2290 Arndt, La Glyptothèque Ny-Carlsberg, pp. 1–2 and Pls. I-II; Deonna, pp. 143–4, no. 21. It has been ascribed to different artists of the last quarter of the sixth century B. C.: Lechat, Au Musée de l’Acropole, pp. 359–60; Klein, I, p. 246 f.; we have already discussed it on pp. 127–8. E. A. Gardner, J. H. S., VIII, 1887, p. 190, refers some of the statues found at the Ptoian sanctuary to athletes, but Holleaux believes that these statues represent Apollo: B. C. H., X, 1886, p. 68; cf. also Staïs, Marbres et Bronzes, p. 8. W. Vischer, Kleine Schriften, II, 1878, p. 307, admits that some of the “Apollos” can be athletes, as Conze and Michaelis had done: Annali, XXXIII, 861, p. 80.

2291 See Deonna, p. 253.

2292 Thus Scherer, p. 22, n. 3, and Reisch, p. 40, leave the question unsettled; Gardner, Hbk., p. 98, n. 1, thinks that the material for a decision as to a given statue, whether of this god or that, or of a worshiper or athlete, hardly exists; Collignon, Mythol. figurée de la Grèce, p. 84, recognizes that these statues stood for both gods and athletes; Hitz.-Bluemn., III, 1, p. 262, think that the type passes equally well for gods and sepulchral statues; Overbeck, I, pp. 114–115, and F. W., p. 11, believe that it represents a general scheme for athletes, sepulchral statues, and Apollos.

2293 The first part of this chapter appeared, under the title The Positions of Victor Statues at Olympia, in A. J. A., XVI, 2d Ser., 1912, pp. 203–229, with Plan; the second part, entitled, Greek Literary Notices of Olympic Victor Monuments outside Olympia, appeared in Trans. Amer. Philol. Assn., XLII, 1912, pp. 53–67. I am indebted to Dr. J. M. Paton, former editor-in-chief of the A. J. A., for permission to use the former, and to Prof. Clarence Bill, the present secretary of the American Philological Association, for permission to use the latter. Only slight changes have been made in the original articles for the present work. The summary of the last section, Statistics of Olympic Victor Statuaries, is revised from my note published in Proceedings of the American Philological Association, XLIV, 1913, pp. xxx-xxxi. I am also indebted to Professor Bill for permission to use it in the present work.

2294ἵππων ἀγωνιστῶν ... καὶ ἀνδρῶν ἀθλητῶν τε καὶ ἰδιωτῶν ὁμοίως (VI, 1.1).

2295 VI, Chs. 1–16. 169 in my de olympionicarum Statuis: Philon of Kerkyra, who had two statues, is there named twice, under nos. 91 and 136.

2296 VI, Chs. 17–18.

2297 See Ergebn. v. Ol., Karten u. Plaene, 1899, III, IV (Doerpfeld); cf. also H. Luckenbach, Olympia und Delphi, 1904, p. 11, fig. 5 (= A. J. A., XVI, 1912, p. 204, fig. 1).

2298 A. Z., XL, 1882, pp. 119 f. (and Sketch-plan).

2299 Pp. 45 f.

2300 In Baum., II, pp. 1094 f.

2301 Olympia, Ergebnisse, Textbd., I (Topographie und Geschichte), pp. 87 f.; cf. A. M., XIII, 1888, pp. 335 f.

2302 De olymp. Stat., Ch. III, pp. 63 f. The outline therein forms the basis of the present treatment. The numbers of the victors from the catalogue of that work, showing the order of presentation by Pausanias, are here retained in parentheses: e. g., Telemachos (122). A letter after the number indicates either that an adjacent “honor” statue, e. g., Philonides (154a), stood next to a victor statue, e. g., Menalkeas (154), or that no statue is mentioned.

2303 E. g., Kalkmann, Pausanias der Perieget, 1886, p. 88.

2304 E. g., nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 were Eleans; 7–9 and 11–14 were Spartans; 17–18 and 23–26 were Eleans; 45 and 48–49, 51, 54, 57 were Arkadians; 6–9 and 11–14 were victors in chariot-races; 30, 34, 37, 40 were pancratiasts; 25–28 had statues by Sikyonian artists; 39–40 had statues by Athenian artists; 59–63 formed a family group; etc.

