صور الصفحة
PDF

were noticed by Messrs. Hofer and Schnubert, German architects, and communicated by them to the "Wiener Bauzeitung." More recently a full and elaborate account of these curves has been given by Mr. Penrose, who went to Athena under the patronage of the Society of Dilettanti for the purpose of investigating this subject, and who published the results of his researches in the magnificent work, to which we have already so often referred. Mr. Penrose remarks that it is not surprising that the curves were not sooner discovered from an inspection of the building, since the amount of curvature is so exquiately managed that it is not perceptible to a stranger standing opposite to the front ; and that before the excavations the steps were so much encumbered as to have prevented any one looking along their whole length. The curvatnre may now be easily remarked by a person who places his eye in such a position as t" look along the lines of the step or entablature from end to end, which in architectural language is called boning.

For all architectural details we refer to Mr. Penrose's work, who has done far more to explain the construction of the Parthenon than any previous writer. There are two excellent models of the Parthenon by Mr. Lucas, in the Elgin Room at the British Museum, one a restoration of the temple, and the other its ruined aspect. (Comp. Laborde and Paccard, 1* Parthenon, Document* pour servir a •we Restoration,Paris, 1848;Ussing,X'eParfAe;*o/«; tpuqne partibus Duputatio, Hauniae, 1849.)

It has been already stated that the Parthenon was converted into a Christian church, dedicated to the Virgin-Mother, probably in the sixth century. Upon the conquest of Athens by the Turks, it was changed into a mosque, and down to the year 1687 the building remained almost entire with the exception of the roof. Of its condition before this year we have more than one account. In 1674 drawings of its sculptures were made by Carrey, an artist employed for this purpose by the Marquis de Nointel, the French ambassador at Constantinople. These drawings are ■till extant and have been of great service in the restoration of the sculptures, especially in the pediments. In 1676 Athena was visited by Spon and Wheler, each of whom published an account of the Parthenon. (Spon, Voyage du Levant, 1678 ; Wheler, Journey into Greece, 1682.) In 1687, when Athens was besieged by the Venetians under Morosini, a shell, falling into the Parthenon, inflamed the gun powder, which had been placed by the Turks in the eastern chamber, and reduced the centre of the Parthenon to a heap of ruins. The walls of the eastern chamber were thrown down together with all the interior columns, and the adjoining columns of the peristyle. Of the northern side of the peristyle eight colamns were wholly or partially thrown down ; and of the southern, six columns ; while of the pronaos only one column was left standing. The two fronts escaped, together with a portion of the western chamber. Morosini, after the capture of the city, attempted to carry off some of the statues in the western pediment; bnt, owing to the unskilfulness of the Venetians, they were thrown down as they were being lowered, and were dashed in pieces. At the beginning of the present century, many of the finest sculptures of the Parthenon were removed to England, as has been mentioned above. In 1827 the Parthenon received fresh injury, from the bombardment of the city in that year; but even in its present state of desolation, the magnificence of its

ruins still strikes the spectator with astonishment and admiration.

4. The Erechtheium.

The Erechtheium ('Ep*x^t*o0 w*» the most revered of ail the sanctuaries of Athens, and was closely connected with the earliest legends of Attica. Erechthens or Erichthonius, for the same person is signified under the two names, occupies a most important position in the Athenian religion. His story is related variously; but it is only necessary on the present occasion to refer to those portions of it which serve to illustrate the following account of the building which bears his name. Homer represents Erechtheus as born of the Earth, and brought up by the goddess Athena, who adopts him as her ward, and instals him in her temple at Athens, where the Athenians offer to him annual sacrifices. (Horn. II. ii. 546, Od. vii. 81.) Later writers call Erechtheus or Erichthonius the son of Hephaestus and the Earth, but they also relate that he was brought up by Athena, who made him her companion in her temple. According to one form of the legend he was placed by Athena in a chest, which was entrusted to the charge of Aglaurus, Pandrosus, and Herse, the daughters of Cecrops, with strict orders not to open it; but that Aglaurus and Herse, unable to control their curiosity, disobeyed the command; and upon seeing the child in the form of a serpent entwined with a serpent, they were seized with madness, and threw themselves down from the steepest part of the Acropolis. (Apollod. iiL 14. § 6; Hygin. Fab. 166; Paus. i. 18. § 2.) Another set of traditions represented Erechtheus as the god Poseidon. In the Erechtheium he was worshipped under the name of Poseidon Erechtheus; and one of the family of the Butadae, which traced their descent from him, was his hereditary priest. (Apollod. iii. 15. § 1; Plut. Vit. X, Orat p. 843; Xcn. Sympos. 8. 40.) Hence we may infer with Mr. Grote (Uist. of Greece, vol. i. p. 264) that "the first and oldest conception of Athens and the sacred Acropolis places it under the special protection, and represents it as the settlement and favourite abode of Athena, jointly with Poseidon; the latter being the inferior, though the chosen companion of the former, and therefore exchanging his divine appellation for the cognomen of Erechtheus."

