Investigation of the ancient underground Aqueduct in Megara (Greece)
Preliminary results
p. 39-49
Résumés
Cet article présente les résultats préliminaires des recherches récentes sur l’aqueduc souterrain de Mégara, ville grecque antique et moderne située à la limite occidentale de l’Attique. Sur le site d’Orkos ou d’Ambatzades, à environ 1,5 km au nord de la ville moderne, un aqueduc souterrain a été découvert. Même si les recherches viennent juste de démarrer, elles ont déjà identifié l’existence de quatre galeries reliées entre elles, qui conduisaient l’eau d’un aquifère souterrain à la ville dans la célèbre “Fontaine de Théagène”, en suivant la pente naturelle. La diversité des techniques de construction de chaque tunnel implique des dates de creusement différentes et indique qu’il s‘agissait d’augmenter la portée d’eau de la canalisation originelle qui demeura la seule, au cours du temps, à approvisionner la ville. À l’exception des galeries, des regards verticaux, semblables à des puits, étaient également répartis à la surface. Les premiers résultats montrent que la première branche de l’aqueduc a été construite au VIe siècle av. J.-C. Celui-ci appartient à une première série d’aqueducs souterrains connus dans le monde grec. La chronologie et le dessein général nous incitent à le rattacher à Eupalinos, le célèbre ingénieur mégarien qui dota la cité de cet aqueduc et de la “Fontaine de Théagène” et lui permit de s’approvisionner en eau pendant des siècles.
This paper presents the preliminary results of the recent research of the subterranean aqueduct in Megara, an ancient and modern town located in the west border of Attica in Greece. In the site Orkos or Ambatzades, about 1,5 km north of modern Megara, an underground aqueduct, was detected. Although the investigation has just begun, four tunnels connected with each other have been discovered that laid water from underground aquifer to city in the famous “Theagenes’ Fountain”, following the natural inclination. Different techniques of construction of each tunnel imply that they had been built at different times in order to provide more water in the initial and basic branch, which was and remained the only one, who carried water to the town. Except for the tunnels, vertical wells like access-shafts were equally distributed on surface. The first data show that the former main branch of the aqueduct was constructed in the VIth century BC. It belongs to a bunch of Archaic underground aqueducts dispersed over a wide area to other Greek cities. The chronology and the whole concept allow us to ascribe this work to Eupalinos, the famous Megarian engineer. He endowed his city with this aqueduct and the “Theagenes’ Fountain” and allowed the city to sustain through the centuries.
Texte intégral
1Besides Athens, Samos or Corinth, Megara Nisaia is one of the Greek cities which have revealed monumental hydraulic installations attributed to the Archaïc period, and even to tyrannical governments by ancient literature or archaeological tradition. First of them excavations of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI) at Athens1 discovered the so-called Theagenes’ fountain, in the late XIXth century. Then a recent research project of the Archaeological Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports, directed by the author, highlighted the underground aqueduct in Megara town. The focus is on the main and the most ancient branch of the aqueduct which so far it is the most ancient discovered in Greece. Archaeological evidence allows us to connect its construction with the lifespan of the Megarian architect Eupalinos, whose name is mentioned by Herodotus as architect of the well-known aqueduct in Samos. Regardless of its construction by Eupalinos, the aqueduct seems to be an organized effort to address the water needs of the town of Megara. Its study shed light in technical design, construction and functional aspects of a water system which effectively manage the available water resources from the VIth century BC. Other tunnels opened in different periods were designed to increase the water capacity of the main branch and allowed the town to sustain through centuries until the modern era, given the importance of water for life. The aqueduct is classified into underground aqueducts/like qanat with well-like vertical shafts. Water flowed naturally followed a small and continuous slope along its route. Wells were placed at regular intervals communicating through the underground tunnel.
2Megaris was one of the smallest of the Greek States and its mountainous character made travel difficult and the gaining of the livelihood no easy matter2. Mt Geraneia extended throughout its entire length forming a watershed whose direction was west-northwest by east-southeast. On the North the mountains sloped gradually to the sea but on the South the cost was in most places steep and precipitous. Megara basin is composed of an impermeable quaternary cone at the bottom, which allows the existence of an abundant water reservoir thanks to the drainage from the footwall uplands and steep slopes of Mt. Pateras and Yeraneia concentrated runoff,3 so that the site is well watered.
