DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45927#0034
32
2. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
white marble, projects 0.25 m from the wall. It was constructed in curved segments finely finished on the top
and front and joined by clamps. Builders were guided in laying it out by a circular arc scratched intermittently
in the bedding surface (pl. 18, 2). Dowel holes provided with pour channels secured a thick revetment of dado
slabs of which none survive (pls. 17; 19, 1). A series of gray marble blocks belonging to the wall proper is pre-
served in a single course in the northeastern quadrant. These are 0.55 m thick and of a tall format. Their upper
surfaces do not display cuttings for dowels or clamps. Course heights changed frequently within individual
blocks and this lent some measure of stability, especially in places where wall blocks were keyed into the backs
of buttresses (pl. 18, 1). A setting line (between buttresses 11 and 13) and several pry holes show preparation
for a second course. A single “K” identical in form to those in the back of the retaining wall is cut into the upper
surface of a block between buttresses 11 and 12.
The marble footing projected at unequal intervals of 4.05 m to 5.40 m forming a series of profiled bases
for pilasters that fronted the curved rear wall (pl. 17). Each base was carved in the front of a single block that
extended through to the outer surface of the curved wall and was cut in on both sides for bonding with adjacent
blocks of the footing. This detail can still be seen only in one place (pls. 20,1-2) as these molded blocks were
removed in their entirety as part of a systematic spoliation of the whole series of pilasters they supported. The
location of the individual bases is, however, amply clear from setting lines, pry holes and from pairs of dowel
holes and their pour channels in the surviving northern and eastern portion where the bed surface is preserved
(pl. 19, 2). The bases were 0.62 m wide and 0.30 m deep, projecting to a distance just short of a second in-
scribed circle (0.30 m inside the first) which may have marked the point at which the stones of the retaining
wall were to be cut back. Their profile is known from a single example (pilaster 10) which preserves faint but
legible traces of a torus molding above a fillet and scotia (pls. 20, 1-2). A second torus and a plinth can be
restored at the bottom. A pair of partially preserved dowel holes at the top originally secured the pilaster shaft.
Two overlapping sets of cuttings at the west end of the series (pl. 17) suggest an error and a slight change in
positioning during the course of construction. This surface falls away immediately to the west, but we can as-
sume that the placing of the pilasters followed a pattern symmetrical with those in the eastern half of the build-
ing. A block with the characteristic cuttings is reused between pilasters 4 and 5 at a lower level indicating that
the retaining wall collapsed at one point and had to be rebuilt.
The series of pilasters seems to have terminated in front of the large lateral buttresses, judging from the re-
mains on the east side (plan 1; pl. 17). Here the curved setting line for the footing is recessed 0.18 m and there
is a dowel hole 0.35 m in front of it. 1 m to the north is a second dowel hole. Dowels for pilaster bases were
spaced only 0.33 m apart and their pour channels extended diagonally out to the side, whereas the channels for
these dowels run perpendicular to the wall face.55 They probably secured some other feature such as a short
projecting tongue wall serving as a terminal element for the pilasters. They may also have been connected in
some way with the roof. In front of the pilasters 7-12 (plan 1), there are some stylobate blocks at the back of
the cavea, which are not exactly aligned with the pilasters. They are re-used and may have been set up during
restoration works.56
At some late stage in the building’s history, the wall blocks between the two central buttresses were re-
moved and a shallow apse 2.30 m wide and 1.00 m deep was built in their place (pls. 17; 21, 1). It contains a
packing of small stones in mortar and seems to have supported the curved rows of a synthronon. Buttress 7, or
perhaps only its unbonded upper portions, may have been shifted slightly to the east in the process.
2.1.3 The Cavea (Plan 2)
It has been generally assumed that while the lateral cunei of the auditorium rested on vaults, the central portion
was built directly upon the natural slope of Panayirdag. The view from Bulbtildag to the south (pl. 1) suggests,
however, that the earth behind the retaining wall may be largely scree that has accumulated since the abandon-
ment of the building, and that the original ground level behind the building was much lower. Floor levels of
excavated houses to the north and northeast of the Rhodian Peristyle, near the back of the Bouleuterion, show
that the ground level higher up the slope differed from that of the Basilica Stoa by approx. 10 m and that the
