Dinsmoor - Delphian TreasuriesII 1913 PDF

Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique
Studies of the Delphian treasuries. II : The four Ionic treasuries.

William Bell Dinsmoor
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Dinsmoor William Bell. Studies of the Delphian treasuries. II : The four Ionic treasuries.. In: Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique. Volume 37, 1913. pp. 5-83.
doi : 10.3406/bch.1913.3131
http://www.persee.fr/doc/bch_0007-4217_1913_num_37_1_3131
Document généré le 15/10/2015

STUDIES OF THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES
II. The four Ionic treasuries.
In our general consideration of the treasuries at

Delphi, in Part I of this paper, we found that previous to
424 B. C. only six had heavy foundations (1) and that these
six were the only marble treasuries erected before that
date. Four of them, the Cnidian (565 B. 0.), Clazome-
nian (550), Massiliot (535), and Siphnian (525), were Ionic
or Aeolic, and these I propose to study in more detail,
both as to the restoration of each, at present a matter
of dispute, and their architectural relations one to another.
Foundation. — The Cnidian foundation forms a rectangle
6.43x7.95 m. (Mr. Tournaire'splan makes it about 7.50m.
square, giving an effect which it does not actually
produce), facing north on the lower terrace. This rectangle
is of course not a solid platform, but it follows the outline
of the characteristic plan, a single eel la with a prodo-
mos. The Cnidian differs from other foundations in
having, not a continuous wall for the façade, but isolated
piers for the various supports of the superstructure. The
side and rear walls are 1.35 m. thick, on account of the
great height necessitated by the slope of the ground
at this point; the two piers of the façade are 0.90 m.
square, and spaced 2.10 m. on centers, thus giving the
spacing for the superstructure. About 1.00 m. behind
these piers is the cross wall foundation, only 0.75 m.
thick. The exact dimensions of the building itself must
be restored from fragments of the superstructure. The
(1) Besides the poros Dcric Corinthian treasury identified by Mr.

Bourguet.
6 . STUDIES OF THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES
Clazomenian Treasury was probably 6.80 m. wide (1). The
Massiliot Treasury measured on the finished walls 6.148
χ 8.374 m., or 6.360x8.586 m. on the lowest marble
course (2). As for the Siphnian foundation I measured the
length of the south side as 8.542 m. (3); the north side is
8.599 m. in length (4), for by some error it was extended
farther westward than the south wall; the north side was
however cut back at the west end 0.052 m. along the top,
correcting the length to 8.547 m. An accurate
measurement of the width is possible only at the east end, where
I obtained 6. 127 m. (5). I here take the dimensions of the
basement as 6.127x8.547 m., somewhat smaller than
those hitherto employed. The treatment of the topmost
course of the foundation shows that it was completely
covered by the lowest marble course, which would
therefore have had practically the same dimensions. In all these
treasuries, the very broad foundations, as contrasted with
those of the early Doric treasuries, were necessitated by
the heaviness of their marble walls and by their
projecting base mouldings. The dimensions are typical of the
Delphian treasuries, about 6.00 m. to 6.50 m. by 8.50 m.
as contrasted with the longer proportions of the
Olympian treasuries.
(1) A poros corner block (c in BCH, 1909, 209) does not belong to
the original treasury, but was taken from some other structure, as
is shown by the dowel cutting on the bottom and the reformed clamp
cuttings on the top, and used for the Hellenistic base.
(•2) Mr. Homolle gives 6.40x8.50 m., and Mr. Poulsen, including a
later addition, gives 6.40x10.40 m.
(3) The separate blocks, now displaced by earthquakes, I measure
(from east to west) 0.836+1. 435+1. 188+1. 320+1. 270+0. 898+1. 595 =
8.542 m.
(4) Actually measured 8.607 m. but allowing 0.008 m. for shifting
in the joints. Formerly given as 8.90 m. (BCH, 1894, 184) or 8.70 m.
(Fouilles, III, i. 110).
(5) Measured according to the separate blocks, in the course below
the top, from south to north, 1.158+0.955+0.951+1.604+1.459=6.127
m. Formerly given as 6.35 (BCH, 1891, 181) or 6.28 m. (BCH, 1896,
581) or 6.23 m. (Fouilles, III, i. 110).
STUDIES OF THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES 7
These four foundations are all constructed of local stone,

the Cnidian of the soft friable yellow poros quarried just
west of the precinct itself (used also in the Bouleuterion),
the Clazomenian of the harder poros used in all the early-
Doric treasuries, while the Massiliots and Siphnians
employed limestone from Parnassus. Of the four foundations»
that of the Cnidians alone lacks anathyroses at the joints,
a peculiarity observed in the earliest treasuries. The
Cnidian and Clazomenian foundations are without clamps;
the harder limestone foundations of the Massiliots and
Siphnians are clamped throughout the topmost courses.
These clamps are of the dove-tail form, of lead only,*
without iron, such as were used also in the Doric
treasuries until the introduction of the H and H forms. The
Cnidian and Siphnian foundations differ from the others in
being, in fact, lofty basements, occasioned by the rapid
slope of the ground on which they are built. Even when
constructed on perfectly level ground, however, the upper
part of the foundation was arranged to be visible; thus
in the Massiliot Treasury the upper limestone course,
0.253 m. high, and about 0.10 m. of that below were
finished ; and in the Siphnian Treasury the uppermost
course of limestone, 0.49 m. high on the façade, was
likewise finished and exposed.
Material and Technique. — Above the foundations, the
four Ionic treasuries were built entirely of marble; of
this nothing is in situ except in the case of the
Massiliot Treasury at Marmaria. But a series of fragmentary
wall blocks of rather primitive technique, covered with
inscriptions which, when decrees of proxeny, are always
in favor of citizens of Cnidus, identifies with certainty
the technique of the Cnidian superstructure. That of the
Massiliots can still be seen at Marmaria. A third style,
unlike either of these, appears on numerous blocks of
an Ionic treasury which were discovered near the Siphnian
foundation (IV) ; these remains fit the Siphnian founda-
8 STUDIES OF THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES
tion exactly. Finally a fourth style, appearing on a very

few extant pieces, can find no other place except in the
Clazomenian Treasury ; and the destruction of this
treasury before the third century B. C. would account for
the scarcity of the remains.
In the Cnidian Treasury the marble is Parian, but in
those of Massilia and Siphnos the marble is finer-grained,
and more bluish-gray in color (1). Exposed faces of the
blocks are in all cases polished, but in the joint
surfaces we find great variety of technique. In the marble
blocks of the Cnidian Treasury, as in the foundations,
•the anathyrosis was not yet developed; instead, both in
vertical joints and horizontal bed surfaces we find a
smooth polished band, only 2 or 3 cm. wide, along the
edges, while all the rest is roughly picked with the point,
but not sunk below the plane of the narrow polish.ed
band. The few extant remains of the Clazomenian
Treasury show an irregular anathyrosis and all the surface
within it is sunk below its plane; on horizontal bed
surfaces we find that besides roughening with the point,
the toothed chisel now for the first time begins to play
a part. The toothed chisel is completely unknown in the
Cnidian Treasury, but was used in the three Ionic
structures which followed its lead. Finally in the treasuries
of Massilia and Siphnos we find, in vertical joints, a
perfectly uniform anathyrosis defined on its inner edge by
a bevel, and the rest of the surface sunken and roughly
picked; horizontal bed surfaces have polished bands
about 0.07 m. wide at the edges, the rest of the surface,
tooth-chiselled, being sunk slightly (figure 2).
Clamps. — Stones of the same course are, in the
marble portions of these structures, always bound together
by clamps which rested in cuttings of dove-tail form ;
but in these marble buildings, because of their finer and
(1) Mr. Bourguet quotes an opinion that it came from los (Fouilles,
III, i. 111).
STUDIES OF THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES »
.
heavier material, we find a development which is unknown
in the poros structures or the limestone foundations. The
lead dove-tail clamp is now reenforced by a bar of iron,
bent down at both ends and forming a hook clamp which
fits into vertical borings in each end of the dove-tail
cutting (figure 1) (I). It would appear therefore that at
Figure I. Cnidian clamp and dowel cuttings.
(\) Such clamps have been found in many sites of Asia Minor, but
have been almost always misinterpreted, as a dove tail clamp of iron
pierced at each end for an iron dowel (Henderson, British Museum
Excavations at Ephesus, 280; Wilberg, Œst. Forschungen in Ephe-
sos, 224-225; Koldewey, Insel Lesbos, 46; Durm, Baukunst", 146, 164),
a form which, so far as I know, never existed. The hook clamp in
the dove-tail cutting traces its origin back to Mycenaean times; it is
found in the «Treasury of Atreus» at Mvcenae (Perrot and Chipiez,
VI, 615, 627, 628; Koldewey, Insel Lesbos, 46); it afterwards became
peculiarly Ionian, and appeared in the temple of Apollo at Nape on
Lesbos (Koldewey, Insel Lesbos, pi. 16, 9-15), the Croesus Temple at
Ephesus (Wilberg, Œst Forsch.-in Ephesos, 228, fig. 192; British
Museum Excavations at Ephesus, atlas, pi. X, text, 259, 280), in the
temple on the island called Palati at Naxos, in the Acropolis temple at
Paros, in the temple at Assos (Clarke, Investigations at Assos 1882/
1883, 61, 66), in the Doric treasury IV at Olympia (Olympia, I, pi.' 34),
and in the palace of Darius at Persepolis (Perrot and Chipiez, V, 470,
fig. 298; Dieuiafoy, L'Art antique de la Perse, I, fig. 16) — though it
must be noted that even in this region the form had appeared much
earlier, at Khorsabad (Place, Ninive et V Assyrie, pi. 70). At Delphi
itself they appear not only in the four Ionic treasuries, but also in
the beginning iron was not the main part of a clamp,
but the reenforcement, especially when used in marble
construction ; and lead, far from being the mere sealing
for the iron clamp, as in later times, was first used alone,
the direct successor of wooden dove-tail clamps such as
we find in Egypt. The iron was always omitted in po-
ros construction, and sometimes even in marble, in work
at Delphi down to the end of the sixth century; thus
in some blocks of the Siphnian entablature only one of
the two clamps at each joint has the iron reenforcement.
Though the general form is always the same, these clamps
vary in dimensions ; the Cnidians used a small size, about
0.12 m. long, 0.05 m. wide at the ends and 0.02 m. at
the waist, very shallow and ill defined; for Clazomenae
and Massilia they are slightly larger, 0.15 m. long, and
more sharply cut; in the Siphnian Treasury we find the
largest of all, 0.20 m. long, 0.04 m. wide at the waist
and 0.08 m. at the ends.
Dowels. — Dowels on the other hand are rare in all
except the Cnidian Treasury. But in this the bottom of
every block is do welled at one end; the cuttings are of Τ
form, about 1 cm. deep and evidently intended for molten
lead only, because they are not outlined sharply enough
to receive iron dowels; the lead was poured in through
the bottom of the T, which reached to a joint, lisualy δ
or 6 cm. but sometimes 15 cm. from the head of the Τ
(figure 1). Dowels were used in the Cnidian and
Siphnian Caryatides and in the columns of the Massiliot
Treasury (figure 3). Both of the marble Doric treasuries have
every block dowelled.
the two earliest marble Doric treasuries, that of the Athenians and
the κάτω ναός at Marmaria. Later examples are found in the Ionic
temple at Messa (Koldewey, Insel Lesbos,, pi. 22), and in the Doric
temple of Athena Polias at Pergamon (Alterth. v. Pergamon, II, 21,
pi. 8); in these, as in the examples at Olympia and Assos, the true
character as a hook clamp with a lead dove-tailed covering was
recognized (Koldewey, Insel Lesbos, 46).
Wall Base, Torus. — On the foundation at Marmaria,
the only one of the four buildings which is sufficiently
preserved to show this feature, rests a socle composed
of two courses of marble, a plain plinth and a moulded
torus, which form the decorative base of the building.
The moulded torus, on the façade, becomes the stylobate
at Marmaria ; this was the case also in the Cnidian
Treasury, but in the Siphnian the torus rested on the stylo-
bate, which was then the plinth course below the torus·
In no case is there any arrangement of steps or other
means of getting access to the treasuries ; yet in that of
Massilia, the stylobate is 0.855 m. above the ground
level (1), and from what little evidence we have, it is
certain that the treasury of Siphnos was similarly arranged
(figure 3). Indeed, this seems to have been the customary
scheme at Delphi (2) except in the case of the poros
treasuries, of which the stylobates were raised only one step
above the ground; the marble Athenian Treasury has a
stereobate of three courses with impossible treads of
only 0.059 m. and 0.048 m., raising the stylobate 0.903
m. above the paved platform before it; the limestone
Theban Treasury had likewise three receding courses,
with treads of 0.065 m. and 0.155 m. bringing the
stylobate 0.80 m. above the euthynteria; and in the later
Syracusan Treasury the lowest «step» projected only
about 0.10 m. beyond the stylobate.
(1) Poulsen's attempt (Bull. Acad. Danemark, 1908, 351-2) to find

ti-aces of steps led to the identification of an accidental seam in the
stone as an anathyrQsis, which moreover does not come at the right
level. Poulsen preferred, however, a ramp resting on the .rectangular
foundation, composed of column shafts from the old temple, now
abutting against the façade; but the courses which would be buried by
the ramp are all finished to be visible, and the so-called ramp
foundation is, as Karo notes (BCH, 1910, 216), a later addition.
(2) In the Siphnian Treasury, the uppermost course of limestone
0.49 m. high on the façaç[e was here finished and exposed; directly
above this came a marble stylobate course 0.296 m. high, making the
stjlobate 0.786 m. above the terrace.
The above-mentioned moulded torus appeared in all
four buildings, for four varieties of it still exist at
Delphi. That of the Cnidian Treasury is 0.190 m. high (1),
decorated with eight horizontal channels, of which the
lowest is not hollowed. A corner block now in the
Museum (figure 2) shows that on the left (east) flank of
the treasury the channeling was returned for only 0.017
m. (from the angle of the bed), after which the torus
becomes polygonal in profile for 0.043 m., and then semi-
Figure 2. Wall Bases of the Treasuries.
circular; of the semicircular form I have seen three other

fragments (2) ; because of the large number of channeled
pieces preserved, however, the west and south faces must
have been finished. To the treasury of Clazomenae I
(1) Identified by its technique, and also because on the façade the
torus returns for only 0.495 m., agreeing perfectly with the width of
the parastades which are certainly, on epigraphieal grounds, to be
identified as Cnidian. -
(2) One built into the ruined chapel of St.jGeorge below the precinct,
a second just outside the east precinct wall, near treasury XIII, the
third on treasury XIII itself.
assign a type which comes second chronologically, and
cannot be assigned to any of the three other buildings;
it is moreover very rare, for I have seen only the small
piece in the Museum. The block is 0.239 m. high,
decorated with a channeled torus combined with a beaded
astragal; the torus, 0.184 m. high, is not semicircular
but parabolic in section, with greater fullness toward the
bottom, projecting only 0.065 m. ; the upper two thirds
contain four channels, while the lowest third has a plain
surface. This base moulding was used by Mr. Tournaire
in his restoration of the «Cnidian» (Siphnian) Treasury
(Fouilles, II, pi. 11). At Marmaria we find a similar base
in situ, in the treasury which I assign to Massilia ; the
torus here, 0.215 high, is decorated with eight channels,
all of which are hollowed ; the beaded astragal is in this
case cut on the lowest wall block. The torus forms on
the façade the stylobate, as in the Cnidian Treasury ;
and in both, strangely enough, the exposed and now
footworn stylobate shows unconcealed clamps. Finally, a
torus which is itself cut in the form of colossal beads
and reels, and therefore needed no beaded astragal above,
must be assigned to the treasury of Siphnos. At first
unidentified (BOH, 1896, 589; 1897, 303), it was finally
recognized as the base moulding of the « Cnidian »
(Siphnian) Treasury (BCH, 1900, 603, and the model at
Delphi, figure 12); but in this it has been placed in the
stylobate course (1), whereas it is actually the successor of
the small beaded astragal in the Massiliot Treasury, and
should be placed above the stylobate so as to be
carried around the interior of the prodomos. This is shown
by two facts; first, the threshold of the Siphnian
doorway is decorated with the same colossal beads, which
(1) The drawing of the «Cnidian» (Siphnian) Treasury by Tournaire

shows the Clazomenian fluted torus instead (Fouilles, II, pi. 11), and
the model in the Louvre has a plain plinth (photo. Giraudon, in
Springer-Michaelis, Kunstgeschichte, I, 1911, 190).
must therefore have been continued around the interior

of the prodomos, as we shall see (Plate I); again, the
colossal bead is cut on two classes of stones, one about
0.27 m., the other about 0.44 m. from front to back.
The latter is for use around the walls of the cella, where
it corresponds to the pavement within ; the narrow blocks
were placed back to back, giving a moulded torus on
either side of the walls which formed the parastades ;
an angle block from a parastas is exhibited in the
Museum (figure 2).
Wall Base, Astragal. — As we have seen, in the Siph-
nian Treasury the moulded torus was itself the
beaded astragal, and came above the stylobate level; in the
Clazomenian Treasury the beaded astragal is cut on the
same block as the channeled torus, probably the stylo-
bate level. But in the Cnidian and Massiliot Treasuries
we find the channeled torus alone in the stylobate course;
the second of these has however in situ a beaded
astragal cut at the bottom of the lowest wall course, so that
we should expect the same feature in the Treasury of
Cnidus. The lowest block of an anta or parastas 0.492
m. wide, now in the basement of the Museum (inv.
2291), was first brought to notice by Pomtow (Hermes,
1906, 362); the width was such that he was able to assign
it to the Cnidian Treasury which has walls 0.492 m. thick,
and in addition it may be said that the finish of the
top surface, and the dowels, are thoroughly Cnidian. The
stone is 0.232 m. high; at the lower edges are traces
of a beaded astragal 0.054 m. high, now entirely broken
away. Three sides of the stone are finished, and around
these three sides runs the beaded astragal (1). There exist
(1) Pomtow (Hermes, 1906, 362; BPW, 1909, 188) says that the bead
is lacking on the right side of the block, which would therefore be
the inside, and thus he was able to assign it to the left parastas. But
the bead actually occurs on the right side of the block as well as on
left. By means of inscriptions cut on the block we may however
reassign it to the left parastas (see below).
in the Museum five fragments of this course (cf. BGH,

