RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM ARCHAEOLOGICAL

IN ALEXANDRIA EVIDENCE*

FROM THE

By JUDITH S. MCKENZIE, SHEILA GIBSONt and A. T. REYES with an Appendix by Giinter Grimm and Judith S. McKenzie

(Plates I-X)

For J. J. Coulton
The Serapeum or Sarapeion, which contained the Temple of Serapis, was Alexandria's most important sanctuary, and one of the most famous pagan sanctuaries of antiquity. It was also the centre of a cult which spread widely across the Mediterranean in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Although the excavation of the Serapeum was completed half a century ago, the archaeological evidence for its form and phases has never been fully collected and analysed. When the records of the remains uncovered in are combined with those of the excavations during World War II, analysis of c. 900oo them reveals that there is sufficient evidence from which to suggest reliable reconstructions of both the Ptolemaic and Roman phases of the complex and to clarify its chronology. The archaeological evidence also elucidates the information in the written sources about the conversion of the site to Christian use after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 391. Previously unpublished architectural fragments excavated at the site

* The work on these reconstructions was done in the context of the Alexandrian Architecture Project, directed by J. McKenzie, for her volume on the monumental architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, 300 B.c. to A.D. 7oo based on the archaeological evidence and the written sources. More information is presented there (than space here permits) on the temples of Alexandria and Egyptian temples of the GrecoRoman period. The following abbreviations are used: Adriani Repertorio = A. Adriani, Repertorio d'arte dell'Egitto greco-romano, Series C, vols 1-2 (1966) Bernand 2001 = E. Bernand, Inscriptions grecques d'Alexandrie ptoltmaique (200 1) Botti Fouilles a la colonne = G. Botti, Fouilles a la colonne Theodosienne (1896) (1897) Calderini Dizionario = A. Calderini (ed.), Dizionario dei nomi geografici e topografici dell'Egitto grecoromano, vol. 1 (1935) EtAlex = Etudes alexandrines Fraser Ptol. Alex. = P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (1973) Gans 1994 = U.-W. Gans, 'Hellenistische Architekturteile aus Hartgestein in Alexandria', AA 1994, 433-53 Goddio et al. Alexandria = F. Goddio et al., Alexandria. The Submerged Royal Quarters (1998) Grimm Alexandria = G. Grimm, Alexandria. Die erste Kdnigsstadt der hellenistischen Welt (1998) Haas Alexandria = C. J. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (i997) Humphrey Roman Circuses = J. H. Humphrey, Roman Circuses (1986) LA = W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), Lexikon der Agyptologie (1975-1992) Mahmoud-Bey Mimoire = Mahmoud-Bey [Mahmoud el-Falaki], Mgmoire sur l'antique Alexandrie (I872) McKenzie Petra = J. S. McKenzie, The Architecture of Petra (I 990)

NPNF = A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series I890-(repr. 1991) PM = B. Porter and R. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings (ed. J. Malek) (1927-1999) PO = Patrologia Orientalis Pensabene Elementi Aless. = P. Pensabene, Elementi architettonici di Alessandria e di altri siti egiziani. Repertorio d'arte dell'Egitto greco-romano, Series C, vol. 3 (1993) Ronczewski 1927 = K. Ronczewski, 'Les chapiteaux corinthiens et ,varies du musi~e grc'co-romain d'Alexandrie (Egypte)', Suppl. du fasc. 22, Bulletin de la Socikte archeologique d'Alexandrie (1927) Rowe 1941-2 = A. Rowe, 'Short report on excavations of the Greco-Roman Museum made during the Season 1942 at "Pompey's Pillar"', Bulletin de la Societe d'archeologie d'Alexandrie 35 (1941-2), 124-61 Rowe and Rees = A. Rowe and B. R. Rees, 'A contribution of the archaeology to the Western Desert: IV. The Great Serapeum of Alexandria', (I957), 485-520 BullJRylandsLib 39.2 Rowe Encl. Serapis = A. Rowe, Discovery of the Famous Temple and Enclosure of Serapis at Alexandria, Supplement aux Annales du Service des antiquites de l'Egypte, cahier no. 2 ( 946) Sabottka Serapeum = M. Sabottka, Das Serapeum in Alexandria, diss. Technische Universitit Berlin (1985; Microfiche 1989) Tkaczow Topography = B. Tkaczow, Topography of Ancient Alexandria (1993) Weinstein 1973 = J. M. Weinstein, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt, PhD thesis University of Pennsylvania (0973; UMI Ann Arbor) Wild Water = R. A. Wild, Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Sarapis (1981 )

? World copyright reserved. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2004.

74

JUDITH S. MCKENZIE, SHEILA GIBSON AND A. T. REYES

in c. 1900 suggest that the architecture of the Ptolemaic sanctuary was 'classical' (Greek) not Egyptian in style (see Appendix). The site of the Serapeum is marked today by Diocletian's Column ('Pompey's Pillar') on the natural high ground to the south-west of the city centre; much of the area excavated is still visible to the visitor (Fig. I, Pl. II, I). Traces of wall-lines and architectural fragments excavated at the site provide more evidence for the reliable reconstruction of its Ptolemaic and Roman phases than is available for any other temple in Alexandria. The aim here is to establish the complete archaeological plan and the details of the Ptolemaic and Roman phases, followed by the basis for their respective reconstructions. Reconstructions by archaeologists are often treated with scepticism by historians and literary critics. Thus, it is essential to present in detail the evidence on which these reconstruction drawings of the Serapeum are based, as well as the reasoning involved, in a way which hopefully is accessible to non-archaeologists. This is particularly necessary as these reconstructions will become the basis for suggestions by other scholars for the interpretation of the various structures in the complex, and for comparisons of it with other sanctuaries.
I. EXCAVATION OF THE SITE

The most recent excavations of the site were conducted by Alan Rowe during World War II.' His general plan of the site, published in 1957 (Fig. 2), has the main foundations marked but lacks the level of detail given on his archaeological plans of specific areas of the site. As Rowe did not publish a final archaeological plan of the whole site, in order to establish a satisfactory plan of the results of his excavations it is necessary to combine his more detailed plans, as will be discussed below. Further details can be added to Rowe's plans from areas of the site to which he did not have access (Figs 3-4). These include the approximately two-metre thick wall-lines recorded in i866 by the Arab astronomer and surveyor Mahmoud-Bey (on the orientation of the street grid) to the north of the site in the area which is now Bab elSidra Cemetery.2 Some of the Serapeum site was excavated by G. Botti in I894-96,3 and more extensively by the Sieglin Expedition in I898-I9O2.4 Unlike Rowe, both of these expeditions had access to the narrow band at the north of the site (at the southern edge of the cemetery) which included important details such as the northern edges of the Temple of Serapis (the building which housed the cult statue) and the Stoa-like Structure to its west (Figs 3-5). The Sieglin Expedition excavated a larger area than Botti, especially in the southeastern part of the site (Fig. 3). Unlike Botti, they made a detailed plan and sections of their excavations, although they did not publish them. These were later published, with a detailed analysis, by Michael Sabottka.5 The Sieglin Expedition plan provides important details such as the north sides of the Temple of Serapis and of the Stoa-like Structure.6 It also provides additional details which are not marked on Rowe's plans, notably of the southern part of the building surrounding the entry to the underground passages and of the rock-cuttings at the centre of the Temple of Serapis (Fig. 4).

1 Rowe

Rees. 2 Mahmoud-Bey MImoire, 54-5. 3 G. Botti, L'Acropole d'Alexandrie et le Serapeum d'apris Aphthonius et les fouilles (1895), 16-27 with plan; Botti Fouilles a la colonne; G. Botti, Plan du quartier "Rhacotis" dans l'Alexandrie romaine (1897), plan (with area of excavations marked); G. Botti, 'Additions au "Plan de la ville d'Alexandrie etc."', Bulletin de la Socite' d'archeologie d'Alexandrie I (1898), 49-5 I; Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 5-6.

1941-2;

Rowe

Encl.

Serapis;

Rowe

and

of Sieglin Sabottka Expedition: 4 History Serapeum, vol. I, 7-14; G. Grimm, 'City planning?', in K. Hamma (ed.), Alexandria and Alexandrianism
(1996), 69 n. 7.

s Sabottka Serapeum. His volumes include the foundations, but not the architectural fragments included in the appendix here. A. Thiersch's impressive reconstruction elevation drawings are published (without detailed explanation) in H. Thiersch, August Thiersch als Architekt und Forscher (1923), pl. 22. 6 Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 4, pl. I.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE

SERAPEUM

IN

ALEXANDRIA

75

'-I
ii

N
I I, I i" " _ImIIll

cn I
/I

CC
I ,I II I i

II
....
:_
_ __

i
L

II

F=

-og i / ,L-c2)

_i__J

II___

-4I< I
1

L__
o[

2;,)
C ai:

____ IE liI

>

11 <a
I--

tr %
'][i

~
l'-<
z

II

I I III
I

I
II_ --E-,4CQ

(D Ill M~
(_

m DM:

(J,

w
K3~t,_
a:
III~1

JIETAU

.%n

II.1-w a:-X4 LL HEPTA ADIUM :I T <v LL f CLI ~1a: ( ,ii o, , < <Z W <i 0 w
1

>

?7 I TZ a O72if7r1a 0fi 0 Z< ui w 1110 i, rr tlb~o?= ~ U-LwL!i

I

3 0< I17 I-z := ! S0I flr a/

ii 11'

-ul

___ !

''> !

D[1I FiI i 1 1 w 119r l

IIo

II

.
-,

<

!til I 'Ii I - -t

L f

E-1,
I

, Ir -IL II L0

w 1I
,

0 W L LI < 0C
I

)
a: z \L

It

ii

f<
\z%0 cc 0

76
A,b

JUDITH
COLONNA) FIREPLACES

S. MCKENZIE,
REMAINS OF EARLY

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES
S

DUCT ....Y9.,.,

CHURCH CHRISTIAN HERt

I ROOMS _1[

ENTRY
Cf)

COLONNADE
PASSAGE NTRY

FOR

S10
0

SHRINES

ISS G SLRAPIS,

O ,SECRET

FORORACLE

LEVEL O ELOWER
OU OF ,OPEN

HARPOCATESCOL.bAS

THEOOALEXANDRI

SEPNDAEUM

ISIS

TMPLE

DYTON CLLA

(ROMN) P E

O(

0L. ) m

RIs

1957

" P AVED DROMS "-OUNDATIOT OF EX O

(uP)
.

CO L

DPLE

2ONNAD.

FIG.2.

ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

A. ROWES

FINAL

1957

PLAN

OF EXCAVATIONs.

(After

Rowe

and Rees,

plan opp.

FIG.

2.

ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

A. ROWE)S

FINAL

1957 PLAN OF EXCAVATIONS. (After

Rowe

and Rees,

plan opp.

P.

4.2)

The work of Rowe and Botti is used as the primary basis for the reconstructions presented here. The Sieglin Expedition results are included here only when they provide additional evidence not recorded by Rowe. The rock-cut foundations, especially those exposed for over a century, have weathered considerably since they were uncovered, making the earlier records irreplaceable (Pls II, 2-3). Rowe's archaeological plans of 1941-42 (the most detailed of which is described by him as a 'sketch plan')' and his plan of April 19448 are remarkably similar in their details and dimensions to these areas of the Sieglin Expedition plan. However, Rowe's work differed from that of the Sieglin Expedition and Botti in two important respects. Firstly, he was able to excavate the areas, formerly covered by modern Arab housing, which they had not been able to excavate. These areas were in the south-western, western, and southernmost parts of the site, which included the rooms along the south and west sides of the enclosure (Fig. 3). Secondly, as a consequence of this, he discovered the foundation deposits of the main temenos enclosure. He also discovered the foundation deposits for the Ptolemaic Temple of Serapis, and those for the Roman pool, which had been missed by the earlier excavators. The combination of this additional evidence provides essential clues for clarifying the chronology of the phases of the temple complex, and sufficient information from which to suggest their reconstructions.

7 Rowe 1941-2,

pl. 32.

Rowe Encl. Serapis, pl. 7.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE

SERAPEUM

IN

ALEXANDRIA

77

in 1866 by Mahmoud-Bey Wallsrecorded

f sitegin

?-10

IKEY

.N

Approximate

0
FIG. 3. FIG.

.50 M
McKenzie) (J.McKenzie)

3.

SERAPEUM SITEWITH WITHAREAS AREAS OFEXCAVATIONS EXCAVATIONS MARKED. ALEXANDRIA, ALEXANDRIA, SERAPEUM SITE OF MARKED. (J. II. ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLAN

To the plan of the site Rowe made at the end of his work in October 19459 may be added details from his other plans, all made by B. A. Malek (Fig. 4). His most detailed archaeological plan of the largest area, made in 1942, covers all the buildings at the centre of the site (the South Building, the T-shaped Building surrounding the entry to
9 Rowe Encl. Serapis, pl. 17.

78

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON
.. ...

AND A. T. REYES

..

..... . .." .

3 ,

--

. . ..... i::o, . i~

i, . '<

"

.. .. .. ......... ..?& :.... - "...............

..

".......

.....

WALL SINNER >-?1--1 ?11 ----~------------------------C OLONNADE

.... --j- <'-'.......... Ip~-~

P. aC
,. , r.

13 ..............~ P. P. 39
Cra
ir

.F.

. .

. .

. .
II:

~ _ :i_-i_~
J
I F M SN .

4L.

=.o ........ .... ........... ....... ...................C 5

;6AA

17
oraraar
FIDFNAW

co

~g~srlN 10 9 MENEW",
"QP 1t35

NDMA

tco so0)

P 4 P. FIG. ALEXADRIASERAPEM, 4 DEAILED LAN O EXCAVTIONSINCORIRATMA A RW, IH DITOA C3AL RMSELNEPEIINADMHODBY

the underground passages, the Temple of Serapis, and the Stoa-like Structure), as well as the east side of the hill including the Roman portico.l0 Further details may be added to this plan from Rowe's plan of the area of the 'lower terrace' east of the Roman portico and of the Nilometer; these were excavated later in the season, after the larger plan had been made."l He also made a separate, more detailed plan of the South Building and the passage giving secret access to it,12 and one of the Harpocrates Temple on the east side of the Temple of Serapis." These two plans are also added to the plan here. The plan of the foundations of the southern part of the sanctuary, which are one storey below the level of the court pavement, can be added from Rowe's plan of the south-western corner14 and his plan of the recessed rooms and colonnades further east."5 On Rowe's plan of April 1944 the areas to the east and south-east of the site are marked, as is the approximate position of the walls recorded by Mahmoud-Bey to the north of the site.16 Rowe excavated some of the area to the west of the enclosure which included remains of substantial Christian structures. His two plans of this area are added to the
plan here (Fig. 4)17

10 Rowe 1941-2, pl. 32. 11 Rowe 1941-2, pl. 44. 12 Rowe 1941-2, pl. 31. Encl. Rowe 13 Serapis, pl. 16, fig. 2.

Rowe Rowe 16 Rowe 17 Rowe

14 15

Encl. Serapis, 46, fig. 12. Encl. Serapis, pl. 8. Encl. Serapis, 20 n. I, p1. 7. 1941-2, pls 13, i8.

79 On the plan here (Fig. 4) some additional details are added from the Sieglin Expedition plan. These details include the south-easternmost corner of the T-shaped Building (surrounding the entry to the underground passages), the north wall of the Temple of Serapis (and some of the rock-cuttings in it), and the north wall of the Stoalike Structure. Two Main Types of Building Foundations As Rowe observed, the building foundations are of two very different types (leaving aside the Christian structures to the west of the enclosure).18 They are either rock-cut foundation trenches for ashlar masonry, which survives in some of them, (Pls II, 2-3)19 or they are of concrete, consisting of small irregular pieces of limestone bonded with cement (P1. III, I) .20 This is very clear on Rowe's plan of October 1945 on which the rock-cut foundations are marked in black and the concrete ones in red (but lost in later reproductions in black and white).21 The concrete foundations are indicated on his 1957 plan by hatching (Fig. 2).22 Thus, the first step to facilitate the interpretation of the archaeological plans of the building foundations is to highlight or select only those features which are building foundations, leaving aside features such as later pits and underground cisterns which cloud the situation. This is done in Fig. 5, where the concrete foundations are indicated by hatching and the rock-cut ones either in solid black or by cross-hatching. From this it becomes obvious that for the Temple of Serapis and the colonnaded court there are only two types of foundations: one concrete and one rock-cut for ashlar masonry.
III. CHRONOLOGY OF PTOLEMAIC STRUCTURES

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

For methodological reasons, the discussion of the chronology of the Ptolemaic structures in this section is not presented in strict chronological order. After brief mention of the cult statue, the foundations of Ptolemy III Euergetes I are considered first because they are the most reliably dated. The Ptolemaic building foundations which can be dated relative to them are then considered. These are followed by the altar of Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Arsinoe and the Harpocrates Temple of Ptolemy IV Philopator. Cult Statue Tacitus (writing in the first decade of the second century A.D.) records that the temples in Alexandria erected by Ptolemy I Soter (306/4-282 B.C.) included a temple of Serapis: 'A temple befitting the size of the city was erected in the place called Rhacotis; there had previously been on that spot an ancient shrine (sacellum) dedicated to Serapis
18 Main references: see nn. I and 3 above. Mahmoud-Bey Mgmoire, 53-6; E. Breccia, 'Les fouilles dans le Serap&um d'Alexandrie en 1905-I906', ASAE 8 (1907), 62-76; Adriani Repertorio, 90-100 nos 54-5, pls 28-31; Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 27-8, 265-70; vol. 2, 83-92 nn. 190-203, 419-26 nn. 621-64; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 195-203; Tkaczow Topography, 68-70 site 15. Colour aerial view of site: A. Charron, 'Sarapis, dieu tutdlaire d'Alexandrie', Archdologia 345 (1998), pl. on p. 26. 19 Ptolemaic foundations: Rowe Encl. Serapis, 19-33, pls 3, 6-9, 17; Rowe and Rees, 487-95, plan opp. p. 492; Adriani, Repertorio, 93-4; Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 56-251, with drawings and photographs from Sieglin Expedition. 20 Analysis of Roman evidence from the excavations: Rowe Encl. Serapis, 33-40, 60-4, pls 4-5, 7, 9, 17; Rowe and Rees, 496-502, plan opp. p. 492; Adriani Repertorio, 94-7; Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 252-301 with drawings and photographs from Sieglin Expedition. 21 Rowe Encl. Serapis, pl. 17. 22 Rowe and Rees, plan opp. p. 492.

80

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

STREET R8

Walls recorded n 1866 byMahmoud-Bey

STRUCTURE
STOA-LIKE.

---

1.H

Lirnit of sit
Sin 1945

TEMPLE OF SERAPIS

ROMAN ROMAN PORTICO

ENTRYTO UNDERGROUND PASSAGES DIOCLETIAN'S

COLUMNPanrt PTOLEMAIC STAIRWAY

stairway
PTOLEMAIC NILOMETER

of Roman

SOUTHBUILDING

KEY
PTOLEMAIC ROCK-CUT FOUNDATIONS ROCK-CUT FOUNDATIONS OFPTOLEMY III ROMAN CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS

Atlowerlevel thanrestof sanctuary

50 M
based on Fig. 4)

FIG. 5.

PLANOFWALLFOUNDATIONS. SERAPEUM, ALEXANDRIA, (J. McKenzie

that some date his introduction to Ptolemy III Euergetes I (246-221

23 Tac., Hist. 4.84. On the origin of Serapis, with references: Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 246-68; LA V, cols 870-4; G. Hdlbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2oo0), 99-101. On the origin of Rhakotis, the Egyptian name of Alexandria: J. Baines, 'Possible implications of the Egyptian word for Alexandria', JRA i6 (2003), 61-3. The 'Serapeum in Rhakotis' is mentioned in a papyrus (PRyl. 576) of the last quarter of the third century B.C., which indicates river craft being unloaded beside it. Given its location relative to the Canal of Alexandria (Fig. I) this is possible: Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 144; vol. 2, 78 n. 182.

and Isis'.23 Tacitus is aware of the controversies surrounding the origin of Serapis and
B.C.).

