PIRAEUS: Cantharus, Zea, Munichia

See this text in



Piraeus is situated in the northern part of the west coastline of Attica peninsula, surrounded by the Saronic gulf. Written evidence by ancient geographers and historians such as Srabo, Suidas and Arpokration, confirm the region’s geological history, according to which, Pireaus was an island before the tetartogeni geological period. During that period, the alluvial sedimentation of Kifisos river and of other Attica’s torrents led to the formation of the seashore that unified Piraeus with the mainland of Attica and to the creation of Halipedon (a marshy area that covered a great part of the region and resulted in its inaccessibility).

During the classical period, the geomorphology of Attica’s coastlines, 24 miles long, was suitable for the docking of ships of that day at many points along the coastline, resulting in the operation of several small ports.

The selection of Piraeus for the development of Athens’ main port was made in ancient times, as it happened in modern years (1834), mainly due to the protection that is provided by its location and the geomorphology of its three natural ports as well as its proximity to Athens.

Cantharus, the main harbor of Piraeus, is situated in the western part of the peninsula and it is a totally protected and secure natural harbour. The other two ports of Zea and Munychia are situated in the eastern part of the Peiraïke peninsula and on either side of Munychia hill. Further to the east, the gulf of Phaleron played the role of the main port of the Athenians before the establishment of Piraeus.


Historical development

The only area of Piraeus from which there is evidence of inhabitance since the early prehistory of Attica (the first finds are neolithic potsherds), is the temple of Artemis Munychia, on the western part of Munychia harbour. (Steinhauer G.A. 2000, p.10-13).

Inhabitance of Piraeus was mainly initiated in 479B.C. with the instigation of the Athenian Deme by Themistocles to fortify and develop the most significant port of Athens. He was the first to turn the Athenian’s attention to the sea when he became Archon in 493/92B.C. and the one who pointed out the ideal location of Piraeus, navigated a powerful commercial and military fleet and, in a very small period of time, fortified the town and its natural ports. Fortification works for the direct and secure connection of the harbor with Athens were carried on by Kimon who wanted to complete Themistocles’ plan and constructed the two Long Walls, the Phaliron Wall and the Northern Wall (fig.5), and later (445B.C.) by Pericles who constructed the Southern (or middle) wall, between Phaliron and the Northern Wall.

Pericles was the one who assigned the design of a plan for the city of Piraeus to the famous architect of that period, Hippodamus from Militos. With the harbour installations already planned and constructed earlier, the town planning took place on a totally unbuilt but well protected area that was destined to become the mercantile marine center of Mediterranean as well as the naval headquarters of Athens. It was designed in direct connection to "asti" and with generative elements of its structure, the geomorphology of its three natural ports, and the diagonal tracing of the Long Walls, which materialized in the attican lanscape the two pole formation of "City-Port" during the thriving period of the Athenian Democracy.

During the 3rd century BC, the Macedonian garrison was established at Munychia and Piraeus became one of the most powerful forts that supported Macedonian conquers of Greece.

During the Macedonian occupation of Piraeus, only the dockyards were in use, while the city is driven to decline. After the harbor’s liberation in 229B.C., the connection between the city and its harbor was never again restored, until the modern times.

Prior to Roman times, the harbor was used for a while, cut off from Athens, while in the early Roman times it was destroyed by Syllas in 86B.C. after a long term seize. The complete demolition of the fortifications and the marine installations of the harbor resulted in the lack of safety for seafarers and merchants and lead to the final devastation of the port.

From the remnants of the fortifications, marine installations and buildings, very few have been preserved to this day. It is also known (Angelopoulos H. 1898, p. 43) that for a number of years Piraeus was the commercial center for lime, which was produced in furnaces using architectural parts from the destroyed harbour.

A great part of the ancient harbor installations as well as the post-Roman docks that were still visible under the surface of the water during the early 19th century had already been covered since the end of ancient era due to the rise of sea level.

The planning of the modern city and the harbour of Piraeus was done by Kleanthis and Schaubert after the proclamation of Athens as the capital of the newly formed Greek state in 1834, using the Hippodamian system of town planning once again. The evolution of Piraeus as the main passenger and mercantile harbour of the country, the installation of major industrial units and the construction of modern marine installations along the contemporary coastline, the bombing of the harbour during W.W. II, and the new uncontrolled erection of the city, led to almost total vanishing the most developed marine and urban center of Classical Greece.