1900, 602) and in the precinct at least three others;
besides the parastas face, one other piece in the Museum,
0.492 m. thick, is finished and inscribed on both inside
and outside (inv. 1434) and therefore belongs to a parastas.
We may be certain that in the Cnidian Treasury, as in
those of Massilia and Siphnos, the beaded astragal which
decorated the walls on the outside, also returned and
ran all around the interior of the prodomos.
The form of the beaded astragal is an important
criterion of date. That of the Cnidians, with barrel shaped
beads and reels of rounded profile, is plainly the oldest
among these four Ionic treasuries, and finds its
analogies in the capital of the first temple of Apollo at Nau-
cratis (Pétrie, Naukratis, I, pi. 3), and on a moulding
which may come from the earlier Heraeum at Samos
(Antiquities of Ionia, I2, ch. V. pi. 6, 2-3); also on the
capitals of the Croesus temple at Ephesus (British
Museum Excavations at Ephesus, atlas pi. 6, 7) and
enframing the contemporary stele from Dorylaeum (BCH, 1894,
pi. 4 bis; AM, 1895, pi. 1-2); and on the sima of the
Doric temple at Assos (Clarke, Investigations at Assos,
1882/1883, 135). A marked change in the form of the
beaded astragal appeared in the second half of the sixth
century, when we first find the bead-and-reel sharply
divided, the beads globular, almost perfect spheres, and
the reels with sharp arrises. This is the type in the
capitals of the Heraeum of Polycrates at Samos, and in
those of the second temple of Apollo at Naucratis (1). It
(1) Pétrie, Naukratis, I, pi. 14-14 A. Without other evidence, Pétrie
would date this temple about 440 B. C. because of fancied
resemblance to the Erechtheum (I. c. 15), and this date still stands in the most
recent work, H. Prinz, Die Funde aus Naukratis, 1908, 10. But the
forms are so unlike those of the Erechtheum that I incline toward a
far earlier date, c. 520, on the evidence of the egg-and-dart, the leaf-
and-dart, and the bead (small bits of such ornament are all that
remain of this temple). Another fragment (pi. 14, 6) evidently from the
volute of a capital, still has the convex canalis with the «eye» omitted.
16 STUDIES OP THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES
is a marked coincidence that the globular beads of the
Samian Heraeum should appear also in the Siphnian
Treasury; for it was in the reign of Polycrates, and
shortly before 524, that the Siphnians would seem to
have built their treasury at Delphi, according to the
story told by Herodotus (III, 57). At Delphi we may trace
the later type of bead-and-reel back about two decades
farther, to the Treasury of Clazomenae. The older, more
archaic, barrel-shaped beads are found at Delphi only
in the Treasury of Cnidus.
Stylobate. — The cause of the change of location of
the moulded torus, from the stylobate course to that
next above, was an attempt to gain a wider stylobate.
Thus in the beginning, the Cnidian Treasury had a
channeled torus which appeared on the façade only below
each parastas, and then returned on itself, so that
between the parastades the course continued as a plain
stylobate, in the same vertical plane with the faces of
the parastades (fig. 2 and 3). The soffit of the epistyle
(not preserved in the Cnidian Treasury) could not have
been much wider than the wall thickness; if it were the
same 0.49 m. (or perhaps 0.04 m. greater, 0.53 m. as
at Marmaria), the bases of the intermediate supports,
being unable to project beyond the epistyle at the front,
had as a maximum limit a diameter of 0.49 to 0.53 m.
(figure 3). Now in the treasury of Clazomenae we shall
see that the lower diameter of the bases of the columns
is 0.768 m. ; to obtain a stylobate wide enough for this,
some such arrangement must have been made as that
found at Marmaria — the plain riser of the stylobate
between the parastades pushed forward to the extreme
limit, 0.065 m, allowed by the torus, the mouldings of
which abutted against it and stopped. With such a scheme,
the epistyle could have been reduced to a reasonable
width of soffit, 0.768 -(2x0. 065) = 0.638 m, because the
wall was set back from the face of the stylobate. In the
οa,
G.
02
153
BULL. DE CORRESP HELLÉNIQUE, XXXVII
Massiliot Treasury we see this scheme actually preserved;

along the façade, between the parastades, only the three
lowest channels of the torus are carried through; the
upper portion is cut square, to form a more practicable
stylobate. The five upper channels of the torus, returning
across the face of the parastas, simply abut against the
square-cut stylobate (fig. 2, and Durm, Baukunst*, 164).
The stylobate thus projects beyond the plane of the
parastades as much as is allowed by the torus, 0. 106 m. The
lower diameter of the column bases is 0.744 m. and they
were tangent to the face of the stylobate to economize in
space (wrongly located in Durm's drawing). We might
estimate then that the epistyle was 0.744 — (2x0.106) =
0.532 m. in width of soffit, or 4 cm. greater than the wall
thickness, which seems quite possible ; I know of no
fragments of the epistyle. Finally, in the Siphnian Treasury,
to avoid all such makeshifts the torus itself was lifted
one course higher, so that the plain plinth below,
projecting the amount determined by the torus (0.090 m.),
returned across the façade making the stylobate this much
wider without awkwardness. The soffit of the Siphnian
epistyle is, on the façade, 0.570 m. wide; the stylobate
must have been 0.570 + (2x0. 090) =0.750 in. — we shall
see that the lower diameter of the intermediate supports
was about 0.69 m.; that is, the stylobate projected about
0.03 m. in front of the bases, which was necessary because
they are not bases of columns but of square pedestals.
The Siphnian stylobate, which must now be distinguished
from the course with the moulded torus (colossal bead),
was composed of blocks 0.296 m. high and, under the
side and rear walls, 0.75 m. to 0.76 m. from back to
front. A complete block of this course exists in the
depot south west of the precinct; on the top it has 1)
a weathered line 0.090 m. back from the face, just the
projection of the great beads, which were, thus flush
with the course below, and 2) two peculiar rectangular
STUDIES OP THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES 19
cavities (about 0.08x0.18 m. and 0.015 m. deep) which
are repeated on the bottoms of certain blocks of the
beaded torus (cf. one on steps to Museum, another in
Siphnian foundation). This particular stylobate block was
used below a parastas, for the beaded block which rested
on it was only 0.27 m. from back to front. Other pieces,
bearing inscriptions (inv. 2982, 4240, 4693; Fouilles, no.
288), have been assigned to the course by Mr. Bourguet
on account of their great width from front to back.
Supports εν παραστάσιν. — We come now to the most
interesting and unique features of these treasuries, the
supports εν παραστάσιν. We have four non-Doric
treasuries and corresponding to these four types of supports
may be identified, two pairs of Caryatides, and two pairs
of columns with Asiatic bases and Aeolic capitals. In.
cised circles on the stylobate of the treasury at Marma-
ria fit one of the Asiatic bases, and prove that at least
the Massiliots used columns; around this treasury were
found the fragments of one of the types of Aeolic
column. This accords perfectly with the Phocaean origin
of Massilia. The other Aeolic column we should feel
inclined to assign to the only other treasury of Aeolic
origin, that of Clazomenae. Of the Caryatides, the larger
and less archaic pair, assigned by Homolle to the
model of the «Cnidian» (Siphnian) Treasury, are certainly
Siphnian. The smaller Caryatides, of very" archaic, type,
remain therefore for the Cnidians. .
.
Columns. — Let us consider first the Aeolic columns.

The circles incised on the stylobate of the Massiliot
Treasury have a diameter of 0.744 m. This agrees precisely
with an Asiatic base, 0.235 m. high, probably found at
Marmaria (cf. Homolle, Journal RIBA, 1904, 38) and now
in front of the Museum (figures 3, 4); this, merely the
disk, with the two scotiae which formed the lower part of
the base, is rather unusual in its mouldings, and can be
compared with the variety that is sought in some of the
bases at Ephesus (cf. British Museum Excavations at
Ephesus, atlas, pi. 4, below left). On the top is an incised
circle of 0.520 m. diameter, outlining the bed of the
torus ; the torus itself has not been identified but we may
restore it about 3/4 as high as the disk (compare Ephesus)
making it 0.18 m. and the total 0.415 m. high. The
diameter of the torus would be 0.520 + 0.18—0.700 m. ;
which agrees with the upper diameter of the base as
well as it can be restored. Another base of similar
type, but barely larger, now in the Museum, was found
between the treasuries of Siph-
nos and Sicyon (BCH, 1896,582;
at first assigned by Homolle to
the « Cnidian » Treasury). It is
0.768 mi. in lower diameter, 0.230
m. high, and lacks the extra
mouldings which we found in the Mas-
siliot base. The upper diameter
of the base is 0.736 m. ; on its
top an incised circle of 0.631 m.
diameter outlines the bed for the
torus (an inner circle of 0.548
Fig. 4. Aeolic column bases. m diameter Umits the tooth.chi.
seling of the bed), so that the projection of the torus
could have been only 0.053 m., though its height must
have been about 0.17 ui. The section of this torus could
not therefore have been semicircular, but was probably
parabolic, like that of the Clazomenian wall base (0.065
projection for 0.184 height). This I agree with Mr.
Homolle in assigning to the Treasury of Clazomenae
(Journal RIB A, 1904, 39).
On the site of the gymnasium at Marmaria, the me-
tokhi of the monastery of Jerusalem, are nineteen
fragments of column shafts of archaic type, with 22
channels separated by sharp arrises; yet at the bottom was
a fillet, calling for a base, so that the order cannot have
been Doric. The lower diameter (as given by two

fragments) seems to have been about 0.48-0.49 m. but the
projecting fillet would have enlarged this to about 0.51-
0.52 m. ; this agrees with the Massiliot base, with a
torus bed of 0.52 m. ; and we shall find other reasons
for assigning these shafts to the Massiliot Treasury. The
upper diameter is given by the capitals as about 0.40
m., 4/5 of the lower. Both ends of the shaft were dowel-
led, to torus and capital, by dowels about 0.03 m. square.
Again, just west of the Siphnian Treasury (BCH, 1896,
582) was found a portion of a marble shaft, now 2.83 m.
long, with only 18 channels separated by sharp arrises;
this too is not Doric, because the channels end in
semicircles at the top, and above comes a band with incisions
which divide it into three fillets. The upper end is
preserved, with a diameter of 0.416 m. ; the diameter
increases to 0.475 m. (BCH, 1896, 582) and 0.498 m. at 1.50
m. and 2.20 m. below the top respectively (indicating
perhaps a slight entasis). The lower diameter, on the
analogy of the Massiliot column, would have been 5/* of the
upper, about 0.52 m. This shaft was at first assigned
to the «Cnidian» Treasury; now Mr. Homolle assigns it
to that of Clazomenae.
In the church (Κοίμησις της Παναγίας) on the site of the
gymnasium T. L. Donaldson sketched an Aeolic capital
(Stuart and Revett, suppl. vol., 54, pi. 2 = Perrot and
Chipiez, VII, 637) which is now exhibited in the Museum.
It is almost complete, but the bottom has been hewn off
so that the beads, now barely traceable, were not seen
by Donaldson; the beads appear perfectly in two
fragments of the other capital of the pair (wrongly sketched
by Durm, Baukunst 3, 353). Of this other capital five
fragments are preserved, some of which fit together, three
now in the Museum, two on the site of the gymnasium·
The diameter of the bottom of the capital is 0.40 m., and
it has twenty-two leaves, and a dowel, all of which cor-
respond perfectly to the Massiliot shafts. While one
capital had its abacus carved in the same block and was
0.430 m. high, the other was only 0.310 m. high and
had the abacus separate. Mr. Homolle (Journal RIB A,
1904, 39) would assign to the Clazomenian Treasury
fragments of a similar capital found in the eastern part of
the precinct of Apollo; of this two fragments are
preserved in the Museum ; and in the diameter, the number
of eighteen leaves, and the lack of a dowel at. the bottom,
it fits perfectly the shaft which we assign to Clazome-
nae. It is slightly larger than the Massiliot capital, but
with a lower abacus, 0.094 instead of 0.120 m. in height
(figure 3) (1).
Caryatides. — Mr. Homolle notes that two or perhaps
even three pairs of Caryatides were found in the precinct
of Apollo (BCH, 1900, 582); for these two marble
treasuries remain, the Cnidian and Siphnian. Let us first
consider the best preserved pair, which Mr. Homolle
rightly assigns to the «Cnidian» (Siphnian) Treasury. As
now restored in the model in the Museum; the figures,
including capitals, are 3.24 m. high; the capital is 0.349
m., the polos 0.304 m., leaving 2.59 m. for the human
figure, of which the pieces actually preserved are the
body to below the waist, and the legs. A slight
alteration is necessary, the figures being made higher when
one uses the original feet ; both of those belonging to
one figure are actually preserved (inv. 2165 and a
smaller fragment) but were not embodied in the model. The
feet were inserted in cuttings on the tops of pedestals,
of which three pieces are preserved, the cap and base of
one, the die of the other. The form of the pedestals was
much like that of the altar on the south frieze of this
(1) I may note here that the details (figures 4 and 11, are
reproduced at Vs full s'ze; Plate I is at half this scale, or ljm full size; and
for purposes of comparison figures 3, 5-9 are all reproduced at lf32
full size; fig. 10 is at no scale.
very treasury. The base was about 0.69 m. square; the

die tapers from 0.509x0.507 m. at the bottom to 0.491
xO.484 m. at the top ; the cap was at least 0.62 m. square,
and more probably was of the dimensions of the
abacus above the Caryatid, 0.658x0.643 m. The total height
of the pedestal as reconstructed in the Museum is 0.88
m., the die being made 0.09 m. too low (0.425 m. instead
of 0.515 m.), while the cap is given only 0.233 m.
whereas at least 0.27 m. is required (figure 3); my
measurements give 0.223+0.515 + 0.27 = 1.01 m. The wall
courses of the parastades, to be restored later, give a height
of 4.290 m. ; subtracting 1.01 m. for the pedestals, we
find that the figures, including capitals, must have been
3.28 m. high,. 0.04 m. more than those in the Museum,
so that the increased height necessitated when we use
the original feet is confirmed. The method of fastening
the support together is interesting. On the base of the
pedestal a cutting or mortise about 5 cm. deep and 40
cm. square received a projecting tenon of the bottom of
the die; a great pour-channel allowed the molten lead
poured in afterwards, to circulate freely and secure the
whole (figure 3). On the top of the die is a similar
tenon, but circular, on which are deep grooves forming a
cross; this tenon fits a circular mortise in the bottom
of the cap, and the molten lead, poured into a cup-shaped
cavity on the cap, passed through a small hole in the
bottom and circulated in four directions by means of
the grooves. The feet of the statue, afterwards set into
the cap, concealed the hole and were leaded in place.
The only other joint in the Caryatid was between polos
and capital, and here are cuttings, 0.075-0.085 m. in
diameter and 0.045-0.060 m. deep, for a metal dowel. On
the top of the abacus there was, as usual, no dowel for
the epistyle (1).
(1) Additional evidence for assigning these Caryatides to the Siph-
nian Treasury is the form of the reversed leaf-and-dart on the polos
A second pair of Caryatides (Fouilles, JV, 60) is on a

smaller scale and more archaic in style ; we may without
hesitation call them Cnidian. The largest fragment gives
the height from waist to ankle as 1.17 m. ; a
corresponding dimension measured on the Siphnian Caryatides is
1.40 m.; with this proportion, the smaller figures would
be 2.20 m. high. To this we add the polos 0.25 m. high
and capital 0.19 m. making 2.64 m. in all. From the
Cnidian wall blocks we shall learn that the height of the
parastades was 3.716 m., so that, subtracting our
Caryatides, we need pedestals as in the Siphnian Treasury,
about 1.07 m. high. To one of these pedestals I should
assign the capital of which two fragments are shown in
the Museum (Durm, Baukunst3, 353), which, with its round
abacus and archaic eggs, resembles similar pedestals
found at Samos (phot. German Inst. Samos 97, 98) ; on
the top is a cutting for the feet of the statue (figure 3).
The complete figure, with its pedestal, would then
resemble a bronze ornament from Sparta (Perrot and
Chipiez, VIII, 443) which was perhaps imitated from the
Caryatides by Bathycles on the throne of Apollo at Amy-
clae. The circular die on which it fitted was only about
0.20 m. in upper diameter; a similar slenderness is to
be observed in the polos and neck of the statue.
Wall Construction. — Of the wall courses we have
discussed only the moulded bases. Certain wall blocks
have always been assigned to the Cnidian Treasury
because they bear Cnidian inscriptions (BCH, 1896, 583)
and it is to a study of the technique of these that the
identification here presented owes its origin. The blocks
in question are all orthostates, 0.12 to 0.21 m. thick,
and they were combined back to back, with an empty
space between, to form a wall 0.492 m. thick, as in shown
by the pieces from the ends of the parastades. Among
of the capital (Fouilles, IV, pi. 18-19), which should be compared with
that on the Siphnian frieze crown (figure 11), to be described later.
many fragments of orthostates I observed four types,
0.465 to 0.470 m., 0.487 m., 0.500 m. and 0.530 m. high (I);
they cannot therefore have formed the usual dado around
the foot of the wall, with the tops in perfect alignment,
but must have been distributed in different courses of
the building. The same characteristics are found in a
series of wall plinths which must also be Cnidian, and
belong to the same walls as do the orthostates ; where
both finished faces of the plinths are preserved, the
thickness of the walls is given as 0.492 m. — some of
these- plinths have three finished faces and belong to
parastades 0.492 m. wide — and the τ dowels on their
tops always indicate that the course above was composed
of two thin orthostates side by side, while pairs of τ
dowels on their bottoms imply a fastening to two
orthostates below. Of these also I find four types, 0.183
m., 0.187 m.f 0.200 m., and 0.204 m. high (2); the
moulded course 0.232 m. high with the primitive beaded
astragal belongs to this same series. The only possible
construction is one with alternating courses of low plinths
and high orthostates (figure 5) (3).
The same wall construction is to be found in the Massi-
liot Treasury at Marmaria, where tho rear wall is 0.473
m. thick, the side walls 0.484 m. to 0.492 m. thick. Of
these blocks we again have two classes, plinths and
orthostates. The beaded astragal (0.055 m. high) is carved
(1) Mr. Bourguet has samples of each (Fouilles, III, i. 155); he gives
the heights as 0.465 m., 0.485 m., 0.50 m., and 0.52 m.
(2) Mr. Bourguet recognizes only one of these, 0.204 m. high.
(3) In view of this it must be said that Dr. Pomtow's statement
(BPW, 1909, 190) that the walls of the Athenian Treasury have been
reconstructed in great part with wall blocks of the Cnidian is utterly
without foundation (cf. Bourguet, BGH, 1910, 225); his reason for
making the statement was, as he himself agrees, his inability to find
the true Cnidian blocks; cf. BPW, 1909, 189-190, where he assumes that
they are of the same height as the courses of the Athenian Treasury ^
average 0.376 m.
:- H
Κ --
Epistyle
Stjrlobate-
Figure 5. Cnidian and Siphnian Wall Construction.

