DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45927#0119
10. SUMMARY (M. Aurenhammer - U. Quatember - H. Thur)
117
The first Ephesian Bouleuterion was large and austere. The two-storyed scene wall was characterized by
high pedestals supporting single columns which functioned primarily as supports for the framework of the
roof. The terminus ante quem for the first phase is provided by a letter of Hadrian dated A.D. 128/129 which
was inscribed on the wall blocks of the scene wall. The evidence for its terminus post quem is largely circum-
stantial. According to typological parallels and to details of the technique (for example the style of the masonry
at the base of the retaining wall), the first Bouleuterion may be dated to the late lst/early 2nd century A.D. This
raises the possibility that the Ephesian Bouleuterion was part of the building program undertaken at Ephesos
under the Flavians.
In the second phase, this old-fashioned scene wall was renovated by Vedius in the 150s A.D. He ordered
an aediculated facade which was already widely used in theaters. The ensemble of inscriptions and sculptures
displayed in the scaenae frons aimed at the representation of the donor’s good connections with the dynasty
of the Antonines. Contemporary with the aediculated facade are the vaults of the parodoi and the enlargement
of the summa cavea towards the stage wall, making room for honorary seats (“tribunalia ”). The pulpitum of
1.35 m height was raised as a proscenium, accessible from ramps in the parodoi. Facing the orchestra, it was
screened by marble orthostats which accomodated statue bases at both ends. The rhythm of the two-storied
scaenae frons was defined by four broad pedestals supporting aediculae with two columns, flanked by two
narrower pedestals carrying a single column.
After the renovation by Vedius the orchestra was altered. The first two rows of seats were removed, the
enlarged orchestra (diam. 9.0 m) was transformed into a sunken orchestra, including a semicircular podium. At
the same time, a narrow lower diazoma was set out in front of the first seat row, and the auditorium was made
accessible by five stairs.
Later constructions include two additional doors in the stage wall and the enlargement of the upper diazoma
by an apse (synthronori). The western arched door giving way to the Rhodian Peristyle was blocked even
later.
The roofing of these small rectangular theater-like buildings was no technical problem in Hellenistic and
early Roman times. The combination of a semicircular auditorium with a rectangular stage building was a
certain challenge, though. The form of the roof was a crucial question for the design of the Ephesian Bouleu-
terion. Theoretically, radially arranged trusses might have converged on the centre of the building to form a
half-conical roof over the cavea with a hipped roof over the remainder of the building. This roof construction
would have been too complicated, though.The architectural remains point to another system: the auditorium
was spanned by a framework of parallel beams at intervals of 4.70-5.15 m (6.30 m in the central part) and of
different lengths to suit the semicircular ground plan. The ridge of the roof aligned with buttresses 1 and 14.
The span of the triangular trusses amounted to 31 m in the middle and 23.5 m on the sides. These span widths
could be tackled easily in the early Imperial age. Tree trunks and beams up to 33 m long are mentioned in
ancient literature, and Roman architects were familiar with the system and technology of wooden truss roofs.
The roofing system of the Ephesian Bouleuterion was a technical feat in its time. Therefore it was probably
visible from below. The total height of the Bouleuterion amounted to 17 m with another 3-4 m for the roof; yet
because of the two-storied Basilica Stoa in front, the building was hardly visible from the Upper Agora.
The Vedius scaenae frons and the Architectural Decoration
Around the middle of the 2nd century A.D. the Bouleuterion’s stage wall received a two-storied aedicular
facade following an architectural layout that is well testified in Asia Minor throughout the Imperial period. The
new two-storied aedicular facade had pairs of columns on the pedestals of the lower story, forming aediculae
by means of the projecting and receding entablature. On the western and eastern end the facade was framed
by detached single columns. In the upper story, this system was probably shifted, forming pavilions that were
crowned by pediments. This kind of elaborately decorated facade architecture is very common in Asia Minor
not only in theaters and odeia, but also for fountains and other types of buildings like gateways or the Library of
Celsus at Ephesos. Many inscribed fragments of the scaenae frons were recorded during the excavation proc-
ess. Other fragments were identified by L. Bier during the course of his research, including a base and three
capitals. The architrave inscription mentions the donors P. Vedius Antoninus and his wife Fl. Papiane. They
are members of the most prominent Ephesian family in the 2nd century A.D. The outstanding role of P. Vedius
117
The first Ephesian Bouleuterion was large and austere. The two-storyed scene wall was characterized by
high pedestals supporting single columns which functioned primarily as supports for the framework of the
roof. The terminus ante quem for the first phase is provided by a letter of Hadrian dated A.D. 128/129 which
was inscribed on the wall blocks of the scene wall. The evidence for its terminus post quem is largely circum-
stantial. According to typological parallels and to details of the technique (for example the style of the masonry
at the base of the retaining wall), the first Bouleuterion may be dated to the late lst/early 2nd century A.D. This
raises the possibility that the Ephesian Bouleuterion was part of the building program undertaken at Ephesos
under the Flavians.