About eighty

It is not definitely known whether or not the main Serapeum was the Serapeum dedicated by Parmenion outside the city walls, mentioned by Callimachus in his first Iambus (Fr. 191; Dieg. 11.1-4 and 9 = Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. 2, 427 n. 670). This is because the precise route of the city walls near the Serapeum and the Lageion is not definitively known. Fraser assumed the Serapeum of Parmenion could not be the main Serapeum because he was under the impression that the latter was inside the city walls: Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 270-I, 735-6.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

8I

years later, the Christian philosopher Clement, in c. A.D. 19o, credits Ptolemy II Philadelphus with this and gives a detailed description of the cult statue of Serapis.24 Clement gives the name of the sculptor as Bryaxis 'not the famous Athenian, but another of the same name'. If it were possible to identify him reliably, this would provide further clarification of the date of the original statue.25 Later sources give the date the statue was moved to the Serapeum as the very end of the reign of Ptolemy I or the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy II (which began in 285 B.C.).26 The appearance of the cult statue is reliably known from later copies and descriptions of it.27 He was a draped figure with a beard, seated on a throne, with a bushel (kalathos) on his head and a sceptre in his raised left hand. Beside him was Cerberus, the three-headed dog of the Underworld. Many of the details of the different versions of his origin reflect his various aspects. His Egyptian name Osiris-Apis suggests he is derived from the god of the Underworld, Osiris-Apis, who was worshipped in the old Egyptian capital Memphis. Serapis took on Osiris' role of Lord of the Underworld with his identification with Pluto or Hades, and with Dionysus as a chthonic god. As the cult of the Nile was associated with Osiris, Serapis became responsible for the annual Nile flood and the grain supply. He had aspects of the supreme deity Jupiter or Zeus and (in the Roman period) was assimilated with Helios. Serapis' role as dynastic god of the king (with Isis associated with the queen) is seen in the erection of a large Greco-Egyptian temple on the city's main east-west street dedicated to Serapis, Isis, Ptolemy IV Philopator and Arsinoe III, for which bilingual foundation plaques were found in situ (location marked on Fig. I).28 Given Serapis' role as dynastic god, it is very likely that his cult statue was introduced to Alexandria early in the Ptolemaic period to help give local legitimacy to the Ptolemaic kings. The archaeological evidence indicates that the Serapeum site was in use as a sanctuary by the first quarter of the third century B.C. (as indicated below). The foundations of the temple or other building which would have housed the cult statue in the reign of Ptolemy I or II have not been identified, although the possibility remains that it might have been the South Building. Foundations of Ptolemy III Euergetes I
B.C.)

(246-221

The main enclosure and temple with rock-cut foundations and ashlar masonry walls are identified as the temenos and temple of the Serapeum by their foundation plaques which also indicate that they were built by Ptolemy III Euergetes I. Made of materials such as gold, silver, bronze, mud, and turquoise-green glazed terracotta, these plaques are inscribed: 'King Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, the Brother Gods, [dedicates] to Serapis the temple (naos) and the sacred enclosure (temenos)'. The term Osiris-Apis is used in hieroglyphs for Serapis.29 Ten plaques were found in each of the
24 Clement, Protr. 4.42-3. 25 On the problems of identifying which Bryaxis this might have been: A. Stewart, Greek Sculpture: an Exploration (1990), 300-I T 149. 26 Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. 2, 398 n. 450. According to Jerome's version of Eusebius' Chronicle the move took place in 286 B.C.: Eusebius Werke siebenter Band die Chronik des Hieronymus, ed. R. Helm (1956), 129 11.3-4. According to the Armenian version of Eusebius, in 278 B.c.: Eusebi Chronicorum Libri duo, ed. A. Schoene, vol. 2 (1866), 120oin Eusebi Chronicorum Canonum quae supersunt, ed. A. Schoene. According to Cyril of Alexandria, in 284-281 B.C.: Cyril, Adv. lulianum 1. 13. 27 For versions of the statue, with illustrations, see: W. Hornbostel, Sarapis (973), 33-130; V. Tran Tam Tinh, Sdrapis debout. Corpus des monumentsde Serapis debout et etude iconographique (1983); LIMC 7.1

(1994), 666-92. Summary: J. J. Pollit, Art in the Hellenistic Age (1986), 279-80. 28 Found in the excavations for the then new Bourse, only the gold plaque was preserved. G. Maspero, 'Sur une plaque d'or portant la dedicace d'un temple', Recueil de travaux 7 (1886), 140-1; Sammelbuch I, 2136; M. N. Tod, 'A bilingual dedication from Alexandria', JEA 28 (1942), 53-6 with earlier bibliography, pl. 6.1; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 12-13, fig. 5; Rowe and Rees, 509 n. 2; Adriani Repertorio, 253; Weinstein 1973, 385-6 no. 166; Tkaczow Topography, site 27, map B; Bernand 2001, 53-6 no. 18. 80o 29 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 1-10, 51-3, 59, figs 1-3, 12, pls 1-2, 7, 9-II, 16 fig. 2 hole no. 6; Weinstein 1973, 368-70, 379-8I no. 162; Grimm Alexandria, 83, fig. 84a-b, d, f-g; La Gloire d'Alexandrie (1998), 95 no. 51; Bernand 2001, 42-3 no. 13, pl. 6.13.

82

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

"'"I

STREET
RS8

STRUCTURE
STOA-LIKE Fonda tion plaques TEMPLE OF SERAPIS

ENTRY TO UNDERGROUND PASSAGES 1

I--Stairway

SOUTHBUILDING

-lL

Foundation plaques

Foundation plaques

m*mo-

o
FIG. 6.

50 M McKenzie)

ALEXANDRIA, SERAPEUM, PLAN OF PTOLEMAIC WALL FOUNDATIONS. (J.

south-east and south-west corners of the temenos (marked on Fig. 6). Those found in the south-eastern corner of the temple provide the identification of this structure as the one which would have contained the cult statue of Serapis.30 As the plaques are inscribed in Greek and Egyptian hieroglyphs, they were made taking into account both the Greek and Egyptian populations, although the custom of using such foundation plaques is Egyptian, not Greek.31 The Temple of Serapis and the colonnaded court were built as one complex under Ptolemy III Euergetes I. The Stoa-like Structure to the west of the temple is positioned on the opposite side of the lengthwise axis of the colonnaded court at the same distance from this axis as the temple (Fig. 6), suggesting that they were built as part of the same design, and thus at the same time. The foundations of these structures, built under Ptolemy III Euergetes I, are those marked in Fig. 6 in solid black.
30 Botti had suggested this building was the Iseum and the South Building the Serapeum: Botti, op. cit. (n. 3, 1897), plan. 31 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 13-19, 65; Weinstein 1973, 351-93-

RECONSTRUCTING
m IIANDARSINOE) ALTAR (PTOLEMY

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

83

A/

-n0

M BUILDING 0 M SOUTH

C:I Z

50 M -

FIG.

7.

ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

PLAN

OF PTOLEMAIC

FEATURES

BEFORE

ENCLOSURE AND TEMPLE OF SERAPIS OF PTOLEMY III EUERGETES I. (J.

McKenzie)

Earlier Ptolemaic Buildings

the Stoa-like Structure is the same distance from the as mentioned, Although, axis of the colonnaded court as the Temple of Serapis, the south side of the north-south Stoa-like Structure is set back relative to the south face (i.e. front) of the temple (Fig. 6). If the Stoa-like Structure had been positioned with its south wall on the same alignment as the front of the temple, there would have been no space to walk between it and the north side of the T-shaped Building which surrounds the entry to the underground the latter building was already standing when the Stoa-like that This suggests passages. Structure was erected, i.e. that the T-shaped Building was erected before the Stoa-like Structure. The T-shaped Building is connected to the South Building by a masonry-lined rock-cut passage running under the courtyard paving and thus gives secret access to it. This c. 6o m long passage (c. i m wide) runs south from inside the south wall of the Tshaped Building, then turns east to enter the back of the South Building through its This west wall (Fig. 4, marked 'Secret Passage' in Fig. 7, also visible in P1. II, the South that the and them between 3).32 T-shaped Building suggests inter-relationship Building were built at the same time as part of one complex (Fig. 7). Thus, as the T-shaped Building is apparently earlier than the Stoa-like Structure mentioned above), and as the Stoa-like Structure was apparently built as part of the (as of above), this would mean that both the TPtolemy III (also mentioned complex V1 1;1A ;*_%rV +1%xi QrN -VX T4111X the main Temple of Serapis Building were built before +VAi Building and the South shaped ped1*1%in0kA -vfvr III and colonnaded court of Ptolemy Euergetes I. It is not known whether they were or during B.C.). that of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in his built earlier I Soter B.C.), or even of (285-246 Ptolemy reign (305-284
CNV
l-%

32 South Building and secret passage: Rowe 1941-2,

144-6, pl. 29 fig. 2, pls 30-2,

34 fig. i; Sabottka

vol. I, 231-46; vol. 3, figs 48-53; vol. 4, pls Serapeum,

I00-II.

84

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

As the T-shaped Building encloses the large square stairwell leading to the underground passages (P1. III, 2),33 this suggests that the carving of some of these passages had been begun at, or before, the time of the erection of the T-shaped Building, and so, that they were in use by the time the complex of Ptolemy III was commenced. A fragment of a Ptolemaic inscription was found in one of the passages.34 The rock-cut wall foundation trenches indicate that there was also an earlier monumental building phase. This consists of an unidentified structure to the west and south of the South Building, built before the constructions of Ptolemy III Euergetes I (Figs 4, 7).35 Altar of Ptolemy II Philadelphusand A rsinoe Archaeological evidence found at the site indicates its use as a sanctuary by the first quarter of the third century B.C.This includes dedications to Isis and Serapis dated to the reign of Ptolemy I Soter or early in the reign of Ptolemy II, found by Rowe in An altar dedicated to Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his wife Arsinoe (who i943-44.36 died in 270 B.C.) was found in situ on a pebble mosaic floor of the first quarter of the third century B.C.37The position of this altar is marked on the Sieglin Expedition plan beside the north-east corner of the later Temple of Serapis (Fig. 4, marked in Fig. 7). Sabottka gives a reconstruction of the rooms surrounding this altar, based on the evidence of the Sieglin Expedition."3These rooms would have gone out of use when the Temple of Serapis was constructed. They notably do not have the same orientation as the street grid. Harpocrates Templeof Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-205 B.C.) Ptolemy IV Philopator dedicated a small (8.80 m long by 5.00 m wide) temple to

Harpocrates (Horus the child, son of the gods Osiris and Isis) erected immediately to the east of the Temple of Serapis, flush with its east side (Figs 2, 4, 8). The rock-cut Rowe found. They are inscribed: 'King Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy and Queen Bernice, the Beneficient Gods, to Harpocrates by order of Serapis [in hieroglyphs Osiris-Apis] and Isis'. Like those of the Serapeum, the plaques are bilingual in Greek and Egyptian hieroglyphs, but the hieroglyphic version uses a sophisticated system of alphabetical ideograms. These plaques were found in pairs of holes cut in each corner of the rock-cut foundations. In the main corner hole of each pair Rowe identified up to ten plaques, each of a different material, including mud, bronze, opaque glass in six different colours,

foundations of this Harpocrates Temple are identified by its foundation plaques, which

33 Botti, op. cit. (n. 3, 1895), 24-7 with plan; Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 112-21; Rowe 1941-2, 140, fig. 7, 152, pls 32, 34 fig. 3, 35 fig. 3; Rowe Encl. Serapis, vol. vol.

34-6, fig. 7; Rowe and Rees, 498-9; Adriani Repertorio, 95-6, pl. 30 fig. 107, pl. 31 figs iio-II; Sabottka
I,

ulty of Arts 2 (1944), 18-I9 no. I, 21-3 no. 2; P. M. Fraser, 'Current problems concerning the early history of the cult of Sarapis', OpAth 7 (1967), 36-7, 42, Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 268; vol. 2, 422 n. 644; Bernand 2001, 19-20 no. 2, 27-8 no. 4, pl. 1.2-4. 37 OGI II.725; SB V.892I; Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. i, 236; vol. 2, 385-6 n. 367; G. Grimm, 'Zur Ptolemaieralter aus dem alexandrinischen Sarapeion', in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano, Studi in onore di A. Adriani, vol. I (1983), 70-3, pl. 8; W. A. Daszewski, Corpus of Mosaics from Egypt I: Hellenistic and Early Roman Period, Aegyptiaca Treverensia 3 (1985), 114 no. 8, pl. 16; Grimm Alexandria, 82 fig. 83; Bernand 2oo001, 34-6 no. 8, pl. 3. 3s Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 37-55; vol. 3, figs 5-7; vol. 4, pls 13-19.
pl. 2 fig. 3, pl. 3 fig. 6; SEG 24.1166 and 1167-8;

vol. 4, pls 76-99. The Sieglin Expedition recorded the stairwell in more detail than the other expeditions. 34 Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 117 = Fraser Ptol.
Alex., vol. I, 269; vol. 2, 425 n. 660. and PP48: Rowe 1941-2, 15 1-2, pls 31-2, "3 PP45 34 fig. i; Rowe and Rees, 492. I thank S. R. F. Price

Serapeum,

193-230;

3, figs 37, 39-43;

for drawing my attention to this earlier phase. See also: Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 30-3; Grimm, op. cit. (n. 4), 63, 72 n. 49. 36 A. J. B. Wace, 'Greek inscriptions from the Serapeum', Farouk I University, Bulletin of the Fac-

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM
STREET R8

IN ALEXANDRIA

85

STRUCTURE

TEMPLE OF SERAPIS

ENTRY TO UNDERGROUNE PASSAGES

aOi

IV.

RECONSTRUCTION

OF THE COMPLEX

OF PTOLEMY

III EUERGETES

Temple of Serapis As mentioned above, the foundations of the colonnaded court and of the Temple of Serapis of Ptolemy III Euergetes I (246-221 B.C.) are identified by their foundation
39 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 54-8, pls 16-17; Rowe and Rees, 509; Weinstein 1973, 365-6, 368-70, 383-8 no. 165, 391 no. 17o; Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 261, 269; vol. 2, 412 n. 569; Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 178-82; vol. 3, fig. 5, 34; vol. 4, pls 64-7; Grimm Alexandria, 83, pl. 84c, e; La Gloire d'Alexandrie (1998), 95 nos 50 and 52 (illustration incorrectly otte in Goddio et al. Alexandria, 21 I. 40 Weinstein 1973, 368-9. He suggests there were
labelled); Bernand 2001, 60-I no. 21, pl. 9.21; J. Yoy-

86

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

plaques, and there are wall foundations of only one Ptolemaic and one Roman phase of these two specific parts of the complex. According to the written sources, the Ptolemaic sanctuary survived the first two centuries of Roman rule before burning down, after which it was followed by the Roman sanctuary discussed below. The Christian philosopher Clement of Alexandria, writing c. A.D. Igo, mentions that close to the burial places is 'the akra which they now call Rhakotis, where stands the honoured sanctuary (hieron) of Serapis'41 which was burnt.42 In his version of Eusebius' Chronicle, the Christian scholar Jerome gives the date it
(templum) was burnt as A.D. 181.4' The remains of wall-paintings indicate

the complex was re-decorated in the first century A.D.44 However, there is no evidence that the Serapeum was destroyed in the Jewish uprising of A.D. I I5-i6,45 unlike the Temple of Nemesis.46 The Temple of Serapis is depicted on Roman coins dating from Trajan to Year 16 of Marcus Aurelius, A.D. I75/6.47 As these coins date before A.D. 181, and as the Ptolemaic temple was apparently not destroyed before then, the temple on the coins must be the Ptolemaic one.48 These coins depict the temple housing the cult-statue with two or four columns across the front, Corinthian capitals, a Doric frieze, and a triangular pediment. This is clearly a 'classical' (Greco-Roman), not an Egyptian, style building.49 Images of buildings on coins do not always show the full number of columns across the front of a temple, because the iconography was simplified or abbreviated to fit the small size of the coin. Thus, they usually only indicate a minimum number of columns. In this case, however, the presence of four columns across the front of the Temple of Serapis fits with the size of its foundations. On the basis of the foundations, Sabottka considered the possibilities in detail, including four supports across the front, either with two columns between antae (distyle in antis) or with four free-standing columns across the front (tetrastyle prostyle).50 The numismatic evidence indicates the latter. Both the upper and lower blocks of a large limestone Type I Alexandrian Corinthian capital (dimensions of lower block: h. 0.50 m, upper diam. 0.85 m) were found by Botti in the South Building (Appendix, Pls IX, 2 and X, I).51 This capital is dated to the third century B.C. (see Appendix). There is no proof that this capital came from this building or the Temple of Serapis, but it does suggest the use of the Corinthian order on the site in the third century B.C. for a main order. A fragment of a triglyph block which was excavated at the site also comes from a main order. It suggests the

that part of

actually nine plaques in each hole in it (and the Serapeum), based on Egyptian custom. 41 Clement, Protr. 4.42. 42 Clement, Protr. 4.47. 43 Eusebius Werke, Siebenter Band die Chronik des Hieronymus, ed. R. Helm (I956), p. 208 1. 19 and p. 423 g; T. Hopfner, Fontes historiae religionis aegyptiacae (1922-25), 487; J. Schwartz, 'La fin du Serapeum d'Alexandrie', in A. E. Samuel (ed.), Essays in Honor of C. Bradford Welles (1966), 97 n. I. 44 Remains of painted stucco: Botti Fouilles a' la colonne, 79-80, pl. on p. 81; R. Pagenstecher, Necropolis (1919), 187-99, figs I13-17; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 6o n. 3. See also Appendix, P1. VIII. 45 So also, F. Thelamon, Paiens et chretiens au IPV siicle. L'apport de l' 'Histoire ecclisiastique' de Rufin d'Aquilee (1981), 169. Contra: A. Wace in Rowe Encl. Serapis, 63-4; Rowe and Rees, 496, 506; Haas Alexandria, io1, despite 406-7 n. 28. 46 Appian, BC 2.90o. Relations between Jews and Greeks in Alexandria under Trajan: M. Beard, J. North and S. Price, Religions of Rome, vol. 2 (1998), 327-8. 47 Year 16 of Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 175/6): Bern 80.586 in Jahrbuch des Bernischen Historischen Museums 63-4 (1983-4), 178 no. 25. I thank Chris Howgego for this reference. Some other examples:

R. S. Poole, Catalogue of the Coins of Alexandria and the Nomes, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum (1892), xc-xci, pls 28.872 and 1252, 29-537; G. Dattari, Monete imperiali greche. Numi Augg. Alexandrini (190o), pl. 30.1142, 1150 (with 4 columns), 1967, 3o6obis (with 4 columns), 3803 (with 4 columns); J. G. Milne, Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins (1971), pl. 4.672; M. J. Price and B. L. Trell, Coins and their Cities (1977), 183-5, figs 318 (with 4 columns), 348. Discussion: S. Handler, 'Architecture on the Roman coins of Alexandria', AJA 75 (1971), 65-8, pl. I I, nos 13, 14 (with 4 columns) 15, 17 (with Doric frieze). 48 So also Handler, op. cit. (n. 47), 68; Wild Water, 168. 49 Yoyotte suggested that the Serapeum was largely an Egyptian temple: J. Yoyotte in Goddio et al. Alexandria, 210-12; F. Burkhalter, 'La mosaique nilotique de Palestrina et les pharaonica d'Alexandrie', Topoi 9 (1999), 254-5; P. E. Stanwick, Portraits of the Ptolemies, Greek Kings or Egyptian Pharaohs (2002), 17. so Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 153-77; vol. 3, figs 25, 28-33; vol. 4, pls 58-63; Sabottka in Grimm, op. cit. (n. 4), 65, figs 13-14; Sabottka in Grimm Alexandria, 83 fig. 83c-d. 51 Rowe 1941-2, fig. 5 on p. 132.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

87

possible use of a Doric frieze at the site on a main order, but not on which building or at what date (Appendix, P1. IX, I lower right). The approximate position of the cross-wall for the cella of the Temple of Serapis (Fig. 8) has been centred on the rock-cuttings in the floor, marked on the Sieglin Expedition plan (Figs 4, 6). Although smaller than the Temple of Serapis, the Temple of Augustus at Philae in Upper Egypt, built in 13/12 B.C., has a similar plan and elevation. Like the Temple of Serapis depicted on the coins, it is tetrastyle prostyle with [pseudo-]Corinthian capitals, a Doric frieze, and a triangular pediment.52 Colonnaded Court The enclosure of Ptolemy I I I had a colonnade along its east side, with two entrances (Fig. 8). On the west side of the enclosure the colonnade had a row of rooms behind it. Along the south side the foundations are at a lower level than the rest of the sanctuary (Fig. 5), so that there would have been two stories of rooms along the south side of the enclosure. At the lower level, immediately to the north of these rooms, markings on the stylobate indicate a colonnade (Fig. 4). It supported the roof of the paved corridors in front of these rooms, which also functioned as the floor of that part of the main sanctuary.53 This colonnade is not marked on the reconstructed plan because the latter depicts structures at the main level of the sanctuary (Fig. 8), not at the lower level which is included in the axonometric reconstruction (Fig. 9). The northernmost of the foundations along the southern side of the building (Fig. 6) is used in this reconstruction for the stylobate of the southern colonnade of the colonnaded court (Fig. 8). The retaining wall to the south of it is used to support a row of columns between that colonnade and the rooms at the level of the main sanctuary itself (Figs 8-9). Sabottka's reconstructed plan is different, with the retaining wall also used as the stylobate for the main colonnade along the south side of the court; he does not use the foundations to its north in his reconstruction.54 The position of the colonnade along the north side of the court is possibly suggested the two southernmost walls recorded by Mahmoud-Bey at 54 and 62 m to the north by of the centre of Diocletian's Column.ss From this, Rowe suggested that the Ptolemaic enclosure, which had an outer width of 77 m, was 173.7 m long.56 The approximate size of the columns of the Ptolemaic colonnaded court can be estimated from the width of the foundations (Figs 8-9, 12).s7 Where foundations have survived for colonnades, the columns have been marked in the reconstructed plan in solid black for convenience, to distinguish them from those for which the foundations have not survived (or were recorded by Mahmoud-Bey) which are stippled (compare Figs 6 and 8). It is not known whether the colonnaded court had a flat roof or a pitched one, although the coins suggest a pitched roof for the Temple of Serapis. Greek roof tiles have been found in Alexandria in the palace area,58 proving that they were used in the city, even if local flat roofing techniques were also used. In the absence of other evidence, the roof of the colonnaded court could have been either flat or pitched. A flat roof has

52 Sufficient blocks survive for a reliable reconstruction of the elevation of the Temple of Augustus at Philae: L. Borchardt, 'Der Augustustempel auf Philae', JdI 18 (1903), 73-90, pls 3-5. 13 The columns (lower diam. 0.77 m) were placed 1.84 m (c. I? diameters) apart. Rowe Encl. Serapis, 22-5, 28-9, fig. 12, pls 3, 8, 9, II; Rowe and Rees, 488, 511. vol. 3, figs 14, 14 Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 103-44; 23, 25. 55 Mahmoud-Bey Mdmoire, 55. 56 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 19-zo; Rowe and Rees, 497.