The foundation of the Erechtheium is thus connected with the origin of the Athenian religion. We have seen that according to Homer a temple of Athena existed on the Acropolis before the birth of Erechtheus; but Erechtheus was usually regarded as the founder of the temple, since he was the chief means of establishing the religion of Athena in Attica. This temple was also the place of his interment, and was named after him. It contained several objects of the greatest interest to every Athenian. Here was the most ancient statue of Athena Polios, that is, Athena, the guardian of the city. This statue was made of olive-wood, and was said to have fallen down from heaven. Here was the sacred olive tree, which Athena called forth from the earth in her contest with Poseidon for the possession of Attica; here also was the well of salt water which Poseidon produced by the stroke of his trident, the impression of which was seen upon the rock; and here, lastly, was the tomb of Cecrops as well as that of Erechtheus. The building also contained a separate sanctuary of Athena Polias, in which the statue of the goddess was placed, and a separate sanctuary of Pandrosus, the only one of the sisters who remained faithful to her trust. The more usual name of the entire structure was the Erechtheium, which consisted of the two temples of Athena Pulias and Pandrosus. But the whole building was also frequently called the temple of Athena Polias, in consequence of the importance attached to this part of the edifice. In the ancient inscription mentioned below, it is simply called the temple which contained the ancient statue (4 ni>s iv $ To apxa">" fryaA/xa).

The original Erechtheium was burnt by the Persians; but the new temple was built upon the ancient site. This could not have been otherwise, since it was impossible to remove either the salt well or the olive tree, the latter of which sacred objects had been miraculously spared. Though it had been burnt along with the temple, it was found on the second day to have put forth a new sprout of a cubit in length, or, according to the subsequent improvement of the story, of two cubits in length. (Herod, viii. 55; Pans. i. 27. § 2.) The new Erechtheium was a singularly beautiful building, and one of the great triumphs of Athenian architecture. It was of the Ionic order, and in its general appearance formed a striking contrast to the Parthenon of the Doric order by its side. The rebuilding of the Erechtheium appears to have been delayed by the determination of the people to erect a new temple exclusively devoted to their goddess, and of the greatest splendour and magnificence. This new temple, the Parthenon, which absorbed the public attention and means, was followed by the Propylaea; and it was probably not till the completion of the latter in the year before the Peloponnesian war, that the rebuilding of the Erechtheium was commenced, or at least continued, with energy. The Peloponnesian war would naturally cause the works to proceed slowly until they were quite suspended, as we learn from a very interesting inscription, bearing the date of the archonship of Diocles, that is, B. C. 409-8. This inscription, which was discovered by Chandler, and is now in the British Museum, is the report of a commission appointed by the Athenians to take an account of the unfinished parts of the building. The commission consisted of two inspectors (£rio-TdVai), an architect (apxiT^'fTW*') named Philocles, and a scribe ("ypa/*uart&s). The inscription is printed by Bockh (truer. No. 160), Wilkins, Leake and others. It appears from this inscription that the principal parts of the building were finished; and we may conclude that they had been completed some time before, since Herodotus (viii. 55), who probably wrote in the early years of the Peloponnesian war, describes the temple as containing the olive tree and the salt well, without making any allusion to its being in an incomplete state. The report of the commission was probably followed by an order for the completion of .the work; but three years afterwards the temple sustained considerable damage from a fire. (Xen. Hell. i. 6. § 1.) The troubles of the Athenians at the close of the Peloponnesian war must again have withdrawn attention from the building; and we therefore cannot place its completion much before B. c 393, when the Athenians, after the restoration of the Long Walls by Conon, had begun to turn their attention again to the embellishment of their city. The words of Xenophon in the passage quoted above,—i naKmbs T7j5 Afftiras ytis,—have created difficulty, because it has been thought that it could not have been called the old temple of Athena, in

asmuch as it was so new as to be yet unfinished. But we know that the " old temple of Athena" was a name commonly given to the Erechtheium to distinguish it from the Parthenon. Thus Strabo (ix. p. 396) calls it, & fyxaios vews 6 r^s UoKidSos.