on orthostates 0.478 m. high, leaving a blank surface

of 0.423 m. which corresponds to the height of the other
orthostates", 0.410 to 0.423 m. The plinths do not show
such a contrast to the orthostates as appears in the Cni-
dian Treasury, being 0.389 to 0.409 m. high. This
construction, actually in situ, confirms our restoration .of
the Cnidian Treasury. It led to a curious result in the
treatment of bed surfaces; we noted that in this
treasury all the surface within the polished edge bands is
slightly sunk, but, to give a level bed for the orthostates,
the plinths have an additional raised band about 0.22
m. wide, unpolished, along the center'of the block (figure
2). The orthostates for the parastades are elbow blocks
(cf. figure 2 and Durm, Baukunst3, 164), not separate
pieces as in the Cnidian Treasury.
We find this construction again, with some
modifications, in the treasury of Siphnos. The walls, as shown
by six of the extant blocks, were 0.622 m. thick. Two
of these blocks are finished on two sides only, but four
are finished on three sides; the latter therefore formed
the ends of parastades like those in the treasuries of
Cnidus and Massilia, but 0.13 m. wider. Again, of these
six blocks there are two types, plinths and orthostates;
the latter have for the parastades elbow blocks as at
Marmaria. The same material and workmanship are to
be observed in other wall blocks which clearly belong
to the same building; some are plinths 0.504 and 0.426
m. high, others orthostates varying from 0.592 to 0.354
m. in height, and the arrangement of pry cuttings on the
tops of the plinths shows that orthostates always came
above them, as in the Cnidian and Massiliot Treasuries.
The plinths, however, are only 0.585 m. to 0.595 m. from
outside to inside, the inside treated with a pebbled
surface. The orthostates vary from 0.29 m. to 0.39 m. in
thickness, the backs very irregular and unfinished; these
are all from the outer face of the wall. These orthostates
had antithemata 0.19 m. to 0.275 m. thick, the faces
toward the outer orthostates very irregular, the inner faces
pebbled and in the plane of the similarly pebbled faces
of the plinths. While the prodomos had its walls
perfectly finished on both outside and inside, the inside of
the cella showed pebbled walls which could hardly have
been exposed. At intervals all over these walls, both on
plinth courses and on antithemata of orthostates, were
holes (0.06x0.035 m., 0.06 m. to 0.08 m. deep) with a
twist, at the back for clamps which projected forward at
right angles to the wall, for the attachment of a
revetment of more precious (probably colored) marble slabs
about 0.03 m. thick, making the total thickness 0.622 m.
(figure 5) (1).
This type of wall construction is peculiarly Ionic; we
find it in three of the Ionic treasuries at Delphi, and
probably it appeared also in the fourth, that of Clazo-
menae, of which little is now preserved. Other examples
of it, some with strongly contrasted alternation of plinths
and orthostates, are found at Isionda in Pamphylia
(Fellows, Travels in Asia Minor, 146 — Perrot and Chipiez,
VII, 330), in the temples at Assos (Clarke, Investigations
at Assos, 1882/1883, 74-75), Messa (Koldewey, Insel
Lesbos, pi. 22, 18), Priene (Antiquities of Ionia, IV, pi. 7-8;
Wiegand and Schrader, Priene, 96-98), the Ptolemaeum
in Samothrace (Conz^, Samothrake, 1880, p. 39, pi. 31-32)
and the Ionic temple at Pergamum (Pergamon, IV, pi. 33;
Durm, Baukunst3, 142).
Parastades. — The parastades in the four Ionic
treasuries are not thickened at their ends in the customary
manner, i. e. as we see them in Doric structures and
Ionic work of the fifth century and later; instead, the
walls end abruptly. This bears out the theoretical deve-
(1) Dr. Pomtow (BFW, 1909, 188) gives the wall thickness as 0.59
m. only, not having observed the evidence afforded by the blocks of
the parastades.
STUDIES OP TFIE DELPHIAN TREASURIES 29
lopment of the Ionic temple from a structure of wood,
in which such a thickening of the parastades would be
unnecessary, as contrasted with early Doric walls of sun-
dried brick which needed a wooden casing at their
terminations. It seems probable that true antae were unknown
in the Ionic style (cf. the sixth century temple at Ephe-
sus, British Museum Excavations, atlas, pi. 12), until
Doric influence in Attica led to modifications.
Of extant parastas capitals I know only one, that now
exhibited in the Museum and used in the model of the
«Cnidian» Treasury (sketched by Durm, Baukunst3, 260).
It was found in the monastery on the site of the
Gymnasium in 1898, and assigned to the Cnidian Treasury (BCH,
1898, 565); Mr. Homolle afterwards recognized that it
belonged to the treasury at Marmaria, and it was used in
the model for lack of a better example (Journal RIBA,
1903, 34). It is carved with a leaf-and dart, with a
beaded astragal below and an abacus above, and belongs
to a wall of 0.484 m. thickness, which would serve for
the Cnidian Treasury. The technique, however, is not
Cnidian but Massiliot; the beads are globular and not
barrel-shaped, while the reels have arrises, and so
cannot be Cnidian; the wall thickness and the height 0.389
m. are exactly those of the plinths of the Massiliot
Treasury. As for the Cnidian and Siphnian Treasuries the
courses on which the capitals were carved give the heights
as 0.183 m. and 0.275 m. respectively.
Wall Coursing. — The determination of the heights of
the walls in these treasuries rests on the complicated
question of the arrangement of the courses. Many wall
blocks, both in the Cnidian and Siphnian Treasuries, bear
inscriptions; these are, in general, carved on the wider
courses of each series, plinths or orthostates. The
presence of inscriptions, as well as considerations of stability,
incline us to place the larger blocks low in the walls. The
dowel cuttings on the fragments of the Cnidian wall base
show that next above came a course of orthostates,

probably the largest preserved, 0.530 m. high. The other
orthostate courses are of heights 0.500 m., 0.4&5 in. and
0.465-0.470 m. ; these show a constant diminution of 0.015
m. per course, with one break. Now since the walls, if
built up with our four sizes of orthostates, four sizes of
plinths, and the wall base, would be only 2.991 m. high,
not sufficient for the Caryatides and their pedestals, we
must interpolate one more course of each. The natural
location of the added orthostate course would be at the
break in the series, so that we may restore them thus,
0. 530-H0. 515)+0. 500+0. 485+0. 470 m. The five
preserved plinth courses, including the wall base, are of heights
0.232 m., 0.204 m., 0.200 m., 0.187 m., and 0.183 m.
Between orthostates and plinths one join can be made; the
course 0.204 m. high evidently came next below the
orthostates 0.500 m. high, as is shown by the inscriptions
on the parastas (cf. below the discussion of course 6).
The additional plinth is therefore to bo inserted between
the 0.530 m. and 0.515 m. courses of orthostates, and in
height would be between 0.232 and 0.204 m, probably
about 0.210 m. The arrangement now is that of a constant
diminution in alternate courses, as shown in figure 5.
From my notes with regard to the forms of the stones,
and with the aid of Mr. Bourguet's recent publication of
the Cnidian inscriptions, I have arranged the extant
material, so far as possible, in the order in which it
appeared on the original building. The most important
part of the reconstruction, the outer face of the east
parastas, is shown in figure 6. The following notes are
intended to supplement Mr. Bourguet's conclusions in the
Fouilles de Delphes, III, i. 155-190.
Cnidian Treasury.
Course 1. Plinths 0.232 m. high, the wall base with the beaded
astragal. The end of a parastas block is preserved (inv. 2291); the bottom
has no dowel cutting, but this is due to forgetfulness on the part of
the stonecutter, whether we assign the block to the right or to the
left parastas, and so the fact that the north-east angle torus block
(which was below the left parastas) has a T dowel cutting on the top
is no obstacle to our placing the wall base inv. 2291 above it. And in
fact the inscription on the end, a manumission of the archonship of
Babylus, about 90 B. C. (Fouilles, III, i. no. 320), would come, if the
block were placed in the left parastas, just below two other
manumissions of the archonship of Babylus in courses 5 and 6 (Fouilles
no. 310, 297; see the discussions of those courses). To the same block
belongs inv. 1434 with an original end joint; Mr. Bourguet by
restoring the inscriptions on the outer (Fouilles, no. 319) and inner faces
(Fouilles, no. 321), obtained a total length for the original block of
0.87 m. (Fouilles, III, i. 177). Two more fragments, inv. 353 and 2764,
belong to a second block; they are united to each other by an
inscription (Fouilles, no. 323) on the inner face of the wall in such a way as
to make the total length of the two fragments 0.615 m. (Fouilles, III;
i. 17y). These two pairs are, moreover, united to each other by an
inscription which crosses the gap between them (Fouilles, no. 322); the
gap would be filled by 22 letters in line 5, requiring 0.32 m. The
total length of the four fragments was therefore 0.87+0.32+0.615 =
about 1.805 m. The fourth of these fragments is of importance
because for its length of 0.28 m. the outer face of the wall is rough (the
thickness here is 0.487 m.); this rough place would come 1.525-1.805
m. from the end of the parastas. This fits as exactly as may be
calculated from inscriptions, a roughened surface in course 5, 1.55-1.80
m. from the end of the parastas, where a terrace parapet abutted
against the east side of the treasury. The location of the four
fragments in the left (east) parastas is therefore certain. This parastas
had manumissions on the outer face (Fouilles, no. 319) and on the end
(Fouilles, no. 320), and on the inside proxeny decrees of the archon-
ships of Amyntas and Patron, about 48-47 B. C. (Fouilles, no. 321-323);
the last of these has lines of such length that it must have turned the
corner and have been continued on the rear wall of the prodomos.
Of the same period is a block, inv. 28, with a long honorary
inscription (Fouilles, no. 318), which may well have continued the series
across the rear wall of the prodomos. Two other inscribed fragments,
inv. 55 and 2112, contain manumissions (Fouilles, no. 316-317) but
cannot be fitted into the east parastas, so that their positions are
uncertain; the second is dated about 74-68 B. C. and so is later than any
on the outer face or end of the east parastas. An angle block from a
rear corner, uninscribed, lies south of the Siphnian foundation.
Course 2. Orthostates 0.530 m. high (Bourguet gives the height as
0.52 m.). One fragment, inv. 2116, with three manumissions of the
archonship of Oleander, about 90 B. C. (Fouilles, no. 304-306), cannot be
placed in the east parastas, because the lowest of its inscriptions was
continued across the joint and cannot be combined with any traces
preserved on the course below. The date of Oleander is, moreover,
32 STITDIES OF THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES
later than that of Babylus (cf. Fouilles, III, i. pp. 139, 163, 168), at
which time the-outer face of the east parastas was already filled.
Probably to this course in the east parastas belongs the fragment, inv.
23, with a manumission of the second semester of the archonship of
Archon (Fouilles, no. 335) and so coming below no. 334 which I assign
to course 3 (q. v.).
Course 3. Plinths probably about 0.210 m. high. None with the
complete height is preserved. Here I place inv. 4748 and another
fragment which Mr. Bourguet associated because they seem to be parts of
the same manumission, of the first semester of the archonship of
Archon (Fouilles, no. 334);· for his date, and the reasons for assigning
his decrees to the east parastas, see the discussion of course 4. The
thickness and the presence of a joint in the second fragment are
evidence that it belongs to a plinth course.
Course 4. Orthostates about 0.515 m. high. None with the complete
height is preserved. A fragment of the end of a parastas, inv. 3550. has
on the left return a manumission of the archonship of Archon
(Fouilles, no. 333), usually dated about 100 0. C. (Pomtow, in Pauly-Wissowa,
IV, 2647). But the earliest manumission on the east parastas, and
evidently on the entire Cnidian Treasury, is that of the archonship of
Polyon, dated between 104 and 95 B. C, in course 5; I see no objection
to assigning Archon to the year 94/3 B. C. Nos. 333, 334, and 3i)ô then
take their places in courses 4, 3, and 2 of the east parastas along with
other manumissions dating from before 90 B. C. To the same course
•4 1 assign two fragments, inv. 564-1-1255, which Mr. Bourguet has
fitted together, with a manumission of the archonship of Polyon
(Fouilles, no. 337); it is cut on an orthostate, and when the left edge
of the inscription is made to align with the left edge of a hitherto
incorrectly dated inscription, really of the same archonship, in course
5 of the east parastas, then the preserved left end of the orthostate will
come below a joint determined in course 6 (fig. 6). In no. 337, line 14,
we may restore the names of the priests as Πατρέας, "Αγίων (see below).
Course 5. Plinths 0.204 m. high. The end of the left (east) parastas,
inv. 3137, has a manumission of the archonship of Babylus, about 90
B. C. {Fouilles, no. 310); I place it in the east parastas because of the
connection with inv. 952 which has the trace of an abutting terrace
parapet, as described below, though Mr. Bourguet would place it in
the right parastas, interpreting the trace of the abutting wall as that
of the rear wall of the prodomos (Fouilles, III, i. 169). Mr. Bourguet
joins to inv. 3137 a fragment inv. 1171 (fig. 6); the two belong to a
block which had on the outer face (Bourguet calls it the inner) the
right ends of two inscriptions, a decree for the Hyacinthotrophia
(Fouilles, no. 308) and a manumission (Fouilles, no. 309). The left
portions of the same two inscriptions were identified by Bourguet on a
block of which three fragments are preserved, inv. 33, 952, and 1153
(Fouilles, III, i. pi. 10); on the inside of this block was a manumission
of the archonship of Nicander (Fouilles, no. 311), about 10 A. D. (Pom-
tow). According to Bourguet's restoration of the decree for the Hya-
cinthotrophia, with 121 letters in line 15 (37 letters occupy 0.37 m.),
this would have begun about 1.28 m. from the end of the parastas;
0.26 m. to the left of this is the joint surface for an abutting wall
v 9 c /v
^JiMfe
« Figure 6. East parastas of the Cnidian Treasury. .
(fig. 6). The lower inscription begins only 0.14 m." from "the joint
surface; according to Bourguet's restoration of line 4 of no. 309, with
105 letters (17 letters occupy 0.175 m.), the inscription would be only
1.08 m. long, and the joint surface only 1.22 m. from the end of the
BULL. DE COERESP. HELLÉNIQUE, XXXVII 3
parastas, not agreeing with the upper inscription. But Fouilles, no.
309 may be restored as follows:
"Αρχοντος Πο[λύωνος, μηνός , βουλευόντων Εύκλείδα, Χαριξέ-

