The Temple of Hephaistos

In 1930 Judeich gave his opinion strongly in favour of the identification of the ‘Theseion’ as the temple of Hephaistos, and the identification has been widely accepted. The excavators of the agora have adopted it and regard the archaeological discoveries as settling the matter. Dinsmoor wrote in 1941, ‘Now that the American excavations have brought to light the foundries, casting-pits and slag-furnaces of the metal-workers' quarter … there can no longer be any doubt as to this attribution’. Apparently there still is some doubt. H. Koch in his recent book on the building has continued to deny the identification strongly and renewed former attempts to reinstate Theseus in some way. He had already objected to the ‘Garden of Hephaistos’ discovered in the precincts of the temple and maintained that all this planting of trees and shrubs was more appropriate to Theseus, with whom were associated Phytalos and the Phytalidai (in fact the garden is appropriate to the site, an attractive setting for the temple, whoever is the occupant). Reviewers have treated his ideas with considerable respect and even favour. H. Plommer in Gnomon xxix (1957) 33 shares the doubts about Hephaistos, but sees difficulties in Theseus too, and leaves the matter open. J. F. Healy in JHS lxxvi (1956) 135 seems inclined to agree with Koch. The name ‘Theseion’ is tending to shed its well-deserved inverted commas. The impression may be given that the whole subject is in the melting-pot again; this note is an attempt to pull it out, in particular by considering the vital evidence of Pausanias.