Religion in Ephesos Reconsidered (Novum Testamentum, Supplements, 177) 9004401121, 9789004401129

Citation preview

Religion in Ephesos Reconsidered

Supplements to Novum Testamentum Executive Editors M. M. Mitchell (Chicago) D. P. Moessner (Fort Worth) Editorial Board H. W. Attridge (New Haven) – C. Breytenbach (Berlin) C. Gerber (Hamburg) – J. K. Elliott (Leeds) C. R. Holladay (Atlanta) – D. Marguerat (Lausanne) U. Poplutz (Wuppertal) – J. C. Thom (Stellenbosch) P. Trebilco (Dunedin) – C. M. Tuckett (Oxford) J. Verheyden (Leuven)

VOLUME 177

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/nts

Religion in Ephesos Reconsidered Archaeology of Spaces, Structures, and Objects Edited by

Daniel Schowalter Steven J. Friesen Sabine Ladstätter Christine Thomas

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Schowalter, Daniel N., 1957– editor. Title: Religion in Ephesos reconsidered : archaeology of spaces, structures,  and objects / edited by Daniel Schowalter, Steven J. Friesen, Sabine  Ladstätter, Christine Thomas. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Supplements to Novum  Testamentum, ISSN 0167-9732 ; volume 177 | Includes bibliographical  references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019016622 (print) | LCCN 2019021774 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004401136 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004401129 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Ephesus (Extinct city)—Religion. | Ephesus (Extinct  city)—Antiquities. Classification: LCC BL813.E64 (ebook) | LCC BL813.E64 R45 2020 (print) |  DDC 292.00939/23—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019016622

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0167-9732 ISBN 978-90-04-40112-9 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-40113-6 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Acknowledgements vii List of Plans and Figures viii List of Abbreviations xiv Notes on Contributors xvii Plans xx Introduction 1 Daniel Schowalter

PART 1 Structures 1

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos 11 Sabine Ladstätter

2

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos: First Results of the Building Research 41 Thekla Schulz

3

Thekla in the Cave of St. Paul at Ephesos 62 Renate Johanna Pillinger

4

Selected Evidence of Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos 73 Andreas Pülz

Part 2 Spaces 5

The Upper Agora at Ephesos: an Imperial Forum? 93 Dirk Steuernagel

6

The Magnesian Gate of Ephesos 108 Alexander Sokolicek

7

Mortuary Landscape and Group Identity in Roman Ephesos 123 Martin Steskal

vi

Contents

8

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos and the House of C. Fl. Furius Aptus 135 Hilke Thür

9

The Artemision in the Roman Era: New Results of Research within the Sanctuary of Artemis 158 Lilli Zabrana

10

Invisible ‘Christians’ in the Ephesian Landscape: Using Geophysical Surveys to De-Center Paul 171 Christine M. Thomas

Part 3 Objects 11

Ruler Cults and Imperial Cults at Ephesos: First Century bce to Third Century ce 195 François Kirbihler

12

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship and Domestic Religion in Terrace House 2 at Ephesos 211 Norbert Zimmermann

13

The Meaning and Use of Terracotta Figurines in the Terrace Houses in Ephesos 230 Elisabeth Rathmayr Bibliography 253 Subject Index 283 Index of Place Names 289

Acknowledgements The editors express great appreciation to Niki Gail for his excellent photos. We are grateful to Jaimie Gunderson for her early editorial work and to Yevgeniy Runkevich for assembling the index. Finally, we thank Larry Gill, and Brooke Weltch for their editorial assistance. This volume is dedicated to James C. Walters in honor of his scholarly acumen, his dedication to teaching and learning, and his collegial spirit. James helped initiate the collaboration that led to this volume and it is in part the fruit of his labors.

Plans and Figures Plans 1 2 3 4

City plan of Ephesos. ÖAW-ÖAI, C. Kurtze xx City plan of Ephesos, close up. ÖAW-ÖAI, C. Kurtze xxi Plan of Terrace House 2. ÖAW-ÖAI xxii Plan of the Upper Agora. ÖAW-ÖAI, C. Kurtze xxiii

Figures 1.1 Terrace of Domitian. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/S. Ladstätter-C. Kurtze 14 1.2 The Temple of Domitian and comparable pseudo-dipteral temples. ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Math-S. Ladstätter 15 1.3 Ephesos. Colossal head of Titus. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 16 1.4 Temple of Domitian. View of the temple after the excavation. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 17 1.5 Ephesos. Plaques from the altar secondarily built into a Byzantine fountain. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 19 1.6 Temple of Domitian. Altar after its exposure in 1930. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI-Archive 20 1.7 Temple of Domitian. Geophysical image of the temple terrace. Image ZAMG-S. Seren 21 1.8 Temple of Domitian. Architectural elements of the northern colonnade in collapsed position. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/S. Ladstätter 23 1.9 Temple of Domitian. View into the cryptoporticus. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/ N. Gail 24 1.10 Temple of Domitian. Doric colonnade in the west of the temple terrace. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 25 1.11 Temple of Domitian. North-eastern termination of the cryptoporticus with window opening onto the temple area. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 25 1.12 Temple of Domitian. Fresco of Demeter from the cryptoporticus. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 26 1.13 Temple of Domitian. Façade articulation in the east of the temple terrace, including architectural collage. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 28 1.14 Temple of Domitian. Flight of stairs to the temenos. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/ N. Gail 30

Plans and Figures

ix

1.15 Temple of Domitian. Destruction level on the temple forecourt. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/S. Ladstätter 32 1.16 Overview of the late antique buildings in the temenos. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/ N. Gail 32 1.17 Mosaic floor in the late antique building. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 34 1.18 Late antique nymphaeum. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 34 1.19 Door knockers. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 35 1.20 Butcher’s knife and steelyard. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 36 2.1 Serapeion. Perspective drawing from W. Wilberg and M. Theuer. ÖAW-ÖAI, Archive inv. no. 2083/2 42 2.2 Temple of Serapis. Ground plan from W. Wilberg. ÖAW-ÖAI, Archive inv. no. 179/1 43 2.3 Temple of Serapis. Aerial photo. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/S. İlhan, 2011 44 2.4 Temple of Serapis. Interior view. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail, 2014 44 2.5 Temple of Serapis. Middle block, first layer of hyperthyron (frieze over the lintel) with two marble dowels. Drawing C. Ruppert, 2014 47 2.6 Temple of Serapis. Middle block, first layer of the hyperthyron. Photo by author, 2011 48 2.7 Temple of Serapis. Middle block, second layer of the hyperthyron with dowel hole. Photo by author, 2012 48 2.8 Temple of Serapis. Column capital. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail, 2012 49 2.9 Temple of Serapis. Column capital, close-up. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail, 2012 49 2.10 Temple of Serapis. Northeastern corner architrave. Drawing A. Zeitler, 2015 50 2.11 Temple of Serapis. Northeast corner architrave, inner side with three fascia. Photo by author, 2013 50 2.12 Temple of Serapis. Northeast corner architrave, eastern side. Photo by author, 2013 51 2.13 Temple of Serapis. Northeast corner architrave, western side with Lewis hole. Photo by author, 2013 51 2.14 Temple of Serapis. Temple frieze, front. Drawing by author with digital transformation by A. Zeitler, 2014 52 2.15 Temple of Serapis. Back side of the frieze blocks with U-shaped cuttings. Photo by author, 2014 53 2.16 Temple of Serapis. Reconstruction of the pediment and the wooden ceiling construction. Drawing by author with digital transformation by A. Zeitler, 2014 54 2.17 Temple of Serapis. Pediment. Drawing by author with digital transformation by A. Zeitler, 2014 54

x

Plans and Figures

2.18 Temple of Serapis. Crown cornice block (2.17.88). Photo by author, 2014 55 2.19 Temple of Serapis. Left corner cornice block (2.17.111). Photo by author, 2012 56 2.20 Temple of Serapis. Right corner cornice block (2.17.65). Photo by author, 2012 56 2.21 Temple of Serapis. Reconstructed cross-section. Drawing by author, 2014 57 2.22 Temple of Serapis. East staircase. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail, 2014 59 2.23 Temple of Serapis. Reconstruction of staircases 1 and 2. Drawing by author, 2014 60 2.24 Temple of Serapis. Possible reconstruction of staircases 2 and 3. Drawing by author, 2014 60 3.1 Cave of St. Paul. View of exterior. Photo ÖAW-IKAnt/A. Pülz 62 3.2 Cave of St. Paul. West wall, Paul and Thekla. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 65 3.3 Detail of fig. 3.2, Thekla. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 68 4.1 Magnesian Gate. Crosses on the doorjamb. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/ A. Sokolicek 74 4.2 Heroon of Androklos. Slabs with crosses. Photo ÖAW-IKAnt/A. Pülz 75 4.3 Four Column Memorial. Socle. Photo ÖAW-IKAnt/A. Pülz 76 4.4 Byzantine Palace. Plan. ÖAW-IKAnt 78 4.5 Byzantine Palace. Aerial view from the south. Photo ÖAW-IKAnt/ A. Pülz 79 4.6 Harbor Gymnasium. Residences Unit I–VI. Drawing ÖAW-IKAnt 81 4.7 Harbor Gymnasium. Capital with cross decoration. Photo ÖAW-IKAnt/ A. Pülz 82 4.8 Harbor Gymnasium. Unit 1, barrier slab. Photo ÖAW-IKAnt/A. Pülz 83 4.9 Harbor Gymnasium. Lintel. Photo KHM-ANSA 3.1072.2 84 4.10 Terrace House 1. Taberna III. Photo ÖAW-IKAnt/N. Zimmermann 85 5.1 Upper Agora. Ground plan of southeast propylon and adjoining passageway. Drawing by G. Langmann 1964, ÖAW-ÖAI, Archive inv. no. 2558.16 97 5.2 Upper Agora. Southeast propylon, reworked surface of northeastern pillar. Photo by author 98 5.3 Upper Agora. Southeast propylon and adjoining passageway, seen from the south. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 99 5.4 Upper Agora. Row of marble blocks at the eastern end of the south stoa, seen from the north. Photo by author 101 5.5 Upper Agora. Foundation courses beneath the marble blocks illustrated in fig. 5.5. Excavation photo, ca. 1964, ÖAW-ÖAI, Archive inv. no. EPH-0763 102 5.6 Upper Agora. Situation at the western end of the south stoa, seen from the east. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 102

Plans and Figures

xi

5.7 Northeastern corner of the Upper Agora, joint between basilike stoa and eastern building, seen from the west. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI, Archive inv. no. 108_E_68-2-32 104 6.1 Magnesian Gate. Stone plan. Drawing A. Leung 109 6.2 Magnesian Gate. From northeast. Photo by author 110 6.3 Magnesian Gate. Southern entrance, covering Hellenistic city wall. Photo by author 111 6.4 Magnesian Gate. Crane shot from outside the city. Photo by author 112 7.1 West Necropolis. Ostotheke in the shape of a semi-finished sarcophagus, inv. no. 69/11. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/L. Fliesser. ÖAW-ÖAI 127 7.2 Ephesos. Diachronic map of burial spaces. ÖAW-ÖAI/C. Kurtze, M. Steskal 128 7.3 Ephesos. Concentrated extra-urban burial spaces. ÖAW-ÖAI/C. Kurtze, M. Steskal 128 7.4 West Necropolis. Digital model of burial houses. ÖAW-ÖAI/J. Reiter, P. Mayrhofer, M. Steskal 129 7.5 Southeast Necropolis. Typical burial house, inv. no. 70/12. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/ L. Fliesser 129 8.1 Theater Plan. Krinzinger and Ruggendorfer 2017, fig. 1. ÖAW-IKAnt 139 8.2 Plan of area above the theater. Baier 2013, fig. 1. ÖAW-ÖAI/C. Baier 140 8.3 Capital K2 from base above the theater. Photo by author 141 8.4 Plan of residence/domus above the theater. Drawing by author in Thür 2002, fig. 7 143 8.5 Plan and reconstruction of the banquet hall above the theater. M. Theuer, after Keil 1932a, fig. 8. ÖAW-ÖAI, Archive inv. no. A-W-OAI-PLN-06029 144 8.6 Terrace House 2. The house of Aptus, Dwelling Unit 6. Drawing by I. Adenstedt with instructions from H. Thür. ÖAW-IKAnt 148 8.7 Terrace House 2. Cross-section drawings of Dwelling Unit 6. I. Adenstedt with instructions from H. Thür. ÖAW-IKAnt 149 8.8 Terrace House 1. Plan of domus by M. Kainz and G. Lang. Lang-Auinger 1996, fig. 77. ÖAW-IKAnt 151 9.1 Artemision. ÖAW-ÖAI. Plan after J. T. Wood, inv. no. AN01447074, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. ÖAW-ÖAI/ L. Zabrana 163 9.2 Artemision. Location of Odeion. ÖAW-ÖAI/L. Zabrana 165 9.3 Artemision. Odeion, 2009. ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 167 9.4 Artemision. Cavea of the Odeion, 2011. ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 167 9.5 Artemision. Odeion, opus sectile of the orchestra, 2011. ÖAW-ÖAI/ N. Gail 168

xii

Plans and Figures

10.1 Ephesos. Plan of classical harbor based on geoarchaeological results. ÖAW-ÖAI/C. Kurtze 178 10.2 Ephesos. Plan of Hellenistic harbor based on geoarchaeological results. ÖAW-ÖAI/C. Kurtze 179 10.3 Ephesos. Plan of Roman imperial harbor based on geoarchaeological results. ÖAW-ÖAI/C. Kurtze 180 10.4 Ephesos. Results of geophysical surveys 2004–2006, magnetometry and GPR. ÖAW-ÖAI/C. Kurtze 184 10.5 Ephesos. Plan of structures on south side of harbor based on geophysical results. From Groh 2006, pl. 20. ÖAW-ÖAI/S. Groh 185 10.6 Detail of fig. 10.4. ÖAW-ÖAI/C. Kurtze 186 11.1 Ephesos. Greek inscription of a roman legal text linked with Marc Antony (l. 1) and the Cult of Divus Julius (l. 3), FiE 4.3.24 = IvE 7,2.4324. Photo by author, 2015 198 11.2 Ephesos. The concordia of the triumviri and Artemis, with the Archiereus Glaukon, Classical Numismatic group EA 280, 6 June 2012, lot 79 198 11.3 Ephesos. List of priests of Roma and eponymous prytaneis. Drawing of IvE 1a.9 200 12.1 Terrace House 2. Graffito of a phallus in the entrance of Unit 6. From Thür and Rathmayr 2014, pl. 111, GR 254B. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 213 12.2 Terrace House 2. Heros equitans relief in the entrance of Courtyard SR 24 of Unit 2. From Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, fig. 66. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/ N. Gail 214 12.3 Terrace House 2. Hekataion, probably once protecting the entrance of SR 2 of Unit 1. From Krinzinger 2010, pl. 152. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 215 12.4 Terrace House 2. Wall painting with agathos daimon as snake, from Entrance 5 of Unit 4. From Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, fig. 141. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 217 12.5 Terrace House 2. Drawing, south wall of Room 5, Unit 4, painting of an ancestor’s portrait below the niche with a funerary relief. From Rathmayr and Zimmermann 2014, fig. 3. ÖAW/IKAnt 218 12.6 Terrace House 2. Wall painting showing Artemis making an offering at an altar, niche in Room 45b of Unit 7. From Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, fig. 224. Photo by author 220 12.7 Thymiaterion with head of Serapis, from Terrace House 2. From Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, fig. 69. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 222 12.8 Terrace House 2. Bronze statuettes of Serapis, Isis Panthea, and Athena, from Unit 2. From Krinzinger 2010, pl. 474–76. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 224 12.9 Terrace House 2. Construction sacrifice, deposited in Courtyard 21 of Unit 4. From Krinzinger 2010, fig. 55. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/Archive 225

Plans and Figures

xiii

12.10 Terrace House 2. Graffito evoking Roma, Unit 4. From Taeuber 2005, pl. 99, GR 73. Photo ÖAW-IKAnt/Archive 226 13.1 Terrace House 2. Aphrodite from Dwelling Unit 5. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/ N. Gail 232 13.2 Terrace House 2. Gladiators. IKAnt. Photo by author 234 13.3 Terrace House 2. Serapis from Dwelling Unit 7. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 235 13.4 Terrace House 2. Harpocrates from Dwelling Unit 6. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/ N. Gail 236 13.5 Terrace House 2. Thymaterion with Serapis from Dwelling Unit 6. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 237 13.6 Terrace House 2. Male figurine wearing a chiton festooned with bells. IKAnt. Photo by author 238 13.7 Terrace House 2. Grotesque caricature from Dwelling Unit 5. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 239 13.8 Terrace House 2. Puppet in the form of a grotesque caricature from Dwelling Unit 6. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 240 13.9 Terrace House 2. Head of Alexander the Great or Lysimachos (?) from Dwelling Unit 6. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 242 13.10 Terrace House 1. Heros equitans relief from the predecessor Hellenistic peristyle house on the site. From Lang-Auinger 2003b, pl. 163. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 244 13.11 Terrace House 2. Herm from Room 45b on the lowest terrace. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/N. Gail 245 13.12 Terrace House 2. Female portrait from Dwelling Unit 6. Photo ÖAW-ÖAI/ N. Gail 247

Abbreviations Throughout the volume, the abbreviations of references to ancient authors conform to the system employed in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. AA Archäologischer Anzeiger AAWW Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philos.-Hist. Klasse AE L’Année Épigraphique AForsch Archäologische Forschungen AIPMA Association Internationale pour la Peinture Murale Antique AK Antike Kunst ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt AntTard Antiquité tardive: revue internationale d’histoire et d’archéologie ARG Archiv für Religionsgeschichte ASCSA American School of Classical Studies at Athens AW Antike Welt BABeschSup Bulletin Antieke Beschaving / Supplement BAR British Archaeological Reports BCHSup Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique Supplement Series BEFAR Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome BerMat Berichte und Materialien BJ Bonner Jahrbücher BZ Biblische Zeitschrift CCA Corpus Christianorum Series Apocrypha CEA Cahiers des études anciennes CHS Center for Hellenic Studies CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum DenkschrWien Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien DK H. Diehls and W. Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers EA Epigraphica Anatolica EPRO Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain ErgÖJh Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien FiE Forschungen in Ephesos GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies

Abbreviations

xv

HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies IFEA Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes Georges—Dumézil IG Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin 1873–1927 IKAnt Institut für Kulturgeschichte der Antike IvE Die Inschriften von Ephesos JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JDAISup Supplement to the Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts JÖByz Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft JRASup Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement JRS The Journal of Roman Studies JSNT Journal of the Study of the New Testament KHM-ANSA Kunsthistorisches Museum—Antikensammlung LCL Loeb Classical Library LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon MDAI (I) Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Abt. Istanbul) MDAI (D) Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Abt. Damascus) MDAI (R) Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Abt. Rom) MiChA Mitteilung zur Christlichen Archäologie NC Numismatic Chronicle NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NZ Numismatische Zeitschrift ÖAI Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut ÖAW Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften OGIS Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae ÖJh Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien ORom Opuscula Romana PBA Proceedings of the British Academy PIR  Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saeculi I, II, III, 1st ed. by E. Klebs and H. Dessau (1897–8); 2nd ed. by E. Groag, A. Stein, and others (1933– ). RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum RCAC Research Centre for Anatolian Civilization RE  A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, Real-Encyclopädie d. klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (1893– ) RESup Supplement to Real-Encyclopädie d. klassischen Altertumswissenschaft RGZm Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum RHM Römische Historische Mitteilungen RPC Roman Provincial Coinage RPCSup RPC Consolidated Supplement SC Sources Chrétiennes

xvi SEG SoSchrÖAI StClas TAM VCSup WBG ZPE

Abbreviations Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum Sonderschriften Des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes Studii Clasice Tituli Asiae Minoris Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Notes on Contributors François Kirbihler is currently lecturer in Roman history at the University of Lorraine (Nancy). His research interests focus on the history of municipal institutions and social history in Ephesos and Asia Minor: several of his works concern women, political cults in Ephesos, late republican administrative history, and the prosopography of elites. Sabine Ladstätter received her Ph.D. from the University of Vienna in 1997 and is director of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the excavations at Ephesos. She has published widely on the site of Ephesos, including monographs, edited volumes, book chapters, and journal articles. Renate Johanna Pillinger received her Ph.D. in classical archaeology and philology from the University of Vienna in 1976. From 1999 until 2016, she was university professor for early Christian archaeology at the Institute for Classical Archaeology at the University of Vienna. She is a specialist in the archaeology and interpretation of late antique and early Christian monuments. Andreas Pülz is director of the Institute for the Study of Ancient Culture at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He studied protestant theology, classical archaeology and ancient history. His research focuses on late antiquity, early Christian and Byzantine archaeology. His current projects concern early Byzantine episcopal residences and districts in Ephesos and Side/Turkey. Elisabeth Rathmayr studied classical archaeology and ancient history at the Paris Lodron University of Salzburg. From 1999 until 2014 she was part of the Terrace House 2 team, and wrote and/or edited major portions of the volumes Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos. Since 2016, she is project head of the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung project Archaeological contexts of inscriptions in the private sphere (P 29261) carried out at the Institute for the Study of Ancient Culture at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.

xviii

Notes on Contributors

Thekla Schulz received her degree in architecture from the Technical University in Braunschweig in 1986. Her Ph.D. followed in 1994 at the Technical University of Munich. Between 1995 and 2015 she was professor for history of architecture at the Technical University in Regensburg. Since 2015, she has been head of the Institute of Historical Building Research and World Heritage Studies at the Technical University of Berlin. Her areas of research include projects in Greece, Turkey, Jordan, and Nepal. Alexander Sokolicek studied classical archaeology, ancient history, epigraphy and numismatics at the University of Vienna. He finished his MA in 1998, followed by his Ph.D. in 2003, with a dissertation titled Diatichisma: Zu dem Phänomen geteilter griechischer Städte, which was published with the Austrian Archaeological Institute Vienna in 2009. His study focuses on ancient fortifications, urban and architectural studies, and field work. Between 2012 and 2015 he was a field director of the excavations of Aphrodisias (Institute of Fine Arts, NYU); since 2016 he has been senior researcher at the Austrian Archaeological Institute. Recent projects include the city walls of Aigeira, funded by the Austrian research fund FWF, and urban studies in Pompeii, Velia, and Ephesos. Martin Steskal studied classical archaeology and ancient history at the University of Vienna. He is currently a tenured scholar at the Austrian Archaeological Institute at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, where he directs archaeological field projects and works as a lecturer at the Department of Classical Archaeology at the University of Vienna. Since 2015 he is the assistant director of the excavations of Ephesos. His research interests include ancient mortuary landscapes and practice, origin and migration, archaeodiet, the built environment, ancient settlement patterns, Greek and Roman cultural and social history, the Roman East, Ptolemaic-Roman Egypt, Hellenistic-Roman Croatia, and the functional analysis of material culture. Dirk Steuernagel born 1964, has been professor of classical archaeology at the University of Regensburg (Germany) since 2010. His main fields of research interest include Etruscan archaeology, archaeology of ancient religion, and Roman urbanism. He has been working on a project on the Upper Agora at Ephesos since 2014.

Notes on Contributors

xix

Christine M. Thomas received her Ph.D. in 1995 from Harvard University, and is Cordano Endowed Chair in Catholic Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her publications include a catalogue of votive steles for the Ankara Museum and numerous articles on ancient Ephesos. Hilke Thür received her degree in architecture from the technical university in Munich in 1967 and her PhD in classical archeology from the University of Vienna in 1981. She is a University Docent at the University of Vienna and was a contributor to the Ephesos excavation from 1975 to 2007. Her main areas of research are Hellenistic and Roman architecture, housing in the ancient world, fountains, grave and memorial monuments in Asia Minor, and architectural decoration in Asia Minor. Lilli Zabrana obtained a Master’s degree of classical archaeology, pre- and early history and art history at the University of Vienna in 2005. She has participated in numerous fieldwork projects in Austria, Germany, Italy, Montenegro, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt since 1995. In 2009 she completed the Master program Conservation of Heritage at the Technical University of Berlin, focusing on building research. She has been employed at the ÖAI since 2010, and earned her doctorate from the Technical University of Berlin in 2014. Norbert Zimmermann is scientific director at the German Archaeological Institute at Rome, Italy. He has studied Christian archaeology, art history, and Italian philology at Bonn, Rome, and Munich. From 1998 to 2014 he was a researcher at the Institute for the Study of Ancient Culture, Austrian Academy of Sciences, and he is a member of the Austrian excavation team at Ephesos.

Plan 1

City plan of Ephesos

Plans

Plan 2

City plan of Ephesos, close up

Plans

xxi

xxii

Plan 3

Plans

Plan of Terrace House 2

Plan 4

Plan of the Upper Agora

Plans

xxiii

Introduction Daniel Schowalter This project began with two stimulating sessions at the 2014 international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Vienna. The volume that has grown out of that conference has provided an opportunity to interface directly with the archaeologists from the Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut (ÖAI) and elsewhere, who have been engaged in work at the site of Ephesos in western Asia Minor. As we approach the close of the second decade of the 21st century, this volume provides a detailed recap in English of the current state of research on many of the most important Ephesian projects. The common theme among the chapters is the pursuit of a better understanding of religious practice in the ancient Roman city. The chapters that follow touch on many issues related to structures, spaces, and objects that are connected to religious activity in the city during the Roman period and into late antiquity. In every case, the analysis is based on current field work and research and represents the latest in thinking on the Ephesian excavations. In the Structures section (Part 1), the authors consider major monuments from throughout the city, including imperial temples, the so-called Serapeion, the grotto of Thekla and St. Paul, and domestic space from the early Byzantine period. Examination of Spaces (Part 2) includes the Upper Agora, traditionally known as the ‘Staatsmarkt’ or State Agora; the area of the Magnesian Gate, a major point of entry and a place of ritual on the east side of the city; areas for burial and funerary practices outside the city gates; an extensive area above the theater which appears to have been used for the worship of Dionysos; the area surrounding the famous Temple of Artemis as it can be reconstructed in the Roman period; and the use of geophysical surveys to understand unexcavated areas in and around the city. Finally, the first essay in the section on Objects (Part 3) looks at epigraphic and literary evidence for the worship of the Roman emperor in Ephesos. This is followed by two pieces on religious practice within domestic spaces—one looking at architectural and decorative evidence for ritual activity in the slope houses and another concentrating on terracotta figurines from those houses and what they can reveal about religious images and actions. Throughout this collection of essays, the reader is treated to a review of the latest information on archaeology and interpretation of Ephesos, presented with a special regard for religious concerns and in a way that is accessible for the non-specialist. This approach opens up new opportunities to investigate

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_002

2

Schowalter

how archaeology can and cannot provide context for understanding the ancient Roman world. Recognizing both the potential and the limitations of archaeological knowledge allows the reader to appreciate the insights that are available without reaching beyond what the evidence can bear. Most of the essays in the book take a fresh look at evidence that has been known for a long time, or bring new evidence to bear on long-standing assumptions. The result is a reconsideration of how Ephesians in the Roman and Byzantine periods practiced their religion, and a chance for all readers to re-examine their own assumptions about the ancient world in which Christianity developed. In the first chapter, the director of the Ephesos Excavations, Sabine Ladstätter, discusses the latest research on the monumental precinct of the Flavian Temple (Temple of Domitian) near the Upper Agora of the city. In order to create this sanctuary in the middle of the first century ce, a huge portion of the city was buried underneath a massive podium on which the temple stood. Ladstätter reviews the history of excavation and interpretation of this complex and re-evaluates long-standing assumptions about its architecture and decorative scheme. Geophysical investigations and excavation of the temple platform in 2009–2011 have provided conclusive evidence for the destruction of the temple in the early 5th century and a detailed picture of the reuse of the space in late antiquity. The so-called Serapeion at Ephesos is one of the largest and most impressive ancient monuments in the entire Mediterranean world. In her chapter, Thekla Schulz reports on the extensive effort at clearing, measuring, scanning and imaging this amazing structure. The result of her research is a better understanding of the architecture and a reassessment of “the existing interpretations of the precincts.” Schulz reviews the history of excavation and interpretation of the site and comes to endorse its association with worship of the Egyptian gods. In support of this connection she comments throughout on how various details of the construction could have related to the practice of Egyptian religion, especially the provision for the symbolic, ritual use of water. Renate Pillinger presents a comprehensive view of the architectural and artistic compositions that make up the grotto of St. Paul, and especially images related to the apocryphal story of Thekla. Careful cleaning and examination of the remaining architectural elements provide information on the original design of the space and also its reuse in subsequent periods. Analysis of the walls reveal numerous examples of graffiti and other writing that give clues to later stages of usage of the space. It is the multiple stages of wall painting, however, that provide for the identification of the cave as an early Christian cave church, with differing phases of decoration and, possibly, dedication. The layer with the paintings related to Thekla and Paul also includes a unique representation

Introduction

3

of Theokleia, the mother of Thekla, who plays a prominent part in the Acts of Paul and Thekla. Pillinger’s analysis of the cave reveals why the site remained a sacred place into the 19th century. And why it is a fascinating artifact of the early centuries of Byzantine Christianity. The late Roman and Byzantine periods are also the focus of the paper by Andreas Pülz, who investigates evidence for Christian presence in the city. Pülz does not consider the several formal church buildings in Ephesos, but rather looks at Christian symbols that have been carved into stone architecture such as city gates, fountains, and other public monuments. He also examines evidence from private houses which are constructed in the area between the theater and the harbor after earthquakes devastated other areas of town in the late 3rd century ce. Excavations of the so-called Byzantine Palace have now been augmented with geophysical research that shows the massive extent of this building, and which lead Pülz to support the likely identification of this structure as the residence of the Ephesian bishop. Other domestic structures are much smaller, but contain crosses and other Christian symbols carved on architectural elements and marked on various small finds such as lamps, jewelry, and tableware. Pülz also points out various inscriptions that use Biblical language or make specific reference to Christian concepts, including the famous Abgar inscription and several lesser-known examples. Finally, Pülz considers space within private houses that could be identified as liturgical installations or rooms for religious practice associated with Christianity. The overall collection of evidence is quite clearly indicative of Christian presence, but Pülz cautions the reader that it is risky to assign particular beliefs to individuals based on this evidence, since there could be a variety of explanations for the presence of Christian symbols in a given space. Dirk Steuernagel focusses on a large specific space in the eastern part of ancient Ephesos and re-considers evidence for identification of this space as the Staatsmarkt or “State Agora” (in this volume known as the “Upper Agora”). Steuernagel reviews the history of excavation and interpretation of this important space, highlighting the development of a consensus view that the area was constructed as part of an architectural master plan (“Bauprogramm”) that was undertaken during the reign of Augustus. According to Steuernagel, this consensus began to fray in the early 21st century, with questions raised about various aspects of the complex. In order to resolve these questions and to understand more about the phases of construction of the Upper Agora, Steuernagel began a research program in 2014 involving archaeologists and architectural historians. Results of the first seasons of work on this plan have led to a further weakening of the single “Bauprogramm” idea and an appreciation for a complexity of construction over time. Steuernagel and his colleagues are

4

Schowalter

calling into question the architectural process associated with this space, and challenging a common “Roman-centered” interpretation that saw the Upper Agora as a sign of imperial ideology driving construction in the provincial capital of Asia. Instead, they see archaeological and architectural indications of a more socially diverse process that eventually leads to the final Roman form of the Upper Agora. The area of the Magnesian Gate is immediately east of the Upper Agora, and it served as one of the most important entrance/exits for the city. Alexander Sokolicek has conducted excavations in the area of the gate and as a result has obtained a better understanding of the architecture. He also presents suggestions about the possible function of the gate in civic ritual activity. Sokolicek’s research has led to a redating of the massive gate complex to around 100 bce, and the suggestion that the new gate was connected to the construction of “supra-regional” road systems throughout the new Roman province of Asia. Research on the architecture of the gate also raises issues regarding its function. Beyond simply serving as a point for controlled access to the city, Sokolicek sees the gate functioning as a liminal point in sacred processions. According to the Salutaris inscription, sacred objects change hands at the Magnesian Gate. They are transferred from the priests who have brought them from the Artemision to young male citizens (ephebes) who conduct the statues on their ritual path through the city. Based on careful analysis of the Salutaris inscription, Sokolicek believes that this transition of control of the sacred objects may also signal a division of labor, or power, that reflects the social realities of the Greek city functioning within the Roman empire. Martin Steskal turns primarily to spaces outside the city walls to take a closer look at burial practices and what they might reveal about Ephesian society. He highlights important examples of burial within the city (intra-urban), starting in Hellenistic times and becoming more common among Christians in the middle-Byzantine period. Outside the city walls, however, research efforts have found evidence for more than 1200 individual burial sites from the Roman period, including 528 burial sites found and recorded through surface survey. While Steskal points out that excavations of a city like Ephesos are bound to reveal a wide diversity of burial practices, he does elaborate on several important tendencies in the evidence. Examples of cremation burials are rare compared to examples of inhumation. Evidence for tomb buildings or other burial structures also seems to speak to the social order in Ephesos, but in a somewhat unexpected way. Steskal notes that there is a certain commonality of size and design among the burial houses that does not reflect an attempt by wealthy individuals to advertise their prominence. Decorations on the interior could be more or less elaborate, but would not have been visible except during funeral

Introduction

5

or memorial activities. This more egalitarian approach to commemoration of the dead is seen by Steskal as an indication of a stable society in which elites did not have to reinforce their status through ostentatious grave moments. There was still opportunity to highlight a family’s standing, especially during pre-burial activities, but the actual tomb buildings reflect a society in which people understood and accepted their place. Hilke Thür constructs a detailed analysis of archaeological evidence for the worship of Dionysos in Ephesos. Building on literary testimony and inscriptions, she reviews various locations where Dionysos is attested in some way. These include the theater, a very interesting set of buildings above the theater, the so-called Domus in Terrace House 1, and Terrace House 2, unit 6, the home of C. Fl. Furius Aptus, who was a priest of Dionysos. Both of these elite residences included elaborate meeting spaces, most likely for a private Dionysos association. The area above the theater extends from the very top section of the theater itself (porticus in summa cavea), and includes an open area on the street, a small temple, a banquet hall, and yet another elite residence. Based on comparisons to other known sanctuaries of Dionysos, Thür concludes that it is likely that this area above the theater also served as space for Dionysos worship. Furthermore, she suggests that this sanctuary within the Roman city actually stands on ground beyond the territory of the Classical city and as such fits the association of Dionysos as pro Poleos (“outside the city”). Such a connection would not only underline the venerable nature of the Dionysos cult in Ephesos and elsewhere, but also provides an important insight into the shadowy topic of religious practice by the Ephesians in the Classical period. The next chapter in the Spaces section looks at an area that is outside of the main Roman town, but is a center of cultic life at Ephesos throughout all periods. Today, the Temple of Artemis is viewed in a ruined state, and largely apart from any other architecture. In the Roman period, however, the temple was surrounded by various structures which were indicative of ritual, social, and political activities going on around the temenos. Lilli Zabrana begins with the excavations of John Turtle Wood from the second half of the 19th century, and details the evidence for Roman structures that Wood encountered on his way to finding the Artemision. Research in the British Museum archives turned up more complete records of Wood’s efforts, and Zabrana provides an updated plan of the sanctuary. Zabrana also considers a building discovered by Wood in 1870 that stood south of the Artemis altar and east of the Odeion and contained a statuary head of Caesar Augustus and inscriptions tied to priestly affairs and worship of the emperor. She affirms the observation of Simon Price that this building should be associated with the Augusteum/Sebasteion within the Artemision mentioned in inscriptions. Zabrana suggests that the long (at

6

Schowalter

least 700 ft.) portico building described by Wood northwest of the Temple of Artemis could be accommodations for priests as suggested by Wood, but it could also have provided residence for individuals who sought asylum inside the great sanctuary. Finally, to complete this picture of the busy area around the temple, new excavations to the southeast determined that the structure formerly labeled as a “tribune” was in fact an odeion that probably housed some of the artistic events that took place as part of the Artemisia festival. The chapter by Christine Thomas closes out the section on Spaces. Thomas relies on evidence from geophysical surveys of Ephesos to investigate likely locations for the first-century community of Jesus followers in the city. Both magnetic resonance and ground penetrating radar provide data that help to understand the nature of occupation in the area of the harbor. New space had been created in this region due to the silting up of the harbor during the Hellenistic period. Geophysical analysis shows that the new space was predominantly occupied by commercial and industrial installations. Thomas argues that this type of “peripheral” neighborhood would have been a likely area where followers of Jesus would have lived and worked, in contrast to the monumental structures that have historically been the focus of the majority of excavations and reconstructions. The final section of the book considers objects that provide insight into religious practices in Ephesos. François Kirbihler looks at epigraphical evidence for the development of the worship of the emperor in Ephesos from the 1st century bce to the 3rd century ce. Kirbihler calls on epigraphical and numismatic evidence to conclude that there was a cult established for Roma and Divus Iulius starting in 40/39 or 39/38 bce, and suggests that this cult would have been located in the Artemision and was probably connected to the founding of the Augusteum in the sanctuary as discussed by Zabrana. As for evidence for worshipping the emperor inside the city itself, Kirbihler cites material gathered in the area of the Upper Agora, and posits a temple in the area. He is cautious, however, about describing that area as a formal Sebasteion given the work of Steuernagel described above. According to Kirbihler, the local nature of imperial cults in Ephesos changed when the city received its first neokorate temple under the Flavians. He offers support for the “identification theory” claiming that the two epigraphically attested titles (ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς Ἀσίας and ἀσιάρχης τῆς Ἀσίας) both refer to the same office of provincial high priest of the emperor. In addition to discussing the large percentage of these priests whose names are attested in the epigraphic record, Kirbihler reviews their ceremonial and administrative duties and discusses their role from the first neokorate up until the massive destructions caused by earthquakes in

Introduction

7

the later 3rd century ce. After this, evidence for imperial cult and other nonChristian religious phenomena in Ephesos becomes much more scarce. The last two chapters return to the Terrace Houses and survey details of the architecture, decorations, and small finds from Terrace House 2 that provide indications of religious practice. Norbert Zimmermann looks at evidence ranging from complete rooms to niches dedicated to particular gods, from paintings and statuettes of divinities to thymiateria (incense burners), and from small altars to foundation deposits. Given the complicated building phases, destruction events, and remodelling of Terrace House 2, Zimmermann is appropriately careful about his interpretation of the material. Nonetheless, he is able to provide new understandings of the insula by looking at different parts of the dwellings (entrances, niches, cult rooms), decoration (relief sculpture, painting, and free-standing sculpture), as well as graffiti found in many areas of the building. His conclusion is that religious activity does not seem to be confined to any one part of the house, such as the lararia in Pompeii. Rather, a range of religious phenomena appear throughout the different parts of each dwelling unit. The evidence for foundation deposits consists of largely unbroken ceramic or glass vessels that were intentionally buried at critical points. Interestingly enough, these deposits are repeated in later phases of remodeling, or even repairing damage which occurred when earlier dedications failed to keep the building safe. Elisabeth Rathmayr focuses on terracotta figurines that were found in excavations of both Terrace House 2 and the so-called “Domus” in Terrace House 1. The figurines in the final destruction layer of the houses are dated before the late 3rd century ce. Those found in excavations below the final floor level date from the Hellenistic period to the 2nd century ce. Rathmayr notes that the percentage of terracotta figurines compared to those made of marble or other valuable materials decreases over time from the Hellenistic to the later Roman period, and suggests that this decline is caused by a number of factors. She points out that the theme of the figures changes over time as well, with traditional Greek deities declining and the Egyptian gods, Nike, and gladiators growing in number. Rathmayr also provides a discussion of where and how figurines could have been displayed or used in the dwelling units. Finally, Rathmayr suggests that terracotta figurines were placed side by side with images made of more valuable substances. This observation seems especially significant in an elite domestic setting where the cost of an image might not have been of primary importance. Ranging from huge temple complexes to hand-held figurines, this book considers a wide range of evidence for religious activity in Ephesos during

8

Schowalter

the Roman and Byzantine periods. Careful reading of texts and inscriptions is combined with the latest in archaeological and architectural analysis to give the reader a selective glimpse of how the people of Ephesos worshipped both the traditional deities and new gods that came into their purview. Overall, the essays raise questions about traditional understandings of material culture in ancient Ephesos, and come to conclusions that reflect more complicated and diverse views of the city and its inhabitants. At a site like Ephesos, that has been excavated for a century and a half, there is also an implicit lesson about the mutability of our archaeological information. New excavations, new technologies, and new perspectives can modify or supercede long-held views. This means that archaeological data must be used with care. Conclusions about any type of religious practice in Ephesos (or any other place) must be sensitive to new insights on structures, spaces, objects, or any other aspect of the archaeological enterprise.