νου, γραμματεύοντος Δαμένεος, άπέδοτο τώι Άπόλ]-
λωνι τώι ΠυΟίωι σώμα[τα δύ]ο οΤς ονόματα Τ[ι]μώ, Διονΰσιο[ς],
χό γένος ένδ[ογενή, τιμάς αργυρίου μναν , και ταν τιμαν έχει πα-
σαν καθώς έπίστευσαν Τιμώ και Διονύσιος τφ θεφ ταν ώνάν,
εφ' ω]ιτβ ελευθέρους ε[1μεν] και άνέφαπτοι άπό πάντω[ν]
τόν πάντα β[ίον ποιέοντες δ κα Όέλωντι. Βεβαιωτήρες κατά τους νόμους
τας πόλιος , Κλεο]δάμου.
Ει δε τις [έφάπτοι]το Τιμοΰς ή Διονυσίου επί [κα]-
ταδ[ο]υλισμ[ώι, βέβαιον παρεχόντω τάν ώνάν τφ θεφ· εί δέ μή παρέχοιν
δ τε άποδόμενος και οι βεβαιωιήρες, πράκτιμοι έόντω. Όμοίω]ς
δέ και ol παρ[ατυγχάνο]ντες κύριοι έόντ[ο> συλέ]-
5 οντες Τ[ιμώ και Διονύσιον ώς ελευθέρους όντας, άζάμιοι δντες και άνυ-
πόδικοι πάσας δίκας και ζαμίας. Μάρτυρες οι ιερείς τοΰ Άπόλ-
λ]ωνος Π[ατρέας, Άγίω]ν.
Mr. Bourguet restores the archon's name as Πεισιστράτου], but the
second letter is plainly o, and the only possible name for this period
is that of Polyon, who appears in another inscription of the Cnidian
Treasury (Fouilles, no. 337), which I thei-efore place below this in
course 4, and in one of the Athenian Treasury (Fouilles, III, ii. no.
139). Both Bourguet and Colin agree that his period is of priesthoods
XI or XII, about 104-90 B. C, when the names of the priests were
very short; by this inscription we may settle the question; Bourguet'
notes that in line 5 the name of the first priest began with Γ, Ε, or Π;
I may add that the last letter of the second name was N, and that
the space between these letters is right for the restoration Π[ατρέας,
Άγίω]ν, of 104-95 Β. C. The restoration of no. 309 proposed above con%
tains 139 letters in line 4, and line 3 is slightly longer; the whole
would require about 1.41 m. making the distance to the joint
surface from the end of the parastas l.ôo m. and confirming the evidence
of no. 308. We may suppose therefore that this abutting wall was
1.55 in. back from the end of the parastas, instead of 1.25 m. as Mr.
Bourguet makes it (Fouilles, III, i. 169). Mr. Bourguet supposes that
this was the cross wall between prodomos and cella. But the joint
surface for the abutting block is of different and more careless
workmanship than those in the building proper, and the abutting block
was not bonded into the building, lacking even clamps. Moreover, the
cross wall, as we shall learn from a fragment of the door jamb, was
0.49 m. thick, while our joint surface is only 0.31 m. wide. The
abutting wall cannot have been inside the prodomos, and therefore the
face with the inscriptions 308-309 and the roughened joint surface
must be placed outside on the east wall. In this position it recalls
a peculiarity of the fluted torus block from the east parastas, unflu-
ted on the return, and then roughly cut back for the insertion of a
block at right angles (fig. 2). The explanation appears on the plan of
the precinct; against the east wall of foundation XII which we have
assigned to the Cnidians, 0.30-1.10 m. behind the front, abuts a
terrace wall 0.80 m. thick; and 0.70 m. from this is another, 0.70 m.
thick. Though these terrace walls are Roman, there must always have
been a terrace here and so a retaining wall, and it is evidently the
terrace parapet of this that has left its trace on our wall block. This
terrace parapet was either contemporary with or earlier than the
treasury, since its existence was provided for at the beginning; the
roughened joint surface projects 2 mm. beyond the finished surface of the
treasury wall. The part of the wall north of the parapet was available
for inscriptions. Two other pieces of this course, inv. 26 and 2783,
bear honorary inscriptions of the imperial period (Fouilles, no. 313,
312) and belong to the west parastas; one preserves the entire
thickness, showing that the opposite face is blank.
Course 6. Orthostates 0.500 m. high. A small fragment, inv. 2857,
was identified by Mr. Bourguet as containing a portion of the first six
lines of the decree for the Hyacinthotrophia (Fouilles, no. 308), the
continuation of which appears in course 5. Above this inscription is a
vacant space of 0.052 m., and then appears the end of a fourth
century inscription in large letters (Fouilles, no. 307), 0.115 m. above the
bottom of the stone. On the end of the east parastas I place a block,
inv. 2514, with a proxeny decree of the archonship of Orestes, about
255 B. C (Fouilles, no. 296), and a manumission of the archonship of
Babylus, about 90 B. C. (Fouilles, no. 297); for the latter ends with the
bottom of the stone, and was evidently followed in course 5 by the
other manumission of the same date and with a more abbreviated
preamble (Fouilles, no. 310), which we have assigned with certainty
to the end of the east parastas. On the left (east) return of inv. 2514
is the end of a law of the fourth century B. C. (Fouilles, no. 295); the
size and spacing of the letters, and the distance between the lowest
line and the bottom of the stone (0.115 m.) are exactly the same as in
the tiny fragment, inv. 2857. 1 feel no hesitation, then, in assigning both
to the same column of the same inscription (no. 295); either the first
six lines of the decree for the Hyacinthotrophia continued also across
the bottom of the end block of the parastas (inv· 2514), where the
surface is now badly worn, or the lines stopped just short of this stone
(fig. 6). This is the first and only connection yet made between
courses of the Cnidian Treasury, but it is enough to prove the
correctness of the scheme proposed in figure 5. The length of the short
return of inv. 2514 is 0.222 m.; a dowel cutting on the top of inv. 952
(in course 5) shows that the next joint was about 0.15 m. from the
terrace parapet, or about 1.40 m. from the end of the parastas; the
length of the orthostate to which inv. 2857 belongs was therefore
1.40-0.222 = 1.18 m. To the same orthostate, and to that next
adjoining at the left, belong five other fragments (inv. 1295, 1373, 2519,
3486, and one unnumbered) all now set together in the Museum
(Fouilles, no. 295); their location on figure 6 is only approximate,
because the text of the inscription is not yet published. It appears
that the inscription was in two columns, for inv. 1295 comes to within
0.075 m. of the bottom of the stone; the width of each column is
unknown, but the location of inv. 2857 shows that the second column
was more than 0.80 m. wide. Apparently the first column overlapped
the decree for the Hyacinthotrophia and determined the level of its
first line; the first column of the law must also have overlapped the
parapet line, so that we have evidence for locating the top of the
parapet a little above the bottom of course 6. The ten other fragments
incorporated with no. 295 in the Museum restoration really belong
four courses higher, and on the west wall; Mr. Bourguet correctly
places them with Fouilles, no. 294. Probably to the same course, but
of the west parastas (?) like the other late Roman inscriptions (cf. those
of course 5), belongs a fragment of an orthostate, inv. 1328, with an
honorary decree (Fouilles, no. 329) which seems to be a continuation
of no. 331 in course 7.
Course 7. Plinths 0.200 m. high. One fragment preserved, inv. 3895,
with the end of one honorary decree and the beginning of a second,
of the imperial period (Fouilles, no. 330-331), and so probably of the
west parastas; Mr. Bourguet measures this as only 0.19 m. high and
places it among his miscellaneous fragments.
Course 8. Orthostates 0.485 m. high. One slab is restored from
seven fragments (inv. 765, 3613, 3639, 3640, 3651, 3652, and 3665),
containing four proxeny and honorary decrees for three Cnidians, dated
285-272 B. C (Fouilles, no. 298-301) ; the length of the slab as restored
is 1.25 m. This slab may perhaps be assigned to the outer face of
the east parastas, for the inscriptions are earlier than the proxeny
decrees cut on the end of the parastas (cf. that of about 255 B. G. in
course 6). A fragment, inv. 4195, with two proxeny decrees (Fouilles,
no. 326-327) of which one certainly, and the other probably, antedates
255 B. C, I tentatively assign to the end of the parastas in this course;
it is an orthostate, of such thickness (0.23 m.) that it does not seem
to belong to the flank, though it would be right for an end block; I do
not remember, however, whether the preserved left edge is a finished
return or a joint surface. These two blocks are therefore omitted in
figure 6. A complete slab 1.027 m. long has two manumissions of the
archonships of Damoxenus and Nicostratus, about the beginning of
the Christian era (Fouilles, no. 302-303 ; inv. 3998), and is therefore to
be placed in the inner face of the east parastas above no. 311 in course
5. A third complete slab, in a depot north-east of the Museum, is un*
inscribed but is important as coming from one of the rear angles of
the treasury (length 0.855 m., return 0.258 m.).
Course 9. Plinths 0.187 m. high. Six fragments now in the Museum,
inv. 828, 975, 1277, 3195, 3551, 3996, go together to form the dedication
inscription (Fouilles, no. 289). The original location of the inscription
is a matter of dispute. On account of its official character Mr. Homolle
placed it below the stylobate of the facade (BCH, 1896, 581, and the
model in the Museum), and was followed by Professor Heberdey (AM,
1909, 147), while Mr. Keramopoullos made of it the epistyle of the
façade (Guide, 16), and Dr. Pomtow placed it above the doorway as a
lintel (BPW, 1911, 1612 n. 7); Mr. Bourguet now admits that it might
be placed on the flank of the treasury, but in a lower course and
projecting 2 cm. beyond the next course above (Fouilles, III, i. 150, 153).
It is needless to enter into a discussion of the facts that render all
these proposals impossible. The fragments in question actually belong
to an ordinary plinth course 0.187 m. high, and therefore not from
the front, but from the rear or sides of the treasury. As for the
retrograde termination — which Pomtow thought was limited by the
console of the door and by which Heberdey regulated the width of
his Cnidian façade — we may suppose that the inscription was on the
east flank of the treasury, where the stonecutter began 3.90 m. back
from the façade, this being the distance that could be conveniently
viewed over the parapet wall; then, reaching the end of the parastas
before he had intended to do so, he finished the dedication backwards.
Six uninscribed fragments of the same course lie beyond the Roman
forecourt east of the entrance to the precinct, where in fact many of
the inscribed pieces were found.
Course 10. Orthostates 0.465-0.470 m. high. The end of the west
parastas, composed of four fragments (inv. 3412, 3546, 3629 γ and δ),
is blank; on the right (outer) return is the beginning of a law of the
archonship of Cadys, early in the fourth century (Fouilles, no. 294).
Adjoining this were at least six orthostates containing several columns
of the same inscription; of these 28 fragments are preserved. The first
slab is made 0.74 m. long in the Museum, but Bourguet proposes
about 0.85 m.; there are four fragments, inv. 3629 α and β, 3635, and
one unnumbered. The second is 0.715 m. long as restored in the
Museum, with three fragments, inv. 3631, 3667, and 4198. The third is
0.783 m. long in the Museum restoration, with five fragments, inv.
3469, 3497, 3630, 3633, and one unnumbered. The fourth is made 0.755
m. long, with seven fragments, inv. 3483, 3547, 3584, 3628, 3632, 3636,
and one unnumbered. The fifth (inv. 3626+3664) and sixth (inv. 3549
+3583) were of unknown lengths. Mr. Bourguet lists fragments inv.
30, 61, 2129, 3585, and 4249, as of uncertain location. The great length
of this inscription makes it certain that it belongs to the outer face
of the west wall rather than to the inner face of the east parastas ;
and therefore it can have nothing to do with the other law, Fouilles,
no. 295, which was inscribed four courses lower on the opposite flank
of the treasury. An uninscribed fragment of this tenth course now
. lies east of the main entrance to the precinct.
Course 11. Plinths 0.183 m. high, aligning with the parastas
capitals, and corresponding fairly to the height of the capitals of the
Caryatides, 0.19 m. An inscribed fragment, inv. 2765, contains an
honorary decree of the imperial period and so probably belongs to
the west wall; Mr. Bourguet does not include it in his series of Cni-
dian inscriptions. Two uninscribed pieces lie east of the Roman
forecourt.
The following fragments cannot be assigned to their places :
Plinth. One piece, inv. 3027, with a manumission (Fouilles, no. 336).
Orthostates. A fragment, inv. 4737, Mr. Bourguet regards as a
continuation of Fouilles, no. 336, but in the course below. Another
manumission of uncertain date, on an orthostate, is Fouilles, no. 339. Two
other orthostates, which Mr. Bourguet assigns to a plinth course
because they have been cut down in later times to heights of about 0.20
m., are inv. 3081 (Fouilles, no. 314), 1.050 m. long (Bourguet wrongly
says that the length is 1.48 m. and incomplete), with a Cnidian pro-
xeny (Fouilles, no. 315).
Uncertain. The proxeny decrees, Fouilles, no. 324-325. The
manumissions, Fouilles, no. 338, 340-350. The honorary decrees of, imperial
date, Fouilles, no 328, 332.
Passing on now to the walls of the Massiliot Treasury,

we find our task easier; the courses are more nearly
uniform (orthostates 0.410 m. to 0.423 m. high, plinths
0.389 m. to 0.390 m.) and the result is controlled. by the
dimensions of the columns. Of these the lower diameter
was 0.49 m. ; if we take the height as eight diameters,
we have 3.92 m., already greater than in the Cnidian
Treasury ; or if we take nine diameters, we shall have
4.41 m., almost the height of the Siphnian walls. So
between these limits the true result must lie. Adding to
the orthostates 0.473 m. high, which form the base of
the wall, four pairs of plinths and orthostates (averaging
0.390 m. and 0.416 m. respectively), and the plinths which
align with the parastas capital, 0.389 m., we shall have
a total of 4.08 m. This must be correct, for it alone comes
within the limits; 0.390+0.416 m. more or less would
give impossible results. No inscriptions were cut on the
Massiliot walls; to provide space for such, a parapet of
stelae was set up around the treasury (cf. Klio, 1906,
89-126; Bull. Acad. Dan., 1908, 378-380; AM, 1911, 245).
" In the Siphnian Treasury the case was very different.
Great variety is to be found in the extant wall blocks,
which may be classified according to their heights into

at least nine types, 0.592, 0.544, 0.504, 0.494, 0.475, 0.448,
0.426, 0.400, and about 0.360 m. (1). More than these the
Caryatides will not allow; the pedestals 1.01 m. high,
the Caryatides 3.24 m. as restored in the Museum (really
a little higher), and the epistyle of the facade (0.418 m.),
give a limit of about 4.668 m. And the wall base (0.172
m.), the nine courses listed above (4.243 m.), and the wall
epistyle (0.293 m.), give a total of 4.708 m. The slight
excess of 4 cm. must be assigned to the Caryatides
themselves, which fits the evidence of the fragments of the
feet, and gives the height 3.28 m. as I have previously
noted. The coincidence justifies the assumption that there
were nine plain wall courses and no more (2).
Of the nine courses, only two contained plinths, and
even in these two a few orthostates were inserted ; the
remaining seven courses were composed entirely of
orthostates. We cannot therefore restore, as in the Cnidian
and Massiliot Treasuries, a regular alternation of plinths
and orthostates.
From a consideration of the location of the Siphnian
Treasury, on foundation IV, we should say at once that
the south flank, overhanging the Helleniko, would hardly
have been inscribed, and the same was probably true
of the southern half of the lofty east end. In other words,
it is preferable to assign inscribed blocks to the north
flank or the north half of the east end wall. Angle blocks
(1) The courses of 0.504 m. and 0.494 m., though very similar in
height, must be differentiated because the northeast angle block of
each is preserved (see below).
(2) This compels us to unite in the same course four blocks of 0.354
m. to 0.356 m., one of 0.359 m., the door lintel of 0.360 m., and
another block of 0.370 m. That this is correct will appear from what
follows. Mr. Bourguet however keeps the blocks of 0.355 m. and 0.370
m. in separate courses (Fouilles, III, i.), and then has two courses
0.504 m. high, making a total of eleven courses: this would make the
walls 5.557 m. high, and the Caryatides themselves, subtracting the
pedestals and epistyle, 4.129 m. high.
that are inscribed on both faces, or the left face only,
must certainly be placed at the north-east corner of the
building, and the probability is that any inscribed angle
block comes from this point. I have noted eight angle
blocks from this treasury; seven are inscribed (all but
two on the left or both faces) and should therefore be
assigned to the north-east corner; the eighth is a
duplicate in height (0.426 m.) and, with both faces blank, must
come from the south-east corner. Of the seven blocks
from the north-east corner, four had their shorter returns,
three their longer faces, on the north flank; to break
joint these should evidently alternate with each other.
Following the general rule which we observed also in
the case of the Cnidian Treasury, that, both for reasons
of stability and because the smaller courses either are
blank or bear the later inscriptions, the larger courses
should be placed low in the wall, we arrange the four
courses with short returns on the north in the following
order (bottom to top); 0.504, 0.494, 0.426, and 0.360 m.
(figure 7). Of the remaining five courses, it might seem
more natural to give that of 0.592 m. (for which the angle
block is not preserved) a short return on the north, and
the four others, long returns such as are actually
preserved for two of them. The system would then be one of
regular decrease from bottom to top (1). This is shown
to be wrong by the fragments of the honorary
inscription of Cassander (Fouilles, III, i. no. 218). Two fragments,
one long ago seen by Kaibel (Hermes, 1874, 417) and
inv. no. 1534, were fitted together by Mr. Bourguet and
shown to form a course 0.504 m. high. In the course
(1) With one variation, the 0.475 m. and 0.494 m. courses being
interchanged. This system of a regular decrease is followed by
Bourguet and Martinaud (Fouilles, III, i.), interchanging however the
courses of 0.544 m. and 0.504 m. because of the Cassander Inscription.
Pomtow suggests a regular decrease of 0.022 m. in each course from
0.59 m. to 0.37 m. (BPW, 1909, 188), which would require at least
eleven plain courses.
wo WA*r3$&&*%£%4
2 /Λ.
JIorth
Figure 7. North-east Corner of the Siphnian Treasury.
above this Mr. Bourguet correctly places inv. 1436+1134,

with the title, forming a course 0.544 high. This group
is shown in figure 8 (borrowed from Mr. Martinaud's
drawing, Fouilles, III, i.) (1). The system was therefore
one of regular decrease in alternate courses, which must
be arranged as shown in figure 7. In appearance, it
was much like the alternate decrease in the Cnidian
Treasury, without such contrasts of height. In construction,
however, the system is to a certain extent a deceit; for
the sake of economy most of the blocks are stretchers,
with small pieces of poorer quality as antithemata, and
what appear to be plinth courses are actually composed
Figure 8. Blocks with the Cassander Inscription,

(after Martinaud).
of plinths in the second and sixth courses alone (and then

only partially so) (2).
The blocks which serve as antithemata for the ortho-
state courses are small and roughly finished ; the lengths
vary from 0.40 m. to 0.90 m., the thicknesses from 0.19
m. to 0.27 m. In seven cases in which the height could
be measured, I found three types: two blocks 0.355 and
(1) I do not however believe that one of these blocks can be actually
placed directly on the other; the lower block should be farther to the
right.
(2) At Priene and Pergamon the plinth courses of the wall are
separated by two courses of orthostates, but in these cases the true
construction is suggested by the heights of the blocks.
0.371 m. high, seem to have aligned with the eighth wall
course (average 0.360 m); the others are all smaller,
either 0.255-0.261 m. or 0.305-0.306 m., and cannot have
aligned with any course of the exterior. But on figure
5, it appears that the third, fourth, and fifth courses,
all orthostates, together occupy a height of 1.513 m.,
which corresponds to six courses of 0.252 m.,
approximately what we obtain as one type of the antithemata.
Acting on this principle of two backing courses to each
of the orthostates, the blocks 0.305 to 0.306 m. in height
might, with others slightly lower, make up the total
required for the first course, 0.592 m. Like the plinths,
these orthostates have clamp cuttings for the revetment
which concealed this irregular construction.
As in the case of the Cnidian Treasury, I have
compiled a list of the extant Siphnian wall blocks to
supplement the publication by Mr. Bourguet in the Fouilles
de Delphes, III, i. 113-149; compare the plate with the
partial assemblage of the stones accompagnying his text
Siphnian Treasury.
Course 1. Orthostates 0.592 m. high, the largest preserved, and