Research on the city-harbor of Piraeus began during the early 19th century by foreign travelers, cartographers (E. Dodwell 1801-1806, W. M. Leake 1821), researchers like E. Curtius (1841), H.N. Ulrichs (1843) and topographers like C. von Strantz (1861), while a systematic recording of the visible ancient relics and a very significant representation of the ancient town was conducted by E. Curtius - A. Kaupert in collaboration with topographer G.V. Alten, which lead to the production of the maps of Attica (fig.3) and the attached text by A. Milchofer.

Most of the evidence that was recorded in the early 19th century, does not exist any more since most of the remnants disappeared during the construction work that was done for the new embankment of the modern Piraeus harbor, under grate time pressure that did not permit the recording of monuments.

Archaeological research in the harbour of Piraeus began during the first period of the rapid construction of the modern city and had the character of rescue excavations, which even today are the main option for research in the densely inhabited city, and the harsh interventions that the ancient harbour has undergone, due to the industrialization of its use.

The excavations that were done by Dragatsis, during the first period of construction for the modern city (1880-1920), revealed in the port’s area a group of Shipsheds, "neosoikoi", Zea’s theatre, the southern portico of the "Emporion" called Serangeion and the residence of the Dionysiasts. The most significant excavation was that of a row of 20 neosoikoi at the eastern part of Zea by Dragatsis. Their recording by Doerpfeld constitutes the main source of our knowledge about the form and dimensions of neosoikoi and about the size of triremes and their launching method. From that group the only part that remains intact today is situated in the basement of a block of flats. (Fig.4)

The results of this period of archaeological research were collected in a volume by W. Judeich, (Topographie von Athen, 1905, 1931).

The most recent discoveries and excavations, that were done by the Service of Antiquities, between 1960 and 1990 regard the Arsenal of Philon in the military port of Zea, the "Makra Stoa" and the Neosoikoi of Munychia, as well as a large number of houses, cisterns and quarries, are collected in V.K v. Eickstedt’s dissertation (Beitrage zur Topographie des antiken Piraeus, 1991).


Harbour installations


Α. The main harbour of Cantharus

The main harbour is situated in the NW part of Piraeus’ peninsula and constitutes the largest natural harbour in the Mediterranean (fig.5). Its entrance was formed by two arms of land that extended from both sides towards the gulf’s center: the Eetioneia coast on the northwest and the coast which is extended east of cape Alkimos on the southeast.

Α. Basins

The basin of the main harbor was called Cantharus due to its shape, which resembled the corresponding vase. The Basin of Cantharus as it was recorded in the maps of the first researchers, had the shape of an irregular rectangle, smaller than the modern harbour, with dimensions approximately 1000x750m. Starting from the west and moving clockwise around the basin, the Athenian shipyards were located inside the walls and along Eetioneia coast. To the north a marshy region formed outside the walls, was used a cemetery, (as the great number of grave stelae and sarcophagi which were unearthed during its dredging for the construction of the modern entrance port) and was until recently mistakenly identified as the Kofos Limen (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.79). The commercial port of Piraeus "Emporion" situated on the northeastern side of the basin, while one part of the military dockyard of the Athenians extended in the southern point of Cantharus, on Alkimos coast. The Kofos Limen was on the west coast of Eetioneian peninsula in today’s Krommydarous’ bay, while outside the port, beyond the north beacon that was found in Lipasmata area, was the Foron Limen or " Thieves’ Harbor" where there was no control of any kind by the port’s authority (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.79).


Α. Jetties

The two natural jetties projected into the sea with the extension of the walls that run along the eastern and western coastline of the harbour, in order to form a narrow entrance. The moles were constructed, in their upper part, with the use of rectangular large stones of local porous limestone (aktetis) with a length of more than 3.30m which were held in position with the help of clamps sheathed with lead (Shaw, J.W., 1972, p.90-91). The moles had a length of 130m each leaving an entrance of 50 m. The coastal walls of the harbour extended over those two moles to form, at each extreme, a large rectangular tower (Spon, 1676, p.234) from which a chain was hang across the entrance, to protect the harbour in case of a sudden attack.


Α. Lighthouses

The existence of lighthouses (columns with fire at their highest point) for the signification of the entrance is confirmed by the remnants that have been restored in two positions along the coast (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.79). (Fig.6, 7). The first one on the northwest, inside the area of today’s fertilizer factory and the other to the south, in the area of the Maritime Administration of the Aegean, beside the precinct that has been identified as the tomb of Themistocles.