PART 1 Structures

∵

Chapter 1

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos Sabine Ladstätter The following study1 is dedicated to the building complex in Ephesos that has entered scholarly literature as an imperial cult temple for Domitian (Plan 2, no. 30 and Plan 4, no. 13).2 In addition to an overview of the history of research and a review of its period of construction and usage, the late antique fate of the complex forms a particular focus of interest. 1

History of Research

The Temple of Domitian is located to the west of the Upper Agora on the north slope of Bülbüldağ.3 It was discovered in 1930 when the exposed area was investigated by Josef Keil with regard to the location of the so-called Parthian Monument.4 At that time the cella of the temple, the peristasis on the eastern and northern sides, and isolated sections of the stepped substructure were brought to light. Furthermore, the altar was also discovered in a test trench running east-west over the courtyard covered with paving stones. Immediately after the excavation, Max Theuer completed a reconstruction of the ground plan which is still valid today. It was hypothesized that colonnades formed an architectonic framing for the temenos, at least for the west, south and east sides. The excavator extrapolated the dating of the site and its meaning on the basis of two sculpture fragments, a head and a lower arm that were discovered in secondary use in a late antique-Byzantine wall built into the substructures.5 1  I would like to thank N. Gail, Ch. Kurtze and H. Schwaiger for their support and S. Cormack for the translation from German to English. 2  On this, see, summarising, Scherrer 1997; Thür 2004. See Kirbihler in this volume. S. Friesen (1993) has argued that the complex should be known as the Temple of the Flavian Sebastoi, and it is commonly denoted in the subsequent literature as either the Temple of Domitian or the Flavian imperial temple. 3  For the Upper Agora see a summary in Steuernagel in the present volume. 4  Keil 1932a. 5  Keil 1932a, 59–60.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_003

12

Ladstätter

He interpreted these fragments, parts of an acrolithic colossal statue, as pertaining to a cult image for the emperor Domitian and associated them with thirteen statue bases that were originally set up by various cities of Asia Minor in a sanctuary dedicated to that emperor.6 After his damnatio memoriae, his name was erased and replaced by that of his father Vespasian. Keil connected the material with the epigraphic and numismatic evidence that attests the existence of a neokorate for Ephesos under Domitian, and he subsequently identified the area he had excavated as an imperial cult sanctuary. In contrast, he dated the associated altar to the 3rd century ce on the basis of a stylistic analysis of the preserved relief plaques, connecting them with a renovation or reconstruction.7 Due to the extremely limited state of preservation, no secure conclusions were possible regarding the superstructure of the temple. This deficit was probably also the reason for the cessation of field research after only one campaign. It was only in 1958 that the so-called Terrace of Domitian again became the focus of research that continued until 1962.8 In the course of excavations directed by Franz Miltner and Fritz Eichler, approximately half of the area to the north of the temple site was exposed, and a ‘Domitian Street’ running to the south, as well as the adjacent tabernae on both sides, were investigated. Targeted excavations below ground level provided information on the earlier development of the area, revealing that it dated back at least to the Hellenistic period. Additionally, a test trench along the northern front of the temple terrace up to the western entrance to the cryptoporticus clarified the urban architectural context to the west. This work turned up an additional fragment of a colossal statue, consisting of the big toe of a left foot.9 Only a few years later, in 1969–70, officials of the Efes Müzesi in Selçuk under the direction of Sabahattin Türkoğlu and Recep Meriç organized the removal of debris from the western corridor of the cryptoporticus and found additional fragments.10 By this date at the latest it had become clear that the sculptural fragments belonged to more than one cult statue.11 In the 1970s investigations into the architectural history of the area finally took place, including the north façade of

6  Keil 1919, 17–18. 7  Keil 1932a, 57–58. 8  Miltner 1959b, 35; Miltner 1960, 23; Eichler 1962, 47; Eichler 1963, 57 (on work in the region of the Fountain of Laecanius Bassus); Eichler 1964, 41 (on research on the east of the Plaza of Domitian); summarising: Vetters 1972–75b, 311–30. 9  Eichler 1962, 47. 10  Türkoğlu and Meriç 1972; Meriç 1985, 239. 11  Meriç 1985, 240.

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

13

the Terrace of Domitian, culminating in a reconstruction proposal by Anton Bammer.12 The most recent research extended from 2009 until 2011 and encompassed excavations in the temple and at the western boundary of the temenos and the eastern area of the courtyard; a precise recording of the construction of the temple; and the first geophysical survey of the temenos.13 The altar also became the focus of current research.14 2

The Temple

In the center of the complex, a pseudo-dipteral temple with a peristyle of 8 × 13 columns (fig. 1.1c) stands on a six-stepped substructure (24 × 34 m). A pronaos with four prostyle columns is situated in front of the cella, which measures 7.5 × 13 m and is oriented to the east. There is no opisthodomos. In addition to the stepped substructure, only the foundations of the temple are preserved; not a single architectural element of the superstructure can be associated with the temple with any certainty. The architectural type of the pseudo-dipteral temple, where the extended peristasis almost constitutes a covered walkway around the cella, represents a Hellenistic development that was particularly popular in the 2nd century bce in Asia Minor.15 The Temple of Apollo in Alabanda and the Temple of Hekate in Lagina, both late Hellenistic foundations, can be cited as comparanda.16 Temples in Ankyra,17 Seleukeia at Kalykadnos18 and Aizanoi19 nevertheless provide evidence of the continuity of this type into the Roman imperial period. The Ephesian pseudo-dipteral temple must also be situated within this tradition, although it belongs to the smaller representatives of the type (fig. 1.2). Since nothing of the superstructure is preserved, no secure statements are possible regarding its architectural order. Reverses of coins which depict the neokorate temple have to be rejected as informative sources for this question 12  Vetters 1972, 8. Bammer 1978–80, 81–88; Bammer 1985, 124 fig. 26: The reconstruction is nevertheless no longer tenable. Demonstrably false is the orientation of the altar, the location of the colossal statue, and the height of the north façade. 13  Ladstätter et al. 2009, 15; Ladstätter et al. 2010, 56; Ladstätter et al. 2011, 9–11. 14  Landskron 2016. 15  Schulz 2012, 165. 16  See the summary in Schulz 2012, 167 fig. 1. 17  Kadioğlu, Görkay and Mitchell 2011, 79–98. 18  Berns 1998, 140. 19  Schulz 2010, 89.

14

Figure 1.1 Terrace of Domitian

Ladstätter

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

15

Figure 1.2 The Temple of Domitian and comparable pseudo-dipteral temples

due to the schematic nature of their representation.20 Although in general the Ionic order was the dominant form in pseudo-dipteral temples, nevertheless the examples in Lagina,21 Seleukeia22 and possibly also Ankyra23 reveal that the Corinthian order could also be employed. The cult statues must have been placed in the temple, although no traces of any bases could be identified, not even during the excavations of 2009, since the late antique disruptions were too great. Therefore the reconstruction of the installation has to remain hypothetical, and any evidence in this regard has to be obtained exclusively from the sculptural fragments. These reveal that cult statues existed at three times life-size, that is between 5 and 5.5 m; for these, bases of adequate size must have stood in the cella of the temple. The attribution of the colossal head to Domitian does not stand up to iconographic analysis. Instead, it is far more likely to have been an idealized portrait of his already-divinized brother, Titus (fig. 1.3),24 made out of dolomitic marble from Thasos, a material that was often used for the production of sculpture.25 From the remaining fragments, V. M. Strocka reconstructed a statue pair consisting of Vespasian in the costume of Jupiter, and, at his right, Titus in a cuirass turned towards him.26 S. Friesen increased the group to at least three ­emperors, namely Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, who was later replaced 20  Friesen 1993, 65; Karwiese 2012, 65 no. 260; 97 no. 426. 21  Tırpan, Gider and Büyüközer 2012, 185–86. 22  Berns 1998, 152. 23  Kadioğlu, Görkay and Mitchell 2011, 92–93; Görkay 2012, 209, 212. 24  Daltrop, Hausmann and Wegner 1966, 26, 38, 86; Kreikenbom 1992, 213. 25  Herrmann and Newman 1995, 78. 26  Strocka 1989, 92 n. 58.

16

Figure 1.3 Ephesos. Colossal head of Titus

Ladstätter

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

17

Figure 1.4 Temple of Domitian. View of the temple after the excavation

by Nerva.27 And finally P. Scherrer considered the possibility of up to five statues, whereby these would have been set up against the rear wall of the cella as well as along the sides.28 Due to the poor state of preservation of the building, the archaeological evidence provides no additional information, which was also confirmed by the excavations of 2009 (fig. 1.4). The rear area of the cella was robbed out to below the ancient level of usage, and was then completely destroyed by late antique-Byzantine installations.29 In the area towards the front, two paving slabs were recorded in their original position, yet nevertheless in a location where no statue bases could have been erected. Ultimately it cannot be determined how many imperial statues were set up in the cella, and to whom the temple was actually dedicated. The assumption that it was a sanctuary for the Flavian imperial house, however, finds support in the epigraphic evidence.30

27  Friesen 1993, 62. 28  Scherrer 2008, 37. 29  Ladstätter 2011, 8. 30  See already Keil 1919, 17–18.

18

Ladstätter

In late antiquity, the temple was demolished and a massive walled structure with an articulation of pillars on the exterior was set up in the location of the cella. In the interior, a number of compact mortar elements were documented. Based on comparisons with other building types, the structure, which is only preserved in a few places, has been interpreted as a cistern.31 In fact, a rectangular water reservoir, strengthened with pillars and dating to the Byzantine period, is found in nearby Ayasoluk. The cistern in Ayasoluk, however, was fed by the aqueduct that ran past it, and served to provide water for baths located at a lower level.32 What purpose, then, would a cistern located on the temple plateau have, in such an isolated location, with no connection to supply pipes, and no large-scale roofed area? What could have been supplied by it? Based on similar building forms used for Byzantine towers, the possibility of a structure of defensive nature should be considered, perhaps in connection with the Byzantine city wall, especially since the Terrace of Domitian provides outstanding visibility of the hinterland to the east, as well as the densely developed and fortified lower city, and the plain of the harbor to the west.33 The functions of such solitary towers, which have numerous parallels in the Byzantine world, are manifold. They served as watch-towers, landmarks, and also as storage buildings. Often a water reservoir would be located on the lowest level, so that the entrance to the tower was frequently situated at a higher level.34 3

The Altar

According to the survey work by Theuer, the 6.6 × 6.6 m altar was located 12.7 m to the east of the temple, and was aligned precisely with its axis.35 It was reconstructed as a U-shaped altar with a stepped approach from the west. Whereas during the excavations relief plaques from the southern boundary were discovered in situ, other architectonic elements were discovered in secondary use, yet very tastefully, as a fountain barrier in the lower city of Ephesos (fig. 1.5).36 Based on these very specific circumstances of preservation, it follows that parts of the altar were integrated into the late antique construction in the temenos, while others were removed and re-erected at other locations. 31  Keil 1932a, 54; Friesen 1993, 63. 32  Wiplinger 2011, 119. 33  Ladstätter 2011, 15–16, fig. 16. 34  Bakirtzis 2010, 354. 35  Keil 1932a, 55 fig. 37. 36  Landskron 2016, 251–52.

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

19

Figure 1.5 Ephesos. Plaques from the altar secondarily built into a Byzantine fountain

The photograph taken during the excavations (fig. 1.6) certainly does not correspond to the actual circumstances of discovery in situ; it instead depicts a re-erection. The architectural and functional context of the relief plaques in late antiquity can thus no longer be determined. It is likely that they were secondarily reused as a facing for a fountain. The reliefs depict a frieze of weapons extending over a number of slabs, as well as a sacrifice scene on the short sides that makes direct reference to the altar’s function. The dating of the reliefs and therefore also of the altar itself is controversial, extending from the mid-2nd century37 up to the early 3rd century.38 Recently, however, a date contemporary with the temple, that is, to the Flavian era, has also been proposed.39 The geophysical survey of the temenos in 2010 produced surprising results regarding the location of the altar (fig. 1.7). Clearly visible is an electromagnetic anomaly with the exact dimensions of the altar, yet displaced approximately 3.10 m to the west. The excavations confirmed the survey results, in that although no traces of the architecture were discovered due to the massive late antique spoliation, nevertheless the location of the altar was visible in the mortar bed. A survey error in the 1930s, on the one hand, might explain the 37  Alzinger 1980, 820. 38  Keil 1932a, 58. 39  Landskron 2016, 258.

20

Ladstätter

Figure 1.6 Temple of Domitian. Altar after its exposure in 1930

apparent displacement; on the other hand the displaced location might also indicate a renovation or a rebuilding of the altar. It also should not be ruled out that elements of the altar may not have been reused precisely in situ in late antiquity, but were slightly dislocated when they were integrated into the building complex. In any case it can nevertheless be accepted that the contemporary imperial altar stood further to the west and at a distance of 9.1 m from the temple (fig. 1.1c). 4

Dating and Cult Occupant

Keil had already associated the architectonic evidence and the sculptural finds with thirteen inscriptions that attest the existence of an imperial sanctuary in Ephesos.40 The bearers of the inscriptions are statue bases dedicated by a number of cities in Asia Minor in the sanctuary and erected at the cost of the entire province. With the bestowal of the neokorate, either in 81/82 ce or 84 ce, and the commencement of religious activity about five years later, Ephesos assumed the responsibility for the maintenance of the temple area 40  Keil 1919, 119; Scherrer 1997, 101; Engelmann 1998a, 307–8; Witulski 2007, 53–54.

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

21

Figure 1.7 Temple of Domitian. Geophysical image of the temple terrace

and the implementation of numerous festivals.41 The first person to be appointed archiereus was none other than Tiberius Claudius Aristion.42 Although their findspots, widely dispersed in Ephesos and its surroundings, allow no conclusions regarding the original site of installation of these inscriptions, nevertheless the temenos with its extensive colonnades is a likely candidate.43 The inscriptions, dated between 88 and 91 ce, were originally addressed to Emperor Domitian, and after his damnatio memoriae in 96 ce, to his father Vespasian.44 Even when he represented the central figure of the cult,45 the epigraphic evidence as well as the existence of more than one cult statue suggest a dedication to the Sebastoi, in which S. Friesen would like to recognise the Flavian imperial house.46 For an extension of the imperial dedication to include the Julio-Claudian imperial house, as proposed by P. Scherrer, there is neither substantive historical nor archaeological evidence.47 41  Scherrer 1997, 111. 42  Scherrer 1997, 115–17; Burrell 2004, 66; for the person of Aristion, see recently Quatember 2011, 50–52. 43  Friesen 1993, 29–49; Scherrer 1997, 101; Knibbe 1998, 132–33; Burrell 2004, 61; Scherrer 2008, 39. 44  Keil 1919, 119; Friesen 1993, 37 and, for the dating: 44; Knibbe 1998, 131; Maier 2006; Burrell 2004, 61; Witulski 2007, 59; Fischer 2012, 150. 45  Fischer 2012, 150. 46  Friesen 1993, 36. 47  Scherrer 1997, 101–6.

22

Ladstätter

Recently, however, the dating of the temple terrace has been put into question, and its construction has been connected instead to the awarding of a neokorate to Ephesos under Nero, a circumstance attested by numismatic evidence.48 Ultimately, the archaeological evidence is not unambiguous: the substructures were built on top of accumulations of soil that in the 1960s, based on the state of research at the time, were dated to the early imperial period; however, the material has been lost in the intervening years and can therefore no longer be examined.49 The temple area was so fundamentally robbed out that no secure statements are possible on the basis of the architectural decoration, the sculptural installations, or the epigraphic evidence. 5

The Temenos

The temple and its altar lie in a plaza paved with marble slabs and surrounded on all four sides by an 11.2 m wide, two-aisled colonnade (fig. 1.1c). The cryptoporticus beneath the porticoes provides a good indication of the width of the aisles of the colonnade, which uniformly measure 4.2 m. It is certain that the west and south sides of the colonnade had closed rear walls. On the west, a street running north-south is directly adjacent to the temenos, while on the south tabernae that are attached to the wall open up on the south onto a street that comes from the Upper Agora and runs to the west. It is highly probable that the colonnade on the east side opens up to the Agora and the colonnade on the north onto the Plaza of Domitian. As is the case with the temple itself, practically nothing of the upper elements of the colonnades is preserved. The architectural elements discovered during excavations in 2011 in the locations where they had fallen are an important exception; these should be interpreted as parts of the northern portico (fig. 1.8). The main entrance to the temenos was similarly located on the north, where a two-flight staircase, surmounting a difference in ground level of 10.5 m, led from the Plaza of Domitian to the temple. A secondary entrance can be extrapolated in the southeast, where a flight of stairs, later walled up, led from the cryptoporticus to the temple terrace.

48  Information kindly provided by R. Posamentir, whose new reading of the inscriptions and the resulting interpretations with regard to the Temple of Domitian are in press. For questions regarding a first neokorate, see also: Burrell 2004, 61–62; Fischer 2012, 149–50. For the coins associated with it: Karwiese 2012, 23. 49  Vetters 1972–75b, 324.

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

23

Figure 1.8 Temple of Domitian. Architectural elements of the northern colonnade in collapsed position

The temple terrace conforms to the Roman street grid and takes up the southern half of two insulae.50 Streets that border it on the west, south and east are evident, as well as a narrow alley that comes from the Plaza of Domitian and runs to the west along the north façade of the terrace. The terrace architecture communicates with the Plaza of Domitian situated to its north, from which it was also accessible.51 The Plaza of Domitian nevertheless takes up only the eastern half of the terrace. The western half, in contrast, seems to have been structurally detached from the plaza already in the Roman imperial period. The design of the north façade of the temple terrace also took this arrangement into consideration. 6

Substructures and North Façade

During the 1st century ce a surface area of 5550 m² must have been levelled, older structures razed, and levelling material filled in.52 On top of this, massive substructures were erected, accommodating a three-winged cryptoporticus 50  Groh 2006, fig. 20, Insulae 620–621. 51   Lang-Auinger 2014, 230. 52  Vetters 1972–75b, 323.

24

Ladstätter

Figure 1.9 Temple of Domitian. View into the cryptoporticus

with a total length of 175 m and a width of 3.9 m (fig. 1.1b).53 A total of 119 side niches, at a distance of 1.2–1.35 m, as well as windows that opened on to the temple terrace, articulated the corridor (fig. 1.9). Two entrances are evident: one in the southeast opposite the nymphaeum of Laecanius Bassus and an additional one in the northwest leading into a colonnade placed in front of it (fig. 1.10). These also formed the second storey of the north façade (fig. 1.1b). In the northeast the situation is a little less clear, although the preserved architectonic evidence speaks in favour of an entrance configured analogously to the west side. The walled up surface observed here must date to a later period, since a window opening to the temple terrace is still preserved right on the northeast corner (fig. 1.11). In the current state of preservation the walls of the cryptoporticus are coated with white plaster, yet this could represent a late antique phase of decoration. This hypothesis is supported by a fresco of Demeter that was covered with white plaster, found in the eastern ambulatory in the 1960s (fig. 1.12).54 It therefore cannot be ruled out that additional frescoes are concealed beneath the white plaster.

53  Vetters 1972–75b, 319–21; see, summarising, Luschin 2002, 140–41. 54  Vetters 1972–75b, 314; Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, 128 fig. 231.

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

Figure 1.10

Temple of Domitian. Doric colonnade in the west of the temple terrace

Figure 1.11

Temple of Domitian. North-eastern termination of the cryptoporticus with window opening onto the temple area

25

26

Figure 1.12

Ladstätter

Temple of Domitian. Fresco of Demeter from the cryptoporticus

The conscious use of a cryptoporticus can probably be traced back to western influence.55 The passage was planned as a promenade, and it is unusual in the eastern Roman empire both due to its date as well as its function; a parallel can rather be found in Rome in the Neronian Palace on the Palatine. But the 55  Luschin 2002, 141; Scherrer 2008, 39.

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

27

manner of construction of the Temple of Zeus at Aizanoi should also not be left out of consideration: here, a barrel-vaulted substructure was erected to create the plateau for the temple, which was dedicated in 92 ce and is therefore chronologically comparable. In addition, the temenos was bordered by porticoes.56 The cryptoporticus in Ephesos communicates directly with the temple area via the regularly placed window openings, and its numerous niches also reveal a decorative arrangement. Moreover, the north façade of the temple terrace could also be accessed from the vaulted passage. This architectural solution suggests a direct association with religious activities such as processions. This hypothesis is supported by the rich evidence of finds from the cryptoporticus. In particular, numerous lamps from the high imperial period are chronologically relevant; in contrast the late antique lamp types are only sporadically attested.57 On the north and east, on the street sides, square rooms were built into the substructures; these can be identified as workshops or tabernae due to their form as well as their specific inventory (fig. 1.1a).58 On the north side, the flight of steps is flanked on both sides by four rooms each, of which the one in the northeast corner can be identified as a public lavatory. Nine tabernae can be reconstructed in the western half of the terrace. In the east were also a total of nine tabernae and the entrance to the cryptoporticus. Numerous alterations and adaptions are evidence of the long period of usage of these streetside shops, extending far into late antiquity and, in the final phase, causing a narrowing of the street.59 Particular attention was paid to the configuration of the northern end of the temple terrace. Whereas the eastern half, oriented towards the plaza of Domitian, was articulated with a façade, the western half must be understood as a closed building (fig. 1.1). The walls are preserved here up to the second floor and therefore allow a secure reconstruction. At ground level the already mentioned nine tabernae are evident; in the second floor was the Doric colonnade, which was closed off to the north, from which the cryptoporticus was accessible. Precisely here, built into a Byzantine wall in secondary usage, were found not only the fragments of the colossal statue, but also the head from a statue of Hekate as well as three marble heads, namely, a late Republican

56  Schulz 2010, 97. 57  Tek 1972, figs. 1–3. 58  Eichler 1961, 73; Vetters 1972–75b, 314. 59  Vetters, 1972–75b, 316–17.

28

Figure 1.13

Ladstätter

Temple of Domitian. Façade articulation in the east of the temple terrace, including architectural collage

portrait, and the portraits of Claudius and Trajan, as well as other sculpture fragments.60 The articulation of the eastern façade terminates at the Plaza of Domitian, frames the entrance to the sanctuary, and emphasizes it architectonically (fig. 1.13). A reconstruction of the façade is not currently possible based on the evidence. This is due, on the one hand, to the fact that the area was strongly altered by late antique rebuilding. Some examples of these are a row of columns in the place of the imperial façade, as well as a decrease in size and a compartmentalization of the Plaza of Domitian. On the other hand, the intensive stone robbing means that very little of the original architecture and equipment remained in situ. For example, the two Doric half-columns, as well as the pilaster figures rebuilt and visible on site today in an architectural trial restoration, were found in the area of the Lower Agora.61 Their attribution to the façade of the temple terrace occurred merely on the grounds of strong similarities to the architectural ornamentation of other buildings located around the Plaza of Domitian.62 Additionally, the interpretation of the existing evidence appears to be ex60  Türkoğlu and Meriç 1972; Aurenhammer 2011, 109. 61  Vetters 1972, 8; Landskron 2005, 187. 62  Bammer 1978–80, 88; Landskron 2005, 195; Strocka 2010, 47–48.

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

29

tremely hypothetical: on the basis of only two pilaster figures—a male oriental barbarian and a female figure in the form of a caryatid—it has been concluded that an entire gallery of barbarian figures once decorated the length of the north façade.63 The lack of research of the architectural history represents the greatest problem, making it practically impossible to arrive at secure statements. But it is obvious that the western half of the northern façade has to be understood as a closed stoa, while the eastern half was open to the square in front of it. A three-storeyed arrangement of the façade, with Doric, Ionic and Corinthian orders, can be postulated, with the uppermost storey constituting at the same time the northern portico of the temenos.64 A first storey of eight Doric halfcolumns on each side of the staircase can be reconstructed with certainty due to the still-visible traces of their positions. Behind this runs a row of tabernae. The second storey can be reconstructed above this, to which the supportive pilasters with human figures are assigned, for which there is indeed no secure evidence based on finds, although there are parallels for this at other sites.65 The third storey may have formed a portico extending over the entire length of the temenos, from which architectural elements were discovered during excavations (see above). The façade architecture, which seems to have been oriented towards western prototypes,66 chiefly served to accentuate the entrance to the imperial precinct. The originally vaulted approach over a staircase, located in the middle of the façade, consists of a 4.3 m wide flight of stairs leading to a forecourt, paved with marble slabs and with a fountain niche, at the south (fig. 1.14). From here the staircases branch out to either side and lead to the plateau.67 7

The Late Antique Usage of the Temenos

Research in the years 2009–2011 mainly focused on the late antique fate of the imperial cult sanctuary.68 The poor state of preservation, due to severe destruction as well as intensive stone-robbing activities, has already been mentioned. Many architectural elements were found in the lower city and along 63  Thür 1985, 184; Landskron 2005, 195. 64  Vetters 1972–75b, 391 fig. 7; Bammer 1978–80, 81–83; Friesen 1993, 70–71; Scherrer 2008, 39. 65  Corinth: Strocka 2010, 50–51; Rome: Scherrer 2008, 39. 66  Thür 1985, 184. 67  Vetters 1972–75b, 315–16. 68  This work took place in the context of the focussed program “Byzantine Ephesos”: on this, see an overview in Ladstätter 2017.

30

Figure 1.14

Ladstätter

Temple of Domitian. Flight of stairs to the temenos

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

31

the Kouretes Street,69 while some of the dedicatory inscriptions were even discovered built into Ottoman bridges in the Kaystros valley.70 Moreover, the excavations of 2011 revealed that, indeed, large amounts of spolia dating to the imperial period were employed in the late antique buildings on the temenos, whereby the original surfaces were also almost completely worked away. This is particularly evident in the carefully erased inscriptions which were built into the wall systems as ashlar blocks. The latest interventions occurred in the 20th century, when the Upper Agora and presumably also the temple area were levelled for tobacco cultivation, and the stones were removed. This agricultural usage can be shown to have continued until 1962. Turning to the process of the destruction of the imperial cult temple, one can note that, whereas the building materials from the temple and altar were already completely demolished, reworked or reused already in antiquity, the in situ marble slabs of the courtyard paving or—where these were lacking, the mortar substructure—are partly preserved. Over these lay a 15–20 cm thick burned layer, in which numerous parts of the temple architecture, broken into small pieces, as well as statue fragments survived (fig. 1.15). Particularly worthy of mention are architectural elements from the northern colonnade, which collapsed directly onto the courtyard paving. Coins and pottery date the destruction of the temple and its colonnades to the early 5th century ce. At this point in time, the temple was indeed destroyed. It was completely demolished, and the building material was removed, used secondarily, or reworked at the site, but the colonnades were nevertheless left in place. In addition, the courtyard paving was removed. In order to clarify the question of how this prominently located area was used in late antiquity, geophysical investigations were carried out in 2010, revealing an intensive development of 395 m² in the east of the temenos. In addition, the western termination could be detected. In 2011, the survey results were then verified and modified by means of focused archaeological excavations. The trenches were oriented toward the traces of walls visible in the ground-penetrating radar (GPR); the crowns of the walls were already 30–40 cm beneath the surface. It was possible to ascertain that a complex late antique structure existed here, one which was impressive not only due to its size but also due to its elaborate features (fig. 1.16). A courtyard area was also excavated, which was paved with marble slabs and originally displayed monumental marble architecture, of which columns, half-columns and capitals were preserved. The architectural elements lay in a 69  Bammer 1978–80, 81. 70  Maier 2006, 117–18.

32

Ladstätter

Figure 1.15

Temple of Domitian. Destruction level on the temple forecourt

Figure 1.16

Overview of the late antique buildings in the temenos

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

33

massive collapsed layer, up to 1.2 m thick, of bricks and tiles, broken stone, and mortar. The eastern border of the courtyard was formed by the inner row of columns of a colonnade of late antique date. To the north of the court a room with a wooden roof was added. The room itself could be entered from the west, and featured a poorly preserved floor of marble slabs. In the middle stood four column bases put together out of spolia, and on which dowel holes and pouring channels from the late antique phase survive. The columns that were originally placed here have not survived. In order to reach the western termination of the courtyard, the excavation was extended to the west, where an entrance was also identified in the 60 cm thick, north-south running boundary wall. In addition, a small latrine was discovered in the southwest of the courtyard. In the south lay a rectangular room oriented east-west, with a surface area of 50 m², of which approximately one quarter could be excavated. The floor was extensively laid with a polychrome floor mosaic, which can be counted amongst the most beautiful and best-preserved late antique mosaics from Ephesos (fig. 1.17).71 The figural field was framed by a repeated pattern of ivy leaves, which was partially destroyed in the east by the construction of the entrance and by the marble plaques that were laid at the time of construction. The almost square, 1 m² large fields alternate between meanders and figural motifs. In the pictorial fields, only sea creatures are depicted, including a variety of types of fish as well as a mythical creature consisting of a lion’s head and paws, wings, and a fish tail. To the south of this area a civic nymphaeum was discovered (fig. 1.18). This was a three-part fountain with a central apsidal niche and rectangular niches placed at the sides. Basins and niches were faced with marble slabs, and broken pieces of these were found in situ. The scoop mechanisms were located to the east, where the fountain was also fenced off with decorated marble plaques. Although only the impressions and the lead dowelling of the wide central and southern plaques could be found, the northern plaque could be salvaged. This displays a sculpturally worked rosette framed by a lozenge. Water was drained from the nymphaeum by a system of channels to the east, where the main channel was also located. The mechanisms for water management were located in a side room with a paved floor, located to the west of the nymphaeum. The area also served as a storage space, as here numerous amphoras were found, which can be reconstructed as complete vessels. Aside from the architectonic evidence, the portable pieces of equipment may also 71   Scheibelreiter-Gail 2016, 346–47.

34

Ladstätter

Figure 1.17

Mosaic floor in the late antique building

Figure 1.18

Late antique nymphaeum

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

Figure 1.19

35

Door knockers

be mentioned. Exemplary are two bronze door knockers (fig. 1.19), a butcher’s knife and a steelyard (fig. 1.20). The structure was probably laid out already in the first half of the 5th century, that is, shortly after the destruction of the temple. A preliminary review of the ceramic material as well as the evaluation of the coin spectrum leads to the conclusion that the building was already abandoned by the end of the 6th century. There are no finds from the 7th century so a period of usage in the mid- or even late Byzantine era can be ruled out. The late antique evidence from the Terrace of Domitian therefore is clearly differentiated from that of the lower city of Ephesos, where there is a secure continuity at least until the mid-7th century ce.72 It does correspond, however, to the discoveries made at the Upper Agora, where a fundamental transformation of the plaza and its surrounding buildings was already introduced in the early 6th century.73 The excavations at the Temple of Domitian have enabled the identification of the precise time of destruction of the temple; in addition it became clear that although the temple itself was demolished down to its foundations, the colonnades at the side and also the revetment plaques of the altar remained in use. The damnatio was so thorough that even in the late antique building 72  On the phenomenon of the gradual relocation of the settlement, see Ladstätter 2011, 9. 73  Schindel and Ladstätter 2016, 390.

36

Figure 1.20

Ladstätter

Butcher’s knife and steelyard

erected in the area immediately after the destruction of the temple, no clearly assignable spolia have been found. On the contrary, inscriptions were carefully erased before the stone blocks were reused. It was also not possible to ascribe secondarily reused building elements to the temple architecture with any certainty, as their destruction was simply too great. The persistency with which the demolition work was carried out indicates an intentional procedure. The colonnade structures were retained and integrated into later building measures, while the central area was transformed into a building site. In the case of the Temple of Domitian, the plaza area was built over already by the early 5th century. Furthermore, the new buildings represented secular architecture, precisely structures of a prestigious, mercantile character. And last, it is clear that the temple itself was not transformed into a church.