The Erechtheium was situated to the north of the Parthenon, and close to the northern wall of the Acropolis. The existing ruins leave no doubt as to the exact form and appearance of the exterior of the building; but the arrangement of the interior is a matter of great uncertainty. The interior of the temple was converted into a Byzantine church, which is now destroyed; and the inner part of the building presents nothing but a heap of ruins, belonging partly to the ancient temple, and partly to the Byzantine church. The difficulty of understanding the arrangement of the interior is also increased by the obscurity of the description of Pausanias. Hence it is not surprising that almost every writer upon the subject has differed from his predecessor in his distribution of some parts of the building; though there are two or three important points in which most modem scholars are now agreed. The building has been frequently examined and described by architects; but no one has devoted to it so much time and careful attention as M. Tetaz, a French architect, who has published the results of his personal investigations in the Revue Archtologique for 1851 (parts 1 and 2). We, therefore, follow M. Tetaz in his restoration of the interior, with one or two slight alterations, at the same time reminding our readers that this arrangement must after all be regarded as, to a great extent, conjectural. The walls of the ruins, according to the measurement of Tetaz, are 20 034 French metres in length from east to west, and 11'215 metres in breadth from north to south.

The form of the Erechtheium differs from every other known example of a Grecian temple. Usually a Grecian temple was an oblong figure, with two porticoes, one at its eastern, and the other at its western, end. The Erechtheium, on Die contrary though oblong in shape and having a portico at the eastern front, had no portico at its western end ; but from either side of the latter a portico projected to the north and south, thus forming a kind of transept Consequently the temple had three porticoes, called TpooT&xrus in the inscription above mentioned, and which may be distinguished as the eastern, the northern, and the southern protaeu, or portico. The irregularity of the building is to be accounted for partly by the difference of the level of the ground, the eastern portico standing upon ground about 8 feet higher than the northern; but still more by the necessity of preserving the different sanctuaries and religious objects belonging to the ancient temple. The skill and ingenuity of the Athenian architects triumphed over these difficulties, and even converted them into beauties.

The eastern portico stood before the principal entrance. This is proved by its facing the east, by its greater height, and also by the disposition of its columns. It consisted of six Ionic columns standing in a single line before the wall of the cella, the extremities of which are adorned with antae opposite to the extreme columns. Five of these columns are still standing.

The northern portico, called in the inscription

irpdaraffts rj irpoj Tow dvpwfjmTos, or the portico before the thyroma, stood before the other chief entrance. It also consisted of six Ionic columns, but adj fdnr of these are in front; the two others are placed, one in each flank, before a corresponding ante in the wall on either side of the door. These columns are all standing. They are about 3 feet higher, and nearly 6 inches greater in diameter, than those in the eastern portico. It most not, however, be inferred from this circumstance that the northern portico was considered of more importance than the eastern one; since the former appeared inferior from its standing on lower ground. Each of these porticoes stood before two large doors ornamented with great magnificence.

The southern portico, though also called prostasis in the inscription, was of an entirely different character. Its roof was supported by six Caryatides, or columns, of which the shafts represented young maidens in long draperies, called cu K6pai in the inscription. They are arranged in the same manner as the columns in the northern portico.— namely.

four in front, and one on either anta. They stand upon a basement eight feet above the exterior level; the roof which they support is flat, and about 15 feet above the floor of the building. The entire height of the portico, including the basement, was little more than half the height of the pitched roof of the temple. There appears to have been no access to this portico from the exterior of the building. There was no door in the wall behind this portico; and the only access to it from the interior of the building was by a small flight of steps leading out into the basement of the portico between the Caryatid and the anta on the eastern flank. All these steps may still be traced, and two of them are still in their place. At the bottom of them, on the floor of the building, there is a door opposite the great door of the northern porch. It is evident, from this arrangement, that this southern portico formed merely an appendage of that port

[graphic][merged small]

of the Erechtheium to which the great northern dojr gave access. A few years ago the whole of this portico was in a state of ruins, but in 1846 it was restored by M. Piscatory, then the French ambassador in Greece. Four of the Caryatides were Mill standing; the fifth, which was found in an excavation, was restored to its former place, and a new figure was made in place of the sixth, which was, and is, in the British Museum.