55 In the northernmost hole, the pour channel is missing.
56 See also chap. 3.2.
2. BUILDING DESCRIPTION
white marble, projects 0.25 m from the wall. It was constructed in curved segments finely finished on the top
and front and joined by clamps. Builders were guided in laying it out by a circular arc scratched intermittently
in the bedding surface (pl. 18, 2). Dowel holes provided with pour channels secured a thick revetment of dado
slabs of which none survive (pls. 17; 19, 1). A series of gray marble blocks belonging to the wall proper is pre-
served in a single course in the northeastern quadrant. These are 0.55 m thick and of a tall format. Their upper
surfaces do not display cuttings for dowels or clamps. Course heights changed frequently within individual
blocks and this lent some measure of stability, especially in places where wall blocks were keyed into the backs
of buttresses (pl. 18, 1). A setting line (between buttresses 11 and 13) and several pry holes show preparation
for a second course. A single “K” identical in form to those in the back of the retaining wall is cut into the upper
surface of a block between buttresses 11 and 12.
The marble footing projected at unequal intervals of 4.05 m to 5.40 m forming a series of profiled bases
for pilasters that fronted the curved rear wall (pl. 17). Each base was carved in the front of a single block that
extended through to the outer surface of the curved wall and was cut in on both sides for bonding with adjacent
blocks of the footing. This detail can still be seen only in one place (pls. 20,1-2) as these molded blocks were
removed in their entirety as part of a systematic spoliation of the whole series of pilasters they supported. The
location of the individual bases is, however, amply clear from setting lines, pry holes and from pairs of dowel
holes and their pour channels in the surviving northern and eastern portion where the bed surface is preserved
(pl. 19, 2). The bases were 0.62 m wide and 0.30 m deep, projecting to a distance just short of a second in-
scribed circle (0.30 m inside the first) which may have marked the point at which the stones of the retaining
wall were to be cut back. Their profile is known from a single example (pilaster 10) which preserves faint but
legible traces of a torus molding above a fillet and scotia (pls. 20, 1-2). A second torus and a plinth can be
restored at the bottom. A pair of partially preserved dowel holes at the top originally secured the pilaster shaft.
Two overlapping sets of cuttings at the west end of the series (pl. 17) suggest an error and a slight change in
positioning during the course of construction. This surface falls away immediately to the west, but we can as-
sume that the placing of the pilasters followed a pattern symmetrical with those in the eastern half of the build-
ing. A block with the characteristic cuttings is reused between pilasters 4 and 5 at a lower level indicating that
the retaining wall collapsed at one point and had to be rebuilt.
The series of pilasters seems to have terminated in front of the large lateral buttresses, judging from the re-
mains on the east side (plan 1; pl. 17). Here the curved setting line for the footing is recessed 0.18 m and there
is a dowel hole 0.35 m in front of it. 1 m to the north is a second dowel hole. Dowels for pilaster bases were
spaced only 0.33 m apart and their pour channels extended diagonally out to the side, whereas the channels for
these dowels run perpendicular to the wall face.55 They probably secured some other feature such as a short
projecting tongue wall serving as a terminal element for the pilasters. They may also have been connected in
some way with the roof. In front of the pilasters 7-12 (plan 1), there are some stylobate blocks at the back of
the cavea, which are not exactly aligned with the pilasters. They are re-used and may have been set up during
restoration works.56
At some late stage in the building’s history, the wall blocks between the two central buttresses were re-
moved and a shallow apse 2.30 m wide and 1.00 m deep was built in their place (pls. 17; 21, 1). It contains a
packing of small stones in mortar and seems to have supported the curved rows of a synthronon. Buttress 7, or
perhaps only its unbonded upper portions, may have been shifted slightly to the east in the process.
2.1.3 The Cavea (Plan 2)
It has been generally assumed that while the lateral cunei of the auditorium rested on vaults, the central portion
was built directly upon the natural slope of Panayirdag. The view from Bulbtildag to the south (pl. 1) suggests,
however, that the earth behind the retaining wall may be largely scree that has accumulated since the abandon-
ment of the building, and that the original ground level behind the building was much lower. Floor levels of
excavated houses to the north and northeast of the Rhodian Peristyle, near the back of the Bouleuterion, show
that the ground level higher up the slope differed from that of the Basilica Stoa by approx. 10 m and that the
55 In the northernmost hole, the pour channel is missing.
56 See also chap. 3.2.