Α. Ship Sheds (Neosoikoi)

The dockyard of the harbour was situated on the south of Cantharus, at Alkimos coast and consisted of 96 ship sheds in 331 (IG II² 1627-1629 & 1631) in a total of 372 in the whole of Piraeus. This area of the main harbor developed into a naval military zone after Munychia and Zea, when the need for military ships was increased.


Α. Administrative Installations

Naval administrative buildings and arsenals were situated behind the ship sheds while the whole area of the dockyard was surrounded by an enclosure and entry was allowed only to the public servants and to the workers of Neoria.

Administration building

Α. Quays

The commercial harbour of Piraeus, the "Emporion" (Fig.8) extended in a rectangular area of 250 x 1000m (Mazarakis-Ainian Ph., 1992, p. 74) with its longitudinal axis parallel to the coastline. The coastline was formed into a quay from which piers, "kripidai, or hipodochai" projected into the harbour. The docks formed between these piers were used for charging or discharging and berthing of the ships. Traces of those constructions (Alten V., 1881, p.11-15) existed until 1840, when they were destroyed during the construction of the modern harbour. The position and the dimensions of each dock was fixed in the area of the quay with the use of marking stones " horoi" (Mazarakis-Ainian Ph., 1992, p. 74) which were used by Hippodamus during the drawing of Piraeus for marking public spaces and buildings.

In the part of the basin that was used by the commercial port, the existence and name of three piers is known, for their position, however, many different opinions have been supported by historical topographers of Piraeus (Mazarakis-Ainian Ph., 1992, p. 75) while it has also been supported that they all are the same construction (Panagos Ch.Th., 1968, p. 218). They are the "Dia mesou choma", the"Choma" and the "Diazeugma" (fig.5).

The "Dia mesou choma " was probably the pier that was constructed for the junction of the two sides of the marshy area. The "choma" was a quay in the deepest recess of the gulf (which can probably be identified with the mole that extends today from the wharf in the area of Karaiskaki square) and was used for the inspection of the fleet. Finally, the "Diazeugma was probably the partition element of the central commercial wharf.

The discharging of the ships was done at several points of the commercial port, according to the category of the merchandise and the destination that corresponded to each portico of the wharf. Due to their small size the vessels were able to be in contact with the wharf in order to be charged, while mechanical means - for which there is no exact information - must have been used for the grater loads.


Α. Warehouses – Commercial porticoes

In the area of Emporion it is believed that there were five porticoes (Panagos Ch.Th., 1968, p. 224) that were used for mercantile exchange as well as for storage. Their position their form and their number has been a question among the researchers of Piraeus, while the latest excavation results form a more consistent image of their layout (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.83-84). Among them was the famous "Makra Stoa" that was built during Periklis’ time and served as the grain market, the "Deigma", the business center that was used for the exhibition of sample of the imported merchandise as well as the place that housed all the banks. The position of "Makra Stoa" is now believed to be at the northern end of "Emporion" (at the corner of Posidonos Coast and Gounary street) while that of "Deigma" is placed in the center of "Emporion" according to an inscription found in site (Judeich, 1931, p.448).

The discovery of parts of the foundations from three of the porticoes of "Emporion" (Notara st, Philonos st, Miaouli Coast and Bouboulinas st) allow in some degree the reconstitution of the ancient coastline (fig.9), according to which (Steinhauer, G.A., 1995,p.313) the layout of the porticoes does not follow the Hippodamian web of the ancient city that enclosures the harbour – as it was suggested by the maps of Kaupert-Milchhöfer (1889), Judeich (1930), Trauvlos (1969) and Hoepfner – Schwander (1986, 1994). The inclined axis of the of the three verified porticoes prove that the best reconstitution of the ancient coastline is given by the Venetian map of 1687 (Sofou, H., 1973, p246-258, fig.112-113).


Α. Defenses

The semicircular arrangement of the porticoes on either side of the "Diazeugma" and the adaptation of such an arrangement to the city’s Hippodameian plan points to the formation of an enclosure around the area of the "Emporion" (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.91). The existence of the enclosure is noted on Judeich’s map (fig.10) with a length of 80m and foundations of such walls have been discovered near one of the porticoes (Dragatsis portico) and further north.


