The Bridges of Ancient Eleutherna

The Bridges of Ancient Eleutherna Author(s): Athanassios Nakassis Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 95 (2000), pp. 353-365 Published by: British School at Athens Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30103440 Accessed: 01/02/2010 12:10 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual of the British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

THE BRIDGES OF ANCIENT ELEUTHERNA' (PLATES

61-66)

1. INTRODUCTION

THE ancient city of Eleutherna was located approximately 30 km southeast of Rethymnon (FIG. I) in the foothills of Mount

Ida, about 380 m above sea level. The greater part of the

ancient city now lies in the territory of the modern settlement currently named Archaia Eleutherna, known previously as Prines. Other parts of the ancient city are located within the settlement of Eleutherna, previously known as Anachourdometocha, and elsewhere (FIG.2). At present these settlements, along with others, form the demos of Arkadi within the eparchy of Mylopotamos in the nome of Rethymnon. Excavation of ancient Eleutherna started in 1985 under the direction of the University of Crete.2 The oldest bridges were made of wood. For more permanent and official constructions, builders used stone at least in the supports of the bridge, which were the most vulnerable part of the construction. Eventually bridges were made of stone in their entirety. But wooden bridges remained in use because stone bridges, although more permanent, could not span large distances as successfully as wooden bridges, which have a greater tensile flexibility and are less heavy. This explains the fact that spanning of particularly large distances in all periods of antiquity was accomplished mainly by means of wooden bridges. For instance, the bridge at Amphipolis,3 which spanned a distance of about 40 m over the river Strymon, was made of wood with wooden posts inserted into the bed of the river. The construction of stone bridges reflects the economic, technical, political, and cultural level of development of each city. Indeed, bridges are a testimony to a city's technical sophistication, to its wealth, and to its military confidence. In briefest outline, ancient bridge technology progresses from the use of flat surfaces, through the use of the corbelled arch, with or without centring, to the use of the arch with voussoirs. Corbelling is found in prehistoric bridges and was widely used until Hellenistic times when Greeks began using arches with voussoirs.4 Eleutherna5 is built in a naturally fortified location. To the east, where the southern bridge is located,6 flows the river Pharangitis, which is dry during the summer, and to the west the river Chalopota, which also dries up in the summer. The northern bridge is located beyond the confluence of these two rivers. Both bridges were corbelled with triangular arches. Eleutherna underwent great development during the late Classical and Hellenistic

I gave a lecture on the same topic in February1998 at the National Technical University of Athens--NTUA (EMH) as part of the series 'Advancedtopics in ArchitecturalHistory' organized by ProfessorCh. Bouras. I should like to thank Ch. Bouras, A. Farrington, E. Zaharakis, K. Zaharakis, Th. Hatzitheodorou, N. Makri, Ang. Nakassis, An. Nakassis, D. Nakassis, N. Pharaklas, S. Raftopoulou, N. Stambolidis, A. Stassinopoulou, K. Tagonidou, and P. Themelis for assisting in the preparationof the paper. I workat Eleuthernaas the excavationsarchitect.In 1986 I measuredand photographedthe northernbridge,when it was

cleared by ProfessorPharaklas.I measuredand photographed In the descriptionof the bridges the southern bridge in 1997. 'left'and 'right'are used relativeto the flow of the rivers. 3 D. Lazaridis,

A!p(i7oA;l

(Athens, 1993), 40-I, figs. 19-21.

4 T. D. Boyd, "'The arch and the vault in Greek architecture',AJA82 (1978),83, 88. 5The city is also referred to in the sources as "Acpog, and possibly 'AiroXlwvta. See N. Edmpog-cdbpao, Xd'pt Stambolidis,

iii (Rethymnon, 1994), 143-4.

" The site Ee-i6epva, is characteristically called Kamaraki, which roughly translatesas Little Vault.

ATHANASSIOS

354

NAKASSIS

PANORMOS

CRETAN SEA

LI IpBA STAVROMENOS~

RETHYMNON

VIRANEISCOPI sc

LPERAMA

,ELEU4JIHERNA

/ANCIENTI ELEUTHERNA MONASTERY OF ARCADI{

MOUNT

LIBYAN

SEA

R 1imHYMNOIN 0

FIG.I. Map of west-central Crete showing modern and ancient Eleutherna.