2305 Ueber Pausanias, 1890, p. 393.

2306 The lack of continuity in describing the altars led R. Heberdey, Eranos Vindobonensis, 1893, pp. 39 f., (Die Olympische Altarperiegese des Pausanias), to conclude wrongly that Pausanias took over bodily from an earlier work his enumeration of the altars, only here and there interposing a remark of his own, as e. g., V, 15. 2, where he parenthetically describes the Leonidaion.

2307 E. g., the statue of the Akarnanian boxer (10) stood among those of Spartan victors (7–14); Eukles (52), a grandson of Diagoras, had his statue away from his family group (59–63); the two statues of Timon (17 and 105 d) stood in different parts of the Altis.

2308 VI, 1.3.

2309 So Furtwaengler, A. Z., XXXVII, 1879, p. 146; Treu, ibid., p. 207; Flasch, Hirschfeld, and Scherer, in the works already cited.

2310 So Doerpfeld, l. c., p. 88; Michaelis, A. Z., XXXIV, 1876, p. 164; Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 531; etc.

2311 Hyde, p. 64. I here append three such passages: in V, 24.3, in speaking of the statue of the Zeus of the Lacedæmonians, he says that it τοῦ ναοῦ δέ ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ μεγάλου Ζεὺς πρὸς ἀνατολὰς ἡλίου, i. e., at the southeast corner of the temple near where the pedestal was found (cf. Inschr. v. Ol., 252, and Olympia, Ergebn., Textbd., I, p. 86); in V, 26.2, in speaking of the offerings of Mikythos, he says that they stood παρὰ δὲ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου τὴν ἐν ἀριστερᾷ πλεύραν, i. e., on the northern side of the temple of Zeus, where most authorities find their foundations (cf. Inschr. v. Ol., 267–269, and Flasch, op. cit., p. 1093); in VIII, 38.2, he says that Mount Lykaion is ἐν ἀριστερᾷ δὲ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς Δεσποίνης, i. e., to the north of that temple. Cf. also V, 21.2. Professor Bluemner, reviewing my monograph de olymp. Stat., in the Berl. Philol. Wochenschr., XXIV, 1904, col. 1382, objects to my interpretation of ἐν δεξιᾷ, and admits not one but three possibilities: (a) of the temple pro persona, i. e., its south side; (b) of a spectator facing the chief, i. e., east front, the northern half of the space before it; (c) of a spectator with his back to this front, i. e., the southern half of this space. But if Pausanias had meant either of the two latter, he would have said πρὸ τοῦ ναοῦ, as in VIII, 37.2, κατὰ τὸν ναόν, cf. V, 15.3, or ἀντικρὺ τοῦ ναοῦ, cf. V, 27.1.

2312 For locations of bases, see Insch. v. Ol., nos. 166 (Troilos), 160 (Kyniska), 172 (Sophios). Because of the finds in the Prytaneion both Hirschfeld and Scherer started this ἔφοδος west of the Heraion.

2313 From the unfinished condition of the back of the Lysippan marble head from the statue of Philandridas (10), as well as its excellent surface preservation (Frontispiece and Fig. 69), we have already argued that some of these early statues may have stood along the southern steps of the temple against the columns of the peristyle: supra, p. 300.

2314 See Inschr. v. Ol., no. 248; cf. P., V, 27.9.

2315 See Inschr. v. Ol., nos. 161 (Narykdas); 146 (Kallias); 159 (Eukles); 144 (Euthymos); 156 (Charmides); 155 (Hellanikos). Other bases of statues which must have stood in this vicinity have also been found, far from their original positions: i. e., those of Athenaios (36), 56 meters west of the Leonidaion; of Polydamas (47), fragments 26 meters southeast of the Echo Hall; of Diagoras (59), five fragments near the Metroon; of Damagetos (62), in the Leonidaion; of Dorieus (61), near the Victory of Paionios; of Kyniskos (45), inside the Byzantine church; of Damoxenidas (54), near the Heraion. See Inschr. v. Ol., nos. 168 (Athenaios), 151 (Diagoras), 152 (Damagetos), 153 (Dorieus), 149 (Kyniskos), 158 (Damoxenidas); for the sculptured base of Polydamas (47), see Bildw. v. Ol., Tafelbd., PI. LV, 1–3; Textbd., pp. 209 f.

