| Summary: | Pausanias' eye-witness description of Greece has been used as an essential tool by scholars and laymen alike to clarify Greek sites to explain archaeological findings. This commentary analyses what Pausanias described, and reassesses his work in the light of new evidence and arguments. Thus the process is reversed, archaeology is taken to Pausanias, which regularly verifies his account. This method has resulted in possible answers to some outstanding archaeological problems: such as the location of the Enneakrounos as well as the Aphrodite Ourania sanctuary. In the same way, just analysing the language Pausanias uses alongside the archaeological record, possible solutions can be found to questions unanswered so far by archaeology alone, for instance the position of the Eleusinion. By analysing other ancient sources in conjunction with Pausanias' description it appears that the exact area the name Kerameikos covered changed in different periods. Also a virtual 'silence' in his text may reveal the location of the long lost Leokoreion. Since arguably the most important artefacts to come from the ancient world are inscriptions, the weight of epigraphical evidence used in such a commentary should reflect this wherever possible. There are also photographs and line drawings of relevant architectural elements, foundations, monuments, sculpture, plans and inscriptions. The proposed route possibly taken by Pausanias is illustrated, which combined with the interdisciplinary material covered in this thesis allow access not only to Pausanias' description but also to the site of the Agora itself.
|
|---|