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

37

Bibliography Alzinger, W. 1980. “Ephesos vom Beginn der römischen Herrschaft in Kleinasien bis zum Ende der Principatszeit: B. Archäologischer Teil.” ANRW 2.7.2: 811–30. Aurenhammer, M. 2011. “Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Imperial Portraits from Ephesos.” In Roman Sculpture in Asia Minor, 101–15. Edited by F. D’Andria and I. Romeo. JRASup 80. Portsmouth, RI: JRA. Bakirtzis, N. 2010. “The Practice, Perception and Experience of Byzantine Fortification.” In The Byzantine World, 352–71. Edited by P. Stephenson. New York: Routledge. Bammer, A. 1978–80. “Elemente flavisch-trajanischer Architekturfassaden aus Ephesos.” ÖJh 52: 67–90. Bammer, A. 1985. Architektur und Gesellschaft in der Antike. 2nd edition. Vienna: Böhlau. Berns, C. 1998. “Zur Datierung der Tempel in Seleukia am Kalykadnos und in ElaiussaSebaste Kilikien.” MDAI(D) 10: 136–54. Burrell, B. 2004. Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden: Brill. Daltrop, G., U. Hausmann and M. Wegner. 1966. Das römische Herrscherbild 2.1: Die Flavier: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Julia Titi, Domitilla, Domitia. Berlin: Mann. Eichler, F. 1961. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1960.” AAWW 98: 65–74. Eichler, F. 1962. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1961.” AAWW 99: 37–53. Eichler, F. 1963. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1962.” AAWW 100: 45–59. Eichler, F. 1964. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1963.” AAWW 101: 39–44. Engelmann, H. 1998a. “Ephesiaca.” ZPE 121: 305–11. Fischer, J. 2012. “Herrscherverehrung im antiken Ephesos.” In Rituale: Identitäts­ s­ tiftende Handlungskomplexe: 2. Tagung des Zentrums Archäologie und Alter­ tumswissenschaften an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2.–3. November 2009, 139–56. Edited by G. Danek and I. Hellerschmid. Vienna: ÖAW. Friesen, S. 1993. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden: Brill. Görkay, K. 2012. “The Temple of Augustus and Roma in Ancyra: A Reassessment.” In Dipteros und Pseudodipteros: Bauhistorische und archäologische Forschungen, 203– 18. Edited by T. Schulz. Byzas 12. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Groh, S. 2006. “Neue Forschungen zur Stadtplanung in Ephesos.” ÖJh 75: 47–116. Herrmann, J. J. and R. Newman. 1995. “The Exportation of Dolomitic Sculptural Marble from Thasos: Evidence from Mediterranean and Other Collections.” In The Study of

38

Ladstätter

Marble and Other Stones Used in Antiquity, 73–86. Edited by Y. Maniatis, N. Herz and Y. Baziakos. Asmosia 3. London: Archetype. Kadioğlu, M., K. Görkay and S. Mitchell. 2011. Roma Dönemi’nde Ankyra. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Karwiese, S. 2012. Die Münzprägung von Ephesos, 5: Katalog und Aufbau der römerzeitli­ chen Stadtprägung mit allen erfassbaren Stempelnachweisen. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 14. Vienna: Österreichische Forschungsgesellschaft für Numismatik. Keil, J. 1919. “Die erste Kaiserneokorie von Ephesos.” NZ 52: 115–20. Keil, J. 1932a. “XVI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 27, Beiheft: 1–72. Knibbe, D. 1998. Ephesus: Geschichte einer bedeutenden antiken Stadt und Porträt einer modernen Großgrabung. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kreikenbom, J. 1992. Griechische und römische Kolossalporträts bis zum späten ersten Jahrhundert nach Christus. JDAISup 27. Berlin: de Gruyter. Ladstätter, S. 2011. “Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit: Das letzte Kapitel einer antiken Großstadt.” In Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit, 3–30. Edited by F. Daim and S. Ladstätter. Mainz: RGZm. Ladstätter, S. 2017. “Ephesus.” In The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia: From the End of Late Antiquity until the Coming of the Turks, 238–48. Edited by P. Niewöhner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2009. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäol­ ogischen Instituts 2009. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/ OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2009.pdf. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2010. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2010. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/ Institute/OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2010.pdf. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2011. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2011. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/ Institute/OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2011.pdf. Landskron, A. 2005. “Die Pfeilerfiguren der Domitiansterrasse in Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger, 187–95. Edited by B. Beck-Brandt, V. Gassner and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos. Landskron, A. 2016. “Architectural Ornament under the Flavian Dynasty in Asia Minor: The Case of the Altar of the Temple of Domitian and Other Monuments in Ephesus.” In Décor: Decorazione e architettura nel mondo Romano: Atti del Convegno internazionale, 251–62. Edited by P. Pensabene et al. Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Lang-Auinger, C. 2014. “Römische Tempelanlagen in griechischen Städten.” In Akten des 14. Österreichischen Archäologentages am Institut für Archäologie der Universität Graz vom 19. bis 21. April 2012, 229–37. Edited by E. Trinkl. Vienna: Phoibos.

The So-Called Imperial Cult Temple for Domitian in Ephesos

39

Luschin, E. M. 2002. Cryptoporticus: Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte eines multifunktion­ alen Baukörpers. ErgÖJh 5. Vienna: ÖAI. Maier, C. 2006. “Die Weiheinschriften zur Verleihung der ersten Kaiserneokorie an Ephesos IvE II 232–235, 237–242; V 1498; VI 2048: Das Schriftbild.” Tyche 21: 117–30. Meriç, R. 1985. “Rekonstruktionsversuch der Kolossalstatue des Domitian in Ephesos.” In Pro Arte Antiqua: Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner, 2: 239–41. Edited by W. Alzinger. SoSchrÖAI 18.2. Vienna: Koska. Miltner, F. 1959b. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1958.” AAWW 96: 31–43. Miltner, F. 1960. “XXIV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 45, Beiheft: 1–76. Quatember, U. 2011. Das Nymphaeum Traiani in Ephesos. FiE 11.2. Vienna: ÖAW. Scheibelreiter-Gail, V. 2016. “Ephesos: The New Finds.” In Estudios sobre mosai­ cos antiguos y medievales, 342–51. Edited by L. Neira Jiménez. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Scherrer, P. 1997. “Anmerkungen zum städtischen und provinzialen Kaiserkult: Paradigma Ephesos: Entwicklungslinien von Augustus bis Hadrian.” In “… und ver­ schönerte die Stadt …”: Ein ephesischer Priester des Kaiserkultes in seinem Umfeld, 93–112. Edited by H. Thür. SoSchrÖAI 27. Vienna: ÖAW. Scherrer, P. 2008. “Die Stadt als Festplatz: Das Beispiel der ephesischen Bauprogramme rund um die Kaiserneokorien Domitians und Hadrians.” In Festrituale in der römischen Kaiserzeit, 35–65. Edited by J. Rüpke. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schindel, N. and S. Ladstätter. 2016. “An Early Byzantine Hoard from Ephesos.” NC 176: 390–98. Schulz, T. 2010. “Die Gebälk- und Dachkonstruktion des Zeustempels.” In Aizanoi und Anatolien, 88–97. Edited by K. Rheidt. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Schulz, T. 2012. “Vergleich der Pseudodipteroi: Aufbau und Konstruktion.” In Dipteros und Pseudodipteros: Bauhistorische und archäologische Forschungen, 165–79. Edited by T. Schulz. Byzas 12. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Strocka, V. M. 1989. “Zeus, Marnas und Klaseas: Ephesische Brunnenfiguren von 93 n. Chr.” In Festschrift für Jale Inan, 77–92. Edited by N. Başgelen. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Strocka, V. M. 2010. Die Gefangenenfassade an der Agora von Korinth: Ihr Ort in der rö­ mischen Kunstgeschichte. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Tek, F. 1972. “1969–1970 Yılı Domitianus Tapınağı Kriptoportik Kazısında Bulunan Kandiller.” Efes Harabeleri ve Müzesi Yilliği 1: 36–42. Thür, H. 1985. “Ephesische Bauhütten in der Zeit der Flavier und der Adoptivkaiser.” In Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festschrift für H. Vetters, 181–87. Edited by M. Kandler et al. Vienna: A. Holzhausen.

40

Ladstätter

Thür, H. 2004. “Ephesos: Bauprogramme für den Kaiser.” In Macht der Archiktur— Architektur der Macht, 221–30. Edited by E. L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Tırpan, A., Z. Gider and A. Büyüközer. 2012. “The Temple of Hekate at Lagina.” In Dipteros und Pseudodipteros: Bauhistorische und archäologische Forschungen, 181– 202. Edited by T. Schulz. Byzas 12. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Türkoğlu, S. 1972. “Domitianus Kriptoportik’i Kazısında Bulunan Portreler.” Efes Harabeleri ve Müzesi Yıllığı 1: 15–31. Türkoğlu, S. and R. Meriç. 1972. “Domitian Kripto-portiği Kazısı Ön Raporu.” Efes Harabeleri ve Müzesi Yıllığı 1: 5–11. Vetters, H. 1972. “Ephesos: Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1971.” AAWW 109: 1–20. Vetters, H. 1972–75b. “Grabungen in Ephesos von 1960–1969 bzw. 1970: Domitiansterrasse und Domitiangasse.” ÖJh 50: 310–30. Wiplinger, G. 2011. “Die Wasserversorgung von Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit.” In Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit, 103–23. Edited by F. Daim and S. Ladstätter. Mainz: RGZm. Witulski, T. 2007. Kaiserkult in Kleinasien: Die Entwicklung der kultisch-religiösen Kaiserverehrung in der römischen Provinz von Augustus bis Antoninus Pius. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Zimmermann, N. and S. Ladstätter. 2011. Wall Painting in Ephesos from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Chapter 2

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos: First Results of the Building Research Thekla Schulz The temple of the so-called Serapeion is one of the best preserved and most impressive examples of monumental architecture in ancient Ephesos. The Serapeion was built near the Lower Agora and east of the harbor at the foot of Bülbüldağ most probably in the second half of the 2nd century ce (Plan 2, no. 67).1 Most of the architectural members were found collapsed some time after the 11th century ce (figs. 2.1–2.4). These conditions of preservation allow for a detailed reconstruction of the whole building with the exact position of the architectural elements.2 The excavation of the Serapeion started in 1911 and continued in 1913 under the direction of Rudolf Heberdey and architect Wilhelm Wilberg. They interpreted the building as a temple consecrated to the Roman emperor Claudius.3 In 1913 Heberdey and Wilberg excavated the cella and the porch down to the floor and uncovered the architectural elements that had fallen down in that area and on the flight of steps in front of the temple. A drawing made by Wilberg shows the first ground plan of the building with a narrow little channel on the floor that was revetted with thin, colored slabs of marble. Vertical channels for water pipes below the niches in the side walls and on both sides of the central apse on the rear wall correspond with this channel. A vertical channel is also found in the back wall of the apse (fig. 2.2 and 2.4). As a result of these channels and water pipes Heberdey changed his initial interpretation of the temple and thereafter considered it a nymphaeum.4 In 1915 Josef Keil

1  The temple was converted into a church and used until at least the 11th century ce, based on the radiocarbon dating of a skeleton found in the presbyterium (Steskal, Rembart, Pülz and Binder 2015, 286). 2  These are our preliminary results on the basis of such architectural analysis. We hope that future campaigns will enable us to strengthen these results with additional lines of argument. 3  Heberdey 1912, 182. 4  Heberdey 1915, 77–88, fig. 28–32.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_004

42

Schulz

Figure 2.1 Serapeion. Perspective drawing from W. Wilberg and M. Theuer

argued against this interpretation and proposed that the building was a temple for gods who were venerated with water.5 In 1926, after World War I, the excavations continued under the direction of Josef Keil, Franz Miltner, and Max Theuer. They excavated the courtyard in front of the temple and the propylon. Beneath the propylon, two statue bases were found which had been used in a secondary context.6 Keil supposed that their original position was not far from this find spot. The eastern base bears an inscription that begins with a dedication to the Roman emperor Caracalla. This fragmentary inscription mentions “those people who make offerings to Serapis at my god Nile.” Since that time the temple has been connected with the worship of the Egyptian God Serapis. The western base, too, is connected with Egypt. Its inscription mentions a high administrator who worked in Egypt. The name of the Roman Emperor Commodus was erased. Worship of the Egyptian Gods Isis and Serapis in Ephesos is attested by other inscriptions 5  Keil 1915, 279–86. 6  Keil 1926.

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

Figure 2.2 Temple of Serapis. Ground plan from W. Wilberg

43

44

Figure 2.3 Temple of Serapis. Aerial photo

Figure 2.4 Temple of Serapis. Interior view

Schulz

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

45

found near the harbor and the Library of Celsus, but, unfortunately, they lack architectural context.7 A perspective drawing made by Max Theuer shows the integration of the temple into the precinct with the surrounding stoas and propylon. The front of the temple rests high on a podium above the flight of steps and the doors in the pediment (fig. 2.1).8 After 64 years, the excavations were resumed by Gerhard Langmann, Friedrich Hueber and Peter Scherrer. Their research from 1990 to 1992 concentrated on the stoas and the courtyard in front of the temple. Peter Scherrer proposed an interpretation of the building as a Mouseion because of the niches and corridors.9 It is the central aim of our research project, which began in 2011, to reassess the existing interpretations of the precincts. Our methodological approach is to take the exact measurement of each architectural element. This enables us to recognize all details of the complex structure. First, the position of each block as it lay after the destruction of the temple by an earthquake was documented by laser scan (fig. 2.3). Thereafter, over 300 architectural elements were drawn by hand, described, photographed, and inventoried in a database. In 2014 all the remains of the temple, which are positioned in situ—walls, niches, pediments and water channels—were documented. The research on the construction led to graphic reconstructions in which every architectural element was registered with an inventory number (fig. 2.16). The temple building was surrounded by a large rectangular precinct (100 × 75 m) with its south side cut into the bedrock. The cella measures 17.24 × 20.18 m (interior). The front of the temple is composed of eight Corinthian columns. In front of these columns there was a monumental flight of steps with two intermediate landings leading from the precinct up to the temple entrance. The steps together with the stringers were built on a separate foundation after the construction of the temple had been finished. The marble that was used for the steps did not come from Proconnesos like the other parts of the temple, but from Ephesos itself,10 and the steps were originally destined for another context. Some bear parts of a bilingual inscription, others are decorated with two fasciae or a frieze without ornamentation. They probably belonged originally to a stoa that cannot be located at present (fig. 2.3).

7  Detailed information in Hölbl 1978, 18–53. 8  Keil 1926, 265–71, fig. 53; Keil 1964, 102–5, fig. 54–55. 9  Scherrer 2005, 109–38, fig. 1–15. 10  This information comes from the analysis of the marble by Walter Prochaska (personal communication, 2014).

46

Schulz

Due to the temple’s elevation on a podium, its flight of steps, and its position at the rear side of a sacred precinct, it stands in the tradition of urban Roman architecture, a type which can be found everywhere in the Roman empire in the 2nd century ce. The frieze with erotes is a common motif of architectural decoration in Ephesos, and this is also the case with the other decorative elements. The enormous expenditure for the construction of the temple, however, was extraordinary, especially the exclusive use of monolithic architectural elements. The huge dimensions of the main door, too, are unusual characteristics. The doorway of the temple is remarkable because of its height (9.30 m) and width (5.33 m). It is a tectonic masterpiece of monolithic architectural elements. The threshold and the lower parts of the door jambs are still in situ. Many fragments of the door jambs, the lintel, the frieze over the lintel (hyperthyron), and the consoles are preserved. Two oversized marble dowels with their corresponding dowel holes connect the two layers of the hyperthyron. Two huge leaves were moved on wheels that rolled along curved bronze strips inserted into the marble step. In the same way, six screens of a bronze grill between the two door-jambs could be moved. A door of these dimensions is rarely preserved (figs. 2.1–2.7).11 The columns and the entablature on the front side consist of monolithic marble blocks as well. The column shafts, for instance, can be reconstructed with a height of 12 m and a weight of 40 tons; the total height of the columns was circa 14 m with a lower diameter of 1.358 m. Out of the eight columns on the front side six are preserved, broken into many fragments. Most of the column bases and half of the shafts are unfinished. Out of eight capitals five are preserved. One of them is extraordinarily well conserved and precisely worked out. It may have served as a prototype for the others (figs. 2.8–2.9). The architraves are more or less well preserved. Their exact position can be identified because of the spot where they fell, the elaboration of the soffits, and their different lengths. The soffits show tendril ornaments that are alternatively oriented in transverse or longitudinal directions. Only the architrave, which was positioned above the middle span, was decorated in a special manner with floral leaves. The architrave blocks have a depth of 1.85 m and a length of more than 3 m at their upper layer. Because of these dimensions the ropes that were fixed in the Lewis sockets could not be moved from the scaffolds. Therefore, at the narrow ends of the architraves special holes had been worked in order to be able to move the blocks into their exact position. This special type of Lewis socket is unique. As a result, we can determine not only the direction the blocks were moved (from east to west), but also the front and 11  For the reconstruction of this door, see Ruppert 2015.

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

47

Figure 2.5 Temple of Serapis. Middle block, first layer of hyperthyron (frieze over the lintel) with two marble dowels

rear side of the blocks, which otherwise could not have been distinguished (fig. 2.10–13). The design of the frieze is of special interest. The arrangement of the decoration follows a special plan with tendrils growing out of acanthus leaves on both sides with erotes and animals. Altogether fourteen erotes and fourteen animals can be reconstructed. After each round tendril motif a half palmette follows. The northwestern corner block of the frieze is decorated with a griffin. Here the veins of the marble are easily discernible.12 All frieze blocks from the western half of the cornice are preserved. The arrangement of the decoration can be determined, with three acanthus leaves, four rounded tendrils, and, again, three acanthus leaves. The axis line of the frieze can be reconstructed 12  Walter Prochaska has determined that the marble used for all monolithic blocks came from the island of Proconnesos in the Marmara region, Prochaska and Grillo 2012.

48

Figure 2.6 Temple of Serapis. Middle block, first layer of the hyperthyron

Figure 2.7 Temple of Serapis. Middle block, second layer of the hyperthyron with dowel hole

Schulz

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

Figure 2.8 Temple of Serapis. Column capital

Figure 2.9 Temple of Serapis. Column capital, close-up

49

50

Schulz

Figure 2.10

Temple of Serapis. Northeastern corner architrave

Figure 2.11

Temple of Serapis. Northeast corner architrave, inner side with three fascia

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

Figure 2.12

Temple of Serapis. Northeast corner architrave, eastern side

Figure 2.13

Temple of Serapis. Northeast corner architrave, western side with Lewis hole

51

Figure 2.14

Temple of Serapis. Temple frieze, front

52 Schulz

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

53

as 3.91 m corresponding to 12 feet of 32.5 cm. At the rear side of the frieze blocks—exactly at those points where on the front side three acanthus leaves appear—there are U-shaped cuttings with a breadth of 1.05 m, which coordinates architectural decoration and construction details in an unusual fashion. On the basis of these U-shaped cuttings a wooden ceiling construction can be reconstructed that was positioned above the architraves and reached up to the thresholds of the doors in the pediment. Its height can be reconstructed as 1.78 m. This ceiling consisted of wooden beams and inserted cassette elements, a kind of three dimensional supporting structure (figs. 2.14–2.16). Dentils, cornice, and sima were made from a single block of stone. The huge monolithic blocks at the eastern and western corner and the top of the pediment are preserved as well as are most of the blocks of the horizontal and raking cornice. Because of these unique conditions it is possible to make a detailed reconstruction of the process of construction for the pediment with the lintels and reveals of the three doors (fig. 2.17–2.20). Some of the architectural elements of the cella worked in marble are preserved. Two Corinthian corner antae capitals were positioned at the corners of the niches. Then come wall frieze blocks decorated with Ionic and Lesbian cyma and an anthemion frieze. The corner antae capitals show a profile elaborated for the connection with these wall friezes on one side. Therefore the

Figure 2.15

Temple of Serapis. Back side of the frieze blocks with U-shaped cuttings

54

Schulz

Figure 2.16

Temple of Serapis. Reconstruction of the pediment and the wooden ceiling construction

Figure 2.17

Temple of Serapis. Pediment

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

Figure 2.18

Temple of Serapis. Crown cornice block (2.17.88)

55

56

Schulz

Figure 2.19

Temple of Serapis. Left corner cornice block (2.17.111)

Figure 2.20

Temple of Serapis. Right corner cornice block (2.17.65)

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

Figure 2.21

57

Temple of Serapis. Reconstructed cross-section

capitals belonged to the apse, and the friezes to the walls of the apse. There are two pedestals (postaments) corresponding to the capitals. For the eastern one the impression in the corner of the apse is preserved. These corner antae capitals, which are small in comparison with the columns of the pronaos, were not positioned immediately beneath the architraves of the cella walls, but at a certain distance. The wall frieze block in the middle served as the lower edge of a niche oriented to the rear side of the apse. This block bears an inscription (unpublished) on the outside as well as a setting for a bronze object (fig. 2.21). Behind the door sits a room of completely unexpected dimensions. The front of the temple with its monumental porch suggests that the cella should be wider. With a width of 17 m, a length of 20 m and a height of 14 m the proportions are compact and stout. The surrounding walls are framed by niches and an apse where water flowed and gathered into a channel below the monumental doorstep (figs. 2.2, 2.4, 2.21). Water installations were important for purification in Egyptian religions.13 The water symbolized the river Nile who was identified with Osiris. The worshippers were confronted with water, which served as a symbol for immortality 13  Wild 1981.

58

Schulz

through the power of Osiris. A basic element for all initiation rites was the passage from darkness to light, which could be experienced on the way through the narrow corridors within the longitudinal walls that included staircases up to the roof at the south end of the temple. A thorough documentation of the measurements of the staircases at the rear side of the temple has been completed. Four flights of stairs can be reconstructed on each side. Wilberg already indicated the second flight of the staircase in his drawing. The first flight of the staircase must be reconstructed at the end of the corridors. Two more flights were necessary to reach the roof. Therefore the stairways are only half preserved on each side. These narrow and steep steps were not visible from the outside or from the inside of the temple and were probably reserved for religious officials. The relationship of these staircases to the corridors and the apse was complex. First, the floor level of the corridors was considerably lower than the level of the cella. Some steps led from the cella down into the corridors. At the end of the corridors the first flight of the staircase began. The first landing is preserved and consists of large slabs. At the end of the first level, there may have been a door leading outside at the rear of the temple behind the apse. Then follows the preserved part of the staircase, which leads to a landing connected with the apse. There were possibly small slits in the wall that may have provided a view into the cella. From this point there were two paths: one staircase leading up to the roof, or a narrow passage leading to the third level of the corridor. All the staircases were covered with barrel vaults (fig. 2.21–24).14 The corridors and staircases hidden in the interior of the longitudinal walls are not visible from the outside. Lighting was only possible through narrow slits in the walls or by artificial means. The four staircases on each side of the apse are very narrow and uncomfortably steep. Their use was most likely reserved for religious officials. Once at the top of the stair case, however, there would have been more space, and the openings in the pediment would have provided ample light for whatever religious activities took place in these upper regions. (fig. 2.2, 2.21). The corridors, the contrast between darkness and light, and the water that flowed through the niches and the apse of the temple are all characteristic elements of Egyptian religions, as pointed out by Günther Hölbl.15 Statues of the main divinities certainly stood in the apse. Images of secondary divinities like Anubis, Harpokrates, and so on were probably positioned in the niches of 14  A drawing by Wilhelm Wilberg shows the remains of such a vault, which had to be pulled down during the excavations (A-W-ÖAI-PLN-03423). 15  Hölbl 1978, 33–43.

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

Figure 2.22

Temple of Serapis. East staircase

59

60

Schulz

Figure 2.23

Temple of Serapis. Reconstruction of staircases 1 and 2

Figure 2.24

Temple of Serapis. Possible reconstruction of staircases 2 and 3

the corridors. The possible inclusion of Roman imperial cult figures cannot be excluded. Finally, some concluding remarks concerning possible reconstruction of the temple. At present we have not determined how the reconstruction will be carried out. In any case, the front pediment with its entablature will be reassembled, and the elements of the door will be integrated into the front wall. The broken monolithic column shafts constitute one of the main problems. In my opinion, reconstruction should not be limited to the front of the temple. The reconstruction of the whole temple including the walls on both sides, the corridors, and the roof should be undertaken at least in some parts. In addition, it will be important to present the results of the specialized architectural research. Reconstructions up to this point have generally concentrated on the façades of the building, which in many cases are regarded only as carriers of decorative elements. It is my concern that a high-quality,

The So-called Serapeion in Ephesos

61

comprehensive reconstruction will reflect the structure of the building and will serve as a way to communicate scholarly knowledge to the public. Superficial reconstructions geared to marketing for the tourist industry should be regarded as secondary to the benefit of the presentation of cutting edge research. Bibliography Heberdey, R. 1912. “IX. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 15: 182. Heberdey, R. 1915. “XI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 18: 77–88. Hölbl, G. 1978. Zeugnisse ägyptischer Religionsvorstellungen für Ephesus. EPRO 73. Leiden: Brill. Keil, J. 1915. “Ephesische Funde und Beobachtungen.” ÖJh 18: 279–86. Keil, J. 1926. “XII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 23: 265–71. Keil, J. 1964. Ephesos. Ein Führer durch die Ruinenstätte und ihre Geschichte. Wien: ÖAI. Prochaska, W. and S. M. Grillo. 2012. “The Marble Quarries of the Metropolis of Ephesos and Some Examples of the Use for Marbles in Ephesian Architecture and Sculpturing.” In Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone: Asmosia IX: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity (Tarragona, 8–13 June, 2009), 584–91. Edited by A. Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno, P. Lapuente Mercadal, and I. Rodà de Llanza. Tarragona: Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica. Ruppert, C. 2015. Das Hauptportal des sogenannten Serapeions in Ephesos. Master’s Thesis, Ostbayrische Technische Hochschule, Regensburg, Germany. Scherrer, P. 2005. “Das sogenannte Serapeion in Ephesos: ein Mouseion?” In Ägyptische Kulte und ihre Heiligtümer im Osten des römischen Reiches, 109–38. Edited by A. Hoffmann. Byzas 1. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Steskal, M., A. Rembart, A. Pülz and M. Binder. 2015. “Die Bestattungen im sogenannten Serapeion von Ephesos.” ÖJh 84: 259–99. Wild, R. A. 1981. Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Sarapis. Leiden: Brill.

Chapter 3

Thekla in the Cave of St. Paul at Ephesos Renate Johanna Pillinger From 1996 to 2010, I worked for three to four weeks almost annually in the so-called Cave of St. Paul.1 It is located approximately 80 m above sea level on the northern slope of Bülbüldağ (Plan 2, no. 71) and consists of a smaller and a larger rock-hewn cave, and a porch dating to the Byzantine period (fig. 3.1). After a thorough cleaning in 1996, the first precise measurements and recording of the cave’s plan and structure followed in 1997. The results were a ground plan and a longitudinal section through the entire installation, which

Figure 3.1 Cave of St. Paul. View of exterior

1  For the most important literature see Pillinger 2009, 21–29 and 587–95 (unfortunately only with black-and-white images), esp. n. 4. Color images can be found in Pillinger 2010, 239–66; Pillinger 2011a, 174–81 and 217; and Zimmermann 2010a, 615–62, esp. 639–47; Pillinger 2015, 183–93 and 332–37 (figs. 25–34), and Pillinger 2017, 205–18.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_005

Thekla in the Cave of St. Paul at Ephesos

63

included the porch, the small cave, the larger cave with its cavity on the right side, a larger and smaller niche on the left side and a somewhat widened, rectangular back section. The entire grotto complex is nicely visible in the 3-D laser scan model created in 2007. Relevant for this article, however, is only the larger cave, which measures 15 m long, 2.10 to 2.70 m wide and 2.30 m high, the interior of which had been completely whitewashed before it was rediscovered in 1995. The documentation of over 300 graffiti (scratched), dipinti (painted), and other inscriptions followed quickly in 1997.2 The inscriptions are written in Greek and, for the most part, consist of acclamations such as “Lord, have mercy,” and “Lord, have mercy on your servant….” Additional symbols such as the staurogram and christogram appear interspersed throughout the cave. A scratched graffito on the right wall, not far behind the large cavity, warrants special mention. It reads: “Oh, Paul, have mercy on your servant …” and was probably the reason F. Miltner perceived the cave as a memorial site to St. Paul.3 Seen together, the earliest inscriptions and the coins found in the cave (mostly from the 19th century) attest to a continuous visiting of the site from antiquity to the present. Key for understanding the function of the cave is the architectural sculpture partially used to repair the entrance wall. While the large impost capital with a cross can be ascribed to the porch structure, the fragments of pilasters, small columns, chancel screens, and moldings appear to belong to a barrier at the widened, rearmost portion of the large cave. Also preserved in the plaster are indications of a chancel pillar and the edge of a raised floor level. One can imagine it reconstructed as a modest templon, an architectural barrier between the nave and the altar, perhaps similar to one in Kaisariane near Athens.4 A partially preserved table slab (maybe from an altar) also confirms this supposition. Shortly after the cave’s rediscovery, remnants of wall paintings were found in the porch, where the whitewash inside the large cave had partially come off due to the incision of inscriptions. Paintings also emerged from underneath the plaster during the cave’s cleaning, measuring and structural documentation. As a result, the first partial removal of the plaster layer followed in 1998 in the immediate proximity of the aforementioned graffito of Paul.5 In this 2  In preparation for publication by Hans Taeuber, University of Vienna. 3  Miltner 1956–58, 54–58, esp. 57. 4  Chatzidakis 1980, fig. 5b. 5  The restoration was carried out by Karl Herold of the Austrian Archaeological Institute.

64

Pillinger

process we discovered the oldest-known portrait of Paul in Turkey—complete with a painted Greek inscription. This finding led to a systematic restoration of the entire cave between 1999 and 2010.6 In some places up to four layers of paint were uncovered. The most important images will be introduced so as to have a better understanding of the portrayal of Thekla discussed below. Probably the oldest painting in the entire cave is directly adjacent to the entrance on the right. It depicts leaf fronds and roses on an ochre background, just as one might find in Terrace House 2 in Ephesos and other 3rd century ce sites.7 On the more recent plaster layer lower on the wall, to the left of the larger hollow, a fresco illustrates the preaching of the Apostle Paul in front of Thekla (to which we will return below, fig. 3.2). Above and slightly to the right is a donor inscription: “… because of a vow of … (the name is unfortunately missing) and his house.” To the left of the entrance on the opposite wall we see a man whose face has been gouged out. Given the sword held vertically in his right hand, the traces of red paint, as well as the two naked feet in front of him, the painting can be identified as Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. Comparative examples from early Christian sarcophagi8 and in catacombs, such as the so-called New Catacomb at the Via Latina in Rome, confirm this interpretation.9 Directly next to this painting, another came to light: it depicts only the hands of a figure playing a stringed instrument, probably King David as musician, and the remnant of an inscription.10 If we continue along the same left (eastern) wall, in the first arcosolium-like niche we find, once again, at least three layers of painting. The figures depicted here have nimbi, are dressed in white garments, and are barefoot, positioned on either side of a table laid out in a green meadow. Among the figures is a head with a cross-nimbus (Christ), which has been gouged out. Beyond this is a second somewhat smaller niche with at least two painted layers. The Mother of God is shown enthroned between figures in acclamation; the Christ-child with a cross-nimbus sits in her lap. Perhaps this fresco gave the Orthodox Greeks in Şirince the basis for the modern name of the cave as ‘hidden Mother

6  The restoration was carried out by an Italian team under the guidance of F. Ghizzoni and S. Gianoli on behalf of the Austrian Archaeological Institute. 7  Compare Barbet 2015, 199–207 and 2, pl. 71–74 (figs. 1–11); for Terrace House 2 and the Seven Sleepers, Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, 132 and 155. 8  See Paneli 2001. 9  In Ferrua 1991, 124, fig. 120. 10  See Pillinger 2011b, 611–13, plus 5 plates.

Thekla in the Cave of St. Paul at Ephesos

65

Figure 3.2 Cave of St. Paul. West wall, Paul and Thekla

of God,’11 a designation that Otto Benndorf also adopted.12 Five plaster and four painted layers have been preserved at the farthest end of the cave. The oldest is a rose-colored plaster base layer without any images. The second oldest layer shows the rivers of paradise—Phison, (T)igr(is) and Euphrates—accompanied by their inscriptions. Above the rivers is a blue sphere with a youthful figure climbing upwards in a chariot drawn by four horses. The remains of a dark garment below establish the scene as Elijah’s ascent to heaven.13 The third layer depicts a tree with fruits and fluttering leaves—perhaps part of a paradise painting. The fourth layer, preserved on all three walls, depicts larger than life-sized figures with nimbi (saints? among these are also women), who are to the right and left of an apocalyptic Christ positioned with the donor family. The fifth is probably a Byzantine layer dating to the time of the porch structure, namely the 11th or 12th century. It is sparsely preserved and consists of a painted soldier with a lance. According to its 11  Further detail in Poulin 1896. For English see De La Chaise 1999, 125–27 and Niessen 1906, 369–72. 12  Benndorf 1906, 104–5, esp. n. 4. 13  For comparative examples see Landesmann 2004.

66

Pillinger

inscription and other comparative examples (as in St. Kliment of Ochrid), the figure can be identified as St. George. Let us turn from this iconographical tour through the large cave back to the image of Thekla (fig. 3.2) to the right of the entrance. From a dark window of a brick house with a pitched roof, we see the head of an unveiled young woman en face, identified as Thekla through the Greek inscription. Seated next to her on the right, in a tunic and pallium is the Apostle Paul, clearly identifiable by his receding hairline and pointed beard as well as the adjacent painted inscription. The oldest description of the apostle’s appearance (with bald head) is handed down in the Acts of Paul and Thekla (APTh).14 Indeed we have already demonstrated elsewhere15 that there are additional literary or pictorial traditions of the apostle. One example is a continuation of the philosopher type. This is clearly shown by an ivory pyxis in Berlin16 in which Paul, holding a scroll (rotulus) and seated to the right of Christ, is reminiscent of the portrait of Socrates. His split beard in the Cave of St. Paul at Ephesos can perhaps be traced back to the typus of the Jewish scribes. It could, however, have also been inspired by the image of the Roman emperor Septimius Severus.17 A book lies opened on the thighs of the apostle and his right hand is raised in the gesture of speech. On his left side is another frontally-depicted female figure with veiled head and headscarf (maphorion)—as befits a married woman. Her eyes and raised right hand have been gouged out and her right hand was also burned. The accompanying inscription positively identifies the figure as Theokleia, the mother of Thekla. The fresco thus depicts the scene described in the APTh 7. And while Paul was thus speaking in the midst of the assembly in the house of Onesiphorus, a virgin (named) Thecla—her mother was Theocleia,—who was betrothed to a man (named) Thamyris, sat at a nearby window and listened night and day to the word of the virgin life as it was spoken by Paul; and she did not turn away from the window, but pressed on in the faith rejoicing exceedingly. Moreover, when she saw many women and virgins going in to Paul she desired to be counted worthy herself to stand in Paul’s presence and hear the word of Christ; for she had not yet seen Paul in person, but only heard his word.18 14  Compare most recently Esch-Wermeling 2008; and Barrier 2009. 15  Pillinger 2010. 16  Inv. no. 563, in Marth 1999, 29. 17   See, for example, his bust in Munich’s Glyptothek: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Septimius_Severus. 18  English translation in Schneemelcher and Wilson 1992, 213–70.

Thekla in the Cave of St. Paul at Ephesos

67

Thus we witness here the conversion of Thekla through Paul. In the Ephesian painting Paul appears to be the central person since, even though sitting, he is pictured almost as large as the representation of the house with Thekla; he is nearly isocephalic with Theoklia, who was probably shown standing. His frontally rendered head looks with large eyes into the distance. His right hand is, as already mentioned, raised in the gesture of speech, whereby the open book might well point specifically to the preaching of Paul described in the apocryphal text. Thekla’s head (fig. 3.3) is also rendered frontally. Like Paul, her eyelids and cheeks are accentuated by red color. The large eyes appear to be turned towards Paul, even though the text explicitly says that she did not see Paul but only heard his word. The green tree next to the house may point to Thekla’s next encounter with Paul (APTh 23) at the tomb of Onesiphoros on the way to Daphne, since the translation of “daphne” is “laurel.” Entirely unique in antiquity is the representation of Theokleia, the mother of Thekla, who is positioned to the left of Paul. In the text she is mentioned immediately after the above-cited passage (APTh 8–9): Since however she did not move from the window, her mother sent to Thamyris. He came in great joy as if he were already taking her in marriage. So Thamyris said to Theocleia, “Where is my Thecla, that I may see her?” and Theocleia said: “I have a new tale to tell you, Thamyris. For indeed three days and three nights Thecla has not risen from the window either to eat or drink, but gazing steadily as if on some joyful spectacle she so devotes herself to a strange man who teaches deceptive and subtle words … ‘You must,’ he says, ‘fear one single God only, and live chastely.’ And my daughter also, who sticks to the window like a spider, is (moved) by his words….”19 In the Ephesian painting, Theokleia’s raised right hand apparently represents her speech to Thekla, which is mentioned several times in the text and is expressed by the image of the window. Like those of Paul and Thekla, Theokleia’s chin, cheeks and eyelids are accentuated with red color, through which her face appears remarkably youthful. She does not wear any jewelry. The date of the fresco can be placed near the end of the 5th century ce, using a relative chronology with a correlation of the layers, but also through comparative iconographic examples such as in the so-called Tomb of St. Luke 19  Schneemelcher and Wilson 1992, 240.