2316 Argum., Boeckh, pp. 157–8. Pausanias names them in the order: Diagoras, Akousilaos, Dorieus, Damagetos, Peisirhodos. The scholiast names them in the order: Diagoras, Damagetos, Dorieus, Akousilaos, Eukles, Peisirhodos.

2317 See for Aristotle, F. H. G., II, p. 183, fragm. 264. Apollas Ponticus is little known: cf. F. H. G., IV, p. 307, fragm. 7; he probably copied from Aristotle’s work.

2318 This is Dittenberger’s explanation, Inschr. v. Ol., nos. 151 and 159; and also that of Robert, O. S., p. 195, Scherer, p. 49, and Gurlitt, op. cit., p. 411; Purgold, however, Inschr. v. Ol., p. 262, has tried to reconcile the two accounts on the theory of no change.

2319 However, Kalkmann, Pausanias der Perieget, p. 90, thinks that the two groups of Diagoras and Alkainetos stood apart.

2320 The base of the statue of Pythokles was found between the Heraion and the Pelopion: see Inschr. v. Ol., 162–163.

2321 Gurlitt, Ueber Pausanias, p. 412, assumed the possibility of the existence of two different statues of Lysandros, one 35 a, and the other somewhere after Charmides (58) in the family group of Diagoras; Kalkmann, op. cit., p. 105 and note 4, explains the discrepancy between the scholiast and Pausanias on the theory that the latter borrowed from older lists; Purgold, Aufsaetze E. Curtius gewidmet, pp. 238 f., assumed but one statue of Lysandros.

2322 Scherer, p. 51 (cf. Plan opposite p. 56), and Flasch, l. c., p. 1095, note 1, proposed a route south from the Heraion to the west of the so-called Great Altar site, while Hirschfeld, l. c., p. 119, made it run to the east of it. Doerpfeld, op. cit., p. 88, starting east of the Heraion, made the route run first to the west along the south side of the temple, and thence around the western side of the Pelopion, and so across to the Eretrian Bull; Michaelis, l. c., p. 164, with the same starting-point, had it bear first to the east parallel with the Treasury Terrace, and thence south. See Plans A and B.

2323 See Inschr. v. Ol., no. 259, and Ol., Ergebn., Textbd., II, pp. 153–155, etc.; cf. P., V, 26.1.

2324 See Inschr. v. Ol., nos. 157 (So[si]krates; for the restoration of the name, see Hyde, p. 37); 167 (Kritodamos); 164 (Xenokles). The plate from the pedestal of the statue of the unknown Arkadian victor (79) was found far away from this point, in the Palaistra. We have shown (supra, pp. 244–5,) that the statue of Philippos (79a), mentioned by Pausanias as the work of Myron (cf. VI, 8.5), was probably only that of this older unknown Arkadian, later used for Philippos, who won some time between Ols. (?) 119 and 125 ( = 304 and 280 B. C.); see Inschr. v. Ol., no. 174; cf. Hyde, op. cit., pp. 39–41.

2325 On the name, see Hyde, p. 42.

2326 See Ol., Ergebn., Textbd., I, p. 86, and cf. II, p. 78. A slit in the lower step of the base of the Zeus may have contained the tablet mentioned by P., V, 23.4. Three of the four inscribed blocks of Gelo’s chariot base were found in the Palaistra: Inschr. v. Ol., under no. 143.

For Doerpfeld’s identification of the Council-house (Bouleuterion) with the tripartite building south of the temple of Zeus just outside the South Altis wall, see Ausgrab. zu Ol., IV, 1878–1879, pp. 40–46, and Olympia, Ergebn., Textbd., II, pp. 76–79. Others, on the basis of a passage in Xenophon’s Hell., VII, 4.31, wrongly place it near the Prytaneion in the northwestern part of the Altis. Cf. Frazer, III, pp. 636 f., and Doerpfeld, l. c., pp. 78 f. See Plans A and B.

2327 See Inschr. v. Ol., no. 177. It stands on the south edge of the South Terrace wall between its gateway and the later East Byzantine wall of the Altis.

2328 Hyde, pp. 49 f., where I assume that the passage VI, 13.8 is a digression, and that the name of a victor has dropped out at the end of 13.7. There I have inserted, from a recovered inscription, the name of Akestorides of Alexandria Troas, placing his statue next to that of Agemachos (118) of similar date, the only other Asiatic in this part of the Altis. Foerster, 501, dates Akestorides wrongly in the second century B. C. (on the basis of Furtwaengler, A. M., V, 1880, p. 30, n. 2, end), although the inscription from the base is referred by Dittenberger to the end of the third; Agemachos won in Ol. 147 ( = 192 B. C.); I have therefore dated Akestorides tentatively between Ol. (?) 142 and Ol. (?) 144 ( = 212 and 204 B. C.).