57 I thank J. J. Coulton for his help with this calculation. The stylobate size suggests the columns were c. o.9o m in diameter. He suggests, as this size is relatively large, that they were probably 21 diameters apart. A length (through the centre of the columns) of 143.5 m with 64 spaces would give a column diameter of 0.897 m, and an intercolumniation of 2.24 m. 8 At the site of the new library, the WHO building, and the Government Hospital: M. Rodziewicz, 'Ptolemaic street directions in Basilea (Alexandria)', in Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano, Congresso Alessandria 1992 (i995), 230.

88

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

M 30M

30M

30M

0\\

i,8
EUERGETES , 24-22 B.C. (Sheila Gibson)o

9,12) ,for

it

(Figs

EG

I2-IB(hlGs

Street R8, one of the main north-south streets of the city street grid plan, ran along the east side of the colonnaded court (Fig. I). Part of the rock-cut foundations of the

pl. 32 has the cuttings for the 59 Rowe 1941-2, northern half of the entrance marked. Further cuttings are marked on the Sieglin Expedition plan, Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 4, pl. I.

60 Rowe 1941-2, pl. 32; Rowe and Rees, 493, plan opp. p. 492.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

89

Stoa-like Structure
Rowe did not have access to the northern edge (side) of the building to the west of the Temple of Serapis61 which he identified as possibly the Temple of Isis (Fig. 2).62 The northern edge of this building was recorded by the Sieglin Expedition,63 clarifying its plan (Figs 4-6). This indicates that it had four rooms along its west side and apparently the stylobate for a colonnade along its east side (Fig. 8).64 The purpose of this building is not known. Three, not four, rooms would have been expected if it were housing a combination of Egyptian gods.65 J. J. Coulton has compared this structure to some stoas,66 hence the term used for it here. It has been reconstructed here with a pitched roof typical of a Greek stoa (Figs 9, I2),67 but the function of the four rooms remains unknown.

T-shaped Building (Surroundingthe Entrance to the UndergroundPassages) and South Building

The plan of the T-shaped Building has not been reconstructed here (Fig. 8), nor has it been depicted in three dimensions in the reconstruction, as there is no firm indication of its appearance (Fig. 9). It could perhaps have been related to the plan of some Roman temples with a wide (rather than a long) cella and a portico on their long side.68 Such temples are mentioned by Vitruvius (4.8-4) and examples in Rome include the Temple of Castor and Pollux in circo, which is depicted on the marble plan of the city, and the Temple of Concord.69 The T-shaped Building in the Serapeum also served to hide those waiting to use the hidden entrance to the passage giving secret access to the South Building (Fig. 8). The possible appearance and function of the South Building (24.60 by 27.50 m) with its 4.4 m wide foundations is more enigmatic. Its front entrance was apparently in its north side (Fig. 2). It has a U-shaped foundation inside it which might possibly have supported a colonnade.70 A detailed plan by the Sieglin Expedition has further rock-cut features recorded on it, from which Sabottka attempts a more detailed reconstruction of the plan.7' The plan is not that of a traditional temple, either classical or Egyptian. Suggestions have included a monumental altar, a temple, or a tomb.72 It could possibly have been an earlier temple of Osiris (Serapis). If so, after the construction of the Temple of Serapis (naos) of Ptolemy III, there would have been two cult areas.73
Rowe 1941-2, pl. 32; Rowe Encl. Serapis, pl. 7. 62 Rowe and Rees, 489, 491, plan opp. p. 492. 63 Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 4, pl. I. 64 So also Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 3, fig. 25. 65 I thank Helen Whitehouse and John Baines for this observation. A normal Egyptian arrangement would have a central chamber with chambers on either side. 66 J. J. Coulton (pers. comm.) observes that Sabottka's use of the term 'oikos-building' for it is equally correct. He indicates dining-couches in the rooms: Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 183-8, figs 5, 25, 36, pls 8, 68, 70. 67 Six columns fits best with a spacing of 21 diameters. The position of the front wall in the reconstructions has been chosen to allow for supporting a ridge beam. 68 So also Sabottka, who does not attempt to reconstruct it on his plan (Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 223-8; vol. 3, fig. 25). A. Thiersch drew a reconstruction in elevation with a portico at the front (Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 3, figs 45-6). 69 P. Gros, L'architecture romaine, vol. I (1996), 133, 143-4, figs 143-4, 158. 70 Rowe 1941-2, pl. 31.
61
71 Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 231-46; vol. 3, figs 47-53; vol. 4, pls 27, 1oo-I i. Reconstructed with an external peristyle, and an interior colonnade and tholos (see especially Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 3, figs 48, 5o; vol. 4, pl. Ioi). However, an external peristyle would be expected to have a separate foundation trench to the walls, as in the colonnaded court. 72 Rowe initially suggested a Ptolemaic royal mausoleum (Rowe 1941-2, 144-51), and later a temple of Serapis before that of Ptolemy III (Rowe and Rees, 490-1). Botti suggested a Ptolemaic tomb or a Dynastic period temple of Serapis (Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 122-3). Large Ptolemaic open air altar: Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 269, following A. J. B. Wace in A. J. B. Wace, A. H. S. Megaw and T. C. Skeat, Hermopolis Magna, Ashmunein, the Ptolemaic Sanctuary and Basilica (1959), 9. 73 At Tanis there are temples to numerous deities, some of whom were probably assumed as aspects of one another, as earlier at Karnak where there are a number of temples to aspects of Osiris (John Baines pers. comm.): P. Briss and C. Zivie-Coche (eds), Tanis, travaux recentssur le tell San el-Hagar. Mission franfaise des fouilles de Tanis 1987-1997 (1998), pls i-2 on pp. 15-16.

90

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

The passage which gave secret access from the T-shaped Building to the South Building (Figs 4, 8) is not visible in the reconstruction (Fig. 9) as it ran under the courtyard paving. It could have provided access for priests to activate 'miraculous' events or for an oracle. An oracle would be expected in an Egyptian temple as the means of the god speaking." This passage could also possibly have been used for processions for rituals which were not for general view, as occurred in some Egyptian temples, e.g. at Edfu and Dendara.75 Ptolemaic Nilometer and Eastern Staircase Street R8 and the eastern side of the Ptolemaic enclosure were approached up the eastern side of the hill by a rock-cut and ashlar staircase of which parts survive (Figs 4, 6, 8-9). At right angles to this staircase, there is a small staircase leading down to the Ptolemaic Nilometer.76 Part of the way down this staircase there was an arched doorway (visible at far left of Pl. IV, I). This Nilometer was fed by an underground channel from the Canal of Alexandria (the ancient fore-runner of the Mahmudiya Canal). Careful examination of the archaeological plan reveals that the staircase down to the Nilometer was approached from the main Ptolemaic staircase by a small staircase parallel to the main Ptolemaic one, reached by a landing running at right angles from it (Figs 4, 6, 8-9). Harpocrates Temple of Ptolemy IV Philopator There is insufficient evidence from which to reconstruct the small Harpocrates Temple (which was about half the width of the Temple of Serapis).77 However, it possibly functioned as a birth house which would have been necessary for the dynastic cult. Arnold explains the purpose of these: 'In the birth house (Arabic mammisi) the birth of a juvenile god was celebrated ... The concept of the infant god and the daily rebirth of the sun encouraged the equation between the young king and the eternal renewal of kingship. The birth house could therefore be understood in the wider sense as a royal cult chapel.'78 The Harpocrates Temple has not been included in the axonometric reconstruction (Fig. 9) which, rather, shows the sanctuary before this small structure was erected. This complex is the one which, with the addition of the Harpocrates Temple and some sculptures, was in use for most of the Ptolemaic period and for the first two centuries of Roman rule, after Cleopatra's death in 30 B.C. (Section vI below).
V. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN COMPLEX

As mentioned, distinctive concrete wall foundations and fragments of granite cornices and columns survive from the Roman phase.79 The Roman version of the Serapeum was larger than the Ptolemaic one of Ptolemy III Euergetes I. The Temple
74 Helen Whitehouse pers. comm.; LA IV, cols 600-6. 71 John Baines pers. comm. 76 Rowe 1941-2, pls 32, 42 fig. I, 43-4; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 31-2, pls 7, 12; Rowe and Rees, 492-3; Wild Water, 29-31, figs 12-13; Sabottka Serapeum, vol. i, 249-5 I; vol. 3, figs 54-5; vol. 4, pls I I2-14. 77 Sabottka reconstructs its plan with four small columns across the front and a cella behind: Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 181-2; vol. 3, fig. 25.
78 D. Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs (1999), 285-6. It is not clear if this Harpocrates Temple is the temple Arnold mentions in his table of birth houses: Arnold, op. cit., 288 Table 2 under Ptolemy III 'Serapeum Alexandria, temple of Isis and Harpocrates'. Detailed discussion with references: LA II, cols 462-75. Also, Helen Whitehouse pers. comm. 79 References for Roman remains: n. 20 above.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE

SERAPEUM

IN

ALEXANDRIA

91

R8 I STREET

TO ENTRY UNDERGROUND T F L RDIOCLETIAN'S COLUMN PORTICO

SOUTHBUILDING

50 M

FIG. IO. ALEXANDRIA, SERAPEUM, PLAN OF ROMAN WALL FOUNDATIONS (HATCHED), WITH PTOLEMAIC STRUCTURES WHICH CONTINUED IN USE CROSS-

HATCHED. (J. McKenzie)

of Serapis was re-built on a larger scale on the same spot, and the colonnaded court was widened to the east across Street R8 (Figs 5, Io), so that the temple stood on the lengthwise axis of the court (Fig. 13). Two sizes of granite column shafts have survived, and these provide the height of the columns of the Temple of Serapis and the colonnaded court.

92

JUDITH

S.

MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND

A.

T.

REYES

Temple of Serapis The concrete foundations of the Roman Temple of Serapis (w. 21.10 m) enclose the rock-cut foundations of the earlier Ptolemaic one (Figs 4-5, 10, P1. IV, 2).80 The walls of the Roman temple were of masonry (above the foundations).81 The columns from the temple were the larger ones, found rolled to the south of the site. These are of red granite (Pl. V, I) and include two attic bases, one column shaft, and shaft fragments. Their size is given by Rowe as h. 9.o m, upper diam. 1.18 m, lower diam. 1.26 m, with the bases h. 0.55 m, w. of square plinth 1.67 m. This gives a total height of io.8i m for a column with a Corinthian capital (which would normally have its height equal to the lower diameter of its shaft).82 When placed on the foundations of the Roman Temple of Serapis, this size is appropriate for a building with six columns across the front, as suggested by Sabottka.3 Based on this spacing, the Roman temple would have had eight
columns along each (30.8 m long) side (Fig. I I).84

There is a difficulty with ascertaining the reconstruction of the back of the Temple of Serapis. The Roman concrete is narrower here than along the sides and front (Fig. 5), but was clearly a finished surface on the north side, visible on the Sieglin Expedition plan of the area inaccessible to Rowe85 (included in Fig. 4). Sheila Gibson suggested that the only possible reconstruction to incorporate this narrow concrete foundation was one with engaged columns across the back (Fig. i1).86 At that time we were unaware of the engaged column and pilaster still at the site, which are from an order of the same size as the columns mentioned"7 and like those required for the back corners of this reconstruction. This confirms this detail of the reconstruction. The Temple of Harpocrates was covered over by the Roman Temple of Serapis and apparently not replaced. If it had been a birth house (mammisi), this would not be surprising, as the erection of a new one in the late second or third century A.D. would have been unlikely; no birth house was apparently erected in the Egyptian temples after Trajan (if not earlier).88 Colonnaded Court The concrete foundations indicate that the colonnaded court was widened on the east side, across Street R8 (Fig. 5), so that the axis of the Roman Temple of Serapis was on the lengthwise axis of the court (Figs Io-I2).89 The concrete foundations of the east colonnade of this court, which are still well-preserved at the site (P1. III, i), were recorded by Rowe (Fig. 4)90 and the Sieglin Expedition. These foundations suggest two colonnades along that side (Fig. i ). On the west side of the colonnaded court the Ptolemaic stylobate was widened with concrete (Fig. 5) of which traces were recorded
80 Rowe 1941-2, pl. 32 (archaeological plan); Rowe Encl. Serapis, 6o, pl. I7; Rowe and Rees, 497-8, plan opp. p. 492. 81 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 60; Rowe and Rees, 497-8. 82 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 23-4, pls 3, 4 figs I, 8; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 202 no. 2, 320-I nos 30-I, pl. 5 nos 30-I. Since our reconstruction was drawn, these columns have been recorded in detail in I. Hairy, 'Analyse de pieces architecturales d'une colonnade sur le site du Sarap6ion', in J.-Y. Empereur (ed.), Alexandrina 2, EtAlex 6 (2002), 85-98. 83 Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 281-4; vol. 3, fig. 75. Botti also notes that the lower diameter of the columns of the Temple of Serapis would appear to have been 1.25 m (although it is not clear why he thought this, given that the columns were theoretically in an area of the site not exposed when he was there): Botti Fouilles a la colonne, I II . 84 This north-south length, measured off the Sieglin Expedition plan, is the same as that given by Botti. However, Botti gives it as the width of the Temple of Serapis because he thought it faced east, not south: Botti Fouilles ti la colonne, I 10o. 85 Rowe thought the length of the Temple of Serapis was not known: Rowe and Rees, 497. Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 3, figs I, 5. 86 Sabottka dealt with the problem differently: Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 3, fig. 75. 87 Hairy, op. cit. (n. 82), 88 block C, 94 fig. 2. 88 John Baines pers. comm. The birth house at Dendara was decorated mostly under Trajan, although it was not clear when it was built: PM VI, 103. 89 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 60. 90 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 61.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

93

STREET R8

STEMPLE
* * TO ENTRY UNDERGROUND

OF SERAPIS POOL '

DIOCLETIANS COLUMN *

PASSAGES

*I

BUILDING SOUTH

0 FIG. I I.

100M ALEXANDRIA, SERAPEUM, RECONSTRUCTED PLAN OF ROMAN

COMPLEX. (J. McKenzie)

by Rowe (Fig. 4), as well as further north by the Sieglin Expedition.91 The exterior width of the Roman colonnaded court was 105.55 m.92 The colonnaded court was also apparently extended to the north, as suggested by the position of walls recorded by Mahmoud-Bey in the area to the north (now Bab el-Sidra Cemetery) at 79, 83, and 94 m to the north of the centre of Diocletian's Column (Figs 4-5, I0). From this Rowe gave a total outer length of 205.7 m for the enclosure.93

91 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 60-I, Serapeum, vol. 4, pl. I. 92 Rowe and Rees, 497.

pl. 17; Sabottka

93 Mahmoud-Bey 497.

MImoire, 55; Rowe and Rees,

94

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

PTOLEMAIC PHASE

R8 STREET

0O

30 M

ROMAN PHASE

FIG. 12. ALEXANDRIA, SECTION OF PTOLEMAIC PHASE AND OF ROMAN PHASE WITH SERAPEUM, (FACING NORTH) WEST--EAST
DIOCLETIAN'S COLUMN.(Sheila Gibson)

The smaller columns were apparently used for the colonnaded court. These shafts
are of grey granite.

and lower diam. I-I.o6 m.94 They were found near the west colonnade of the court towards the back of the T-shaped Building. The sections through the colonnaded court facing north convey a sense of the relative sizes of the Ptolemaic and Roman versions of the Serapeum (Fig. 12). The proportions suggested by the sizes of the columns for the court and the Temple of Serapis look correct, suggesting that the columns have been correctly identified, with red granite ones for the temple and grey granite shafts for the court. The section drawing also conveys the relationship of the Roman arrangement to the Ptolemaic one, with the Roman temple built over the Ptolemaic one and centred on the lengthwise axis of this new court which extended across Street R8. The Roman phase incorporated the rooms from the Ptolemaic phase which ran along the west95 and south sides of the colonnaded court (Figs 5, 8). However, the row of rooms along the south side does not seem to have been extended further east, as there is a staircase where the south-east corner of the Roman building might have been expected (Figs 4, 5, Io). Because of these stairs and the shape of the concrete foundations to the north of them the precise details of the reconstruction of the Roman plan at the south-east corner of the enclosure are not clear (Fig. i I). The main entrance to the widened court was on the east side of the hill. Fragments of the red granite 'classical' (Greco-Roman) cornices of this entrance portico survive (P1. VI). These include joining blocks of a cornice crowning a three-fascia architrave, without a frieze between them (P1. VI, 2-3).96 This entrance was approached by a
94 Rowe 1941-2, 157, pl. 32; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 3 n. 3; Rowe and Rees, 488; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 202 no. 3. Botti gives the dimensions as upper diam. o.9o m, lower diam. o.98 m, h. of shaft 7. 10om, to give a total h. of column 8.57 m, if height of capital equals column lower diam.: Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 96. 95 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 61. 96 Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 78, fig. on p. 140; Rowe 143 fig. 8; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 34, 61; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 64, 199, 321-2 nos 33-7, fig. 221, pl. 6; Tkaczow Topography, 276 object 242, photographs of object 242. Botti suggested a series of three entrance doorways: one 6 by 4 m, with two 4.2 by 2. 1o m on either side.
1941-2,

Their size is given by Rowe as h. 7. 10o-7.15

m, upper diam. o.89 m,

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

95

30 M 30 M

,"

30 M\

'

Th s hvingabot oe hudre stps Secionbeow)descibeit soures il n tshigtwul t one hude (ig.13) ccmoa teswt ie fte fte legh he as egeofthepln n ig sitblefo pocssons(byod arlaivlylowhegh
I

oftenwcut The~~
FIG. 13.

I).98

ihtetml deig lans. oweve, theexten

n~ t

eghieairfeth smmtrca panwa

ALEXANDRIA, SERAPEUM, AXONOMETRIC RECONSTRUCTION OF ROMAN PHASE, BEFORE THE ERECTION OF DIOCLETIAN)S COLUMN. (Sheila Gibson)

in xial Roman nteret

to wich

staircase of which traces survive (Fig. 5, Pl. IV, I).9 The fourth-century A.D. written sources (Section x below) describe it as having about one hundred steps (Fig. 13). The length of the side of the hill and its height would accommodate one hundred steps with a relatively low height suitable for processions (beyond the east edge of the plan in Fig.
I I).98

The design of the new court, with the temple on its lengthwise axis, reflects the Roman interest in axial plans. However, the extent to which a symmetrical plan was possible was also limited by the position of the pre-existing structures in the colonnaded court: the T-shaped Building and the South Building. Consequently, because the east entrance was on the axis of the T-shaped Building, it was not possible for it, at the same time, to be midway along the east side wall.