The western end of the building had no portico it. The wall at this end consisted of a i of considerable height, upon which were four Ionic columns, supporting an entablature. These four columns had half their diameters engaged in the wall, thus forming, with the two antae at the corners, fiveintercolumniations, corresponding to the front of the principal portico. The wall behind was pierced with three windows in the spaces between the engaged columns in the centre.

The frieze of the building was composed of black

Eleusinian marble, adorned with figures in low relief in white marble; but of this frieze only three portions are still in their place in the eastern portico.

With respect to the interior of the building, it appears from an examination of the existing remains that it was divided by two transverse walls into three compartments, of which the eastern and the middle was about 24 feet each from east to west, and the western about 9 feet The last was consequently a passage along the western wall of the building, at one end of which was the great door of the northern portico, and at the other end the door of the staircase leading to the portico of the Caryatides. There can, therefore, be little doubt that this passage served as the pronaos of the central compartment. It, therefore, appears from the ruins themselves that the Erechtheium contained only two principal chambers. This is in accordance with the of Pausanias.who says (i.26. §5) that the was a double building (5«r\ovv ofrij/ia). He farther states that the temple of Pandrosus was attached to that of Athena Polias (t£ cay Ttjs 'AOrjvas TlavtipSffov vahs avvf%f}s, i. 27. § 2). Now since Herodotus and other authors mention a temple of Erechtheus, it was inferred by Stuart and others that the building contained three temples— one of Erechtheus, a second of Athena Polias, and a third of Pandrosus. But, as we have remarked above, the Erechtheium was the name of the whole building,and it does not appear that Erechtheus had any shrine peculiar to himself. Thus the olive tree, which is placed by Herodotus (viii. 55) in the temple of Erechtheus, is said by other writers to have stood in the temple of Pandrosus. (Apollod. iii. 14. § I; Philochorus, ap. Dionys. de Deinarch. 3.) We may therefore safely conclude that the two temples, of which the Erechtheium consisted, were those of Athena Polias and of Pandrosus, to which there was access by the eastern and the northern porticoes respectively. That the eastern chamber was the temple of Athena Polias follows from the eastern portico being the more important of the two, as we have already shown.

The difference of level between the floors of the two temples would seem to show that there was no direct communication between them. That there was, however, some means of communication between them appears from an occurrence recorded by Philochorus (ap. Dionys. I. c), who relates that a dog entered the temple of Polias, and having penetrated (5D<ra) from thence into that of Pandrosus, there lay down at the altar of Zeus Herceius, which was under the olive tree. Tetaz supposes that the temple of Polias was separated from the two lateral walls of the building by two walls parallel to the latter, by means of which a passage was formed on either side, one (H) on the level of the floor of the temple^of Polias, and the other (G) on the level of the floor of the Pandroseium; the former communicating between the two temples by a flight of steps (I), and the latter leading to the souterrains of the building.

A portion of the building was called the Cecropium. Antiochus, who wrote about B.C. 423 [see Diet, of Biogr. vol. i. p. 195], related that Cecrops was buried in some part of the temple of Athena Polias (including under that name the whole edifice), (riopo Tv UoKtovxov avrr)v, Antioch. ap. Theodoret. Therapeut. 8, iv. p. 908, Schutze; Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad Gent. p. 13, Sylburg; "in Minervio," Arnob. adv. Gent vi. p. 66, Rome, 1542; quoted by Leake, p. 580.) In the inscription also the Cecropium is mentioned. Pausanias makes no mention of any sepulchral monuments either of Cecrops or of Erechtheus. Hence it may be inferred that none such existed; and that, as in the case of Theseus in the Theseium, the tradition of their interment was preserved by the names of Erechtheium and Cecropium, the former beii.g applied to the whole building, and the latter to a portion of it. The position of the Cecropium is determined by the inscription, which speaks of the southern prostasis, or portico of Caryatides, as Tj •wp6aToats -r) irpbs KfCpsnrif. The northern portico is described as irpbs Tov dvptiparos. From the irpbs governing a different case in these two instances, it has been justly inferred by Wordsworth (p. 132), that in the former, the dative case signifies that the Caryatid portico was a part of, and attached to, the Cecropium; while, in the latter, the genitive indicates that the northern portico was only