2329 See Inschr. v. Ol., 147, 148 (Tellon, inscription renewed in the first century B. C.); 165 (Aristion); 184 (Akestorides).

Roehl (I. G. A., no. 355 and Add., p. 182) referred an inscription on two marble fragments found in 1879 (cf. A. Z., XXXVII, 1879, p. 161, no. 312), one found near the Heraion, the other east of the temple of Zeus, to the victor Agiadas (103); Dittenberger (cf. Inschr. v. Ol., no. 150) and others have rightly rejected this ascription. Similarly the inscribed base of the statue of Areus (105 b), son of Akrotatos, King of Sparta, found in the Heraion (see Inschr. v. Ol., no. 308), belongs rather to the second statue of Areus (148 a) dedicated by Ptolemy Philadelphus; cf. Hyde, pp. 44–45. I have also referred the second inscription of the artist Pythagoras (Inschr. v. Ol., no. 145) found in the Leonidaion, to the statue of Astylos (110), because of its similarity to that on the base of the statue of Euthymos (56) likewise by Pythagoras: ibid., pp. 47–48.

2330 See Inschr. v. Ol., nos. 169 (Aristophon), 154 (Xenombrotos and Xenodikos), following Robert’s ascription, O. S., 1900, pp. 179 f.; a second epigram referring to Xenombrotos alone (Inschr. v. Olymp., no. 170) must belong to a second monument not mentioned by Pausanias; cf. Hyde, p. 53.

2331 E. g., Furtwaengler, A. Z., XXXVII, 1879, p. 140 (quoted by Dittenberger); Frazer, IV, p. 43.

2332 See Inschr. v. Ol., nos. 176 (Aischines; see Foerster, no. 451), 173 (Archippos), 186 (Epitherses), 304 (Antigonos); [a fragment of the base of the statue of Demetrios (147 e) was also found, the exact location not being recorded, no. 305]; 276 (Philonides; a second mutilated copy of this inscription was found nearby built into a late wall north of the Byzantine church; see no. 277); Pausanias (VI, 15.10) mentions two statues of Kapros. For the bronze foot (Fig. 62) of one of them, see supra, p. 255 and n. 3.

2333 VI, 18.7. He gives this honor to Praxidamas and Rhexibios (187–188), who won in Ols. 59 and 61 ( = 544 and 536 B. C.) respectively. We have already pointed out that the statue of Oibotas (29), who won in Ol. 6 ( = 756 B. C.), was set up in Ol. 80 ( = 460 B. C.) by the Achæans (VI, 3.8).

2334 See Inschr. v. Ol., nos. 294 (Leonidas; cf. A. M., XIII, 1888, p. 322, note 1, Treu); 183 (Seleadas; this is my own ascription; see Hyde, p. 58; Dittenberger wrongly restored the name as Σέλευκος); 632 (Polypeithes and Kalliteles); 171 (Deinosthenes); 178 (Glaukon; his monument was a little bronze chariot, not a statue, thus imitating earlier sixth-century victor dedications, like that of Kyniska (7); no. 296 is another inscription from a statue of Glaukon dedicated by Ptolemy Euergetes.)

The pedestal of the statue of Paianios (167) was found behind the south side of the Echo Colonnade and therefore far removed (Inschr. v. Ol., no. 179); Pausanias again mentions Paianios in VI, 15.10. Another pedestal (no. 632), found south of the west end of the Byzantine church, has been referred by Purgold to the statue of Lysippos (162): cf. A. Z., XXXIX, 1881, pp. 85 f., no. 387. Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 615, and others have rejected the ascription.

2335 Διέστηκε δὲ ἀγυιὰν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσόδου τῆς πομπικῆς, τοὺς γὰρ δὴ ὑπὸ Ἀθηναίων καλουμένους στενωποὺς ἀγυιὰς ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ Ἠλεῖοι.