therefore assigned to the lowest course in all the restorations
proposed by Pomtow, Bourguet, and myself. The north-east angle block
is not preserved. The two blocks figured on Bourguet's plate, inv
1427(1.268 m.long) and 1437+2419 (incomplete), are there joined
together because the clamps fit; the fact that they are so crowded with
Greek inscriptions surcharged with Roman (Fouilles, no. 223-230), is
evidence for assigning them to the north flank. In the same course I
place the fragments inv. 1401+1825, likewise with earlier inscriptions
surcharged by a Roman decree (Fouilles, no. 260-262). Also the small
piece inv. 3797, not listed at all b.y Mr. Bourguet, evidently belongs
in this course; it is an orthostate of Parian marble, with only the
bottom and right end preserved, and contains the end of a Greek
honorary inscription ; the fact that it is of Parian marble is, I consider,
evidence for assigning it to the parastas, which was evidently almost
entirely constructed of Parian marble. To the same course belongs
an uninscribed block 1.226 m. long, now below the south-east corner
of the Siphnian foundation.
Course 2. Plinths 0.504 m. high, of which go many are preserved
that Mr. Bourguet distributes them in two separate courses, his second
and fourth ; but all clearly belong to the second. The north-east angle
block (inv. 1303; Fouilles, no. 215-216) is of vast length (2.347 m.) on
the east, and there was cut to fit orthostates, so that this course was
irregular like the sixth; the short return at the right is only 0.586m.
Another block (inv. 1302 ; Fouilles, no. 214), with the complete length
1.629 m., is cut to adjoin an orthostate at the right, and its clamp
cutting fits that at the left end of inv. 1303, so that we may assign it
to the middle of the east end of the building. Another block which
can be located is inv. 1404 (Fouilles, no. 217), 0.622 m. thick and
finished on both sides, belonging therefore to a parastas (the northern,
with the inscription on the outside). Inv. 1428 is also 0.622 m. thick
and belongs to a parastas (the northern); it bears on its outer face
one of the crowns of the Cassander Inscription (Fouilles, no. 218 g),
surcharged with a Roman honorary decree (Fouilles, 222). Both of
these blocks are of Parian marble, as were probably most of the blocks
of this parastas (cf. inv. 1405+1536 in course 6). Inv. no. 1428 must be
placed at the left of inv. 1404, for the Cassander Inscription begins
on the thin orthostates of the north cella wall, farther to the left.
Mr. Bourguet places a small fragment (unumbered) of Parian marble
just at the right of inv. 1428 because it contains letters of the same
surcharged Roman inscription (Fouilles, no. 222) over a part of the
Cassander Inscription (Fouilles, no. 218 h) ; to the same block I should
assign, on account of its material, the small fragment inv. 2148
(Fouil es, no. 218 k). Of two other blocks with the Cassander Inscription,
four fragments are preserved, two (inv. 1534 and another) giving the
right end of a block with the complete height, with the inscription
continued across the joint to two fragments of the block at the right
(Fouilles, no. 218 d-f). Probably to one of the two blocks last
mentioned belong the fragments inv. 2236+4124 (Fouilles, no. 218 i-j), in
the typical bluish marble. Another fragment, bearing only part of a
crown, is represented in this course in Mr. Bourguet' s plate. In the
depot south-west of the precinct is a block 1.027 m. long, inscribed
only with the first four letters of the alphabet (Fouilles, III, i. 149).
Likewise in this depot are an uninscribed block 1.059 m. long and a
block with the front now broken away, the present length about 1.20
m.; at the rear the latter is 1.134 m. long and is treated to adjoin
orthostates like inv. 1302 and 1303.
Course 3: Orthostates 0.544 m. high. The north east angle block,
1.272x0.529 m. (inv. 1250; Fouilles, no. 237-238), is now, as Mr.
Bourguet rightly notes, only 0.528 m. high and is incomplete, the bottom
having scaled off; he therefore omits it from his plate; but a trace of
a shift cutting at the bottom of one end shows that the height was
never much more than 0.53 m., and may be restored with confidence
as the 0.544 m. given by an intermediate block of ,the north flank
(inv. 1134+1436). This latter bears the beginning of the title of the
Cassander Inscription which was continued in course 2 (Fouilles, no.
218 a-c), and also three Roman honorary decrees (Fouilles, no. 219-
221); even in its present condition, with the right end broken away,
it is 1.84 m. long; the clamp at the left end is so placed that it
cannot adjoin the north-east angle block inv. 1250. Also in this course
are two small fragments of the title (unumbered) represented on Mr.
Bourguet's plate.
Course 4. Orthostates 0.494 m. high (Mr. Bourguet's fifth course).
Of this four inscribed blocks are preserved ; three are intermediate
blocks, inv. 1275 (Fouilles, no. 209; 1.112 m. long), inv. 1294
(Fouilles, no. 207-208; 1.362 m. long), and inv. 1382' (Fouilles, no. 210-211;
more than 1.40 m. long); the fourth is the north-east angle block, inv.
1226+1292 (Fouilles, no. 212-213; 1.273x0.395 m.). The longest block
(inv. 1382) is broken off at the right end; the broken portion was
perhaps the elbow return of the end of the parastas, for, as in course
6, there should be a long block in this course to fit the alternation
at the corner.
Course 5. Orthostates 0.475 m. high (Mr. Bourguet's sixth course).
Below the blocks which on account of their height I assign to the
sixth course (see below) Mr. Bourguet has attached by means of their
inscriptions (Fouilles, no. 202, 204) the fragments of two blocks (inv.
1330 and 428+1378); his arrangement is confirmed by an incised
setting line on the top of inv. 1330, 0.325 m. from the left joint,
indicating that the block inv. 1264+1298 must be pushed less than 1 cm.
to the right of the position shown on his illustration ; a pry cutting
on the top of inv. 1378, 0.40 m. from the right joint and so 0.725 m.
from the scratch line, is correctly located for the joint between inv.
1265+1331 and inv. 1264+1298 above. He assumes however that these
blocks were originally 0.448 m. high, to fit the supposed law of the
gradual diminution of course heights. But according to the
arrangement of the north-east angle blocks (figure 7), we must restore course
5 as 0.475 m. high. Pry cuttings on the top of inv· 1294 of course 4
show that we must restore one at least of the blocks in this course
as 0.79 m. long like those in course 6. The angle block inv. 1287+1383
(Fouilles, no. 234-236), which Mr. Bourguet understands to be
incomplete in height (I. c. 132) and does not illustrate in his plate of
assemblage, has the original surface above and below and is 0.475 m. high;
the fact that he actually restores a course (his sixth) as about 0.470
m. high is due merely to the fact that he wished to make a transition
between the courses of 0.448 m. and 0.492 m.
Course 6. Plinths 0.426 m. high (Mr. Bourguet's eighth course).
Blocks from three corners of the building are preserved, the end block
of the north parastas, of Parian marble like the parastas blocks in
course 2 (inv. 1536+1405; Fouilles, no. 202), the north-east corner block
(inv. 1263; Fouilles, no. 203), and the south-east corner block (unin-
scribed; now below the Siphnian foundation near the modern road);
the first of these has not been recognized as a parastas block. This
and one of the angle blocks are placed at the north corners because
of their inscriptions. When set in place, the east faces of the two
angle blocks correspond in length (1.061 m. and 1.069 m. at
northeast and south-east respectively), and so likewise do the short returns
(0.648 m. and 0.640 m.)· Three inscribed intermediate blocks of this
course (inv. 1265+1331 = 0.793 m., inv. 1264+1298 = 0.809 m.; inv.
1266 =-0.964 m.) Mr. Bourguet has united by means of inscriptions
which cross the joints or are continued from two blocks above or
one block in the course below (Fouilles, no. 205, 201,204); I must note
that in the text no. 201, 11. 1-3 on another stone do not belong in the
same inscription with 11. 5-8 on course 6 (cf. the discussion of course
7). The block inv. 1264+1298 has not the complete height, but Mr.
Bourguet has identified it as of this course because of the inscriptions (I. c.
p. 115). On the other hand, inv. 1265 is only 0.33 m. thick, really an
orthostate and not like the other blocks of this plinth course, as Mr.
Bourguet has noted (I. c. p. 110); that it belongs to this course however
is certain because of the height and the inscriptions (compare the
blocks inv. 1302 and 1303 in course 2). An unin scribed block in the
depot just north-east of the Museum, 1.344 m. long, has only one
clamp at the right end as if it were intended to adjoin an orthostate,
and it seems to fit the left end of inv. 1265. The series of four blocks
thus united gives a length of 3.910 m., too great for the interval in
the east wall, so that we must assign them to the north flank. Mr.
Bourguet assigns these inscribed blocks to the east wall (I. c. 112,
n. 2), because he supposes that they continue inscriptions (Fouilles,
no. 200-201) from inv. 1293 etc. (my course 9) which would in turn
continue (Fouilles, no. 200) from the angle block inv. 1299 (my course 8).
Two uninscribed intermediate blocks, both beside the Sicyonian
Treasury, 0.882 in. and 0.896 m. perhaps belong to the south flank rather
than to the north; a broken piece (now 0.95.m. long) in a depot
southwest of the precinct cannot be located.
Course 7. Orthostates 0.448 m. high (placed here also by Mr.
Bourguet). Three such blocks are preserved ; two inscribed, inv. 1249 =
0.824 m. long, and inv. 1426 = 0.914 m. long, and one uninscribed
block 0.669 m. long in a depot south-west of the precinct. The two
former Mr. Bourguet fitted together because of the inscription
(Fouilles, no. 206) which crosses the joint, though inv. 1426 does not
preserve the complete height; he places these however in the course
below the blocks which I assign to course 6, rather than above them,
to fit the supposed rule of the regular diminution of course heights.
And above the blocks of course 6 he places a block 0.400 m. high (inv.
2393+1297+1329+1377+4533) because it would there make, not an
actual, but, with the aid of restorations, a possible series of
continuous inscriptions (Fouilles, no. 201, 200) ; this, if accepted, would of
course exclude the arrangement of courses shown in figures 5 and 7.
Mr. Bourguet's combination is however impossible. As put together
from the five fragments the block 0.400 m. high is 1.32 m. long and
even then the right end is incomplete; it would run entirely across
inv. 1266; but on the top of inv. 1266 is a pry cutting 0.48 m. from
the right end, indicating a joint approximately in the middle of the
position occupied by inv· 12543 etc. The true blocks of course 7 broke
joints over the centers of the blocks of course 6; and of the correct
length are the two, inv. 1249 and 1426, which Î assign to course 7. The
splinter of an angle block (Fouilles, no. 240), I place in this course
by preference (figure 7), though it might also go in the first or the
ninth course.
Course 8. Orthostates averaging 0.360 m. high, which Mr. Bourguet
divides between his tenth and eleventh courses. The north-east angle
block (inv. 1299; Fouilles, no. 199-200) is 0.390 m. high (1.933x0.297
m.). The only other inscribed block (inv. 1241; Fouilles, no. 198) is
placed by Mr. Bourguet in the next course above because of its
difference in height; it is 0.356 m. high and 1.091 m. long. The only
other complete block of this series is 1.819 m. long and 0.354 m.
high; it is uninscribed and now lies below the south-west corner of the
Sicyonian Treasury ; the length is about double that of the ordinary
blocks in courses 5-7 of the north flank. Two uninscribed fragments
0.355 m. high, a piece 0.360 m. high, and the door lintel 0.360 m. high,
belong also in this course, and complete the list; the reason for the
differences in height is given above.
Course 9. Orthostates 0.400 m. high, placed here also by Mr.
Bourguet, but with two more courses above them. Only one inscribed
bloek 0.400 m. high is even partially preserved, recomposed with five
fragments (inv. 1293, 1297, 1377, and 4533; Fouilles, no. 200-201) to a
length of 1.32 m., but still incomplete. He would make the first line of
Fouilles, no. 200 appear on the angle block, inv. 1299 (which I assign
to course 8 below). Another block of this course, 1.749 m. long and
uninscribed, lies on the Sacred Way beside the Sicyonian foundation ;
this again, as in course 8, seems to indicate a length of block about
twice that in courses 5-7.
Uncertain. The fragments published in Fouilles, no. 218 1, 231-233,
239, 241-247, 250-260, 263-287, and the graffito, inv. 2258 (p. 149), I do not
attempt to locate. The end of a parastas block (Fouilles, no. 249) has
the inscription on the right return, not the left; this cannot well be on
the outside of the right (south) parastas, and so proves that the inner
face of the north parastas was inscribed. Three uninscribed fragments
from the end of a parastas are preserved; one, a top piece, fits on no.
249 and gives the length of the left return as 0.256 m.; another top
near the Sicyonian Treasury has a right return of 0.334 m.; a bottom
piece has a left return of 0.330 m.
Doorway. — We observed that on the Cnidian wall

base the beads are extremely squat and barrel-shaped,
the reels of a torus-like profile without sharp arrises.
The same Cnidian bead-and-reel appears on the upper
left corner of a door enframement, exhibited in the
Museum among the remains attributed to the Siphnian
Treasury finv. no. 3637; BCH, 1898, 602-603; drawn 604, fig. 6,
and Fouilles, III, i. 154) ; it has three fascias of very-
slight projection, enframed by the beaded astragal; the
corner broken from this piece lies in the magazine of
the Museum. Because of the form of the bead, Dr. Pom-
tow identifies this as Cnidian (BPW, 1909, 188). Part of
the bottom is finished as the soffit of the door lintel;
the portion that rested on the left jamb shows the
Cnidian treatment of the bed surface. On this fragment the
upper fascia, much wider on the lintel than on the
jambs, contains the first half of a proxeny inscription
(Fouilles, III, i. no. 290). The archon's name does not
appear on the part preserved, but we have those of
the bouleutai, Δάμωνος; Πάσωνος, Ιππία, Ε[ύχαρίδα, Θαρρί-
κωνος]. As appears on another inscription of exactly the
same form (inv. 3197; BCH, 1896, 637), cut on the Lesche
of the Cnidians, these are the bouleutai of the first
semester of the archonship of Amyntas I, about 250 B. C.
Now the proxeny inscription from the Lesche is for two
Cnidians, one of them Ariphron the son of Aristarchus.
Ours is for a certain Telesiphron, a name which occurs
very rarely except at Cnidus, where it was well known.
I may cite a beautiful Cnidian tetradrachm in the
Weber Collection (Head, British Museum Cat. Greek Coins,
Caria, I, pi. 45, 8), with the name of the mint magistrate,
ΤΕΛΕΣΙΦΡΩΓΜ, assigned by Head to the third century;
also a pair of coins in the British Museum (id., pp. 89-
90, 31, 37), bearing the names of [τ]ελε<:ιφ[ΡΩΝ] and
ΑΡΙΦ[ΡΩ]Ν, which Head would place in the fourth
century. But the use of C for £ would seem to indicate a
later date, and these magistrates may be the same men
who were honored by inscriptions in Delphi in the same
year, about 250 B. C, one on the Cnidian Treasury, the
other on the Cnidian Lesche. Another, fragment of this
lintel, found in 1909, preserves a portion of the bead
from the upper edge and below it letters from a
different inscription (inv. 4731; Fouilles, no. 291). On the Poti-
daean foundation lies a piece from the right end of the
lintel, showing the soffit of the opening; this has no
trace of any inscription.
The three fascias and the bead were carried down
the two jambs of the Cnidian doorway, as is shown by
the returns at each end of the lintel. A piece of the right
jamb (inv. 2262) has on its reveal a manumission dating
from the priesthood of Aeacidas, about 75 B. C. (Fouilles,
no. 292). In this broken fragment the width of the reveal
is now only 0.24 m. The inscription cannot be restored
with less than fifty letters in a line (cf. line 6), but with
fifty letters a perfect restoration can be made (that of
Mr. Bourguet does not agree with the length of line 6) :
καθώς επίστευσε τώι θεώι ταν ώναν εφ ΩΤΕ

ελεύθερον ειμεν καΐ άνέφαπτον από πΑΝΤΩΝ ΒΕΒΑΙΩΤ
ήρες κατά τους νόμους ΕΝΑΙΟΣ ΓΛΑΥΚΟΥ
EÎ δε τις εφάπτοιτο επί καταδουλιΣΜΩ ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΕΣΤΩ
δ παρατυχών συλέων άζάμιος ων καΐ ΑΝ ΥΠΟΔΙΚΟΣ ΠΑΣΑς
δίκας και ζαμίας Μάρτυρες oî ιερείς του ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΟΣ ΑΙΑΚΙΔΑς
Βαβΰλου Έμμενίδας Πάσωνος και ίδιώται : .ΑΣ ΝΙΚΩΝ
With fifty letters we should need a surface about 0.47

m. wide. From this it appears that the cross wall was
0.49 m. thick like the side walls (in the Massiliot
Treasury also the same wall thickness 0 . 49 m. appears
throughout), and that the reveal of the door was less than this
by the inset of the fascias (0.004 m. for each), i. e. 0.482
m. Mr. Bourguet joins to this three other inscribed pieces
of the jamb, inv. 2262 b and 712 (Fouilles, no. 293). A
piece of the bottom of the right jamb lies east of the
Roman court before the east entrance to the precinct;
BULL. CORRESP. HELLÉNIQUE, XXXVII 4
its position is assured by the τ dowel which was
leaded from the reveal of the opening ; the jambs, which
were cut on stones separate from the wall courses, were
set therefore after the wall courses had been laid,
contrary to later practise. A fragment of the left jamb, also
east of the Roman court, has a joint surface on which
appears a projecting tenon, which must have fitted a
mortise in the block next below; the jamb was
therefore constructed in at least two pieces, joined like the
Siphnian pedestals with tenon and mortise. Three other
small pieces of the jambs are in the magazine of the
Museum.
The threshold of the Cnidian doorway is missing; for
evidence as to its form we turn to the Massiliot
Treasury at Marmaria. In both, the beaded astragal at the
foot of the wall returns across the stylobate on the inside
of the parastas. In the Massiliot Treasury, at a point
corresponding to the inside line of the stylobate, the
astragal ceases to be carved, and is carried around the
prodomos with a semicircular section. Along the side walls
it slopes upward 0.012 m. together with the prodomos
pavement. At present there lies on the front wall of the
cella, on the limestone foundations, a long block which
is broken at both ends and is not in its original place.
As now set on the foundations, it would be below the
level of the pavement of the prodomos; but it has on
its lower edge the same uncarved astragal that runs
around the prodomos walls, so that its level is certain,
its bottom 0.012 m. above the top of the stylobate
(figure 9). The thickness of the stone, exclusive of the
astragal, is 0.492 m., exactly the thickness of the cross
wall. When we raise this stone to its proper position,
we find that an anathyrosis at its back, giving a level
0.176 m. above the prodomos pavement, is continued by
an incised setting line, below which is an anathyrosis
and a rougher surface, on the inside of the front wall
of the cella, giving the level of the floor of the cella.