3Towards the end of the XIth century BC Doric tribes from Argolis settled in Megaris and built the first villages. Much later, five villages merged to found the city of Megara in a fertile region with easy and direct access to two fortified ports, Nisaea on the Saronic Gulf and Pagae on the Gulf of Corinth. The new settlement extended around two acropolises, that of Alkathous and Karia. The oldest finds from Megara go back to the VIIIth century BC, while the first border clashes with neighbouring Corinth started at around the end of that century. Megara flourished during the VIIIth and VIIth centuries BC, developing significant commercial and colonising activity. The first colony was founded in Sicily (Megara Hyblaea, 728 BC) and was followed by other colonies in the next century in Propontis, the most important being Byzantium (660 BC).
4During the VIth century BC, following the tyranny of Theagenes, the city experienced the troubled period of the “radical democracy” (ἀκόλαστος δημοκρατία) followed then by a “moderate regime” (περίοδος σωφροσύνης), as they are called in the ancient sources (Forsdyke 2005: 73-92). The VIth century was a difficult period for politics in all Greek cities/city-states. Ambitious men grabbed the opportunity to seize great power unconstitutionally, in the name of the oppressed by aristocratic regimes, and became tyrants (Dillon, Garland 2010: 45-47). They won the favour of the people and strengthened their hold, by providing basic necessities as benefits of their regime. Also, they recognised that an abundant supply of water was one of the things that pleased people and laid out great water-projects. Impressive constructions of hydraulic engineering were made, which disengaged the towns from the sources in the close proximity and raised new expanded limits in the supply of water. The traditional knowledge of finding and collecting water was supplemented by technical skillfulness in its transportation.
5Within these circumstances, the available technology connected with the name of Megarian engineer Eupalinos, was proved mature to provide the necessary services. He was the engineer of the famous underground aqueduct in the island of Samos,4 a project of outstanding workmanship,5 called Eupalineian aqueduct, after his name, in recognition of his achievement. He succeeded in excavating a tunnel through Mt. Castro from both ends, having a length of 1,036 m in order to supply the ancient capital of Samos with fresh water. It is located 55 m above sea level and 180 m below the top of the mountain.
6That was of utmost defensive importance. Since the aqueduct ran underground, it was not easily found by an enemy who could otherwise cut off the water supply. According to professor Kienast, the construction started in 550 BC and lasted for ten years, during the tyranny of Polykrates. Archaeological finds proved that it was used for a thousand years.
7Herodotus, impressed of this magnificent construction, described into detail the hole project6
“[1] I have written at such length of the Samians, because the three greatest works of all the Greeks were engineered by them. The first of these is the tunnel with a mouth at either end driven through the base of a hill nine hundred feet high; [2] the whole tunnel is forty-two hundred feet long, 1 eight feet high and eight feet wide; and throughout the whole of its length there runs a channel thirty feet deep and three feet wide, through which the water coming from an abundant spring is carried by pipes to the city of Samos. [3] The designer of this work was Eupalinus son of Naustrophus, a Megarian. This is one of the three works; the second is a breakwater in the sea enclosing the harbor, sunk one hundred and twenty feet, and more than twelve hundred feet in length”.
8During the last decade of the 19th cent. Eupalinos’ tunnel was rediscovered.
9That same period in Megara, his hometown, the research team of the German Archaeological Institute, trying to solve documentation problems of the famous Athenian fountain Enneakrounos, sought information from the excavation of the “Theagenes’ fountain” known by Pausanias’ description
“… There is in the city a fountain, which was built for the citizens by Theagenes, whom I have mentioned previously as having given his daughter in marriage to Cylon the Athenian. This Theagenes upon becoming tyrant built the fountain, which is noteworthy for its size, beauty and the number of its pillars. Water flows into it called the water of the Sithnid nymphs. The Megarians say that the Sithnid nymphs are native, and that one of them mated with Zeus; that Megarus, a son of Zeus and of this nymph, escaped the flood in the time of Deucalion, and made his escape to the heights of Gerania. The mountain had not yet received this name, but was then named Gerania (Crane Hill) because cranes were flying and Megarus swam towards the cry of the birds.”7
10While they were taking a view of the whole area in a survey, in the site Orkos or Ambatzades, around 1,500 m away, in the North of Megara, they noticed the ruins of many ancient wells following different routes towards northeast and northwest the summits of Pateras Mountain. The site and the course were recorded in the diary of expedition along with measurements of the wells. Finally, they found the Theagenes’ fountain in the middle of the houses of the modern city, and they started carrying out excavations in 1899 (Delbrück, Vollmöller 1900: 23-33). Since then, the interest of the scientists focused in the completion of the excavation and in the study of the fountain, while the wells with their modest appearance were forgotten until the autumn of the 2011.