2336 See A. M., XIII, 1888, pp. 327–336 and Pl. VII (Die Altis Mauer in Olympia). On the west of the Altis are the ruins of two parallel walls, the inner Greek, the outer Roman; the original South wall of the Altis ran along the line of the South Terrace wall, the later Roman wall (dating from Nero’s time) to the south of it. Thus in Pausanias’ day, the ἔσοδος πομπική was opposite the Leonidaion. In two other passages, however, it appears to be at the southeast corner of the Altis (V, 15.7; VI, 20.7). R. Heberdey (in Eranos Vindobonensis, 1893, pp. 34–47) explains this discrepancy by saying that Pausanias, in mentioning the southwestern entrance, is writing from his own observation after the Roman extension, and in the other passages is copying from other writers who wrote before that extension. Doerpfeld’s explanation, however, is better: in the Roman extension a gate was built at the southwest corner of the new West wall superseding the older southeast entrance. Processions still passed along the same way, but were now inside the Altis, the great gateway of Nero at the southeast corner being given up after his death. Cf. Frazer, III, pp. 570–572; Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, pp. 375–6.

2337 P., VI, 17.1.

2338 A. M., XIII, 1888, pp. 317–326 (Die Bauinschrift des Leonidaions zu Olympia); and cf. Inschr. v. Ol., no. 651, and Olympia, Ergebn., Textbd., II, Die Baudenkmaeler, pp. 83–93, and Tafelbd., Pls. LXII-LXVI (R. Borrmann).

2339 E. g., K. Lange, Haus und Halle, 1885, pp. 331 f; Hirschfeld, A. Z., XL, 1882, p. 121; Flasch, in Baum., II, pp. 1095 and 1104 K. Others placed it elsewhere: e. g., Curtius-Adler, Olympia und Umgegend, 1882, pp. 23 f.; Scherer, op. cit., pp. 55 f. (and Plan), identified it with the “South-east Building,” where he had this second ἔφοδος begin.

2340 V, 13.9. For full account of the altar, see V, 13.8–11.

2341 Thus Curtius, Altaere v. Ol., Abhandl. d. k. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1882, p. 4 (= Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1894, II, pp. 42 f.); Adler, A. A., 1894, p. 85; ibid., 1895, pp. 108 f. (cf. his reconstruction in Olympia, Ergebn., Tafelbd., II, Pl. CXXXII and Textbd., II, pp. 210 f.); Curtius-Adler, Olympia u. Umgegend, p. 35; Flasch, op. cit., p. 1067 (cf. Funde v. Ol., pp. 238–239); Boetticher, Olympia², 1886, pp. 190 f. (and Plan); Furtwaengler, Bronzen v. Olympia, p. 4; Hirschfeld, op. cit., p. 119 (= Plan); Scherer, op. cit., p. 56 (with Plan); Trendelenburg, Der grosse Altar des Zeus in Olympia, 1902, pp. 17 f.; Doerpfeld, Olympia, Ergebn., Textbd., II (Baudenkmaeler) p. 162, (cf. I, p. 82, where he admits the possibility that it may have stood further northwest, nearer the Heraion); Frazer, III, p. 556; etc.

2342 See A. M., XXXIII, 1908, pp. 185–192 (Olympia in praehistorischer Zeit); cf. Year’s Work in Classical Studies, III, 1908, p. 12.

2343 For Puchstein’s location and form of the altar of Zeus, see A. A., 1893, p. 22; ibid., 1895, p. 107; Jb., XI, 1896, pp. 53 f. (with “oblong” reconstruction by Koldewey, pp. 76–77); for Wernicke’s view, see Jb., IX, 1894, pp. 93 f. This view was already refuted by Adler, A. A., 1895, p. 108, and Doerpfeld, Ergebn. v. Ol., Textbd., II, pp. 162 f. Doerpfeld later referred these remains also to prehistoric houses (cf. preceding note)

2344 V, 13.8. The exact site of the Pelopion is given in V, 13.1 (see Plans A and B). Wernicke, (l. c., pp. 94 f.) placed the older altar of Zeus (who was at first worshiped in common with Hera) between the Heraion and Pelopion (as Puchstein also did). He believed that later, however, after the building of the temple of Zeus and the Pelopion, the altar was moved east of both and stood somewhere northwest of the elliptical depression, where Pausanias saw it. He explained the lack of remains on the theory that the Christians would completely destroy this, the chief pagan altar. But it is difficult to see why the few Christian settlers in this out of the way place should have shown any such anger. Doerpfeld (Ergebn. v. Ol., Textbd., II, Baudenkmaeler, p. 163) suggested that it may have stood south of the Exedra of Herodes Attikos, where its site must certainly be sought.