IDA

N

\KTH

ELEUTHERNA

OF ANCIENT

THE BRIDGES

355

DE ~PD~

N~TH

9500

0-SUTH4RIDGE' KAMARA>W

0

o

0 0

lo

ol

4

LOF

00

o?

t

OR HI

I~RbA

o (ET aate

SNISSI

ELEUTHERNA

/O

185001

Ri

aOr

IAN

FIG.2. Topographicalmap of ancient Eleutherna.

356

ATHANASSIOS

NAKASSIS

o

1

2

3M.

FIG.3. North bridge, plan.

periods,7 as well as during the late Roman and Christian periods.8 The city controlled a large territory stretching as far as the Sea of Crete and possessed a significant naval force.9 The inhabitants were engaged in raising livestock, farming, navigation, and trade. The city minted its own coins. In the Byzantine period, Eleutherna was the seat of the homonymous bishopric.'o 2. DESCRIPTION

AND PRESENT STATE OF NORTHERN PLATES 61-64)

BRIDGE

(FIGS.

3-9,

The axis of the bridge (i.e. the axis of symmetry in relation to the flow of the river) runs at an angle of 25o west of magnetic north. The bridge sits on natural rock, part of which is incorporated within the support of the bridge, so providing greater stability. Its feet are of

7 In the area there is archaeological evidence of earlier periods. Stambolidis (n. 5), 144 mentions the existence of Minoan pottery. 8 Ibid., I45-6. 9 Probably it had two harbours in the Cretan Sea, at Stavromenos and Panormos, and, if the city's power extended that far, perhaps also a third at Bali (ibid., I54-5).

The probable harbours of Eleutherna are also discussed by N. Platon, 'H6XetS tzig cAxtrj;Kpil;rl9 gtaxio AperTdvou 2.1 KaL Kr.Chron. (1948), 364-. Aloe CiKpou1', 'o From 980 onwards the Bishop is referred to as the and not Bishop of Avlopotamos ('EnriacolrogA oordtotd&)toi) of Eleutherna. See G. Konidaris, 'Ai c.loKorai Pjg Kp0ltrlG Kr.Chron.,7 (1953),478. .tCXPt IcaLot I' aoczvog',

THE BRIDGES

OF ANCIENT

ELEUTHERNA

357

0.00

0

FIG.4. North bridge, south view.

0.00

0

1

FIG.5. North bridge, north view.

2

3M.

1

2

3M.

358

ATHANASSIOS

NAKASSIS

0.Q0o

oL

1I

2f

3M. !

FIG.6. North bridge, section, west view.

uneven height and the base of the triangular arch is horizontal (PLATES 61 and 63a). It is built of unmortared large limestone. The stones vary in width from 0.5 to 1.5 m, in thickness from o.4 to 0.7 m, and in height from 0.4 to 0.45 m. The stones within the feet of the bridge vary significantly in size, except for those on the top row, which are all 0.80 m high. The stones within the corbel tend to be roughly of the same size and form an isodomic schema (FIGS. 6, 9). Some stones are L-shaped so as to prevent slippage, while others are decorated with eCpt'veltc. The arch is 3.95 m wide. The free height of the bridge varies from 4 m (south) to 4.2 m (north). Each leg of the triangular arch is 2.7 m long. The height of the isosceles triangle formed by the sides of the arch (i.e. the rise) is 1.84 m. The angles formed by the base and sides of the same triangle are 430, while that of the crown of the arch is 94. The bridge is 9.35 m long. The width varies from 5.1 m on the east to 5.2 m to the west. The width above the crown of the arch is 5.o5 m. Thus the two sides of the bridge converge slightly. The useable width today is 4 m because parts of the bridge (FIGS. 6, 9, PLATE 63b) have been covered by modern plaster. The feet of the bridge are protected by two bases, of noticeably different size. The western base which forms part of the original design is 3-5 m wide; the eastern base, a modern addition, is 4.4 m wide. Both bases are 3.1 m high, but the western base, being built on higher ground, terminates o.35 m above the eastern base (FIG.4). It forms an angle of 520 with the bridge, and the eastern base an angle of 23. When the bridge was first erected, it would have included at least one more row of stones tying the fabric of the bridge together and providing greater stability, and a

THE BRIDGES

OF ANCIENT

ELEUTHERNA

359

0.00

0.00

0| O

1

2

1,

2

3M.

