The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-21

whence he concludes that the foundation
Of the sanctuary must have taken place
between 1900 and 400 B. G. There Ia similar
evidence among the votive and other objects
Of its continuous activity from that time
until about 400 b. c., a few years after the
erection OF the present temple, when its
Importance appears to have suddenly de-
clined. No piece Of sculpture was found
which could be dated later than that, nor
any pedestal or other indication that a
statue or monument had been erected there
subsequently,. Such objects Of later periods
IA were unearthed are Of trining Importance
and indicate merely that the shrine was not
absolutely abandoned, but with the begin
ming OF the Roman period even these cease.
It therefore seems probable that public
interest in the divinity to whom the sane
tuary was dedicated. and who had been
worshipped there for nearly a thousand
years, practically came TO an end at the
time when the island Of Egina lost its indie
pendence to the A~thenians, about 4S6, and
possibly for that reason.
Turning back, however, to the architec-
ture Of it's Hourishlng period, the excavs-
tons brought to light mary fragments OF
the temple itself, the remains of the large
dlNthA III lIOhb VI IT, Win a dAiR NOhhNSeAhe
the two; portions Of two large bases or
pedestals which were contemporary with
the temple and altar, the complete line Of
the enclosure wall. including the propylon
or gateway, and the remains Of priests
houses or other buildings just outside the
entrance. They also disclosed the fact that
two older temples had stood successfully
upon the site before the erection OF the
present one. The foundations Of both OF
these, IL they exist at all, are unfortunately
bedded in those OF the present temple.
where they are wholly invisible; but this
trihing circumstance has not discouraged
our authors from Offering a conjectural
plan of each. which Of course the reader ia
free to accept or reject on the evidence.
Building blocks Of the later OF the two
were found in considerable abundance.
They z the first half Of the sixth
! century as the probable date Of the build
ing, and they show that it was destroyed
by fire, Of which they retain numerous
traces. OF the older building, the Oldest
Of which there is any positive evidence on
the site, no actual remains are visible, but
an inscription found during these excava-
tions leaves no doubt of its existence, which
is still further proved by the remains Of an
altar which presumably stood in front OF
IL, az well as those of the wall enclosing
il and Of the buildings which may have
been the priests houses, all clearly differ
entiated from the later temples by the
material and by the more primitive style
OF the workmanship. From the somewhat
uncertain data Of the inscription, Furt-
wAngler is inclined TO place this temple,
or house, =" as il is there called, in the latter
part of the seventh century. l may state
here in passing that the latest OF the three
temples. the famou one, he now dates in
the period of the Persian wars, that is,
between 400 and AS. In this DR.. Fiechter
agrees, on the architectural evidence, in
I clining 10 the earlier rather than the later
years Of that period.
The most important OF what we may
call the incidental results of these excava-
tions, and in, some respects the most
! important result attained, was the determi-
nation Of the name OF the divinity to whom
the san ctuary was dedicated. The temple
was neither that Of Zeus Panhellenios nor
Of Athena, the two divinities to whom it
has hitherto been assigned by various
authorities, but the shrine Of the goddess
Aphea, which Pausanias mentions I'll.
30, 81 as "in Egina, on the way to the
mountain of Zeus Panhellenios." This dis
covery was published by Furtwangler
Immediately after he made it and is
doubtless already familiar to those who
have followed the accounts Of his excava-
tions, though possibly the reasons for
accepting il az conclusive are not and IA
fact they were not all at hand at the time
il was announced. The direct evidence il
mainly geographic and may be summarized
as follows: Aside from builders marks. a
ordtfto, and a forgery, only eleven inscrip-
tions have been found on the site in either
the earlier or the later excavations. In
four OF those which were discovered in 1901
the name AphRa occurs in two cases com
plete. One of the four is the Inscription
referred to. a large slab of yellowish slate
on which il IL recorded ( hat w hen (KDeoitas
was priest the house Coikos) and altar were
quilt to Aphea, the ivory was added DC.
The other three were clearly Of a dedicatory
character, hence all show that AphRa
was wOrs hipped here. and the name OF no
other divinity occurs in any OF the in
scriptions found. II may be thought that
the mater ial available il too scanty to
prove anything regarding the temple it.
self and that the shrine Of Aphea might
have been a minor one within it's enclosure.
but had this been the case Pausanias would
certainly have mentioned the greater
divinity, not her, in his reference to the
place.
As to the names by which the temple has
hitherto been known, that Of Zeus Pan
hellenios was the one given 10 il at the time
Of Cockerell and Haller's excavations. and
maintained not only by the former in his
publication Of the temple fifty years later
but by Charles GARNER in his work on the
same subject as late as 1884. II was based
originally upon the fact that a temple Of
Zeus Panhellenios was knownt to rave stood
somewhere in the island, outside Of the city
and an inscription was found in the early
excavations bearing the name Of that divin-
ity. This inscription was afterward proved
to be a forgery, and is said 10 have been a
practical joke by one Of the. members Of
C~ockerell's PARTY. Nevertheless, the name
chung to the temple for many years, though
not un~disputedly; but il is now disposed OF
finally, not only by the discovery Of the
Aphea inscriptions, but by the fact that