97 Rowe 1941-2, pl. 44; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 34, pl. 5 figs I, 7. 98 From Sheila Gibson's calculations based on the section drawing in Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 3, fig. 57. With three sets of steps this gives steps c. 25 cm deep

but only 1o.5 cm high. A. Thiersch's reconstruction has fewer steps, but the same slope: Sabottka
Serapeum,

ersch assumed the staircase was supported by vaults.

vol. 4, pls 141-2.

Both Gibson

and Thi-

96

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

North Entrance An entrance in the north side of the colonnaded court from Street R8 is suggested in the reconstruction (Figs I I, 13) because otherwise the street would run straight into a solid wall. The fourth-century A.D. description of Aphthonius mentions that the Serapeum was approached by a carriage road (Section x below). This second entrance would also mean that the colonnaded court had two entrances to facilitate the circulation of processions, as in the Ptolemaic period. Nilometer The Roman staircase covered over the entrance to the Ptolemaic Nilometer (Fig. The Roman Nilometer has not been found. It is mentioned in A.D. 362 when, while 5).99 attempting to restore paganism, the emperor Julian transferred the Nilometer, symbols (symbola), and (tablets with) the ancestral customs (ta palaia patria) back to the Serapeum because Constantine had moved them to a church.t?o The pool immediately to the north of Diocletian's Column (Fig. I I) cannot have been the Nilometer as it does not have a connection with the Nile water level. South Building, T-shaped Building and Underground Passages The South Building and the T-shaped Building (surrounding the entrance to the underground passages) were apparently still in use in the Roman period, but have not been re-constructed here as there is no reliable basis for suggesting their appearance. The Roman entrance in the east side of the court was built on the axis of the T-shaped Building (Fig. I I).1?1 In view of this, Donald Bailey points out that it must have been an important structure still in use at the time of the construction of the Roman colonnaded court. He adds that if the stairwell were only below the main floor of the interior (and so did not occupy any of that floor), there would then have been space on that floor for a cult statue (?Isis).102 Access from the T-shaped Building to the South Building by the below-ground passage ceased when the exit of this secret passage in the latter was covered by concrete, as were the stylobate foundations of the interior colonnade (Fig. 4). This suggests a major re-modelling of the interior of the South Building in the Roman period.1:3 However, while the original functions of this secret passage and of the South Building remain uncertain, it is difficult to speculate what change in ritual this might reflect. The other long underground passages entered from the T-shaped Building continued in use in the Roman period, as indicated by the Roman graffiti and lamps found in them.104 It is not completely clear when they were extended to give a total length of 156 m, as measured by Botti.1' Although they are difficult to measure, because they are underground, the plans of them by Botti, the Sieglin Expedition, and Rowe show fairly similar orientations and lengths for them, differing only in internal details (compare Figs 2 and 14).106 The shapes of the niches in the passages vary. It is notable that the northern passage ends directly in front of the Temple of Serapis. Rowe
99 Rowe 1941-2, pl. 44; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 32. Socrates, Hist. eccl. 1.18.2, ed. Hansen 58, trans. NPNF 2, 22; Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 5.3-3, ed. Bidez and Hansen 195, trans. NPNF 2, 328; Wild Water, 32. 101 I thank Donald Bailey for drawing this to my attention. 102Donald Bailey pers. comm.
100

103 Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 123; Rowe 1941-2, pl. 31; Wild Water, 198. 104Rowe Encl. Serapis, 34-5. 105Botti Fouilles a'la colonne, I14. 106 Botti, op. cit. (n. 3, 1895), plan; Rowe 1941-2, 140 fig. 7 (based on Botti); Rowe and Rees, plan opp. p. 492; Sabottka Serapeum, vol. 3, fig. 41 (detailed plan from Sieglin Expedition plan).

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

97

6I *
?

i ?

? i!

0 0

FI.*4

0LXNRA

EAEM

EALO

OA

OPE

IHUDRRUDPSAE

MAKD0

*ugse
FIG.

0
that

ceze
asg.I

0httesau

ftebakAi
DETAIL OF ROMAN COMPLEX

ulwseetda
WITH UNDERGROUND

fti

100 M
(J. McKenzie)

14.

ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

PASSAGES

MARKED.

suggested is possibly
of
the The southern
main
were
an

the
also
passage

statue

of
on

the
that the these

significant
function of excavated
votive

black Diocletian's

Apis
of and

bull
Column the 'niches'

was

erected built
remains

at

alignment
passages

is southernmost

the above

end of
matter

of the it. of

this
easternmost

passage.

It

leg

leg
a

speculation."o7
of

They lamps,

originally
inscribed

by
stela,
and

found nobones,10 hesuggested these boxes have been used formummified might
sacred animals.O The
at

Botti, fragments

who
of

found
small

in

them limestone

fragments
boxes.'os

statuettes,

Although

he

only

sanctuary

with

is

the

Serapeum Apis
to

Saqqara,'"
the burial Diocletian's

but

the
at

'niches' Botti

extensive comparable in Alexandria are

underground

galleries

the
m

the

bulls north

in

crypts

Saqqara.112
assumes

Mahmoud-Bey
these
were

of

Column;
he

smaller found found

than cattle in the

those bones other

for

84
set

of

underground

passages

found

further

north,

under

the

Arab

cemetery."

107 Rowe considered their significance unknown: Rowe Encl. Serapis, 34; Rowe and Rees, 499. 108Description of passages and finds in them: Botti, op. cit. (n. 3, 1895), 24-6; Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 112-21, I fig. on p. I 16; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 34-6, fig. 7; Wild Water, 197-9. The niches are not only of the shape described by Botti. 109 Botti Fouilles a la colonne, I 12. 110 Botti Fouilles ac la colonne, I 17, 119.

11 Wild points out that the arrangement does bear a certain similarity to the burial crypts for sacred animals in the Serapeum at Memphis: Wild Water, (n. 78), 8 plan III. 113Near the enclosure of S. E. Ahmed pacha Mazloum: Botti Fouilles a'la colonne, I27-8, plan on
P. 127. 199, o205. 112 Plan of Serapeum at Saqqara: Arnold, op. cit.

98

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE, VI.

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

DATE OF ROMAN STRUCTURES

As mentioned above (Section Iv), the Ptolemaic sanctuary of the Serapeum lasted until A.D. ISI when it burnt down. This date is thus a terminus post quem for the construction of the Roman phase. However, Rowe followed A. Wace in dating the I because he assumed the Ptolemaic one was Roman phase to Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), destroyed in the Jewish uprising of A.D. 115-116 when the Temple of Nemesis was reportedly destroyed.'" This was despite the foundation deposits of coins (up to A.D. 21 I) in the pool and the similarity of its concrete to that of Roman temple and enclosure. The pool, measuring 1o.58 by lo.82 m, with a maximum surviving depth of 2.70 m, lies to the north of the side entrance (Figs i I, 13). Foundation deposits of 58 bronze and 3 silver coins were found in the four corners of this pool. Rowe observed: 'Above each deposit was a huge block of limestone concealed in the thick floor of the piscina, the floor exactly of the same material as the foundations of the temple itself'.11 The coins dated from Trajan to Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-21 I), and Geta (A.D. 21 1).116 They provide a terminus post quem of A.D. 21 1 for the construction of this pool. As the Temple of Serapis was built of the same material, this also gives an indication of the approximate construction date of the Roman phase of the temple and of the colonnaded court, which replaced the Ptolemaic phase. Further confirmation of the date of re-building is provided by the written sources. Shortly before Caracalla's death in A.D. 217, the Temple (naos) of Serapis is reported to have been miraculously filled with a great fire which did not damage it.117Even though this event was miraculous, it suggests that the temple had been re-built by then, if not by A.D. 215/16 when Caracalla made sacrifices there.118 He remained in the precinct (temenos) of the Serapeum while the citizens of the city were massacred, and the city was pillaged.119 Thus, both the written and archaeological evidence indicate that the Serapeum was re-built between A.D. 18I and 217. The evidence from the pool suggests it was probably
finished under Caracalla (A.D. 211-217), who is described as Philosarapis (adorer of

Serapis) on the columns found in the harbour of Alexandria in 1997-120 It is not known rather than if the re-building work was begun under Commodus (A.D. 18O-I92), during whose reign most of the work would Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211) apparently have been done. It is possible that the Serapeum was 'the great sanctuary (hieron) the so-called Pantheon' recorded in the Chronicon Pascale as built in Alexandria gods), would be appropriate for the Serapeum as a number of gods were worshipped there. The inscription on a black stone statue of the Apis bull, found in the sanctuary, is dedicated by the emperor Hadrian to Serapis and the gods worshipped in the same temple.122 Another Roman inscription found at the site is restored as: 'To Zeus, Helios
by Septimius Severus in about A.D. 205.121 This term, Pantheon (sanctuary of all the

114 Rowe Serapis Encl., 62-4; Rowe and Rees, 496, 506. Contra: Wild Water, 168. 115 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 6 1. 116Rowe 1941-2, 142, pl. 29 fig. I, pl. 32; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 61-2, pls 7, 17. Coins were also used for foundation deposits in the Roman period at Kom Ombo: M. Jones, 'An unusual foundation deposit at Kom Ombo', Bulletin de la Socidte d'archdologie copte (1992), 102-7. 31 117 Dio Cass., Roman History Epitome 79.7.3. 118 Herodian 4.8.9. He was contemporary with these events. 119 Dio Cass., Roman History Epitome 78.23. 120Parts of eight column shafts, all exactly 2 cubits (i .05 m) in diameter, were found in 1997 on the island of Antirrhodos with inscriptions on them, five mentioning Caracalla as Philosarapis. It is not possible to

ascertain from the published details whether they were erected on the island or deposited there from elsewhere. E. Bernand in Goddio et al. Alexandria, 149-51 nos 3-8, plan and table of findspots on p. 144. 121 Chron. Pasch., PG 92, cols 652C-653A (266). Written in A.D. 630s. 122The fragments of this statue, re-erected in the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria, were found near the entrance to the underground passages. G. Botti, 'L'Apis de l'empereur Adrien trouve dans le Seirapeum d'Alexandrie', Bulletin de la Societe d'archd'Alexandrie 2 (1899), 30, 33-6; Rowe 1941-2, Mologie pl. 32 (find spot) and 37; Rowe and Rees, 496; F. Kayser, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines (non funeraires) d'Alexandrie impiriale (1994), 176-9 no. 48, pl. 27.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

99

the Great, Serapis and the gods in the same temple'.'23 The re-building could also have coincided with the identification of the Severan dynasty with the Egyptian gods in A.D.
202.124 A.D.

Diocletian's Column (total height 26.85 m) was erected in honour of Diocletian in 298, as indicated by the inscription on the west side of its base.125 After an eight month siege of the city in that year Diocletian was victorious over the rebellious Egyptians. The column was visible on the skyline for some distance, as it was erected on the highest point of the plateau, on the alignment of Street R8 (Figs I 1-12, P1. II, I). It probably supported a statue, possibly the porphyry one of which part was reportedly found at its base.126 Although Wace and Rowe suggested it was one of a pair (Fig. 2),2 as early as the fourth century A.D. Aphthonius indicates it was a solitary column (Section x below). The complex depicted here, as it would have looked in A.D. 300 (P1. I), is basically the one described later in the fourth century by Rufinus and Aphthonius, prior to the destruction of the temple by the Christians (Section x).
VII. LIBRARY IN THE SERAPEUM

Writing in c. A.D. 197, Tertullian, who came from Carthage in North Africa, apparently referring to the Septuagint, mentions that 'the libraries of Ptolemy are exhibited today in the Serapeum along with the Hebrew writings'.'28 This is the earliest reference to a library in the Serapeum. Such a temple would have been expected to have a library, or libraries, as did the Caesareum in Alexandria.'29 Some Egyptian temples had a small library.'30 In his description of the Serapeum in the fourth century A.D., Aphthonius says that books were stored and available for study in the rooms in the stoas (colonnades) of the court (Section x). The archaeological evidence includes rooms along the west and south sides of the court. Books could have been stored in either or both of these sets of rooms in the Ptolemaic period (Figs 8-9). However, at the lower level of the southern rooms two fireplaces, dating to the Roman period, were found with channels for conducting heated air. This suggests that these lower southern rooms would not have been used as a library in that period because of the risk of fire."3' Thus, in the Roman phase books could still have been housed in the rooms along the west side of the court, and possibly in the upper rooms along the south side (Figs i i, 13). It is often assumed from the written sources that the library in the Serapeum was founded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, although this is nowhere explicitly stated. Epiphanius, writing in the fourth century A.D., mentions that after 'the first library was built in the Brouchion [the palace area], still later [after Ptolemy II Philadelphus] another library was built in the Serapeum, smaller than the first, which was called the
123 Rowe and Rees, 500; Wace, op. cit. (n. 36), 25-6 no. 5; Kayser, op. cit. (n. 122), 179-80 no. 49, pl. 27b no. 49. But not necessarily the second inscription in Wace, op. cit. (n. 36), 25 no. 4, according to Kayser, op. cit. (n. 122), 183-4 no. 52, pl. 28 no. 52. 124 The coins issued in A.D. 202 reflect the acceptance of the Egyptian cults and the identification of the dynasty with the Egyptian gods: C. Foss, Roman Historical Coins (1990), 174. 125 Prefect, and date from papyrological evidence: C. Vandersleyen, Chronologie des prdfets d'Egypte de 284 d 395 (1962), 66-70. Inscription: C. Vandersleyen, 'Le prbfet d'Egypte de la colonne de Pomp6e a Alexandrie', Chronique d'Egypte 33 (1958), 113-34; Kayser, op. cit. (n. 122), 52-7 no. 15, pl. io. Column: Description de l'Egypte vol. 5, 315-28, 470-7, plates vol. 5, pl. 34; Adriani Repertorio, 97, pl. 28.oz2; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 200, 323-4 nos 39-40, figs 127-9, pls 7.1, 2, 39, 40o. 126 Description de l'Egypte vol. 5, 475; Rowe 1941-2, 133; Rowe Serapis Encl., 42-3. 127 A. Wace in Rowe Encl. Serapis, 64, pl. 17; Rowe and Rees, 498, plan opp. p. 492. 128 Tert., Apologeticum 18.8, Tertullien Apologetique, ed. and trans. J.-P. Waltzing and A. Severyns (i961), p. 42. Date: OCD3 1487. The library in the Serapeum is also mentioned by later writers as the repository of the Septuagint: John Chrys., Adv. Iud. i ? 6, PG 48, col. 851; Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 323; vol. 2, 478 n. 134. 129Philo, Embassy to Gaius 151. 130 e.g. S. Cauville, Edfou (1984), 18, 19 plan 2, pls 6-7. 131 J. J. Coulton pers. comm. Contra: Rowe Encl. Serapis, 24-5, pls 5.2, 8; Rowe and Rees, 51 I.

I00

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

daughter of the first one'.'32 Epiphanius does not specify by whom this daughter library was established. Fraser suggests it took the place of the Royal Library as the main repository of books in the imperial period.133 However, the post of palace librarian still existed at the end of the third century A.D.134It is not until the twelfth century A.D. that John Tzetzes attributes to Ptolemy II Philadelphus the foundation of two libraries: the larger one 'inside the palace' and a smaller one 'outside'.135 When the latter is assumed to be the one in the Serapeum, this is used to suggest that the library in the Serapeum was founded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Although the Serapeum complex of Ptolemy III Euergetes I included the rooms along the sides of the court which later housed books (in the fourth century A.D. in the re-built Roman phase), it is not certain whether or not these rooms were originally constructed for this purpose. Prior to the complex of Ptolemy III, books could have been housed in one of the earlier buildings on the site. Thus, the archaeological evidence does not indicate that any library on the site could only date from the time of Ptolemy III, as some scholars have suggested.136 Although it would not be unreasonable to assume that such an extensive complex of rooms might have been constructed by Ptolemy III Euergetes I largely to hold books (possibly from a pre-existing library), the use of these rooms to store books could have begun later.
VIII. SCULPTURE IN THE SERAPEUM

Sculptures in both 'classical' (Greco-Roman) and Egyptian style have been found at the site. The 'classical' sculpture includes marble examples from the Ptolemaic period, such as the portrait heads of Ptolemy IV Philopator and Arsinoe III found together with a head of Serapis.137 Classical examples of the Roman period include a white marble hand from a colossal (c. 5 m high) statue, apparently holding a cornucopia,138 a white marble ?Mithraic torso,139 and a fragment of a marble statue of Harpocrates.140 Many Egyptian style statues were also found in the enclosure, as well as fragments of two obelisks. The Egyptian sculptures are dated to both the Dynastic and the Ptolemaic periods.141 Those of the Dynastic period include a black granite falcon, a colossal scarab of the ninteenth Dynasty, statues of Ramesses II, Psammetikhos I, Ramesses IX, a Dynastic official, and sphinxes. Some of these sculptures came from Heliopolis (Tell Hisn) near Cairo. There is also a fragment of an Egyptian clepsydra or water clock of the fourth or third century B.C. The Ptolemaic sculptures in Egyptian style include the pair of red granite sphinxes on the site today (P1. V, 2). As they were made in the late fourth or the third century B.C., Stanwick argues that they could have been erected in the sanctuary in the early Ptolemaic period 'as Egyptian elements in a
132Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures I I, PG 43, col. 256B; Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 323; R. Blum, Kallimachos, the Alexandrian Library and the Origins of Bibliography (1991), Ioo. 133 Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 335. 134 E. L. Butcher, The Story of the Church of Egypt, vol. 1 (1897), I I I-I4; CE2244-7. 135Trans. of Comicorum Graecorum fragmenta, ed. G. Kaibel (1899), p. I9f. in Blum, op. cit. (n. 132), 10o4-5. Although Tzetzes drew on some sources which are now lost, he sometimes also conflated information from them. 136 Contra: Blum, op. cit. (n. 132), io6. 137 Breccia, op. cit. (n. 18), 74-6, figs 5-7; R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (1988), I65-6 nos 51-2, pl. 36; Grimm Alexandria, 83, fig. 85a-c; Tkaczow Topography, 187-8 nos 8, 10o. 138Rowe 1941-2, 138, pl. 27 fig. 2; Tkaczow Topography, 246 no. 162. 139Breccia, op. cit. (n. 18), 67, fig. I; Rowe 1941-2, 159, fig. 4. Breccia, op. cit. (n. 18), 72-3; PM IV, 3; Rowe 133-4, 139, 154-9, pls 27.1-2, 28.3, 33, 36; Rowe Encl. Serapis, 40-I, 50, 59-60, 41 fig. Io; Rowe and Rees, 507-10; Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 265-6; Tkaczow Topography, 187-9 nos 7, 9, 1I, i IA; 233-7 nos I22A, 123, I25, 127-33, 136; 311-13 nos 335-7, 339; S.-A. Ashton, Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt, The Interaction between Greek and Egyptian Traditions, BAR Int. Ser. 923 (2ooi), 82 nos 1-2, I18 no. 69, 83 figs 1-2, I 19 fig. 69. Obelisks: Botti Fouilles la colonne, 47-8. Analysis and updating of lists of Egyptian style sculptures in Serapeum: J. Yoyotte in Goddio et al. Alexandria, 212 n. 59. Large block of Ramesses II now at Serapeum site, but not found there: A. Abd el-Fattah and P. Gallo, 'Aegyptiaca Alexandrina. Monuments pharaoniques d6couverts r6cemment a Alexandrie', in J.-Y. Empereur (ed.), Alexandrina i, EtAlex I (1998), 7-8 no. I, 15 figs 2-3.
141

140 Tkaczow Topography, 247 no. 164.

1941-2,

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

IOI

Greek setting'.142 Fraser suggests that the Ptolemaic sanctuary might be expected to have been adorned with some Egyptian sculptures as 'the furniture of Serapea and Isiea overseas in the Hellenistic world usually included some pieces of Egyptian sculpture, decorative no less than sacral in purpose'.143 Regardless of whether or not they had been in the sanctuary since the Ptolemaic period, there is agreement that there were Egyptian statues in the sanctuary in the Roman period. Thus, the Ptolemaic sanctuary during the Roman period (for about two centuries) and the Roman re-building should be visualized with Egyptian statuary in a 'classical' setting. It is possible that at least some of the Egyptian sculptures were placed in the sanctuary in the Ptolemaic period, as Stanwick and Fraser suggest, since the Ptolemaic sanctuary itself had a combination of Greek and Egyptian features. The latter include the foundation deposits and the Nilometer. The use of Egyptian features in other sanctuaries in Alexandria had already occurred in the Ptolemaic period, for example when Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.) erected an obelisk in the Arsinoeion.144 Whilst the use of obelisks in pairs in front of temples was an old Egyptian custom, the idea of using a single obelisk in this way was an innovation (later seen in Rome).
IX. LAGEION (RACE-COURSE)

The race-course to the south-west of the Serapeum is included in this discussion since the two complexes were apparently related, as indicated by their close proximity. Archaeological evidence for this race-course survived in the ninteenth century.145 As the plan of it made by the Napoleonic expedition has Diocletian's Column, a north arrow and scale, it can be reliably positioned, with the plan of the Serapeum, on the city plan to show their relative positions (Figs I, 15). That this race-course had been a Roman circus for chariot-racing was indicated by the remains of the spina, the divider separating the two sides of the track. However, as this track was barely wide enough for Roman chariot-racing, Humphrey considers it was probably a Hellenistic structure which was re-modelled.146 According to Herodian and Epiphanius, the hippodrome of Alexandria was called the Lageion in honour of Lagos, father of Ptolemy I Soter.147 Early in his reign, Ptolemy II Philadelphus instituted games in honour of his father described as 'a gymnastic, musical, and equestrian contest to be equal in rank with the Olympic Games', and named the Ptolemaieia. The first celebration of them occurred in 279/8 B.C.,148 which means that by then the city had somewhere to use as a hippodrome (for horse-racing) and a stadium (for athletic games).149 In the third century B.C. some race-courses seem to have functioned as both stadia and hippodromes, even if they were called stadia. In 267 B.c. horse races, as well as running races, occurred in a building
142
31-2.