Our block, thus placed, must form the threshold over
which the cella was entered, and the great amount of
wearing of its surface confirms this assumption; it was
used as a threshold also in mediaeval times, as appears
from a door pivot and other cuttings in its top. The
peculiarity of this threshold is that on its front are three
fascias, just as if it were an Ionic epistyle, but upside
down. It was, moreover, a disproportionately wide door-
4- H
Ί λ .'· ,ΚΙΙΊΪΙ
'
%/''%;λ./^,Α,/^../,Α
Figure 9. Section through the Massiliot Prodomos.
way; though neither end is now preserved, the cuttings

for the mediaeval doors show that the clear opening was
at least 2 m. The doorways of the Cnidian and
Massiliot Treasuries were very similar, both in form and in
dimensions. In both, the jambs and threshold seem to
have been uniform and narrow; the Cnidian lintel (and
probably the Massiliot was similar) was increased in
height on account of the great span, and all the increase
appeared in the uppermost fascia. The height of the lintel
was not, however, as great as that of a wall course;
therefore the lintel rested on the jambs alone and was
not bonded into the wall.
In the Museum is exhibited a large block which,
immediately upon its discovery, was identified as the
lintel of a doorway. It caused its discoverers great
concern, because this architrave is crowned with the same
colossal bead that, as is generally agreed, must be
placed about the base of the Siphnian («Cnidian»)
Treasury; and we have in addition another door lintel
certainly belonging, to this treasury. So the lintel with the
great bead1 was discarded as a puzzle (BCH, 1897, 303).
But if this were the lintel of a doorway, we should
expect the same treatment to be carried down the two
jambs; yet not a fragment of the colossal bead running
in a vertical direction is preserved, whereas we have
a great deal that is horizontal. An examination of the
block itself (Plate I a) shows that, contrary to what
would be the case if it were a lintel, the three
horizontal fascias are narrower than the vertical ones; they
should at least be equal, perhaps broader. Also the
fascias as they turn downward, slope, and they slope
inward toward the axis of the doorway so that a
doorway under such a lintel would be wider at the top than
at the bottom. At the back appears a rebate which
cannot be explained if this is a lintel. Nothing remains but
that we must turn the block upside down, and use it
as a threshold, corresponding to that at Marmaria (1).
Then, as at Marmaria, the bead is continuous with that
around the base of the wall, and that is why in the
Siphnian Treasury I have made the colossal bead not
the stylobate, but the base of the wall resting on the
stylobate, one course higher than appears in the
model. The projection at the back becomes the rebate on
(1) This fact was rediscovered by Pomtowin November, 1910 (BPW,

1911, 1613), some months after I had announced it in an open meeting
at Athens (April 8, 1910).
STUDIES OF THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES 53 * ,
which the door rested, and gives the level of the

pavement inside, as at Marmaria ; the thickness of the cross
wall then appears as 0.528 m. Early Ionic doorways
are not frequent; but at least one representation exists,
on one of the reliefs from Thasos now in the Louvre
(Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmàler, 61). Here we see a
doorway of a type exactly like those of Marmaria and Siph-
nos, with the same enframement in several fascias
carried around all four sides of the opening. And in the
great doorway at Naxos, of the same period, the top of
the threshold is 1.125 m. above the floor level before it.
The lintel above mentioned as certainly belonging to
the Siphnian («Cnidian») Treasury was long ago
identified by Mr. Homolle (BCH, 1896, 592); the right end is
now. in the Museum (inv. 1184; Perrot and Chipiez, VII,
650; Fouilles, III, i. 113). It has three fascias, the outer,
most carved with a rich lotus-and-palmette ornament,
enframed by a beaded astragal (Plate I b). The type of
bead is sufficient to show that the block is not Cnidian
and the place of its finding, together with that of two
pieces of the jambs now in the magazine, and another
fragment still in the excavations, is against its
attribution to Marmaria. The globular bead and the technique
are perfectly in character with the Siphnian Treasury,
so that the identification must be accepted. The fascias
of this lintel turn downward at the right end, and the
lotus-and-palmette and the bead also return to form *
the jamb. Moreover, these fascias slope outward just as
those of the threshold sloped inward, about 3 mm. in 20
cm. as nearly as I could measure it. And the central
'
fascia as it turns downward to form the jamb is exactly
the width, 0.117 m., of the central fascia of the threshold
as it turns upward; the projections of the fascias, 0.020
m., are the same in all. Finally, though the piece
exhibited, in the Museum and the two fragments in the
magazine (these latter from the jambs) are all split, the
piece lying in the excavations gives the full width of

the reveal, 0.508 from the middle fascia (the inner is
broken away) to the finished back, which would be
0.488 m. for the innermost fascia, or 0.528 m. for the
outer (the plane of the palmette-and-lotus), the
thickness of the cross wall. Precisely these dimensions are to
be found in our threshold. That threshold and lintel both
belong to the same doorway and that this is the
doorway of the Siphnian Treasury, seems certain.
The lintel is 0.360 m. in height, and is, unlike that of
the Cnidian Treasury, part of an ordinary wall course;
the right end of the preserved fragment was bonded
into the wall and is cut to receive an orthostate with
its antithema. The wall course to which it corresponds
would naturally be that which contains blocks 0.354 m.
to 0.370 m. high, and now we see the reason for the
great variation (0.016 m.) in the height of this course;
here for the first time since leaving the stylobate the
builders carried a horizontal line completely around the
the structure, and here small discrepancies which arose
because the side walls were constructed independently
of each other were adjusted (compare the υπέρθυρον in
the Erectheum, AJA, 1906, 67). The soffit of the lintel
would then be 3.655 m. above the floor of the prodo-
mos (in the model this dimension is made 2.S9 m.), or
3.227 m. above the threshold (Plate I). On two
fragments of the jambs (in the magazine) the lotus ornament
is spaced 0.205 m. on axes; the widest fascia of the
threshold being perfectly plain, the ornament of the jambs
must have stopped just at their bottoms,' probably abruptly
on an axis of the ornament, as we shall observe in the
geison. The topmost lotus on the vertical fascias is 0.097
m. above the soffit of the lintel, so that a palmette axis
0.102 m. lower down would fall practically at the joint
between lintel and jamb. On the vertical fascias, the height
3.227+0.097 = 3.324 m. is correct for sixteen spacings
of 0.2077 m. each.
On the middle fascia of the lintel is' cut an
inscription (Fouilles, no. 197) which Mr. Homolle had restored
(BGH, 1896, 592):
[Δελφοί άπέδοσαν Κνιδίοις ταν προμ]αντηΐαν άρχοντος Άριστομαχο(υ)

[βουλευόντων ]
Dr. Pomtow rightly corrects the name to Σιφνίοις (BPW,

1909, 188). The verb is according to Homolle απέδοσαν or
άνενεώσαντο, while Pomtow gives άπέδωκαν; it would be
a renewal because according to them, the builders of
the treasury were so prominent that they must have had
the right of Promanteia before the date of this
inscription (252 B. 0. according to Homolle, about 350
according to Pomtow). It might be possible, however, to restore
the simple verb έδωκαν. In any case the restoration of
the inscription, by the spacing of the letters, must have
some relation to the spacing of the lotus-and-palmette
ornament (0.2235 m.) in the upper fascia. The length of
the inscribed second fascia is at present 1 .085 m.; above
this appear five palmettes, the first with its axis 0.049
m. from the end of the inscribed fascia. In the doorway as
restored in the Museum the length of the inscribed fascia
is made 1.905 m., allowing eight repeats of the ornament
between the axes of the outermost palmettes (1); but this
will give space for only sixteen letters beside those actually
preserved (2), so that neither line of the generally accepted
reading can be fitted, no matter what we restore as the
verb. The lintel must therefore have been much longer;
(1) 0.049 + 8x0.2259 + 0.049 = 1.905 m.

(2) The spacing on axes is 0.050 m. for ordinary letters, 0.035 m. on
either side of an I — except at the right end of the. inscription where
they are more crowded.
,
according to the length of the verb, we should require
in addition to the letters preserved:
32 letters (άνενεώσαντο, with τάν) ;
29 letters (άνενεώσαντο, omitting τάν ; or άπέδωκαν with
τάν) ;
27 letters (έδωκαν with tctv) ;
26 letters (άπέδωκαν without τάν);
24 letters (έδωκαν without tctv).
We must choose between the five lengths made possible
on epigraphical grounds, 2.565 m., 2.415 m., 2.315 m.,
2.265 m., or 2.165 m. (1). The spacing of the ornament,
making the inscribed fascia 2.557 m., 2.333 m., or 2.110
m. long according as we restore eleven, ten, or nine
repeats of the lotus-and-palmette ornament, will coincide
with the indications given by the inscription only when
the reading is άνενεώσαντο tctv, or, less perfectly,
έδωκαν tctv. And only with the former can we
obtain reasonable space in the second line for the names
of the bouleutai (Plate I). Of Mr. Homolle's readings I
therefore prefer
[Δελφοί άνενεώσαντο Σιφνίοις ταν προ] μάντη tav ά'ρχοντος Άρι-

στομάχο(υ)
[βουλευόντων ]μ«χου
The entire length of the lintel now becomes 3.67 m.

As is shown by the outward slope of the vertical fas-
cias in the lintel and the inward slope of those of the
threshold, the width of the doorway at the bottom must
have been somewhat greater than that at the top. The
edge of the second fascia (2.557 m. long in the lintel)
(1) With 32 letters, 1.085 + 24(0.050) + 8(0.035) = 2.565 m.

With 29 letters, 1.085 + 21(0.050) -f 8(0.035) = 2.415 m.
With 27 letters, 1.085 + 19(0.050) + 8(0.035) = 2.315 m.
With 26 letters, 1.085 + 18(0.050) + 8(0.035) =2.265 m.
With 24 letters, 1.085 + 16(0.050) -f 8(0.035) = 2. 165 in.
is preserved, with the axis between a pair of reels 0.058

m. outside it (Plate I a), so that between it and the
corresponding pair of reels on the other end of the
threshold, certainly symmetrically arranged, we must have
more than 0.058 + 2.557+0.058 = 2.673 m. The spacing
of the colossal bead-and-reel is 0.1913 mi; fourteen
repeats of this would give 2.678 m., allowing' no slope of
the jambs, while fifteen repeats give 2.869 m., which agrees
better with the requirements. The length of the second
fascia at the bottom must then be restored as 2.753 m.
long, 0.196 m. more than that at the top, so that the
inward slope of the second fascia was 0.098 m. in a
height of 3.486 m. The rate of the inward slope would
be 0.0281 m. for each meter of height.
The clear dimensions of the door opening are now,
3.227 m. for the height (threshold to lintel), 2.233 m. for
the width at the top (1), 2.410 m. for the width at the
bottom (2). Of course these proportions of the opening,
the height to width at the bottom as 4 to 3, seem absurd
from the standpoint of later Greek architects ; but to get
a ratio of nearly 2 to 1, as was attempted in the model
at Delphi, is absolutely impossible. The Siphnian
proportions appear in the door in the Thasian relief, and we
know that the door of the Massiliot Treasury was at least
2.00 m. wide in the clear.
Likewise in the Museum is a large piece of a geison (3)
which crowned a doorway (Magne, Parthenon, 79; Durm,
Baukunst*, 292); it is employed for the Siphnian («Cni-
dian») door in the restored model, and no one has since
(1) 2.557 m. width on second fascia; 0.167 m. width of two fascias

on each jamb to be subtracted; 0.010 m. to be added for inclination of
jambs.
(2j 2.753 m. width on second fascia; 0.107 m. width of two fascias
on each jamb to be subtracted; 0.010 m. to be subtracted for inward
inclination of jambs.
(3) Another small fragment is in the magazine.
disputed its identification (1). It has on the soffit the same
lotus-and-palmette ornament, the same bead-and-reel, that
we observe on the door lintel (Plate I c). The left end
is preserved ; it is cut off abruptly on the axis of a pal-
mette, but is not a joint surface to be continued by a
similar block. Instead, it is polished, and the peculiar
manner of letting the back of the stone into the wall
(compare the crowning member of the North Door of
the Erechtheum) shows that here we have the left end
of the geison. The original length of this geison, whether
of one or more blocks, becomes therefore of some
importance, and fortunately it can be ascertained. On the face,
the first rosette is centered 0.174 m. from the left end
of the geison; the second is 0.668 m. farther away. On
the soffit, the palmettes are spaced exactly 0.205 m. apart,
starting from the left end. It will be seen that the units
of spacing of the rosettes and of the palmettes have
nothing in common, except that both series must be
symmetrical about the central axis of the door; that is, their
mutual relations at the right end of the geison must be
the same as those actually preserved at the left end.
The model at Delphi and Mr. Tournaire's drawing
(Fouilles, II, pi. 11) both show five rosettes; but five rosettes
would give a geison 3.020 m. long, while the axial
spacing of the palmettes would give as the closest
approximation 3.075 m. Such a discrepancy can be removed
only when we restore six rosettes, which give a geison
length of 3.688 m. very nearly the 3.690 m. given by
eighteen repeats of the palmette. The two coincide as
nearly as could be possible when we start with the
measurement of the component units ; the nearest lengths to
this which will at all approximate coincidence are with
two rosettes (1.016 m. and 1.025 m.) and with ten
rosettes (6.355 m. and 6.360 m.), both equally impossible.
(1) Furtwangler once assigned it to the external cornice on the

façade of the treasury (BPW, 1894, 1276).
It so happens that this 3.69 m. is within 2 cm. of the
length of the lintel, which cannot be an accidental
coincidence. The length is not great enough to extend across
the prodomos from wall to wall (4.703 m.) (1), though such
an arrangement, combined with the proximity of the
projecting parastas capital, would account for the unfinished
rosette at the left end of the geison, as Prof. Heberdey
once suggested. Dr. Pomtow would see in the unfinished
rosette the result of the fall of the Lydian Empire, and,
attributing it to the Cnidian Treasury, dates the latter
about 546-541 B. C. (BPW, 1909, 189). It is probably
however merely an accidental omission. In the model in the
Museum the geison is restored as returning against the
wall ; it is more correctly shown by Mr. Tournaire
(Fouilles, II, pi. 11) as abruptly cut off.
The geison did not rest directly on the lintel; as in
the entablature of the exterior, a frieze intervened. The
entablature of the doorway was terminated on either
side by consoles, almost the first use of this feature (they
appear also on the doorway of the Thasian relief). The
roughened wall surface against which the consoles were
applied is preserved at one end of the Siphnian lintel-
Fragments of three pairs of consoles were found, two
of them very similar, probably Clazomenian and Massi-
liot, the third now assigned to the Siphnian Treasury
(Plate I) ; cf. Durm, Baukunst 3, 293, where they are
drawn out of proportion) (2). On the inner face of these
Siphnian consoles is preserved the outline of the
peculiarly moulded frieze restored in the model (cf. Durm,
(1) Width of foundation 6.127 m.

Beaded torus on each side 0.090x2 = 0.180 m.
Wall on each side 0.622x2 = 1.2i4 m.
Clear width of prodomos =4.703 m.
(2) Two pairs are of an early type^ resembling , the* consoles on the
Boston counterpart of the « Ludovisi throne» (Jahrbuch, 1911, 76, pi.
1); the Siphnian consoles represent a transition to the type employed
in the Erechtheum, with volutes at both top and bottom.
Baukunst5, 293), which appears from the traces on the
console to be at least 0.425 m. high. It seems difficult
to believe that this nondescript ribbed frieze, with
mouldings so decadent as to seem almost Byzantine, occurred
in a building which has otherwise only conventional
classic ornament. It is- more probable that here was some
elaborate floral decoration, and that the trace on the
console is merely fortuitous, the end of this decoration.
The consoles are 0.195 m. wide; their tops align with
the top of the frieze, to which they were bound by clamps,
forming a bed 3.33' m. long for the course above, so that
the geisa projected on either side of the consoles 1/2 (3.69-
3. 33) = 0.18 m. The back of the bead of the geison was
0.155 m. forward from the wall; this entire distance would
be exactly taken up by the projection of the top of the
console from the wall, allowing no space for a bed
moulding (Plate I). Probably Mr. Tournaire is correct in
omitting such a bed moulding (Fouilles, II, pi. 11);
that restored in the model at Delphi is made up of
fragments of a leaf-and-dart from Marmaria. Both the
crowning moulding of the lintel and the bed moulding of the
geison may have been worked into the floral decoration
of the frieze. The back of the console is treated to abut
against the wall for 0.679 m. below its top; at least 0. 12
m. of this distance was on the lintel, as is shown by rough
tooling on either side of the door enframement. We should
then have a frieze 0.679-0. 120 = 0.559 m. high, and geisa
0.167 m. high, total 0.726 m. The top of the geisa would
then come within 0.033 m. of a course line, that of the
top of the epistyle ; it seems best therefore to drop
geison and console slightly, making the frieze only 0.526
m. high and the back of the console come 0.033 m. lower
than the vague roughening on the lintel.
A fragment which, like the Massiliot and Siphnian
thresholds, resembles an inverted Ionic epistyle, clearly
belongs to this series of treasuries, and may by elimi-
nation, be assigned to that of the Clazomenians ; the

technique proves that it is not Cnidian. It now lies near
the Syracusan foundation. As in the other examples, we
have here three fascias and an astragal at the bottom;
but the widths of the fascias increase in the reverse of
the usual direction, OsOGl m., 0. 105 m.,'and 0.170 m. from
bottom to top. The height of this threshold is 0.391 m.,
the thickness of the cross wall 0.513 m.
Epistyle. — In the Cnidian technique, with the Cnidian
beaded astragal, is an angle block of an epistyle lying
near the Helleniko south-west of the Siphnian
foundation. It is 0.447 m. high, the crowning bead 0.053 m.
high and spaced 0.0525 m. ; the short return on the left
is completely preserved to a joint 0.601 m. from the
corner. This block must have come from a rear corner
of the building, since it is roughly cut behind and is
only 0.33 m. to 0.35 m. thick, so that it required an anti-
thema ; such could not be the case with the epistyle from
the façade. No moulding in the Cnidian technique is
preserved which could have crowned this epistyle.
Very similar in appearance are the remains of an
epistyle crowned with the globular bead and treated at
joints and beds in the Siphnian manner. This is the type
employed in the model in the Museum. The height is
0.418 m., somewhat less than that of the Cnidians,
following the general chronological law of the gradual
decrease in height of the entablature. The end of the epi.
style of the façade exhibited in the Museum (Durm, Ban-
kunst9, 332), has an anathyrosis for a wall epistyle 0.620
m. wide, which corresponds well to the 0.622 m.
measured on the Siphnian parastades ; the jointing is not
mitred and requires a solid wall, not an isolated
support, at either side, so that Prof. Heberdey's prostyle
arrangement of the Caryatides is impossible. The soffit
of the epistyle of the façade is reduced in width to 0.570
m. that it may not seem to overburden the Caryatides;
the epistyle is wrongly restored in the model with a

soffit of 0.49 m. (figure 10). The right end of the epistyle
of the façade now lies in a depot of stones south-west
of the precinct; it is split in halves. Both these pieces
show that the two front corners of the treasury had, on
each face of the epistyle, a rosette;, the two rear corners
were without these, as appears from an angle block in
the Museum. The end of a block which rested on the
head of one of the Caryatides lies now on the Sicyo-
nian foundation, another in front .of the Museum. The
wall epistyle, unlike the arrangement in the Cnidian
Treasury, was little more than half the height of that
on the façade (Homolle, BGH, 1896, 586); several pieces
of this, 0.293 m. high, may be identified, some on the
Siphnian foundation, and one angle piece in the Museum.
They are all facing blocks, about 0.30 m. from front to
rough back, and required antithemata.
The difference in height between the epistyle on the
façade and that on the walls of the Siphnian Treasury
called for some adjustment where the two systems met,
above the parastades. The normal epistyle, 0.418 m. high,
aligns with the wall epistyle (0.293 m.) and with the
upper part of the 0.400 m. course next below, leaving
a surplus of 0.275 m. which appeared as a low block
at the top of each parastas. On this the parastas
capital must have been carved, and in fact, if we suppose
the capital to have occupied the entire height of the block,
it will be just so much larger than that of the Massi-
liots (0.258 m. for the moulded part) as the increased
scale of the Siphnian Treasury requires.
The use of the bead crowning the epistyle implies that
another moulded course came next above; since all the
surviving types of leaf-and-dart which may be assigned
to this group of treasuries have the beaded astragal cut
on the same stone, we are reduced to the egg-and-dart,
which in all preserved examples is cut without the bead.
,- ■-- r r ·— ψτύιΑ·,,. '· ·.— — ο, Λ·s Jjri— — fs

ι
■
'
Various Arrar?Qen?ei?l5
of Frieze &-Epi*'yIe
Figure 10. Section through the Siphnian Entablature.