3M.

FIG.7. North bridge, view of western base.

FIG.8. North bridge, view of eastern base.

0.00

0

1

2

3M.

FIG.9. North bridge, section, east view.

balustrade" as well. The current floor is modern and consists of small stones and plaster.'2 Today the bridge is still in use. Over the years the structure has been damaged. The right foot is no longer perpendicular. The stones within the inner walls of the corbel have shifted from their original alignment. In addition, plaster, which was used at the end of the " Balustradesare mentioned for the southern bridge in L. Mariani, Antichiti Cretesi, Eleutherna' Mon.Linc.,6 (Milan, 1895), col. 212-16. 2 It is not known

whether the construction of the top surface of the bridge followed originally the Greek practice

(grooves I.4 m apart) or the Roman one (flat, unbroken surface). See Y. Pikoulas, OS3to6 Sir0o icat 'Apvva, (Athens, 1995). The Roman practice was followed in all the roads which were found in other sites within Eleutherna, namely Katsibelos, Orthi Petra, Pyrgi and Nisi.

360

ATHANASSIOS

NAKASSIS

nineteenth century and the early twentieth century to repair the bridge, has expanded, thus bringing about a partial collapse of the north face of the western corbel in 1996 (PLATES61 and 62b).'3 3. DESCRIPTION

AND PRESENT

STATE OF THE SOUTHERN PLATES 65-66)

BRIDGE

(FIG.

10,

The axis of the bridge (i.e. the axis of symmetry in relation to the flow of the river) runs at an angle of 22o west of magnetic north. Unlike the northern bridge, the southern bridge is not built upon natural rock. The feet of the bridge are protected by the man-made riverbed. The slope of the bridge is 2% and it is built from stones whose dimensions vary from 0.5 to I m. The southern bridge was also supported by a triangular corbelled arch. Stones found around the bridge have oblique faces indicating an arch sloping at an angle of 650 (PLATE65b). The bridge is constructed of large limestone blocks, which display lifting bosses and which are of similar dimensions to those used in the north bridge (PLATE66a). The bridge included balustrades.'4 PLATE66b shows a stone with a slot in the middle, into which a slab could be inserted to receive a balustrade of a corresponding thickness. Only the western end's of the foot of the bridge has been found and there is uncertainty as to where the eastern end was. From what has been found, it is known that the foot was at least 4.17 m long, which means that the bridge was at least 4.17 m wide. This is consistent with the dimensions of the northern bridge, which must have been wider.

4. THE HISTORY

OF THE MONUMENTS

Spratt visited the area in 1853 and refers to the bridges of Eleutherna.'6 The topographic sketch he includes in his report presents both bridges with relative accuracy.'7 He mentions that both have triangular arches and belong to the Greek period. He also includes a plan of the northern face of the northern bridge.'8 To the left of the bridge Spratt shows a secondary passage in the form of a curved arch, and he suggests that the passage might be more recent. This published plan shows the top of the curved arch as being higher than the base of the corbel of the bridge, which is technically impossible. Mariani visited the area in I893.'9 He states that the bridge proper did not contain an opening and that the opening Spratt refers to was a hole in the rock. In 1914 Petroulakis, the director of the archaeological service of Rethymnon, mentions that the northern bridge was damaged during the storm of 1883,20 an event which forced the then demos of Eleutherna to construct a base and reinforce the western foot. Some

'3 It is possible to restore the bridge using the original detached material. Already in I987 I submitted a restoration study, including a structural analysis by A. Giouroussis, to the 'Directorate of Anastylosis of Ancient Monuments' in which I strongly emphasized the danger of collapse. Unfortunately the conservation of the monument was never executed. Mariani (n. II). '5 I was unable to locate the rest of the bridge because of the thick vegetation and of alluvium.