Stanwick, op. cit. (n. 49), 17, 103-4 no. A33, figs

Dean

143 Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 266. 144Plin., HN 36.14 (67-9). 14sDescription de l'Egypte, vol. 5, 328-37, 477-82; vol. io, 524-5; plates vol. 5, pl. 39.2-3; M. G. Daressy (ed.), Dolomiou en Egypte (30o uin 1798-io Mars 1799) manuscrits retrouves par M.A. Lacroix (1922), 30; G. Valentia, Voyages and Travels to India, Ceylon, the Red Sea, Abyssinia and Egypt in the Years 1802-i806 (1811), vol. 3, 455; vol. 4, plan; Botti, op. cit. (n. 3, 1897), 2; Botti Fouilles a' la colonne, 50-9; E. von Sieglin and T. Schreiber, Die Nekropole von K6m-esch-Schukdfa, Expedition Ernst von Sieglin, vol. i (1908), 19-20, pl. IO; Humphrey Roman Circuses, 505-12, fig. 254. 146 Humphrey Roman Circuses, 50o6,50o8. 147 Hdn. Gr., vol. I, p. 371 11.1-2; vol. 2, p. 458 1. 37 to p. 459 1. 3. Epiphanius, On Weights and Measures 12; PG 43, col. 257A; Epiphanius' Treatise on Weights and Measures, The Syriac Version, ed. and trans. J. E.

124-5; A. Maricq, 'Une influence alexandrine sur I'art augusteen? Le Lageion et le Circus Maximus',
RA 37 (1951), 26-46; Adriani Repertorio, 225-6; Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. 2, Ioo-I; Humphrey Roman Circuses, 509. 148 SIG vol. I, no. 390; trans. in M. M. Austin, The

(1935),

12 p. 28; Calderini

Dizionario,

vol.

i,

Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest. A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation (1981), 359-61 no. 218. Date: Fraser Ptol. Alex.,
vol. i, 224, 231; vol. 2, 372-3 n. 279; E. Rice, The

Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (1983), 182. 149 The track in a stadium was usually one stade, or 6oo ancient feet (c. 80om) long, while the one in a hippodrome was twice that length. Before the Hellenistic period a level area with slopes on either side for spectators was usually used, without necessarily stone seating. For stadium at Olympia, with a track 194 m long: L. Drees, Olympia, Gods, Artists and Athletes (1968), 87, 91-4. For hippodrome at Olympia
see ibid., 97-1oo.

102

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

R9

ETIAN'S SIocu
*. .fr.agments

RACE COURSE (LAGEON)

HYPOGEUM

SCAVOCD

SCAVOCC

KOM EL-SHUQAFA

0
FIG. I 5.

400M

ALEXANDRIA, NAPOLEONIC PLAN OF RACE-COURSE (LAGEION), WITH ROMAN SERAPEUM, TOMBS OF KOM EL-SHUQAFA AND STREET GRID ADDED.

called the stadium in a town in the Faiyum in Egypt.150 It is, thus, possible that the Lageion was the main race-course in Alexandria, used from the early Ptolemaic period both as a stadium and as a hippodrome. The famous procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, which was described in considerable detail by Athenaeus, passed through the 'city stadium' in mid-winter, probably in 275/4 B.c.151 This procession was in honour of Dionysus, who was equated with Serapis. Because of its large size, the Lageion would have been a suitable venue for such a long procession. A sense of the relative sizes and positions of the Ptolemaic Lageion and Serapeum is given by the axonometric reconstruction (Fig. i6). Rice assumes that the stadium in which the procession occurred was near both the akra and the palace area. However, as she notes that Greek religious processions finished at the main temple of the honoured god, the route from the promontory el-Silsila (ancient akra Lochias) to the Serapeum (see Fig. i) would provide a suitable lengthy route through the city.152 After attacking the Alexandrians' passion for entertainment, Dio Chrysostom criticizes their behaviour at the horse-races, which took place in a structure he calls the stadium.5s3 He delivered this discourse when he was in the city, under Vespasian (A.D.
SEG XXVII.II 14 and add. 1305, XLIII.I io3, 150so XLIV.1496, XLV.2I 14; L. Koenen, Eine agonistische Inschrift aus Agypten undfriihptolemdische Kinigsfeste (1977); trans. in Austin, op. cit. (n. 148), 393-5 no. 234. The poet Posidippus uses the term stadion (rather than hippodrome) for the place in which chariot races occurred at Olympia and Isthmia, when he is celebrating the victories of Queen Berenice, but this might be partly due to metrical considerations: Papyri dell'Universitai degli Studi di Milano - VIII Posidippo di Pella Epigrammi (P.Mil. Vogl. VIII 309), ed. and trans. G. Bastianini and C. Gallazzi (2001), col. XII 23 p. 91 and col. XIII io p. 95; Posidippi Pellaei Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. and trans. C. Austin and G. Bastianini (2002), p. 102-3 no. 78 1. 4 and p. Io6-7 no. 82 1. 2. 151Athen., Deipnosophistae 5.197C-203b. His source is Kallixeinos of Rhodes, probably from the second century B.C.Date of procession, on the occasion of the second Ptolemaieia in 275/4 B.C.:V. Foertmeyer, 'The dating of the pompe of Ptolemy II Philadelphus', Historia 37 (1988), 90-104. 152 Rice, op. cit. (n. 148), 29-35. 153 Dio Chrys., Discourse 32.74; Humphrey Roman Circuses, 51o-II.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

103

/.' \,
'.7

100 /m

100 M

AND PTOLEMAIC C. LAGEION RACE-COURSE B.C. FIG. i6. ALEXANDRIA, 200 SERAPEUM, PHASE,
andS. Gibson) (J.McKenzie 69-79) or Trajan (A.D. 98-I I7).154 This suggests that the Lageion continued its dual usage in the Roman period as a hippodrome (circus in Latin) for horse-racing while also being used for athletic games.iss This overlap of use of a single race-course has been observed elsewhere in Egypt, at Antinoopolis'56 and, as late as the sixth century A.D., at Oxyrhynchus.157 It also occurs outside Egypt, at Caesarea Maritima where the main race-course (303 m long), called the 'great stadium', was used as both a stadium and a hippodrome (with circus carceres).158 The emperor Vespasian visited the hippodrome in Alexandria,159 and consulted the oracle in the Temple of Serapisa60 in A.D. 69/70. His son, the future emperor Titus, also visited the Serapeum and the hippodrome in A.D. 7I.161 The proximity of the Serapeum to the Lageion (Fig. 15) suggests that on both occasions the hippodrome visited was the Lageion. If so, this means that they did not need to process through the city to reach the hippodrome from the Serapeum.162 The archaeological ruins recorded by the Napoleonic expedition indicated a structure with an overall length of 6I15 m with a curve at both ends, rather than just at one end, and a track 560 m long (Fig. 15).163 Remains of the central dividing barrier (spina) were found at the western end.164 No traces of the starting gates were recorded. Humphrey revised the Napoleonic plan to suggest a circus 450 m long.165 However,
154 G. Bowersock, 'Late antique Alexandria', in K. Hamma (ed.), Alexandria and Alexandrianism (1996), 264, 271 n. 3 with references. 155Humphrey Roman Circuses, 510. 160

1s6 Humphrey Roman Circuses, 514-15. s57 P.Oxy. XXXIV.2707; Humphrey Roman Circuses, 5 18- 19.

'Vespasian's visit to Alexandria', ZPE 3 (1968), 5 -80. 161 P.Oxy. XXXIV.2725; Humphrey Roman Circuses, 5I o n. 92.

Tac., Hist. 4.82; Suet., Vesp. 7.I; A. Henrichs,

Patrich, 'The carceres of the Herodian hippodrome/stadium at Caesarea Maritima and connections
158ss J.

with the Circus Maximus',

159

G. Valentia,Voyages and Travelsto India, Ceylon, the Red Sea, Abyssinia and Egypt in the Years 1802-1806 (18I I), vol. 3, 455; vol. 4 plan;Description
de l'Egypte, vol. 5, 328-37, 477-82; vol. Io, 524-5; platesvol. 5, pl. 39.2-3; Botti, op. cit. (n. 3, 1897), 2. 164 Description de l'Egypte, vol. 5, 328, 330-3, 478; plates vol. 5, pl. 39.2-3. 165 Humphrey Roman Circuses, 507-8, fig. 254.

162 Haas Contra: Alexandria, 83. 163

P.Fouad 1.8; Humphrey Roman Circuses, 510o; O. Montevecchi, 'Vespasiano acclamato dagli Alessandrini ancora su P. Fouad 8', Aegyptus 61 (1981),
155-70.

JRA

14 (2o01),

269-83.

104

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

remains of seating were found on the south slope of the Serapeum enclosure (although not in situ) 140 m to the west of the in-situ seating recorded by the Napoleonic expedition (Fig. 15), raising the possibility that the overall length of the Lageion was at least c. 530 m.166 A circus is characterized by a central barrier (a spina) and a curve at one end, and starting gates at the open end. If the Lageion were a conventional circus, it would not have had a curve at the east end. However, if it were a combination of a race-course and theatre it might well have had the curve at the east end recorded by the Napoleonic expedition (Fig. 15). At Jericho a theatre was apparently built at one end of the hippodrome,167 and at Aezani in Turkey there was a theatre at the end of the stadium.168 Another possibility remains that the Lageion was a very long race-course with a curve at both ends.

X.

FOURTH-CENTURY A.D. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SERAPEUM

The axonometric drawing (P1. I) provides a sense of what the Serapeum complex would have looked like by A.D. 3oo. This would not have differed greatly from the complex mentioned in the fourth-century descriptions below. As the reader will see when he compares them, these new reconstructions reveal that the descriptions by Aphthonius and Rufinus are remarkably accurate - more than had once been thought. Aphthonius, a student of Libanius, gives a detailed description of the Serapeum of Alexandria in the second half of the fourth century A.D., comparing it with the acropolis in Athens.169 Aphthonius, A Description of the Temple of Alexandria in the Midst of the Acropolis:170 In general, the acropoleis of cities are set up for general security, since they are the citadels (akrai) of the cities, but they are not so much fortified by the buildings as they are themselves the fortifications for the cities. Accordingly, there is open-country around the Athenian acropolis in the midst of Athens, but in contrast, with regard to the citadel (akra) which Alexander established for his own city, this he built in a manner befitting the name he gave it, for he set it up toward the city-summit, and it is more legitimate to describe this as an acropolis than the one in which the Athenians have taken to priding themselves. Its arrangement is more or less as follows, as my description relates. There is a citadel, jutting out of the land, rising until well into the heights and called an acropolis for two reasons: first, because it is exceedingly high, and second, because it has been built on the very peak of the city. The roads (hodoi) that lead up this citadel are not of the same sort, since in one area, there is just a road, but in another, an entranceway (eisodos). And these roads change their names and become called as their nature dictates, for on one, it
166 Seats found on south slope of Serapeum enclosure: drawings by A. Thiersch, reproduced in Sabottka

found on the southern side of the Serapeum hill beyond (east of) where Humphrey Roman Circuses, fig. 254, ended the circus. Seating further west:
Description de l'Egypte, vol. 5, 329; vol. 10, 524; plates vol. 5, pl. 39.2 seats at 'k'; Humphrey Roman Circuses,

Serapeum, vol. i, 96-7; vol. 3, figs 17-19.

These were

fig. 254. Axonometric reconstruction of Roman phase of Lageion and Serapeum: J. S. McKenzie, 'Glimpses of Alexandria from archaeological evidence', JRA 16 (2003), 57 fig. I6. 167 I. Nielsen, Hellenistic Palaces, Tradition and
Renewal (1994), fig. I io.
168 Aezani: R. L. Vann, The Unexcavated Buildings of Sardis, BAR Int. Ser. 538 (1989), fig. I17. Other combinations of theatre and stadium in Asia Minor, and stadia with both ends rounded: Vann, op. cit., 62-5, figs I I6, II8-21. The Napoleonic expedition suggested the structure they recorded was a stadium,

rather than a circus: Description de l'Egypte, vol. 5, 334-6. 169Aphthonius was a student of Libanius (b. A.D. 314): G. A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (1983), 59-60. This means Aphthonius would have been too young to visit Alexandria as early as A.D. 315, contra: A. J. Butler, The Arab Conquest of Egypt (2nd edn, ed. P. M. Fraser; 1978), 382 n. 2; Thelamon, op. cit. (n. 45), 166. 170 Trans. by A. T. Reyes from Aphthonii Progymnasmata, ed. H. Rabe (1926), 38-41. Text with Latin trans. Botti Fouilles c la colonne, 23-6; French trans. in K. Macaire, 'Nouvelle 6tude sur le Serapeum d'Alexandrie', Bulletin de la Socite' Khediviale de geographie, Ser. 7, no. 7 (I9Io), 396-8; text and German trans. Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 320-4. Discussion: Botti, op. cit. (n. 3, 1895), 5-12; Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 26-9, 82-5; Rowe 1941-2, 124-7, 137; Rowe and Rees, 501; Sabottka Serapeum, 324-9, 336-7.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

105

is possible to approach on foot, and this road is shared with those who enter by cart.171 On another, staircases (anabathmoi) rise up, and there, passage is impossible for carts, since step (klimax) gives way to step, always such that the larger leads on from the smaller, and the steps go on higher without ceasing until they reach a hundred, when at last the termination of the number brings the length [of the staircase] to completion. A propylaeum now takes over from the steps, surrounded by lattice-gates (kigklides) of average height, and then four very large columns rise up and bring the different types of paths toward the one entrance. Upon these columns rests a structure (oikos) with many columns of average height jutting forward. On the one hand, these have not just one colour, but, jutting forward in the building, have been fixed as decoration.172 The roof (orophe) of the structure came up to a vault (kyklos), and along the vault was affixed a large representation of the world (ton onton hypomnema).173 But as one enters the acropolis itself from the side, the single area is divided by four similar sides, and the scheme of the arrangement happens to be rectangular (plaision), in the midst of which is a colonnaded court (aule peristylos). So then, stoas follow the shape of the court, stoas divided by equal columns, and their size is such that it is not possible to accommodate anything more. Thus, each stoa comes to an end against another, and a double column"17 divides one stoa from the next, the one coming to an end, the other starting up in turn. Precincts (sekoi) of the stoas have been built inside, some as storehouses (tameia) for the books, open to those eager to study, and they lift the entire city up to the possibility of acquiring wisdom; but others were erected to venerate the traditional gods. As for the roofing of the stoas: this is constructed of gold, whereas the column-capitals are worked in bronze, but plated by gold. The ornamentation of the courtyard, therefore, is not all uniform, for one was one way, while another was another way, especially the part with the 'Labours of Perseus'.175 And in the centre, there rises a column of surpassing height that renders the location - someone leaving would not at all know where he was heading, were he not recognizable17 to use the column as a reference-point for his journey - and the acropolis visible to land and sea. The 'beginnings of the world' (archai ton onton) are positioned around the capital of the column. 177 Before one passes through to the middle of the courtyard, a building (kataskeuasma) has been erected, by its gates, each named after the old gods.178 There stand also distinguished and a spring having even better water than the one of the Peisistratids. two stone obelisks" There is another thing to marvel at with regard to the number of builders. This has become a matter beyond belief, since, just as it would not be possible for one man to do all the construction, so only twelve craftsmen are identified and set forth as makers of the whole acropolis. As one descends the acropolis, there comes a level area resembling a stadium, which was also the name of that place. But elsewhere is another designed for similar ends, though not having the same size. For the rest, the beauty surpasses the telling, and if anything has been passed over, this may be taken as additional to what is amazing. What was simply impossible to describe has been omitted. He provides Rufinus of Aquileia spent eight years in Alexandria in c. A.D. 373-80.18o further details about the Serapeum before describing the destruction of the cult statue and the temple by the Christians in A.D. 39 I.

171 This is apparently the entrance from Street R8 in the north side of the court. 172This seems to be referring to the fact that although the columns are of more than one coloured stone they are used together. 173 Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 26-7 suggests the representation was of a zodiac. 174Possibly referring to heart-shaped piers. 175 Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 28-9, suggests there may be a confusion with the Labours of Hercules or with the reading of some hieroglyphs. For the Perseus-Andromeda panel in the Iseum in Pompeii and the association of Perseus with Egypt, see Wild Water, 78-84.

176Diocletian's Column. 177What this phrase means remains unclear: Botti Fouilles a'la colonne, 84-5, Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 327. 78 Perhaps the South Building. 179The obelisks are also mentioned in PseudoKallisthenes, The Greek Alexander Romance 1.33; trans. R. Stoneman, 66. 180 Rufinus' Historiae ecclesiasticae was written in A.D. 402: F. X. Murphy, Rufinus of Aquileia (345-4zz), his Life and Works, The Catholic University of America, Washington Studies in Medieval History n.s. 6 (Diss. 1945), 47, 232, 235.