The spacing of the bead on the top of the Siphnian

epistyle is Ο.Ο7Ο-Ο.Ο72 m.; exactly double this spacing is to
be found in an egg-and-dart 0. 179 m. high, of Siphnian
workmanship, correctly assigned to this epistyle in the
Museum model (1). Many pieces of this exist, in the
Museum, before the Museum, and scattered about the
excavations. Homolle (Rev. de VArt, X, 1901, 372) and Poul-
sen (Bull. Acad. Dan., 1908, 355) note that pieces of an
egg-and-dart (belonging to the Massiliot Treasury) were
found at Marmaria. These I have not happened to
distinguish, except so far as to note that a small angle
fragment in the magazine of the Museum, with a more
elaborate treatment than appears on the angle of this
course in the Siphnian Treasury, should probably be
assigned to Marmaria. Various other pieces of egg-and-
dart of this .same scale (0.188 m. high) but with rather
pointed eggs, and with H clamps, are probably to be
assigned to the Alcmaeonid temple of Apollo. Of
fragments which could belong to the Cnidian or Clazome-
nian treasuries I have seen no trace.
The epistyles of these treasuries differ from the usual
Ionic order in lacking the division into separate fascias.
A similar treatment is to be found in the Ionic temple
of the Ilissus (Stuart and Revett, I, chap. ii. pi. 3-6) and
in the cella of the temple at Bassae (Cockerell, Bassae,
pi. 11 to 14), both rather early examples of the order
as employed with the frieze. I suggest therefore that
the omission of the fascias of the epistyle may be due to
the first introduction of the frieze in Ionic architecture.
Frieze. — Two small fragments (2) of the Cnidian
technique, one from an angle, have a beaded astragal at
(1) Cf. BGH, 1897, 303; Courby goes at length into the question of
this moulding, RA, 1911, 208-209.
(2) Both were found in the mass of Cnidian fragments east of the
Roman court before the entrance to the precinct. The angle piece now
lies west of the Potidaean Treasury.
their tops, with the repeats spaced 0.062 m. These

cannot therefore be assigned to the epistyle, on which the
spacing is a centimeter less ; they seem to be the only
survivors of the frieze, the earliest example of the Ionic
frieze known to us. Apart from the astragal, the surface
was perfectly blank ; the remarkable sculptures with
which the Cnidians have been credited since 1896 do not
seem therefore, if we can trust this slight architectural
evidence, to find a place in their treasury (1).
In the Massiliot Treasury at Marmaria, on the contrary,
a sculptured frieze certainly existed. Many small
fragments of its sculptures were found and have been briefly
mentioned by Homolle (Rev. de l'Art, X, 1901, 371-372)
and Poulsen (Bull. Acad. Dan. 1908, 355). Besides these
we shall find that two other pieces (attributed to the
«Cnidian» Treasury) belong to the Massiliot frieze, those
shown in Fouilles, IV, pi. 9-10, lower left, upper
fragment; lower right, lower fragment. Here too I place a
small fragment in the Museum (inv. no. 93) with the
background 0.11 m. thick and with traces of the
characteristic Massiliot plinth, 0.045-0.05 m. high, at the
bottom; the subject, probably a male figure driving oxen,
reminds one of the «Sicyonian» metope with the Dioscuri
and the sons of Aphareus. A similar subject appears in
the puzzling fragment with the necks of oxen (inv. no.
3771) illustrated in AM, 1909, pi. 5, 5. The thickness of the
background is here only 0.06 m., but it may
nevertheless belong to the Massiliot frieze. The height of the frieze
is unknown; the thickness was generally 0.125-0.13 m. ;
it had at the bottom a projecting plinth 0.0450.05 m.
high.
Of a third frieze, the famous «Cnidian» frieze, we pos-
(1) While giving the sculptured frieze in the main to the Siphnians,
Pomtow and Bulle have recently (BPW, 1911, 1613) ascribed to the
Cnidians some fragments which are really from the Siphnian and
Massiliot friezes.
BULL. DE CORRESP. HELLÉNIQUE, XXXVII 5
G6 STUDIES OP THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES
sess twelve large pieces and a great number of
fragments. The problem has long been whether we should
call the frieze Siphnian or Cnidian. Recently the matter
has been somewhat complicated by Prof. Heberdey's
attempt to divide the frieze and give a portion to each
of these two treasuries (AM, 1909, 145-1GG). But any
method of breaking up a frieze which is so obviously a
unit, with a uniform height 0.G40 m. (except two slabs
which increase from 0.G40 m. to 0.G80 m. with a
regular curvature), uniform in all its other dimensions and
in its technique, presents at once insurmountable
difficulties which Prof. Heberdey has not overcome. The
differences are only such as might naturally occur in the
work of two separate sculptors working on the same
composition. It can be conclusively shown that the wiiole
belongs to one building (cf. Part III) (I). As for the older
question, whether it is Cnidian or Siphnian, wo have
already found a blank Cnidian frieze which supplants
the claims of the sculptured slabs; the latter show the
treatment of beds and joints seen in the Siphnian
Treasury, and on them appear the marks of the toothed chisel,
which is absolutely unknown in Cnidian work. The tops
of the frieze slabs fit, piece by piece, the blocks of tho
Siphnian cornice; the bottoms showed traces of the eggs
(BCH, 1897,- 303) which crowned the Siphnian epistyle.
The Siphnian frieze is treated in a manner analogous
to the earliest sculptured Doric metopes, such as the first
and second series at Selinus. The entire scene is enclosed
within a rectangular frame which projects practically to
the outermost plane of the sculpture; only along the top
is it omitted and its place taken by the frieze crown.
The background is not, as ordinarily, the main line; here
it is the frieze frame, strongly marked at the corners of
the building, and the sculpture is sunk within it. Such
(1) Such is the result also of the recent studies by F. Courby (RA,
1911, 197-220), and Pomtow (BPW, 1911, 1G12).
a treatment is not uncommon in Asia Minor, as in the

Harpy Tomb and the Nereid Monument at Xanthus, and
the Heroum at Gjolbaschi-Trysa; and a beautiful example
of it is the parapet around the temple of Athena Nike
at Athens.
The details of the connection of the frieze with the
epistyle have caused some little discussion. On the
model in the Museum, the width of the façade, measured
on the walls, is G.020 m., and on the frieze it is G.272
m.; the frieze, as there restored, projects 0.1 2G m. beyond
the epistyle, which is flush with the wall, and so almost
3 cm. beyond the egg-and-dart crowning the epistyle
(see dotted profile in figure 10). Prof. Heberdey assumes
that the frieze should be flush with the epistyle, and that
the great projection in the model is due to an attempt
to unite a wrongly identified tympanum and the
foundation (AM, 1909, 147). We shall find that there has been
no mistake in the identification of the Siphnian
tympanum ; and in the face of numerous examples to the
contrary (cf. the temple at Messa, Koldewey, lnsel Lesbos,
pi. 21), one can hardly assume that the face of the frieze
(by which Prof. Heberdey means the frieze frame, as is
shown by his measurements, and not the background)
must have been flush with the epistyle, so that the lower
part of the sculpture would have been hidden by the
projecting egg-and-dart. The Siphnian foundation being
G.127 m. wide, and the wall base, projecting 0.090 m.,
flush with it (figure 3), we obtain the width over the
walls, and therefore on the epistyle, as 5.947 m. Again,
in Part III we shall find that the width of the façade
measured on the geison was G.8O7 m. ; the projection of
the geison beyond the bottom of the frieze crown, which
coincides with the top of the frieze frame, was 0.350 m.
(cf. pages following, also AM, 1909, 147). The frieze leans
outward 0.012 m., so that the width at the bottom, on
the façade, I obtain as G.083 m., with a projection of
0.068 m. on each side beyond the epistyle, though 0.030
m. inside the epistyle crown. This brings the
background of the frieze, which is 0.069 m. behind the frieze
frame, exactly flush with the epistyle (figure 10) (1).
Frieze Crown. — Above a portion of the Siphnian frieze
now exhibited in the Museum are set several flat slabs,
0.206 m. high, carved on the face with the bead-and-
reel and the leafand-dart, with a spacing much like that
of the egg-anddart below the figures (figure 11) (2). This
is the frieze crown which appears in all restorations of
the «Cnidian» Treasury. The identification is correct, as
appears for instance on a slab where the beaded
astragal is cut out in segments of circles to receive the crests
of the helmets of three warriors in the frieze below ; part
of one bronze crest still remains in the cutting. This slab
of leaf-and-dart has been therefore replaced, not merely
above the frieze, but exactly in its original position above
the combat over the body of a fallen warrior (cf. Homolle,
Journal RIB A, 1904, 34). These pieces show the typical
Siphnian technique, and the spherical bead; the repeats
of the ornament are in general spaced 0.1407 in.; the
joints always come on the axes of leaves or darts (3).
(1) Courby (RA, 1911, 209) defends the Museum restoration and
even increases the projection of the plinth beyond the egg and-dart,
from 0.03 m. to 0.042 m., because of an incised «setting line» on the
bottom of a slab of the Gigantomachy. I may note that on the slab
with the altar (Fouilles, IV, pi. 9-10, 1) there is a «setting line» as much
as 0.057 m. back from the edge of the plinth. I do not believe that
either, however, is connected with the process of setting the frieze
blocks on the then uncut egg moulding. The interesting detail of the
hole pierced for water in the plinth (RA, 1911, 209, fig. 2) does not
seem to require such a projection; it would better deliver the water
at a point hidden in the depths of the carved egg-and-dart.
(2) The angle treatment of this moulding was more complex than
that restored in the model, as is shown by the top of a corner now
in the magazine of the Museum.
(3) In the magazine of the Museum is a fragment of a leaf-and-dart,
similar in style to that of the Siphnian Treasury, but somewhat
smaller (0.126 m. in spacing) though the height of the beaded astragal,
STUDIES OP THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES G9
At Marmaria, as noted by Homolle and Poulsen, were
found many pieces of leaf-and-dart which evidently
ts
Cr)ldu5 ψ,
Figure 11. Frieze Crowns.
crowned the frieze of the Massiliot Treasury. My

identification of these pieces depends on the analogy of the parastas
0.052 m. is practically the same. The piece is split horizontally; only

the bottom is preserved so that the total height is unknown (I
estimate 0.195 m.). The fragment comes from a corner, and on the return,
strange to say, the design is less elaborate, with simple mid-ribs such
as appear in the Massiliot frieze crown. Because of this peculiarity, I
once assigned this to the Siphnian doorway, but the preserved amount
of the sketchy return, 0.190 m., is too great to fit either the geison
or the console of the doorway.
capital. In front of the Museum are two pieces (one is

inv. no. 4624), in the magazine another, which differ from
all the Siphnian fragments in being only 0.195 m. high,
with a spacing of 0.1195 m. In the Siphnian frieze crown
the leaves are never less than 0.020 m. apart, and their
wide midribs are formed by an astragal backed against
a fillet. But in these three pieces, just as in the parastas
capital from Marmaria, the leaves actually come into
contact, and the midribs are formed by simple narrow
flat fillets. The joints of the Massiliot frieze crown show-
no regard for the spacing of the ornament, and were
therefore carved in situ.
A third type of leaf-and-dart, in technique exactly like
the Clazomenian wall base, is to be attributed to Clazo-
menae. Of this again I have seen but few pieces, two
exhibited in the Museum and one in the magazine. They
are 0.201 m. high, and the repeats are spaced 0.124 m.,
so that the scale is, as would be expected, slightly
larger than at Marmaria. These are more like the Siphnian
type, though the leaves are only 0.012 m. apart and the
background begins to curve outward from the very
bottom of the moulding instead of from the top of the bead.
To a corresponding position in the Cnidian Treasury
must be assigned the fragments of a course 0.231 m.
high, decorated with a very archaic egg-and-dart,
crowned with an overhanging abacus (figure 11). Its joint and
bed surfaces are treated in the Cnidian technique, with
the typical clamps and dowels. Some of these pieces are
exhibited in the Museum, among the members attributed
to the Siphnian Treasury (cf. BCH, 1900, 603); Furtwân-
gler thought that it should be inserted between the
Siphnian frieze and the leaf-and-dart (BPW, 1894, 1276), while
Mr. Homolle placed it on the socle of the «Siphnian»
Treasury (BCH, 1898, 603-604). In profile the eggs show an
inward curve at both top and bottom, and they hang
0.007 m. below the bed. The narrow smoothed band on
the lower bed surface is wider than usual, 0.035 m., while
on the top it is only 0.025 m. wide; therefore whatever
came above was either flush with the face of the abacus,
which seems improbable, or projected beyond it. The
latter alternative is favored by the position of the τ
dowels, which are very close to the face of the abacus
(centered about 0.065 m. distant). This must be therefore
the bed moulding of the geison ; a similar profile was
used in the same position in the Croesus temple at Ephe-
sus (British Museum Excavations at Ephesus, atlas, pi.
10, 15). The spacing of the eggs varies from 0.1235 to
0.127 m., exactly twice that of the bead on the top of
the Cnidian frieze.
Geison. — Dr. Pomtow proposes that, because in the
ornament of the Siphnian door enframement the palmettos
are broad, the type with the narrow palmettes, appearing
on certain fragments of geisa, should be identified as
Cnidian (BGH, 1909, 188). The geisa to which he refers,
however, come from the Massiliot Treasury. I have seen
no fragments which could be attributed to Cnidus.
At Marmaria, and even in the precinct of Apollo, were
found many fragments of richly decorated geisa, with
the alternating lotus-and-palmette in the soffit, belonging
to the Massiliot Treasury. The beaded astragal is set up
into the undercut soffit, so that the lowest point of its
circumference is flush with the bed of the geison. We
find three types all with, the above characteristics and
with the same projection 0.204 m. from the edge of the bed:
1) the lotus has a calyx, the upper surface slopes, and
the height of the face is 0.157 m. ; this was the geison
from the flanks.
2) the between
height' lotus as beds
before,
andthe
of upper
the faceside
0.157
horizontal,
m. ; this was
the
placed at the ends of the building, forming the pediment

floor.
3) the lotus has no calyx, the upper surface is parallel
to the lower bed, the height of the face is 0.143 nr; this
was the raking geison of the pediment, as identified by
a fragment of the apex in the magazine of the Museum.
The spacing of the repeats of the ornament is 0.180 m.,
so that the spacing of the beaded astragal is 0.060 m.,
exactly the same as that of the beaded astragal which
crowned the Massiliot frieze.
Almost exatcly like the geison crowning the door of
the Siphnian Treasury are the numerous fragments of
what have always been regarded as the main geison of
that building (shown in Perrot and Chipiez, VII, 649 ;
Journal RIB A, 1(JO4, 33; Durm, Baukunst*, 332). The
larger pieces were all found near the Siphnian
foundation; this fact, the technique, and the exact reproduction
of the door ornament, all indicate that they are Siphnian.
The rosettes which appear on the face of the door geison
are here omitted. In the lotus-and-palmette ornament of
the soffit the lotus is always sheathed, and the beaded
astragal projects below the bed for a full radius. There
are three varieties;
1) that from the flanks of the building, with sloping top
and cuttings for rafters and eaves simas, the face 0.173
m. high, the projection 0.281 m.
2) that which formed the pediment floor, with horizontal
top and no trace of the roofing, 0.128 to 0.134 m. high
between beds, the face 0.173 m., the projection 0.281 m.
3) the raking geison of the pediment, of exactly the same
type, but 0.122 to 0.128 m. high between beds, the face
0.144 m., the projection 0.301 m.; identified by a bevelled
piece for a lower angle of the pediment, in the Museum.
Tympanum. — On the tops of the geisa which formed
the floor of the pediment is a slight rise of the surfaco
0.06 m. from the face; outside, this surface is much
weathered, while inside the rise it formed a bed for the
tympanum and was entirely protected. Now the endmost
blocks of the pediment floor, the angle geisa, have the
extreme end of the raking geisa cut on the same block to
avoid a feather edge; these pieces show that the raking
geisa did not extend forward flush with the horizontal
geisa, as in later times, but were set back 0.024 m. (the
same is true, for instance, of the Athenian Treasury, where
the setback is 0.013 m.). From the front of the soffit of
the raking geison back to the beginning of the bed which
rested on the top of the tympanum is 0.295 m. The top
of the tympanum was therefore 0.295+0.024 = 0.319 m.
inside the edge of the pediment floor; the foot of the
tympanum was, according to the weathering, only 0.060 m.
inside, seemingly a discrepancy of 0.259 m. But it so
happens that in the only completely preserved tympanum
which can be assigned to this series of treasuries (Fouilles,
IV, pi. 16-17, 1) a plinth at the bottom, on which the figures
stand, extends forward exactly 0.260 m. from the top
of the tympanum (figure 10). A better fit would be
impossible ; but it is more than a question of mere fitting. In
spite of the archaic style of the sculpture, the treatment
has absolutely nothing Cnidian about it ; the background
is tooth-chiselled and, while I could not examine the lower
bed, a fragment of the right end block of the other
tympanum, now in the depot north-east of the Museum, shows
the Siphnian treatment with the broad smooth bearing
surface at the edge. It therefore appears that this archaic
tympanum must belong, to the same building as does the
Siphnian frieze, and that in this respect the model is
correctly restored. To the other tympanum of the Siphnian
Treasury may be assigned some of the fragments of
sculpture in the Museum, and the piece of an angle block
northeast of the Museum.^*
The complete Siphnian tympanum is composed of three
pieces, a central block (κορυφαίος) 1.641 m. long, and on
either side a κερκιδιαΐος, at present 1.60-1.64 m. long, the
extreme ends having been broken off; the total length is
then 4.88 m. But from the height measured at the center,
0,735 m., and the slope which I obtain as 1 : 3.934, at an