11Thanks to fruitful and probing research on the wells in Orkos area, an aqueduct was discovered consisted of two parts: a visible on the surface and an invisible subterranean. The visible part was composed by seventy (70) wells arranged in four branches. Actually, they were manholes or access-shafts to the underground tunnel, which conveyed water to the town, probably collected from aquifer. It became clear that the entire system was a complicated construction that required high skilfulness and expertise. Unlike our astonishment for the unexpected discovery, locals said they were already aware of the existence of these wells, as a witness of the route of the aqueduct that their predecessor Eupalinos had constructed. Also, we were surprised to hear that the aqueduct was still functional and the only means to convey water to the town until 1936 (Benardis 2010: 205-215).
12Following the path of the ancient Megarian water miners, the personnel of the Archaeological Museum of Megara were the first who descended down in the tunnels (fig. 1). After the examination of the preservation and accessibility of the subterranean parts, it was ascertained that a great water supply project exists and remains almost unchanged since antiquity. The whole subterranean aqueduct incorporated four long roofed branches extending from SW to NE (pl.1). These four branches named A, B, C, D, are dissimilar to each other and every branch has different technical features. Also, they are supposed to be functionally linked together. So far, the connection of branches D and B and D and A (fig. 2) has been disclosed (Αvgerinou 2013: 405-422; Avgerinou 2016: 279 -313).
13Although the investigation is still in early stage, we are able to make some observations related to the construction and chronology, starting from branch D, the most dominant and best preserved part of the aqueduct.
Fig. 1 – Descending into tunnels.

Fig. 2 – The connection of branches D and A (access-shafts D3 and A27).

Pl. 1 – The course of the underground aqueduct. The spots indicate the vertical well-like shafts arranged in four branches. Beneath every branch there is a tunnel.

Branch D
14Seventeen access-shafts to the underground conduit are discerned, distributed on the surface in a length of 546.26 m. All are rectangular in section, with average dimensions 0.65 × 0.65 m. They have been constructed by layers of square-stone masonry walls. In the west and east side every stone has a crescent-shaped carving, the footsteps for descending into the bottom, about 6.10 m below the surface and about 58 m above the sea level. In the lower part of every access- shaft is located the opening of the water conveying tunnel that is lined with stonework on both sides (Avgerinou 2016: 279-313; Voudouris et al.: 2013, 1326-1345). Two kinds of masonry are distinguished, both of local shelly limestone without binding mortar in joins. In the northern part of the Branch, between the access-shafts D1 and D3, in a length of about 31 metres, the side walls have been covered with rectangular single massive slabs. All slabs are of identical dimensions 1 × 0.60 m and have been placed fully upright with the largest dimension upwards. The roof slabs were made of the same rock and they shared the same dimensions: about 0.56 × 0.60 m and 0.05 m thick, indicating that they were all originally crafted to serve this function in the walls and roof of the tunnel. A clear (fig. 3) cut narrow channel, 0.28 in width, was curved along the center of the rocky floor for water conveyance. Even today water flows inside this rectangular channel.
15The following part of Branch D, between the access-shafts D3 and 6, is hewn in the rock roughly, without much care and smooth surface. Their sides have been left uncovered with coarse and uneven surfaces, full of irregularities. In the spots where the conglomerate was ready to fall, a lot of solutions were implemented to strengthen the sides or to carry the roof. Fragmentary supporting walls by rubble masonry were built in these loose parts (fig. 4). Although, these walls seem to be a slipshod of work, they prevented extensive landslides or other damages along the tunnel. We assume that, where the soil was steady and rocky, the tunnel was cut in hard conglomerate soil and remained without coated sides and roof, probably of economy of material and time. Besides, the biggest part of Branch D was left undressed.