B. The port of Zea

Zea was the second largest port of Piraeus and was wholly covered by the installations of the dockyard of the attican fleet. Its development most probably preceded the other two ports, since it granted the best natural protection for the mooring of vessels.(fig.11)

The drawing of the port preceded its construction in order to cover the increased need for the immediate building of ships that would form the powerful fleet of the Athenians (493 – 492).


B. Basins

The basin of the port of Zea had a circular shape in antiquity, as it has today, with a diameter of 450m and an entrance port on its south side 180m wide and 200m in length (Traulos 1972, p.442-456).

B. Jetties

As in the port of Cantharus, the entrance was formed by two jetties (moles), over which extended the walls that run along the coastline of the peninsula. At the end of each mole the walls were reinforced with a large rectangular tower from which a chain was hang across the entrance of the port.


B. Dwellings

The area of the dockyard was surrounded by workers’ dwellings (they housed the workers that had undertaken the heavy work of constructing the walls and the harbour installations of Piraeus), barracks, shipbuilding warehouses, equipment warehouses, craftwork shops, and places for the entertainment of the ships’ crews (Panagos, Ch.Th., p237). A industrial zone that surrounded the port of Zea as well as Munychia must not have been included by Hippodamus in the drawing up of the plans for the city of Piraeus that followed the construction of the dockyards.


B. Defences

The naval zone was separated from the rest of the city –in the same way it did in Cantharus’ port – with an enclosure that run across its whole length at a distance of 50m from the coastline, serving in the same time, as the closed wall of the ship sheds’ narrow side.


B. Warehouses

During the time that passed in between the expeditions and during the winter months, the triremes’ equipment was stored separately - the wooden parts (oars, masts, etc) in the ship sheds and the hanging parts (sails, ropes, cables etc) in special wooden buildings (arsenals, "skeuothekai") the existence of which is mentioned since the establishment of the dockyards (early 5th century B.C.).

In 347/346 Euvoulos introduced the idea for the revival of the Athenians’ naval power and the construction of a new arsenal that was designed by the architect Philo and was completed at the time of Lycurgus (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.64).

The discovery and partial excavation of the Arsenal of Philo took place during 1988-1989 (fig 12.1). However the fame of this important building preceded its discovery due to the praising comments about the arsenal by Demostenes, Ploutarch, Strabo, Pliny, Val.Maximus and Vitruvius (Steinhauer, G.A., 1996, p.71) as well as due to the discovery, οnew hundred years earlier (1888), of a marble inscription (IG II²1668) with the detailed description of the construction and use of the building, written by Philo. The inscription was 98 lines long and allowed a detailed graphic representation of the building making it one of the better known buildings, construction wise. (Fig 12.)

The Arsenal was built between the Hippodameian Agora and the ship sheds, NE of the deepest recess of the gulf of Zea with its axis running from SW to NE (Fig.11), a direction that allows the proper ventilation of its internal space and is one of the important elements for the design of the building according to Philo. The building was 18m wide and 130m long with entrances on both its narrow sides and two colonnades of piers that divided its inner space into three aisles. The central aisle extended in the whole length and height of the building, while the side aisles were separated in 34 compartments each, they had lofts with wooden shelves that served as storage space.


C. The port of Munychia

The port of Munychia is the smallest of the three main harbours of Piraeus, protected from NW by the hill of Munychia and was used as naval dockyard.


C. Basins

Both the hill and the harbour of Munychia were enclosed by the city walls, which in the same way as Cantharus and Zea, extended over two jetties and were reinforced at their end, at the mouth of the harbour, with two large rectangular towers, leaving an opening of 37m. (Fig.13). The basin of Munychia had an elliptical shape in antiquity and dimensions, 360m in length and 220m wide. (Traulos, 1972,p.450).


C. Jetties

The two jetties (moles) were constructed, in their upper part, with the use of rectangular large stones of local porous limestone (aktetis) with a length of more than 3.30m which were held in position with the help of clamps sheathed with lead (Mazarakis-Ainian, Ph., 1992,p.81). The southwest mole had a length of 190m while the northeast mole extended over a length of 95 m to form a circular tower set on a square foundation 12m wide. In the middle of that distance a space of 1.70mx 18m was formed and contained a building (8.30mx 10.15m) with its entrance oriented to the sea and could be a small temple or an earlier form of a beacon (Mazarakis-Ainian, Ph., 1992,p.81), (Fig.14). A part of the eastern mole survives today in good condition (Eickstedt,K.V.Von, 1991, p.80).