angle of 14° 15'40"(l), it appears that the total length
must have been 2x2.895 = 5.79 m. (2). The raking geison
may be taken as 0.125 m. high between beds (3), the
average of those measured (0. 122 m. to 0. 128 m.) which would
add 0.505 m. at each end of the tympanum, making the
total width of the building, measured on the horizontal
geison, 6.80 m. In Part III we shall obtain for this
dimension, 6.807 m. This exactly fits the width of the
foundation, as I have shown in the discussion of the location of
the frieze.
Among tfre fragments of wall blocks of the Cnidian
Treasury east of the Roman forecourt is one piece of an
orthostate 0.175 m. thick, with neither end preserved; it
is treated in the usual manner, except that its top slopes,
so that the height in the part preserved varies from 0.38
to 0.42 m. Another piece recently placed in the Museum
has a thickness of only 0. 15 m. and shows the upper
corner of a slab, with vertical joint and sloping top. These
are obviously from the tympanum of the Cnidian
Treasury, facing blocks which were backed by rough antithe-
mata; the slope as measured in one was 14° 24'. They are
important as proving that the Cnidian pediments, like the
frieze, were absolutely devoid of sculpture, unless it stood
free of the background, which seems impossible at such
an early date; there are no signs of attachment of figures,
and the t}^mpanum had no plinth at its base, like that of
the Siphnians.
(1) Central block 1.641 in. long; height at center 0.735 m., at left end
0.530 m. and at right end 0.524 m.; average height at ends 0.527 m.,
slope 0.735-527 = 0.208 m. in 1/2x1.641 =0.8205 m.
(2) Calculated by Mr. Homolle as 5.78 m. (BCH, 1896, 588), and this
result used by Prof. Heberdey (AM, 1909, 147).
(3) Prof. Hebérdey made this geison height, in his calculation, 0.17 m.;
he evidently measured the nosing of the horizontal geison, 0.173 m.
high. The width of the treasury on the horizontal geison then became
5.78+(2x0.66) = 7.10 m., too much for the foundation (AM, 1909, 147).
STUDIES OF THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES ' 75
From a third tympanum comes a small fragment

exhibited in the Museum and attributed to the Siphnian Treasury
(BCH, 1900, 601). It represents, in high relief, a lioness
bounding across the body of some slender animal which
she has thrown to the ground. The piece cannot be
Siphnian, because of its thinness and the lack of the plinth
at the bottom. Its technique, with raised edge bands on
the lower bed, and the presence of sculpture, show that
it is not Cnidian. I* measure the slope as 13° 40'. If it
belongs to any of the Ionic treasuries, it must be that of
Marmaria or Clazomenae, probably the former, since we
know that this had a sculptured frieze.
Sima. — We noted that on the tops of the flank geisa
of the Siphnian Treasury are two sorts of cuttings, besides
those for clamps; those were for rafters and for eaves
simas. The cuttings for the rafters are of the. peculiar
dove-tail form such as exist at Bassae; they are spaced
0.460 m. on centers, and are about 0.12 m. wide.
Alternating with these are slots about 0.23 m. long for the
reception of tongues on the bottoms of the eaves simas. For
the identification of the latter we have therefore two clues,
the length 0.460 m. and the use of tongues. Many such
pieces exist (Journal RIBA, 1904, 33; Fouilles, IV, pi. 10-
17, 3), and in the reconstructed model in the Museum they
have been placed correctly on the Siphnian geisa (figure
10). The reconsideration of this question is necessary only
because Prof. Heberdey has said (AM, 1909, 147, 165) that
this sima, with the double upright and reversed palmette-
and-lotus, belongs with the «archaic» tympanum and not
with the Siphnian geisa. We have seen however that not
only do the geisa in question fit the tympanum but that
the simas fit the geisa, so that all three belong together.
The only seemingly incongruous fact is that at the lower
angles of the pediment sima a walking lion replaces the
lotus- and -palmette (Journal RIB A, 1904, 33; Fouilles, IV,
pi. 16-17, 2), and this lion has been interpreted as a repre-
76 " STUDIES OF THE DELPHIAN TREASURIES
sentation of the lion of Cnidus, the emblem of the Trio-

pian Apollo (BCH, 1896, 599). While some of the flank
simas are preserved to their complete length, of the raking
simas we have only fragments. An apex sima, with the
acroterion base, is exhibited in the Museum (cf. Journal
RIB A, 1904,33); I found in the magazine a fragment which
adjoined it. Mr. Homolle notes the finding of flat roof
tiles 0.46 m. wide and 0.713 m. long (BCH, 1896, 589),
which agree perfectly with the Siphnian eaves simas and
so give the lengths of the raking simas as 0.713 m.
At Marmaria were found many pieces of flank sima
with a single lotus- and -palmette, which were immediately
assigned to the Ionic treasury in the precinct of Athena
(Homolle, Revue de Γ Art, X, 1901, 372; Perrot and
Chipiez, VIII, 391). The length of complete pieces is 0.568 m.;
each has a lion's head in the center, and the ornament is
enframed by fillets above and below. Mr. Homolle
attributed some fragments of sima of another type, decorated
likewise with the lotus -and -palmette but with a wider
spacing (0.0925 m. instead of 0.0865 m.) and with an
additional hawk's beak moulding above, and an astragal
instead of a fillet at the bottom, to the Siphnian Treasury
(BCH, 1900, 602, 603). Mr. Tournaire assigned this variety
to the Athenian Treasury (Fouilles, II, pi. 13). Now it so
happens that a piece of this second type (exhibited in the
Museum, * Siphnian» section, top shelf), from the right
end of a pediment, the lowest raking block, has on its
return a different profile, the identical profile of the eaves
sima found at Marmaria. The height of both types is the
same, 0.221 m., and the workmanship in all is similar to
that of the Massiliot geisa. Thus the raking and horizontal
simas differed just as did the raking and horizontal geisa
of the Massiliot Treasury. This piece of raking sima from
the right end of the pediment is cut with an acroterion
base; a small fragment from the left end of the pediment,
also with an acroterion base, is now in the magazine of
frag-'
the Museum. Likewise in the magazine is a small
ment from the apex of this pediment showing that here
the sima was not cut as a saddle (as in the Siphnian
Treasury) but had a vertical joint; such a joint demands a»
apex geison cut as a saddle, and we noted that for the
Massiliot Treasury such a saddle geison exists. This bit
of apex sima has no acroterion base; the joint between
the two flat tiles meeting at the ridge of the roof was
protected by a cover tile.
There are in the magazine of the Museum two small
fragments of another sima of the same type. One is from
the lower angle of a pediment, with the lotus (instead of
the palmette, as at Marmaria) coming at the angle. They
have at the bottom an additional moulding, a beaded
astragal, so that they cannot be either Massiliot or
Siphnian, and the use of the globular bead forbids us to
consider them Cnidian. By elimination I should therefore
assign them to the Clazomenian Treasury. Of the Cnidian
sima I have been able to identify no remains.
Acroteria. — The extant simas of the Siphnian
Treasury show that not only the lower angles, but also the
apex of each pediment, supported acroteria. The cutting
for the figure inserted in the central acroterion base runs
diagonally across the block, about 0.45 m. long and 0.19
m. wide (1). Of two running -flying Victories, the lower
parts of which were found (inv. nos. 1553 and 2104;
Fouilles, IV, pi. 16-17, 4 and 5) (2), one will fit the cutting on
(1) Mr. Homolle remarked that it seemed to indicate a seated

animal (BCH, 1896, 589), and in the model a seated sphinx, facing to the
front, was restored. The latter however does not fit the cutting, nor
is it probable that any animal would be set at an angle of 45° to the
façade.
(2) These appear in the model at the lower angles of the gable (cf.
Fouilles, II, pi. 11), and were so placed because they balance each
other in motive. For this reason Mr. Homolle assigned the Nike of
the temple of Apollo at Delphi (BCH, 1901, pL 16) to one of the
lower angles of the east pediment (BCH, 1896, 652, and 1901, 496), and
the base, both as regards the width of. the plinth (0.17 m.)
and its diagonal direction. It seems therefore best to place
these above the centers of the pediments, one at each
end of the building just as was the Gorgon of the Heka-
Figure 12. Model in the Museum at Delphi.
tompedon at Athens (Schrader, Archawche Marmor-

Skulpturen, 1909, 5-10); and probably the many acroteria
of the archaic Victory type occupied analogous positions
on other buildings (1). And just as in the Hekatompedon,
Mr. Schmidt likewise places the Nike of Delos in a similar position

(Mûnchener Arch. Studien, 1909, 336).
(1) Terracotta:
Olj'mpia, Ergebnisse, III, pi. 8, 3; text III, 40.
we must restore animals at the lower angles. Portions of
two seated sphinxes were found (inv. nos. 3392 and?;
Fouilles, IV, pi. 16-17, G and 6 a) and one has been placed at the
apex in the restored model. These would have been set
in profile at the lower angles of the gables, as were the
griffins at Aegina (Furtwângler, Aegina, pi. 33). This
arrangement has the advantage of placing the larger acro-
terion in the center (figure 13). To the Massiliot Treasury
has been assigned a flying Victory (shown by Perrot and
Chipiez, VIII, 391) which was found at Marmaria (Revue
de l'Art, Χ, 1901, 372; Bull. Acad. Dan. 1908, 355). There
was however no base for such an acroterion at the apex
of the pediment, as we learn from the fragments of the
sima ; and the bases at the lower angles have no cuttings
for sculpture and seem to have been intended merely to
buttress the sima tiles above. I have therefore
represented the Massiliot Treasury in figure 13 as without acrote-
ria. The Victory from Marmaria must either receive a
place in the frieze or tympanum sculptures, or be
attributed to another of the structures near which it was
discovered (the Doric votive chapel ?).
Delphi, first temple of Athena (cf. Rev. de l'Art, Χ, 1901, 374; Hull.
Aead. Danemark, 1908, 343; BCH, 1910, 212.
Corinth, fragments in Museum.
, Pagasae, fragments in Museum at Volo.
Marble:
Delos, old temple of Artemis (?); BCH, 1901, 49G n. 1; Loeschcko,
in JÔAI, 1-899, 201; Schmidt, Mùnchener Arch. Studien, 33G.
Delphi, Alcmaeonid temple of Apollo; BCH, 1896, 052; 1901, 491 f.,.
pi. 16.
Delphi, fragment from Marmaria, Perrot and Chipiez, VIII, 391.
Athens, Acropolis Museum; four comparatively well preserved
figures ( A) Kastriotis 690; Bruckmann-Arndt pi. 526; B) Kastriotis
691; Studniczka, Siegèsgottin, fig. 8; Έφ. 'Αρχ. 1888,89-90; C)
Kastriotis 693; Έφ. 'Αρχ. 1888, 9J-92; D) Kastriotis 694; Bruckmann-
Arndt pi. 526) and several fragments of other figures (AM, 1886,
pi. 11, Β 1-2; AM, 1891, 182184, nos. D, E, F; Schrader, Marmor-
Skulpturen, 1909, 10, inv. 3837-3838, 3799-3800) are more probably
to be interpreted as votive statues.
Conclusion. — We have found that the model of the
«Cnidian Treasury» in the Museum (figure 12) is made up
of portions of three treasuries. The course with the
dedication inscription (here placed below the stylobate) alone
is Cnidian; the parastas capitals, the walls, and the
moulding below the geison of the doorway are Massiliot; and
all the rest is Siphnian, though in several cases altered.
The walls should be 0.16 m. higher and 0.13 m. thicker,
greatly improving the proportions of the parastades; and
the same increase in height should appear in the
Caryatides. The beaded torus should be placed one course higher
and returned across the interior of the prodomos, and
with this is to be associated one of the socalled door
lintels, turned upside down and used as a threshold. The
door should be both higher and wider than it has been
And'
restored, in fact, abnormally wide. the acroteria
above the pediment should be interchanged.
The Cnidian Treasury, in spite of its modern fame, was
extremely severe and devoid of sculpture, except that
Caryatides were used here probably for the first time,
κόραι from the Cnidian sanctuary of Demeter and Kore (1).
Of this treasury we possess besides the foundations,
several pieces of the wall base and of the walls themselves,
of the doorway, and of the Caryatides; still unknown are
the height of a plain marble course below the stylobate,'
the width of the doorway, the form of the parastas
capitals, the profile of the epistyle crowning moulding and
the height of the frieze, and the forms of the geison and
sima. Of the two Aeolic treasuries, that of Clazomenae
was destroyed so early, and its remains are so
insignificant, that for its restoration we must rely almost wholly
on the Massiliot Treasury, and it is therefore omitted in
the comparative sketch, figure 13. I have seen nothing
(1) Compare later figurines such as that t-hown by Newton, History
of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus, etc. pi. 57. >
BULL. CORRESP. HELLÉNIQUE,' XXXVII < ' 6
that could be called Clazomenian except a wall base, the
base, shaft, and capital of a column, the crowning
moulding of a frieze, and a possible sima ; a fragment noted
by Mr. Hill may perhaps be the threshold of the doorway.
For a restoration, on paper, of the Massiliot Treasury
nothing is lacking except the upper member (a torus) of
the column bases, the clear width and height of the
doorway, and the heights of the epistyle and frieze. The Siph-
nian Treasury, however, might almost be reconstructed
with the original stones; we miss not the slightest detail
except the capitals of the parastades and the frieze of the
doorway. In figure 13, with the three better preserved
treasuries placed side by side, we may observe the change
of proportions, the gradual increase in height, until we
reach the Siphnian Treasury, the best proportioned and
most finished'of them all; in spite of sham construction
in the invisible parts, it well deserved the praise of
Herodotus, δμοια τοΐσι πλουσιωτάτοισι (1).
American School, Athens.
W. B. DINSMOOR
ADDITIONAL NOTE
After the printing of Parts I and II, Dr. Pom tow's article on clamp
forms in Delphi (BPW, 1912, 636-640) came to hand, and seems to
call for some comment. The dove-tail clamps were never of iron, as
Fiechter suggests, nor of wood, as Pomtow says was the case when
the circular borings («Dornen»; cf. Part II, fig. 1) were omitted;
dovetail clamps of the Greek period in Delphi were always of lead, as is
attested even by. the Siphnian foundation which Pomtow cites as the
chief example of clamping with wood; iron was used only when the
bored holes were present, and then in the form of η hook clamps (cf.
p. 9 above). In the table of buildings with dovetail clamps (I. c. 637),
it appears that this form has now been correctly recognized in the
«Sicyonian prostylos» or early Syracusan Treasury (ei.BGH, 1912, 468
(1) f or purposes of comparison, figures 12 and 13 are reproduced
at approximately the same scale, 1/160 actual size.
n. 1). In the table of buildings with h clamps (I. c. 639-640), the Cni-
dian Treasury is named because Dr. Pomtow would place it on
foundation VII, disregarding the fact that the h clamps occur only in the
added south wall or in repaired blocks along with far from
contemporary dove-tail clamps. Finally, I think that an investigation of the
«repair-clamps» on the top of the Cnidian dedicatory inscription,
included in his list of π hook clamps (I. c. 638-639;, will reveal the fact
that the cuttings were made later than 1896 for the purpose of
exhibiting the fragments.
W. B. D.
May 24, 1912.

Dinsmoor - Delphian TreasuriesII 1913 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dinsmoor - Delphian TreasuriesII 1913 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bulletin de correspondance

Studies of the Delphian treasuries. II : The four Ionic treasuries.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Document généré le 15/10/2015

II. The four Ionic treasuries.

In our general consideration of the treasuries at

(1) Besides the poros Dcric Corinthian treasury identified by Mr.

These four foundations are all constructed of local stone,

tion exactly. Finally a fourth style, appearing on a very

Figure I. Cnidian clamp and dowel cuttings.

(1) Poulsen's attempt (Bull. Acad. Danemark, 1908, 351-2) to find

Figure 2. Wall Bases of the Treasuries.

circular; of the semicircular form I have seen three other

(1) The drawing of the «Cnidian» (Siphnian) Treasury by Tournaire

must therefore have been continued around the interior

in the Museum five fragments of this course (cf. BGH,

Massiliot Treasury we see this scheme actually preserved;

Columns. — Let us consider first the Aeolic columns.

been Doric. The lower diameter (as given by two

very treasury. The base was about 0.69 m. square; the

A second pair of Caryatides (Fouilles, JV, 60) is on a

Figure 5. Cnidian and Siphnian Wall Construction.

on orthostates 0.478 m. high, leaving a blank surface

show that next above came a course of orthostates,

« Figure 6. East parastas of the Cnidian Treasury. .

"Αρχοντος Πο[λύωνος, μηνός , βουλευόντων Εύκλείδα, Χαριξέ-

Passing on now to the walls of the Massiliot Treasury,

which may be classified according to their heights into

above this Mr. Bourguet correctly places inv. 1436+1134,

Figure 8. Blocks with the Cassander Inscription,

of plinths in the second and sixth courses alone (and then

Course 1. Orthostates 0.592 m. high, the largest preserved, and

Doorway. — We observed that on the Cnidian wall

καθώς επίστευσε τώι θεώι ταν ώναν εφ ΩΤΕ

With fifty letters we should need a surface about 0.47

of the cella, giving the level of the floor of the cella.

Figure 9. Section through the Massiliot Prodomos.

way; though neither end is now preserved, the cuttings

(1) This fact was rediscovered by Pomtowin November, 1910 (BPW,

which the door rested, and gives the level of the

piece lying in the excavations gives the full width of

[Δελφοί άπέδοσαν Κνιδίοις ταν προμ]αντηΐαν άρχοντος Άριστομαχο(υ)

Dr. Pomtow rightly corrects the name to Σιφνίοις (BPW,

(1) 0.049 + 8x0.2259 + 0.049 = 1.905 m.

[Δελφοί άνενεώσαντο Σιφνίοις ταν προ] μάντη tav ά'ρχοντος Άρι-

The entire length of the lintel now becomes 3.67 m.

(1) With 32 letters, 1.085 + 24(0.050) + 8(0.035) = 2.565 m.

is preserved, with the axis between a pair of reels 0.058

(1) 2.557 m. width on second fascia; 0.167 m. width of two fascias

(1) Furtwangler once assigned it to the external cornice on the

(1) Width of foundation 6.127 m.

nation, be assigned to that of the Clazomenians ; the

the epistyle is wrongly restored in the model with a

,- ■-- r r ·— ψτύιΑ·,,. '· ·.— — ο, Λ·s Jjri— — fs

Figure 10. Section through the Siphnian Entablature.

The spacing of the bead on the top of the Siphnian

their tops, with the repeats spaced 0.062 m. These

a treatment is not uncommon in Asia Minor, as in the

Figure 11. Frieze Crowns.

crowned the frieze of the Massiliot Treasury. My

0.052 m. is practically the same. The piece is split horizontally; only

capital. In front of the Museum are two pieces (one is

placed at the ends of the building, forming the pediment