones near the northern end of the Altar show that this part was in use in the Archaic period. Pry marks for levering stones of a higher course into place can be seen on the tops of many of the preserved blocks. Two sets are visible on the stones in the row beside the curbing on the western side of the Altar, one set on the eastern side, another on the western. These may indicate two phases in the history of this part of the Altar.

The construction of the Altar is not uniform throughout its extant length, and it is easy to see that additions were made in antiquity. Although we cannot assign dates to them, their

Fig. 55.
The northern end of the Altar of Zeus from the north.

positions relative to each other allow us to work out a chronology of sorts. A square block along the western side of the Altar and two rectangular blocks along with part of a third north of it make up part of a late (but undatable) addition; they were added after the row of curbing blocks just west of the Altar proper was set in place (which also probably occurred well after the northern part of the Altar had been constructed; see further p. 152). Further south two single blocks and one pair of blocks were also added after the main construction was complete. Some may be supports for a four-piered construction (a tetrastylon or baldacchino ) over part of the Altar;^[92] if this is the case, farmers have ripped out the corresponding bases on the eastern side.

[92] Compare an altar at Perachora: H. Plommer and F. Salviat, "The Altar of Hera Akraia at Perachora," BSA 61 (1966) 207-15; for a general discussion of tetrastyla , see D. W. Rupp, Greek Altars of the Northeastern Peloponnese c. 750/725 B.C. to c. 300/275 B.C . (Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College 1974) 359-75.

Fig. 56.
The southern end of the Altar of Zeus from the south, 
with the double statue base in the foreground.

Opposite the ramp of the Temple is a gap in the stones of the Altar. This destruction, like that on the northern end, is the work of the Early Christian farmers, who pulled out some blocks to plant their crops in furrows adjacent to other blocks which survive today.

The construction technique for the southern part of the Altar differs from that for the northern part (Fig. 56); a core, mostly of softer material, is surrounded by harder rectangular stones. Traces of the core can be seen in the earth east of the western row of hard limestone blocks. Two blocks of hard stone are in place in the core, one at the edge of the gap at the

center of the Altar and another at the southeastern corner of the Altar. Although the northern and southern parts were constructed at different times, we can be fairly certain that at some point they formed a coherent whole rather than two separate altars side by side. One indication of this is the curbstones which remain on the eastern and western sides of the southern part of the Altar and on the western side of the northern part. Setting lines on both rows of hard limestone blocks in the southern part show where stones of a higher course were aligned; traces of a corresponding line north of the gap are further evidence of similar construction, at some time, for both parts of the Altar. The original southern end consisted of two L-shaped stones; at a later date an extension was added to the south.

The long Altar, then, which was surely part of the 4th-century sanctuary, includes an original northern section, in existence during the lifetime of the Early Temple, and a southern addition. Curbing and the southern extension were added later, though it is not dear when; these elements could have been laid in place as soon as the southern part of the Altar had been built. Blocks west of (and resting on) the western curbing were added last. The Altar as a whole had a long history. A coin of Trajan (C 157; museum case 3) found just west of the Altar near the gap shows that activity of some sort took place here in the 2nd century after Christ.

Volutes frequently decorated the ends of other altars, various moldings were common, and a superstructure with triglyphs and metopes was used in this part of Greece. Lack of evidence for such elements at Nemea does not prove that the Altar was plain, but until such evidence is found we might imagine a plain superstructure, set back about a third of a meter from the outside edges of the preserved stones and supporting a long narrow tablelike top.

Although we know that sacrifices typically involved preliminary libations, prayers, cutting the animal's throat, divi-

Fig. 57.
The southeastern comer of the Temple from the northwest, 
with associated monuments and planting pits for the Sacred Grove.

sion of the carcass, and, ultimately, feasting, we cannot be sure exactly what occurred here in front of the Temple of Zeus. A mixture of dark earth and tiny bits of burnt bone lying in bands beside the Altar shows that spilled debris was regularly swept up. We cannot know whether the length of the Altar meant that large numbers of animals were sacrificed simultaneously (in which case the noise, smell, smoke, and swarms of flies^[93] must have been considerable) or that different parts of the Altar were reserved for different rituals (with a tetrastylon possibly over the part for the hero Opheltes).

[93] Flies were a constant problem at ancient festivals, and at Olympia, for example, sacrifices at an altar of Zeus Apomyios (Averter of Flies) were said to drive the flies to the other side of the Alpheios River. See Pausanias 5. 14. 1 and the extensive commentary ad loc . by J. G. Frazer, Pausanias's Description of Greece III (London 1898) 558-59.

