No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The bridges of ancient Eleutherna1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 September 2013
Abstract
Eleutherna was founded in a naturally fortified location flanked by two rivers. There are two known bridges at Eleutherna. One spans the eastern river, while the second is located below the point at which the two rivers join and is preserved nearly in its entirety. The bridges formed corbelled triangular arches and were built with large limestone blocks in dry masonry, roughly aligned in straight courses. The smaller bridge led to the centre of the ancient city and was probably the earlier of the two. The fact that it was not built on bedrock and its relative age may have contributed to its collapse. The corbel arch of the smaller bridge is steeper than the corbel arch of the larger and is comparable to arches used in the late Classical period. This suggests a more advanced technology for the larger bridge, since flatter arches entail a higher risk. The larger bridge was damaged by a storm in 1883. It was probably the same storm that caused the collapse of the smaller bridge, although this may have been deliberately destroyed. The smaller bridge seems to have been built during the late Classical period and the larger one during Hellenistic times when a major construction project took place at Eleutherna.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 2000
References
2 I work at Eleutherna as the excavations architect. In 1986 I measured and photographed the northern bridge, when it was cleared by Professor Pharaklas. I measured and photographed the southern bridge in 1997. In the description of the bridges ‘left’ and ‘right’ are used relative to the flow of the rivers.
3 Lazaridis, D., Αμϕίπολις (Athens, 1993), 40–1, figs. 19–21Google Scholar.
4 Boyd, T. D., ‘The arch and the vault in Greek architecture’, AJA 82 (1978), 83, 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 The city is also referred to m the sources as ῾`Αωρος Σἀωρος -Σαὠρα, Σἀτρα and possibly Άπολλωνία. See Slambolidis, N., Ελεύθερνα, iii (Rethymnon, 1994), 143–4Google Scholar.
6 The site is characteristically called Kamaraki, which roughly translates as little Vault.
7 In the area there is archaeological evidence of earlier periods. Stambohdis (n. 5), 144 mentions the existence of Minoan pottery.
8 Ibid., 145–6.
9 Probably it had two harbours in the Cretan Sea, at Stavromenos and Panormos, and, if the city's power extended that far, perhaps also a third at Bali (ibid., 154–5). The probable harbours of Eleutherna are also discussed by Platon, N., ‘Πὀλεις τῆς ἀκτῆς Κρἡτης μεταξὐ Δρεπἀνου καἰ Δἱου ἀκρου ᾿’, Kr. Chron. 2.1 (1948), 364Google Scholar.
10 From 980 onwards the Bishop is referred to as the Bishop of Avlopotamos (᾿Επἰσκοπος Αὑλοποτἁμου) and not of Eleutherna. See Konidaris, G., ‘Αἱ ἑπισκοπαἱ τῆς Κρἡτης μἐχρι καἰ τοῦ Ι ᾿ αἰῶνος’, Kr. Chron., 7 (1953), 478Google Scholar.
11 Balustrades are mentioned for the southern bridge in Mariani, L., ‘Antichità Cretesi, Eleutherna’ Mon. Linc., 6 (Milan, 1895)Google Scholar, col. 212–16.
12 It is not known whether the construction of the top surface of the bridge followed originally the Greek practice (grooves 1.4 m apart) or the Roman one (flat, unbroken surface). See Pikoulas, Y., Οδικὀ δἰκτυο και `Αμυνα , (Athens, 1995)Google Scholar. The Roman practice was followed in all the roads which were found in other sites within Eleutherna, namely Katsibelos, Orthi Petra, Pyrgi and Nisi.
13 It is possible to restore the bridge using the original detached material. Already in 1987 I submitted a restoration study, including a structural analysis by A. Giouroussis, to the ‘Directorate of Anastylosis of Ancient Monuments’ in which I strongly emphasized the danger of collapse. Unfortunately the conservation of the monument was never executed.
14 Mariani (n. 11).
15 I was unable to locate the rest of the bridge because of the thick vegetation and of alluvium.
16 Spratt, T. A. B., Travels and Researches in Crete (London, 1865), 89–98Google Scholar.
17 Ibid., 90.
18 Ibid., 95. The drawing shows cut tombs well behind and to the left of the bridge. The tombs are in fact much closer to the bridge.
19 Mariani, (n. 11).
20 A Petroulakis, ‘῾Η προϊστορικἡ γἐφυρα τῆς ῾Ελευθἐρνης’, Arch, Eph. (1914), 230.
21 The fact that the cast base is modern is mentioned by Petroulakis (ibid. 231). The modern base closed all but a small portion of the original opening. The restricted opening had a diameter of 0.5 m, and the diverted water was used by a downstream mill which was operational at the time. The bed of the river contains a groove (about 0.5 m deep) which I believe was cut for the same use after the opening was obstructed. A similar groove has been cut at the opposite side of the bed. North of the bridge and adjacent to the west foot there is a modern plaster wall whose construction markedly differs from that of the bridge. It protects the foot from erosion, because water accumulates right to the north of the bridge all-year-round. This pool of water is created by the violent rush of the water upon a soft support and eventually would have undermined the bridge. I have not found any references to this wall but it seems to be contemporary with the screening of the side opening of the bridge.
22 The restoration was approved, and funded, by the Council of the then Cretan State through the personal involvement of E. Venizelos, later prime minister of Greece. The necessary material was transported by pack animals: Petroulakis (11. 20) 230, 231, fig. 3.
23 Ibid., 231, fig. 2. The published photograph shows the southern view of the bridge before the restoration. A partial collapse ot the west base and the west leg of the bridge is clearly visible.