Fig. 3 – Side walls covered with rectangular single massive slabs. A narrow channel was curved along the center of the rocky floor for water conveyance.

Fig. 4 – Fragmentary supporting walls by rubble masonry built in the loose parts.

Fig. 5 – Part of Doric epistyle reused as architectural member.

Fig. 6 – Part of repaired roof with roman opus testaceum type between the access-shafts D6-D7.

Fig. 7 – Supporting walls built with stones and plaster in the roman era.

Pl. 2, 2a – Ground plan and cross section of the part of the branch D’ between the access-shafts D6-D7.

16On the contrary, the southern part between the access-shafts D6-D7-D8 had been dressed with rectangular or square stone blocks that formed a pseudo-isodomic stonework. The roof was formed either by large stone slabs arranged horizontally in plane surface, or built leaning against each other to form two slopping sides.
17Many architectural members reused as building material, that are discerned scattered in the masonry of the tunnel leading from D6 to D7, probably derived from a great building (fig. 5, pl. 2). Some are preserved as unidentified fragments but, three parts of Doric epistyles, that probably had been burnt, were noticed, as well as parts of unfluted columns.
18These differences in masonry, in our opinion, may reflect construction methods of different worker crews. Several groups of builders might have worked simultaneously in different stretches of the course of the aqueduct.
19A number of modifications had been carried out in several spots of this part of Branch D. The most refurbishments are discerned between the access-shafts D4 to D8. It seems this part had required repairs, rebuilt spots and complementary constructions during the centuries it was functional, both in the part with exposed conglomerate soil and in the part with masonry.
20All these alterations provided for dissimilarities in width and height along this section. We could assume that these limited repairs reflect necessary renovations after technical problems caused by earthquakes or other causes in different times during the operation of the aqueduct and they indicate the aqueduct’s long period of use. They can’t be dated accurately, except for two spots between the access-shafts D6-D7. The first one is in the roof of the tunnel: fallen slabs from the ceiling’s collapse were replaced by bricks of uniform production for constructing a vaulted roof 7 m long (fig. 6). The same opus testaceum type of roman masonry had been used in the Baths in Olympia and in the Hadrianeian aqueduct in Athens constructed during the reign of the emperor Adrian (76-138 AD) between 125 and 140 AD.8 Bricks of standard dimensions were used in the inclined gallery that was unearthed at the Athens Olympic village excavations (Chiotis, Marinos 2012: 25-26). The second spot is located a few metres to the north. Part of the raw sides of the conglomerate stone was covered by supporting walls built with stones and plaster, causing a remarkable reduction in the tunnel’s width. In fact a person can barely walk sideways (fig. 7). Obviously, Romans needed to stabilise this vulnerable part of the tunnel.
Fig. 8 – Mason mark between the access shafts D6-D8 of Branch D.

21Between the access shafts D6-D8 of Branch D the Greek letters ΔΕΛΤΑ, ΜΙ or ΣΙΓΜΑ and ΑΛΦΑ - NI have been identified engraved in stones (fig. 8). They are repeated in different spots 15 times in total.9 The exact purpose of these marks is unclear, although it is generally accepted that they marked the working of a piece of masonry by a particular mason, in order to claim payment. Others are assumed to indicate the position in which a stone should be laid. Also, it has been suggested that marks indicate the quarry of the stone, or the location in which it was worked (Οrlandos 1955-1960: 160-161).
Fig. 9 – Fragment of inscription.

22Furthermore, among the fragments that have been jointed the roof of D10-D11 tunnel, one belongs to inscription (fig. 9). We suppose it is written in the Megarian alphabet of the Archaic period, a name ending in… ΡΙΔΑ which could be the common name Dioskorida10 or Theudorida.11 Moreover, some feminine names in nominative, for instance Thiodorida12 (attested in Chaironeia, Vth century BC) end in -a. The fragment might belong to a cist grave lined with long slabs. This kind of grave was frequently adapted by Megarians during the VIth century BC The name of deceased in genitive was incised in the interior of the slab of one of the long sides of a grave with the verb EMI…, for instance ΦΙΛΟΝΟΣΕΜΙ, “I belong to FILON”, an unusual Megarian characteristic.