14

in Crete(London, '6 T. A. B. Spratt, Travelsand Researches 1865),89-98. '7 Ibid., 90. '8 Ibid., 95. The drawing shows cut tombs well behind and to the left of the bridge. The tombs are in fact much closer to the bridge. '9 Mariani, (n. II).

A. Petroulakis, "H ipo'ozoptCii yiqupa Arch,Eph.(I914),230. 'EEuve0pvlmg', o20

Xni

THE BRIDGES

OF ANCIENT

ELEUTHERNA

361

Ab -O

ic

x'l,

PROPERTY OF MELETIS MATHIOUDAKIS "BANDIDONIS") (Also known as

\'

LOCATION: KAMARAKI

DIRECTION OF PHARANGITIS R. '24qa

E SLOP *0

-1.04 -

+ .24 -4.17

-

PROPERTY OF GIANNIS ZACHARIOUDAKIS

PROPERTY OF ZACHARIAS NIKOLOUDAKIS

0

1

FIG.io. South bridge, plan.

2

3M.

ATHANASSIOS

362

NAKASSIS

stones of the new base"2'were inserted in the original construction. As a result of this addition and in order to preserve the stability of the structure, the original side opening was greatly lessened. Since Mariani mentions this opening, it follows that these alterations took place after his visit in 1893. The work was supplemented in i9o8 by Petroulakis' reinforcement with plaster.22 His report and a published photograph show that he did not modify the new base.23 After the completion of this work, Petroulakis published an article on the northern bridge, with the puzzling title 'The Prehistoric Bridge of Eleutherna'.24 In his report, he states that the right part of the bridge was never completed, thus leaving us with the impression that he had not realized that the screening of the secondary passage of the bridge belonged to the restoration phase undertaken by the demos of Eleutherna just a few years before his own work on the monument. He declares that he knew only the work of Spratt, which means he did not think of Mariani, who also mentions the secondary passage. It is reasonable to assume that he did not take into account Spratt's representation of the secondary passage because certain features of Spratt's representation, such as the curved upper end of the passage and location of the cut tombs,25 misled him. Petroulakis' plan and the attached photograph show the horizontal upper end of the side opening and he explicitly states that he did not modify the opening."26His photograph shows that the stones in the opening differ from the surrounding stones27 and the monument has not changed from the state displayed in the photograph. His plan shows the area under discussion as a large rectangular space. Thus it is obvious that he did not trouble to interpret the nature of the space.

2' The fact that the east base is modern is mentioned by Petroulakis(ibid. 231). The modern base closed all but a small portion of the original opening. The restrictedopening had a diameter of 0.5 m, and the diverted water was used by a downstreammill which was operational at the time. The bed of the river contains a groove (about 0.5 m deep) which I believe was cut for the same use after the opening was obstructed.A similargroove has been cut at the opposite side of the bed. North of the bridge and adjacent to the west foot there is a modern plaster wall whose construction markedly differs from that of the bridge. It protects the foot from erosion, because water accumulates right to the north of the bridge all-year-round. This pool of water is created by the violent rush of the water upon a soft support and eventually would have undermined the bridge. I have not found any references to this wall but it seems to be contemporarywith the screeningof the side opening of the bridge. 22 The restoration was approved, and funded, by the Council of the then Cretan State through the personal involvement of E. Venizelos, later prime minister of Greece. The necessary material was transported by pack animals: Petroulakis (n. 20) 230, 231, fig. 3. 23 Ibid., 231, fig. 2. The published photograph shows the southern view of the bridge before the restoration.A partial collapse of the west base and the west leg of the bridge is clearlyvisible. 24

Ibid., 230-2.

