DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45927#0087
7.5 The Vedius Phase
85
ers’ platform placed against the front wall on the central axis. The upper walls, however, could be articulated
with pilasters which rested on a continuous molding and extended around the hall’s interior. Such a scheme
was used, for example, in the Bouleuterion at Miletus,313 and the Odeia at the Agora in Athens314 and in Pom-
peii.315 At all of these buildings, the case has been made for roof trusses set upon the tops of the walls, either
along the longitudinal or lateral axis, whose ends rested on facing pairs of pilasters. The projecting piers at
Ephesos, with their columns in two stories, must certainly mark the position of the roof trusses, as they are not
equidistant but aligned with the radial buttresses of the outer retaining wall. Much deeper and imposing than
mere pilasters or engaged columns, they served, above all, the structural function of shortening (by 1-1.20 m)
what must have appeared at this early stage, formidable spanning distances. But they would have produced at
the same time a similar visual impression to that of the Hellenistic buildings, since they subdivided the front
wall vertically, and emphasized the structural connection between the roof and its supporting walls across the
entire width of the building.
Seen in this light, other archaic aspects of the Ephesian Bouleuterion appear more integral to the building’s
style. The extension of the seating beyond a half-circle, combined with analemma walls positioned obliquely
so that they form angles with the stage wall, is a standard feature of Greek theater architecture through the
Classical and Hellenistic periods.316 A variation on this arrangement can be seen in the Hellenistic Bouleuteria
at Miletus and Athens, where the seating described more than 180° of a circle, but abutted analemmata that
ran parallel to the stage.317 The intention at Ephesos seems to have been to produce a plan of the first type, as
the eastern analemma wall is angled (plan 1). The western wall, however, is parallel to the facade, suggesting
either an error in laying out the ground plan, or (less likely) a change of plans after construction had already
begun. The angle of the east analemma wall, in any case, is slight in comparison with all other buildings of this
type. The use of open parodoi, as opposed to vaulted ones, is likewise characteristic of Greek theaters, hav-
ing developed before the Roman period when auditorium and stage building were joined to produce a single,
closed unit.318
An early date for the original phase of the Bouleuterion at Ephesos is supported by a detail of technique.
The style of the masonry at the base of the curved wall of the Ephesian Bouleuterion (pls. 16, 1-2), as de-
scribed above, has precise parallels in the Roman scene of the great theater, dated by inscription to A.D. 66
(pl. 58, I),319 and the so-called Sockelbau (pl. 58, 2), dated to the time of Nero.320 This is particularly inter-
esting as it raises the possibility that the Bouleuterion was part of the great building program undertaken at
Ephesos under the Flavians.321 It does not in itself, however, provide decisive evidence for a Flavian date,322
and all that can be said for the time being is that a broad date of construction between the late 1st century and
A.D. 128/129 seems likely on architectural and epigraphic grounds.323
7.5 The Vedius Phase (plan 6-7)
By the time Vedius decided to undertake renovations in the Bouleuterion, both the scaenae frons and the open
parodoi must have looked decidedly archaic. This must have led to the decision to alter the building. The
scaenae frons was detached from the roof and modernized, partly reusing architectural pieces from the earlier
phase.324 Its characteristic features include in the lower story four pairs of columns on high pedestals, framed
by a detached column on either side. One can assume that the alteration of projecting aediculae and receding
313 Knackfuss 1908; Krischen 1941, 7-12; Tuchelt 1975, 91-140; Meinel 1980, 167-169.
314 Thompson 1950, 31-141; Meinel 1980, 44-56.
315 Meinel 1980, 36-42.
316 On the history of Greek and Roman theater in general see recently Burmeister 2006 with bibliography; Gros 1996, 272-307.
317 Tuchelt 1975, figs. 4, 1.2.
318 See Gros 1996, 272-307.
319 On the theater of Ephesos see Heberdey et al. 1912; HOrmann 1923/24, 275-345; recently Ozturk 2005, 4-14 with bibliography.
320 Inscription: IvE 410; Scherrer 2000, 88-90 with further references.
321 Scherrer 1997, 93-112; Halfmann 2001, 39-44.
322 For example M. Waelkens indicated that Hellenistic masonry continued into the high Roman period, cf. Waelkens 1989, 77.