At the southern end of the Altar is a base for two statues. Traces of gouges made when two rectangular plinths were ripped out may be seen on the tops of the seven stones of the upper course. This course is not aligned with the stones below, probably because those stones belonged to an earlier base, which for some unknown reason was no longer in use when the upper course was set over it. Stones of the lower course carry traces of anathyrosis ; they may be reused, or these surviving stones may be part of a larger construction, the rest of which was demolished before the higher course was added. The higher course and its two statues appear to have been erected around 330 B.C. , during the same building program that produced the present Temple of Zeus.

The remains of two structures lie at the southeastern corner of the Temple (Fig. 57). Near the southern side several limestone blocks form part of a circle resting on a nearly square base. Up against these stones, just to the south, are the remains of a T-shaped structure, the Nu Structure (see p. 155), its two arms pointing north and south. From the southeastern foundation stones of the Temple there is a good view of these structures in relation to each other.

Several rectangular blocks of different sizes lie between the circular structure and the Temple itself. The steps of temples in Greek sanctuaries were often cluttered (to our minds) with official inscriptions in stone and dedications—the steps of the Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis, for instance, had cuttings for inscribed stones.^[94] We see here at Nemea separate bases for similar official or pious displays.

Circular Structure B

About three-quarters of a circle of hard limestone blocks is preserved around a core of decayed and "melted" softer stone.

[94] G. P. Stevens, "The Setting of the Periclean Parthenon," Hesperia , suppl. 3 (1940), especially frontispiece and Figs. 20 and 66, and "The Northeast Comer of the Parthenon," Hesperia 15 (1946) 1-26, esp. Fig. 1.

Faint marks on the tops of some of the harder blocks show that a second, higher, course of stones was set back about 0. 30 m. from the outer edge of the preserved course. Several Mocks from higher courses of this monument were found during excavation, scattered elsewhere on the site. They enable a reconstruction on paper of a three-stepped base, perhaps for an altar or a statue. The highest course of the base is estimated to have been 3.54 m. in diameter. It appears to have supported another circular element approximately 1.60 m. in diameter.^[95] Numerous bits of bronze were found in the earth around this base, so we know that a bronze statue or some other dedication stood nearby, perhaps on a base whose remains are preserved here. Although no part of a circular monument need have been emphasized, special attention seems to have been paid to the eastern quadrant of this structure. An irregularly shaped trench was dug in antiquity for the removal of stones at the east side of the monument. Its outline may indicate the presence at one time of some sort of projection or a small base for a dedication.

Circular Structure B seems to have been built in the second quarter of the 5th century B.C. . It was apparently destroyed at the end of that century.

Nu Structure

Hard against Circular Structure B and covering a small fraction of its surface is a T-shaped structure designated the Nu Structure, after a now-hidden mason's mark in the form of the Greek letter nu on one of its blocks. A facing of hard limestone blocks and a surrounding mass of softer stone, now decaying, once supported a higher course set back about 0.10 m. from the outside edge of the exterior stones. Apparently the layout of the Nu Structure differed slightly in an earlier phase; blocks which originally cut into the Circular Structure

[95] See F. Salviat, "Le monument de Théogénès sur l'agora de Thasos," BCH 80 (1956) 147-60, for a monument similar to Circular Structure B.

have been removed from the northern wing, and a setting line near the northern edge of the block that is oriented approximately east-west in the northern wing indicates the placement of the next higher course of stones in the later phase.

No evidence dates either phase securely, nor can we be sure of the function of the Nu Structure. It overlays and is thus obviously later than the Circular Structure, which had long been destroyed when the Nu Structure was erected. The 4th-century surfacing of the area south of the Temple was laid down after the Nu Structure was in place; probably this monument is another of the constructions of the late 4th century. Its massive foundations indicate that it supported some considerable weight, and several marble blocks that belonged to the Nu Structure have been recognized as reused in the bema of the Early Christian Basilica. Some of these blocks belong to missing lower courses of the monument, but others, which belong to the highest course of the Nu Structure, have cuttings in their upper surfaces for the feet of statues, including an equestrian group, as mentioned earlier (p. 85). Fragments of bronze, including bits of statuary, were found in the earth around and over the remains of the Nu Structure, which must, then, have supported a large statue group.^[96]

South of the Nu Structure is a rectangular base for another monument, probably also a statue.

The Sacred Square between the Temple and the Altar to the north and the oikoi to the south is a hard-packed surface, now patchy and broken through in places, which was laid down in the 4th century B.C. as part of the general refurbishment of the sanctuary. It replaced earlier surfaces that likely belonged to the Archaic sanctuary. No paths seem to have been deliberately laid out within this open space. The scatter of small

[96] See O. Broneer, Isthmia II, Topography and Architecture (Princeton 1973) 12, for a rectangular monument with two wings of unequal size comparable to the Nu Structure.

finds and coins in a line running northwest-southeast on the ancient surface in front of Oikos 9 suggests that people walked diagonally across this part of the sanctuary, perhaps to and from the Stadium. Dedications were doubtless erected in the Sacred Square during the renewal of the sanctuary in the late 4th century B.C. as well as in the Archaic and Classical periods. A base from one such dedication of the earlier phase of the sanctuary can be seen in the courtyard of the museum (18, to Artemis Ephodia or Hekate Ephodia; see p. 72).