The report includes three photographs

(figs. 1-3) and four plans (figs. 4-7) of the bridge by the engineer Tsolinas. The plans are inaccurate in some respects:

(a) In the plan of the north view (fig. 4), the drawing of the secondary passage is confusing. Moreover, the riverbed appears to be lower than today; this is not possible, given that the present surface is the natural bedrock. (b) The plan of the corbel (fig.5) shows seven rows of stones along the axis of the flow of the river. It also shows the joints of the stones aligned and emphasizes the joint between the third and fourth row (as if the bridge had been constructed in phases). In reality,the number of rows is six, and occasionally seven, the joints are ratherjagged and discontinuous, and there are no visible difference in phases. (c) Fig. 6 and 7 are consistent with fig. 5 and as a result repeat the same mistakes. (d)Fig. 7 unnecessarilyemphasizes a perpendicularjoint at the foot of the bridge and incorrectlyplaces the base to the right instead to the left. A number printed properly on the plan, and the correctly drawn slope of the river bed, excludes the possibility of an error due to reverse printing; if this were the case, the base would be at the correct spot but the slope would be erroneous and the river would be flowing backwards! 25Spratt (n. 16), 95. 26 Petroulakis

(n. 20), 230. The

conservation

of the

northern side undertaken by Petroulakis would not have included the renovation or the replacement of architectural elements, but would only have consisted of plaster reinforcements. 27 Ibid., 23I, fig. i. The opening is filled with plaster and

rough stones quite unlike the large stones in the dry masonry of the bridge.

THE BRIDGES

OF ANCIENT

ELEUTHERNA

363

The state of the northern bridge remained about the same until 1996, when a portion of the left--in relation to the flow of the river--part of the arch on the north side collapsed. Mariani mentions28that of the southern bridge which Spratt saw in 1853, there remained in 1893 only one of the bases, and that the other base, along with the rest of the bridge and the balustrade had recently collapsed. It is conceivable that the southern bridge collapsed as a result of the storm of 1883, although the local tradition speaks of human intervention, which may be correct, because all the visible stones were found on the left bank of the river Pharangitis. Eventually, covered by vegetation and alluvium by the river Pharangitis, the bridge was evidently not easily discernible in Petroulakis' time. Petroulakis, who visited the site in 1908, does not mention this bridge.29 5. OTHER

SIMILAR

CONSTRUCTIONS30

I) BRIDGES

I.

The bridge by the palace of Knossos:3'the corbel is trapezoidal shape, forming 75. angles to the

2.

horizontal. The legs of the bridge therefore do not join. The Mycenean bridge spanning the seasonal river Chavos:32 the shape of the corbel is not known.

The Mycenean bridge at Kazarma:33the corbel forms an angle of about 75' to the horizontal. The Mycenean bridge at Galousi:34the corbel forms an angle of about to the horizontal. The Mycenaean bridge on the Thriasianplain:35 the shape of the corbel70o is not known. The late Classical construction under the circuit of the city walls at Messene, in the region of Kionakia:the bridge spans the stream Repa.36Only the bases of the bridge and scattered architecturalelements, among which are some oblique pieces,s7survive. The arch forms an angle of about 67j with the horizontal. The arch of this particular construction is similar to the arches of the bridge at Selinous (see below) i.e, the stones in the corbel expose two surfaces, one inclined and one perpendicular at the top, 17.5 cm long. The resulting corbelled faces are jagged in outline. 7. The late Classicaltwo-archedbridge at Selinous with a 520 angle.38 8. The Hellenistic bridge at Akragaswith an angle of about 490.39 9. The bridge at (esmekdy:40the shape of the corbel is not known.

3. 4. 5. 6.

Of particularinterest to us is the angle of the corbel, and we can summarize our data as follows:

Mariani (n. II), col. 214. 29Petroulakis (n. 20), 230-2.

28

3o I do not mention structures with curved arch. See A. ii Orlandos, T&'Y.l1K dootir aCyv'Apaew v 'E~~,LjvoWv, (Athens, 1959/60), 290-322; J. Briegleb, Die vorromische Steinbriicken desAltertums(Tiibingen, 1971), 39-47; P. Bougia, 'Ancient bridges in Greece and Coastal Asia Minor', (PhD diss., University of Pensylvania;Philadelphia, 1996).