68

Pillinger

Figure 3.3 Detail of fig. 3.2, Thekla

in Ephesos,20 in the catacomb of Commodilla21 in Rome, as well as the mosaics in Ravenna.22 Other portrayals of Paul and Thekla do not truly correspond to the Ephesian image. Thus, for example, a panel of a small ivory box in the British Museum in London23 depicts the apostle in profile, recognizable through his receding hairline and pointed beard, and sitting (on a stone?) with an opened rotulus in his hands. Here Thekla does not sit at the window (as described multiple times in the APTh), but instead looks out with her chin resting on her hand—in other words, pensively—over the top edge of a type of fortress; the structure has a half-opened door, which probably alludes to her flight. This image is captured in the marble decoration (antependium) of the high altar of the Cathedral of Tarragona.24 Likewise, other known representations of the apostle and Thekla bear only nominal resemblance to the Ephesian painting. This includes the ceiling fresco of the so-called Chapel of Peace in El-Bagawat in Egypt, where Paul and Thekla sit facing one another, but without a house.25 In another example, 20  See Pülz 2010a, pl. 55.2 and pl. 57. 21  In Fiocchi Nicolai, et al. 2000, fig. 121. 22  Cf. Jäggi 2013, 233, fig. 154. 23  In Schillebeeckx and Lessing 1982, 67. 24  See de Palol and Hirmer 1991, fig. 251. 25  In Zibawi 2004, fig. 28. Further detail in Cipriano 2008, 213, pl. 31.

Thekla in the Cave of St. Paul at Ephesos

69

Thekla stands opposite a seated Paul, again without any backdrop scenery, in an image on the northern external wall of the Etchmiadzin Cathedral in Armenia.26 A fresco in the Orpheus Cubiculum in the Domitilla Catacomb in Rome, most recently interpreted by Norbert Zimmermann as one of Paul and Thekla, shows a standing figure in a speech or pointing gesture without a book or scroll.27 Since the painting is poorly preserved its identification with Paul, and the vaguely perceptible window opening with an additional figure, remain hypothetical. Thus the Thekla scene in the Cave of St. Paul in Ephesos is unique. This conclusion is also applicable with respect to the cave’s other frescoes that were briefly introduced at the beginning. In contrast to the paintings of the sacrifice of Isaac, David or Elijah, the painting of Paul and Thekla does not represent a ‘snapshot’ with a minimal repertoire of images. Rather it is an elaborate narrative representation that—as the inclusion of Theokleia in the painting clearly shows—can be ascribed to a literary stimulus rather than a pictorial one. That it draws from a non-canonical source is clear from the fact that the painting makes reference to Thekla; the depiction of the Apostle Paul is less specific, since numerous other texts refer to him. Moreover, apocryphal writings are not so uncommon in Ephesos, as the Acts of Timothy,28 The Acts of John,29 or the Abgar inscription30 demonstrate. Furthermore, Tertullian designates the APTh as scriptura in his Bapt. 17.5, which indicates that the APTh was highly esteemed by some and was read along with texts that later became part of the canon. Tertullian cites a presbyter in Asia as the author of the APTh, but does not name a more specific location. With the discovery of the Paul and Thekla fresco in the Cave of St. Paul, Ephesos is conceivable as a place of origin of the APTh. In summary, we can say that the cave at Bülbüldağ was utilized as a cave church, especially on account of its architectural sculpture and painted décor. But since the pictorial theme inexplicably changes with each layer and ranges widely—from the Hebrew Bible to the (‘hidden’) Mother of God, from the apocalyptic Christ and the apocryphal APTh to St. George—the dedication of the cave is difficult to determine. The inscriptions particularly mention Christ and Paul, and the more recent oral tradition cites the Mother of God, but even a temporary veneration of Thekla, at the least, cannot be excluded since her 26  In Thierry 2002, 25 fig. 12. 27  In Zimmermann 2010a, pl. 64.2. Zimmermann 2009b, 9 with figure; Zimmermann 2009a, 37–39; and Zimmermann 2010b, 671–81, esp. 675–78. 28  See Pillinger 2005, 235–41, esp. 235–37. 29  For further detail see the publication of the Acts of John in CCA. 30  See most recently Noll 1986 (2nd ed.), 30–31, no. 59 (with older literature).

70

Pillinger

sanctuaries—such as those documented in Silifke31 or Maalula32—are clearly established in caves. Acknowledgements This article was originally offered as a presentation in Italian at the Congreso internacional Tecla discípula de Pablo, santa de oriente y de Occidente in Tarragona, Spain, October 27–29, 2011. I thank Prof. Dr. Ruth Ohm Sutherland of Wausau, Wisconsin, for the English translation. Bibliography Barbet, A. 2015. “Le semis de fleurs en peinture murale entre mode et style?” In Antike Malerei zwischen Lokalstil und Zeitstil: Akten des XI. Internationalen Kolloquiums der AIPMA 13.–17. September 2010 in Ephesos, 199–208. AForsch 23. Edited by N. Zimmermann. Vienna: ÖAI. Barrier, J. W. 2009. The Acts of Paul and Thecla: A Critical Introduction and Commentary. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Benndorf, O., ed. 1906. Forschungen in Ephesos. FiE 1. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Chatzidakis, T. 1980. Das Kloster Kaisariane. Milan: Apollo-Verlag. Cipriano, G. 2008. El-Bagawat: Un cimitero paleocristiano nell’alto Egitto. Todi: Tau. De La Chaise, P. 1999. The Holy Virgin’s House: The True Story of Its Discovery. Translated by I. Richichi. Edited by G. Özer. Istanbul: Arikan Yayınları. de Palol, P. and M. Hirmer. 1991. Spanien: Kunst des frühen Mittelalters vom Westgotenreich bis zum Ende der Romanik. München: Hirmer. Esch-Wermeling, E. 2008. Thekla—Paulusschülerin wider willen? Strategien der Leserlenkung in den Theklaakten. Münster: Aschendorff. Ferrua, A. 1991. Katakomben: Unbekannte Bilder des frühen Christentums unter der Via Latina. Stuttgart: Urachhaus. Fiocchi Nicolai, V., et al. 2000. Roms christliche Katakomben. Geschichte—Bilderwelt— Inschriften. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Hild, F. and H. Hellenkemper. 1990. Kilikien und Isaurien. Vienna: ÖAW. Jäggi, C. 2013. Ravenna: Kunst und Kultur einer spätantiken Residenzstadt. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. 31  Details in Hild and Hellenkemper 1990, 441–43. 32  Compare https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maaloula-St-Thecla_from_top_of_rock .jpg.

Thekla in the Cave of St. Paul at Ephesos

71

Landesmann, P. 2004. Die Himmelfahrt des Elija. Entstehen und Weiterleben einer Legende sowie ihre Darstellung in der frühchristlichen Kunst. Vienna: Bölau. Marth, R., ed. 1999. Meisterwerke aus Elfenbein der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Miltner, F. 1956/58. “XXI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 43: 1–64. Niessen, J. 1906. Panagia-Kapuli. Das neuentdeckte Wohn- und Sterbehaus der heil. Jungfrau Maria bei Ephesus. Dülmen: A. Laumann. Noll, R. 1986. Die griechischen und lateinischen Inschriften der Wiener Antikensammlung. Vienna: KHM. Paneli, E. 2001. Die Ikonographie der Opferung Isaaks auf den frühchristlichen Sarkophagen. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Marburg. Pillinger, R. 2005. “Martyrer und Reliquienkult in Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger, 235–42. Edited by B. Brandt, et al. Vienna: Phoibos. Pillinger, R. 2009. “La cosiddetta grotta (chiesa rupestre) di S. Paolo ad Efeso.” In Paolo di Tarso: Archeologia, Storia, Ricezione, 1.21–30. Edited by L. Padovese. Cantalupa: Effatà. Pillinger, R. 2010. “Paratextual Literature in Early Christian Art (Acta Pauli et Theclae).” In In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature, 239–66. Edited by P. S. Alexander, et al. Leiden: Brill. Pillinger, R. 2011a. “The Grotto of St. Paul.” In Wall Painting in Ephesos from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period, 174–81 and 217. Edited by N. Zimmermann and S. Ladstätter. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Pillinger, R. 2011b. “Nuova scoperta nella cosiddetta grotta (chiesa rupestre) di S. Paolo ad Efeso: Raffigurazione di Re Davide come suonatore di lira.” In In caritate veritas: Luigi Padovese, Vescovo cappuccino, Vicario Apostolico dell’Anatolia: Scritti in memoria, 611–13. Edited by P. Martinelli and L. Bianchi. Bologna: EDB. Pillinger, R. 2015. “La representació de Tecla a l’anomenada gruta de Sant Paul a Efes.” In El culte de Tecla, Santa d’orient i d’occident: Congrés de Tarragona 27.–29. Octubre 2011. Studia historica tarraconensia 2. Edited by A. Puig i Tàrrech, A. Pérrez de Mendiguren, and J. M. Galvaldà. Barcelona: Ediciones Graficas Rey. Pillinger, R. 2017. “Thekla in der Paulusgrotte von Ephesos.” In Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint in the East and West: Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 12. Edited by J. W. Barrier, J. N. Bremmer, T. Nicklas, A. Puig i Tàrrech. Leuven: Peeters. Poulin, E. 1896. Panaghia-Capouli ou Maison de la Sainte Vierge près d’Éphèse: La vrai histoire de sa découverte. Paris: H. Oudin. Pülz, A. 2010a. Das sog. Lukasgrab in Ephesos: Eine Fallstudie zur Adaption antiker Monumente in byzantinischer Zeit. FiE 4.4. Vienna: ÖAW. Schillebeeckx, E. and E. Lessing. 1982. Paulus: Der Völkerapostel. Freiburg: Herder.

72

Pillinger

Schneemelcher, W., and R. McL. Wilson. 1992. New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 2. Cambridge and Lexington: J. Clarke & Co and Westminster/John Knox. Thierry, J.-M. 2002. Armenien im Mittelalter. Translated by H. Goltz. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Zibawi, M. 2004. Koptische Kunst: Das christliche Ägypten von der Spätantike bis zur Gegenwart. Translated by K. Pichler. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Zimmermann, N. 2009a. “Nuove immagini di S. Paolo nella pittura di Efeso e Roma.” In Tra Ostia ed Efeso: Immagini dipinte e rappresentazioni di S. Paolo tra oriente e occidente: Catalogo della Mostra Museo della via Ostiense a Porta San Paolo 24 aprile–30 giugno 2009, 37–40. Edited by S. Falzone, et al. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Zimmermann, N. 2009b. “Virtuelle Reise durch eine römische Totenstadt.” In Thema: Das Forschungsmagazin der ÖAW 4: 8–9. Zimmermann, N. 2010a. “Die spätantike und byzantinische Malerei in Ephesos.” In Byzanz – das Römerreich im Mittelalter: Pracht und Alltag eines Weltreiches, 615–62. Edited by F. Daim and J. Drauschke. Mainz: RGZM. Zimmermann, N. 2010b. “Nuove immagini da Roma: Una rappresentazione di S. Tecla nella catacomba di Domitilla.” In Atti del X congresso internazionale dell’A IPMA = Annali di Archeologia e Storia Antica 18/2, 671–81. Edited by I. Bragantini. Naples: Università degli studi di Napoli “L’Orientale.”

Chapter 4

Selected Evidence of Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos Andreas Pülz In the course of diverse excavations during the last one hundred years, numerous late antique and early Byzantine remains have come to light in Ephesos.1 They include small finds as well as monuments like colonnaded streets and gates, squares, fountains and baths, religious buildings, and finally, private and public residences of different sizes. The following study does not focus on the numerous churches in Ephesos and environs dating from early and middle Byzantine times.2 Rather, the focus is on selected examples of archaeological evidence for Christianity among the inhabitants of the city.3 As in other towns of late antiquity, information about the new religious orientation of the Ephesians can be found in the various Christian symbols that decorated public buildings, including the city gates, in which door jambs and lintels in many cases show incised crosses (for example, the Magnesian Gate,4 fig. 4.1). It seems reasonable to assume that the symbols had an apotropaic character and also served as a deliberate display of Ephesian public religion for people entering the city. In this context, an event within the legend of the Seven Sleepers5 of Ephesos should be mentioned. The well-known legend relates that one of the seven young men, after waking up from nearly 150 years of sleep, admired the gate of the city decorated with a cross as he entered the town to buy some food.6

1  See Foss 1979; Pillinger and Kresten 1999; Ladstätter and Pülz 2007; Pülz 2010b. 2  For the Christian monuments cf. Pülz 2010a; Pülz 2010c and Pülz 2012. 3  See the comprehensive study of Bowes 2011 with numerous examples from other cities. 4  Sokolicek 2009a, 336 figs. 17 and 18. 5  For details concerning the cemetery in Ephesos see Zimmermann 2011. 6  “Appropinquans autem ad portam civitatis, vidit signum crucis supra portam, et stupefactus, miratus est, dicens infra se: ‘Numquid ab die hesterna post solis occasum, cum ego egrediebar de urbe, cor Decii inmutatum est, ut crucis signaculo portam civitatis muniret?’ ” Gregory of Tours Glor. mart. 1.95. For a 14th century figure on a Sicilian manuscript, see Foss 1979, 42 fig. 10.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_006

74

Pülz

Figure 4.1 Magnesian Gate. Crosses on the doorjamb

Beginning in the 4th century ce the appearance of the city gradually began to change under the influence of the new public iconography. One need only to think of the numerous churches and chapels and the great number of public monuments, very often decorated with Christian symbols. Especially worth mentioning are the fountains with their cross-decorated barrier slabs. At the western end of the so-called Kouretes Street, the late Republican heroon of the

Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos

75

Figure 4.2 Heroon of Androklos. Slabs with crosses

mythological city founder Androklos offers a typical example. It was adapted in Theodosian times to serve as a public fountain with marble facing slabs incised with crosses (fig. 4.2).7 Another typical example is the Byzantine well house on the southeastern face of the so-called Ionian acropolis (first half of the 5th century ce).8 Yet another instance of Christian display in the public space of Ephesos is the so-called Four Column Memorial (late 5th–beginning of the 6th century ce). Figures on the top of the columns were not, as to be expected, statues of the four Evangelists,9 but statues of members of the imperial family or important dignitaries of the imperial court (fig. 4.3).10 Nevertheless, the new iconography is found in the relief decoration in the pendentives between the eight niches of the socle of the monument showing figural motifs, inter alia a Latin cross above a heart-shaped leaf and another cross above a vase with an acanthus tendril.11 The decoration of the other pendentives show, for example, ivy vines growing out of a vase, a bird (dove or eagle) with extended wings above the skull of a bull, a tree with six fruits, etc. To summarize, Christian iconography in public city spaces was quite common and popular. But what was the situation in the private sphere? Were Christian symbols found inside the numerous early Byzantine houses, such as 7  Dorl-Klingenschmid 2001, 180–81; Thür 1995, 86 with fig. 16; Deichmann 1974, 555. 8  Dorl-Klingenschmid 2001, 190–91; Jobst 1986, 60–61. 9  Wilberg 1906, 139; Foss 1979, 58; Jackson 2016, no. 239. 10   Jordan-Ruwe 1995, 181 n. 1048; Bauer 1996, 271–73. 11  Jastrzębowska 2006, 448 and table 152.

76

Pülz

Figure 4.3 Four Column Memorial. Socle

the impressive residential buildings in the area of the lower imperial period city of Ephesos? In the Roman period this part of the city was characterized by a concentration of public monuments—the theater, the stadium, three large bath-gymnasium complexes, three temples, the Lower Agora and various honorific graves and gates (like the Celsus Library, the Heroon, the Octagon, and Hadrian’s gate). After the seismic catastrophes of the 3rd century ce, this urban district— like most areas of the city—was lying in ruins, and the buildings could no longer serve their original functions. This situation presumably did not change until the second half of the 4th century ce. From this period onward the economy seems to have recovered so that the Ephesians could begin with the restoration and reconstruction of the city and its buildings.12 These efforts were very successful, with the result that Emperor Theodosius II chose Ephesos as the venue for the Third Ecumenical Council of 431 ce. In his invitation letter the emperor mentioned practical reasons for the decision: the city could be easily reached by land and by sea; and all the provisions that would be needed could be found in the city or easily obtained through existing trade connections.13 Following the earthquakes, the living conditions must have been terrible, but they provided a good opportunity to adapt the city’s management of space 12  Ladstätter 2011, 3–9. 13  Harreither 2002, 83.

Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos

77

and urban image to contemporary requirements and current taste. Without any doubt, one of the most important and profound changes was the shifting of the residential areas in Ephesos from the upper city and the slopes of the two hills within the city walls (Panayırdağ and Bülbüldağ) down to the lower imperial city (i.e., the area between the theater and the harbor, mainly on the north side of the Arkadiane Street, Plan 2). In the following centuries, this area served as the center of late antique Ephesos, containing a downtown area that included not only the administrative, religious, and public buildings, but also private domestic ones.14 In what follows a special focus will be placed on the so-called Byzantine Palace (Plan 2, no. 81) and the residences in the area of the former Harbor Gymnasium (Plan 2, no. 93) and the Halls of Verulanus (Plan 2, no. 94) to the south of the episcopal Church of Mary (Plan 2, no. 95). The so-called Byzantine Palace represents one of the few well-preserved structures of non-sacred character from the late antique and early Byzantine period in Ephesos.15 The monument was extensively excavated by Franz Miltner during the 1950s and initially interpreted as a bathing complex “of Byzantine type.” A few years later, doubts arose, and a new interpretation of the building was proposed as the administrative seat of the Roman proconsul of the Province of Asia, or of the strategos of the Byzantine district Thrakesion.16 Due to recent archaeological data the monument can be dated to the early 5th century ce.17 It is composed of two architectural units that were unified into one structure by means of a transversally-disposed vestibule of about 40 m in length (fig. 4.4). Due to the small dimensions, the little bath in the north obviously did not function as a public bath, but as a private balneum, consisting of rooms typical of a Roman bath, like a frigidarium (room with a large cold pool), tepidarium (lukewarm room in order to prepare the body for the great heat of the vapor and warm baths), a caldarium (room with a hot immersion bath), a sudatorium (sweating room) and a palaestra (courtyard for gymnastics and breathing some fresh air).18 The southern wing of the entire 14  The special and prominent role of this space in late antiquity is also visible in the remarkable course of the Byzantine city wall of the late 6th and early 7th century ce. For the discussion concerning the early Byzantine Forum Theodosianum see Pülz 2010b, 551–52 and 556–57. 15  Lavan 1999, 148–49; Pülz 2010b, 554–56; Pülz 2018, 388–93. 16  Miltner 1955, 44–50; Miltner 1956–58, 3–14; Miltner 1959a, 243–50; Vetters 1966, 281; Foss 1979, 51; Russo 2010, 101–3. 17   For more concrete information one has to await the results of the analysis and interpretation of the findings (work in progress). 18  For Roman and late antique bathing cf. Yegül 2010. For bathing in late antique Ephesos see Steskal 2011.

78

Pülz

complex is characterized by a domed tetrakonchos (“four-apsed”) reception hall measuring 19 × 19 m with four apses encompassing a diameter of about 6 m (fig. 4.5). There were door openings on all four sides, with the main entrance to the west. The door in the eastern wall gave access to an attached room with an apse in the east (audience room). Furthermore, a small chapel was added in the 6th century ce at the southern side of the tetrakonchos. Unfortunately, the furnishings are not well preserved but the meager remains hint at formerly ornate decoration, such as the polychrome mosaics in the tetrakonchos and the vestibule, as well as the few traces of painting from the socle zone in the corridor-like entrance hall of the tetrakonchos. These indicate the well-known

Figure 4.4 Byzantine Palace. Plan

Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos

79

Figure 4.5 Byzantine Palace. Aerial view from the south

practice of imitating marble facing in the socle and the vertical articulation of the main wall by depicting columns on bases.19 To summarize, the excavations of the 1950s brought to light only the entrance hall, the bath, and the section of the palace meant for public display, an area of about 3,750 m². But there was no information about the domestic areas and facilities of the palace. These were finally determined within the scope of the geophysical surveys in 2008. Today it is known that the palace stretched up to an east-west oriented street lying about 40 m to the south. Furthermore, it is very likely that a large courtyard was situated on the west side, so that it is quite probable that the so-called bishop’s palace at the opposite side of the modern parking lot was planned and built as part of the same project. That is why an interpretation of the so-called Byzantine Palace as the main part of the residence of the Ephesian bishop is very likely.20 With its reconstructed base area estimated at considerably more than 8,000 m² this complex was much bigger than all other residences in the environs of the Church of Mary—including the complex that is currently said to be the Episkopeion, the “bishop’s palace.”21 Perhaps this smaller building was not actually the center of the Episkopeion

19  Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, 171. 20  Pülz 2010b, 555. 21   Müller-Wiener 1989, 670–74; Karwiese 1989, 21–23.

80

Pülz

but only part of it, serving, for example, as the residence of the numerous clerics of the metropolitan see of Ephesos, as xenodocheion, as diakonia, etc. Extensive excavations at the beginning of the 20th century ce in the area between the Arkadiane and the Church of Mary at Ephesos brought to light numerous buildings. The residences were built on top of imperial-period monuments in this area, including the palaestra of the Harbor Gymnasium and the Halls of Verulanus.22 It should be pointed out that test trenches already one hundred years ago and recent geophysical surveys inside the courts of the gymnasium and the Verulanus Halls provided no evidence of these structures. In the area of the Harbor Gymnasium six late antique residences were erected (fig. 4.6), all of which followed the traditional Roman building type of peristyle houses, well known from the Roman imperial Terrace Houses of Ephesos. The late antique houses generally were accessible only from the central street connecting the Arkadiane with the Church of Mary. On the east side of this small street a latrine was revealed with a noteworthy feature: the division of the building into two separate rooms with two entrance doors and two different systems of water supply, which means there were two separate toilets.23 Finally, due to the very scanty evidence of restrooms in the surrounding dwellings, this two-room latrine probably can be interpreted as the central restroom of the inhabitants of this residential quarter. It is unclear, however, whether the division into two rooms can be explained by gender-based separation or by different ownerships. It should be noted that these houses—which can be dated to the late 4th and early 5th centuries ce—belonged to the upper social classes of the late antique city and were richly decorated with polychrome opus sectile and mosaic floors. Additionally, dowels and scant marble remains indicate the original presence of marble revetments. Also worth mentioning is the architectural decoration, which is characterized, on the one hand, by reused spoils of the imperial period and, on the other hand, by contemporary creations. Such decorations offer insight into the local coeval production in late antique Ephesos, which does not show any specific characteristics respecting differences and rather is very similar and comparable to that of the other cities of early Byzantine Asia Minor.24

22  Schwaiger 2012; Pülz 2010b, 552–54; Foss 1979, 60; Pülz 2018, 393–97. 23  The above-mentioned street, the latrine as well as a peristyle house in the south of it, were erected above the western porticoes of the imperial Halls of Verulanus. 24  See Deichmann 1974; Russo 1999; Russo 2010.

Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos

Figure 4.6 Harbor Gymnasium. Residences Unit 1–6

81

82

Pülz

A similar pattern is attested in the area of the Roman imperial Verulanus Halls, which were also overbuilt with domestic architecture in late antiquity. Currently a Byzantine city quarter with peristyle houses of 230 to 750 m², partly characterized by exquisite decoration and precious furnishing as well as polychrome mosaics, opus sectile floors and wall paintings, is under investigation by the Austrian Archaeological Institute.25 The evidence for houses is actually quite copious. As already mentioned, a remarkable percentage of the architectural decorations and furnishings of the dwellings shows Christian symbols—crosses, in most cases—which can be found on capitals (fig. 4.7) as well as on barrier slabs between the columns of the interior peristyle court of Unit 1 (fig. 4.8). These in situ findings represent convincing evidence that architectural decoration with Christian symbols was not limited to Christian religious buildings. Furthermore, the small finds frequently detected in the houses may testify to the Christian orientation of the inhabitants. Noteworthy, for example, are articles of everyday life, such as lamps, rings, bracelets, tableware, door

Figure 4.7 Harbor Gymnasium. Capital with cross decoration

25  Ladstätter, ed., 2011, 23–25; Ladstätter, ed., 2012, 23–27; Ladstätter, ed., 2013, 21–24; Ladstätter, ed., 2014, 14–18; Schwaiger 2016.

Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos

83

Figure 4.8 Harbor Gymnasium. Unit 1, barrier slab

knockers and pilgrim flasks—all of which were decorated with Christian symbols (crosses, different saints, etc.).26 We should also keep inscriptions in mind. In this context, a piece of a well curb found in 2013 in the peristyle house to the south of the Church of Mary is noteworthy.27 On the upper surface of this fragment an incised inscription reads: φωνὴ κ(υρίο)υ ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων (“The voice of the Lord is over the waters,” Psalm 29 [28]:3). This is followed by a benediction for the residents and the writer of the inscription. In another example, a lintel that served as a duct cover in secondary usage was found in 2014 with an inscription reading: τῷ οἴκῳ σου πρέπ(ε)ι ἁγίασμα κ(ύρι)ε … (“holiness befits your house, o Lord …,” Psalm 93 [92]:5).28 This context also yields evidence from a well-known block discovered about one hundred years ago in the area of the residences in the harbor district. This block was obviously used as a lintel on which a secondarily incised inscription was readable for the entering visitors (fig. 4.9). The inscription contains the famous letter of King Abgar V of Edessa to Jesus, and Jesus’ reply.29 Without any 26  Examples from the residence in the area of the Verulanus Halls: Ladstätter, ed., 2012, 26 (the end of a scabbard) and http://www.ephesos.at/projekte/spaetantike-residenz (three pilgrim flasks). For the flasks cf. Pülz, 2010c, 81–83; Pülz, 2012, 230–42; Pülz, 2017. 27  Ladstätter, ed., 2013, 40. 28  Ladstätter, ed., 2014, 54. 29  The legend tells that Abgar—afflicted with an incurable sickness—had heard the fame of the power and miracles of Jesus and wrote to him, asking for his help, and offering him asylum in his own residence. The tradition states that Jesus wrote a letter, commending

84

Pülz

Figure 4.9 Harbor Gymnasium. Lintel

doubt, this letter had a valuable apotropaic function and reflects the Christian orientation of the inhabitants.30 These rites to protect and/or bless the entrance of a house or even a city (such as the above mentioned city gate with the cross decoration) cannot be considered as a special feature of Christians but rather as a tradition already known in Greek and Roman antiquity.31 Finally, I would like to close with a consideration of possible liturgical installations and rooms for religious activities inside the residences and living accommodations in Ephesos.32 In the current state of knowledge, it can be expected that there would be no evidence for architectural installations like niches or furnishings indicating special shrines inside the above mentioned late antique dwelling units. This also applies to the two barrel-vaulted tabernae of the Terrace House 1, which open to the north towards Kouretes Street and the Alytarchos Stoa. One wall of Taberna III as well as one wall of Taberna IX is decorated with painted Latin crosses, flanked by birds and a paradisiac gardenscape—the wall of Taberna III (fig. 4.10) even contains a Christological inscription referring to Psalm 141 (140):1, K(ύρι)ε ἐ[κέκρ]αξα πρὸς [σε] (“Lord, I call upon you”).33 A public liturgical or religious function of Abgar on his faith, declining to visit him personally, but promising that he would send one of his disciples; (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1.13 and 2.1). 30  Foss 1979, 60–61; Heberdey 1900, 93–96. 31  Examples include the Hekateia in Unit 1 and 7 of Terrace House 2, Rathmayr 2016a, 554 and the funerary banquet relief (‘Totenmahlrelief’) in entrance 4 of Unit 4, Rathmayr 2005, 223. 32  Not considered here are the little chapels inside residences, such as the chapel in the peristyle house above the theater on the Panayırdağ, Lavan 1999, 162–63; Baier 2013. 33  Pillinger 1996, 43. The paintings were dated to the 5th and 6th centuries, cf. Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, 184.

Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos

85

these rooms seems to be very unlikely as their location and overall installations speak against an interpretation as official shrines. Rather, they “… profess and celebrate the belief of those who lived and worked here”34 and therefore they can only be identified as niches for domestic religious practices at the most.35 This also applies to Terrace House 1, rooms G and H, which, due to two panel brackets and some capitals with cross decorations, initially were interpreted as

Figure 4.10 Terrace House 1. Taberna III

34  Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, 184 with figs. 376, 377. In contrast, Pillinger 1996, 43 proposes a sepulchral use of the tabernae since psalms very often were used in funeral contexts. 35  Fugger 2017.

86

Pülz

a private chapel of the owner.36 In fact, this ensemble cannot be identified as a sacred space inside a residence, but as private, non-sacral rooms, one with an installation of a well. As already shown above, the cross decoration of the panel brackets indicates nothing more than the practice of the inhabitants of demonstrating their Christian identity. Furthermore, the aforementioned cross-decorated capitals were not part of the former architectural decoration of the room. According to the current state of knowledge, they were collected in these two rooms at a later date for the burning of limestone.37 To summarize, as in other late antique and early Byzantine cities, we know numerous indications for Christianity in Ephesos, even outside liturgical contexts such as churches and chapels. Much Christian iconography is found in the public urban space and in the private sphere as well. Especially prominent are architectural decorations of public monuments (city gates, fountains, honorific memorials, etc.) or of private residences, in most cases showing the best known and most popular symbol, the cross, in different sizes and designs. There are also numerous examples of Christian symbolism in figurative depictions, such as on ampoules or on jewelry revealed in the houses, or by inscriptions referring to biblical texts. These epigraphic sources, the decoration of the interior of residences and the small finds with Christian symbols could have been influenced by many factors—personal preferences, financial possibilities, market availability, fashion trends, personal belief, etc. When considered together, the body of evidence shows the many ways in which Christian iconography permeated public and private spaces in late antique Ephesos. Bibliography Asamer, B. 2003. “Frühbyzantinische Architektur: Die sogenannte Kapelle.” In Das Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung, 117–20. Edited by Claudia LangAuinger. FiE 8.4. Vienna: ÖAW. Baier, C. 2013. “Attolitur monte Pione: Neue Untersuchungen im Stadtviertel oberhalb des Theaters von Ephesos.” ÖJh 82: 23–68. Bauer, F. A. 1996. Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike: Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung des öffentlichen Raumes in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. 36  Vetters 1972–75a, 354. 37  Asamer 2003, 117–18.

Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos

87

Deichmann, W. 1974. “Die spätantike Bauplastik von Ephesos.” In Mélanges A. M. Mansel, 549–70. Edited by Türk Tarih Kurumu. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi. Dorl-Klingenschmid, C. 2001. Prunkbrunnen in kleinasiatischen Städten: Funktion im Kontext. Studien zur antiken Stadt 7. Munich: Pfeil. Foss, C. 1979. Ephesus after Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fugger, V. 2017. “Shedding Light on Early Christian Domestic Cult: Characteristics and New Perspectives in the Context of Archaeological Findings.” In Sacra privata: From Pagan Religiosity to Early Christian Domestic Cult, 201–36. Edited by M. Öhler and N. Zimmermann. ARG 18–19. Berlin: de Gruyter. Harreither, R. 2002. “Die Synoden von Ephesos.” MiChA 8: 76–91. Heberdey, R. 1900. “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesus.” ÖJh 3: 83–96. Jackson, A. 2016. The Christian Saints of Turkey: A Guide Inside the Early Church of Asia Minor. Istanbul: ArkeoEge. Jastrzębowska, E. 2006. “Das Viersäulendenkmal von Ephesos: Römische Idee, Konstantinopler Dekoration, lokale Herstellung.” In Frühes Christentum zwischen Rom und Konstantinopel: Acta Congressus Internationalis XIV Archeologiae Christianae, 447–54. Edited by R. Harreither, P. Pergola, R. Pillinger and A. Pülz., Studi di Antichità Cristiana 62 = AForsch 14. Vatican City and Vienna: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana and ÖAW. Jobst, W. 1986. “Ein spätantiker Straßenbrunnen in Ephesos.” In Studien zur spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst II: FS F. W. Deichmann, 47–62. Edited by O. Feld. Bonn: Habelt. Jordan-Ruwe, M. 1995. Das Säulenmonument: Zur Geschichte der erhöhten Aufstellung antiker Porträtstatuen. Asia Minor Studien 19. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Karwiese, S. 1989. Die Marienkirche in Ephesos: Erster vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1984– 1986. DenkschrWien 200. Vienna: ÖAI. Ladstätter, S. 2011. “Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit: Das letzte Kapitel einer antiken Großstadt.” In Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit, 3–30. Edited by F. Daim and S. Ladstätter. Mainz: RGZm. Ladstätter, S. and A. Pülz. 2007. “Ephesos in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Period: Changes in Its Urban Character from the 3rd to 7th Century AD.” In The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and Beyond, 391–433. Edited by A. Poulter. PBA 141. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2011. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäo­ logischen Instituts 2011. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/ OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2011.pdf.