106 Rufinus,

JUDITH S. MCKENZIE, SHEILA GIBSON AND A. T. REYES Ecclesiastical History,

11.23:181

Everyone, I think, has at least heard of the temple of Serapis at Alexandria, and to several it is in fact well-known. The site is not a natural one, but rather one built by hand and constructed, situated as it is high above past a hundred or more steps and stretched open on every side with huge rectangular spaces. Until the highest part of the flooring is reached, in fact, everything is built with vaulted work, and with the lighting let in from above and with the shrines (adyta) hidden, each structure in turn has itself a use given over to distinct and particular rituals, in addition to secret functions. Now then, in the upper areas, around the extreme edges of the whole periphery, there are exedrae and priests-quarters (pastoforia) and houses (domus) that reach a great height, in which temple-keepers or those whom they used to call hagneuontes (that is, the ones who make themselves pure) had been accustomed to gather.182 There were also porticoes beyond these that went round all this circumference on the inside, defined by a rectangular arrangement. In the midst of the whole space was the temple (aedes), wrought with expensive columns and built impressively and magnificently with marble-stone on the outside. In this was an image of Serapis, so huge that its right hand was touching one wall, while its left hand touched another - a monstrous object said to have been made from all sorts of metals and woods. The interior walls of the shrine (delubrum) were covered at first by gold plates, then by silver plates above these, and finally by bronze plates to protect the more precious metals. There were also certain devices designed by cunning and artistry for the astonishment and admiration of onlookers. A very small window had been so positioned with respect to the sunrise that, on the day on which it had been decreed that an image of the sun was to be carried inside to greet Serapis, the timing had to be observed carefully as the image entered, so that a sun-beam, passing straight through that very window would light up the mouth and lips of Serapis to give the effect, as people watched, that Serapis was apparently receiving a kiss from the sun in salutation. There was also another trick of this sort. The magnet-stone has a property generally acknowledged to be of the following kind: it draws and attracts iron to itself. The sunsymbol had been designed by the hand of a craftsman from the finest iron to such an extent that the stone - whose nature it is, as we have said, to draw iron to itself - affixed above in the panelled ceilings would pull the iron toward itself, after the symbol had in due course been positioned at a level directly beneath. To the people, therefore, the image seemed to have risen and to hang in the air, and in order that this deception should not be betrayed by a sudden slip, the perpetrators of the deceit kept affirming, 'The sun has risen to depart for its own realm, and in so doing, bids farewell to Serapis'. Several other devices also had been built into the site by the ancients for the sake of their trickery, but they are too many to number one by one. Less detailed descriptions c. A.D. 359 comments:183 are given by other writers. An anonymous author in

The Temple of Serapis is there, the one and only strange sight in all the world. For nowhere in the world is found such a building or such an arrangement of a temple or such an arrangement of a religion. The pagan Ammianus Marcellinus gives a description, completed in the mid-to-late of the city which he probably visited on his trip to Egypt. Whilst the city had A.D., 38os

181 This translation by A. T. Reyes (originally prepared in 1993 concentrating on the architectural terms) from Rufinus, Hist. eccl. 11.23, Die lateinische Ubersetzung des Rufinus, ed. T. Mommsen, in Eusebius Werke, ed. E. Schwartz, vol. 2 (1908), 1026-7. Alternative translations: The Church History of Rufinus Aquileia Books io and ii, trans. P. R. Amidon (1997), 8o-i; text with French trans. Thelamon, op. cit. (n. 45), 166-7; text and German trans. Sabottka

Serapeum, vol. I, 329-32. Discussion: Botti Fouilles a la colonne, 35-40; Rowe 1941-2, 124-7, 137; Sabottka Serapeum, vol. I, 333-7. 182 On pastoforia (pastophoria), see G. Husson, Oikia, le vocabulaire de la maison privee en Egypte d'apres les papyrus grecs (1983), 221-3. 183 Expositio totius mundi et gentium 35, ed. and French trans. J. Rouge (1966), 170-I. This translation A. T. Reyes.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

I07

innumerable churches, he indicates that it also had many impressive temples, including the Temple of Serapis:is4 There are besides in the city, temples pompous with lofty roofs, conspicuous among them the Serapeum, which . . . is so adorned with extensive columned halls (atria), with almost breathing statues, and a great number of other works of art, that next to the Capitolium, with which revered Rome elevates herself to eternity, the whole world beholds nothing more magnificent.
XI. CONVERSION OF THE SERAPEUM SITE TO CHRISTIANITY

The destruction of the Temple of Serapis in A.D. 391 was an iconic event in the end of paganism. Not only was it the last major temple in the city to be closed, but also the most important one. Its location on the city's only natural high ground and the dominance of this site above the city also made it very obvious that this was the final stage in the Christianization of the cityscape of Alexandria, with the closure of the temple and the erection of churches on the site. The cityscape of Alexandria was no longer the mixed pagan and Christian one which it had been during much of the fourth century A.D. Christianity was finally victorious (even if there was still some paganism in the city and its outskirts for another century). Thus, brief mention should be made of the results of the analysis of the evidence for the erection of churches on the hill after the Temple of Serapis was finally closed.185ss This event is illustrated in the papyrus codex of The Alexandrian World Chronicle. The black face of the cult statue depicted186 accords with Clement's description of it two centuriesbeforeits destruction."'Rufinus,writingin A.D. 402, describesthe destruction

of this cult statuein detail.188

As will be seen below, when compared with the written sources, the archaeological evidence elucidates the wording of Rufinus' observation that 'the profane temples (aedes) were razed to the ground, a martyrium rose up on one side, a church (ecclesia)on the other'.189 Writing at about the same time (c. A.D.399-414), the pagan Eunapius, who noted pagan prophesies of the destruction of the Serapeum (also mentioned by St Augustine), observed that the Christians did not remove the floor because of the weight of the stones.190The church historians Sozomen and Socrates, writing about half a century after the event, relate how blocks with hieroglyphs (including symbols

184 Amm. Marc. 22.16.12, trans. J. C. Rolfe. Date: J. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus (1989), 23-4, 26. Ammianus' visit to Egypt/Alexandria: ibid.,

ed. Mommsen 11.22-3, trans. Amidon 79-82; Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 7.15.3-Io, ed. Bidez and Hansen 320-I, trans. NPNF 2, 385-6; Haas Alexandria, 161-3. Extensive bibliography in Schwartz, op. cit. (n. 43), 97-11II; A. Baldini, 'Problemi della tradizione sulla "disruzione" del Serapeo di Alessandria', Rivista storica dell'antichitac 15 (1985), 97-152. Date of destruction, A.D. 391: Bowersock, op. cit. (n. 154), 266, 271 n. 14. 186 A. Bauer and J. Strzygowski, Eine alexandrinische Weltchronik (1905), 71-3, pl. 6 Verso. Fifth-century date: Illuminierte Papyri, Pergamente und Papiere I, ed. U. Horak (1992), 97. Eighth-century(?) date: S. Hodjash in L'art copte en Egypte, 2000 ans de christianisme (zooo), 42, fig. 10o. 187Clement, Protr. 4.43. 188 Rufinus, Hist. eccl. 11.23, ed. Mommsen 1028-9,

14. s85 Rufinus, 1025-6, 1028,

Hist. eccl.

trans. Amidon 81-2. The destruction of the cult statue, as emblematic of the destruction of the cult, is also described in Theodoret, Hist. eccl. 5.22.3-6, ed. Parmentier 321; trans. NPNF 3, 148. Theodoret's Hist. eccl. was written in A.D. 444-50: ODB vol. 3, 2zo49. The statue of Serapis is also described at the beginning of the fifth century in Macrobius, The Saturnalia 1.20. 13-18, trans. Davies 139-40. 189 Rufinus, Hist. eccl. 11.27, ed. Mommsen 1033, trans. Amidon 85. This translation by A. T. Reyes. 190Eunapius, Lives of the Philosophers 472, in Philostratus and Eunapius, Lives of the Sophists, ed. and trans. W. C. Wright (1921), 417-23; Schwartz, op. cit. (n. 43), 1oo. St Augustine, The Divination of Demons i, in Bibliotheque augustinienne, Oeuvres de Saint Augustin vol. 10, MIlanges doctrinaux, ed. and French trans. G. Bardy et al. (1952), 654-5; English trans. R. W. Brown in R. J. Deferrai (ed.), Saint Augustine, Treatise on Marriage and Other Subjects, Fathers of the Church, vol. 27 (1955), 421-2.

108

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

interpreted as crosses) were uncovered when the temple (naos) was being dismantled.191 This is possible as it was built of ashlar masonry above the concrete foundations, and blocks with hieroglyphs were re-used in the base of Diocletian's Column.192 The re-use of masonry has a long history in Egypt going back to the Dynastic period. The inside of the Roman Temple of Serapis would have been about 9 m wide (Fig. i i) (built to house only the god and not a congregation), so that it would not have made a particularly large church if they had decided to convert it. A similar problem with the size of the cella of the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias was solved by using the temple peristyle for the interior colonnade of the church and demolishing the cella walls.193 The colonnaded court was apparently not destroyed in A.D. 391, and it is described in the Arab sources.194 Rufinus' reference to the profane temples (i.e. plural) being razed could refer to the dismantling of not only the Temple of Serapis, but also the South Building and the T-shaped Building. No traces of church wall foundations were found in the area excavated inside the main colonnaded court. This is significant because the Ptolemaic and Roman foundations are very obvious. As this suggests that monumental Christian buildings were not erected inside the court, it means either they were erected outside it (with the buildings in it destroyed) or that the buildings in it were converted to churches. The written sources suggest the latter did not occur. This raises the possibility that the churches were not erected inside the court but to the west of it (largely beyond the area excavated). This is supported by the archaeological evidence, as possible church foundations were found to the west of the court. The colonnaded court could have functioned as an atrium for the churches. In the small area to the west of the enclosure excavated by Rowe remains were found of a 7.4 m-thick wall, parallel to the west wall of the enclosure and 25 m to the west of it (on far left of Fig. 4). It was made of irregular stones set in mortar, and apparently enclosed a mosaic floor. From the pottery Rowe dated it to the late fourth or fifth century A.D.195 Rowe wondered if this 'wall' were a road. It could equally be concluded, from its great width, that this 'wall' could have supported a vaulted structure (i.e. a church) with a mosaic floor. Other in situ archaeological remains of Christian structures to the west of the court include cisterns with inscribed crosses and baptismal fonts.196 Loose fragments of Byzantine buildings discovered at the site include a fragment of a white marble chancel screen or related structure found c. 50 m south-west of Diocletian's Column. It was carved from a re-used block which had a dedication, of the period of Septimius Severus or Caracalla, mentioning Serapis.197 A small Byzantine capital, such as used on chancel screens, was found in the excavations of the Serapeum in c. 1900 (Appendix, P1. VIII, top far right). According to the written sources, the martyrium, mentioned by Rufinus, was built by the patriarch Theophilus (A.D. 384-412) with a tomb in it for the bones of St John the Baptist, which had been sent to Athanasius from Sebaste under the emperor Julian.

191 Socrates, Hist. eccl. 5.17, ed. Hansen 290-I, trans. ed. NPNF 2, 126-7; Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 7.15.10, Bidez and Hansen 321, trans. NPNF 2, 386; Nicephorus Callistus (c. A.D. 1256-35), Hist. eccl. I2.26, PG

146, cols 825D-828A; Thelamon, op. cit. (n. 45), 268-73. Although, according to Rufinus, Eunapius, and Socrates, the temples were razed to the ground, the Serapeum is described as being 'converted' into a
church in Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 7.15.10, Hansen 321, trans. NPNF 2, 386.
192

ed. Bidez and

Of the Egyptian blocks re-used in the base of Diocletian's Column, two remain in situ, and two are in the British Museum: Tkaczow Topography, 237-8 object 137; PM IV, 3; J. Yoyotte in Goddio et al. Cult of Ra: Sun-worship in Ancient Egypt (2001), 78-9. I thank Tom Hardwick for the latter reference. 193 C. Ratte, 'New research on the urban develop212-14, 213 figs 17-18; S. Quirke, The

Alexandria,

ment of Aphrodisias in late antiquity', in D. Parrish (ed.), Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, JRA Suppl. 45 (2ooi), 130-3, figs 5-12. The Hephaisteion, a Greek temple in Athens, with a cella slightly over 6 m wide, was converted to a church, although Price suggests such conversions were relatively rare: S. Price, Religions of the Ancient Greeks (I999), 166, fig. 8.4. 194 S. K. Hamarneh, 'The ancient monuments of Alexandria according to accounts by medieval Arab authors (IX-XV century)', Folia Orientalia 13 (I971), 82-4. 195 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 48, pl. 18. 196 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 47-9, fig. 14 on p. 67, pls 13-14, 18; Rowe and Rees, 503-4. 197Alexandria, Greco-Roman Museum inv. 206; Kayser, op. cit. (n. 122), 184-6 no. 53, pl. 29.

RECONSTRUCTING THE SERAPEUM IN ALEXANDRIA

lo9

Those of Elisha were also placed in it (possibly later).198 This building was described by the seventh-century Egyptian bishop John of Nikiu as 'massive, its dimensions lofty, and it was very much decorated'.'99 It was later described as octagonal, like martyria elsewhere.200 According to Sozomen, the church (ekklesia) built beside it by Theophilus was named after Arcadius (eastern emperor, A.D. 395-408).201 These two structures (a martyrium and church) seem to have been new buildings, rather than conversions. It is possible that this was a similar arrangement to that of the Constantinian Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, where there was a rotunda over the tomb and a basilica church beside it, and the Constantinian Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which had an octagonal structure over the grotto adjoining a basilica. The apparent erection of churches beside, but not in, the old temple enclosure is interesting. Some Egyptian temples were later converted to churches, such as the temple of Isis at Philae in A.D. 535-8. At Dendara (Tentyris) the church is built inside the temple enclosure beside the Hathor Temple which remains standing. At Luxor (Thebes) most of the churches are built outside the former Temple of Amun, even though it had been out use for the worship of Egyptian gods for some time (having been incorporated into a Roman military camp). If the churches were erected outside (and not inside) the court of the Serapeum in Alexandria this might explain Evagrius' reference (written at the end of the sixth century) to imperial troops taking refuge 'in the old sanctuary (hieron) of Serapis' in c. A.D. 451.202 If the churches were built to the west of the court, this would mean that it was to
their east. Churches in Egypt normally face approximately east, so if they had an atrium

which served as a forecourt it would have been situated to their west. However, the Constantinian Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the recently discovered

198 Martyrium of St John the Baptist: Rufinus, Hist. eccl. I11.28, ed. Mommsen 1033-4, trans. Amidon 85; John of Nikiu, 78.43-6, trans. Charles 74-5. Bones of Elisha, as well as St John the Baptist: The Story of the Church of Alexandria, ed. and trans. T. Orlandi, Storia della Chiesa di Alessandria (1967), vol. I, 66-7 11.304-48; vol. 2, 62 11.37-56, 1oo-2; Severus ibn elMuqaffa, ed. and trans. B. Evetts, PO I, 419 [155], 426 [162]. The Coptic Synaxarium (18 Babeh, 15 October, ed. and trans. R. Basset, PO I, 347 [133]) mentions that the Church of St John the Baptist and Elisha is 'known today as ed-Daifmas'. It is sometimes suggested that this refers to Kom el-Dikka because there were tombs there. However, there was also a cemetery to the south-west of the Serapeum hill. Contra: E. Amelineau, La gdographie de l'Egypte a l'4poque copte (1893), 34, 41; Adriani Repertorio, 216, 225. The date Theophanes gives for the relics of John the Baptist being moved to Alexandria, A.D. 397/8, is after the death of Athanasius, and perhaps refers to them being placed in the newly constructed martyrium: Theophanes AM 5890, ed. de Boor 75, trans. Mango and Scott 114. According to Theophanes the remains of Elisha were not moved to Alexandria until A.D. 463/4 when they were 'placed in the monastery of Paul the Leper' (AM 5956, ed. de Boor 114, trans. Mango and Scott 176). The bones of St Antony were deposited in the Church of St John the Baptist in A.D. 561: Calderini Dizionario vol. I, 171; A. Martin, 'Les premiers si'cles du christianisme a Alexandrie, essai de topographie religieuse (IIIIVe siecles)', Revue des etudes Augustiniennes 30 (1984), 222 n. 72. 199John of Nikiu 78.46, trans. Charles 75. 200 In a medieval scholion on an eleventh-century manuscript: A. Birnbaum, 'Die Oktogone von Antiocha, Nazianz und Nyssa', Repertoriumfiir Kunstwissenschaft 36 (I913), 192; C. Mango, The Art of the

Byzantine Empire (1986), 27 n. 21; J. Gascou, 'Les eglises d'Alexandrie: questions de methode', in C. Decobert and J.-Y. Empereur (eds), Alexandrie mddidvalei, EtAlex 3 (1998), 34. 201 Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 7.15.10, ed. Bidez and Hansen 321, trans. NPNF 2, 386; Nicephorus Callistus, Hist. eccl. 12.26, PG 146, col. 828A-B; Calderini Dizionario vol. I, 167; Schwartz, op. cit. (n. 43), 99 n. 13; Martin, op. cit. (n. 198), 222; A. Martin, A romaine tardive: l'impact du 'Alexandrie l'apoque christianisme sur la topographie et les institutions', in Alexandrie medievale i, EtAlex 3 (1998), 16. The church named 'Arcadia' after Arcadius is also mentioned by John of Nikiu 83.37, ed. and French trans. Zotenberg 450, trans. Charles 88. There are some important differences between the translations of this passage by Zotenberg and Charles, leading to confusion. Zotenberg has Theophilus responsible for the construction, but Charles has Timothy. In John of Nikiu 83.38, 'A temple in the city of Serapis' of Zotenberg is restored by Charles as 'there was a temple of Serapis in the city' which he converted to a church named after Honorius (Charles 88 n. i). Consequently, this passage is sometimes erroneously used to suggest that there was a church of Honorius at the former Serapeum site: Martin, op. cit. (n. 198), 223. See also, Amelineau, op. cit. (n. 198), 202Evagrius Scholasticus, Hist. eccl. 2.5, ed. Bidez and Parmentier p. 51 1. 11; Gascou, op. cit. (n. 2oo), 34. It could also explain the fifth-century reference of the monophysite Peter the Iberian to the use of the Serapeum (apparently in Alexandria) at night as a place to conduct pagan healing ceremonies: Petrus der Iberer 72, ed. and trans. R. Raabe (1895), 71. This could have been possible if churches were not built over the former space of the pagan temple buildings. I thank Peter Brown for this reference. Peter the Iberian: ODB vol. 3, 1642.
41.

IIO

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

circular church at Tell el-Farama (Pelusium), at the eastern tip of the Nile Delta, both had an atrium and/or a basilica to the east of their rotunda.203 Theophanes records that in A.D. 464/5 'the four[-sided] colonnade (tetrastoon) and the sanctuary (hagiasterion) of St John' were built in Alexandria.204 It is possible this might refer to a repair of the colonnaded court and the church. After A.D. 538 the Church of St John the Baptist would apparently have been largely Chalcedonian, as Justinian expelled the Copts from the other churches in the city, and they had two main churches which they built (or restored) for their own use: one, called the Angelion, at the steps to the former Serapeum, and another congregationbuilt one 'in the name of Cosmas and Damian, to the east of al-malcab, and a little to the west of the colonnade'.205 Whilst the approximate location of the Angelion is clear, the location of the Church of Cosmas and Damian depends on whether the Arabic term almalcab (place in which to have a play or game) refers to the race-course (the Lageion) or the theatre; it could mean either.206 The Coptic patriarch Anastasius (A.D. 605-616) had been presiding priest of the Angelion and Church of Saints Cosmas and Damian. Although he had to reside outside Alexandria, he was able to preach in the Church of St John the Baptist, but not with impunity. As a result, the Chalcedonian patriarch Eulogius persuaded the emperor Phocas (A.D. 602-610) to confiscate the Church of Cosmas and Damian.207 John Moschus, who was in Alexandria in the years immediately before the Persian invasion of A.D. 619, mentions various churches in the city, including the Church of St John, behind which there were sepulchres (Fig. I6).208 However, it is not known when, after this, the church ceased to be used. Under Saladin in A.D. I 167, the columns at the Serapeum site were broken up and moved to the edge of the sea shore, to deaden the force of the waves undermining the city walls, and make the approach of the Crusader ships more difficult.209 Some fragments of columns were left behind at the site, some with the cuttings for the wooden wedges used to break them up (also visible on the right hand block from the portico in P1. VI, I). Only Diocletian's Column was left standing.
XII. COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SANCTUARIES AND CONCLUSIONS

As both the Ptolemaic and Roman phases of the Serapeum in Alexandria have been reconstructed for the first time, it is worth concluding with a consideration of how both phases relate to sanctuaries elsewhere.

203 Pelusium: P. Grossmann, Christliche Architektur in Agypten (2002), fig. 88. Church of Holy Sepulchre: M. Biddle, The Tomb of Christ ( 999), figs 62, 63a. 204 Theophanes, AM 5957, ed. de Boor I14, trans. Mango and Scott 177; Calderini Dizionario vol. I, 170. 205Severus ibn el-Muqaffa, ed. and trans. B. Evetts, PO I, 466-7 [202-3]; Livre de la consecration du sanctuaire de Benjamin, ed. and French trans. R.-G. Coquin (1975), 50-4; Maricq, op. cit. (n. 147), 39-42; Martin, op. cit. (n. 201), 16-17. Severus refers to the Serapeum site as al-Sawari (the Columns), which is the later Arabic name for the site. He also mentions that the church was at 'the 105 steps', which will be the hundred steps of the Serapeum mentioned by Aphthonius. 206 For al-malcab see: Hamarneh, op. cit. (n. 194),

84-5. John of Nikiu, 83.38, trans. Charles 88, states that the Church of Saints Cosmas and Damian faced the Church of St Peter. Thus, it is sometimes suggested there was also a Church of St Peter at the Serapeum site: Maricq, op. cit. (147), 42; Martin, op. cit. (n. 201), 16. 207 Severus ibn el-Muqaffa, ed. and trans. B. Evetts, PO I, 478-80 [214-16]. So also, Coptic Synaxarium 22 Kihak (I8 December), ed. and trans. R. Basset, PO III 508 [432]. 208 John Moschus, Spiritual Meadow 77, PG 87.3, col. 2932B, trans. Wortley 6o. 209 Abd al-Latif p. 112-13, Relationde l'Egypte par Abd al-Latif, trans. S. de Sacy (i81o), 182-3; Rowe 1941-2, 132-3; Butler, op. cit. (n. 169), 388. Columns on the eastern harbour shore: J. Yoyotte in Goddio et al. Alexandria, 208.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

III

Ptolemaic Sanctuary The analysis of the archaeological evidence has revealed monumental buildings at the site prior to the Temple of Serapis of Ptolemy III Euergetes I (246-221 B.C.) and its colonnaded court: the South Building, the T-shaped Building covering the entry to the underground passages, and the passage giving secret access between these two buildings. Insufficient evidence survives from which to suggest axonometric reconstructions of them, or the Harpocrates Temple of Ptolemy IV Philopator; however, there is sufficient for the reconstruction of the buildings known to have been erected by Ptolemy III: the colonnaded court with rooms along its west and south sides, the Temple of Serapis, and the Stoa-like Structure (Fig. 9). Now that the phases and design of the building in the Ptolemaic period have been clarified, future scholarship will hopefully be able to elucidate further the function of some of these structures, especially the South Building, the T-shaped Building, the passage giving secret access between them, the underground passages, and the Stoa-like Structure. The lack of an axial approach to the Ptolemaic Serapeum reflects the use of the site, which was the city's only natural hill (the akra), as a Greek acropolis rather than for a temple with an Egyptian axial design. Because Egyptian temples were usually built on flat land, beside the Nile or in the oases, it was easy to construct them with their characteristic layout, with a central axis and a frontal approach. Larger Egyptian temples had a colonnaded court adjoining the front of them in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. At the same time, they were located within a temple enclosure which had mudbrick walls. This enclosure included other buildings and structures, such as a Nilometer and a birth house. Like many Egyptian sanctuaries, the Ptolemaic Serapeum had a Nilometer and apparently a birth house. It also had foundation plaques in accordance with Egyptian custom. However, the evidence suggests that the Ptolemaic buildings of the Serapeum were 'classical' (Greek) in appearance. This combination of the two cultures is similar to that observed in the god and his cult statue. He was completely Greek in appearance, but had aspects related to the Egyptian god Osiris-Apis from whom he was derived, being responsible for both the Nile flood and the Underworld. At the same time, this sanctuary which on the surface was 'classical' was decorated with Egyptian sculptures (by the Roman period if not earlier), while it continued in use for the first two centuries of Roman rule.