24 Ibid., 230–2. The report includes three photographs (figs. 1–3) and four plans (figs. 4–7) of the bridge by the engineer Tsolinas. The plans are inaccurate in some respects:(a) In the plan of the north view (fig. 4), the drawing of the secondary passage is confusing. Moreover, the riverbed appears to be lower than today; this is not possible, given that the present surface is the natural bedrock. (b) The plan of the corbel (fig. 5) shows seven rows of stones along the axis of the flow of the river. It also shows the joints of the stones aligned and emphasizes the joint between the third and fourth row (as if the bridge had been constructed in phases). In reality, the number of rows is six, and occasionally seven, the joints arc rather jagged and discontinuous, and there are no visible difference in phases, (c) Fig. 6 and 7 are consistent with fig. 5 and as a result repeat the same mistakes, (d) Fig. 7 unnecessarily emphasizes a perpendicular joint at the foot of the bridge and incorrectly places the base to the right instead to the left. A number printed properly on the plan, and the correctly drawn slope of the river bed, excludes the possibility of an error due to reverse printing; if this were the case, the base would be at the correct spot but the slope would be erroneous and the river would be flowing backwards!
25 Spratt (n. 16), 95.
26 Petroulakis (n. 20), 230. The conservation of the northern side undertaken by Petroulakis would not have included the renovation or the replacement of architectural elements, but would only have consisted of plaster reinforcements.
27 Ibid., 231, fig. 1. The opening is filled with plaster and rough stones quite unlike the large stones in the dry masonry of the bridge.
28 Mariani (n. 11), col. 214.
29 Petroulakis (n. 20), 230–2.
30 I do not mention structures with curved arch. See Orlandos, A., Τἀ ᾿Yλικἁ δομῆς τῶν ᾿Αρχαἱων ῾Ελλἡνων , ii (Athens, 1959/1960), 290–322Google Scholar; Briegleb, J., Die vorrömische Steinbrücken des Altertums (Tübingen, 1971), 39–47Google Scholar; Bougia, P., ‘Ancient bridges in Greece and Coastal Asia Minor’, (PhD diss., University of Pensylvania; Philadelphia, 1996)Google Scholar.
31 Briegleb (n. 30), 64–77.
32 Constandinidis, H., Προϊστορικἡ καἱ πρωτοϊστορικἡ ῾Ελλἀς (Athens, 1970), 291Google Scholar, fig. 203. There are above 20 surviving examples of this type including Kazarma and Galousi (see nos. 3–4), in the area of Argolid (see Bougia (n. 30)).
33 Papahatzis, N., Παυσανἱου Ελλἀδος Περιἡγησις , Κορινθιαχἁ (Athens, 1976), 186–7Google Scholar, fig. 198–9; Briegleb, ibid. 86–90, 367, fig. 50, 51; Galliazo, V., I ponti romani, 1 (Treviso, 1995), 23Google Scholar; Bougia (n. 30), 213–15, 355–6.
34 Ibid., 212–13, 355–6.
35 Briegleb (n. 30), 89–90; Galliazo (n. 33), 23; Bougia (n. 30), 180–2, 356.
36 Blouet, A., Expédition scientifique de Morée, 1 (Paris, 1831)Google Scholar, plate 38, B, II.
37 I identified and measured the elements of the structure. See P. Themelis, ‘Μεσσήνη’, Praktika (1991), 98, fig. 19.
38 Dunn, J., Die Baukunst der Griechen (Leipzig, 1910)Google Scholar, fig. 183. Briegleb (n. 30), 128 suggests that the bridge was built between 275 and 250 BC.
39 Marconi, P., ‘Agrigento’, Rivista del R. Istituto d'archeologia e storia dell'arte, 8 (Roma, 1930), 50Google Scholar, fig. 20.
40 Bean, G. E. and Cook, J. M., ‘The Cnidia’, BSA 47 (1952), 179–80Google Scholar; Briegleb (n. 30), 102 5; Galliazo (n. 33), 37; Bougia, (n. 30), 307–10, 356–7.
41 Lawrence, A. W., Greek Architecture, 2nd edn. (Harmondsworth, 1967), 236Google Scholar, pl. 131.
42 Miller, W., ‘The theatre of Thoricus’, Papers of the American School at Athens, 4 (1888), 7Google Scholar, pl. 2, fig. 1.
43 Dodwell, E., Views and Descriptions of Cyclopian, or Pelasgic Remains in Greece and Italy (London, 1834), 16Google Scholar, figs. 27–8; Woodhouse, J., Aetolia (Oxford, 1897), 119–21Google Scholar, fig. between pp 120 and 121; Adam, J., Architecture militaire grecque (Paris, 1992)Google Scholar, (fig. 129. Orlandos (n. 30 323 mentions that the cisterns belong to the—still unidentified ancient city Eleios.
44 Lanckoroński, K. Graf, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, i: Pamphylien (Vienna, 1890), 75Google Scholar, fig. 54.
45 Ibid., ii: Pisidien (Vienna, 1892), 59, fig. 12.
46 The Arcadian gate of the walls ol Messene is represented with a triangular arch; see Blouet (n. 36), fig. 44. However, this reconstruction is speculative and nowadays is considered wrong; see Orlandos (n. 30), 313 n. 2.
47 Ibid., 287–325, 372–4.
48 Spratt (n. 16), 90.
49 Orlandos (n. 30), 101.
50 Pendlebury, J., The Archaeology of Crete (London, 1939), 344, 349, 388, 390Google Scholar.
51 Parnicki-Pudelko, S., ‘Starozytne mosty w Grecji (Les ponts antiques en Grèce)’, Archeologia, 11 (1959/1960), 128–41Google Scholar.
52 Bougia, (n. 30), 267–71, 356, 406; Galliazo (n. 33), 38.
53 Briegleb (n. 30), 97.
54 The absence of any does not allow more accurate dating. A future excavation may give a more accurate chronology based on pottery or other finds of the foundation trenches.