Page - 74 - in The Power of Urban Water - Studies in premodern urbanism

74 PhilippKobusch Fig. 5:Eleusis, entranceareaof the late archaic sanctuarywith the so-called καλλίχορονφρέαρ. One of themost prominent installations can be found in Eleusis (Fig. 5) already from the Late Archaic period.24 Here a high, sigma-shaped balustrade with several entrances secured the roundwell shaft, whichwas probably rightly identified with the literarily known καλλίχορον φρέαρ.The fountain is locateddirectlynext to thearchaicentrancegateoutside thewalledarea of the sanctuary. Similarly, amonumental fountain housewith two columns in antis dominated the access ramptotheAsclepieionofCorinth25 (Fig. 5,1)– it, too,wasthereforeoutside theactual temenos. The fact that a fountain house could also be placeddirectly behind the entrance is shown by a second fountain in the same sanctuarywhich can probably be reconstructed in the form of a small aedicula26 (Fig. 5,2). The buildingmediates between altar and entrance, towhich it canbeassigned in the samewayby itsorientationand location. Sohere inCorinth, twopromi- nent sourceswereplaced in front of andbehind the entrance. Anotherexample fora fountainhousebehindtheentrance insidethe temenosmaybefound in Labraunda, where the so-called Doric building27 is located in the intersection between the southandeastpropylon, though its functionasa fountain isnot finallysecured. In thespacious sanctuary it frames the lower terrace, but is separated from the sanctuary’s core by several further terraces andopen stairs. The sameapplies to anotherwell house in Labraunda,28 aswell as to a fountain façade in theAsclepieionofKos (Fig.6,1).29Bothare locatedat the retainingwall below themain temple terraceandare situated in front of the entrance to this terrace.However, the situation inKos is difficult toassess.The fountainpossiblydatesback to the4th centuryBC.But,neither theexact temenos boundary nor the access situations can be reconstructed for this first phase of the sanctuary’s expansion.30 In the lastphaseof thesanctuary’s expansion, the fountainwas locat- ednear thewestern side entrance to the lower terrace,while themain entrance in the formof a largepropylonwas in thenorth. At this timeat the latest, the fountainwas locatedonly in a marginal position on the edge of the newly created large courtyard andwasnot related to the axis of thepropylonor the flight of steps. 24 Ziro 1991, 19–48 figs. 8–22. In comparison to the lowparapet in Tegea, here the thickness of thewall is about 40cm.For anolder reconstructionwithout surroundingwalls, cf.Noack 1927, 73f. fig.34. 25 Roebuck 1951, 69–74 fig. 20; pl. 18, 5;Glaser 1983, 55f. no.41; figs. 46. 114. 145. 26 Roebuck 1951, 26–28pls.8, 2–3;Glaser 1983, 91f. no.61; figs. 46. 176;Kerschner 1996, 109f. 27 Dorl-Klingenschmid 2001, 207no.52 fig. 135;Hellström2007, 74f. 28 Dorl-Klingenschmid 2001, 208no.53 figs. 8b; 37b; 136;Hellström2007, 95–97. 29 Schazmann 1932, 58f. pls. 30–33; Glaser 1983, 10f. no.4 figs. 10–15; Dorl-Klingenschmid 2001, 204f. no.46 fig. 131. 30 On the problem, cf. e.g. Interdonato 2013, 78f. She assumes the originalmain entrance on the opposite side, presupposingapredecessor of theRomanbaths.