Seite - 70 - in The Power of Urban Water - Studies in premodern urbanism

70 PhilippKobusch protect water purity,10 but a whole series of inscriptions also shows that the sale of drinking water or the installationofbathswasa sourceof income for the sanctuaries that shouldnotbe underestimated.11 Water therefore played a special role in theGreek sanctuary in a variety ofways, also in a variety of uses. The characteristics of the springs andwells were presented to foreign visitors asattractions. InTegea, thespringwasalsousedbyPausaniasasastartingpoint fordescribing the immediate surroundings, thus it had a quality as a topographical point of reference and orientation. Against the backgroundof such amulti-layered image– only sketchedhere – that can be derivedfromthewrittensources, thequestionarisesofwhatrole theprovisionandpresentation ofwater alsoplayed in thearchitectural designofGreek sanctuariesorwhat significancewater played in the structuring, hierarchisationor even constitutionof spaceswithin the sanctuary. Therefore, on theonehand,howwater resourceswerepositionedwithin thesanctuaryand how theywere architecturally stagedwill be examined. On the other hand, the spatial quality of the ritualuseofwaterand its relation toarchitecturewill beexamined.To limit thematerial, the view is directed only to sanctuaries of theGreekmainlandandAsiaMinor fromArchaic to Hellenistic times. Evenwhen sanctuaries were located extramuros, they usually were closely linked ritually (e.g. throughprocessions) and institutionally to the city they belonged to. Both thepriesthoodandmanyvisitorswerecitizensof thecity, so that thesocial communication that tookplace in the sanctuary, for example in the formof rituals, buildingactivitiesor evendona- tionsof smallervotiveofferings,alwayshadadirect effecton theurbansociety.This, combined with their substantial architectural design, shows that sanctuaries canbeunderstoodasquasi- urban spaces. Placement andarchitectural stagingofwater sources Basically, two areas within the sanctuary can be distinguished in which water sources were more frequently placed.On the onehand, this is the immediate vicinity of the temple or altar, andon theotherhand, the entrance area and themain routes of the sanctuary. InTegea12 (Fig. 1) andDelphi13 (Fig. 2,1), thereare typologically very similar fountains from the6thand5thcenturiesBCononeof the longsidesof the temple– the formercanmostproba- blybeidentifiedwiththeFountainofAugecitedabove. Inbothcases, thesearenarrowstairwell shaftswhich lead to awell shaft inTegeaor to abasin fedbyapipe inDelphi. The stairwell is enclosedbynarrowslabs that support the surrounding soil.While thewell inDelphi, located far to thewestof the temple,hasnorelation to the temple frontandthealtar, in Tegea there is a visual connection from the altar area. In addition, the lateral cella door connects the fountain area closely to the temple interior. Although lateral cella doors have re- centlybeen found in theHellenistic templeofDelphi14 aswell, the fountain therewasprobably cut off from itswater supply by the new temple construction and thus lost its function. It can at least be assumed, however, that the side doors already existed in the Alcmaionid temple, since inmanyotherpoints its basic structurewasadoptedduring the rebuildingprocess in the 4th centuryBC. 10 LSSno.4; LSCGno. 152=LeGuen-Pollet 1991, 60–63nos. 13–15,withFrench translation. 11 E.g. LSCG,no.45; LSCGno.75=LeGuen-Pollet 1991, 35no.6; 58–60no. 12,withFrench translation. 12 Glaser 1983, 14no.7; figs. 19–22;Østby 2014, 16f. figs. 5–6; Papathanasopoulos 2016, 118–121 figs. 55–58. 13 Courby 1927, 171–188 figs. 129–139; Glaser 1983, 22–24 no. 15 figs. 42–43; Bommelaer – Laroche 2015, 275f. fig. 102. 14 Amandry–Hansen 2010, 270–275 fig.9, 1.