88

Pülz

Ladstätter, S., ed. 2012. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäo­ logischen Instituts 2012. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/ OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2012.pdf. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2013. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäolo­ gischen Instituts 2013. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/ OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2013.pdf. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2014. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäo­ logischen Instituts 2014. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/ OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2014.pdf. Lavan, L. 1999. “The Residences of Late Antique Governors: A Gazette.” AntTard 7: 135–64. Miltner, F. 1955. “XX. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 42: 23–60. Miltner, F. 1956/58. “XXI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 43: 1–64. Miltner, F. 1959a. “XXII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 44: 243–314. Müller-Wiener, W. 1989. “Bischofsresidenzen des 4.–7. Jhs. im östlichen Mittel­ meerraum.” In Actes du XIe Congrès international d’archéologie chrétienne 1986, 651–709. Edited by N. Duval, F. Baritel, and P. Pergola. Studi di antichità cristiana 41. Collection de l’École française de Rome 123. Rome: École française de Rome; Studi di Antichità Cristiana 41. Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana. Pillinger, R., O. Kresten, F. Krinzinger, and E. Russo. 1999. Efeso paleocristiana e bizan­ tina: Frühchristliches und byzantinisches Ephesos. AForsch 3 = DenkschrWien 282. Vienna: ÖAW. Pülz, A. 2010a. Das sog. Lukasgrab in Ephesos: Eine Fallstudie zur Adaption antiker Monumente in byzantinischer Zeit. FiE 4.4. Vienna: OAW. Pülz, A. 2010b. “Zum Stadtbild von Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit.” In Byzanz – Das Römerreich im Mittelalter, 541–71. Edited by F. Daim and J. Drauschke. Monographien des RGZM 84. 2. 2. Mainz: RGZm. Pülz, A. 2010c. “Ephesos als christliches Pilgerzentrum.” MiChA 16: 71‒102. Pülz, A. 2012. “Archaeological Evidence of Christian Pilgrimage at Ephesus.” HEROM: Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture 1: 225–60. Pülz, A. 2017. “Zur Ikonographie der sogenannten kleinasiatischen Pilgerampullen.” In Space, Landscapes and Settlements in Byzantium, 265–82 and 501–2. Edited by A. Külzer and M. S. Popović. Studies in Historical Geography of the Eastern Mediterranean 1. Vienna – Novi Sad: Akademska knjiga. Pülz, A. 2018. “Some Remarks on Late Antique and Early Christian Ephesus.” In Geç antik çağ’da Lykos vadisi ve çevresi: The Lykos Valley and Neighbourhood in Late

Christian Residents in Late Antique Ephesos

89

Antiquity, 385–400. Edited by C. Şimşek and T. Kaçar. Laodikeia Çalişmalari Ek Yayın Dizisi / Supplementary Series 1. Istanbul: Zerobook. Rathmayr, E. 2005. “Skulpturenausstattung der Wohneinheit 4.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 207–29. Edited by H. Thür. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E., ed. 2016a. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Russo, E. 1999. “La scultura a Efeso in età paleocristiana e bizantina: Primi lineamenti.” In Efeso paleocristiana di bizantina: Frühchristliches und byzantinisches Ephesos, 26–53. Edited by R. Pillinger et al. AForsch s3 = DenkschrWien 282. Vienna: ÖAW. Russo, E. 2010. Sulla cronologia del S. Giovanni e di altri monumenti paleocristiani di Efeso. AForsch 19. Vienna: ÖAW. Schwaiger, H. 2012. “Comparing Houses: Domestic Architecture in Ephesus from the Mid Imperial Period to Late Antiquity.” In Privata Luxuria: Towards an Archaeology of Intimacy: Pompeii and Beyond, 187–207. Edited by A. Anguissola, Münchner Studien zur Alten Welt. Munich: Utz. Sokolicek, A. 2009a. “Zwischen Stadt und Land: Neues zum Magnesischen Tor in Ephesos: Erste Ergebnisse.” ÖJh 78: 321–47. Steskal, M. 2011. “Badewesen und Bäderarchitektur von Ephesos in frühbyzantinischer Zeit.” In Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit, 83–101. Edited by F. Daim and S. Ladstätter. Mainz: RGZm. Thür, H. 1995. “Der ephesische Ktistes Androklos und (s)ein Heroon am Embolos.” ÖJh 64: 63–105. Vetters, H. 1966. “Zum byzantinischen Ephesos.” JÖByz 15: 273–87. Vetters, H. 1972–75a. “Die Hanghäuser an der Kuretenstraße.” ÖJh 50: 331–79. Wilberg, W. 1906. “Das Viersäulendenkmal auf der Arkadiane.” In Forschungen in Ephesos: Veröffentlicht vom Ö sterreichischen Archäologischen Institute, 132–42. Edited by O. Benndorf. FiE I. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Yegül, F. 2010. Bathing in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zimmermann, N. 2011. “Das Sieben-Schläfer-Zömeterium in Ephesos: Neue Forschungen zu Baugeschichte und Ausstattung eines ungewöhnlichen Bestattungskomplexes.” ÖJh: 365–407. Zimmermann, N. and S. Ladstätter. 2011. Wall Painting in Ephesos from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Part 2 Spaces

∵

Chapter 5

The Upper Agora at Ephesos: an Imperial Forum? Dirk Steuernagel In 1961, systematic excavations of the area known today as the Upper or State Agora of Ephesos began (Plan 2, no. 18). Some monuments with close relation to it had already been brought to light during excavations between 1909 and the early 1930s under the direction of the Austrian Archaeological Institute. These monuments included the great temple dedicated to divinized Roman emperors, Ephesos’s first neokorate temple which had been built under the reign of Domitian on the western side of the agora (Plan 4, no. 13); an enormous castellum aquae (so-called Fontäne, Plan 4, no. 11) next to the street that passes along the southern edge of the Upper Agora and leads to the Magnesian Gate (South Street, Plan 4, no. 10); and a bath building to the east, for a long time wrongly identified as the Baths of Varius (Plan 4, no. 6). The ruins of a fourth building, the so-called Odeion, but actually the ancient city’s Bouleuterion or council house (Plan 4, no. 5), had remained visible ever since antiquity. The British architect John Turtle Wood uncovered it back in 1864. To the west of this building, the Prytaneion, the place where in antiquity the city’s hearth was located (Plan 4, no. 3), was discovered in 1955. Soon thereafter, a building complex situated between the Bouleuterion and Prytaneion was excavated. A double podium structure enclosed by a peristyle courtyard that might have served as a precinct for an early imperial ruler cult (Plan 4, no. 4) was revealed.1 Considering this line-up of public buildings, the space to the south was, from the beginning of its archaeological exploration, interpreted as the ‘Staatsmarkt,’ the state agora of ancient Ephesos. According to an Aristotelian notion,2 this agora was distinguished as the center of public life and religious activities, in contrast to the predominantly commercial function attributed to the Lower or Tetragonos Agora.3 This interpretative pattern was accentuated in a particular way after the discovery of a peripteral temple in 1970 (Plan 4, no. 1). Due to its precise position 1  A brief overview of early investigations in the area of the Upper Agora (with bibliographical information) is in Thür 2007a, 77–79; Alzinger 1972–1975, 229–31; Wiplinger and Wlach 1995, 5, 56, 70, 79, 82; Steskal 2010, 9–27. 2  Arist. Pol. 7.1331a. 3  See, for instance, Eichler 1962, 42; Keil 1964, 127 (F. Eichler); Fossel 1967, 79–81; Alzinger 1972–1975, 241.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_007

94

Steuernagel

on the longitudinal axis of the agora—referring to the supposed layout of the square in early imperial times—Wilhelm Alzinger saw the temple as the first step of a planned redevelopment of the whole area that he believed had started during the proto-Augustan period. Unfortunately, no certain information exists regarding the deity to whom the temple was dedicated. Alzinger himself attributed it to the Egyptian goddess Isis inasmuch as he found Egyptian objects within a basin a short distance from the temple.4 He thought the temple might have been erected in honor of Cleopatra and Marc Antony, who were worshipped in the guise of Isis and Dionysos-Osiris. The relevance of the aforementioned findings has been much discussed, and it is certain that they do not belong to the construction period of the temple but to a much later time, the 2nd or 3rd century ce.5 Thus, other scholars did not accept Alzinger’s attribution. Instead of a connection to the rule of Marc Antony in the Roman East they supposed it an act of loyalty towards the new ruler, Octavian/Augustus, soon after the victory at Actium in 31 bce. Following this interpretation, the peripteral building would have been among the first civic imperial cult monuments. Moreover, the temple would have been the nucleus and center of a precinct that was architectonically shaped in accordance with the style of imperial temene in the Greek provinces and, above all, the imperial fora at Rome.6 The overall layout of the Upper Agora, apparently an enclosure framed by stoas with the temple building on the central axis, has been regarded as a direct parallel to conceptions like those underlying the Caesareum at Cyrene or the Fora of Caesar and Augustus.7 By quoting such examples, and not least by explicit statements, the existence of an all-encompassing master plan (‘Bauprogramm’) has been suggested, a plan that would have determined the spatial disposition of every single element. Furthermore, a highly programmatic, ideological value has been attributed to the Upper Agora. Not only would the monumental square have contributed to the honor of the person and regime of Augustus, but it also would have helped to convey an idea of Roman rule to the inhabitants of the Greek province by using architectural concepts and forms proper to Italy and the Roman west. Augustus himself, members of the imperial court, or the new 4  Vetters 1971, 88–90; Alzinger 1972–1975, 283–94. 5  Hölbl 1978, 27–32. 6  Jobst 1980, esp. 250–51, 256–59; Scherrer 1995, 4 (“should be understood as a temenos”); Scherrer 1990, 99–101; Scherrer 2001, 59–71. 7  For critical reviews of Jobst’s interpretative model see Tuchelt 1981, 180–82; Felten 1983, 100–3; for supposed typological parallelism between the architectural concepts of imperial fora and eastern Caesarea cf. Sjöqvist 1954; Stucchi 1975, 204–7 (Cyrene); Gros and Torelli 1988, 411.

The Upper Agora at Ephesos

95

emperor’s supporters within the capital of the Asian province were considered possible commissioners and sponsors of this great redesign of a whole urban area.8 Such was the opinio communis up to the 1990s and the beginning of the new century. Since then, some weak points in the line of argument exposed above have become evident. Most incisive is the analysis of pottery findings from the foundation pits of the central temple by Veronika Mitsopoulos-Leon. She noticed that the building cannot date from the second half of the 1st century bce, but has a terminus ante quem non in the late years of Augustus’s reign.9 This information coincides perfectly with the temple’s position on the longitudinal axis of the square, inasmuch as its position depended on the northern limit defined by the huge basilike stoa (Plan 4, no. 2) which was not constructed before the date of ca. 11–14 ce.10 Thus it seems likely that the temple had not been the starting point and centerpiece of a comprehensive (re)planning of the Upper Agora, but was added as a late element within a more lengthy formative process. As the result of this process, and following general tendencies of late Hellenistic and Roman architecture, the square might have appeared as a closed, inward looking and axisymmetric complex.11 Many of the stages and the duration of this process are unclear, however, and the interrelationship between planning, design, modification, and transformation deserves systematic review. Such a review is now underway in the context of a research program involving archaeologists and architectural historians from the University of Regensburg, Germany, and the Technical University at Berlin, in cooperation with the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Turkish authorities. Some fundamental problems regarding relative chronology have been addressed during our field campaigns between 2014 and 2016. The preliminary results of these investigations require further discussion and verification, so I will refer to them only briefly. Even so, it may be interesting to suggest some of the specific questions with which we are dealing. One section under review is the southeast corner of the Upper Agora, where one of the main entrances to the square was located (Plan 4, no. 9). It is a small gateway building, a propylon of Doric order that was excavated in 1964 by 8  See Gros and Torelli 1988, 398; Gros 1996, 113, 116; Halfmann 2001, 26, 34; von Hesberg 2002, 154; Kenzler 2006, 175–78. Alzinger (1972–1975, 283, 294; cf. Alzinger 1974, 50) supposed a “complete replanning” (“vollkommene Neuplanung”) between the triumviral and the early Augustan period which, however, had remained unaccomplished. 9  Mitsopoulos-Leon 2005; cf. Scherrer 2007, 69–70. 10  Felten 1983, 100. On the date of the basilica see Knibbe and Büyükkolancı 1989. 11  Kenzler 2006, 170; for general tendencies and developments cf. von Gerkan 1924, 136–38; Martin 1951, 508–18; Coulton 1976, 168–76; Lauter 1986, 96–98, 109–12; Lyttelton 1987, 47.

96

Steuernagel

Gerhard Langmann but remained substantially unpublished.12 Twenty years later, Hilke Thür dedicated a brief study to the monument and identified the traditional architectural styling, but did not consider this a reliable chronological criterion. Thus, the exact date of the propylon is still a matter of debate, with a possible range from the 2nd century bce to the Augustan period.13 According to the results of a sounding into the foundation layer during our campaign of 2016, a date within the 1st century BCE seems the most probable. Even more puzzling, but never really questioned, is the propylon’s connection with the buildings which framed the Upper Agora, namely the south stoa (Plan 4, no. 8) and the buildings along the east side of the square. While the schematic plan of the Upper Agora suggests a close connection between these elements, a brief look at Langmann’s sketchy ground plan from 1964 (fig. 5.1) makes it clear that the propylon itself does not join immediately with the south stoa. Actually, there is an intermediate space, a kind of passageway named ‘North-South Street’ by Langmann. The propylon proper is a rather shallow structure, under 3 m deep and about 8.45 m wide, delimited by a prostyle porch of four Doric columns on the southern face and by two rectangular pillars on the north side. Strangely enough, doors and thresholds in the proper sense are missing. Based on comparisons with other late Hellenistic propyla, one would have expected antae projecting on the northern side with the two columns between them.14 The somewhat truncated appearance of the building is obviously due to a secondary reshaping, proved by a rough reworking of the rectangular pillars’ northern surfaces (fig. 5.2). These pillars were adapted to fit with lateral walls flanking the ‘North-South Street,’ themselves easily recognizable as constructions made of reused building materials. The actual state (fig. 5.3) seems to go back to a point of time when pillar bases were put against the walls on relatively high levels—markedly above a pavement of large stone slabs that covered a mosaic floor. The complex chronological sequence of building phases within this area needs to be studied more intensively. Nevertheless, the suspicion arises that the whole display as it appears now might go back to a rather late period, perhaps the 4th century ce, when the connection between the area of the Upper Agora and the reshaped South Street (Plan 4, no. 10), was created.15 12  Eichler 1965, 98. 13  Thür 1996. 14  Thür 1996, 352; cf. Lauter 1986, 201–7; von Hesberg 1994, 137–42, and, for example, the propyla at Delos (south propylon of the Apollo-precinct) and Klaros, from the second half of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st century bce: Vallois 1944, 238–42; Étienne and Varène 2004, 63–65. 15  For repaving and reshaping of the South Street in late antiquity, see Eichler 1965, 97.

The Upper Agora at Ephesos

Figure 5.1 Upper Agora. Ground plan of southeast propylon and adjoining passageway

97

98

Steuernagel

Figure 5.2 Upper Agora. Southeast propylon, reworked surface of northeastern pillar

The Upper Agora at Ephesos

99

Figure 5.3 Upper Agora. Southeast propylon and adjoining passageway, seen from the south

100

Steuernagel

Similarly, a process of secondary adaptation becomes evident when we take a look at the eastern end of the south stoa (Plan 4, no. 8).16 At an unknown point in time, a bench seat that was integrated into the back wall of the south stoa—and the easternmost section of this wall itself—was extended (fig. 5.4, background). The most probable purpose of this alteration was to connect the stoa more closely to the already discussed passageway (the so-called NorthSouth Street). For that reason it was necessary to demolish the eastern wall of the south stoa. The former existence of such a wall can be deduced from a series of marble blocks, running in a south to north direction (fig. 5.4, foreground), which constituted the topmost layer of deeply laid foundations. Today, the latter are no longer visible, but their existence and appearance is attested by photographs and sketches made during the 1960s excavation campaigns and by our own investigations on the spot in 2016 (fig. 5.5). Foundations of this size are certainly apt to bear a wall, and although the worn appearance of the aforementioned marble blocks is indicative of their continuing use as thresholds or doorsteps, their upper surface still displays a series of dowel-holes that likely indicate that the marble blocks in a former state had functioned as wall footings. We have found a somewhat similar situation at the western end of the south stoa. Here, a western boundary wall is still in place, though in a heavily reduced state (fig. 5.6, A). All that remains is a 3.38 m long wall end in a north-south direction. There once existed a bench—the same kind of bench that we have seen in the east—integrated into the interior face of this wall, but it was subsequently chiseled off. The stepped substructure that had carried the original northern part of this western wall appears heavily spoiliated. Nevertheless, it is possible to recognize one part of the uppermost step, coming forth beneath the reduced wall. This marble block is as worn as the thresholds at the eastern end, and it also has dowel holes on its upper surface (fig. 5.6, B). So, again, a pre-existing wall (or, in this case, a wall section) must have been demolished. The purpose, however, might well have been a different one than in the east. In the west, it presumably became necessary to create a new entrance to the Upper Agora through the south stoa when a monumental building was set against the northwest edge of the stoa and possibly blocked a former passage. The substructure of that building, a massive concrete core, formerly coated by marble and limestone ashlars, is still extant (Plan 4, no. 12; fig. 5.6, C).17 For the moment, we cannot determine either the date of this process or 16  The South Stoa is, to date, an essentially unpublished monument; Eichler 1965, 97–98; Alzinger 1972–1975, 281–82; Alzinger 1974, 50. 17  Eichler 1961, 73.

The Upper Agora at Ephesos

101

Figure 5.4 Upper Agora. Row of marble blocks at the eastern end of the south stoa, seen from the north

102

Steuernagel

Figure 5.5 Upper Agora. Foundation courses beneath the marble blocks illustrated in fig. 5.4

Figure 5.6 Upper Agora. Situation at the western end of the south stoa, seen from the east

The Upper Agora at Ephesos

103

the character of the monumental building. Yet we can argue from our primary observations that the appearance of the Upper Agora as an enclosure in the proper sense is the result of a development over time rather than of an original spatial concept. Additional evidence strengthening this idea comes from the northeast corner of the square, where a building now partially invisible, but known through the documentation of former excavations, formed part of the bath complex to the east of the Upper Agora (Plan 4, no. 7).18 The original masonry, best preserved at the northeastern edge of the building, consists of large marble orthostats and, on top of them, a stretcher course (fig. 5.7, A). The latter is extant in only one block, overlaid by more recent rubble, brick, and mortar constructions. Set against the orthostats was a bench which followed the outer face of the walls and consequently turned east on the northern side of the building (fig. 5.7, B). At this point, the upper surface of the bench was aligned with (or rather integrated into) the front steps of the basilike stoa (the building which marked the northern border of the square since the last years of Augustus’s reign; Plan 4, no. 2). Before the construction of this stoa another columned hall existed on the same spot,19 although it was less deep and not in direct contact with the aforementioned building. Instead, the two structures were at a distance from each other of about ten meters. At this time some sort of passageway must have existed that gave access to the square from the east. The gap was only filled in with the construction of the basilike stoa. Hence, originally isolated buildings were transformed into a unified complex. This brief exposition of archaeological and architectural evidence may suffice. It should have become clear that the idea of an all-encompassing architectural concept for the Upper Agora, following contemporary trends in Augustan Rome, is at least questionable. Growing skepticism with respect to a unitary concept goes hand in hand with reservations against the assumption that imperial authorities, imperial freedmen, or Roman-Italic pressure groups that dominated the city of Ephesos would have enforced such a concept as a programmatic manifestation of imperial ideology and ‘Romanness.’ By way of contrast, in the context of our project mentioned above, we are trying to put more ‘pluralistic’ models to proof—models which account for competition between socially diversified factions within the city of Ephesos, and for heterogeneous traditions. A case in point is the notion of “hybrid Graeco-Roman

18  Eichler 1969, 133. 19  Alzinger 1974, 49–50; Lang-Auinger and Mitsopoulos-Leon 2007, 4–6; Thür 2007b, 404.

104

Steuernagel

Figure 5.7 Northeastern corner of the Upper Agora, joint between basilike stoa and eastern building, seen from the west

The Upper Agora at Ephesos

105

identities” that has already been applied to Ephesos but has not yet been fully elaborated.20 In fact, even some of the more conventional interpretations of the Upper Agora noticed the Greek-Hellenistic traditions of many of the architectural types and forms. The peripteral ground plan of the central temple is only the most eye-catching case.21 Above all, the general layout of the square cannot be compared only to Roman fora in Italy and the west, but perhaps even more closely to agoras and sanctuaries in the Greek provinces. In no way does it appear to break away from Hellenistic traditions, rather it seems to develop those traditions.22 Some scholars even purport to detect architectural outlines that point to a gymnasium function for the Upper Agora area in pre- and proto-Augustan times, and this hypothesis deserves further discussion as well.23 Hopefully, in the near future we will be able to shed more new light on such unresolved problems. Bibliography Alzinger, W. 1972–1975. “Grabungen in Ephesos von 1960–1969 bzw. 1970. Das Regierungsviertel.” ÖJh 50, Beiheft: 229–300. Alzinger, W. 1974. Augusteische Architektur in Ephesos. Vienna: ÖAI. Coulton, J. J. 1976. The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Eichler, F. 1961. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1960.” AAWW 98: 65–74. Eichler, F. 1962. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1961.” AAWW 99: 37–53. Eichler, F. 1965. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1964.” AAWW 102: 93–109. Eichler, F. 1966. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1965.” AAWW 103: 7–18. Eichler, F. 1969. “Ephesos: Grabungsbericht 1968.” AAWW 106: 131–47. Engelmann, H. 1993. “Zum Kaiserkult in Ephesos.” ZPE 97: 279–89. Étienne, R. and P. Varène. 2004. Sanctuaire de Claros: L’architecture: Les propylées et les monuments de la voie sacrée. Paris: Éd. Recherches sur les civilisations. 20  Thomas 2010; Raja 2012, 85–87. 21  See, for example, Kenzler 2006, 171; Thür 2007a, 84–85. 22  Felten 1983, 103–4; Thür 2007a, 85, and above, n. 11. 23  Engelmann 1993, 288–89; Scherrer 2001, 71–72; Scherrer 2007, 68–69; Thür 2007b.

106

Steuernagel

Felten, F. 1983. “Heiligtümer oder Märkte?” AK 26: 84–105. Fossel, E. 1967. “Zum sogenannten Odeion in Ephesos.” In Festschrift für Fritz Eichler zum achtzigsten Geburtstag, 72–81. Vienna: ÖAI. Gros, P. 1996. “Les nouveaux espaces civiques du début de l’Empire en Asie Mineure: les exemples d’Éphèse, Iasos et Aphrodisias.” In Aphrodisias Papers, 3: Including the Papers Given at the Fourth International Aphrodisias Colloquium, London 1992, JRASup 20, 111–20. Edited by Ch. Roueché and R. R. R. Smith. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Gros, P. and M. Torelli. 1988. Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo romano. Rome and Bari: Laterza. Halfmann, H. 2001. Städtebau und Bauherren im römischen Kleinasien. MDAI (I) Beiheft 43. Tübingen: Wasmuth. Hölbl, G. 1978. Zeugnisse ägyptischer Religionsvorstellungen für Ephesus. ePRO 73. Leiden: Brill. Jobst, W. 1980. “Zur Lokalisierung des Sebasteion-Augusteum in Ephesos.” MDAI  (I) 30: 241–59. Keil, J. 1964. Ephesos; ein Führer durch die Ruinenstätte und ihre Geschichte, 5th edition. Vienna: ÖAI. Kenzler, U. 2006. “Die augusteische Neugestaltung des Staatsmarkts von Ephesos: Kultgemeinschaften und die Erschaffung einer römischen Stadt.” Hephaistos 24: 169–81. Knibbe, D. and M. Büyükkolancı. 1989. “Zur Bauinschrift der Basilica auf dem sog. Staatsmarkt von Ephesos.” ÖJh 59: 43–45. Lang-Auinger, C. and V. Mitsopoulos-Leon. 2007. Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos, 2: Funde klassischer bis römischer Zeit. FiE 9.2, 3. Vienna: ÖAI. Lauter, H. 1986. Die Architektur des Hellenismus. Darmstadt: WBG. Lyttelton, M. 1987. “The Design and Planning of Temples and Sanctuaries in Asia Minor in the Roman Imperial Period.” In Roman Architecture in the Greek World, 38–49. Edited by S. Macready and F. H. Thompson. London: Thames & Hudson. Martin, R. 1951. Recherches sur l’agora grecque: Études d’histoire et d’architecture urbaines. BEFAR 174. Paris: de Boccard. Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. 2005. “Zur Chronologie des kleinen Tempels auf dem Staatsmarkt in Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, 1.203–11. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos. Raja, R. 2012. Urban Development and Regional Identity in the Eastern Roman Provinces, 50 BC–AD 250: Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Athens, Gerasa. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Scherrer, P. 1990. “Augustus, die Mission des Vedius Pollio und die Artemis Ephesia.” ÖJh 60: 87–101. Scherrer, P. 1995. “The City of Ephesos: From the Roman Period to Late Antiquity.” In Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology,

The Upper Agora at Ephesos

107

Religion and Culture, 1–25. HTS 41. Edited by H. Koester. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International. Scherrer, P. 2001. “The Historical Topography of Ephesos.” In Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 57–87. JRASup 45. Edited by D. Parrish. Portsmouth, RI: JRA. Scherrer, P. 2007. “Der conventus civium Romanorum und kaiserliche Freigelassene als Bauherren in Ephesos.” In Neue Zeiten—neue Sitten: Zu Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, 63–75. Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie 12. Edited by M. Meyer. Vienna: Phoibos. Sjöqvist, E. 1954. “Kaisareion: A Study in Architectural Iconography.” ORom 1: 86–108. Steskal, M. 2010. Das Prytaneion in Ephesos. FiE 9.4. Vienna: Ö AW. Stucchi, S. 1975. Architettura cirenaica. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Thomas, C. 2010. “Greek Heritage in Roman Corinth and Ephesos.” In Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, 117–47. NovTSup. 134. Edited by S. J. Friesen, D. Schowalter and J. Walters. Leiden: Brill. Thür, H. 1996. “Ein dorischer Torbau am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos.” In Fremde Zeiten. Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt, 345–61. Edited by F. Blakolmer et al. Vienna: Phoibos. Thür, H. 2007a. “Wie römisch ist der sogenannte Staatsmarkt in Ephesos?” In Neue Zeiten—neue Sitten: Zu Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, 77–90. Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie, 12. Edited by M. Meyer. Vienna: Phoibos. Thür, H. 2007b. “Das Gymnasion an der oberen Agora in Ephesos.” In Πότνια Θηρῶν: Festschrift für Gerda Schwarz zum 65. Geburtstag, 403–14. Edited by E. Christof et al. Vienna: Phoibos. Tuchelt, K. 1981. “Zum Problem ‘Kaisareion—Sebasteion’: Eine Frage zu den Anfängen des römischen Kaiserkultes.” MDAI (I) 31: 167–86. Vallois, R. 1944. L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos jusqu’à l’éviction des Déliens (166 av. J.-C.), 1: Les monuments. BEFAR, 157. Paris: de Boccard. Vetters, H. 1971. “Ephesos: Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1970.” AAWW 108: 85–101. von Gerkan, A. 1924. Griechische Städteanlagen: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des Städtebaues im Altertum. Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter. von Hesberg, H. 1994. Formen privater Repräsentation in der Baukunst des 2. und 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau. von Hesberg, H. 2002. “Die Basilika von Ephesos: Die kulturelle Kompetenz der neuen Stifter.” In Patris und Imperium: Kulturelle und politische Identität in den Städten der römischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium Köln, November 1998, BABeschSup 8, 149–58. Edited by C. Berns, et al. Leuven: Peeters. Wiplinger, G. and G. Wlach. 1995. Ephesos—100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen. Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau.

Chapter 6

The Magnesian Gate of Ephesos Alexander Sokolicek The Magnesian Gate is one of three main gates in Ephesos, located in the southeast of the urban fortifications (Plan 2, no. 10).1 With the aim to guard, protect, and control the streets connecting to Ephesos from the south, it is not merely a military building, but incorporates additional, especially liminal, features. City gates like this one are neither wholly of the city nor of the countryside. While the Magnesian Gate is important for Ephesos in understanding the chronology of its fortifications, its streets, and its urban development, it also served as a conduit between city and country and was articulated as both a station to regulate traffic and as a sacred space in processions between the Artemision and the city of Ephesos proper. Recent archaeological and architectural investigations at the Magnesian Gate have produced new evidence to understand the many roles of this main gate of Ephesos. 1

Architecture and Chronology of the Magnesian Gate

The Magnesian Gate, named after the nearest city to which it leads, Magnesia on the Maeander, was built into a smoothly ascending saddle between Bülbüldağ and Panayırdağ, the two fortified Ephesian hills that dominate the city landscape (fig. 6.1). The fortification system, initiated under King Lysimachos, are the best preserved architectural remains of the early Hellenistic city.2 In relation to other city gates,3 the area of the Magnesian Gate—including two ­towers and a courtyard—is fairly large (ca. 40 × 40 m), but not excessively 1  The other gates are the Koressos Gate in the north next to the stadium, and an almost completely destroyed gate near the harbor channel in the northwest. See Keil 1912. Only scant remains have survived from the latter. Small sally ports are also known at the east side of Panayırdağ and on the stretch of walls on Bülbüldağ, Marksteiner 1999, 413–19. 2  Marksteiner 1999. See also IvE 4.1441 for the architect Athenis from Cyzicus who gained citizenship in the middle of the 3rd century bce honoring his efforts for the construction of the walls. See also Ladstätter 2016. 3  For example, the similar, but earlier South Gate in Messene is only half the size (Müth 2010, 81–83), whereas the Roman East Gate at Side is nearly as large as the Magnesian Gate (Lohner-Urban and Trinkl 2012).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_008 .

The Magnesian Gate of Ephesos

109

Figure 6.1 Magnesian Gate. Stone plan

wide.4 The city gates of Ephesos are all located in highly visible and easily accessible areas where the regional and supra-regional routes connect to the city. The number of city gates in Ephesos was kept to a minimum, as is typical for large Hellenistic cities, which sought to minimize high-risk access points.5 Recent archaeological and architectural investigations at the Magnesian Gate6 that resumed earlier unfinished explorations7 led to a new understanding of the building history of the gate and its role for Ephesos. The gate complex consists of two large towers, which stand about 20 m apart from each other (fig. 6.2). They frame the entrance area, which funnels the approaching roads through three separate entrances. Courtyard walls at the back of the two 4  See Winter 1971; Lawrence 1979; Adam 1982; Schattner 2006; Hellmann 2010. Other city gates in Ephesos are smaller. 5  Winter 1971; Lawrence 1979; van Tilburg 2007, 90–91. 6  Sokolicek 2009a; Sokolicek 2010. 7  The Magnesian Gate was identified and unearthed by John Turtle Wood in the late 1860s. See Wood 1877, 19–21, 111–20. The gate was again the subject of archaeological excavations by Gerard Seiterle from 1976 to 1986, and in 1996 and 1997. See Seiterle 1982, 145–49; Seiterle 1998, 78. Based on the excavated parts of the gate, Peter Scherrer presented a reconstruction of the gate as part of his topographical studies in Scherrer 2006, 63–78.

110

Sokolicek

Figure 6.2 Magnesian Gate. From northeast

towers enclose a court area of about 26 × 23 m. The back wall of the courtyard (in the west) has a large opening leading to the avenue to the Upper Agora, the so-called Südstrasse (‘South Street’).8 Both the court and the forecourt are paved with large marble slabs. The southern and the central entrances were designed for wheeled traffic, while the northern entrance was connected to a pedestrian way coming from the Artemision. New excavations have challenged the established chronology of the gate, which was thought to be early Hellenistic and part of the original design of the Lysimachan city walls.9 New find contexts below the earliest roads of the gate and in the foundation trenches substantiate a late Hellenistic date for the erection of the gate around 100 bce.10 Deep soundings have proven that the walls of the gate building were built on top of the foundations of the early Hellenistic city walls, which were pulled down in this area for the purpose of the construction of the gate (fig. 6.3).11 The gate itself finds close parallels to the East Gate in Side,12 now dated to the 1st century bce,13 or to the (smaller) 4th century bce South Gate in Messene.14 8  Groh 2006. Due to the poor state of preservation of the back wall it is not possible to determine whether the back wall of the courtyard had three entrances like the front, as proposed by Scherrer 2006. 9  Seiterle 1982. 10  Sokolicek 2010. Seiterle thought of a later building date in Augustan times. See Seiterle 1998. The Augustan layers he discovered are, however, part of a large rebuilding program and do not belong to the earliest layers of the gate. 11  Sokolicek 2010. 12  Mansel 1956, 34–120; Mansel 1968; Lohner-Urban and Trinkl 2012. 13   Lohner-Urban 2013, 5. 14  Müth 2010, 81–83.

The Magnesian Gate of Ephesos

111

Figure 6.3 Magnesian Gate. Southern entrance, covering Hellenistic city wall

It is probable, though not demonstrable, that there was an earlier gate in the immediate vicinity of the late Hellenistic Magnesian Gate. Remains from a Hellenistic Doric frieze and a weapon frieze were found during early excavations in the gate area,15 and they could well be remains from an older gate. In the area of the Magnesian Gate, however, no archaeological traces can be connected with an early Hellenistic phase. In addition, the main road leading through the gate to the Upper Agora was laid out toward the end of the 2nd century bce. The new dating of the gate and the streets not only sheds light on ‘Hellenistic’Republican gate architecture in Asia Minor, but, more importantly, raises historical implications for the urban transformation of Ephesos in the early days of the Roman province of Asia.16 It seems that, with the construction of the Magnesian Gate, the streets of Ephesos were under construction as well, at least the main road to the Upper Agora (Südstrasse). It is important to note that concurrently, or just a few years prior, the Romans provided the province of Asia with supra-regional roads, starting both at Pergamon and Ephesos,17 15  Seiterle 1982, 147–48; Scherrer 2006, 64–65. 16  As a ‘Roman’ rather than Hellenistic city gate, the Magnesian Gate sheds new light on the intertwining process of Greek and Roman transformations in Asia Minor. See Sokolicek 2010, 279–81 for a short discussion. A more detailed discussion of the date of the gate is currently being prepared by the author. 17  French 1991, 54.

112

Sokolicek

and eventually connecting with the city gates. It seems to be no coincidence that the construction of city gates, roads, and urban streets commenced with the Roman expansion into the eastern Mediterranean: they bear witness to Roman territorial claims.18 Significant changes to the gate architecture are detectable only in Roman imperial and late antique times. Toward the end of the 1st century ce the streets and the courtyard were paved with marble slabs; shortly afterward a new aqueduct line, donated by Tiberius Claudius Aristion,19 bypassed the gate. At the end of the 2nd century ce the renowned sophist Flavius Damianus20 dedicated a via tecta, a roofed street, that carried the processional way between the Artemision and the Magnesian Gate.21 Traces of the Damianus Stoa have survived in cuttings in the paving in front of the gate (fig. 6.4).22 The gate itself was closed in the course of the 7th century ce.

Figure 6.4 Magnesian Gate. Crane shot from outside the city

18  The existing road network was reestablished and supplied with milestones by the Roman Republic starting right after the Kingdom of Pergamon was bequeathed to the Romans. See French 2012, 7–9. One of the earliest milestones taking Ephesos as caput viae (IvE 7,1.3159) comes from Aziziye between Ephesos and Tralleis and dates to the proconsulship of Manius Aquillius (129–126 bce). 19  Scherrer 2006, 56; Wiplinger 2006, 23–39. 20   P IR 3 (2nd ed. 1943) 146, F 253. 21  Knibbe and Langmann 1993; Pietsch 1999, 455–60; Groh 2006, 108–9. 22  Philostr. VS 2.23.605–6; Knibbe 1999, 451–52; Sokolicek 2010, 265 (cuttings in front of gate). The processional way was gradually filled with sarcophagi. See Knibbe and Langmann 1993. Possible viewers from the outside could therefore hardly observe what happened during the procession. See Agelidis 2012, 95.

The Magnesian Gate of Ephesos

2

113

Cultural and Religious Roles of the Magnesian Gate

City gates are by nature exclusive (for defense and control) and liminal, visualizing the border zone between the ‘civilized’ urban area and the less organized and diversely used ‘wild’ countryside. In the Greek and Roman world, city gates represented the might, wealth, and strength of a city and were the definitive markers for how to proceed into an urban area.23 From this point of view, city gates demonstrate and materialize the city’s boundary and its accessibility. Necessarily, access must be regulated, and city gates become preeminent nodes of control. With the beginning of the Roman empire, city gates inherently lost their defensive role, but were still important posts to collect tolls, regulate traffic, and act as a place for religious activities.24 ‘Western’ city gates are different from city gates in the Near East, where they were legal, public, and religious spaces and an integral part of a city.25 Any gate area, however, was always liminal, being a space ‘in between’ the city and the countryside.26 But references to the Magnesian Gate and to Ephesos normally include the opening in the city wall as well as the area behind the entry—the courtyard—and the area in front of the gate, which was not walled but is certainly part of the gate’s appearance and function. When investigating the liminal role of the Magnesian Gate, one needs to be specific and question the nature of this liminality—especially its religious, legal, political, and cultural aspects—and to investigate how this question may be pursued in our sources. The reason to argue specifically for a religious role of the Magnesian Gate arises from a passage in the famous foundation of C. Vibius Salutaris (104 ce), who endowed funds to finance recurring processions and a lottery.27 The inscription explicitly mentions the Magnesian Gate 23  On the functions of gates, especially on borders, see May 2014. 24  van Tilburg 2007, 41–85 (traffic); 86–90 (tolls). 25  May 2014, 77–121. 26  For general information on city gates see Schattner and Valdés Fernández 2006; and on Republican city gates see Brands 1988, especially 3–4. 27  On the foundation see Rogers 1991. The earliest notion of a procession for Artemis can be identified in a mime of Herondas and also from Pliny, who refer to a painting by the renowned painter Apelles illustrating a pompa for Artemis Ephesiae, probably done in the early 3rd century bce. See Herondas, Mimes 4.66–76; Plin. HN 35.93.96. For the date see Nairn 1904, XIV. The route the procession followed is not clear. Feuser 2014 argues that the old procession followed the same route as the one described in the Salutaris inscription. The evidence, however, is vague, and the pre-Hellenistic procession might have been specifically between the Artemision and the city at Ayasoluk. Thirty-one gold and silver statues representing historical and mythical figures relevant for Ephesos were carried from the Artemision to and through the city, including portraits of Trajan and Plotina

114

Sokolicek

as a station in the processions and refers to a ritual transfer of sacred objects at the gate, which could identify the gate as a religious boundary area. The objects were statues that not only represented historical and mythical figures from Ephesian history, but they also communicated Ephesian self-esteem in Roman imperial times: a Greek city, honoring their disgraced founder Lysimachos, but also taking advantage of Roman culture and administration.28 The inscription is not only a master plan of the procession, regulating weights and sizes of the statues (and protecting them from alteration), but also organizes the concept of the procession and gives directives for the performance of different social groups in Ephesos.29 The Salutaris procession is a pompa with stations—a procession that stopped at various occasions involving ritual action.30 Stefan Groh has recently reconstructed further stations of the procession, which he identifies in the large places in Ephesos such as the Upper Agora, the Lower Agora, and the theater.31 These public squares each measure more than 500 square meters and can hold a large audience. Furthermore, all these places are positioned at an equal distance of about 300 m from each other. The itinerary of the procession makes the connection of the city with the Artemision clear, but it also shows how necessary the itinerary was for the city’s identity. The procession started at the pronaos of the Artemision, passed the Magnesian Gate and as well as of the mythical founder Androklos, the King Lysimachos, and personifications of civic boards, such as demos and boule, the gerousia, the ephebeia, the phyles, and the Senate. See Rogers 1991, 90–93. The revival of past traditions and reflection on individual history was a common phenomenon in Roman imperial Asia Minor. See Chaniotis 2003. The display of the Senate in the images shows that the Roman authorities were integral components of local administration. See Schörner 2014, 233–34, and 241–42 for a table of statues carried during the procession. 28  Graf 2011 discusses the phenomenon of reviving old rituals in the Roman Empire in three examples. This revival brings the classical tradition of Greek cities forward and is a critical part of shaping and integrating old identities into the new reality of the Roman Empire. Rogers 1991 argues that the demos played a critical role in the ‘Romanization’ process of Ephesos, but this view was challenged by van Bremen 1993, 245. The display of local and Roman authorities, however, is an important part of the procession showing the Ephesian way of integrating Rome in the province. See Schörner 2014, 233–34. 29  Rogers 1991. The Roman procession renews an older ritual of which not much is known, as F. Graf has pointed out. See Graf 2011, 105–17, Ladstätter 2016, 256–57. Recently S. Feuser has presented a discussion of older processions at Ephesos, Feuser 2014. See also Rogers 2012 on the mysteries of Artemis, the ritual complex associated with the Salutaris inscription. 30  I. Nielsen observed that dramatic performances during processions often involved the participants in the ritual action, Nielsen 2002, 16–18. V. Gasparini identifies the Salutaris procession as a stational pompa, similar to ludi scaenici or ludi megalenses in Rome, Gasparini 2013, 194. 31  Groh 2006, 71–72.

