DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45927#0032
30
1. EXCAVATION HISTORY AND STATE OF RESEARCH
from the Basilica, also at this time being thoroughly cleared of the dumps from earlier excavations, can now be
connected with the epigraphic materials recorded by J. Keil and shown to have belonged to the Bouleuterion’s
scctencie frons.^
By this time, the building appeared to be sufficiently well-known to invite special studies focusing on the
various aspects of structure, design and function. R. Meinel, in his important study, “Das Odeion”, published
in 1982, offered the most thorough technical building description to date and was able to suggest tentative
solutions to problems of roofing, drainage, and fenestration.46 47 Basing his arguments largely, if not entirely, on
published materials and on E. Fossel’s observations, he presented the building as a Council House which was
remodelled as an Odeion, or small, roofed theater, by P. Vedius Antoninus in the mid-2nd century A.D., prob-
ably to accommodate musical performances connected with the Hadrianeia, a festival celebrated at Ephesos
for the seventh time in 151/152.48
It is remarkable that all speculation on the building’s form - its changes over time and hypothetical recon-
struction - has, to the present day, been based on little more than the diagrammatic ground plan published by
Wilberg in 1909 as a summary of his intensive study of the monument. No sections or elevations have ever
appeared. Nor have analytic drawings been presented to demonstrate the succession of building phases. In an
article in the “Festschrift” for D. Knibbe, intended as a pilot project for the present monograph, I offered a new
plan based on my initial observations and W. Wilberg’s unpublished drawings.49 Some of my conclusions about
the Bouleuterion’s form and chronological development have had to be revised as a result of further examina-
tion of the remains. What follows here is, in large part, a thorough study of the building’s fabric as a basis for
understanding the place of the Bouleuterion in the historical topography of Ephesos.
The chronology of the two main phases of the Roman Bouleuterion presented in this study is based on
typological comparisons, on construction and masonry technique and on epigraphic evidence.50 The early
excavations of the mid-19th century focused on architecture, sculpture and inscriptions. They were not car-
ried out according to stratigraphic methods, therefore small finds and coins cannot be drawn upon as dating
evidence. In the course of his search for a Hellenistic Bouleuterion underlying the Roman one, Alzinger sunk
several trenches in the 1960s and 1970s. The architectural remains which were discovered below the Roman
Bouleuterion are too fragmentary to reconstruct a Hellenistic predecessor, though.51 The small finds and coins
unearthed in these sondages are not stratified, too, and are therefore of no value to chronology.52 This volume
is focused on the Roman Bouleuterion.
Currently, new large scale excavations are not planned in the area of the Bouleuterion. This study presents
the evidence at hand, accumulated over more than 150 years.
(L. Bier)
46 Archive of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Inventar der Fundstiicke A, M, W 1963-65 Ephesos I, p. 283-284. These are now
housed in the inscription depot beneath the Domi tian terrace. See below chap. 8 and Appendix 1.
47 Meinel 1980, 117-133. 315-319.
48 Meinel 1980, 125-133; Lammer 1967, 39-55.
49 Bier 1999, 7-18.
50 See chap. 7.
51 See chap. 3.1.
52 For the finds from the trench sunk in the orchestra and the pulpitum in 1970, see chap. 3.1.
1. EXCAVATION HISTORY AND STATE OF RESEARCH
from the Basilica, also at this time being thoroughly cleared of the dumps from earlier excavations, can now be
connected with the epigraphic materials recorded by J. Keil and shown to have belonged to the Bouleuterion’s
scctencie frons.^
By this time, the building appeared to be sufficiently well-known to invite special studies focusing on the
various aspects of structure, design and function. R. Meinel, in his important study, “Das Odeion”, published
in 1982, offered the most thorough technical building description to date and was able to suggest tentative
solutions to problems of roofing, drainage, and fenestration.46 47 Basing his arguments largely, if not entirely, on
published materials and on E. Fossel’s observations, he presented the building as a Council House which was
remodelled as an Odeion, or small, roofed theater, by P. Vedius Antoninus in the mid-2nd century A.D., prob-
ably to accommodate musical performances connected with the Hadrianeia, a festival celebrated at Ephesos
for the seventh time in 151/152.48
It is remarkable that all speculation on the building’s form - its changes over time and hypothetical recon-
struction - has, to the present day, been based on little more than the diagrammatic ground plan published by
Wilberg in 1909 as a summary of his intensive study of the monument. No sections or elevations have ever
appeared. Nor have analytic drawings been presented to demonstrate the succession of building phases. In an
article in the “Festschrift” for D. Knibbe, intended as a pilot project for the present monograph, I offered a new
plan based on my initial observations and W. Wilberg’s unpublished drawings.49 Some of my conclusions about
the Bouleuterion’s form and chronological development have had to be revised as a result of further examina-
tion of the remains. What follows here is, in large part, a thorough study of the building’s fabric as a basis for
understanding the place of the Bouleuterion in the historical topography of Ephesos.
The chronology of the two main phases of the Roman Bouleuterion presented in this study is based on
typological comparisons, on construction and masonry technique and on epigraphic evidence.50 The early
excavations of the mid-19th century focused on architecture, sculpture and inscriptions. They were not car-
ried out according to stratigraphic methods, therefore small finds and coins cannot be drawn upon as dating
evidence. In the course of his search for a Hellenistic Bouleuterion underlying the Roman one, Alzinger sunk
several trenches in the 1960s and 1970s. The architectural remains which were discovered below the Roman
Bouleuterion are too fragmentary to reconstruct a Hellenistic predecessor, though.51 The small finds and coins
unearthed in these sondages are not stratified, too, and are therefore of no value to chronology.52 This volume
is focused on the Roman Bouleuterion.
Currently, new large scale excavations are not planned in the area of the Bouleuterion. This study presents
the evidence at hand, accumulated over more than 150 years.
(L. Bier)
46 Archive of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Inventar der Fundstiicke A, M, W 1963-65 Ephesos I, p. 283-284. These are now
housed in the inscription depot beneath the Domi tian terrace. See below chap. 8 and Appendix 1.
47 Meinel 1980, 117-133. 315-319.
48 Meinel 1980, 125-133; Lammer 1967, 39-55.
49 Bier 1999, 7-18.
50 See chap. 7.
51 See chap. 3.1.
52 For the finds from the trench sunk in the orchestra and the pulpitum in 1970, see chap. 3.1.