323 See below chap. 8.2.1, inscr. 4.
324 See above chap. 3.3.
85
ers’ platform placed against the front wall on the central axis. The upper walls, however, could be articulated
with pilasters which rested on a continuous molding and extended around the hall’s interior. Such a scheme
was used, for example, in the Bouleuterion at Miletus,313 and the Odeia at the Agora in Athens314 and in Pom-
peii.315 At all of these buildings, the case has been made for roof trusses set upon the tops of the walls, either
along the longitudinal or lateral axis, whose ends rested on facing pairs of pilasters. The projecting piers at
Ephesos, with their columns in two stories, must certainly mark the position of the roof trusses, as they are not
equidistant but aligned with the radial buttresses of the outer retaining wall. Much deeper and imposing than
mere pilasters or engaged columns, they served, above all, the structural function of shortening (by 1-1.20 m)
what must have appeared at this early stage, formidable spanning distances. But they would have produced at
the same time a similar visual impression to that of the Hellenistic buildings, since they subdivided the front
wall vertically, and emphasized the structural connection between the roof and its supporting walls across the
entire width of the building.
Seen in this light, other archaic aspects of the Ephesian Bouleuterion appear more integral to the building’s
style. The extension of the seating beyond a half-circle, combined with analemma walls positioned obliquely
so that they form angles with the stage wall, is a standard feature of Greek theater architecture through the
Classical and Hellenistic periods.316 A variation on this arrangement can be seen in the Hellenistic Bouleuteria
at Miletus and Athens, where the seating described more than 180° of a circle, but abutted analemmata that
ran parallel to the stage.317 The intention at Ephesos seems to have been to produce a plan of the first type, as
the eastern analemma wall is angled (plan 1). The western wall, however, is parallel to the facade, suggesting
either an error in laying out the ground plan, or (less likely) a change of plans after construction had already
begun. The angle of the east analemma wall, in any case, is slight in comparison with all other buildings of this
type. The use of open parodoi, as opposed to vaulted ones, is likewise characteristic of Greek theaters, hav-
ing developed before the Roman period when auditorium and stage building were joined to produce a single,
closed unit.318
An early date for the original phase of the Bouleuterion at Ephesos is supported by a detail of technique.
The style of the masonry at the base of the curved wall of the Ephesian Bouleuterion (pls. 16, 1-2), as de-
scribed above, has precise parallels in the Roman scene of the great theater, dated by inscription to A.D. 66
(pl. 58, I),319 and the so-called Sockelbau (pl. 58, 2), dated to the time of Nero.320 This is particularly inter-
esting as it raises the possibility that the Bouleuterion was part of the great building program undertaken at
Ephesos under the Flavians.321 It does not in itself, however, provide decisive evidence for a Flavian date,322
and all that can be said for the time being is that a broad date of construction between the late 1st century and
A.D. 128/129 seems likely on architectural and epigraphic grounds.323
7.5 The Vedius Phase (plan 6-7)
By the time Vedius decided to undertake renovations in the Bouleuterion, both the scaenae frons and the open
parodoi must have looked decidedly archaic. This must have led to the decision to alter the building. The
scaenae frons was detached from the roof and modernized, partly reusing architectural pieces from the earlier
phase.324 Its characteristic features include in the lower story four pairs of columns on high pedestals, framed
by a detached column on either side. One can assume that the alteration of projecting aediculae and receding
313 Knackfuss 1908; Krischen 1941, 7-12; Tuchelt 1975, 91-140; Meinel 1980, 167-169.
314 Thompson 1950, 31-141; Meinel 1980, 44-56.
315 Meinel 1980, 36-42.
316 On the history of Greek and Roman theater in general see recently Burmeister 2006 with bibliography; Gros 1996, 272-307.
317 Tuchelt 1975, figs. 4, 1.2.
318 See Gros 1996, 272-307.
319 On the theater of Ephesos see Heberdey et al. 1912; HOrmann 1923/24, 275-345; recently Ozturk 2005, 4-14 with bibliography.
320 Inscription: IvE 410; Scherrer 2000, 88-90 with further references.
321 Scherrer 1997, 93-112; Halfmann 2001, 39-44.
322 For example M. Waelkens indicated that Hellenistic masonry continued into the high Roman period, cf. Waelkens 1989, 77.
323 See below chap. 8.2.1, inscr. 4.
324 See above chap. 3.3.