The Magnesian Gate of Ephesos

115

went via the Upper Agora, the Kouretes Street, and the Embolos to the theater, the final destination. Here the statuary was placed on specific bases shown at the festivities.32 After the end of the celebrations, the statuary was carried from the theater to the Koressos Gate and was brought back to the Artemision. The Magnesian Gate is the first known station in this procession. Ephebes (“young men of the city”) appear as participants in a ritual performed at the gate. Guy Rogers emphasized that a central part of the foundation of C. Vibius Salutaris was the education of the youth and the acculturation of this group to the mythical and historical past of Ephesos, as well as the introduction of the youth to civic hierarchies.33 In lines 50 and 51 of the inscription, the Magnesian Gate is named as the place where the ephebes take the statuary and the sacred items from the priests and carry them to the theater where the festival continues: “… two of the neopoioi attending and the beadle, to be brought and brought back, the ephebes receiving and escorting from the Magnesian Gate into the theatre, and from the theatre in the same manner during the first new moon’s sacrifice during the archieratic year, and on the occasion of the twelve sacred gatherings and regular assemblies every month, and during the Sebasteia and the Soteria and the penteteric festivals….”34 Later in the inscription, the Magnesian Gate is again mentioned, when the statues should be carried back to the Artemision at the end of the procession: “After the assemblies have been dismissed, the type-statues and the images should be carried back to the sanctuary of Artemis and should be handed over by the guards, … the ephebes receiving and escorting from the Magnesian Gate into the theatre, and from the theatre right to the Koressian Gate with all due dignity.”35 The text clearly states that the ephebes receive statues and images at the Magnesian Gate from the guards and the neopoioi, the religious officials who were responsible for the building of the temple as well as for the 32  Twelve inscribed bases have survived, IvE 2.223–47. 33  Rogers 1991, 67–69, 136; see also Chaniotis 2003, 182. 34  [—ὑπὸ τῶν φυλάκων, συνεπιμελουμένων καὶ] δύ�̣ο νε̣[οποι]/ῶν̣ [καὶ σκηπτούχου, φέρηται καὶ] α̣ὖ̣� φ̣[έρη]τ̣αι, διαδ[εχομέ]/νων [καὶ συμπροπεμπόντων τῶν] ἐ�φ ̣ ή[β]ων̣ [ἀ]πὸ τῆς ̣ [Μαγνη]/ τικῆς [πύλης εἰς τὸ θέατρον κα]ὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ θε̣[άτρου κατὰ] / τὸν αὐ[τὸν τρόπον,] τῇ τε ν[ουμ] η̣ νίᾳ ἀρχ[ιερατικοῦ] / ἔτους θυσί�[ᾳ ̣ καὶ ἐν τ]α̣ῖ̣ς ι ̣[βʹ καθ’ ἕκαστο]ν μῆνα ἀ�̣[θροιζο]/μέναις ἱερα[ῖς τε κα]ὶ νομ[ίμοις ἐκκλ]ησίαις κα[ὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν] / Σεβ̣[ασ]τ̣είων [καὶ Σω]τ̣ηρίων [καὶ τῶν π]ε̣ντ[ετηρικῶν—] / [—]ω̣ [ν ἑορταῖς—]; ll. 48–55, translated by G. Rogers. 35  μετὰ δὲ τ]ὸ λυθῆν̣[αι τὰς ἐκκλησί]ας ἀποφ[ερέσθωσαν τὰ ἀπεικονίσ/ματα καὶ αἱ εἰκόνε]ς ̣ ε[ἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς Ἀρτέμ]ιδος κα[ὶ παραδιδόσθωσαν ὑπὸ / τῶν φυλάκων, συνεπιμελουμένων ἐκ] τῶν νεο[ποιῶν δύο καὶ σκηπτούχου, / Μουσαίῳ, ἱερῷ τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος τῷ ἐπὶ τῶν παρ]α̣θη[κῶν, διαδεχομένων καὶ συμ/προπεμπόντων καὶ τῶν ἐφήβων ἀπὸ τῆς Μαγνητικῆς πύλης εἰς τὸ θέα/ τρον καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ θεάτρου μέχρι τῆς Κορησσικῆς πύλης μετὰ] πάσης [εὐπρε/πείας]; ll. 208–12, translated by G. Rogers.

116

Sokolicek

administration of the finances and the temple property,36 but the ephebes have to leave the procession at the Koressos Gate.37 This passage is interesting for several reasons, but the original Greek text might reveal more than what the procession was about, shedding light on the relation of the Roman city and the Artemision. The Greek term used for receiving the statues is diadechesthai. The basic meaning of this verb is “to receive one from another,” but it is commonly used as a technical term for “to succeed” or “to come after,” or to take an office from somebody else in a given order.38 According to the etymology of the word, the prefix dia- adds a social expectation to the word dechesthai, whose basic meaning is “to receive.”39 Dia-dechesthai, however, appears almost always in the sense of succeeding in or receiving a function.40 In the case of the ritual action at the Magnesian Gate, this unusual term could refer to a change of action in the procession. By receiving the sacred items at the gate, the ephebes would succeed from attendants to performers, while the leaders of the procession would turn into—perhaps—supervisors for the urban part of the procession. It is probably too farfetched to see a loss of religious power by the priests in this action, but with this act the ephebes become responsible for the safe transport of ritual objects, which could be seen as part of a rite of socialization.41 As in other liminal experiences, the rites in Ephesos also reflect the liminal age of the ephebes. Socialization at liminal areas including transitional rites may emphasize the social status of the participants as such. It was not by chance that the ephebes played such an important 36  Schultheß, 1935; Roueché 1993, 81–86. 37  Rogers 1991, 110. 38   L SJ s.v. διαδέχομαι. 39  Frisk 1960, s.v. δέχομαι. 40  Basileia in Commagenian kingdom: SEG 26.1623; kingdom: Polyb. 2.4.7; see LSJ s.v. διαδέχομαι; prayer: Fayoum 2.134 Euhemeria (Qasr el-Banat), 79 bce. 41  The rite of socialization was famously pointed out by Turner 1967, 93–111. The age of the ephebes corresponds to a period in youth accompanied by socialization rites in diverse cultures and times. Evidence from Hellenistic and Roman sources especially demonstrates that ephebes had to fulfill tasks and rites to be prepared for society. In processions and rites, ephebes played a transitional role, but the sending out of ephebes to liminal areas of the polis was a critical element in the socialization of ephebes in pre-Roman Greece. Many processions and festivals (Eleusinia, City Dionysia, Panathenaia, Artemis Agrotera) are known from Hellenistic times. See Parke 1977 and Winter 1992. A good example of Roman imperial practice is known from an inscription from 3rd century Eleusis, where, being part of the mysteries, the ephebes carried the ‘holy objects’ from Eleusis to Athens (described in IG II2 1078, 9–30; Dowden 2010, 330). In these rituals, garments and special costumes—sometimes even dressing as girls—are important acts in the behavior of the ephebes. Rites of transition, both in ritual and dressing, were part of military training. See Chaniotis 2005, 51–55; Polinskaya 2003, 85–90.

The Magnesian Gate of Ephesos

117

role at the Magnesian Gate: the physical liminality of the gate and the biological liminality of these late adolescents had a symbolic coherence.42 The Magnesian Gate was, at the occasion of the procession, a transient zone between the influential area of the Artemision and the city of Ephesos.43 This reading of the passage of the Salutaris inscription is, to an extent, corroborated by an imperial Roman horos stone of the Artemision found next to the Magnesian Gate, now lost.44 Horos stones determine the borders of sacred areas, the property of sanctuaries, the borders of cities and demes, of public and private real estate, and of tombs,45 and they can also flag the area of processional ways.46 The horos stone from the Magnesian Gate marks a point of the Artemision’s dominion, but it does not mention any kind of road or processional way. Although many blocks of the Artemision were carried to Ephesos after the devastation of the temple, it is unlikely that this stone belongs to the immediate surroundings of the sanctuary. As the procession started at the Artemision and entered the urban area of Ephesos at the Magnesian Gate, the horos stone could have been used in the same function as the gylloi in Miletos determining the extension of the processional way.47 The city walls and the gates, however, were not a boundary that prevented the city from the enlargement of the Artemision’s asylum area. The asylum area was restricted to the borders of the sanctuary, which were determined by the walls of the temenos.48 In the course of the Hellenistic period, these boundaries were gradually enlarged and crossed the temenos walls until they 42  I thank especially C. Thomas, University of California, Santa Barbara, for discussing this particular matter and supporting the idea of this ambiguous relationship between biological age, rites, and choice of place. 43  The differences between the organization and legal authority of the city of Ephesos and the Artemision, which acted as an autonomous temple-state, a financial center, and as the owner of expansive areas in the hinterland of Ephesos, were distinct in Hellenistic times, but started to change with Augustus, who began to take control over the autonomous power of the Artemision. See Dignas 2002, 141–77. 44  IvE 2.566: grey marble slab, Ορος / Ιερος / Αρτεμιδος. The dimensions of the slab are 30 × 36 × 11 cm. The find spot described by J. Keil in 1928: “Südöstl. des magnes. Tor, in einer der Trockenmauern auf dem Höhenrücken” (“southeast of the Magnesian Gate, in one of the unmortared stone walls on the ridge,” in the sketchbook, inv. no. 2323). 45  Seiffert 2006, 20–67. 46  Such a horos stone, belonging to the processional way from Athens to Delphi, was found during the excavations of the Attalos stoa at the Agora of Athens (Agora Inscription inv. 5476). See discussion in Herda 2008, 63 n. 360. 47  The importance of the gylloi—sacred stones flagging the procession in Miletos—is described in detail by Herda 2006, 249–59; Herda 2008, 74–76. I thank A. Herda for this suggestion (verbal communication). 48  Tac. Ann. 3.61.1 reports that people were sitting at the altar of the Artemision.

118

Sokolicek

finally reached the urban area of Ephesos. Strabo mourns about the streets of Ephesos being full of criminals, and Apollonius of Tyana complains about robbers in the temple protected by its shelter.49 The right to give asylum, the asylia, however, had significant diplomatic and political importance and outweighed the difficulties with criminal subjects.50 With Augustus, the temple and its affairs were considerably changed, and one important part was to reduce the asylum area to the old temenos area again.51 In this respect, and considering the horos stone and the passage of the Salutaris inscription, the reduction of the asylum area limits the influential area of the Artemision to its original pre-Hellenistic area—and the Artemision’s direct territorial influence ends at the city borders. The boundary zone in Roman imperial times marked by the Magnesian Gate has nothing to do with a military function, and fortifications in Roman imperial times were mostly for display and regulation of space.52 The construction of the Magnesian Gate toward the end of the 2nd century bce, however, defined a boundary with functions in terms of defense and access. The defensive role is clearly articulated by its architecture (towers, court, and lockable entrances). In term of access to traffic, the Magnesian Gate linked Ephesos with transregional roads, starting at Pergamon, leading south and passing Ephesos.53 In the time of the early Roman empire, the defensive role became obsolete, and the functions of the gate in regard to religion, traffic, and representation were dominant. The Magnesian Gate passage in the Salutaris inscription seems to indicate that the priests were not supposed to enter Ephesos with the signs of their sacred power—an action that recalls what generals and emperors did at the Roman pomerium when they laid down their signs of military might (their weapons) before crossing it to enter the city. This practice was truly Roman. Even if it is too farfetched to reconstruct a pomerium around Ephesos, the ritual code could be understood as a symbolic, transitional act at a transitional zone, performed in a Roman way. Consequently, this practice of separating powers at the city gate could be seen as a means of Romanization, or perhaps as a negotiation of Greek and Roman traditions in the eastern Mediterranean. 49  Strabo 14.1.23. See also Philostr. VA 65. 50  Fundamental for the study of asylum are Chaniotis 1996; Rigsby 1996; Thür 2003 (response to Chaniotis 1996). The significance of asylum to Hellenistic and Roman sanctuaries is broadly discussed by Dignas 2002, 289–300; Bouraselis 2003, 143–58; Herrmann 1989, 127–64. 51  Dignas 2002, 290. 52  On the role of gates in Roman fortifications see van Tilburg 2007. 53  French 2012, 7–9.

The Magnesian Gate of Ephesos

119

Bibliography Adam, J. P. 1982. L’architecture militaire grecque. Paris: Picard. Agelidis, S. 2012. “Zur architektonischen Fassung von Prozessionswegen.” In Mani­ festationen von Macht und Hierarchien in Stadtraum und Landschaft, 81–98. Edited by F. Pirson. Byzas 13. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Bouraselis, K. 2003. “Zur Asylie als aussenpolitisches Instrument in der hellenistischen Welt.” In Das antike Asyl: Kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und politische Funktion, 143–58. Edited by M. Dreher. Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 15. Cologne: Böhlau. Brands, G. 1988. Republikanische Stadttore in Italien. BAR International series 459. Oxford: BAR. Chaniotis, A. 1996. “Conflicting Authorities: Asylia between Secular and Divine Law in the Classical and Hellenistic Poleis.” Kernos 9: 65–86. Chaniotis, A. 2003. “Negotiating Religion in the Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire.” Kernos 16: 177–90. Chaniotis, A. 2005. War in the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell. Dignas, B. 2002. Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dowden, K. 2010. “Rhetoric and Religion.” In A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, 320–35. Edited by I. Worthington. Oxford: Blackwell. Feuser, S. 2014. “A Stroll along the Sea: The Processional Way in Ephesus and the Littoral.” CHS Research Bulletin 3/1. Accessed April 5, 2015. http://wp.chs.harvard .edu/chs-fellows/2015/02/20/a-stroll-along-the-sea/. French, D. 1991. “Sites and Inscriptions: Phrygia, Pisidia and Pamphylia.” EA 17: 51–68. French, D. 2012. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, vol. 3: Milestones, Fasc. 3.1 Republican. British Institute at Ankara (Electronic Monograph 1). London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Frisk, H. 1955–72. Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Gasparini, V. 2013. “Staging Religion: Cultic Performances in (and around) the Temple of Isis in Pompeii.” In Memory and Religious Experience in the Greco-Roman World, 185–211. Edited by N. Cusumano et al. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Graf, F. 2011. “Ritual Restoration and Innovation in the Greek Cities of the Roman Imperium.” In Ritual Dynamics in the Ancient Mediterranean: Agency, Emotion, Gender, Representation, 105–17. Edited by A. Chaniotis. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Groh, S. 2006. “Neue Forschungen zur Stadtplanung in Ephesos.” ÖJh 75: 47–116. Hellmann, M. C. 2010. L’architecture grecque. Paris: Picard. Herda, A. 2006. Der Apollon-Delphinios-Kult in Milet und die Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma: Ein neuer Kommentar der sog. Molpoi-Satzung. Milesische Forschung 4. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

120

Sokolicek

Herda, A. 2008. “Apollon Delphinios—Apollon Didymeus: Zwei Gesichter eines milesischen Gottes und ihr Bezug zur Kolonisation Milets in archaischer Zeit.” In Kult(ur)kontakte: Apollon in Milet/Didyma, Histria, Myus, Naukratis und auf Zypern: Akten der Table Ronde in Mainz vom 11.–12. März 2004, 13–86. Edited by R. Bol, U. Höckmann, and P. Schollmeyer. Internationale Archäologie 11. Rahden: Leidorf. Herrmann, P. 1989. “Rom und die Asylie griechischer Heiligtümer: Eine Urkunde des Dictators Caesar aus Sardeis.” Chiron 19: 127–64. Keil, J. 1912. “X. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Arbeiten in Ephesos 1912.” ÖJh 15: 183–86. Knibbe, D. 1999. “Via Sacra Ephesiaca.” In 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposiums Wien 1995, 451–52. Edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger. AForsch 1 = DenkschrWien 260. Vienna: ÖAW. Knibbe, D. and G. Langmann. 1993. Via Sacra Ephesiaca I. Vienna: ÖAI. Ladstätter. 2016. “Hafen und Stadt von Ephesos in hellenistischer Zeit.” ÖJh 85: 233–72. Lawrence, A. W. 1979. Greek Aims in Fortification. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lohner-Urban, U. 2013. “Bericht über die archäologischen Untersuchungen am Osttor von Side 2012.” Annual Reports University of Graz. https://static.uni-graz.at/file admin/gewi-zentren/Antike/Tagung_2013/Bericht_side_2012_01.pdf. Lohner-Urban, U. and E. Trinkl. 2012. “Untersuchungen am Osttor von Side 2011.” Forum Archaeologiae 63.6 (http://farch.net). Mansel, A. M. 1956. “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Pamphylien in den Jahren 1946–1955.” AA 1956: 34–120. Mansel, A. M. 1968. “Osttor und Waffenreliefs von Side (Pamphylien).” AA 1968: 239–79. Marksteiner, T. 1999. “Bemerkungen zum hellenistischen Stadtmauerring von Ephesos.” In 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposiums Wien 1995, 413–19. Edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger. AForsch 1 = DenkschrWien 260. Vienna: ÖAW. May, N. N. 2014. “Gates and Their Function in Mesopotamia and Israel.” In The Fabric of Cities: Aspects of Urbanism, Urban Topography and Society in Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome, 77–121. Edited by N. N. May and U. Steinert. Leiden: Brill. Müth, S. 2010. “Fortifikationskunst und Repräsentation an der Stadtmauer von Messene.” In Neue Forschungen zu antiken Stadtbefestigungen im östlichen Mittel­ meerraum und im Vorderen Orient, 57–83. Edited by J. Lorentzen, et al. Byzas 10. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Nairn, J. A. 1904. The Mimes of Herodas. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nielsen, I. 2002. Cultic Theatres and Ritual Drama. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Parke, H. W. 1977. Festivals of the Athenians. London: Thames and Hudson. Pietsch, W. 1999. “Außerstädtische Grabanlagen von Ephesos.” In 100 Jahre Öster­ reichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposiums Wien 1995, 455–60. Edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger. AForsch 1 = DenkschrWien 260. Vienna: ÖAW.

The Magnesian Gate of Ephesos

121

Polinskaya, I. 2003. “Liminality as Metaphor: Initiation and the Frontier of Ancient Athens.” In Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives, 85–106. Edited by D. B. Dodd and C. A. Faraone. London: Routledge. Rigsby, K. J. 1996. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rogers, G. 1991. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City. London: Routledge. Roueché, C. 1993. Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Periods. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Schattner, T. and F. Valdés Fernández. 2006. Stadttore: Bautyp und Kunstform: Akten der Tagung in Toledo vom 25. bis 27. September 2003 = Puertas de ciudades: Tipo arquitectónico y forma artística: Actas del coloquio en Toledo del 25 al 27 de septiembre 2003. Iberia archaeologia 8. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Scherrer, P. 2006. “Hellenistische und römische Stadttore in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Ephesos.” In Stadttore: Bautyp und Kunstform: Akten der Tagung in Toledo vom 25. bis 27. September 2003 = Puertas de ciudades: Tipo arquitectónico y forma artística. Actas del coloquio en Toledo del 25 al 27 de septiembre 2003, 63–78. Iberia archaeologia 8. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Schörner, G. 2014. “Wie integriert man Rom in die polis? Der Kult des Senats in Kleinasien.” In Integration of Rome in the Roman World, 217–42. Edited by G. de Kleijn and S. Benoist. Leiden: Brill. Schultheß, Otto. 1935. s.v. Νεωποιοί RE 16.2.2433–39. Seiffert, A. 2006. “Der sakrale Schutz von Grenzen im antiken Griechenland: Form und Ikonographie.” Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Würzburg. Seiterle, G. 1982. “Das Hauptstadttor von Ephesos.” AK 25: 145–49. Seiterle, G. 1998. “Grabungen.” ÖJh 67: 78. Sokolicek, A. 2009a. “Zwischen Stadt und Land: Neues zum Magnesischen Tor in Ephesos: Erste Ergebnisse.” ÖJh 78: 321–47. Sokolicek, A. 2010. “Chronologie und Nutzung des Magnesischen Tores von Ephesos.” ÖJh 79: 259–81. Thür, G. 2003. “Gerichtliche Rolle des Asylanspruchs.” In Das antike Asyl: Kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und politische Funktion, 23–36. Edited by M. Dreher. Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsge­ schichte 15. Cologne: Böhlau. Turner, V. “Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage.” In The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual, 93–111. Edited by V. Turner. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. van Bremen, R. 1993. Review of The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City by Guy Rogers. JRS 83: 245–46. van Tilburg, C. 2007. Traffic and Congestion in the Roman Empire. New York: Routledge.

122

Sokolicek

Winter, F. 1971. Greek Fortifications. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Winter, J. J. 1992. “The Ephebes’ Song: Tragoidia and Polis.” In Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context, 20–62. Edited by J. J. Winkler and F. I. Zeitlin. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wiplinger, G. 2006. “Wasser für Ephesos, Stand der Erforschung der Wasserversorgung.” In Cura Aquarum in Ephesus: Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, 23–39. Edited by G. Wiplinger. BABeschSup. 12 = SoSchrÖAI 42. Leiden: Peeters. Wood, J. T. 1877. Discoveries at Ephesus: Including the Site and Remains of the Great Temple of Diana. London: Longmans.

Chapter 7

Mortuary Landscape and Group Identity in Roman Ephesos Martin Steskal Death causes chaos. It rips the deceased out of the realm of the living and the bereaved out of their normal role in daily life. To bring back order into this chaos, rituals are indispensable. These rituals are important both for the deceased and the bereaved. The ethnologist Arnold van Gennep described these transitional rites at the beginning of the 20th century as les rites de passage (“rites of passage”).1 While van Gennep was able to observe and to explore modern indigenous societies, we cannot participate in ritual performances of ancient societies and instead must depend on literary sources and material culture. We face a great divide, however, between texts, usually referring to the beliefs and practices of the social elite, and the beliefs and practices of a broad mass of the population. Moreover, the archaeological record is mostly fragmentary, and not every human action is reflected. In most cases burial goods tell more about the people left behind than about the deceased, as the quantity and quality of the finds do not provide accurate information about the economic influence of the deceased. But this is not all. Ancient societies, especially the ones of Asia Minor, are not a homogenous body, but are highly diversified from an ethnic point of view. As will be shown, this is particularly true for a cultural melting pot like Ephesos. Taking a closer look at the evidence of the capital of the Roman province of Asia, there are nevertheless some general tendencies that can be tracked. An analytical consideration of polytheistic concepts of the afterlife is a difficult endeavor.2 There are no simple questions or answers. The range of different views was complex. On the one hand, death was considered to be the material termination of the soul, and on the other, there was a detailed, separate world of the dead.3 Dealing with the development of Roman conceptions 1  Van Gennep 1999. 2  For general literature on burial rites see Morris 1996; Toynbee 1996; Hope 2007; Graen 2011; Kolb and Fugmann 2008; Schrumpf 2006. 3  Hope 2007, 211.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_009

124

Steskal

of the afterlife, it becomes clear that there is no straightforward development but rather a range of beliefs.4 The individual could choose from a variety of different cults, religions, and philosophies and accept or reject parts of them. For many, posthumous fame and memory was the only way to continue living. The afterlife of the deceased was represented in the commemoration of the people who survived them. Memoria, the actual act of remembrance, was of extraordinary importance. The countless monuments and epitaphs, recording not only the names of the deceased but their whole career and merits, bear witness to the efforts made to be kept in good memory. The term funeral— from the Latin funus—subsumes the entire period from the time of death until the final burial ceremonies at the interment. The events within this period followed certain patterns in which the bereaved had to play certain roles. Within a framework of more or less specified actions, there was of course the possibility of respecting the individual wishes of the deceased. The organization and execution of the funeral procedure were the responsibility of either the family or the association—the collegium—to which the deceased belonged during his or her lifetime. These events had to be well organized since they reflected the social position of the deceased and the family. In general we have to assume a great plurality of ritual behaviors in antiquity including many local traditions. A comparison of pagan and Christian burial rituals shows that early Christians were occasionally taking up pagan or Jewish rituals, but were trying hard to create their own traditions in order to be recognized as an independent group. However, it took until the late 5th century for a consistent and defined funerary procedure to become established.5 One particularly important proof of the effort to create their own traditions was that the death of a Christian was not interpreted as a contamination of the household and the bereaved.6 This contamination and the consequent purification were essential aspects of any pagan burial ritual. Another important aspect was the transition of the responsibility of the funeral procedure from the family and the collegia to church representatives who were then 4  Rüpke 2001, 46–50. 5  The regulations are described by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (see Heil 1986); on the early Christian funerary rituals in general see Volp 2002. 6  For the contamination of the household in the Roman funerary procedure see: Toynbee 1996, 43; Volp 2002, 94–95; Lindsay 2000. That this fear did no longer exist in the Christian funerary process is demonstrated by the participation of presbyters and bishops at Christian funerals while the participation of a pagan priest at a funeral was simply unimaginable, see Volp 2002, 195–98 with further literary evidences. Such a participation is already described by Tert. De anim. 51.6 in the late 2nd/early 3rd century ce.

Mortuary Landscape and Group Identity in Roman Ephesos

125

performing the rituals. The focus of attention of all Christian burial rituals, however, was the belief in the resurrection. In this way, burial rituals were a preferred method of defining adherence to a group or to joint values. The burials functioned as a material and physical symbol of the person’s identity and also marked a territory.7 Therefore, the development of the mortuary landscape reflects a wide range of attitudes towards burial behavior. One of the most apparent and crucial decisions that had to be made at a certain point was whether to bury or to cremate the dead body.8 The method of interment was an essential part of the funeral ritual and still is. However, the origins and the development of this ritual are a controversial issue. While in previous research cremation was referred to as the mos Romanus and inhumation as the mos Graecus,9 we are actually dealing with rites that were subject to multiple regional changes and that were practiced side by side. Sven Ahrens provides a summary of the evidence for cremation in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor and shows that cremation and inhumation “were not seen as something contrary, but rather as two options in the multifaceted range of mortuary rites available in Asia Minor.”10 Even if inhumation was much more common than cremation in the imperial period and also within Christian communities, the evidence of thousands of finds attesting to the practice of cremation in Asia Minor demonstrates that cremation was not only an adoption or reflection of Roman funerary practices but an indigenous rite. The impact of the Roman practices on cremation and the use of ostothekai are restricted to areas along the west coast of Asia Minor.11 Sven Ahrens justifiably points out the possibility that in some of these regions cremation was an older rite, which was only monumentalized through the use of ostothekai.12 The decision to cremate or to bury a person was a matter of practical and personal considerations, traditions, and fashions.13 7  Stone and Stirling 2007, 21. 8  Schrumpf 2006, 63–87 gives a very good summary on this issue. 9  Morris 1996, 31, 52–53; Audin 1960; Nock 1932. See also Tac. Ann. 16.6; Petron. Sat. 111.2. 10  Ahrens 2015; for a catalogue of the inscriptions mentioning ostothekai see Kubinska 1999. See also Thomas 2005, 291 who calls cremation and inhumation “ritual analogues that manifest the same conception of the afterlife.” 11  Ahrens 2015, 200–2. 12  Ahrens 2015, 202. 13  Cf. Nock 1932, 357; Morris 1996, 33; Schrumpf 2006, 74. Contra Toynbee 40–41 esp. 41: “But inhumation could be felt to be a gentler and more respectful way of laying to rest the mortal frame which has been the temple and mirror of the immortal soul and enduring personality.”

126

Steskal

In Ephesos, however, the archaeological evidence for cremation is—as in most regions of Asia Minor—scarce.14 The simple receptacles did not differ much from pottery for everyday use and are hard to recognize as cremation containers once they have been removed from their original context.15 In addition to post-depositional modifications of the evidence, we are dealing with a lack of proper excavations at many ancient sites in Asia Minor. The situation is a little bit better in regard to ostothekai—small circular or rectangular receptacles containing charred bones and ashes (fig. 7.1). Up to now, around 180 ostothekai or fragments of them have been found in Ephesos.16 They were produced from the 1st century bce to the 1st century ce and used well into the 3rd century. They fall into two types: those with plain faces and those carved with garlands. Inscriptions have revealed that more than 50% of the ostothekai were used by Roman citizens or freedmen, especially the ones with garland decoration that were introduced in the Augustan period. According to Christine Thomas, Roman citizens and freedmen were the main target of this new innovation until the development of Ephesian sarcophagus production in the first half of the 2nd century ce.17 Thomas interprets the increase in ostentation in burial containers as a “ritual strategy on the part of freedmen that legitimated their power against other contenders for power, the provincial elite, the hereditary rulers of Ephesos.”18 This particular choice was an important feature in creating a group identity among freed persons. But whenever a specific group defines the way it wants to be recognized, another group will react and distance itself from them as we will illustrate below. If we leave this specific case and take a broader view on the development of the Ephesian mortuary landscape the intention to create group identities becomes even more evident. In Ephesos large assemblages of tombs allow a comprehensive analysis of the mortuary landscape, and in recent years we attempted to record the entire Ephesian mortuary landscape by means of surveys (fig. 7.2). We can estimate that in the Roman period, for which we have the best evidence, Ephesos had at least 90 hectares of densely used extra-urban burial land with more than 1,200 individual burial sites (fig. 7.3). In the three main extra-urban necropoleis—the 14  The scarce evidence is described in Walker 1985, 55–57 (referring to Wood 1877, 115, 125–26) and Fabrizii-Reuer and Reuer 1995, 62–66. 15  Ahrens 2015, 187–89. 16  Büyükkolancı, Thomas, and Engelmann 2010; Thomas and İçten 1999; Thomas and İçten 2007; Thomas 2005. 17  Thomas 2005, 296–98. 18  Thomas 2005, 298.

Mortuary Landscape and Group Identity in Roman Ephesos

127

Figure 7.1 West Necropolis. Ostotheke in the shape of a semi-finished sarcophagus

West, East and Southeast Necropoleis19—we discovered 528 burial sites on the surface and recorded them geodetically; these are primarily burial houses and freestanding sarcophagi. The rest were identified through excavations, geophysical surveys, and aerial photographs. In view of this large number of burial sites and their architecture we are indeed dealing with a landscape architecture of the dead. There is more to it than that: within this mortuary landscape the community of individuals becomes a landscape of identity.20 The burial lands serve as idealized reflections of the cities of the living. The relationship between a necropolis and society, however, is never direct but instead passes through an ideological filter.21 It portrays the society as it wants to be recognized and not necessarily how it actually was. A striking aspect of the Ephesian necropoleis of the Roman period is that they tend to appear uniform—especially the burial houses (figs. 7.4 and 7.5). The majority of the burial houses were made of dressed stone masonry (opus vittatum) and were plastered inside and out. They were either cubical structures with a flat roof, or buildings with an arched vault that do not differ greatly 19  They are located in the area of the harbor channel (West Necropolis), along the Sarıkaya (Southeast Necropolis), and along Panayırdağ (East Necropolis). 20  Stone and Stirling 2007, 19. 21  Cf. Graepler 2006, 139.

128

Figure 7.2 Ephesos. Diachronic map of burial spaces

Figure 7.3 Ephesos. Concentrated extra-urban burial spaces

Steskal

Mortuary Landscape and Group Identity in Roman Ephesos

Figure 7.4 West Necropolis. Digital model of burial houses

Figure 7.5 Southeast Necropolis. Typical burial house, inv. no. 70/12

129

130

Steskal

in size, design, and appearance. The walls of many of the burial houses were constructed in a standardized building process providing evidence for organized construction firms active in the cemeteries. They likely built burial houses on a large scale and then sold them. The interior of an individual burial house, however, was completed according to the personal wishes of the buyers. The fact that the tombs—in a structural sense—look very much alike shows that they were built in a rather short period of time, primarily in the 2nd century ce. The existing tombs were then used and reused through the centuries. The similarity of the tombs raises questions regarding social differentiation. If the tombs look alike and are of equal size, how can the wealth and status of the deceased be demonstrated? The generic architecture provided little opportunity to advertise the social status or provide a record of the life of a person. Although elaborate wall paintings on the interior of the burial house or an expensive sarcophagus might indicate status and wealth, the burial houses were usually closed, and these design elements would only have been visible during the funeral or later burials of other family members in the same grave. A sarcophagus or ostotheke could only visibly and permanently reflect the status of the deceased as long as it was freestanding and not incorporated into a burial house. However, these sarcophagi or ostothekai were only the minority in Ephesos. If we consider the incredible effort made from the time of the death of a person up to his or her burial22 it is evident that lying in repose, the funeral procession, and the funeral celebration were the elements that defined status.23 In addition to the extramural burials, Ephesos appears to have always encouraged intra-urban burials.24 Already in the late Hellenistic period the privilege of burying outstanding citizens within the city limits is attested in Ephesos.25 Burial monuments appear to have been viewed as equivalent to personal honorific monuments.26 These burials were reserved for a few elite individuals and were located in prominent places within the city, guaranteeing their visibility. The functional differentiation between a burial monument and an honorific monument is not possible within this context.27

22  Cf. Rife 2012, 153–232; Schrumpf 2006. 23  See also Rife et al. 2007, 175–76. 24  Cf. Steskal 2013. 25  Kolb and Fugmann 2008, 15; Cormack 2004, 38. 26  Cf. von Hesberg and Zanker 1987, 9–20; Berns 2003, 20, 24, 27–30, 52. 27  Berns 2003, 24–25. Cf. Steskal 2013 on the ambiguous character of honorific monuments in Ephesos, such as the Octagon, the Memmius Monument, the Pollio Monument, and the later Library of Celsus.

Mortuary Landscape and Group Identity in Roman Ephesos

131

This outwardly focused form of self-promotion seems to have changed during the reign of Augustus.28 The process that led to the abandonment of this self-promotion had multiple reasons. For example, the competition among the elites lost most of its political motivation owing to the increasing power of the imperial court. Furthermore, the rest of the population became more aware of membership in a specific class and social group, and luxurious selfpromotion went out of fashion in the early empire, influencing the norms for burial sites and monuments. Thus, a general tendency in the social attitudes towards death and funeral practices is noticeable: the aggrandizing outwardly oriented presentation was exchanged for a more pensive, familyfocused memorial.29 Less ostentatious grave architecture also was an indicator of a stable society in which the top stratum did not have to justify its rank within the community.30 It was a society’s attempt to portray itself as egalitarian even though this was never the case. The need of the once dominant social figures for a visual memorialization of their status within the urban cityscape decreased. As a result, the demonstration of status for a citizen in the Roman imperial period took place primarily through the extravagance of the funeral procession, the pompa funebris, and the funeral itself. The events after the death of an individual fulfilled the need for self-definition in a variety of ways. It was the funeral itself that defined the deceased’s position in society, and the architecture of a burial house became less important. Intra-urban burials again became common practice in the middle Byzantine period when burials provided churches with relics of martyrs, which sanctified the space and protected the cities. As a result the Christian population sought out burial spots in close proximity to such saints. The majority of the burials from the Byzantine period were still located outside the urban context, but the incorporation of cemeteries into the urban fabric and their connection with Christian churches was a clear break with ancient traditions and simultaneously marked a central element in the definition of a medieval city.31 As this brief survey through selected examples of mortuary behavior shows, the burial system was one of collective representation.32 This does not mean that opinions were homogenous nor does it signal an egalitarian society. Rather, it is an expression of a collective approval of dominant social norms 28  Cf. von Hesberg 1992, 37–42; Berns 2003, 25–26, 79–81. 29  Schrumpf 2006, 74; Berns 2003, 140–41, 147. 30  Parker Pearson 1984, 69–92. 31  Cf. Ivison 1996, 99; Dagron 1977, 1–25. 32  Cf. D’Agostino 2009.