In the second phase, this old-fashioned scene wall was renovated by Vedius in the 150s A.D. He ordered
an aediculated facade which was already widely used in theaters. The ensemble of inscriptions and sculptures
displayed in the scaenae frons aimed at the representation of the donor’s good connections with the dynasty
of the Antonines. Contemporary with the aediculated facade are the vaults of the parodoi and the enlargement
of the summa cavea towards the stage wall, making room for honorary seats (“tribunalia ”). The pulpitum of
1.35 m height was raised as a proscenium, accessible from ramps in the parodoi. Facing the orchestra, it was
screened by marble orthostats which accomodated statue bases at both ends. The rhythm of the two-storied
scaenae frons was defined by four broad pedestals supporting aediculae with two columns, flanked by two
narrower pedestals carrying a single column.
After the renovation by Vedius the orchestra was altered. The first two rows of seats were removed, the
enlarged orchestra (diam. 9.0 m) was transformed into a sunken orchestra, including a semicircular podium. At
the same time, a narrow lower diazoma was set out in front of the first seat row, and the auditorium was made
accessible by five stairs.
Later constructions include two additional doors in the stage wall and the enlargement of the upper diazoma
by an apse (synthronori). The western arched door giving way to the Rhodian Peristyle was blocked even
later.
The roofing of these small rectangular theater-like buildings was no technical problem in Hellenistic and
early Roman times. The combination of a semicircular auditorium with a rectangular stage building was a
certain challenge, though. The form of the roof was a crucial question for the design of the Ephesian Bouleu-
terion. Theoretically, radially arranged trusses might have converged on the centre of the building to form a
half-conical roof over the cavea with a hipped roof over the remainder of the building. This roof construction
would have been too complicated, though.The architectural remains point to another system: the auditorium
was spanned by a framework of parallel beams at intervals of 4.70-5.15 m (6.30 m in the central part) and of
different lengths to suit the semicircular ground plan. The ridge of the roof aligned with buttresses 1 and 14.
The span of the triangular trusses amounted to 31 m in the middle and 23.5 m on the sides. These span widths
could be tackled easily in the early Imperial age. Tree trunks and beams up to 33 m long are mentioned in
ancient literature, and Roman architects were familiar with the system and technology of wooden truss roofs.
The roofing system of the Ephesian Bouleuterion was a technical feat in its time. Therefore it was probably
visible from below. The total height of the Bouleuterion amounted to 17 m with another 3-4 m for the roof; yet
because of the two-storied Basilica Stoa in front, the building was hardly visible from the Upper Agora.
The Vedius scaenae frons and the Architectural Decoration
Around the middle of the 2nd century A.D. the Bouleuterion’s stage wall received a two-storied aedicular
facade following an architectural layout that is well testified in Asia Minor throughout the Imperial period. The
new two-storied aedicular facade had pairs of columns on the pedestals of the lower story, forming aediculae
by means of the projecting and receding entablature. On the western and eastern end the facade was framed
by detached single columns. In the upper story, this system was probably shifted, forming pavilions that were
crowned by pediments. This kind of elaborately decorated facade architecture is very common in Asia Minor
not only in theaters and odeia, but also for fountains and other types of buildings like gateways or the Library of
Celsus at Ephesos. Many inscribed fragments of the scaenae frons were recorded during the excavation proc-
ess. Other fragments were identified by L. Bier during the course of his research, including a base and three
capitals. The architrave inscription mentions the donors P. Vedius Antoninus and his wife Fl. Papiane. They
are members of the most prominent Ephesian family in the 2nd century A.D. The outstanding role of P. Vedius