23Next to the inscription a part of stone column is also reused as building material. The outstanding issue whether the large amount of reused parts had been transported deserves serious consideration. Have they been carried from the town of Megara or they belong in a suburban population living in the fields outside the city? The transportation of the blocks from a nearby area would have been feasible and it would certainly had involved a lesser effort than the transportation from the town or quarrying form new blocks. This might be solved by our survey project in the area which is currently carried out.
24In trial pits in different spots, parts of a clay pipeline were uncovered in situ running the course of the tunnel (fig. 10). They were found in three places underneath a heavy layer of mud and water, almost 50 centimetres thick. In all samples the upper part of pipes has been broken, intentionally, according to our opinion. The water might ran inside the cavity of opened pipes. It is possible that the closed cylindrical pipeline did not function effectively and may have not withstood the pressure of water, thus they have been broken horizontally in order to solve the problem. The southern segment had a projection with a slightly reduced diameter that was inserted into the other segment, resulting in a pipeline with an uneven mid-segment diameter of 20 centimetres that narrowed down at the cemented joins. Every segment had been decorated with four parallel engraved lines in both ends.
Fig. 10 – Part of the clay pipeline uncovered in situ.

25A unique detail is discerned near the entrance of the tunnel by the access-shaft D7. A vertical, long, narrow cut in the hard stone had been grooved in the right and left side walls respectively (fig. 11). These opposite alignments form a set arranged in parallel and are supposed to indicate the position of a wooden mobile barrier for water control in order to clean or repair the southern part of aqueduct.
Dating of Branch D
26As it is already mentioned, each one of the four branches of the aqueduct has its specifications which indicate a different dating of construction. In order to establish the date of Branch D we should overcome two obstacles: little evidence for dating has been found into deposits on the bottom of the tunnel, up to now. The sherds that have been found are absolutely not attributable to a specific period. Also, the long-term viability of Branch D, at least until 1936 (Benardis 2010: 205-215), implies many centuries of activity and many repairs. However, we have evidence for some preliminary statements about its dating. Being the only tunnel that channeled water to the city, we assume it represents the initial phase and the earliest date of the development. Its concept seems to be in accordance with the general principles of other underground aqueducts dated to the Archaic period. In that historical background a bunch of aqueducts were dispersed over a wide area to Greek cities governed by tyrants. Besides the aforementioned aqueduct in Samos, the construction of the Peisistrateian aqueduct in Athens finished after the time of the tyrant Pisistratus and during the time of his descendants circa 510 BC. It brought water from the springs in Ilissos River and in the foothill of the Mount Hymettus.13 The first ten kilometres outside the city were curved into the rock as an underground tunnel reaching 14 m below ground surface and bore the characteristic air shafts. Inside the city it was formed as a channel dug to the bedrock made of stone masonry with terracotta segments on the bottom. Recently, during the construction of the Athens Metro, different parts have been discovered in places of modern Athens. Some are exhibited in the Syntagma and Evangelism’s metro stations14.
Fig. 11 – Vertical cut grooved in the right and left side walls of the access-shaft D7.

27In the end of the VIth century the aqueducts on the islands of Naxos15 and Aigina followed.16 In the eleven kilometres long Flerio aqueduct in Naxos, a two 230 m long tunnel was dug through the mountain in the north part of Flerio plain, in order to make the best use of water distribution to fertile areas of the island on the way to the city. The entrance of the tunnel was discovered in 2003. The aqueduct in Aigina is dated to about 520 BC. Along its route, with a length of 5.5 km, the water was led through an underground gallery whose floor and ceiling were covered with stone slabs. Access shafts were distributed that led inside the tunnel and served to maintain the network. It is called by locals Ambatzades like the aqueduct in Megara.