in the direction of or towtrdt the portal. In addition to this there is no other part of the Panv droseium to which the Cecropium can be assigned. It cannot have been, as some writers have supposed, the western compartment, — a passage between the northern and southern porticoes, — since this was a part of the temple of Pandrosus, as we learn from the inscription, which describes the western wall as the wall before the Pandroseiam (6* rdlxos 6 irpbs Tov TlaySpoo-fiov). Still less could it have been the central apartment, which was undoubtedly the cella of the Pandroseium. We may, therefore, conclude that the Caryatid portico, with the crypt below, was the Cecropium, or sepulchre of Cecrops. It is evident that this building, which had no access to it from the exterior, is not so much a portico as

[graphic][merged small]

Divisions.

Temple of Athena Poliu.
Pandroteiutn, divided Into
Pandroseium proper.
Cecropium.

A. Eastern portico: entrance to the temple of Athena

Polias.

B. Temple of Athena Polias.

a. Ali.tr of Zeus Hypatos.

b. c. rf. Altars of Poseidon-Erechtheus, of Bute*, and of Hephaestus.

e. Palladium.

f. g. Statue of Hermes. Chair of Daedalus.

h. Golden Lamp of Callimachus.

C. Northern portico: entrance to the Pandroseium.

i. The salt well.

k. Opening in the pavement, by which the traces of Poseidon's trident might be seen.

D. Pronaos of the Pandroseium, serving also as an

entrance to the Cecropium. /. m Altars, of which one was dedicated to Hallo.

E. Cella of Pandrosus.

ts. Statue of Pandrosus.

o. The olive tree.

p. Altar of Zeus Hyrcelus.

F. Southern portico: the Cecropium.

G. Passage on the level of the Pandroseium, leading to

the souterrains of the building.

H. Passage of communication by means of the steps L

between the temples of Polias and Pandroaus. K- Steps leading down to the Temenos. L. Temenos or sacred enclosure of the building.

an adjunct, or a chapel of the Pandroseium, intended for s»»ine particular purpose, as Leake has observed.

We may now proceed to examine the dirlerent objects in the building and connected with it. First, as to the temple of Athena Polias. In front of the portico was the altar of Zeus Uypatus (a), whidi Pausanias describes as situated before the entrance (wpo riff ia6Sov). In the portico itself (4at\0ovoi, Pius.) were altars of Puseidon-Erechtheus, of Butes, and of Hephaestus (6, c. <!■)■ In the cella (<V T<£ ra^). probably near the western wall, was the Palladium (e), or statue of the goddess. In front of the latter was the golden lamp (A), made by Callimachna, which was kept burning both day and night; it was filled with oil only once a year, and had a wick of Carpasian flax (the mineral Asbestus), whence the lamp was called A StoGtaros \vxvot. (Strab. ix. p.396.) It is mentioned as one of the offences of the tyrant Aristion, that he allowed the fire of this lamp to go out during the siege of Athens by Sulla. (Dion Cass. Frag. 124, p.51, Reimar.: Plut Ami. 9.) Pausanias says, that a brazen palm tree rising above the lamp to tile roof carried off the smoke. Id other parts of the cella were a wooden Hermes, said to have been presented by Cecrops, a folding chair made by Daedalus, and spoils taken from the Persians. The walls of the temple were covered with pictures of the Butadae.

The statue of Athena Polias, which was the most sacred statue of the goddess, was made of olive wood. It is said to have fallen down from heaven, and to have been a common offering of the demi many years before they were united in the city of Athens. It was emphatically the ancient statue; and, as Wordsworth has remarked, it had, in the time of Aeschylus, acquired the character of a proper name, not requiring to be distinguished by the definite article. Hence Athena says to Orestes (Aesch^Jfwn. 80.): Ifew -raAaioi- &yita8tv Xagwf Optra*. It has been observed above [p. 265] that the Panathenaic peplos was dedicated to Athena Polias, and not to the Athena of the Parthenon. This appears from the following passage of Aristophanes (Av. 826), quoted by Wordsworth:— ET. rls Sol Btbs

noKiovxos iarat; rtf ^twovfitv rbv irsVAflr; nEI. ri b' o&K 'Afhivalay iotpitv rloAtdSa;