3' Briegleb (n. 30), 64-77. 32 H. Constandinidis, IIpoi'topll) K0aflrpcoto'YZopLcl) 'EXaod (Athens, 1970), 291, fig. 203. There are above 20

survivingexamplesof this type includingKazarma and Galousi (see nos. 3-4), in the area ofArgolid (see Bougia(n. 30o)). 33 N. Papahatzis, Hvauaviov Hepulyurl;, EA2,diSog 198-9; Briegleb, ibid. Koplv6iaxd (Athens, 1976), 186-7, fig. 86-90, 367, fig. 5o, 51; V Galliazo, Iponti romani,I (Treviso,

1995), 23; Bougia (n. 30), 213-15, 355-6. 34 Ibid., 212-13, 355-6. 35 Briegleb (n. 30), 89-90; Galliazo (n. 33), 23; Bougia (n. 30), 180-2,

356.

36A. Blouet, Expiditionscientifique de MIoree,I (Paris, 1831), plate 38, B, II. 37I identified and measured the elements of the structure. See P. Themelis, 'Metavrl', Praktika (I99I), 98, fig. 19. derGriechen 385J.Durm, Die Baukunst (Leipzig, 1910o), fig. 183. Briegleb (n. 30), 128 suggests that the bridge was built between 275 and 250 Bc.

39 Marconi, 'Agrigento',RivistadelR. Istitutod'archeologia e P.

storia dell'arte,8 (Roma, 1930), 50, fig. 20. 40 G. E. Bean andJ. M. Cook, 'The Cnidia', BSA 47 (1952), 179-80; Briegleb (n. 30), 102-5; Galliazo (n. 33), 37; Bougia, (n. 30), 307-10, 356-7.

ATHANASSIOS

364 Bridge

Angle (degrees)

Knossos Kazarma Galousi Messene Eleutherna, southern bridge Selinus Acragas Eleutherna, northern bridge II) OTHER

NAKASSIS

CORBELLED

75 75 70 67 65 52

49 43

STRUCTURES

i. The multi-corbelledtriangularstructurenear Knidos.4' It supported an aqueduct and was built c. BC.It spanned a streambedand was 8 m long. 300oo 2. The bridge at the west buttressof the theatre at Thorikos.42It supported an exit for the public. The arch has an angle of about 6oo. The main purpose of the opening is to enable the passage of rain water. 3. The openings of the tall Hellenistic dividing walls of the cisterns of Aetolian Pleuron.43 4. The Hellenistic underwaterspring of Sillyon in Pamphylia.44 5. The three openings of the Hellenistic spring of Telmessos at Pisidia.45 6. Gates,46passageways,doorways,windows, loopholes, and sewers such as those at Tiryns, Thorikos, Oeniadae, Figaleia, Sparta, Methana, Carthaea (Ceos), Samos, Thasos, Samothrace, Marmara, Assos, Ephesos, Dura-Europos,Heraklea (Latmos),Kaunos, Apollonia, and Gela. 6. TENTATIVE

DATING

OF THE

BRIDGES

OF ELEUTHERNA

Corbelling47 was first used by the Egyptians and the Chaldaeans. In Greece it appears in Minoan and Mycenean architecture, mostly in funerary monuments and during the Geometric period. In historical times, this system finds wider application in various constructions such as gates, passageways, doorways, windows, loopholes, fountains, sewers, bridges, and cisterns. Corbelled constructions were built without scaffolding. Like arches with voussoirs, they were vulnerable to horizontal forces. Consequently, they required strong support of the feet so as to prevent outward displacements. The southern bridge of Eleutherna leads to the centre of the ancient city and probably was more important than the northern one. This may have been the reason why Spratt labels the southern bridge in his topographic sketch48 more prominently. The southern bridge, therefore, most likely predates the northern one. It is likely that there was a third bridge which spanned the Chalopota before it joined Pharangitis, so as to provide direct access to the western side of the ancient city. The southern bridge whose corbelling slopes at 65o, is significantly steeper

4' A. W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture, 2nd edn. (Harmondsworth,1967),236, pl. i3i. 42W. Miller, 'The theatre of Thoricus', Papersof theAmerican SchoolatAthens,4 (1888),7, pl. 2, fig. i. of Cyclopian, or Pelasgic 43 E. Dodwell, ViewsandDescriptions Remainsin Greeceand Italy (London, 1834), 16, figs. 27-8; J.

undPisidiens,i: 44K. Graf Lanckorofiski,Stiddte Pamphyliens Pamphylien (Vienna, 1890), 75, fig. 54.

