Seite - 65 - in The Power of Urban Water - Studies in premodern urbanism

4 Water, Social SpaceandArchitecture atSelinous: theCaseof theUrbanSanctuary 65 prominentpositionwithin the sanctuary; thewells–asusual forArchaicandClassical times– hadnomonumental structure. The scantydata fromthe first archaeological reportsdonot allowadetailed reconstruction of theuse ofwaterwithin the sanctuary.However, this paperhas introduced somehypotheses on the agency ofwater, examining the sanctuary’s architecture and space in the light ofGreek literary and iconographic sources. Water installationshadmainlyapractical function forSelinous’ civicandreligiouscommu- nity. Theywere located close to sanctuary entrances and in spaceswhere important activities for community cohesionwere likely performed:meeting and chatting in front of the fountain, sacrificingand feastingbetweenTempleCand the two-wingedhall. The agency of water affected action and perception in the sacred space, startingwith the first religious activities. Fresh water influenced the choice of location for the sanctuary and acted inritualactivities.Especially lustralwatermighthaveaffected thestatusofall the ritual’s participants (humans and animals) within the sanctuary, andmarked symbolic and temporal borders.Marshywater also causedplagues, and likely these had consequences in reclamation works andmaybealso in religious activitieswithin the sanctuary.On theother hand, through- out Selinous’ history, humanagency affected landscape andwaterscape in the sanctuary area. The artificial filling next to the edge of the Cottone lagoonwas the precondition of the urban developmentandtheconstructionof thecitywalls.Theconstructionof theharbour likelyaccel- erated the siltingof the lagoon. Theartificial terraces over the area rich inwater at thebase of theAcropolisplateauallowedfor themonumentalisationof thesanctuaryandcoveredthewater spring. Theoutlined framework, therefore,underlines themutual influencesamong landscape, ac- tionandperceptionofwater. IllustrationCredits Fig. 1: NicolaChiarenzaafterMertens 2006, fig. 302. Fig. 2: NicolaChiarenzaafterDiVita 1984, fig. 5. Fig.3: AfterDiVita 1984, fig. 3. Fig.4: NicolaChiarenzaafterMertens 2006, fig. 326. Fig. 5: AfterMertens 2006, fig. 329. Fig.6: NicolaChiarenzaafterMertens 2006, fig. 332. Fig. 7: After Tusa 1983, 129. Fig.8: NicolaChiarenzaafterMertens 2006, fig. 328. Fig.9: a–b: after PuglieseCarrattelli 1985, figs. 64–65; c: after Poole 1876, 141no.38; d: after Hill 1903, pl.6, 5. Bibliography Alberico2017: T. D. Alberico, Leggi sacreper la tuteladi fonti e fontane. L’iscrizionedella fontanadoricadi Ialiso, in: A. Pontradolfo–M.Scafuro (eds.), Dialoghi sull’ArcheologiadellaMagnaGrecia edel Mediterraneo. Atti del I Convegno Internazionaledi Studi, Paestum7–9settembre2016 (Paestum2017) 369–372. Albers 2019: J. Albers, I porti di Selinunte, in: R. Atria–G. L. Bonanno–A.Curti Giardina–G. Titone (eds.), Selinunte. Produzioni edeconomiadi una colonia grecadi frontiera, Convegno internazionale, Selinunte, Baglio Florio, 15–16aprile 2016,SicA 111, 2019, 121–134. Allegro 1982:N. Allegro, Louteria a rilievodaHimera, in:N. Allegro–O.Belvedere–N.Bonacasa– J. DeWaele– C.A.Di Stefano–A.Gullì –V. Tusa–A. TusaCutroni (eds.), Secondoquaderno imerese, Studi emateriali 3 (Roma1982) 115–166.