28Also, the aqueduct in ancient port at Larnaka in Cyprus, revealed at the beginning of the 1990s it is believed that it was constructed during the Persian dominance started around 546 BC.17
29The assessment that Branch D is Archaic is confirmed by complementary remarks on the type of letters in mason marks and in inscriptions. There is little to be said on the local inscriptions dating to first half of VIth century BC, since none has been yet published dating earlier than 550-540 BC; the type of A in mason marks occurs in a local graffito dated to 550-540 BC, the type of R in name… . ΡΙΔΑ is met occasionally elsewhere until 500-480 BC, according to Jeffery (Jeffery 1963: 132-138). Also the parts of Doric epistyle that have been used as building material could be dated in the middle of the VIth century BC as their simplicity represent an archaic stage of development. They might have derived from a prime example of a temple of Doric style that might have been burnt.
30Thus, through the combination of the above mentioned evidence, it is clear that the original construction of the aqueduct in Megara formally belongs to as early as the Archaic period, after the middle of VIth century BC. If we assume that the epistyle and the letters are dated to 550-540 BC this date is a terminus post quem for the construction of Branch D.
31Also, taking into account the quotation from Herodotus about the aqueduct in Samos” “architect of this tunnel was the Megarian Eupalinos”, and the identification of his lifespan with the original construction of Megara aqueduct, we can accept that both aqueducts in Samos and in Megara respectively were studied, designed and implemented by him. They are achievements of the same person and reflect the size of the population and the wealth that both cities had in the Archaic period. Especially the aqueduct in Megara was kept in working order, over the centuries and local people could expect a constant supply of water for hundreds of years. With the passage of time as the needs became compelling, urgent and growing the main axe of aqueduct enhanced with the addition of other axes so the water continued being available efficiently without wasting money, time and energy.
Bibliographie
Bibliography
HERODOTUS, Histories, ΙΙΙ, 60:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D60%3Asection%3D1
PAUSANIAS 1.40.1:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0160%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D40%3Asection%3D1;
http://epigraphy.packhum.org/
http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/84831/files/a5358;
http://attica.unipi.gr/print.php?article_id=401&lang=gr&print_ mode=article
http/topikeskoinoniesmnimeia.wordpress.com;
http/www.Ηydriaproject, The aqueducts and the water wisdom of the ancient town of Larnaca, Cyprus.
http://www.hydriaproject.net/en./time The ancient aqueduct of Flerio, Naxos Island
http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/ichs/vol-2-1517-1540-haseley.pdf
ANGELAKIS, KOUTSOGIANNIS 2003: A. N Angelakis, D. Koutsogiannis, Urban Water Engineering and Management in Ancient Greek Times, in B. A. Stewart and T. Howell (eds), The Encyclopedia of Water Science, New York, Marcel Dekker, 2003, p. 999-1008.
APOSTOL 2004: T. Apostol, The Tunnel of Samos. Engineering and Science, 1, 2004, p. 31-40.
AVGERINOU 2017: P. Avgerinou, Ancient Water Supply Systems in Megara. In K. Wellbrock (ed.), Schriften der Deutschen Wasserhistorischen Gesellschaft, Band 27-2, Siegburg, 2017, p. 443-472.
AVGERINOU 2016: P. Avgerinou, Water Supply Facilities in Megara during the Archaic and Classical Period, A. Robu et I. Bîrzescu (eds), MÉGARIKA, Nouvelles recherches sur Mégare et les cités de la Propontide et du Pont-Euxin, Actes du colloque de Mangalia (8-12 juillet 2012), Paris, De Boccard, 2016, p. 279 -313.
ΑVGERINOU 2013: P. Avgerinou, Η Ύδρευση των Μεγάρων στην Αρχαιότητα, Αρχαιολογικές Συμβολές: Τόμος Β΄, Μουσείο Κυκλαδικής Τέχνης, Athens, 2013, p. 405-422.
BENARDIS 2010: M. Benardis, Ψήγματα Μεγαρικών. Μυθολογικά, Iστορικά. Megara, 2010 [1936], p. 205-215.
BURNS 1971: A. R. Burns, The Tunnel of Eupalinus and the Tunnel Problem of Hero of Alexandria, Isis, 62, 2, Chicago, 1971, p. 172-185.
CHIOTIS, MARINOS 2012: E. Chiotis, P. Marinos, Geological aspects on the sustainability of ancient aqueducts of Athens, Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, XLVI, p. 16-38.