Woodhouse, Aetolia (Oxford, 1897), II9-2I, fig. between pp J. Adam, Architecturemilitairegrecque(Paris, 1992), I20 and 121; fig. 129. Orlandos (n. 30 323 mentions that the cisterns

considered wrong; see Orlandos (n. 30), 313 n. 2.

belong to the-still unidentified-ancient city Eleios.

45 Ibid., ii: Pisidien (Vienna, 1892), 59, fig. 12.

46 The Arcadian gate of the walls of Messene is representedwith a triangulararch; see Blouet (n. 36), fig. 44. However, this reconstruction is speculative and nowadays is 47 Ibid.,

287-325,

372-4-

40 Spratt (n. 16), 90.

THE BRIDGES

OF ANCIENT

ELEUTHERNA

365

than the northern bridge, whose corbelling is at an angle of 43o. This indicates that the northern bridge represents a more advanced stage in technology. The slope of the southern bridge is comparable to the slope of the late Classical bridge of Messene, which is at an angle of 670. The chronology of the bridges of Eleutherna is controversial. Orlandos49 suggests that the northern bridge is Hellenistic. Pendleburyso and Parnicki-Pudelkos' claim that the northern bridge is Classical. Bougia suggests that the northern bridge was built between 400 and 350 BC, and Galliazo suggests almost the same period.52 Briegleb finds that both bridges are obviously identical in their design and underlying technology.53 Based on their appearance, the bridges of Eleutherna belong to the Greek period. In Eleutherna intense construction took place during the Hellenistic times. South of the northern bridge, in the region of Xiniana, next to the river Chalopota, Stambolidis has found important Hellenistic structures. The evidence so far54 and the horizontal inclination of the bridges, suggests that the southern bridge belongs to the late Classical period and the northern bridge to Hellenistic times. GreekMinistry of Culture

49 Orlandos (n. 30), 101. 50

J. Pendlebury, The Archaeologyof Crete(London, '939),

344, 349, 388, 390.

5' S.

Parnicki-Pudelko, 'Starozytne mosty w Grecji (Les

ponts antiques en Grhce)', Archeologia,11 (1959/60), I28-41.

ATHANASSIOS

NAKASSIS

52Bougia, (n. 30), 267-71, 356, 406; Galliazo (n. 33), 38. 53Briegleb (n. 30), 97.

54The absence of any does not allow more accurate dating. A future excavation may give a more accurate chronology based on pottery or other finds of the foundationtrenches.

PLATE 61

NAKASSIS THE BRIDGES OF ANCIENT ELEUTHERNA North bridge, north view. The water pool north of the bridge.

PLATE 62

(a) I

(b) NAKASSIS THE BRIDGES OF ANCIENT ELEUTHERNA (a) North bridge, north view, eastern side. The area where the old passage has been screened is shown. (b) North bridge, north view. The part of the arch that collapsed in 1996.

PLATE 63

(a)

(b) NAKASSIS THE BRIDGES OF ANCIENT ELEUTHERNA (a) North bridge, south view. (b) North bridge, south view In the foreground, the ancient base. In the background, the modern base. Also, view of the modern plaster with which the floor of the bridge is covered.

PLATE 64

groove. west the and

riverbed the of view ELEUTHERNA south

(b)

bridge, ANCIENT NAKASSIS OFNorth (b) base. BRIDGES western THE view, south

bridge, North (a)

(a)

PLATE 65

(a)

(b) NAKASSIS THE BRIDGES OF ANCIENT ELEUTHERNA (a) South bridge. Northern edge of the end of the bridge (west). (b) South bridge. Stone with oblique side.

PLATE66

NAKASSIS THE BRIDGES OF ANCIENT ELEUTHERNA (a) South bridge. Stone with lifting boss. (b)South bridge. Stone with a cutting, probably to accommodate the insertion of the balustrade.