D. General

D. Ship sheds of Zea and Munychia.

"The Shipsheds were the most ancient buildings of Piraeus. According to Plato, it was Themistocles who had the first permanent installations built" (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.60). From the registers "diagrammata" of the overseers of the dockyards, we know that the total number of Shipsheds in all three ports was 378, from which 83 were in Munichia, 196 in Zea and the rest 94 in Cantharus.

In Zea the Shipsheds, "neosoikoi" were divided into two groups, east and west , along the coastline of the harbour. At the center of the bay the lack of slopes made it impossible for them to be located there. So 196 Shipsheds, 6.50m wide each, were situated on a coast a total of 1120m.This points to the fact that some of them were situated in two successive rows with one ship tied up behind the other. The existence of two rows of shed is also supported by the fact that traces of them were found in the 19th century and were noted on Kaupert’s map (Curtius, E. -Kaupert, J.A., 1881). From the Shipshed of the western side of the harbour no traces have survived today, while from the eastern side a small section is preserved in the basement of an apartment building (on the corner of Akti Moutsopoulou and Sirangiou Street) (Fig.15) That is the only section that remains from the the group of 20 Shipsheds that were excavated in 1880 by Dragatsis and recorded by Doerpfeld. Every couple of "neosoikoi" formed an elongated Shipshed, which was covered by a roof and was closed at its rear end by a continuous wall. (Fig. 16) According to "the layout of the Zea sheds , they were organized in groups of ten , separated with partitions, and served by an entrance from an outside corridor, in the middle of the back wall( the entrance in Munychia has been confirmed)" (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.64). One trireme was moored in each "neosoiko" –or two smaller vessels- on the slip that ships were launched or hauled, with an incline of less than 10% and a total length that extended for a few meters in the sea and exceeded the sheltered space of the shed." In Zea this consisted of two parallel walls 4m. Apart to which a wooden floor was attached, which would be greased along the axis over which the keel would slide, flanked by the side pieces. (Fig.17) In the Munychia sheds described by Von Alten (Curtius, E. - Kaupert, J.A., 1881, p.14-15) which were excavated recently, the slip consisted of stone slabs with sockets in which to secure the wooden floor." (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.63). The sheds were divided in two parallel compartments and from the adjacent shed, by colonnades of unfluted columns on individual cubical bases, which varied in height and number, corresponding to the highest or the lowest part of the roof. The first ones were higher and more sparsely placed, while the second, ones were lower and more densely placed with a buttress wall at the back. Between the slip and the colonnade, there was a corridor for the movement of the personnel and the necessary materials for the restoration of the ships. So the width of each Shipshed was 5.60m in Zea and 5.30m in Munychia, while its length reached the coastline at 42m.


D. Defenses

The fortification of the city and the harbour, was established by Themistocles in 493 B.C., before the building of the city, with the two large city gates of entrance to Piraeus from Athens. "At this point, which bore the main weight of the city’s defense, was the thickest (5m) part of the wall, the strongest, most solid construction and the protection by a dense array of enormous circular towers 10m. in diameter" (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.45).(Fig.18)

The gates are the most ancient feature of the Piraeus fortifications while different phases of construction can be identified in the surviving towers. In the remains of the towers that form the western gate, the round towers are attributed to the Themistoclean phase and the reconstruction by rectangular ones to that of Conon. From the walls that surrounded the city from the north, continued on the coastline and extended over the harbour entrances (as it has been described for each pot separately) the westward line of the northern wall, towards the Eetioneian coast, has been confirmed by a series of excavations retaining its solid construction and its width.

The third surviving gate that has been discovered, is the Eetionian gate, situated on the hill of Kastraki on the northwest side of the Main Harbour (Cantharus), overlooking the entrance to Piraeus from the sea." This is a simple type of gate (fig.21, 22), without a recess internal courtyard. It consists of an entrance (3.70m wide) with a two- paneled gate, flanked by two towers which were initially rectangular but which, very likely in the Hellinistic era, were enclosed in circular ones with a diameter of about 10m.The towers have been preserved today to a height of 3.00 and 5.00 meters respectively." (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.48-49)

The walls that extend over the Eetionian coast (fig.19, 20) as well as the Eetionian gate have preserved at least three different construction phases.