CROUCH 1993: P. D. Crouch, Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities, New York, Oxford University Press, 1993.
DELBRÜCK, VOLLMÖLLER 1900: R. Delbrück, K.G. Vollmöller, Das Brunnenhaus des Theagenes, AM, 25, 1900, 23-33.
DILLON, GARLAND 2010: M. Dillon, L. Garland, Ancient Greece, Social and Historical Document from Archaic Times to the Death of Socrates, London and New York, Routledge, 2010.
FORBES 1955: R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, Volume I, Water Supply, Leiden, E.J.Brill, 1955.
FORSDYKE 2005: S. Forsdyke, Revelry and Riot in Archaic Megara: Democratic Disorder or Ritual Reversal?, JHS, Vol. 125, 2005, p. 73-92.
GODLEY 1921: A. G. Godley, Herodotus. Books III and IV, vol. II, London-New York, The Loeb Classical Library, 1921.
GRUBEN 1965: G. Gruben, Das Quellhaus von Megara, Arch. Delt., 19Α, 1964, p. 37-41, fig.22-28, 1 plan.
HELNER 2009: N. Helner, Η « Κρήνη του Θεαγένους » στα Μέγαρα, Ιστορία και Αρχιτεκτονική ενός Mνημείου του 5ου αι. π.Χ., Μegara, Dēmotikē Bibliothēkē Megarōn, 2009.
JEFFERY 1963: L.H. Jeffery, The local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961, reprinted 2003, p. 132-138.
KIENAST 1995: H.J. Kienast, Die Wasserleitung des Eupalinos, Samos XIX, Bonn, Rudolf Habelt, 1995.
KIENAST 2005: H. J. Kienast, The Aqueduct of Eupalinos on Samos, Ministry of Culture Archaeological Receipts Fund, Athens, 2005.
KOUTSOGIANNIS et al. 2008: D. Koutsogiannis, N. Zarkadoulas, A.N. Angelakis and G. Tchobanoglou, Urban Water Management in Ancient Greece: Legacies and Lessons, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 134, 1, 2008, p. 45-54.
LABRINOUDAKIS et al. 2010: V. Labrinoudakis, A. Sfyroera and A. Bilis, Συντήρηση και Ανάδειξη του Αρχαίου Υδραγωγείου Νάξου και του Ιερού των Πηγών στις Μέλανες, Athens, National and Kapodistrian University -Prefecture of the South Aegean Sea, 2010.
MAYS et al., 2007: L. W. Mays, D. Koutsogiannis, A. N. Angelakis, A Brief History of Urban Water Supply in Antiquity, Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 7, 1, 2007, p. 1-12.
MAYS 2010: L. W. Mays, A Brief History of Water Technology During Antiquity: Before the Romans, in L.W. Mays (ed.), Ancient Water Technologies, 2010, p. 1-28.
ORLANDOS 1955: A. Orlandos, Τα Υλικά Δομής των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων και οι Τρόποι Εφαρμογής Αυτών, Βιβλιοθήκη της Εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας αρ. 37, 1955-1960, Athens.
PAPPAS 1999: A. Pappas, Η Ύδρευσις των Αρχαίων Αθηνών, Athens, Eleftheri Skepsis, 1999.
PFRIEMER 1981: U. Pfriemer, Das grosse Brunnenhaus in Megara, in Vortrӓge der Tagung: Wasser im antiken Hellas in Athen, 4-5 Juni 1981, Athens, Leichtweiss-Inst. für Wasserbau, 1981.
VOUDOURIS et al., 2013: K.S. Voudouris, Y. Christodoulakos, F. Steiakakis and A. N. Angelakis, Hydrogeological characteristics of Hellenic aqueducts-like Qanats, Water, 5, 2013, p. 1326-1345.
Notes de bas de page
1 Delbrück, Vollmöller 1900: 23-33.
2 I would like to say a sincere thank you to the members of Organizing Committee and to Pr. Sophie Bouffier for giving me the opportunity to present this study.