2345 Hitz.-Bluemn., II, i, p. 359, rightly say that the words of Pausanias point to a place in the Altis where there are neither foundations nor ashes. Since it is incredible that the Christians should have destroyed it so completely, they assume that Pausanias made a mistake in his directions. Their conclusion that the elliptical depression best fits the conditions is untenable now.

2346 Op. cit., p. 164.

2347 See A. M., XIII, 1888, pp. 335–336, and Ergebn., Textbd., I, p. 88. In the latter he says: “Zu unserer Verwunderung sehen wir, dass der zweite Teil die ununterbrochene Fortsetzung des ersten Teiles ist, also in Wirklichkeit nur eine Ephodos, nur ein einziger Rundgang.”

2348 This pillar stood between the Great Altar and the temple of Zeus: P., V, 20. 6.

2349 Ἀνδριάντας δὲ ἀναμεμιγμένους οὐκ ἐπιφα <νέ> σιν ἄγαν ἀναθήμασιν, κ. τ. λ., (VI, 17.7); again in VI, 18.2 he says that he discovered the statue of Anaximenes “by searching” (ἀνευρών).

2350 Similarly, on arriving at the statue of Telemachos, he moved first to the east and then returned (passing the chariot of Kleosthenes) before proceeding west, without mentioning it: see supra, p. 345.

2351 On analogy with V, 15.1. See Hyde, p. 68.

2352 The Terrace wall can still be traced before the western front of the temple and also to the northeast of it; cf. Treu, A. Z., XXXVI, 1878, p. 36: “So umgab denn vermutlich einst den ganzen Tempel eine statuenbekroente Terrasse.” Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 619, suppose such a road to the west and north of the temple, but would interpret it as being ἐν ἀριστερᾷ.

2353 Cf. Hyde, p. 70. Hitz.-Bluemn. (see preceding note) rejected this textual change of mine as unnecessary, and followed Hirschfeld and Doerpfeld in having Pausanias return along the south side of the temple of Zeus. I proposed this change by analogy with the text of V, 24.1, V, 21.2, and other passages.

2354 The bronze tablet of Demokrates (170), found south of the southwest corner of the temple of Zeus, did not belong to his victor statue, but to a base which stood probably inside the temple: Inschr. v. Ol. no. 39. Also the archaic marble helmeted head and arm with the remains of a shield attached (see Bildw. v. Ol., Tafelbd., Pl. VI, 1–4, and 5–6), the head being found west of the temple and the arm before the gate of the Pelopion, wrongly ascribed by Treu (A. Z., XXXVIII, 1880, pp. 48 f., and Bildw. v. Ol., III, pp. 33–34) and Overbeck (I, pp. 198 f., and p. 178) to Eperastos (183), I have referred to an older hoplite, Phrikias of Pelinna (Foerster, nos. 151, 155): see Hyde, p. 43, and supra, Ch. III, pp. 162–3 and Fig. 30a, b.

2355 See Inschr. v. Ol., no. 293.

2356 See Inschr. v. Ol., nos. 267–269. The supposed foundation was found thirty feet north of the temple; cf. Frazer, III, pp. 646 f.; etc.

2357 V, 20.6 f. A large foundation, between the pedestal of Dropion, King of the Paionians, Inschr. v. Ol., no. 303, (see Plans A and B), and the pedestal of the Eretrian Bull, may have formed part of the house of Oinomaos (cf. Curtius-Adler, op. cit., p. 40; Flasch, l. c., p. 1074). Wernicke, (Jb., IX, 1894, p. 95), however, refers it to the oval depression called the Great Altar site. Doerpfeld (Ergebn. v. Ol., Textbd., I, p. 82) is opposed to this view and places it further north, near the Metroon.

2358 This is Kalkmann’s theory (op. cit., p. 89), who calls this section (VI, 18.7) the “letzter Trumpf,” an addition having no connection with the second ἔφοδος. He compares it with V, 24.9, where Pausanias, after ending the periegesis of the altars, adds one more, that of “Zeus Horkios,” which stood in the Council House, though he had already passed this point twice without mentioning the fact. Kalkmann also compares it with V, 27.12 (the transition to the account of the victor statues). Gurlitt (op. cit., p. 392) explains this last section, i. e., V, 27.12, as due to a later revision of Pausanias’ work.

