THE SECOND EPHODOS OF PAUSANIAS. 349 
or lowest stage of the altar, identified with it by most scholars,! must 
now be given up since the more recent excavations of Doerpfeld, which 
prove it to be the remains of two prehiscoric dwelling houses with apse- 
like ends.?- Nor can the remains of walls lying between the Heraion and 
the Pelopion, formerly supposed to be those of an altar, any longer be 
referred to the Great Altar (as Puchstein and Wernicke referred them)? 
since Doerpfeld’s recent discoveries. So we are dependent on the words 
of Pausanias alone for its location, who says that it stood “‘equidistant 
from the Pelopion and the sanctuary of Hera, but in front of both,” 
therefore somewhat northwest of the elliptical depression nearer the 
centre of the Altis.5 Our problem, then, is to find Pausanias’ route 
between these two points, and here again, as at the beginning of the 
first €podos, we must rightly interpret the words é de&c@. Michaelis, 
in his article on the use of & de&.a and é& apiorepa in Pausanias’ work, 
made these words refer to the southern side of the Processional Way, 
1. €., to the side at the right of Pausanias, who was facing east after 
arriving at the Leonidaion.6 ‘Thus the statues already mentioned 
along the South Terrace wall (Aischines to Philonides, 139-154a) 
would now be on his left side. On this interpretation both Hirschfeld 
and Doerpfeld had the second édodos follow the Processional Way east- 
ward parallel to the first—thus including the line of pedestals, which 
we have referred to the end of the first—and then, near the Council- 
1Thus Curtius, Altaere v. Ol., Abhandl. d. k. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 1882, p. 4 
(=Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1894, II, pp. 42 f.); Adler, 4. 4., 1894, p. 85; ibid., 1895, pp. 108 f. 
(cf. his reconstruction in Olympia, Ergebn., Tafelbd., II, Pl. CX XXII 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, Olympia’, 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 (Baudenk- 
maeler) 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. 
*See 4. M., XX XIII, 1908, pp. 185-192 (Olympia in praehistorischer Zeit); cf. Year’s Work 
in Classical Studies, III, 1908, p. 12. 
3For Puchstein’s location and form of the altar of Zeus, see 4. 4., 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, 4. 4., 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) 
4V, 13.8. The exact site of the Pelopion is given in V, 13.1 (see Plans A and B). Wernicke, 
(I. 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 suchanger. 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. 
5Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 1, 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 direc- 
tions. Their conclusion that the elliptical depression best fits the conditions is untenable now. 
60>. cit., p. 164. 