Upon which passage the scholiast remarks: Tp A0i}f$ noAictoi oCaji xewAos eyivero tanirolKlkos tr iuritptpov iv Tt) wo/xjnj ruv Tlava&rfvatoiy. The statue of Athena seems to have been covered with the peplus. A very ancient statue of Athena, which was discovered a few years back in the Aglanrium, i3 supposed by K. 0. MUIler to have been a copy of the old Athena Polias. A description of this statue, with three views of it, is given by Mr. Scharf in the Museum of Classical Antiquities (vol. L p. 190, seq.). "It is a sitting figure, 4 feet 6 inches in height. It has a very archaic character; the posture is formal and angular; the knees are close together, but the left foot a little advanced; the head and arms are wanting."

With respect to the objects in the Pandroseium, the first thing is to determine, if possible, the position of the olive tree and the salt well. That both of these were in the Pandroseium cannot admit of doubt. Two authors already quoted (Apollod. iit 14. § 1; Philochor. ap. Dionys. de Deinarch. 3) expressly state that the olive tree stood in the temple of Pandrosus; and that such was the case with the

salt well, also, appears from Pausanias (i. 26. § 5), who, after stating that the building is twofold, adds: "in the inner part is a well of salt water, which is remarkable for sending forth a sound like that of waves when the wind is from the south. There is, also, the figure of a trident upon the rock: these are said to be evidences of the contention of Poseidon (with Athena) for Attica." This salt well is usually called 6dAaoo*a 'Epexftnfs, or simply QdAuoaa (Apollod. iii. 14. § 1; Herod, viii. 55); and other writers mention the visible marks of Poseidon's trident. ('OpcS Tr/y a-cooiroAo- Ko! rb vepl Ttjj ratai'it)! fx«' T1 O-tumu-k, Hegcsias, ap. Strab. ix. p. 396.) Leake supposed that both the well and the olive tree were in the Cecropium, or the southern portico, on the ground that the two were probably near each other, and that the southern portico, by its peculiar plan and construction, seems to have been intended expressly for the olive, since a wall, fifteen feet high, protected the trunk from injury, while the air was freely admitted to its foliage, between the 6ix statues which supported the roof. But this hypothesis is disproved by the recent investigations of Tetaz, who states that the foundation of the floor of the portico is formed of a continuous mass of stones, which could not have received any vegetation. The olive tree could not, therefore, have been in the southern portico. M. Tetaz places it, with much probability, in the centre of the cella of the Pandroseium. He imagines that the lateral walls of the temple of Polias were continued under the form of columns in the Pandroseium, and that the inner space between these columns formed the cella of the temple, and was open to the sky. Here grew the olive-tree (o) nnder the altar of Zeus Herceius (/>), according to the statement of Philochorus {ap. IHo~ nys. I. c). The description by Virgil (Aen. ii. 512) of the altar, at which Priam was slain, is applicable to the spot before us:

"Aedibus in mediis, nudoqne sub aetheris axe Ingens ara fuit, juxtaque veterrima laurus Incumbent arae atque umbra complexa Penates."

The probable position of the salt well has been determined by Tetaz, who has discovered, under the northern portico, what appear to be the marks of Poseidon's trident Upon the removal, in 1846, of the remains of a Turkish powder magazine, which encumbered the northern portico, Tetaz observed three holes sunk in the rock; and it is not unlikely that this was the very spot shown to devout persons, and to Pausanias among the number, as the memorial of Poseidon's contest with Athena. A drawing of them is given by Mr. Penrose, which we subjoin, with his description.

"They occur upon the surface of the rock of the Acropolis, about seven feet below the level of the pavement. These singular traces consist of three holes, partly natural and partly cnt in the rock; that lettered a in the plan is close to the eastern anta of the portico; it is very irregular, and seems to form part of a natural fissure; b and c, near the surface, seem also to have been natural, but are hollowed into a somewhat cylindrical shape, between 2 and 3 feet deep and 8 and 9 in diameter; d is a receptacle, as may be presumed, for water, cut TO deep in the rock, and connected with the holes b and c by means of a narrow channel, also about 1*0 deep. The channel is produced for a short distance in the direction of a, but was perhaps discontinued on its being discovered that, owing to natural cre

« السابقةمتابعة »