2359 VI, 19.1.

2360 See the Catalogue in my de olymp. Stat., (pp. 3 f.) for dates; and cf. ibid., Ch. IV, pp. 72 f., for results. The summaries are made only on the basis of the 153 monuments which can be exactly or approximately dated.

2361 Eutelidas (148), Praxidamas (18), Rhexibios (188), Polypeithes and Kalliteles (160–161).

2362 On the date of the temple of Zeus (?468–456 B. C.), cf. Doerpfeld, Ol., Ergebn., Textbd., II, pp. 19. f.

2363 Enation (176) is simply called an Arkadian by P., VI, 17.3.

2364 VI, 1.2, and cf. his words in VI, 17.1.

2365 The last dated victor statue at Olympia, known from inscriptions, is that of Valerios Eklektos of Sinope, four times victor as herald, winning in Ols. 256, 258, 259, 260 ( = 245, 253–261 A. D.): Foerster, 741–744. Philoumenos of Philadelphia in Lydia, victor in wrestling (?) in Ol. (?) 288 ( = 373 A. D.), Foerster, 750, had a statue, as we learn from the conclusion of an epigram preserved by Panodoros in Cramer’s Anecd. gr. Parisiensia, 1839–41, II, p. 155, 17 f.; cf. Inscr. Graecae metricae, ed. Preger, 1891, no. 133. It may have been in Olympia.

2366 On his use of older lists of victors and especially of the Elean register, see P. Hirt, de Fontibus Pausaniae in Eliacis (Greifswald, 1878), pp. 12 f.; Mie, Quaestiones agonisticae (Rostock, 1888), pp. 17 f.; Kalkmann, Pausanias der Perieget, pp. 72 f. and 103 f.; Gurlitt, Ueber Pausanias, p. 426, note 43; Robert, Hermes, XXIII, 1888, pp. 444 f.; Hirschfeld, A. Z., XL, 1882, pp. 105 and 111; J. Juethner, Philostratos ueber Gymnastik, pp. 60–74 (Elean register), and 109 f.; Gardiner, p. 50. Pausanias frequently mentions such sources himself, especially the Elean register: e. g., III, 21.1; V, 2.19; VI, 2.3. Hirschfeld (l. c., pp. 105 and 113) and others have unreasonably doubted whether Pausanias ever visited Olympia at all.

2367 Hyde, 146; Foerster, 472, 476; P., VI, 15.3 f.

2368 Hyde, 150; Foerster, 474, 475; P., VI, 15.10 (two statues).

2369 Hyde, 119 and pp. 49–50; Foerster, 501; P., VI, 13.7, and Inschr. v. Ol., 184.

2370 Hyde, 42; Foerster, 800; P., VI, 4.9.

2371 Hyde, 40; Foerster, 494; P., VI, 4.5.

2372 Hyde, 152; Foerster, 391; P., VI, 16.2.

2373 Hyde, 162; Foerster, 515; P., VI, 6.7.

2374 Hyde, 125a; Foerster, 651; P., VI, 14.2.

2375 Hyde, 111b; Foerster, 648–650; P., VI, 13.3.

2376 Hyde, 111a; Foerster, 654–6, 659, 660, 662–664; P., VI, 13.3.

2377 H. N., XXXIV, 16. See supra, pp. 27 and 54.

2378 Cf. Inschr. v. Ol., p. 235. P., VI, 1.1, distinctly states that not all victors had statues, adding that some of the most distinguished had none.

2379 Thus the epigram on the base of a monument of Xenombrotos (133; cf. P., VI, 14.12) states that it was a portrait of the victor: Inschr. v. Ol., 170. We have, however, aside from this inscription, no record that he was a victor more than once. See supra, pp. 54–5. On the basis of three or more victories, several victors should have had portrait statues: e. g., Foerster, 60, 86, 144, 351, 358, 495, 603, 741, 815.

2380 Discussed supra, Ch. II, p. 58.

2381 For dates, places of finding, and contests, references are constantly made by number to Dittenberger, Inschr. v. Ol.; the number of each victor is given also from Foerster’s lists, which, though incomplete, are the best that have yet appeared. Where the exact dates are known they are cited from Foerster; otherwise, the probable dating of the inscription as given by Dittenberger is followed. See Plans A and B.