1952–April 1953

- 3 -

P.4 L.8: There was a large fragment of a third head, but it doubtless need not be mentioned L.14: Is fig.7 the head of the young Apollo from Street I? If so, it seems to me undesirable to separate the head from the body. L.15-17: Style a bit jerky? If I remember, the room was not very suitable for objects offerred to the god if they were to be safe. L.17: Better 'replaced' than 'restored'? L.18: .doorways... L.21: 'later' is a little vague. They had been closed at the back with slabs at some time and thus turned into niches. Of course it was actually in the niche, not for it. It lay on its face as it had fallen with the wall. L.22: The statue was strictly niches not windows that we found. L.23: It won't do to call the youth nude without qualification, since his one garment is conspicuous in the photograph. It is hardly a 'foe' at whom he is about to throw the stone (?) in his right hand. Perhaps the things he holds are badly represented balls? Ought'nt you to mention the much better ones that were in the niche with him? L.26-27: 'some obscure hero of local importance'? Perhaps he is a completely anonymous figure, playing a game. L.28: 'is clearly of two main periods'. (There are doubtless more.) 'The earlier I should think to bring out the symmetry of the west side - unless you effect this by mentioning the original Rm.1 along with Rm.3 ed a little more fully, to be described - unless you effect this by mentioning the original Rm.1 along with Rm.3 P.5: L.1: The SW room (not an exedra, I suspect), the SE one and the three shallow ones between colonnades, to the existing ones which very likely were exedrae?) belong, with the second main period. The stair way may, too, unless it is a bit later. In any case it ought to have been built when the east end of the South Building portico cut into Rm.1 L1.8-14: When I looked up 'exhedra' in Vitruvius, it occurred to me that this building may well have been a palaestra, smaller than Vitruvius's, but in form meeting his requirements sufficiently (without his double colonnade on the south side of the court, of course). So I am peady to see it called the Palaestra. Set the presiding deity on the pedestal in Rm.2; the youth in the niche is suitable to a palaestra even if we don't know yet what game he is playing; put another youth (preferably more athletic) in the other niche. The young menthat tire of exercise can take a drink of water at the NW corner of the court and sit or recline in one of the exedrae. Until you provide them modest washing facilities in the eastern complex of rooms, they will have dip water from the big jar in the court. For proper baths they will go to the well-equipped establishment found, what year was it? L.15: 'Sanctuary' here preferable to 'san...' ...'th...BC, at least'. L.19: Not bronzes also? No shapes of vase except jugs? L.23-25: I can't believe this rubble wall dates from anything like the fifth century BC - being never too sure that it antedates the straight wall at the north side of it. Was the deposit stratified clearly? 'was in' is better than 'came from' - unless you think of it as deposited in the East Apotheke

Many of the casual, and verylikely inconsistent, remarks above may deserve no consideration, but there is one serious criticism. Fig.2, the plan of the Sanctuary, is too confused and confusing to be used. However, you are probably already having one made that brings out the principal buildings and walls and omits unexplained, extraneous odds and ends - even some that you know will prove to be important in the future.