Roman Sanctuary There is sufficient evidence reliably to reconstruct the Roman phase of the court and temple which replaced the Ptolemaic phase after the Serapeum burnt down in A.D. 181. This construction, which was completed by A.D. 217 (or a few years earlier), involved widening the colonnaded court so that the enlarged Temple of Serapis was located on the lengthwise axis of the court. Like the Ptolemaic phase, it was not approached along its axis, but from the side (Fig. 13). This direction of approach, with the entrance on the axis of the T-shaped Building, was partly related to the topography of the site, but was mainly influenced by the positions of the pre-existing buildings (the T-shaped Building and the South Building) (Fig. I I). At the same time, the Temple of Harpocrates, which may have been a birth house (and so no longer needed for the dynastic cult), was not replaced and the Ptolemaic Nilometer was built over. The Roman Nilometer has not been found, although it is mentioned by the written sources. The contents of the Roman complex were thus less Egyptian than those of the Ptolemaic one, even though it retained both Egyptian and Greco-Roman statuary in a 'classical' architectural setting.

112

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

Before comparing it with Roman sanctuaries elsewhere with a temple and a colonnaded court, it needs to be remembered that the Roman Serapeum in Alexandria is distinct from them in two obvious respects. Firstly, it had its entrance on the long side of the court, not along the axis of the temple. Secondly, the court not only contained the Temple of Serapis, but also apparently retained two of the earlier buildings: the Tshaped Building and the South Building. The design of the Roman Serapeum clearly shows an interest in an axial plan, but one which has more in common with those of Roman temples than Egyptian ones. Major Roman temples were often positioned on the lengthwise axis of a colonnaded court and frontally approached. In the examples in Rome and North Africa, the temple was generally positioned against the back wall of the colonnaded court with the rest of the court or forum in front of it, as in the Temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum of Augustus in Rome.210 By contrast, in the Roman East the colonnaded court surrounded the temple, as in the Temple of Artemis at Jerash erected under Antoninus Pius.211 The examples in the East are peristyle temples, i.e. with free-standing columns on four sides, including along the back.212 By contrast, in Rome, because they are jammed up against the back wall of the court, the temples do not have free-standing columns along their back wall, even if they have them along both side walls, as on the Temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum of Caesar and the Temple of Mars Ultor in the Forum of Augustus.213 The Temple of Serapis in Alexandria is unusual because, although it had columns along both sides, it apparently had engaged (not free-standing) columns along its back wall. This suggests some influence from Rome in its design. As the Roman phase of the Serapeum in Alexandria was built later than the sanctuaries in the Roman East which had a peristyle temple in a colonnaded court, the suggestion cannot be made that their design was influenced by the Roman phase of the Serapeum. On the other hand, the earliest surviving example of an axial layout with a frontally approached temple in a colonnaded court occurred in the third century B.C. at el-Ashmunein (Hermopolis Magna).214 Because Dynastic temples were axially approached and frontally viewed, like the sanctuary at el-Ashmunein, it has been suggested that its layout possibly resulted from Egyptian influence. It has also been suggested that this arrangement of a Greek temple approached along its axis developed in Alexandria, and that perhaps the idea of a sanctuary with a complete colonnaded court also developed in Egypt.215 As this layout was later used for some temples in the Roman Near East, such as on the temple of Artemis at Jerash, it might have reached the Near East prior to Roman rule, especially as the Hellenistic sanctuary at Gadara (Umm Qais) has this layout.216 Comparison with other Serapea Brief mention should be made of how the plans of the Ptolemaic and Roman phases of the Alexandrian Serapeum relate to Serapea elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world.
210Gros, op. cit. (n. 69), vol. I, figs 255, 275, 277. 211 Gros, op. cit. (n. 69), vol. I, 192, figs 223, 292. Usually these examples in the East were approached on their axis, although the temple of Bel at Palmyra (dedicated in A.D. 32) is a peristyle temple in a colonnaded court, but the temple is approached on its side: M. A. R. Colledge, The Art of Palmyra (1976), 27, fig. 6. 212 Gros, op. cit. (n. 69), vol. I, fig. 223. 213 Gros, op. cit. (n. 69), vol. I, figs 153, 154, 255. 214Archaeological evidence: Wace et al., op. cit. (n. 72), 4-II, pls 1-3, 10-17, 19; M. Baranski, 'The archaeological setting of the great basilica church at el-Ashmunein', in D. M. Bailey (ed.), Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt, JRA suppl. 19(I996), 103-4, fig. 8. Inscription and date: Wace et al., op. cit. (n. 72), 4-5; Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. 1, 234-5; vol. 2, 384 n. 356; F. Rumscheid, Untersuchungenzur kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (1994),

vol. I, 53-4. Wace suggests that it was built with the benefits of the Third Syrian War, and so not much later than c. 240 B.c. Architectural orders: W. Hoepfner, Zwei Ptolemaierbauten, AM Beiheft I (1971), 78-83, fig. 9, pl. 24; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 248-53, 324-8, pls 8-11, 12 no. 73, 19 nos 121-2; Rumscheid,op. cit., vol. I, 53-4; vol. 2, 91-2 no. 370, pl. 196nos 3-8, 197 nos 1-3. 215 J. J. Coulton, The Architectural Development of the GreekStoa (1976), 171. 216 A. Hoffmann,'Topographieund Stadtgeschichte von Gadara/Umm Qais', in A. Hoffmann and S. Kerner (eds), Gadara- Gerasaunddie Dekapolis I05, fig.-156. (200oo2),

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

113

In order to avoid invalid comparisons, only the Serapea confirmed by Wild as being correctly identified as such (largely by their dedicatory inscriptions)217 should be considered. Examination of their plans does not reveal striking similarities between them and either phase of the Alexandrian Serapeum. Some of these temples of Serapis and/or Isis (at Leptis Magna, Ostia, Sabratha: East End, and Savaria) have an axially approached temple with a court. However, as indicated, this sanctuary layout is used in Roman architecture prior to the Roman phase of the Serapeum in Alexandria, and it is not specific to Serapea. Furthermore, these examples outside Egypt (like other Roman examples and unlike the Serapeum in Alexandria) have a single building (the temple) in the court and are frontally approached. The Ptolemaic Temple of Serapis in Alexandria is oriented facing south of southeast, and this orientation is retained in the Roman re-building (Figs 8, I1). Wild observes 'a large number of Sarapis sanctuaries from both Hellenistic and Roman times have the cult statue facing either S-SE or its opposite N-NW'.218 He also noted that the S-SE orientation in these Serapis sanctuaries follows that of the Alexandrian Temple of Serapis. He explained the orientation as necessary for the sun's rays to hit the lips of Serapis in the way described by Rufinus. The fact that the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria does not face due south is related to the orientation of the city street grid (Fig. I). Despite this, the Alexandrian orientation is used for Serapea elsewhere, suggesting that it influenced this aspect of their design. The South Building faced N-NW which might explain the alternative direction. Wild also observed some developments in Serapea elsewhere which possibly have significance in relation to the Serapeum in Alexandria. Its Ptolemaic phase had a Nilometer with a staircase down to it (Figs 8-9) which was covered by the Roman construction. The Roman Nilometer, mentioned in the written sources, has not been found and it is possible it was a portable measuring rod,219 for which the well has not been found. Wild noted that the Isis and/or Serapis sanctuaries elsewhere which are new foundations in the Roman period lack the water installations he identified as Nilometer crypts, unlike those which originated in the Hellenistic period.220 Thus, there might have been less need in the Roman phase of the Serapeum in Alexandria for a Nilometer of the type previously used in the Ptolemaic sanctuary, because of changes in ritual needs apparently already reflected in new Serapea elsewhere. The anonymous author of Expositio totius mundi et gentium noted of the Roman Serapeum in Alexandria, in A.D. 359, 'nowhere in the world is found such a building or such an arrangement of a temple'.221 This was true of both the Ptolemaic and Roman phases of the complex, as revealed by comparison of it with Greek, Roman, and Egyptian sanctuaries elsewhere, including Serapea. After the Temple of Serapis was destroyed by the Christians in A.D. 391 the colonnaded court remained standing. There is no evidence to suggest that any churches were built inside the court, rather they seem to have been built immediately to the west of it. This destruction of the temple and erection of churches on the hill marked the end of the presence of paganism on the cityscape.
217 Listed in Wild Water, 163-6; R. A. Wild, 'The known Isis-Sarapis sanctuaries of the Roman period', ANRW II, I7.4 (1984), 1746-53. Now that the chronology of the construction phases of the Serapeum in Alexandria has been clarified, it would perhaps be worth further investigating how this relates to the peaks of interest in the cults of Serapis and Isis which Wild found indicated by inscriptions: Wild, op. cit. (1984), 1835 with graph. These inscriptions peak in the second century B.C. and the second and third centuries A.D. In particular, those of the latter centuries would need to be broken down by date to ascertain what pattern emerges. 218 Wild, op. cit. (n. 217), 1837. 219 Wild Water, 32. 220 Wild Water, 23, 47, 155; Wild, op. cit. (n. 217), 1836. These are distinguished from basins which are for ablutions, and for which a clear pattern does not

emerge. The Roman Serapeum had a large pool, which has been mentioned, to the north of Diocletian's Column. It also apparently had about six libation basins which are clustered to the south and southwest of the pool and are connected by drains (Fig. 4). Their irregular configuration suggests that they were not part of the original Roman design, although they post-date the dismantling of that side of the Ptolemaic court (for the Roman court) and seem to pre-date
Diocletian's Column. Basins: Rowe

pl. 32; Wild Water, 137-8, 253 nn. 38-42, fig. 26. 221Expositio totius mundi et gentium 35, ed. and French trans. J. Rouge (1966), 170-1. The sanctuary design is explained in terms of Egyptian cult in D. Kessler, 'Das hellenistische Serapeum in Alexandria und Agypten in igyptologischer sicht', in M. Gtirg and G. H6lbl (eds), Agypten und der istliche Mittelmeerraum in i. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (zooo), 163-230.

1941-2,

141-3,

114

JUDITH

S.

MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND

A.

T.

REYES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

J. S. McKenzie's research was funded by the Wainwright Fund, the Griffith Egyptological Fund, the Meyerstein Fund, and the Craven Committee, all of Oxford University, as well as the British Academy, Miss Rhys-Davids' bequest to St Hugh's College, Oxford, and a grant from the Seven Pillars of Wisdom Trust for Sheila Gibson's work. A. T. Reyes' research was funded by the Dillon Fund of Groton School. This paper and the appendix were completed while J. S. McKenzie was a Member of the School of Historical Studies of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, funded by the Hetty Goldman Fund. The axonometric reconstructions of the Serapeum were prepared in I995-97 by the late Sheila Gibson with J. S. McKenzie using the latter's new plans. The plans were inked in 2002/3. For reading through the paper we would like to thank Donald Bailey, Jim Coulton, Tom Hardwick, and Simon Price. A. T. Reyes is grateful to Christian Habicht for checking the translation of the passage from Aphthonius. Helpful suggestions concerning the reconstructions or their interpretation were provided by Donald Bailey, John Baines, Jim Coulton, Simon Price, Arthur Segal, and Helen Whitehouse. For useful comments, answering questions, or other help we would also like to thank: Suzanne Anderson, Glen Bowersock, Alan Bowman, Peter Brown, Margaret Browne, Ian Cartwright, Henry Chadwick, Amanda Claridge, Patricia Crone, Wiktor Daszewski, Jean-Yves Empereur, Franck Goddio, Galit Goldshmid, Gtinter Grimm, Chris Howgego, Jane Inskipp, Roger Moorey, Julian Petri, Tessa Rajak, Michael Sabottka, Andreas Schmidt-Colinet, R. R. R. Smith, and Alison Wilkins. Copyright for Pls I-VI and for all the drawings (except Fig. 2) rests with J. S. McKenzie, and up to three of these images may be reproduced (with acknowledgement) in academic printed articles without the need to contact her.

St Hugh's College, Oxford (f.S.M.) Groton School (A.T.R.) This paper is published with the aid of a grant from the Dillon Fund of Groton School

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

115

APPENDIX: ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS FOUND IN THE EXCAVATIONS OF THE SERAPEUM IN ALEXANDRIA IN c. 900oo222
By GONTER GRIMM and JUDITH S. MCKENZIE

(Plates VII-X) The evidence on which the reconstructions of the Ptolemaic and Roman phases of the Serapeum of Alexandria were based indicates that they were 'classical' (GrecoRoman) in appearance. This is confirmed by the previously unpublished photographs of the Sieglin Expedition, which include architectural fragments found in the excavations of the site at around the time they were taken, 1898/9-1901. Although fragmentary, these pieces offer a strikingly consistent glimpse of the architectural style of the Ptolemaic Serapeum as 'classical'. The apparent lack of any other record of these fragments over a century after they were discovered makes these photographs of considerable importance. Although some of these fragments (those in P1. VII) are described as 'in the Museum' in 1899, none appear in the catalogues of Pensabene223 and Tkaczow224 of architectural fragments in the Greco-Roman Museum, Alexandria. The only exception is the drawing published by Rowe of the lower block of the Corinthian capital found in the South Building (P1.

X, I).
I. LIST OF SIEGLIN EXPEDITION PHOTOGRAPHS OF ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS FOUND IN SERAPEUM

The photograph number, date, and description given in the Sieglin Expedition list of photographic negatives are followed by a brief list of the blocks depicted. The photographs of winter 1898/9 were taken by F. Noack. i. P1. VII: photograph no. 20, winter 1898/9. 'Architectural fragments found in the excavations of the Serapeum. Limestone from Mex; more or less traces of white paint. The finds are in the Museum behind glass.' Blocks include: a. Top left: apparently a small blocked-out Corinthian column capital. b. Top right: cornice fragment with dentils. c. Far left: fragment of flat-grooved modillion cornice with three modillions. d. Lower centre: fragment of entablature block with Doric frieze with two triglyphs. e. Top block, second from right: fragment of flat-grooved modillion cornice with half of a diamond and one modillion. f. Bottom row, second from right: fragment of triglyph of Doric frieze with guttae. g. Far right, upper block: fragment of flat-grooved modillion cornice with end of diamond and one modillion. h. Far right, lower block: fragment of flat-grooved modillion cornice with two modillions. 2. P1. VIII: photograph no. 21, winter 1898/9. 'Architectural fragments as in no. 20o. In the lower row several fragments of painted plaster found in the same spot.' Blocks include: a. Top left: fragment of acanthus leaf of Roman Corinthian capital.
222 For assistance with various aspects of this appendix, we are particularly grateful to Christian Habicht, Martina Minas and Terrie Bramley. The photographs from the Sieglin Expedition are provided by G. Grimm from those in the archive of the Forschungszentrum Griechisch-R6misches Agypten

of the Zentrum fUr Altertumswissenschaften an der Universitift Trier. The text is provided by J. S. McKenzie.
223 Pensabene 224 Tkaczow Elementi Aless. Topography.

116

JUDITH

S.

MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND

A.

T.

REYES

b. Top, second from left: fragment of Alexandrian Corinthian capital, possibly like (2e) below. c. Top right: fragment of small Byzantine capital. d. Centre, far left: fragment of cornice with moulded stucco decoration. e. Centre, second from left: fragment of Type II Alexandrian Corinthian capital. f. Centre, third from left: fragment of flat-grooved modillion cornice with end of diamond and one modillion. g. Far right, upper block: unidentified fragment of ?cornice. h. Far right, lower block: fragment of flat-grooved modillion cornice with one modillion. i. Bottom row, far left: unidentified fragment with part of ?acanthus leaf. j. Bottom row: five fragments of wall-plaster. 3. P1. IX, i: photograph no. 22, winter 1898/9. 'Architectural fragments as in numbers 20-21. On the lower right one piece of a large triglyph block covered with stucco.' Blocks include: a. Top left: fragment of painted wall-plaster = 2j above (P1. VIII), bottom row, third from left.
b. Top centre = 2d above.

c. Top right = 2e above.

d. Centre left = If above.

e. Lower left: fragment of acanthus leaf. f. Lower right: fragment of top part of a triglyph from a large Doric frieze.
4. P1. IX, 2: photograph no. 270, 13 December
900oo. 'Capital

fragment

found by Botti

in A [South Building].' Fragment of upper block of Type I Alexandrian Corinthian capital.

5. P1. X, I: photograph no. 390,
21

February

1901.

'Joining

capital fragments,

which

now stand in the middle of the South Building.' Additional notes: Limestone, diam. 0.84 m. (Copy reproduced here scanned from 35 mm negative contact print.) Blocks consist of:
Upper block = 4 above.

Lower block: lower drum of Type I Alexandrian Corinthian capital. 6. P1. X, 2: photograph no. 434, I6 March 1901. 'Corinthian capital fragment from south-west corner of the Serapeum.' Additional notes: Mex [lime]stone, diam. 0.59 m,
h. 0.30 m.

Lower drum of a Corinthian capital, ?from a half column. 7. Photograph no. 432, 16 March 1901. 'Group of architectural pieces found by Botti in the Serapeum.' (Not illustrated here.) Blocks include: a. Far left: attic base of pilaster. b. Top centre: engaged half column with cabled fluting. c. Top right: two engaged half columns with blocked out bases. d. Lower left: fragment of flat-grooved modillion cornice with one modillion. e. Lower right: lower part of spirally fluted column.

near the north end of rock-cut trench W [of the Stoa-like Structure]'. (Not illustrated)
II. DISCUSSION

8. Photographs

nos 316-318,

23 January

1901.