The coastal walls that surrounded the peninsula of Piraeus are preserved today in quite good condition and to a length of approximately 2.5 kilometers from the entrance of the port of Zea to the entrance of Cantharus. The walls constructed by Themistocles (493-404 B.C.) were shorter in length than the surviving Cononian walls that were extended in order to cover the entire, perimeter of the peninsula, and avoid any possibility of landing. The cononian walls were constructed at a distance of 20-40m from the sea and was a lot narrower (3.10-3.40m) than that of the northern fortification of the city and the solid construction of the former was replaced by the "emplecton" method according to which, the two sides of the wall are constructed with blocks of carved stone and the inner part is filled with mud and rocks.

Remnants of the fortification of the harbour and the city are preserved on the peninsula of Piraeus, on the whole length of the Eetioneian coast, northeast of the city as well as behind the area of today’s Kastella. (Fig.23) At some points the wall is preserved up to the height of eight courses of stone and along a total of 2 kilometers (at intervals of 45 to 100m, according to the morphology of coastline), 22 rectangular towers (4x6 m) have been preserved. (Steinhauer, G.A., 2000,p.52). From the towers that formed the entrances to the ports one is still standing on the eastern side of Zea, as well as those of the port of Mounychia.


D. Function

The important element in the socioeconomic structure of this powerful (during the classical period) city – harbour was the simultaneous presence of the Dockyard and the Naval base of Athens with the Mercantile Marine center of eastern Mediterranean. During the drawing of the plans for the city of Piraeus, the dominating functional factors were the three ports and the essential installations to support their use, while the rest of the city (public buildings, temples, houses) was built around them.

The central harbour, Cantharus, served as the commercial port as well as the as the second largest dockyard Athenians. The ports of Zea and Munychia were fully occupied by the use of the Dockyards.

Function Commercial / Military

Selected Written Sources

Thoukidides, 1. 93, 93. 3, 107, 2. 13, 13. 8, 93, 94, 7. 11, 12. 4, 8. 90

Xenofon Ελλ. , 4. 10, 2, 2. 4, 4. 31, 4. 11, Ανάβασις 7, 1. 27

Apianos, Λιβικά 96, Μιθριδάτειος 40, 30

Aristotele, Πολιτικά, ΙΙ 8, Αθ. Πολιτεία, 19, 37, 38, 54, 24, 46, 49, 61

Vitruvius 7. 152. 12

Val. Maximus 8. 12

Diodoros, 11. 41, 12. 49, 14. 33, 14. 85, 18. 64, 18. 68, 20. 45

Dion Chrisostomos, 6. 87, 25. 4

Deinarchos, against Philocles 1, 13, against Demostenes παρ. 17

Strabo, 9. 1, 1. 15, 2, 395 , Ι. 3

Plato, Gorgias 455

Plotarch, Themistocles, 32, 19. , Dimitrios 8, Kimon 13, Sylla 14

Pliny, ΝΗ. 38. 1, 7. 37. 125

Pausanias, Ι. 1. 2, 1. 1. 3, 1. 4, 2, 3, 25. 5 8. 10. 4

Poliainos, Military Ι 40. 3

Diogenis Laertis, 6. 1

Appian, Mithridatios, 30, 41

Ailianos, Various History 2. 13




Aristophanis, Hippeis 815, Eirene 145

Theofrastos, Characters 23

Hirodotos, 6. 116, 8. 76, 77, 107, 92. 5, 93

Lycourgos, Against Leocratis par.. 11

Demostenes 34. 37, 19. 60, 19. 125


Arch.Eph.. 1840-1841, p. 124

Arch.Eph 1855, p. 1287

Arch.Eph 1859, p. 1889

Arch.Eph 1862, p. 3

Boeckh A. , 1840: Urkunden ueber das seewesen des Attischen Staates, Berlin pp. 279-280.

Borghese B. , 1843: "Inscrizioni latine del Pireeo e della Valachia" Bull. Inst. pp. 131-134.

B. C. H. :Inscriptions 1882, pp. 278-282.

B. C. H. :Inscriptions 1928, p. 469.

B. C. H. :Inscriptions 1930, p. 459.

B. C. H. :Inscriptions 1931, p. 461.

Choisy, A., 1884: " L’Arsenal du Pirée" και " Les murs d’ Athθnes" in Études épigraphiques sur l’architecture Grecque, Paris.

Comparetti D. , 1862: "Sulle iscrizioni relative al Metroon Pireense" Ann. Inst. XXXIV, pp. 23-45.

