Seite - 56 - in The Power of Urban Water - Studies in premodern urbanism

56 NicolaChiarenza Fig. 5:Selinous, urbansanctuary, thenortheast retainingwall of the terracewith the fountain, looking west. Thewall runningparallel to the terracedates back to the Late Classical period. possible to reconstruct an entrance between the north corner of the sanctuary and the lower terrace.23 Thenorth corner of the sanctuary covered the spring, but a channel canalized itswater to feed the fountainbuilt inside the retaining step-wall, to theeast of the lower terrace. Thechan- nel ranat thebottomofagallery inside thewallandreachedasmall internal rectangularbasin. Thiswasprovidedwitha rectangularopening framedbytwoprotrudingpillarsmadeofvertical ashlars24 (Fig. 5). Theoutside structure of the fountain still needs anaccurate study, but itwas likely providedwith a rectangular basin. A light canopy or an awning, covering the external basin, was fixed to two small rectangular holes above. The fountain has interestingly close parallels in theCantera fountain atMegaraHyblaea, according to the suggestionofHenryTré- ziny.25 Wecannot reconstruct the sensory effects of the fountainwithout adetailed reconstruction of itsoutsidestructureandwater flow.26Nevertheless, it seemsthat the fountainhadnoparticu- lar visual effect as it was a square opening– likely providedwith a frontal basin – embedded in themassive retainingwall of the terrace.27 Further considerations refer to the functional and social levels. The fountain location sug- gests that people entering the sanctuary from the northeast side used the water from the 23 The entrance is attested by the corner of a structure made of ashlars, under the wall of the 5th century BC which is oriented north-west/south-east (‘Mauerzug A’). For the corner, see Mertens 2003, 92 fig. 101 Beil. 4. R. Martin argued that thiswas themain entranceduring theArchaic andClassical periods (Martin 1980/1981, 1014). The limitedextensionof theexcavationdoesnotallowustostatewhetheraramporastaircase linkedtheentrance to theupper terrace.According toA.DiVita, the corner structurewas thebaseof amonument locatedoutside the temenos (DiVita 1984, 39 fig. 18). 24 Mertens 2003, 89–92 figs. 91–98Beil. 4. The current arrangement is the outcomeof latermodifications.Anew feeding channel coming from the southwest was built later, but its date is unknown. Even though this indicates that the first spring had dried up, it is evident that the new channel tapped the same aquifer located under the artificial fillingof the terrace. 25 Tréziny 2004, 278–287 figs. 307–312; Bouffier 2009, 71f. 26 About theaesthetics ofwaterdisplay, seeGlaser 2000a; 2000b.About thepleasureofwater inRomanculture: Rogers 2018, 83–85. 27 Theperspective vision in fig.6 gives an idea of the fountain visual effects, even if it does not reconstruct any basin anddoesnot take into account theoriginal level of the street, thatwas lower than today.