I would, also, like to thank the members of the research team during the summer of 2015. Most of all I could not have done any of this study without the assistance and support of my colleague P. Sklavounakis and the workers V. Tsilivigos, Th. Vagianos and Ph. Kammenou who undertook this difficult and dangerous research. Finally, I would like to thank the architect K. Pigiaki and the surveyor I. Valtas for their plans.
3 Avgerinou 2017: 443-444.
4 Burns 1971: 172-185; Kienast 1995: 187; Kienast 2005: 1-90; Apostol 2004: 31-40.
5 Apostol 2004: 32: The task required correct solution of the relevant geometrical problems and precise definition on the ground.
6 Herodotus, ΙΙΙ, 60; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ text?-doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%- 3D60%3Asection%3D1
7 Pausanias 1.40.1.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext% 3A1999.01.0160%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D40%3Asection%3D1; Gruben 1964 [1965]: 37-41, fig. 22-28, plan I; Pfriemer 1981: 267-274; Crouch 1993: 69-70, fig. 7.2; Helner 2009: 74-77; Dillon, Garland 2010: 47.
8 Haseley http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/Downloads/ichs/vol-2-1517-1540-haseley.pdf
9 Δ two times on opponent stones, AN boustrophedon three times, M six times and Σ one time. Thirteen of them are engraved in the part between access-shafts D7 and D8 and two in D6.
10 IG VII Megaris, Oropia, and Boiotia 2720, 4156, 3204, 3193, 3182,3166; SEG 30: 448 C, 30: 449 A. http://epigraphy.packhum.org/
11 IG IX, 1 64 Phokis, Lokris, Aitolia, Akarnania, and Ionian Islands; IG XII, 3 1096; Corpus des inscriptions de Delphes [CID]: CID 2: 32, CID 2: 131. http://epigraphy.packhum.org/
12 Darmezin, Affranchissements 74,104, Boiotia — Chaironeia — SEG 49.507 http://epigraphy.packhum.org/text/314380?bookid=815&locat ion=11
13 Mays 2010: 12-13; Kienast 2002: 10-11; Koutsogiannis et al. 2008: 47-48; Forbes 1955: 164; Angelakis, Koutsogiannis 2003: 999-1008; Pappas 1997: 102-105.
14 Mays et al, 2007: 1-12; Koutsogiannis et al. 2008: 45-54, 47-48; Mays 2010: 4, fig. 1.3.
15 Labrinoudakis et al. 2010: 3-30; http/topikeskoinoniesmnimeia. wordpress.com; http://www.hydriaproject.net/en./time The ancient aqueduct of Flerio, Naxos Island
16 http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/84831/files/a5358; http://attica. unipi.gr/print.php?article_id=401&lang=gr&print_mode=article
17 http/www.Ηydriaproject, The aqueducts and the water wisdom of the ancient town of Larnaca, Cyprus.
Auteur
-
Panagiota Avgerinou
Archaeologist - Curator of the Archaeological Museum of Megara Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of West Attica, Piraeus and Islands. Greece
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Peupler et habiter l’Italie et le monde romain
Stéphane Bourdin, Julien Dubouloz et Emmanuelle Rosso (dir.)
2014
Archéologie au présent
Les découvertes de l’archéologie préventive dans les médias
Catherine Dureuil-Bourachau
2015
Sarta Tecta
De l’entretien à la conservation des édifices. Antiquité, Moyen Âge, début de la période moderne
Charles Davoine, Maxime L’Héritier et Ambre Péron d’Harcourt (dir.)
2019
Gérer l’eau en Méditerranée au premier millénaire avant J.-C.
Sophie Bouffier, Oscar Belvedere et Stefano Vassalo (dir.)
2019
Le village de la Capelière en Camargue
Du début du ve siècle avant notre ère à l’Antiquité tardive
Corinne Landuré, Patrice Arcelin et Gilles Arnaud-Fasseta (dir.)
2019
Les métaux précieux en Méditerranée médiévale
Exploitations, transformations, circulations
Nicolas Minvielle Larousse, Marie-Christine Bailly-Maitre et Giovanna Bianchi (dir.)
2019
L’Homme et l’Animal au Maghreb, de la Préhistoire au Moyen Âge
Explorations d’une relation complexe
Véronique Blanc-Bijon, Jean-Pierre Bracco, Marie-Brigitte Carre et al. (dir.)
2021