Comptes Rendus De L’Academie Des Inscriptions, 1899, Vol Ι, book. XXVII, pp. 68-69.

Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, I, pp. 157, 250, ΙΙ, pp. 168, 249-258, 481, 614-647, ΙΙΙ, pp. 131-137, 187-197.

Dragatsis, I., 1884: ”Επιγραφαί Πειραιώς”, Arch.Eph. , pp. 39-50.

Dragatsis, I., 1886: ”Πειραϊκά αρχαιολογήματα”, Arch.Eph , pp. 49-52.

Foucar,t P., 1883:" Bas relief du Pirée", BCH VII, Taf. XVIII, pp. 507-514.

Lamprou, L., 1906: Νέος Ελληνομνήμων, p. 63. , 1910, p. 202, 1924, pp. 135, 198.

Le Bas, Ph. , Waddington, 1870-1888 :Voyage archaeologiqueen Grèce et en Asie Mineure, Paris.

Lolling, H. G. , 1881: "Inschriften aus dem Peiraeus", Ath. Mitt. pp. 309-311.

Mattingly, H., 1927 " Find from Piraeus" N. Chr. , Vol. VII, pp. 287-288.

Meletopoulos, A., 1884 : ”Επιγραφές εκ Πειραιώς”, Arch.Eph, pp. 65-70.

Pittakis, K.E., 1855: ”Επιγραφαί ευρεθείσαι εις το νότιον μέρος της Πειραϊκής χερσονήσου υπό Γάλλου Συνταγματάρχου ”, Arch.Eph, Νο 2583 and 2584 p. 1284, Νο. 2585, p.1286, Νο. 2586, p.1287, Νο. 2587, 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591.

Rafn, Ch. C., 1856: Inscription runique du Pirée, Copenhagen

Stephan L., 1843: " Inscrizione metrica" in Bull. Inst., pp. 196-198.

Selected Written Sources


AGELLOPOULOS, H., 1898: Περί Πειραιώς και των λιμένων αυτού κατά τους αρχαίους χρόνους, Athens.

ALEXANDRI, O., 1973/74 : ”Πειραιεύς”, Arch.Deltion 29Β, pp. 99, 144 & 151.

ALTEN, G., 1881: " Die Befestigungen der Hafenstadt Athens" Erläutender Text Heft I, Berlin, pp.10-15.

BLACKMAN, D. J., 1968: "The ship-sheds", in J. S. Morrison & R. T. Williams, Greek oared ships Cambridge, pp. 181-192.

1973: "Evidence of sea level change in ancient harbours and coastal installations" in Marine Archaeology, Symposium of Colston Research Society, pp. 115-139.

1982 "Ancient Harbours in the Mediterranean", IJNA 11. 2, pp. 79-104 and 11. 3, pp. 185-221.

1987: "Triremes and shipsheds", TROPIS ΙΙ. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on ship construction in antiquity, Delphi 1987, Athens (1990). pp. 35-52.

1991: "New evidence for ancient ship dimensions" TROPIS ΙV. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on ship construction in antiquity, Athens 1991, Athens (1996). pp. 113-125.

CURTIUS E. – KAUPERT J. A. , 1881: Karten von Attika, ErläutenderText, Heft I, Der Peiraeus von A. Milchhöfer, Berlin.

DRAGATSIS, I., 1885: "Έκθεσης των εν Πειραιει ανασκαφών", Π. Α. Ε.( Minutes of the archaeological Society) , pp. 63-68.

1885β : ”Πειραϊκές αρχαιότητες”, Arch.Eph. , pp. 85-92.

DRAGATSIS, I, AGELLOPOULOS, H 1899: ” Περί των εν Πειραιεί ανασκαφών”, Π. Α. Ε. 1899, pp. 37-41.

FOUCART, P., 1882 : "L’arsenal de Philon", B. C. H. 6, pp. 540-555.

1887 : "Les fortfications du Piree en 394-393", B. C. H. 11, pp. 129-144.

FROST, H., 1972: "Ancient harbours and anchorages in the eastern Mediterranean", in UNESCO 1972, pp. 95-114.

1987: "Where did they build Ancient Warships"in TROPIS ΙΙ, Delphoi, pp. 181-185

GARLAND, R., 1987: The Piraeus, from the fifth to the first century B. C. , Ithaka N. Y.