Sacred Grove

A grove of about two dozen cypress trees has recently been planted where trees stood in antiquity. Circular patches of soft dark earth found during the excavation of this part of the Sacred Square proved to be the filling for clearly definable hemispherical pits (Fig. 58). Small veins of dark earth extended beyond the bottoms and sides of several pits, and some pits contained stones that might have anchored seedlings during planting. The identification of these pits as remnants of a Sacred Grove is supported by references in ancient literature to trees around the Temple of Zeus. Analysis of soil from the pits suggests that they contained cypresses (trees which, in fact, the traveler Pausanias tells us grew around the Temple). The layout of the restored grove is that of the late 4th century B.C. No doubt trees were replaced after that time when necessary. Euripides, Pindar, and perhaps Simonides mention a sacred grove, and therefore the 4th-century planting was not the first at Nemea.^[97]

Sacred groves in ancient Greece were common at rural, suburban, and urban sanctuaries, whether these were simple

[97] Euripides, Hercules Furens 359-60; Hypsipyle , fr. Iiv. 10 and frr. 22 + 60ii. 108 (ed. Bond); Pindar, Nemean 2.4-5; and perhaps Simonides, fr. 22 (ed. Diehl = ft. 507 ed. Page).

Fig. 58.
The planting pits for the Sacred Grove, from the southeast.

open-air shrines or elaborate building complexes. But although ancient Greek literature of all genres and periods makes many passing references to them, practically no physical evidence survives. The visitor to Athens, however, can see another example around the Hephaisteion, where shrubs have been planted in ancient rock-cut pits.^[98] For examples closer to Nemea, we have written testimony to sacred groves on the citadels of Phlious and Acrocorinth, in the Asklepieion at Epidauros, and near the city of Argos.^[99] We know of no ritual that was performed exclusively in a sacred grove. On a

[98] D. B. Thompson, "The Garden of Hephaistos," Hesperia 6 (1937) 396-425.

[99] Phlious: Pausanias 2.13.3-4. Acrocorinth: Pindar, fr. 107 (ed. Bowra) apud Athenaeus, 13.573f-574a. Epidauros: Aeschines, Anth. Gr . 6.330; IG IV 121.90-94, 120-21; IG IV 123.1-3; IG IV 618; Pausanias 2.27.1-7. Near Argos: Herodotus 6.78-80; Pausanias 2.20.8 and 3.4.1.

practical level, groves of trees provided shade for visitors, and in historical and legendary times they were places of religious and political asylum. Long-lived, they seem to have been considered living connections with events of the legendary past.^[100]

Boundary Stones

Among the trees lie the stubs of three stones, about 0.30 m. on each side, about 12 m. apart, roughly 20 m. north of the facades of the oikoi . The easternmost stone is now surrounded by a pile of loose stones at the edge of the excavated area.

The size, shape, and location (see Fig. 10) of these three stones indicate that they served as horoi , "boundary markers," perhaps marking off a special area of intense sanctity near the Temple from a subsidiary part of the sanctuary where the oikoi were situated. During excavation the 4th-century surface of the Sacred Square was found to continue up to the sides of the stones, indicating that they had been set in place before the surface was laid. If so, the stones may have had nothing to do with the Sacred Grove of the 4th-century refurbishment of the sanctuary. They may have marked a smaller sacred area, connected with the Early Temple, which did not cover as much territory as the Sacred Grove did later. Their stubs would have been left in place although they no longer marked a boundary that was observed in the 4th-century sanctuary.

One assumes that the tops of these uninscribed and unimpressive stones have been broken off; if their missing upper parts bore inscriptions, they may have been similar to the one on the stone I 107 now in the museum (see p. 33), found just

[100] For Greek sacred groves in general, see D. Birge, Sacred Groves in the Ancient Greek World (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1982).

northeast of the northeastern corner of Oikos 9. Its inscription, which may be translated literally as "Boundary of the Flat Area," presumably referring to the open space of the sanctuary defined on the south, for example, by the facades of the oikoi , may give us the official name of the Sacred Square, Epipola. Although of comparable size, this stone cannot be joined with any of the boundary stones still on the site. Given its date of the late 4th century B.C. (based on the style of its letters), it is likely to come from the reconstruction and renewal project in the Sanctuary of Zeus.