132

Steskal

and values. Therefore, a necropolis can reflect the structure of a society, its values, hierarchies, and the social personality of the deceased. It conveys a structured picture of the community to which it refers. Bibliography Ahrens, S. 2015. “ ‘Whether by Decay or Fire consumed …’: Cremation in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor.” In Death and Changing Rituals: Function and Meaning in Ancient Funerary Practices, 185–222. Edited by J. Rasmus Brandt, M. Prusac, and H. Roland. Studies in Funerary Archaeology 7. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Audin, A. 1960. “Inhumation et incinération.” Latomus 19: 312–22 and 518–32. Berns, C. 2003. Untersuchungen zu den Grabbauten der frühen Kaiserzeit in Kleinasien. Asia Minor Studien 51. Bonn: Habelt. Büyükkolancı, P., C. M. Thomas and H. Engelmann. 2010. “Neue Ostotheken aus Ephesos.” In Metropolis İonia II: Yolların Kesiştiği Yer. Recep Meriç İçin Yazılar = The Land of the Crossroads: Essays in Honour of Recep Meriç, 87–94. Edited by S. Aybek and A. K. Öz. Istanbul: Homer Kitabevi. Cormack, S. 2004. The Space of Death in Roman Asia Minor I. Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie 6. Vienna: Phoibos. D’Agostino, B. 2009. “Archäologie der Gräber: Tod und Grabritus.” In Klassische Archäologie: Eine Einführung, 313–31. Edited by A. H. Borbein, T. Hölscher, and P. Zanker. Berlin: Reimer. Dagron, G. 1977. “Le Christianisme dans la ville byzantine.” DOP 31: 1–25. Fabrizii-Reuer, S. and E. Reuer. 1995. “Die Ergebnisse der anthropologischen Unter­ suchung von 18 kg Leichenbrand aus der Ringnekropole von Ephesos.” In Via sacra Ephesiaca II: Grabungen und Forschungen 1992 und 1993, 62–66. Edited by D. Knibbe and H. Thür. BerMat 6. Vienna: Schindler. Graen, D. 2011. Tod und Sterben in der Antike: Grab und Bestattung bei Ägyptern, Griechen, Etruskern und Römern. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag. Graepler, D. 2006. “Gräber.” In Klassische Archäologie, 129–39. Edited by T. Hölscher. Darmstadt: WBG. Heil, G. 1986. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita: Über die himmlische Hierarchie: Über die Kirchliche Hierarchie. Stuttgart: Hiersemann. Hope, V. M. 2007. Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge. Ivison, E. A. 1996. “Burial and Urbanism at Late Antique and Early Byzantine Corinth (c. AD 400–700).” In Towns in Transition: Urban Evolution in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, 99–125. Edited by N. Christie and S. T. Loseby. Aldershot: Scolar Press.

Mortuary Landscape and Group Identity in Roman Ephesos

133

Kolb, A. and J. Fugmann. 2008. Tod in Rom. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 106. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Kubinska, J. 1999. Ostothèques et kaustrai dans les inscriptions grecques d’Asie Mineure. Światowit Supplement Series A, Antiquity 3. Warsaw: Warsaw University. Lindsay, H. 2000. “Death-Pollution and Funerals in the City of Rome.” In Death and Disease in the Ancient City, 152–73. Edited by V. M. Hope and E. Marshall. London: Routledge. Morris, I. 1996. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nock, A. D. 1932. “Cremation and Burial in the Roman Empire.” HTR 25: 321–59. Parker Pearson, M. 1984. “Economic and Ideological Change: Cyclical Growth in the Pre-State Societies of Jutland.” In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, 69–92. Edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rife, J. L. 2012. The Roman and Byzantine Graves and Human Remains. Isthmia 9. Princeton: ASCSA. Rife, J. L. et al. 2007. “Life and Death at a Port in Roman Greece: The Kenchreai Cemetery Project, 2002–2006.” Hesperia 76: 143–81. Rüpke, J. 2001. Die Religion der Römer: Eine Einführung. Munich: Beck. Schrumpf, S. 2006. Bestattung und Bestattungswesen im Römischen Reich: Ablauf, soziale Dimension und ökonomische Bedeutung der Totenfürsorge im lateinischen Westen. Bonn: V&R Unipress. Steskal, M. 2013. “Wandering Cemeteries: Roman and Late Roman Burials in the Capital of the Province of Asia.” In Le mort dans la ville: Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra-muros en Anatolie, du début de l’Âge du Bronze à l’époque romaine: Istanbul 14–15 Novembre 2011: 2èmes Rencontres d’archéologie de l’IFÉA, 243–57. Edited by O. Henry. Istanbul: IFEA. Stone, D. L. and L. M. Stirling. 2007. “Funerary Monuments and Mortuary Practices in the Landscapes of North Africa.” In Mortuary Landscapes of North Africa, 3–31. Edited by D. L. Stone and L. M. Stirling. Phoenix Supplementary Volume 43. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Thomas, C. M. 2005. “Placing the Dead: Funerary Practice and Social Stratification in the Early Roman Period at Corinth and Ephesos.” In Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches, 281–304. Edited by D. N. Schowalter and S. J. Friesen. HTS 53. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Thomas, C. M. and Cengiz İçten. 1999. “The Ephesian Ossuaries and Roman Influence on the Production of Burial Containers.” In 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, 549–54. Edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger. AForsch 1 = DenkschrWien 260. Vienna: ÖAW. Thomas, C. M. and Cengiz İçten. 2007. “The Ostothekai of Ephesos and the Rise of Sarcophagus Inhumation: Death, Conspicuous Consumption, and Roman

134

Steskal

Freedmen.” In Akten des Symposiums des Sarkophag-Corpus 2001: Marburg, 2.–7. Juli 2001, 335–44. Edited by G. Koch. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1996. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. van Gennep, A. 1999. Übergangsriten (Les rites de passage). Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag. Volp, U. 2002. Tod und Ritual in den christlichen Gemeinden der Antike. VCSup 65. Leiden: Brill. von Hesberg, H. 1992. Römische Grabbauten. Darmstadt: WBG. von Hesberg, H. and P. Zanker. 1987. “Einleitung.” In Römische Gräberstraßen. Selbstdarstellung—Status—Standard: Kolloquium in München vom 28. bis 30. Oktober 1985, 9–20. Edited by H. von Hesberg and P. Zanker. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Abhandlungen 96. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Walker, S. 1985. Memorials to the Roman Dead. London: British Museum. Wood, J. T. 1877. Discoveries at Ephesus Including the Site and Remains of the Great Temple of Diana. London: Longmans.

Chapter 8

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos and the House of C. Fl. Furius Aptus Hilke Thür 1 Introduction In 2014, Elisabeth Rathmayr and I raised the question of sacred space for Dionysos in Ephesos with respect to Unit 6 in Terrace House 2 (Plan 2, no. 51; Plan 3).1 This luxurious city residence, associated with C. Fl. Furius Aptus, functions not only as a home and status symbol of a reputable and well-established Ephesian family on the way to senatorial status, but has now been widely accepted by experts as a meeting place of a Dionysiac association.2 The plan of the house, the furnishings, and some special installations provide sufficient architectural and archaeological evidence that the house and its halls not only served banquets, but could also be used for the celebration of mysteries and initiation rites. In this chapter the house of Aptus is contextualized with other buildings in Ephesos that are interpreted as club houses. To set the stage for this discussion, I first review the literary evidence and summarize the spaces associated with Dionysos in Ephesos on the basis of urban, architectural and archaeological evidence. 2

The Worship of Dionysos in Ephesos Based on Selected Sources

Sources concerning the worship of Dionysos in Ephesos have already been collected several times.3 The oldest evidence of Dionysos and his veneration (including boisterous parades) is attested by Heraclitus dating from the 6th century bce.4 A limestone block dated to 300 bce was found in the rubble of Terrace House 2. It mentions a ἱερόν (“sanctuary”) for Dionysos and the 1  On Unit 6, see Rathmayr in this volume, and Thür and Rathmayr 2014. 2  Merkelbach 1988, 23; Schäfer 2006, 162–64. 3  Merkelbach 1979, 151–56; Schäfer 2006, 164–67; Jacottet 2003, no. 133–45. 4  D K 80, frag. 15. The cult of Dionysos in archaic times is also evidenced in Miletos; cf. Hirsch 2001, 218–20.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_010

136

Thür

goddess Ἐνέδρα (“Ambush”) and indicates a place of worship.5 Also from the Hellenistic period, cistophori minted in Ephesos depict a cista and two snakes, which clearly refer to Dionysos.6 This can largely be explained by the connection of the god to the worship of political rulers, a notion the Diadochoi took over from Alexander the Great, who was worshiped in Egypt as Osiris and Neos Dionysos.7 When Marc Antony went ashore at Ephesos in 41 bce, he was received by women dressed as bacchantes, and men and boys in costumes of satyrs and pans. A festival for Dionysos was likely celebrated, for the town was decorated with ivy and thyrsos imagery, and everywhere cymbals and flutes sounded. The Ephesians welcomed the new ruler as Διόνυσον αὐτὸν ἀνακαλουμένων χαριδότην καὶ μειλίχιον (“Dionysos, the giver of joy, and the beneficent”).8 Since Marc Antony arrived in the harbor, the procession would have certainly led to the theater, and Marc Antony most likely lived in the residence above the theater, which was a significant location. Besides Marc Antony, Hadrian9 and Commodus10 were worshiped as synhedroi of Dionysos and as Neoi Dionysoi. Later Christian legend mentions another incident, set during a Dionysos procession in 97/98 ce. During the feast of katagogia (“return”), at the end of January, when the return of the god Dionysos into the city was celebrated with orgiastic pomp, Timothy, described as the first bishop of Ephesos, opposed the participants.11 As a result he was stoned on the street known as the Embolos and was injured so badly that he died. Near the setting of this literary scene there was a Dionysiac statue group erected on the corner of the Embolos and the marble street with a dedicatory inscription from 92/93 ce.12 Two inscriptions on buildings testify to items of architecture connected to the worship of Dionysos. An architrave found in the Lower Agora refers to a Bakcheion.13 One of two inscriptions on column shafts mention “the worshippers of Demeter and initiates of the overflowing Dionysos,” who were undoubtedly part of a religious association.14 5  I vE 2.106: ἱερὸν Διονύσου | ὀρειογυάδων | καὶ Ἐνέδρα[ς] | εἶναι. (“This is the sanctuary of Dionysos, who roves about the mountains, and [the goddess of the] ambush”). 6  Karwiese 1970, 309–11, 323–29; Hölbl 1987, 69–71; see also the cistophori from Pergamon mentioned by Hirsch 2001, 229–30. 7  Hölbl 1994, 36–37, 84–91, 107. 8  Plut. Vit. Ant. 24. 9  IvE 2.275. 10  IvE 2.293. 11  Acta Timothei; Keil 1935, 85–86; Concannon 2016, 404. 12  IvE 2.507. 13  IvE 2.434. 14  ἱερατεύοντος διὰ βίου τῶν πρὸ πόλεως Δημητριαστῶν καὶ Διονύσου Φλέω μυστῶν Τί(του) Αὐρηλίου Πλουτάρχου (“when Titus Aurelius Plutarchos was life-long priest of the

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

137

As in other cities, Dionysos is found in Ephesian inscriptions together with other gods and personifications.15 An honorary statue in the Lower Agora from imperial times deserves special mention. It was set up by the oἱ τοῦ | προπάτορος θεοῦ Διονύ- | σου Κορησείτουροι σακηφό- | ροι μύσται (“the sack carrier initiates of the time-honored Dionysos from the mountain Koressos”).16 Several inscriptions from the time of Hadrian, consisting of lists of names engraved on revetment panels, were found in the theater. These people had participated in a sacrifice together with the donor, M. Anthony Drosos, and included a ἱερεύς (“priest”), an ἐνθρόνιος (“chairman of the mystery celebration”), a ὑδραύλης (“water organ player”), a ἱερoλόγος (“keynote speaker”), and a θυρσοφόρος (“carrier of the thyrsos”). On a second panel a βουκόλος (“cowherd”) and Βασσαρέως (“Bacchant disguised as maenad”) are mentioned. In the corpus of the inscriptions of Ephesos the editors suggested that the marble panels with the list of names could have come from the so-called banquet hall located above the theater. During the destruction of the building they might have slid down the hill towards the theater. Therefore, the editors suggested that the banquet hall might have served a Dionysiac association.17 In the context of this chapter an inscription that was found in situ in 1979 on a parapet wall in the peristyle (31a) of Unit 6 in Terrace House 2 (fig. 8.6) is relevant. It reads Διόνυσος Ὄρειος Βάκχιος πρὸ | πόλεως | οὗ ἱερᾶται Γάϊος Φλάβιος Φούριος | Ἄπτος (“Dionysos of the mountains and outside of the city, whose priest is Gaius Flavius Furius Aptus”)18 and provides the name of the resident and his priesthood.19 Among the other finds from Terrace House 2 are the above mentioned limestone naming the goddess Ἐνέδρα[ς],20 and a list with names of Dionysiac mystics naming a βουκόλος and a θυρσοφόρος.21 In Terrace House 1 a reused altar was found, whose inscription mentions the sacrifice of a thyrsos by a hierophant and his son.22 worshippers of Demeter and the initiates of the overflowing Dionysos”) IvE 5.1595 ll. 2–7; Jacottet 2003, no. 140. 15  IvE 4.1270. This inscription is carved on a pediment stele, which an association of initiates of the Eleusinian Goddesses and Dionysos had set up. Its find spot is unknown. See also IvE 5.1595 (Demeter); 5.1600 (Zeus Panhellenios, Hephaistos). 16  IvE 2.293; Jacottet 2003, no. 142. 17  IvE 5.1601–02; 5.1600 and 5.1603 from the theater are also lists of priests. 18  IvE 4.1267; Jacottet 2003, no. 134. 19  IvE 2.106; Jacottet 2003, no. 133; see above n. 5. 20  See n. 5. 21  IvE 4.1268; Jacottet 2003, no. 139 [—βου]κόλ[ος—] | [—]ου θυρσο[φόρος | —] | [—] Ἀνεικη̣ [τ—] | | [—] βου. 22  IvE 4.1211; Jacottet 2003, no. 141: Διονύσῳ | Μουνδίκιος | ἱεροφάντης | σὺν τῷ υἱῷ Μουν- | δικίῳ τῷ ἀγωνο- | θέτῃ τοὺς {δυρ} δὺο θυρσοὺς ἀνέ- | θηκεν (“The hierophantes Mundicius and his son Mundicius, the agonothetes, dedicated two thyrsoi to Dionysos”).

138 3

Thür

The Theater as a Place of Dionysos

In antiquity theaters were both a place for assemblies to meet and also the location of festivities and presentations, such as choral songs, theatrical plays and musical performances. The τεχνῖται (“actors”)23 are closely connected to Dionysos, the god of theater, music and wine. Therefore, the theater generally represented a place sacred to Dionysos, whose statues and votive altars accompanied his veneration there.24 4 The Porticus in Summa Cavea The cavea of the theater in Ephesos (fig. 8.1) was structured in three tiers, and the two storied Hellenistic stage building was rebuilt featuring an updated scenae frons with a three-storied tabernacle façade in the time of the Flavians.25 In relation to this paper, one area on the top of the theater is of special interest: a broad ambulatory with a columned hall is situated above the small uppermost diazoma, which is bordered by a high supporting wall (fig. 8.1 and 8.2). Whereas the uppermost tier could be entered from the diazomata by 23 stairs, the porticus in summa cavea (“portico above the upper seats”) was connected to the uppermost diazoma only with two small stairs. Therefore, the portico was not designed as an ambulatory for large numbers of theater visitors as recommended by Vitruvius (5.9.1). On the contrary, accessibility was limited. The hall is more than 5 m wide and spacious; it does not enclose all of the cavea, as it had not been built up in the north. The back wall is preserved and was covered with a revetment as the characteristic attachment hooks show. Numerous fragments of these slabs are stored today in the neighboring rooms. The abovementioned fragments from the time of Hadrian with the lists of participants of various Dionysiac associations must belong to this hall since they were found in the theater.26 This leads to the conclusion that members and mystics of Dionysiac associations assembled in the porticus in summa cavea for participation in religious activities such as sacrifices or common meals. The portico 23  The technitai were housed in Teos in Hellenistic times. When problems arose they came to Ephesos for a short time around the middle of the 2nd century bce, then Attalos housed them in Lebedos. Cf. Aneziri 2003, 71–109. 24  A torso and two heads of Dionysos statues from the theater in Ephesos are now in the Ephesos Museum in Vienna (inv. no. 1.813; 1.877; 1.827). 25  See Krinzinger and Ruggendorfer 2017; earlier, see Scherrer et al. 2000, 258–59. 26  IvE 5.1601, 1602.

139

Figure 8.1 Theater Plan

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

140

Thür

Figure 8.2 Plan of area above the theater

provided sufficient space to set up dining couches, and rooms with the necessary infrastructure for food production and other religious activities were situated east of the hall. 5

Structures for Dionysos above the Theater

5.1 A Temple above the Theater A remarkable wide staircase leads from the cavea to the area above the theater, which is preserved only in a late antique phase. Above the southern side of the cavea a pedestal of ashlar masonry is preserved up to a height of 4.5 m. It was excavated in 1899; the excavator Rudolf Heberdey interpreted it as a

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

141

Hellenistic base.27 Two cavities were found inside this east-west oriented base measuring 9 × 11 m. The eastern one was filled up with rubble and mortar, while in the western one a column shaft and half of an Ionic capital (K2) were found.28 Later on, the second half of the capital (fig. 8.3) and another Ionic capital (K3) were discovered. Two similar capitals (K1, K4), one of them a corner capital, have been excavated on Kouretes Street near the so-called Gate of Herakles. Subsequently, these capitals were assigned to the late classical altar of the Artemision together with other pieces (K5, K6). When Alzinger analyzed and published the capitals he added a sketch of the building done by Heberdey. Alzinger interpreted it as templum in antis, and because of the opus caementitium he dated it to the time of Augustus. The capitals, on the contrary, he dated to the 5th century bce and did not believe that the capitals belonged to the base above the theater.29

Figure 8.3 Capital K2 from base above the theater

27  Diary of R. Heberdey from 10 June 1899, cited by Muss and Bammer 2001, 61–69. 28  The capitals are now in the Ephesos Museum in Vienna (inv. no. 1.1641 and 1.1642), the fragment of a column shaft mentioned in Heberdey’s diary seems to be identical with a fragment in Vienna (inv. no. AS 1.1770). 29  Alzinger 1961–63, 110–20, esp. n. 11.

142

Thür

In contrast to Alzinger, I contend that the findspot of the capitals K2 (fig. 8.3) and K3 and the column shaft directly inside the ‘Hellenistic base’30 suggests that the architectural pieces were part of this building.31 If the capitals K1 and K4 come from the same find context, the building can be reconstructed in the type of a small prostyle or amphiprostyle temple.32 The capitals have a lower diameter of approximately 45 cm, and the column height was 4.5 to 5 m. According to its architectural design and prominent location, this Hellenistic construction above the theater can be understood as a temple or at least a temple-like structure. In my opinion, based on its location above the theater, Dionysos is most likely to be the honored god of this temple. The relatively small dimensions do not speak against this interpretation as many of the known sanctuaries of this god are modest in size.33 The location above the theater is unusual; however, this might be explained by the urban context (more on this below). 5.2 The Residence (Domus) above the Theater On top of the artificially constructed terrace that is still visible above the theater, a peristyle house is situated in an undoubtedly important urban location.34 The huge building complex (fig. 8.4) was excavated partially in 1929 and 1930.35 In the 2nd century bce the complex was built in the style of a basileia (“the residence of a ruler”),36 and the architectural decoration corresponds closely to the Pergamon altar. In the time of Trajan or Hadrian the building was enlarged with a newly built separate wing with an apsidal hall in the south. The peristyle house has been interpreted as the residence of a ruler, governor or proconsul because of its prominent position in the city, its huge dimensions and some annexes such as a diaeta or bath, and a banquet hall. 30  Thus also Wilberg in a letter to Schrader, cited in Muss and Bammer 2001, 148. 31  In the aforementioned letter to Schrader from 1 February 1914, Wilberg questions the relationship to the altar building. He assigns them together with a cornice corner as architectural parts of the small building from the base above the theater. He dated the building to the Hellenistic period, rather than late Hellenistic. 32  If the corner capital does not belong to the building, it could have been a templum in antis. The dimension, building type, and placement are reminiscent of the Nike temple in Athens. 33  Comparable in size are the sanctuaries and/or temples for Dionysos in Miletos, Thasos and Delos. See Hirsch 2001, 218–22, 261–65. 34  Keil 1930, 31–34 fig. 14–15; Keil 1932a, 7–12 fig. 2–4; Thür 2002, 257–64; Thür, 2018, 460. 35  C. Baier has recently examined the house in its architectural, historical, and urban context with important results, Baier 2013, 23–68; Baier 2016. 36  Hoepfner 1996 (building type of basileia); Funck 1996 (function of basileia as residence of ruler).

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

143

figure 8.4 Plan of residence/domus above the theater

As mentioned above, this would have been an ideal location for Marc Antony (and Cleopatra) to reside during their visit to Ephesos in 41 bce. The residence above the theater could have functioned as the residence of a person with significant political power and was also suitable for assemblies and as a meeting place of a Dionysiac association. In addition, there were close connections to Hellenistic ruler cults and the worship of Dionysos, connections which eventually came to inflect the worship of the Roman emperors.37 5.3 The Banquet Hall above the Theater Above the temple and south of the basileia, the so-called assembly or banquet hall (fig. 8.5) is located on another large raised platform.38 The long rectangular building measures 40.5 × 11.5 m with its eastern part divided into five compartments or niches by projecting walls that measure 3 m in length. Along 37  Oster 1990, 1675–76, n. 106; Mileta 2008, 111–23. 38  The building was excavated in 1930. Cf. Keil 1932a, 12–15 fig. 7–8; Miltner 1958, 83–84. fig. 74; Alzinger 1970; Baier 2013, 51–52, fig. 24; Baier 2016.

144

Thür

Figure 8.5 Plan and reconstruction of the banquet hall above the theater

the western wall, pillars correspond to the projecting walls, forming niches approximately 7.5 m wide. Pedestals with columns supported the ceiling. The main entrance in the north wall had a large double-leaf door and a small door, both orientated toward the residence. The date and the design of the preserved architectural elements correspond to the rebuilding in the time of Hadrian. Along the west wall a masonry podium measuring 60 cm in breadth served as a pedestal or bench. During banquets five dining couches could be set up in each niche. The function of the hall for meetings of one or several religious associations is a generally accepted hypothesis. 5.4 Use of the Area above the Theater The preliminary results of Baier’s study concerning the residence and its urban environment39 have enlarged our knowledge about the area above the theater (fig. 8.2). Through geophysical analysis and surface survey, he was able to identify a street and a wide portico in front of the western terrace wall of the residence. Opposite the southern wall of the residence he detected that the western side of the street widens for approximately 6 m and narrows again in the south to accommodate the platform of the temple. South of the temple the street meets a square and the Badgasse (“bath street”) leading from the Embolos up to the hill. It forms a spacious square, which is bordered to the east 39  Baier 2013, 23–68; Baier 2016; see also Thür 2018, 461.

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

145

by the platform of the banqueting house. The base of the temple was located on the same level as the street and the square and was accessible from this public space. In the north this public space is dominated by the terrace with the residence. While the latter follows the city grid, the banquet hall diverges from it at a twelve-degree angle. The temple is also not oriented toward the city grid, but both temple and banquet hall differ in their orientation, with the temple facing the orchestra of the theater. The connection and the access to this area from the theater and the porticus in summa cavea are not clear. Only two small stairs connected the portico to the uppermost diazoma, while the main access into the portico must have come from the east (i.e. the public space of the street and the square and also from the various buildings above the theater). A comparison with other cities in Asia Minor may help to clarify this complex in Ephesos. Hirsch analyzed sanctuaries and temples of Dionysos in Pergamon and Miletos and compared them to other Greek cities.40 Buildings and areas dedicated to Dionysos are mostly small and modest, and many do not even have a built structure. This seems to be a discrepancy that corresponds to the quite varied religious activities. The sanctuaries served primarily to house the cult image. Other functions are difficult to grasp because the nature of the god possesses many different aspects, and the local variations of religious practices are also diverse. Hirsch principally assumes that there was one sanctuary inside the city with a temple or a sacred district, and additionally a sanctuary pro poleos (“outside the city”). Thus she concludes that during the festival of the katagogia the participants assembled at an appropriate place outside the city to bring the statue of the god back into the city and position it in a prominent place, supposedly in the theater. Finally, on the last day of the katagogia the cult statue of Dionysos was set up in the temple or a sanctuary. For a hypothetical reconstruction of the performance of a similar festival in Ephesos, the ensemble above the theater provided: 1. A square and a wide street where a great number of persons could have assembled. 2. A small temple nearby to house the cult statue. 3. An adjacent porticus in summa cavea, where a larger number of festival participants and initiates could meet and take part in religious activities.

40  Hirsch 2001, 217–72.

146 4. 5.

Thür

A banquet hall that could hold a certain smaller number of mystai for rituals, sacrifices, and banquets—without the possibility of participating directly in the activities in the theater. The residence above the theater, which was ideally furnished to serve as a clubhouse of a religious association.41

5.5 History of the Area above the Theater It has been stated above that ancient traces of Dionysos and his enthusiastic processions were probably found in Ephesos from the 6th century bce onwards. We certainly have proof for organized worship around 300 bce. During the Classical period the city of Ephesos was located near the Artemision and the Ayasoluk hill. During this time Mt. Koressos (identified by many scholars as part of Panayirdağ) and the area above the theater fulfill the requirements of the epithet (attributive) oreios and pro poleos. The time-honored Dionysos Koresseitos is named in another inscription.42 I therefore suggest that the temple and the adjacent area above the theater represent an ancient traditional district dedicated to Dionysos, and if the dating of the Ionic capitals from the temple base is correct,43 the temple could be older than the foundation of the Hellenistic city by Lysimachos. One additional aspect should be mentioned in this respect: the course of the Hellenistic city wall along Panayırdağ is not certain. Surveys conducted by Peter Scherrer revealed a section of the city wall running down from the peak of Panayirdağ to the south wall of the theater.44 Therefore, the ensemble of buildings and places above the theater could have been located outside the city wall and placed pro poleos.45

41  This hints at the broad connections between ruler, imperial, and Dionysos cults; Jacottet 2008, 208–11. 42  See n. 16. Based on this inscription Knibbe assumed that the Ephesian Dionysos sanctuary was probably located on Mt. Koressos. 43  They have been dated by Alzinger 1961–63, 110–20, to the 5th century bce. Muss and Bammer 2001, 65, date them to the 4th century bce. Only Rumscheid 1994, 99, dates them to the early Hellenistic period. 44  Scherrer 2001, 62–64, fig. 3–6; 89, fig. 3–1. Ladstätter interprets this portion of the wall as a diateichisma (Ladstätter 2016, 243), a defense wall within the bounds of the city wall. See Sokolicek 2009b. 45  Even the palaces in Demetrias and Pergamon were placed outside the city wall and a separate wall enclosed them as a citadel.

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

6

147

Clubhouses in Ephesos

6.1 The House of Aptus In the peristyle court of Unit 6 in Terrace House 2 (Plan 3 and fig. 8.6) the above-mentioned inscription46 is engraved on the top molding of a parapet wall, which was built between the columns of the south colonnade and served as the back wall of a fountain. The inscription identifies C. Fl. Furius Aptus as the resident of the house in a certain period and affirms that he was a priest of Dionysos. His family is known from inscriptions going back to early imperial times, and his son T. Fl. Lollianus Aristobulus was affiliated with the ordo senatorius in the second half of the 2nd century ce.47 Inscriptions from Miletos and Pergamon prove that the office of the municipal priesthood for Dionysos could be acquired for lifetime through purchase; the priest or priestess could be the leader of a Dionysiac association at the same time.48 If we transfer these results to Ephesos, the conclusion is that Aptus held the municipal priesthood of Dionysos oreios bakcheios pro poleos. He would have performed this office not only in public activities, but, according to the archaeological and epigraphical records, also in his residence, Unit 6. Here I will summarize the arguments that the evidence from his house indicates that he should be identified as leader of a private Dionysiac association. The house of Aptus was built as a peristyle house with a floor space of 950 m² (fig. 8.6 and 8.7). The spacious open courtyard (fig. 8.6, room 31a) was surrounded by porticos with twelve marble columns. The fountain in front of the south colonnade was adorned not only with the inscription but also with sculptures on the parapet wall.49 At the main floor, a row of rooms on the west and north side opened onto the peristyle court. In the east portico, Aptus had installed a bathing complex. In the southwest a stair led to an upper floor, which accommodated, in addition to one main room, a service area and probably a more privately used apartment. In the south, several formal rooms and banqueting halls were located. Aptus enlarged them in two building phases and furnished and decorated them in a most luxurious way. In 120 ce the so-called Marble Hall (fig. 8.6, no. 31, measuring 180 m²) was built and decorated splendidly with Pavonazetto and opus sectile panels, a marble and mosaic floor of the triclinium type, a gilded and 46  See n. 18. 47  For the most recent results on the family see Rathmayr 2009; and Rathmayr 2014b, 846–48. 48  Hirsch 2001, 217–72. 49  Rathmayr 2014c.

148

Figure 8.6 Terrace House 2. The house of Aptus, Dwelling Unit 6

Thür

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

149

Figure 8.7 Terrace House 2. Cross-section drawings of Dwelling Unit 6

sculptured cassette ceiling, a row of windows, two fountains and sculptural decoration. About 150 ce an apsidal hall (fig. 8.6, 8) was added with a vaulted ceiling, the large apse with a glass mosaic, a big water basin in the marble floor and marble revetment. The room constituted an ensemble with the adjacent Stucco Room (fig. 8.6, 8a) and a forecourt (fig. 8.6, 36) with a water basin, a flight of steps and sculptural decoration planned not only for the reception of guests but also for hosting a Dionysiac association. In connection with its function as a clubhouse of a Dionysiac association, some special elements in the Aptus House should be emphasized.50 The embellishment and decoration of the house has multiple references to Dionysos and also to Aphrodite: the so-called Stucco Room (fig. 8.6, 8a) with decorations 50  For further detail see Thür 2014b.

150

Thür

showing figures of the Dionysiac thiasos; the carvings with hippocampi on the ceiling in the Marble Hall (fig. 8.6, 31); the frescoes in the vaulted room (fig. 8.6, 36a); and numerous fountains. Most striking and, at the same time, different from other houses, is the architectural separation of the complete southern wing with its banquet halls. The barrier panels forming the backside of the above mentioned fountain were set in between the columns of the south portico (fig. 8.6 and 8.7); the upper part, which would have been constructed of less permanent materials, separated both areas at least visually (fig. 8.7). The barrier wall blocked direct access to the peristyle halls with high marble door frames, and the door in the west hall could be locked from the south side. In this way, access to the southern wing could be controlled and regulated, so during the supposed events of the Dionysiac club, non-initiated individuals could be excluded. In the course of the ritual festivities the many water basins were suitable for ritual washing and baptizing. A small chamber (fig. 8.6, 8c) behind the apse of the apsidal hall (fig. 8.6, 8) is especially peculiar, because it could be heated, although it was only connected with the next room by a small hatch, positioned rather high in the wall (fig. 8.6, 8b). Therefore, room 8c could have been used for extraordinary scenarios or experiences dealing with death and rebirth.51 Another room (fig. 8.6, 31b) located north of the peristyle court (fig. 8.6, 31a) had a wall closet and may have served as an archive and storage place for the cista and other secret items of the association, for it was well secured with a double system of sliding doors.52 6.2 The Domus in Terrace House 1 A second spacious peristyle house is preserved in Terrace House 1 (fig. 8.8), which, according to its architectural layout, has been interpreted repeatedly as a clubhouse.53 The ‘domus’ was erected early in the reign of Hadrian and was used continuously even after the earthquake in the third quarter of the 3rd century ce. The peristyle court with 24 columns was surrounded on three sides with porticos, while the north side flanked the south portico of the Embolos (a.k.a. Kouretes Street). Several banquet halls were located in the southern part of the house. The orientation of the domus is remarkable, for it is adjusted to the Embolos and therefore does not follow the city grid. The domus and the Aptus house show several common features. Both houses have an entrance directly from the south hall of the Embolos into the main floor. The large peristyles and huge reception halls in the southern wings 51  Merkelbach 1988, 100–1. 52  Thür 2014c, 183. 53   Lang-Auinger 1996.

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

Figure 8.8 Terrace House 1. Plan of domus

151

152

Thür

of the respective houses are also similar. Both houses also have barriers against these halls, which in the domus was a fence made of herms. In front of the banqueting hall a second courtyard serves as an anteroom in both houses. In the main banquet hall there is a fountain opposite to the entrance—in the Aptus house an apsidal niche, in the domus a water cascade. Due to the late antique usage of the domus, the evidence for the earlier period is partially lost;54 nevertheless, one inscription with reference to Dionysos has been found.55 6.3 Clubhouses in Comparison Even if research in other cities has shown that clubhouses56 in general do not follow a common design concept, the Ephesian examples can be assigned to two types: hall-like buildings, and peristyle houses. The elongated banquet house above the theater can be compared with buildings such as the Anaktoron in the sanctuary of the great gods in Samothrace,57 the Iobakcheion in Athens,58 or the so called Hall of the μύσται (“initiates”) at the northwestern slope of the acropolis on Melos.59 The Anaktoron on Samothrace measures 28.7 m × 13.3 m, and its roof construction is supported by four pillars. The south wall had three entrance doors; two additional doors, one large and one small, connected the hall with the adyton. The clubhouse of the Iobakchoi in Athens is an 18.5 m × 11.5 m hall that was divided by two rows of four columns into three aisles. A rectangular niche in the east served as a cult niche. A second small room is interpreted as a space dedicated to Artemis. The so-called Hall of the μύσται on Melos measures 23 m by 8.3 m; along the long walls run podiums (1.50 m deep and 0.27 m high), which are divided by seven columns on each side. The entrance was situated in the east, a cult niche was positioned on the opposite side, and a mosaic decorated the floor. An altar with a dedication to Dionysos Trieterikos was found in an adjacent court. All of these rooms dedicated to gods consist of a long rectangular hall structured by two rows of columns or pillars, or by columns set next to the walls. In each case, a niche provides space for a cult statue and sacrifices, whereby doors on the opposite side are of different size and can be connected with the process of mystery celebrations. The building type of a peristyle house is represented by the Hellenistic concept of the ‘house with the podium hall’ in Pergamon.60 A peristyle court with 54  Rathmayr, in press. 55  IvE 4.1211; Rathmayr 2018. 56  For the west see Bollmann 1998. For the east, there are only studies for particular areas: Schwarzer 2002, 221–60; Trümper 2006, 113–40. 57  McCredie 1976, 99–102. 58  Schäfer 2002, 174–81. 59  Schäfer 2002, 181–84. 60  Schwarzer 2006, 130–31 fig. 42.

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

153

a portico on three sides had a large banquet hall at the north side. In the time of Hadrian the courtyard was reduced and the banquet hall rebuilt as a broad podium hall, which was enlarged and transformed again in the last building phase. The clubhouse of the Poseidoniasts61 and the Maison de Fournier62 on Delos can also be assigned to this type. The house of the Poseidoniasts had a floor space of 1500 m² that included a row of rooms with access from the street, a small court in the west with a sanctuary, and a large peristyle courtyard with rooms on the west and south side. In four rooms the theoi patrioi, Poseidon, Artemis-Astarte, and Dea Roma were worshipped. The four rooms dedicated to gods could be closed with doors and latticework. The Maison de Fournier has a more complex layout, in which specific space for rituals and other religious activities is difficult to define. In the wide porticos of the peristyle court nine altars have been found. A reception hall with an apse, which was positioned on a higher level than the courtyard, is remarkable. The hall could have been used for festival meals as well as assemblies and, from its elevated position, one could see activities performed in the court. 7

Summary and Results

The evidence related to Dionysos in Ephesos includes two literary sources, numerous inscriptions, and the sculptural programs of public buildings. Until now, his sanctuary—apart from the theater—has been identified with an area outside the city in a wild mountainous landscape in light of his epithet pro poleos and oreios.63 Several inscriptions testify to private associations that worshipped Dionysos in various forms, sometimes together with other gods or emperors as synhedros. Through the in situ inscription in the house of C. Fl. Furius Aptus (Unit 6, Terrace House 2), the location of meetings of such a Dionysiac club in Ephesos can be identified for the first time. Since Aptus is named hieratai in an inscription, he likely held the office of a priest in the municipal worship of Dionysos. We do not know how one acquired that office in Ephesos, but a similar procedure in Miletos and Pergamon suggests that the office was purchased and held for life. The priest or priestess organized the festivals and processions and was leader of a private religious club as well. The renovation of Unit 6 seems to be closely connected with the Dionysiac priesthood of Aptus, for he enlarged and adapted his house in a way that was suitable for assemblies, mystery celebrations, and in particular for initiation ceremonies. This 61  Trümper 2006, 115–22. 62  Trümper 2006, 122–24. 63  Knibbe 1978, 496 n. 52; Merkelbach 1979, 151–56; Schäfer 2006, 164–67.