GEORGIADES A. S., 1907: Les ports de la Grece dans l’ Antiquite, qui subsistent encore aujourd’hui, Athenes.

JUDEICH, W., 1905: "Topographie von Athen" στο Mόmmers Handb. d. Klass, Altertumswissenschaft III 2/2/1905, pp. 375-403.

1931: Topograph von Athen, (III, 2, 2), Munich.

LIAGOURAS, Α., 1967: "Πειραιεύς", Arch.Deltion. 22Β, pp. 142-143.

MAZARAKIS-AINIAN Ph., 1992: Les Structures Poruaires en Grece Antique.Mémoire présenté en vue de l’ obtention du titre de Licencié,Univ.Libre de Bruxelles., Volumes I,II.

MANGAROGLOU, P., 1977: Πειραϊκό Λεύκωμα, Athens.

MILSHOEFER A. , 1881: "Der Peiraieus", στο CURTIYS E. & Kaupert J. A. , 1881, σ. 23-71

GREEK NAUTICAL MUSEUM, Museum guide, Piraeus 1984.

NEGRI, Ph., 1904: "Vestiges antiques submerges", Ath. Mitt. 29, pp. 340-363.

NOACK F. 1908. : "Bemerkungen zu den Piraeusmauern", Ath. Mitt. 33, pp. 33-38.

ORLANDOS, Α.Κ.- TRAULOS, Ι.Ν., 1986: Λεξικόν Αρχαίων Αρχιτεκτονικών όρων, Athens.

PANAGOS, CH.TH., 1968 : Ο Πειραιεύς, Οικονομική και ιστορική έρευνα από των αρχαιοτάτων χρόνων μέχρι του τέλους της ρωμαϊκής αυτοκρατορίας Αθήνα ( 2nd edition with new information on the topography and economical life of from G.A. Steinhauer, Athens 1995)

PAPACHATZIS, N , 1974: Παυσανίου Ελλάδος Περιήγησις. , Volume Ι, Attika. , Αθήνα.

SOPHOU, E.N. , (1973): ”Χάρτης του Πειραιώς συνταχθείς 1687 υπό των ενετών” Arch.Eph. , pp. 246-58, πιν. 112-113.

STEINHAUER, G.A., 1996: "La découverte de I’arsenal de Philon", in TROPIS IV, Athens, pp. 471-480

STEINHAUER, G.A., 1995: ”Τοπογραφία του Πειραιά. Νεώτερες αρχαιολογικές ανακαλύψεις” στο Ο Πειραιεύς, Οικονομική και ιστορική έρευνα από των αρχαιοτάτων χρόνων μέχρι του τέλους της ρωμαϊκής αυτοκρατορίας (Αθήνα 1995).

2000: ”Αρχαίος Πειραιάς: Η πόλη του Θεμιστοκλή και του Ιππόδαμου” στο, STEINHAUER, G.A.,

MALIKOUTI, M.G., TSOKOPOULOS, B. , Piraeus, Centre of Shipping and Culture, Athens, pp. 9-123.

TRAULOS, I.N., 1972: "Πειραιεύς" Encyclopedia Domi, pp. 442-456.

General Bibliography

BRADFORD, J., 1957: Ancient Landscapes, London.

CASSON, L., 1971: Ships and seamanship in the ancient world, Princeton.

1974: Travel in the ancient world, London.

1991: The ancient mariners, seafarers and sea fighters of the Mediterranean in ancient times, New Jersey (1st edition Oxford 1959).

DAY, J. , 1927 : "The Kophos Limen of the Piraeus", A. J. A. 31, pp. 441-449.

DODWELL, E. , 1819: A classical and topographical tour through Greece during the years 1801-1805 and 1806, Londοn.

DORPFELD, W. , 1883: " Die Skeuothek des Philon", Ath. Mitt. 8, pp. 147-164.

EICKSTEDT, K. –V. von, 1991 : Beitrage zur topographie des Antikes Piraus, Athenes.

GOODCHILD, R. G., 1956 : "Harbours, docks and lighthouses", στο Ch. Singer & al. , A history of technology, Οxford, volume. II, σ. 516-524.

SPON, 1676: Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce et du Levant, τομ. ΙΙ.

TOUCHAIS, G. 1979 : "Chronique des fouilles en 1978" : Le Piree, B. C. H. 103, σ. 541



Βλαχάκη Φωτεινή / Vlachaki Foteini


Back to the homepage of NAVIS II