'Egyptian

[lotus]

flower capital,

found

Ptolemaic Cornice with Stucco Decoration, and Sizes of the Blocks The key to the sizes of the blocks in the photographs is provided by the block of a limestone cornice with moulded stucco decoration with an alternating palmette and lotus pattern (P1. VIII centre, far left; P1. IX, I top, centre). This is because the sizes are recorded of related blocks with an identical pattern, observed in the Greco-Roman

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

117

Museum, Alexandria, by Tkaczow225 and Pensabene.226 The latter dates them to the third or second century B.C. The heights for these related blocks are given by Pensabene as between o.io and 0o.17 m, with most blocks o.I 1-o.-0 135 m. The sizes of these blocks provide a sense of the approximate size of the one in Pls VIII and IX, i, and so of the other blocks in those photographs. In addition, following on from this, because the block with a single triglyph with guttae occurs in both Pl. IX, I (centre left) and in P1. VII (bottom row, second from right), this provides an indication of the approximate size of the other blocks in P1. VII. Blocks from Large Orders Possibly the most interesting blocks are the two joining blocks of a limestone Type I Alexandrian Corinthian capital which were both found by Botti in the South Building (Pls IX, 2 and X, 1).227 The lower block had a diameter of 0.84 m and a height of 0.50 m. Like most other large (rather than small) Alexandrian Corinthian capitals, this one is cut from two drums. The total height of this capital was probably about i m, if the top block was the same height as the lower block, as suggested by the proportions of the 'Khartoum Monument' capital.228 This Type I Alexandrian Corinthian capital is basically an Epidauran type capital. Named after the capital on the tholos at Epidauros (c. 340 B.C.),22 it is characterized by the helices and corner volutes springing separately from the collar of acanthus leaves (unlike the 'Normal capital' type which became ubiquitous in Roman architecture and on which a helix and corner volute spring together from one cauliculus).230 The top row of acanthus leaves on the Epidauros capital is proportionately taller than on the Type I Alexandrian examples, which are later in date. The capital found in the South Building has helices with a concave surface and characteristic solid blob at the centre, and its corner volutes also have a concave surface. These features are found on the black basalt 'Khartoum Monument' capital.231 The leaf along the back of the helices on the example found in the South Building (P1. IX, 2), although lacking on the 'Khartoum Monument' capital, occurs on other Alexandrian examples, as does the leaf between the helices.232 A fragment of the upper block of a hardstone capital in Alexandria has similar helices and corner volutes, but lacks the centre leaf between the helices.233 On the lower drum of the capital found in the South Building, the lower part of the concave corner volute is visible on the right, beside the cauliculus, to the left of it, which forms the lower part of the helix (P1. X, I). The small leaf at the top of the cauliculus is visible on the top drum, curling back on itself. The acanthus leaves on this capital sto before the top of the lower drum, as also occurs on other examples in Alexandria,2 including the 'Khartoum Monument' capital.235 The style of carving of the acanthus leaves on the capital found in the South Building is similar to these examples and to the
225 Tkaczow Topography, 323 no. 378 museum reg. nos 3614-17, 3719, 3720, 3756, 3757. According to her, they were excavated by Botti in 1893 near the Tshaped Building. 226Pensabene Elementi Aless., 320ono. 26, pl. 5 no. 26, pl. i i no. 26A-B, museum reg. nos 3632-4, 3679, 18875-82. 227Find spot marked in Botti Fouilles a' la colonne, plan on p. 122. Lower block, still in South Building in 1942: Rowe 1941-2, 146, 132 fig. 5; Tkaczow Topography, 208 no. 54. 228Ronczewski 1927, 6, fig. 2; Pensabene Elementi Aless., pl. 29 no. 203 (h. 1.38 m, lower diam. i.o8 m). 229 G. Roux, L'architecture de l'argolide aux IVe et III sidcles avant J.-C. (196 ), 367-8, pls 47-50. 230Normal Corinthian capital with architectural terms for parts of capital: McKenzie Petra, 189 diag. I3e. Typology of Alexandrian Corinthian capitals: McKenzie Petra, 70, 190o diag. 14.
231 Ronczewski 1927, 5-8, fig. 2; McKenzie Petra, pl. I99e; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 357-8 no. 203, pl. 29 no. 203; Gans 1994, 435, fig. i. 232Ronczewski 1927, pl. II. 2 top block; McKenzie Petra, pl. zooc; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 354 no. 185, pl. 27 no. 185 (h. 0.43 m). The best comparison for the top block is Pensabene Elementi Aless., 353-4 no. 184, pl. 27 no. 184 (h. 0.49 m) (= back of Ronczewski 1927, pl. II. 2 lower block; McKenzie Petra, pl. 2ood). 233 Pensabene Elementi Aless., 352-3 no. 181, pl. 26 no. I81; Gans 1994, 436-7, fig. 3. 234 Ronczewski 1927, 1o-II, pl. I; McKenzie Petra, pl. I99d, f; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 352 no. 18o, pl. Gans 1994, 436, fig. 2 (capital h. o.6o5 m). 26 no. 80o; 235See n. 23 I above.

II8

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

granite acanthus base in the Greco-Roman museum courtyard,236 all of which are dated to the third century B.C.237 Consideration should be given as to how the capital from the South Building relates to the only Corinthian capitals surviving in Egypt from a Ptolemaic sanctuary outside Alexandria. These are the limestone Corinthian capitals from the sanctuary of Ptolemy III Euergetes I and Berenice at el-Ashmunein (Hermopolis Magna). They have concave corner volutes.238 However, their helices are different. They have cauliculi, but the spirals which spring from them are twisted, have a round cross-section, and lack a circular blob at their centre. On the other hand, the carving of the acanthus leaves on these capitals is not dissimilar to that on the one found in the South Building. The medium-sized lower block of a limestone Corinthian capital (P1. X, 2) was found in the south-west corner of the Serapeum. The size (h. 0.30 m, diam. 0.59 m) and style of this block indicate that it came from a different colonnade to the capital found in the South Building, discussed above. Judging by the details of the acanthus leaves visible on the left side of the photograph, their tips are slightly more rounded than those on the capital found in the South Building (P1. X, I). Too little is visible to justify detailed comment beyond the observation that this medium-sized capital was probably Ptolemaic, rather than Roman, in date. The fragment of a triglyph (P1. IX, I lower right) which was covered in stucco (and presumably painted) comes from the Doric frieze of a large order (based on its size relation to the other blocks). It is not possible to date this triglyph fragment, although it is more likely that it was Ptolemaic than Roman. Whilst it is not at present known from which building(s) these fragments came, the capital found in the South Building suggests the possibility of the use of Corinthian capitals at the site for a major order in the third century B.C. The diameter of this large capital is within the order of magnitude of the estimated column size of the Temple of Serapis or the colonnaded court, which notably were built in the third century B.C. (specifically under Ptolemy III Euergetes I). However, it needs to be remembered there is no proof as to which building it, or the medium-sized capital, originally belonged. The Doric frieze could have been used with Corinthian capitals (as suggested by the numismatic evidence for the Temple of Serapis). However, this remains speculation, as it could also have come from a Doric order of which the capitals have not survived. Blocks from Small Interior Orders Fifteen blocks are of the size appropriate to interior orders and some have extensive remains of paint, most obvious in P1. VIII centre, second and third blocks from left. The small capital fragment (P1. VIII centre, second from left = P1. IX, I top right) is from a Type II Alexandrian Corinthian capital, distinguished by the helices, which are back to back and spring from the centre of the capital. This example has helices with a convex (not concave) profile and lacks a blob at the centre of the spiral. These features are found on capitals from the so-called Chantier Finney building in Alexandria.239 The example here has corner helices with a circular cross-section like a cauliculus, with a line across it marking the beginning of the leaf at the top of the vertical striations.240 The fragment above it in P1. VIII (top, second from left) seems to be from a similar capital. The fragments from the Chantier Finney building are dated not later than the beginning of the first century B.C., and probably to about the second century B.C.,

236McKenzie Petra, pl. zo8d; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 488 no. 779, pl. 87 no. 779; Gans 1994, 438, fig. 6. 237Detailed discussion: Pensabene Elementi Aless., 435-9.
352 no. I8o, 357-8 no. 203, 488 no. 779; Gans 1994,

238Pensabene Elementi Aless., 324-5 nos 43-59, pl. 8; Gans 1994, 437-8, fig. 4. 239 Type II examples: McKenzie Petra, pl. 2o3e-f (h. 0.235 and 0.315 m). 240 As also seen on Pensabene Elementi Aless., 364 no. 232, pl. 32 no. 232 (h. 0.415 m).

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM

IN ALEXANDRIA

119

The capitals surviving in although they could date to as early as the third century B.C.241 Alexandria with corner volutes and helices like those on the small example here are more prone to be from small interior orders, whilst those of the types on the larger capital found in the South Building (with helices with a concave top surface) are more prone to be from large orders. Thus, the differences between this small capital and the one found in the South Building are not necessarily chronological. It might be that the more detailed carving is more appropriate on the smaller capitals of brightly painted interior orders. The fragments of the flat-grooved modillion cornices in the photographs are Ptolemaic. They and the small Doric friezes are the correct size for the entablatures which these small capitals would have supported. The first dated modillion cornices in Greek architecture do not appear until the first half of the second century B.C.242 They are proportionately wider than the Alexandrian examples and lack a deep central groove. Flat-grooved modillion cornices are distinctive to the architecture of Ptolemaic Alexandria.243 They come in three main types: (a) cornices with only flat-grooved modillions; (b) cornices with lengthwise diamonds between alternating pairs of flatgrooved modillions; (c) cornices with alternating flat-grooved and square hollow modillions. The modillion cornices in the photographs are of the first two types: those with only flat-grooved modillions (P1. VII far left, and far right lower block) and those with lengthwise diamonds between flat-grooved modillions (P1. VII top blocks on far right and second from right; P1. VIII centre, third from left). Two pieces are too small to determine from which type of modillion cornice they came (P1. VIII far right lower block; Sieglin Expedition photograph no. 432 lower left). The shape of the modillions on all of these blocks from the Serapeum is notably consistent. They have a relatively wide, flat, top surface with an incised centre line. This is observed on many other Alexandrian examples, both without diamonds244 and with diamonds.245 These differ from some other Alexandrian examples which have narrower modillions with a V-shaped cross section.246 Pensabene dates the examples in Alexandria with the relatively wide flat-grooved modillions to the late second or first century B.C. However, the Chantier Finney building also has these relatively wide modillions.247 They occur on it in association with capitals closely related to the small Type II capital from the Serapeum site discussed above. This suggests that cornices with relatively wide flat-grooved modillions could date to the second or even the third century B.C. Whilst there is no independent basis for dating the small Doric frieze blocks from the Serapeum site (P1. VII bottom row, second from left and second from right), as they are the correct size to go with the flat-grooved modillion cornices, and as they were used elsewhere in Alexandria in association with flat-grooved modillion cornices (including on the Chantier Finney building),248 it would not be unreasonable to suggest that this was the case at the Serapeum site. Thus, that there are Ptolemaic remains of the correct size to go with each other suggests the possibility of small interior orders with Type II Alexandrian Corinthian capitals, a Doric frieze, and cornices with flat-grooved modillions. There is no precise indication of the date of such an order (beyond probably the second or third century B.C.), and no indication whatsoever of which building it might have been used on. Thus, it is not clear to what building phase, or possibly interior renovation, it might have
241McKenzie Petra, 69. 242H. von Hesberg, Konsolengeisa des Hellenismus und der friihen Kaiserzeit, RM Ergh. 24 (1980), 21, 227-9, pls 2-3; Pensabene Elementi Aless., I oo. 243 McKenzie Petra, 93-4; J. S. McKenzie, 'Alexandria and the origins of Alexandrianism', in K. Hamma (ed.), Alexandria and Alexandrianism (1996), 116, I20-I, figs 13-15, 21-2, 23, 26-8. 244McKenzie Petra, pl. 214 e-f; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 499-501 nos 848, 853, 857, 859, 86oA, pl. 92 nos 848, 853, 857, 859, 86oA.
245 McKenzie Petra, pl. 214g; Pensabene Elementi Aless., 511 nos 928-30, pl. 97 nos 928-9, pl. 98 no. 930. 246Pensabene Elementi Aless., pl. 94 no. 887. 247McKenzie Petra, pl. 21 id, f. 248Chantier Finney building: McKenzie Petra, pl. 2IId, 212a. Other examples (dated by Pensabene from the second century to the first half of first century B.C.): Pensabene Elementi Aless., 518-19 nos 960-2, 964, pl. Ioi nos 960-2, 964.

120

JUDITH

S. MCKENZIE,

SHEILA

GIBSON

AND A. T. REYES

belonged. However, this combination of Corinthian capitals with a Doric frieze and flatgrooved modillions is typical of the distinctive classical architectural style of Ptolemaic Alexandria. It is not clear (from its size) from which order the cornice fragment with dentils would have come (P1. VII top right). It may be compared with examples dated by Pensabene to the late third or second century B.C.249 Roman and Byzantine Capitals There are only two small Roman or Byzantine fragments in the photographs, reflecting the extent to which the site was stripped of most of its building stone. There is a fragment of an acanthus leaf which came apparently from a Roman Corinthian capital (P1. VIII top left). It has clear use of the drill to mark the main veins of the leaf, also observed in examples dated by Pensabene to the late second and early third centuries A.D.250 The evidence is too slight to speculate whether or not it came from the main Roman construction phase of the late second or early third century A.D. The fragment of a Byzantine capital (P1. VIII top right) is of the size and proportions to have come from a small structure such as a chancel screen. The treatment of its acanthus leaves, with three tips on each lobe and an oval eye (with an incised outline below it) between the lobes, may be compared to examples from Alexandria and el-Dekhelah (near Alexandria), which Pensabene dates to the second half of the fifth or first half of the sixth century A.D.251 Ptolemaic Ionic Capital These Sieglin Expedition photographs do not include any Ionic capitals. However, Rowe mentions finding one: 'part of a large Ptolemaic white marble Ionic capital, the only one ever found here, was lying in the inner [rock-cut foundation] trench at the west of the site'.252 This is possibly the area of the site the Sieglin Expedition were unable to excavate. Tkaczow suggests it is 'presumably lost?'253 Egyptian Capitals Fraser mentions noting, on a visit to the site, a limestone Egyptian capital. It 'represents the lotus-flower in the manner characteristic of Egyptian capitals'.254 He adds, 'No photograph of this capital (ht. 0.815; diam of upper surface 1.23) which stands on the path to the left of the entrance-porch of the site has been published, and I have not identified any reference to it'.255Tkaczow was unable to identify it.256 It is not clear if the block seen by Fraser was the yellow limestone capital in Sieglin Expedition photographs Nos 316-318 which was found in the dump heap [over the Stoa-like Structure], where they also found a torus column base (lower diam. 1.5 m) which was too large for the capital.257

249Pensabene Elementi Aless., 497 no. 831, 499 no. 845, pl. 90 no. 831, pl. 91 no. 845. 250 e.g., Pensabene Elementi Aless., 397 no. 393, pl. 48 no. 393 (late Antonine), 397-8 no. 395, pl. 49 no. 395 (Severan). 251 Pensabene Elementi Aless., 430-1, nos 532, 535, 537, pl. 62 nos 532, 535, 537.

Tkaczow Topography, 208 no. 54A. Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. I, 266. 255 Fraser Ptol. Alex., vol. 2, 421 n. 634. 256 Tkaczow Topography, 208 mentioned in no. 54A. 257 H. Thiersch in Sieglin Expedition day book, diagram on p. 13, 9 January 19ol.
253 254

252 Rowe Encl. Serapis, 19.

RECONSTRUCTING

THE SERAPEUM III. CONCLUSIONS

IN ALEXANDRIA

121

Although the number of Ptolemaic fragments surviving from the Serapeum site is relatively small, they are remarkably consistent in what they suggest. Firstly, they are nearly all 'classical'. There is only one Egyptian style fragment (in contrast to the sculpture which is both Egyptian and 'classical'). Secondly, the details of the Ptolemaic classical orders are those distinctive to the architecture of Ptolemaic Alexandria. These fragments include a Type I Alexandrian Corinthian capital from a large order, dated to the third century B.C. This could have had a Doric frieze, although the possibility remains that there was, in addition, a major Doric order. There are fragments of smaller Ptolemaic interior orders with painted Type II Alexandrian Corinthian capitals and flat-grooved modillion cornices, possibly combined with Doric friezes. The Ptolemaic Ionic capital found by Rowe suggests the possibility that the Ionic order was also used for a large order. It is not known specifically from which buildings in the sanctuary these capitals and entablature fragments came. Although too much speculation should not come from two dozen or so blocks, the fact remains that they are consistent in being largely 'classical'. This tends to confirm that the buildings of the Ptolemaic Serapeum were basically 'classical' in appearance. Egyptian influence on the buildings themselves took more subtle forms, such as the use of foundation plaques and the construction of a Nilometer. Egyptian statuary was erected in this 'classical' setting (although it is not known how early). St Hugh's College, Oxford (J.S.M.) Universitdt Trier (G.G.)

JRS vol. xcIv (2004)

A ?

PLATE

-201m/6
2,0tt[M:,,

'>

O1/7 S ~ ~
20M

/b

S
,

0\ \\/.\\

aorA,

//

/\

i tX\ -q

,$

-'Q\0\\

VV
NIS\

x,
\0\\

.z

!/N

.
13

%
:9

:_6ti
a:z

;A/
\

\-

Zo
/0

0600
X:
,

ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

DETAIL

OF AXONoMETRIC COLUMN

RECONSTRUCTION PILLAR') IN A.D.

OF ROMAN

( POMPEY'S

298.

(Sheila Gibson)

PHASE,

AFTER

ERECTION

OF DIOCLETIAN'S

JRS vol. xciv (2004)

PLATE II

m~

JL
2. ALEXANDRIA, SERAPEUM, IN ROCK-CUT PTOLEMAIC FOUNDATIONS. ASHLAR BLOCKS

I. ALEXANDRIA,

DIOCLETIAN'S

COLUMN

('POMPEY'S

PILLAR')

AT SITE OF SERAPEUM.

I;; : : , 00W Aa;;::':; -z~i~ *.ssl

_1A

SOUTH BUILDING FROM SOUTH. ALEXANDRIA, SERAPEUM, 3.

JRS vol.

XCIV (2004)

PLATE III

az: I, C

~mw

CONCRETE WALL FOUNDATIONS FOR SIDE EAST OF ROMAN LOOKING NORTH. SERAPEUM, COURT, I.ALEXANDRIA,
d ~,;;;; ._...; Hi~ ~1 1~ a,, ~? ~is s:-?: i:

.; 1 ~AF = a, ~

di ~bi

~-:: ---r~ ~?L7~ti~_~ $~ a~ ~s 5~~?~-? ~s ~ ~ a r -s

2. ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

VIEW

FROM

EAST INTO

STAIRWELL

LEADING

TO UNDERGROUND

PASSAGES.

JRS vol. xcIv (2004)

PLATE

IV

I. ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

VIEW

OF HILL FROM EAST, WITH (FROM LEFT) ENTRY AND OF ROMAN STAIRCASE. STAIRCASE,

TO NILOMETER,

REMAINS

OF PTOLEMAIC

41~rr

l~arr~. ~ a~ l - i

I~

~;"
: i:

::,7

FT!

SUH FEATSDEO TMLEO ERPS ULDN ITOC-U 2.AEXNRISRAEMVEWFO RMA FOUDAIOS WLLFONDTINS ND(O RGH)

'41

JRS vol. xcIv (2004)

PLATE V

"9:.-7r

:Alo
A 4?
,Ilk

4t

SRAPUMREMANS F BOKENREDGRANTE OLUN SHFTSANDBASE ATSOUTERNENDO STEFRO ALEXNDRA, THE OMANTEMLE O SERPIS

..........?5

???

i~

2. ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

EGYPTIAN

STATUES

FOUND

AT THE SITE.

JRS vol. xcIv (2004)

PLATE VI

~0-

....

IIT

~~A I

I. ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

CONCRETE

FOUNDATIONS

OF ROMAN FROM IT.

ENTRANCE

ON EAST SIDE,

WITH

FALLEN

GRANITE

BLOCKS

1e

2. ALEXANDRIA, ROMAN ENTRANCE

RED GRANITE BLOCK FROM SERAPEUM, ON EAST SIDE WITH CORNICE AND THREE JOINS BLOCK IN PL. VI,

3. ALEXANDRIA,

END BLOCK OF CORNICE FROM ROMAN SERAPEUM, ON EAST SIDE, JOINS BLOCK IN PL. VI, 2.

ENTRANCE

FASCIA,

3.

JRS vol. xcIv (2004)

PLATE

VII

!0
Id-

2;;
-?

22
1110

~~2
"

~"-. KI

~B2
2

z
0
2

JRS vol.

XCIV (2004)

PLATE VIII

tA

J6

h0

1.0

ncn
0

4k,1

'a

a
BN z

IS

JRS vol. xcIv (2004)

PLATE

IX

,,

ii

I.

ALEXANDRIA,

SERAPEUM,

SIEGLIN

EXPEDITION

PHOTOGRAPH

NO.

22.

At

XP-H-PA A --.

AP ,
x

-~;~

-mo"
44 r- ,
...... ,j

AEXADRIA SEGLI EXEDITON HOTORAP 2. SEAPEU, NO.270

JRS vol.

XCIV (2004)

PLATE X

~~;;-;;;;;;; 1_.w ?Vie

P Aa:?;

-AMP

f~

7
i~aa 'A*A

~~~-;~\~F~~,:: :::~1~:~~:~~-'-': wo ~:~

ALXADRASEAPUM

7f?~

,
HOOGAP
N.

SEGINEXEDTIN

90

Mi

'lW

B~

17

DISRPUM IGIXEIIN H T GA HN 2.AEA

.4