but two," but the only remains he assigned to the middle one were those of a pavement intermediate between the higher and the lower levels. As the site was very low, a raising of the floor was quite likely to have taken place, and we need not infer from it a rebuilding of the temple. The site was practically a marsh, as had been remarked by Pliny. The Austrian survey referred to below shows the floor of the Old Temple 2.70 metres above the sea-level, the New Temple 5.42 metres, and the modern surface 9 metres. (Fig. 1.) The remains of the Old Temple were of mid-sixth century work, and, doubtless, belonged to the temple to which Crœsus contributed. The later temple was of the fourth century, and probably was not completed until after the visit of
,_page_3.jpg)
Fig. 1.—Diagram of Levels.
Alexander to Ephesus in 334. We may call them the temples of Crœsus and of Alexander. The site was outside the city to the east at the foot of a range of hills which rose near the back of the east front. The west portico faced the city and the harbour, and possibly for this reason became the chief entrance contrary to the usual custom. It must have been the nature of the site which led to the elevation of the New Temple upon a platform reached by many steps. In building the new structure the old work was only taken down to below the level of this platform; even the bases and stumps of the old columns were left. These were built round about with new foundations, and the cella walls were increased at the sides. The new foundations thus contained a core of the old building, and both were discovered