154

Thür

house is one of the few known examples at Ephesos or elsewhere of a private peristyle house used for religious assemblies. This chapter also discusses other places in Ephesos that can be interpreted as spaces dedicated to Dionysos. Along with the theater this includes the porticus in summa cavea and the area situated above the theater with a processional street, a temple, a banquet house and a residence (also a peristyle house). The architectural layout of these ensembles provides an ideal place for worshipping Dionysos with particular feasts such as the trieteria, katagogia, and lennaia.64 The topographic and urban location of all these places is remarkable. We find them in a relatively small section of the city center, distributed on two different levels. The places above the theater might indicate the location of an old pre-Hellenistic sanctuary of Dionysos pro poleos. Finally, the function of the clubhouses should be defined in relation to religious activities. According to the building, typological, structural, and archaeological evidence, the clubhouses built in the type of a peristyle courtyard house are ideally suited to perform initiation rituals as well as meetings, festive meals, and mystery celebrations. The excellent state of preservation, the modern contextual analysis, the evaluation of the architectural evidence, the decoration, and the finds from the house of C. Fl. Furius Aptus provide reliable results on this subject for the first time. They allow us to interpret the house not only as a luxurious object for the enhanced reputation of a member of the Ephesian upper class, but at the same time as a meeting place and clubhouse of a Dionysiac association. Bibliography Alzinger, W. 1961–63. “Ionische Kapitelle von Ephesos I.” ÖJh 46: 105–36. Alzinger, W. 1970. “Ephesos B.” In RESup. 12.1644. Aneziri, S. 2003. Die Vereine der dionysischen Techniten im Kontext der hellenistischen Gesellschaft: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Organisation und Wirkung der hellenistischen Technitenvereine. Historia Einzelschriften 163. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Baier, C. 2013. “Attolitur monte Pione: Neue Untersuchungen im Stadtviertel oberhalb des Theaters von Ephesos.” ÖJh 82: 23–68. Baier, C. 2016. Eine hellenistische Palastanlage oberhalb des Theaters von Ephesos und ihre Entwicklung bis in die Spätantike: Architektur, Organisation und Transformation eines bislang kaum bekannten Stadtareals. Master’s Thesis, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus—Senftenberg. 64  For the festivals see Merkelbach 1988, 73–87.

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

155

Bollmann, B. 1998. Römische Vereinshäuser: Untersuchungen zu den Scholae der römischen Berufs-, Kult- und Augustalen-Kollegien in Italien. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Concannon, C. 2016. “The Acts of Timothy.” In New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures Vol. 1, 395–405. Edited by T. Burke and B. Landau. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Funck, B. 1996. “Beobachtungen zum Begriff des Herrscherpalastes und seiner machtpolitischen Funktion im hellenistischen Raum: Prolegomena zur Typologie der hellenistischen Herrschaftssprache.” In Basileia: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige: Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992–20.12.1992, 44–55. Edited by W. Hoepfner and G. Brands. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hirsch, B. 1994. Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Grossen bis zur römischen Eroberung. Darmstadt: WBG. Hirsch, B. 2001. “Orte des Dionysos: Kultplätze und ihre Funktion.” MDAI (I) 51: 217–72. Hoepfner, W. 1996. “Zum Typus der Basileia und der königlichen Andrones.” In Basileia: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige: Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992–20.12.1992, 1–43. Edited by W. Hoepfner and G. Brands. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hoepfner, W. and G. Brands, eds. 1996. Basileia: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige: Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992–20.12.1992. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hölbl, G. 1987. Zeugnisse ägyptischer Religionsvorstellungen für Ephesos. Leiden: Brill. Jacottet, A.-F. 2003. Choisir Dionysos: Les associations dionysiaques ou le face cachée du dionysisme. Kilchberg: Akanthvs. Jacottet, A.-F. 2008. “Das bakchische Fest und seine Verbreitung durch Kult, Literatur und Theater.” In Festrituale in der römischen Kaiserzeit, 201–13. Edited by J. Rüpke. Studien zu Antike und Christentum 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Karwiese, S. 1970. “Die Münzprägung von Ephesos.” In RESup 12.309–11, 323–29. Keil, J. 1930. “XV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen II in Ephesos.” ÖJh 26: 31–34, figs. 14–15. Keil, J. 1932a. “XVI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 27, Beiheft: 7–12, figs. 2–4. Keil, J. 1935. “Zum Martyrium des heiligen Timotheus in Ephesos.” ÖJh 29: 82–92. Knibbe, D. 1972–75. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos IV.” ÖJh 50: 1–79. Knibbe, D. 1978. “Ephesos—nicht nur die Stadt der Artemis: Die ‘anderen’ ephesischen Götter.” In Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner, 489–503. Edited by S. Şahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner. Leiden: Brill. Krinzinger, F. and P. Ruggendorfer, eds. 2017. Das Theater von Ephesos: Archäologischer Befund, Funde und Chronologie. FiE 2.1. Ladstätter. 2016. “Hafen und Stadt von Ephesos in hellenistischer Zeit.” ÖJh 85: 233–72. Lang-Auinger, C. 1996. Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Der Baubefund. FiE 8.3. Vienna: ÖAW. Lang-Auinger, C., ed. 2003a. Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung. FiE 8.4. Vienna: ÖAW.

156

Thür

McCredie, J. R. 1976. “Recent Investigations in Samothrace.” In Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern: Symposion Olympia 10.–12. Oktober 1974, 91–102. Edited by U. Jantzen. Tübingen: Wasmuth. Merkelbach, R. 1979. “Die ephesischen Dionysosmysten vor der Stadt.” ZPE 36: 151–56. Merkelbach, R. 1988. Die Hirten des Dionysos: Die Dionysos-Mysterien der römischen Kaiserzeit und der bukolische Roman des Longus. Stuttgart: Teubner. Mileta, C. 2008. “Die prorömischen Kulte der Provinz Asia als Brücke zwischen dem hellenistischen Herrscherkult und dem frühen Kaiserkult.” Das Altertum 53: 111–23. Miltner, F. 1958. Ephesos: Die Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes. Wien: F. Deuticke. Muss, U. and A. Bammer. 2001. Der Altar des Artemisions von Ephesos. FiE 12.2. Vienna: ÖAI. Oster, R. E. 1990. “Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate.” In ANRW 2.18.3.1661–728. Berlin: de Gruyter. Rathmayr, E. 2009. “Das Haus des Ritters C. Flavius Furius Aptus: Beobachtungen zur Einflussnahme von Hausbesitzern an Architektur und Ausstattung in der Wohneinheit 6 des Hanghauses 2 in Ephesos.” MDAI (I) 59: 307–36. Rathmayr, E. 2010. “Auswertung.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 688–96. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8 Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2014b. “Die Besitzerfamilie.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 846–48. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2014c. “Skulpturenfunde.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 849–53. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2018. “Sculptural Programs of Specific Dwelling Units of Terrace House 1 and 2 in Ephesus.” In Sculpture in Roman Asia: Proceedings of the Conference in Selçuk 2013. Edited by M. Aurenhammer. Vienna: Holzhausen. Rathmayr, E. In press. “The Significance of the Ephesian Terrace Houses as Residences of the Elite in the Greek East.” In The Palimpsest of the House: Re-Assessing Roman, Late Antique, Byzantine and Early Islamic Living Patterns: 8th International RCAC Annual Symposium 30/11–01/12 2013. Edited by A. A. Ricci and I. Uytterhoeven. Rumscheid, F. 1994. Untersuchungen zur kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Schäfer, A. 2002. “Raumnutzung und Raumwahrnehmung im Vereinslokal der Iobakchen von Athen.” In Vereinslokale in der römischern Kaiserzeit, 173–219. Edited by U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser and J. Rüpke. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schäfer, A. 2006. “Dionysische Gruppen als städtisches Phänomen der römischen Kaiserzeit.” In Gruppenreligionen im römischen Reich, 161–80. Edited by J. Rüpke. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Sacred Space for Dionysos in Ephesos

157

Scherrer, P. et al. 2000. Ephesus: The New Guide. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Scherrer, P. 2001. “The Historical Topography of Ephesos.” In Urbanism in Western Asia Minor: New studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge and Xanthos, 57–87. JRASup 45. Edited by D. Parrish. Portsmouth, RI: JRA. Schwarzer, H. 2002. “Vereinslokale im hellenistischen und römischen Pergamon.” In Vereinslokale in der römischern Kaiserzeit, 221–60. Edited by U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser and J. Rüpke. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schwarzer, H. 2006. “Die Bukoloi in Pergamon: Ein dionysischer Kultverein im Spiegel der archäologischen und epigraphischen Zeugnisse.” In Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft: Kosmopolitische Zentren des antiken Mittelmeerraumes als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen und Religionsgemeinschaften: Akten eines Symposiums des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität Hamburg (12–14 October 2005), 153–67. Edited by I. Nielsen. Hephasistos 24. Augsburg: Camelion. Sokolicek, A. 2009b. Diateichismata: zu dem Phänomen innerer Befestigungsmauern im griechischen Städtebau. Vienna: Ö A I. Taeuber, H. 2014. “Graffiti und Steininschriften.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 331–44. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2002. “Kontinuität und Diskontinuität im ephesischen Wohnbau der frühen Kaiserzeit.” In Patris und Imperium: Kulturelle und politische Identität in den Städten der römischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium Köln November 1998, 257–64. Edited by C. Berns, et al. BABeschSup. 8. Leuven: Peeters. Thür, H. 2014b. “Die WE 6: Vereinshaus eines dionysischen Kultvereins?” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 849–53. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2014c. “Türen.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 179–89. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2018. “Dionysos in Ephesos: Das Theater und Umgebung als (s)ein Kultort.” In Akten des 16. Österreichischen Archäologentages am Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Wien vom 25.–27. Februar 2016. Edited by G. Schörner and K. Meinecke. Vienna: Phoibos. Thür, H. and E. Rathmayr, eds. 2014. Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6. Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.9 Vienna: ÖAW. Trümper, M. 2006. “Negotiating Religious and Ethnic Identity: The Case of Clubhouses in late Hellenistic Delos.” In Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft: Kosmopolitische Zentren des antiken Mittelmeerraumes als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen und Religionsgemeinschaften: Akten eines Symposiums des Archäologischen Institutes der Universität Hamburg (12–14 October 2005), 113–40. Edited by I. Nielsen. Hephaistos 24. Augsburg: Camelion.

Chapter 9

The Artemision in the Roman Era: New Results of Research within the Sanctuary of Artemis Lilli Zabrana The once famous Temple of Artemis in Ephesos lost its significance over time, fell victim to extensive stone robbery, and passed into oblivion. The remains of the temple were covered by layers of earth up to 8 m high until the third quarter of the 19th century (Plan 1, no. 1). In the following 125 years, the legendary temple was always the focus of archaeological research, while the once densely built-up sacred precinct around the temple remained unexplored. Recent research and excavations show that the image of the solitary temple needs to be corrected. The Temple of Artemis was part of a complex of buildings that corresponded to the multidimensional character of this ancient, extra-urban sanctuary in the Roman period. 1

The Sacred District of Artemis in Written Sources

The numerous preserved inscriptions give a detailed picture of the sanctuary located outside of the city of Ephesos. In Roman times the so-called Artemision had its own administration and jurisdiction independent from the city of Ephesos.1 Extensive properties in the whole Kaystros valley made the sanctuary a self-sufficient and autonomous economic power.2 Apart from cattle and crop production, the Artemision maintained its own fish,3 horse,4 and deer5 farms which were partly operated by leaseholders. Salt flats6 in the delta of the Kaystros River seem to have been owned by the temple as well as high quality marble quarries.7 Moreover the sacred privilege of frankincense sale 1  Engelmann 1991, 294; Engelmann 2001, 34. 2  IvE 7,2.3503–5; 7,2.3506–12; Knibbe and İplikçioğlu 1984, 118–19, no. 4202; Knibbe, Meriç, and Merkelbach 1979, 139–48. 3  Strabo 14.1.26; Keil 1930, 51–56, n. 36; Curtius 1870, 188–89. 4  İçten and Engelmann 1995, 89, no. 2. 5  Strabo 14.1.29. 6  Broughton 1959, 645. 7  Vitr. 10.2.11–15; Blümner 1884, 37–38.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_011

The Artemision in the Roman Era

159

was profitably rented out to private operators.8 More importantly it can be assumed that in a large sanctuary like the Artemision diverse sources of income emerged, mainly through the levying of temple charges and fees.9 In the Roman imperial period the temple achieved international recognition as a stable and safe bank of deposits,10 the transactions of which had considerable economic importance.11 The rich sanctuary also took over expensive municipal offices and paid for the continuing operation and maintenance of the Harbor Gymnasium during the reign of the emperor Domitian to ease pressure on the budget of the city of Ephesos.12 The sanctuary also provided long-term protection for valuable items. Besides votive offerings,13 which created a museum-like atmosphere, written documents were also deposited in the temple archives.14 Judgments and resolutions15 were kept safe within the sacred district as well as the original writings of Heraclitus.16 The sanctuary of Artemis had the right of asylum17 and provided refuge to those seeking protection18 in an area that was separated by a wall from the rest of the sacred district,19 but very likely located near the temple. The most prominent person seeking asylum in the Artemision was, without a doubt, Arsinoë IV, the sister of Cleopatra, who died a violent death in 41 bce, in spite of the protection afforded by asylum.20 Accommodations for recognized refugees as well as for priests and permanent staff can be assumed. In honor of the goddess Artemis, sacred games called the Artemisia were hosted every four years, which included religious festivities, and musical and athletic competitions, that were most likely financed by the Artemision itself.21 The competitions with international athletes and artists were held during the sacred month of Artemis, in which a generally legislated peace and a 8  IvE 7,2.4102. 9  Broughton 1959, 871. 10  Caes. BCiv. 3.33; Plaut. Bacch. 312; Dio Chrys. Or. 31.54–56; Xen. An. 5.3.6; IvE 1a.27 ll. 309–10; Kukula 1906, 261–62; Engelmann 2001, 40; Knibbe, Engelmann, and İplikçioğlu 1993, 120. 11  Aelius Aristides Or. 23–24; Jessen 1905, 2755; Rogers 2007, 141. 12  IvE 4.1078; Engelmann 2001, 35; IvE 4.1143; IvE 5.1500; Engelmann 1998a. 13  Artwork set up within the sacred district compiled by Kukula 1906, 250–52; also Bürchner 1905, 66–68. 14  Engelmann 2001, 41. 15  IvE 1a.4 line 21. 16  Diog. Laert. 9.6. 17  Cic. Verr. 2.1.33.85; Ach. Tat. 7.13.3 and 8.2.2; Plut. Mor. 828D. 18  Plut. Mor. 828. 19  IvE 5.1520. 20  Dio Cass. 43.19.2; Joseph. AJ 15.4.1. 21  IvE 1a.18, IvE 1a.24; IvE 2.212; IvE 4.1104; IvE 5.1460; TAM 2.587; IvE 5.1606 ll. 12–14; Dion. of Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.25; Paus. 4.31.6; Thuc. 3.104; Lehner 2004, 139, 143; Stengel 1896, 1442.

160

Zabrana

public holiday were mandated.22 For the Artemisia the sporting competitions of boxing,23 pankration (a blend of boxing and wrestling),24 dolichos (longdistance run), diaulos (1200 ft run),25 and the pentathlon26 are known. For the artistic contests, inscriptions of a victorious poet,27 rhetor,28 choraules (flute player),29 three comedians,30 and one kitharode (poet performing with the kithara, an instrument of the lyre family)31 are known. Pliny and Strabo wrote of a cult statue of Hekate made by Menestratos, which was located behind the Temple of Artemis.32 Inscriptions give evidence for numerous other buildings within the Artemision such as a gymnasium,33 an Augusteum/Sebasteion,34 as well as a Hestia shrine.35 A monumental Augustan architrave with an imperial inscription,36 as well as one reference to a restoration of a building within the Artemision around 160 ce give further evidence for Roman imperial buildings.37 2

Archaeological Evidence within the Sacred District of Artemis

In contrast to the very detailed information from written sources and epigraphic evidence, the archaeology of the sacred district around the Temple of Artemis is almost entirely unexplored. The search for the legendary temple of the extra-urban sanctuary of Artemis was the reason and point of origin for fieldwork in Ephesos during the 19th century. The British architect and railway engineer John Turtle Wood found the exact location of the Temple of Artemis after several years of searching, but not before February 1871, a date which 22  IvE 1a.24; Engelmann 1998b, 107. 23  IvE 5.1605. 24  IvE 5.1615. 25  Moretti 1953, no. 76. 26  Knibbe, Engelmann, and İplikçioğlu 1993, 134, no. 31. 27  IvE 4.1140a. 28  IvE 7,2.4114; Keil 1932b, 91, no. 14. 29  Victor’s inscription in Delphi, Chavane and Oziol 1976, no. 476. 30  IvE 5.1606; IvE 5.1467; victor’s inscription in Didyma: Wiegand and Rehm 1958, 146, no. 183. 31  Blümel 1985, 110, no. 110. 32  Plin. HN 36.4.20; Strabo 14.641. 33  IvE 3.938; IvE 3.938a; Engelmann 2001, 43. 34  IvE 2.412; IvE 5.1522; Engelmann 1993, 279–89; Scherrer 1990, 87–101; Price 1984, 254 no. 28; Kirbihler and Zabrana 2014. 35  Philost. VS 2.23.2; Suda s.v. Damianos. 36  IvE 2.408; Knibbe 1972–75, no. 3. 37  IvE 7,2.4327; Keil 1951, no. 27.

The Artemision in the Roman Era

161

he later modified to New Year’s Eve of 1869.38 Over time, marble blocks from the temple had been spoliated deep down into the foundations. The stones were reused or burned to lime in large lime kilns found on the site, leaving few remains. Hence, in spite of his success in locating the legendary temple, Wood and his sponsors at the British Museum were disappointed when the site did not reveal spectacular architecture and sculptural fragments for display in London. During his search, Wood came across a number of different building remains that, by means of their orientation, helped him to narrow down the location of the temple itself. He mentions some of them in his narrative report‚ Discoveries in Ephesos, published in 1877. This book was intended for a popular audience and not a scholarly or academic one. The published plans show inaccuracies and a lack of clarity compared with the accompanying text, a fact which was already criticized by the British architect James Fergusson in 1883.39 In the course of the reexamination of Wood’s original documentation archived in the British Museum, much more detailed information came to light. This material took the form of elaborate written reports40 and largeformat plans carried out in an accurate manner.41 With this new information it is now possible to reevaluate the buildings mentioned in his book and to determine their location. In addition, the process of searching for the temple can now be traced on a precise timeline. On 1 May 1869 in the wide plain southwest of the Ayasoluk, Wood discovered a corner of a wall built of large marble blocks at a depth of 3.9 ft.42 He also found four Augustan surveyors’ inscriptions, which gave evidence for the 38  Report W 108, John Turtle Wood to the British Museum, 11.2.1871, Central Archive, British Museum London: “I hope the announcement that the discovery of the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus has now been made beyond a doubt, will give the Trustees the same satisfaction that it has given myself after the number of years during which the search has been continued”; different version in Wood 1877, 155. 39  Fergusson 1883, 1–22: “He [Wood] has published a restoration, which, to say the least of it, is open to criticism, but he has not published the data on which it is founded, nor has he given a separate plan of the results of his excavations. We consequently never knew what he found in situ, or what he inferred from the remains which he actually discovered.” 40  For the inspection of relevant archived reports and correspondence in the Central Archive of the British Museum I would like to thank Stephanie Clarke. 41  For the opportunity to work with the unpublished plan material of J. T. Wood I sincerely thank Peter Higgs, Curator of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities where the plan material is archived. 42  The date of the discovery and the depth measurements are given on the original sketch by J. T. Wood kept in the Archive of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. A simplified sketch was also published in Wood 1877, 133. Another drawing of this wall corner by Friedrich Adler dates to 1871, see Curtius 1872, 27–28.

162

Zabrana

existence of an Augusteum in the year 6/5 bce,43 most probably within the precinct of the Artemision. The inscriptions also attested to a contemporaneous re-measurement of streets and channels in the possession of the Temple of Artemis.44 These inscriptions encouraged Wood in his presumption that he had found one corner of the peribolos wall enclosing the sacred district of Artemis. Later that year, after having followed the course of the walls, Wood decided to continue his search within the enclosed area. The 19th century property boundaries served as a division of working areas, which he numbered for easier differentiation (fig. 9.1). In his reports to the British Museum, Wood referred to his numbering of the fields, which is given on the aforementioned large-format plans. He started his search in close proximity to the village of Ayasoluk in field number one across from the Karakol Yanı Cami, north of the modern street from Selçuk to Kuşadası. Wood found marble pavement at a depth of 20 ft, which he thought belonged to Roman buildings near the eastern boundary of the sacred district. Eventually Wood shifted his focus towards the İsa Bey mosque in a northwestern direction, where he discovered pavements and columned halls, which he initially thought could line the northern boundary walls of the sanctuary.45 Following fieldwork in February 1870 he discovered adjoining rooms to these columned halls, which he identified as accommodations for priests, oriented with their front face towards the south (field no. 7.9, fig. 9.1). Within these rooms the famous Triton mosaic was found, which Wood removed for display in the British Museum.46 This group of buildings continued with the same orientation toward the west and was unearthed by Wood for 700 ft as far as the presumed west wall of the peribolos district. At a distance of 445 ft south of the last mentioned group of buildings, he came across another Roman building at a depth of 19 ft, which had the same orientation as the accommodations for priests and which showed a substructure with three steps.47 Within this building a life-size female imperial statue was found, but was not removed due to its mutilated condition.48 In the area between the aforementioned two building groups he discovered no 43  IvE 5.1522. 44  IvE 5.1523; IvE 5.1524. 45  Report W 84, John Turtle Wood to the British Museum, 4.1.1870, Central Archive, British Museum London. 46  Kirbihler and Zabrana 2014, fig. 4; Hinks 1933, pl. 28; Wood 1877, 149, 172 fig. 12, 14. 47  Report W 88, John Turtle Wood to the British Museum, 10.2.1870, Central Archive, British Museum London. 48  Wood 1877, 152.

The Artemision in the Roman Era

163

Figure 9.1 Artemision

other building remains, and therefore continued his work east of the threestepped building. There he discovered another building with three steps.49 In one of the reports to the British Museum, dated to 12 March 1870, it appears that through the discovery of a head of the emperor Augustus, Wood posited

49  Wood 1877, 152–53.

164

Zabrana

the identification of the building as an Augusteum.50 Unfortunately, today the location of this head is unknown. In addition to fragments of statues, a large number of inscriptions51 came out of this building that name νεοποιοί52 as well as two priests of Artemis.53 A group of statues of Germanicus, Drusus Minor, and Tiberius can be reconstructed according to a donor inscription of the neopoioi, which is dated to 4–14 ce.54 Furthermore an 85 cm high seated statue of Jupiter, a small altar with the depiction of the armed Pan as warrior, as well as a headless statue of Minerva were found within the building. The inscriptions, in conjunction with the sculpture fragments, suggest that the function of this building was connected with the imperial cult, and that the building probably should be identified as the Augusteum/Sebasteion within the Artemision mentioned in inscriptions. This fact was pointed out by S. R. F. Price in 1984, but his observation went unnoticed until now.55 Imprecise descriptions in Wood’s text and vaguely published site plans resulted in misconceptions in subsequent research. Wood’s Augusteum was wrongly connected by Ernst Curtius56 to the last visible Roman structure within the sacred district, a building which was identified after recent fieldwork in 2010 as an Odeion (fig. 9.2; see Plan 1, no. 2).57 Otto Benndorf subsequently followed Curtius in this assumption.58 Yet Wood’s reports to the Curatorium of the British Museum, in addition to the associated site plans, verify without a doubt that Wood’s Augusteum was located east of the Odeion and was covered entirely with soil, in contrast to the visible vaulted substructure of the Odeion.59 After finally locating the temple with the discovery of an in situ column base on 6 February 1871,60 Wood examined the area around the temple more closely. At end of November 1873 he found a porticus south of the temple, which was

50  Report W 92, John Turtle Wood to the British Museum, 12.3.1870, Central Archive, British Museum London. 51  Wood 1877, appendix‚ Inscriptions from the Augusteum. Wood lists thirteen inscriptions discovered at the Augusteum. 52  IvE 5.1570; 5.1574; 5.1578A; 5.1578B; 5.1579; 5.1588; 5.1590A; 5.1590B. 53  Wood 1877, appendix‚ Inscriptions from the Augusteum, no. 7; IvE 3.992. 54  Wood 1877, appendix‚ Inscriptions from the Augusteum, no. 11; IvE 2.257. 55  Price 1984, 254. See also Kirbihler and Zabrana 2014. 56  Curtius 1872, 29. 57  Zabrana 2011, 341–64; Zabrana 2012, 74–81. 58  Benndorf 1906, 93. 59  Archaeological, epigraphic, and numismatic indications for an imperial cult recapitulated in Kirbihler and Zabrana 2014, and in Kirbihler in this volume. 60  Wood 1877, 166; Report W 108, John Turtle Wood to the British Museum, 11.2.1871, Central Archive, British Museum London.

The Artemision in the Roman Era

165

Figure 9.2 Artemision. Location of the Odeion

situated 30.10 ft from the lowest step of the temple.61 The porticus was thought to have a depth of 25.2 ft and to enclose the temple on at least three sides. Further south, 70 ft from the temple, he unearthed a building front with a Doric entablature and a columned portico, which is not indicated at all in the published site plan (fig. 9.1). In the spring of 1874 Wood had to stop the fieldwork at the Artemision due to a lack of funding, and he ultimately returned to England.62 The founder of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Otto Benndorf, who emphatically criticized the unsystematic and unscientific work of J. T. Wood,63 started a twomonth excavation east and north of the temple 21 years later in 1895 with Carl Humann. The aim of the investigation was to find out the potential of the Artemis Temple in terms of artifacts and temple architecture. The northern trench yielded no surprises for the researchers, and the search for the altar in the eastern trench was not successful as they missed it by about 5 meters.64 Due to these results Benndorf decided to leave the sanctuary of Artemis and concentrate on the city of Ephesos located between Panayırdağ and Bülbüldağ. 61  Wood 1877, 247–50. 62  Ervine 1938, 376–84. 63  Benndorf 1898, 58. 64  The altar was discovered later by Anton Bammer in 1965.

166

Zabrana

Brief fieldwork initiated by the British Museum in fall 1904 and spring 1905 and carried out by David George Hogarth and Arthur E. Henderson again focused on the temple with the purpose of preparing an architectural publication of the temple remains.65 In 1965 work within the Artemision was again resumed by the Austrian Archaeological Institute and Anton Bammer, and continued for 29 years until 1994. This effort focused on the altar, the central site of religious activity, and the various forms of the sacred district. Reference was made above to late Hellenistic–early imperial Roman structures uncovered in 1989 by Anton Bammer and Ulrike Muss 30 m north of the altar (fig. 9.1).66 An unambiguous interpretation of these buildings is hardly possible due to the small section which was uncovered, but it is interesting to mention that one of these buildings (the so-called Podiumsbau) is in alignment with the long building that Wood refers to as accommodations for priests. The eastern end of Wood’s structure was possibly uncovered in the excavation of 1989 by Bammer and Muss, but only future fieldwork in this area can clarify this conclusion. New fieldwork between 2009 and 2011 aimed to extend the research focus from the Artemis temple to the surrounding sacred district and was focused on the Roman building formerly known as the tribune.67 This rectangular building, which measures 40 × 22 m, has a substructure of vaulted chambers made of opus caementitium on which a cavea was built with a rectangular layout (figs. 9.3, 9.4). The auditorium is divided by a circulating corridor in ima and summa cavea with 14 seating rows and an overall capacity of 1000 seats. Within the cavea five radial stairways divide the auditorium into four cunei. A small part of the orchestra laid out with opus sectile pavement and an adjoining raised stage was also excavated (fig. 9.5). The material from the foundation trenches date the construction of the building to the second half of the first century ce. The building typology and finds such as sculpture fragments point to the interpretation of the building as an Odeion, a building known to be used as a venue for artistic competitions, which, according to inscriptions, took place during the Artemisia. The ceramic material found in the layers above the opus sectile pavement in the orchestra dates the building’s destruction to the 5th or 6th century ce. In all trenches an extensive reuse of the building in the 13th century to the beginning of the 15th century was documented and confirms the establishment of a medieval settlement on the site. This development is also evident from 65  Hogarth 1908. 66  Muss 2005, 249–63. 67  Zabrana 2011, 341–64; Zabrana 2012, 74–81.

The Artemision in the Roman Era

Figure 9.3 Artemision. Odeion, 2009

Figure 9.4 Artemision. Cavea of the Odeion, 2011

167

168

Zabrana

Figure 9.5 Artemision. Odeion, opus sectile of the orchestra, 2011

the four hamams, three mosques, and two türbe (tombs) preserved in the area (fig. 9.1). All the structures mentioned or drawn by Wood are no longer visible, except for the temple itself and the substructure of the Odeion. In spite of this, the documentation of Wood and the renewed identification of Wood’s excavated structures show that a dense construction of different buildings existed in the immediate vicinity of the temple in Roman times. It seems that more official, public buildings (Odeion, Augusteum, building with Doric entablature) were situated south of the temple, while the north and northeastern area consisted of residential architecture (fig. 9.1, field no. 7, 9 and 14) This division of space allows us to locate provisionally accommodations for priests, cult specific employees, as well as shelter for persons officially granted asylum in this area. Bibliography Benndorf, O. 1898. “Vorläufige Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 1: 53–82. Benndorf, O., ed. 1906. Forschungen in Ephesos. FiE I. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Blümel, W. 1985. Die Inschriften von Iasos I. Bonn: Habelt. Blümner, H. 1884. Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern 3. Leipzig: Teubner.

The Artemision in the Roman Era

169

Broughton, T. R. S. 1959. “Roman Asia.” In An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome 4, 499– 918. Edited by T. Frank. New Jersey: Pageant Books. Bürchner, L. 1905. “Ephesos.” In RE II, 2773–822. Chavane, M. and T. Oziol. 1976. “Les inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et de la région nord du sanctuaire.” Fouilles de Délphes 3.4.5. Paris: De Boccard. Curtius, E. 1870. “Inschriften aus Ephesos.” Hermes 4.2: 174–228. Curtius, E., ed. 1872. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Topographie Kleinasiens. Berlin: Abhandlungen der königlichen preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Engelmann, H. 1991. “Beiträge zur ephesischen Topographie.” ZPE 89: 275–95. Engelmann, H. 1993. “Zum Kaiserkult in Ephesos.” ZPE 97: 279–89. Engelmann, H. 1998a. “Ephesiaca.” ZPE 121: 305–11. Engelmann, H. 1998b. “Zur Agonistik in Ephesos.” In Colloquium “Agonistik in der römischen Kaiserzeit”: Landhaus Rothenberger bei Münster, 25–27. Oktober 1995, 101–8. Edited by W. Orth. Stadion 24. Sankt Augustin: Academia-Verlag. Engelmann, H. 2001. “Inschriften und Heiligtum.” In Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos, 33–44. Edited by Ulrike Muss. SoSchrÖAI 37. Vienna: ÖAI. Ervine, J. 1938. “John Turtle Wood, Discoverer of the Artemision 1869.” Isis 28.2: 376–84. Fergusson, J. 1883. “The Temple of Diana at Ephesus.” Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects (1882–1883): 147–68. Hinks, R. P., ed. 1933. Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Paintings and Mosaics in the British Museum. London: British Museum. Hogarth, D. G. 1908. Excavations at Ephesus the Archaic Artemisia. London: British Museum. İçten, C. and H. Engelmann. 1995. “Inschriften aus Ephesos und Metropolis.” ZPE 108: 88–94. Jessen, O. 1905. “Ephesia.” In RE 5.2758. Keil, J. 1930. “XV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen II in Ephesos.” ÖJh 26: 5–66. Keil, J. 1932b. “Inschriften.” In Die Marienkirche in Ephesos, 79–106. Edited by E. Reisch. FiE 4.1. Vienna: B. Filser. Keil, J. 1951. “Inschriften.” In Die Johanneskirche, 275–95. Edited by J. Keil. FiE 4.3. Vienna: ÖAI. Kirbihler, F. and L. Zabrana. 2014. “Archäologische, epigraphische und numismatische Zeugnisse für den Kaiserkult im Artemision von Ephesos: Der Kult der Dea Roma und des Divus Iulius unter dem Triumvirat.” ÖJh 83, 101–13. Knibbe, D. 1972–75. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos IV.” ÖJh 50: 1–79. Knibbe, D., R. Meriç, and R. Merkelbach. 1979. “Der Grundbesitz der ephesischen Artemis im Kaystrostal.” ZPE 33: 139–47. Knibbe, D. and B. İplikçioğlu. 1984. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos IX.” ÖJh 55: 107–36. Knibbe, D., H. Engelmann, and B. İplikçioğlu. 1993. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII.” ÖJh 62: 113–50.

170

Zabrana

Kukula, R. C. 1906. “Literarische Zeugnisse über den Artemistempel von Ephesos.” In Forschungen in Ephesos: Veröffentlicht vom Ö sterreichischen Archäologischen Institute, 237–77. Edited by O. Benndorf. FiE I. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Lehner, M. F. 2004. “Die Agonistik im Ephesos der römischen Kaiserzeit.” Ph.D. Diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich. Moretti, L. 1953. Iscrizioni agonistiche Greche. Rome: Signorelli. Muss, U. 2005. “Das Artemision von Ephesos in römischer Zeit.” In Ramazan Özgan’a Armağan: Festschrift für Ramazan Özgan, 249–63. Edited by M. Şahin and İ. H. Mert. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Price, S. R. F. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogers, G. 2007. “From the Greek Polis to the Greco-Roman Polis—Augustus and the Artemision of Ephesos.” In Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor: Acts of the Conference Hartford, Connecticut (USA) 22–24 August, 1997, 137–45. Edited by H. Elton and G. Reger. Paris: Ausonius. Scherrer, P. 1990. “Augustus, die Mission des Vedius Pollio und die Artemis Ephesia.” ÖJh 60: 87–101. Stengel, P. 1896. “Artemisia.” In RE 2.1442. Wiegand, T. and A. Rehm. 1958. Didyma II: Die Inschriften. Berlin: Mann. Wood, J. T. 1877. Discoveries at Ephesus: Including the Site and Remains of the Great Temple of Diana. London: Longmans. Zabrana, L. 2011. “Vorbericht zur sog. Tribüne im Artemision von Ephesos: Ein neues Odeion im Heiligtum der Artemis.” ÖJh 80: 341–64. Zabrana, L. 2012. “Im heiligen Bezirk des Artemisions: Neue Erkenntnisse zur ‘Tribüne’ in Ephesos.” AW 5: 74–81.

Chapter 10

Invisible ‘Christians’ in the Ephesian Landscape: Using Geophysical Surveys to De-Center Paul Christine M. Thomas In the first two centuries ce, the followers of Jesus are archaeologically invisible: very few material traces of them date before the reign of Constantine, raising the question of whether it is even meaningful to talk about ‘New Testament Archaeology.’ One way forward is to spend more time with the shared material environment and world of objects that early Christ worshippers inhabited along with the polytheistic majority of the Roman empire. In this study, I will address the invisibility of the early Christ worshippers by investigating the shared urban landscape and built environment through the lens of the recent geophysical surveys at Ephesos. The survey techniques I present, in contrast to archaeological excavation, are non-invasive. I want to highlight the value of these non-destructive survey techniques for our understanding of early Christianity by interrogating them as evidence of the spatial and kinetic practices of our ancient subjects, and by integrating them with other types of historical evidence to create a landscape for Paul and his communities, in the sense articulated by Julian Thomas, a theorist of landscape archaeology: … [A] landscape is … a network of related places, which have gradually been revealed through people’s habitual activities and interactions, through the closeness and affinity that they have developed for some locations, and through the important events, festivals, calamities, and surprises which have drawn other spots to their attention, causing them to be remembered or incorporated into stories.1 A landscape in this sense is not merely a set of topographical features, but an amalgam of the natural context, built environment, and human patterns of movement and action, filtered through memories and narratives of past actions in the landscape.

1  Thomas 2001, 173.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_012

172 1

Thomas

The Invisibility of the Early ‘Christians’ in the Archaeological Record

The lack of archaeological finds relating to the followers of Jesus in the first three centuries ce has multiple causes. The earliest followers of Jesus, originating as a sectarian messianist2 movement within ancient Judaism, did not produce a lasting material culture that was distinct from general Roman-period material culture, or from other forms of Jewish material culture.3 The lack of Christian small finds from the earliest periods demonstrates that quotidian objects such as household pottery and furnishings were not used to mark any specifically ‘Christian’ identity at this time, nor were they produced as such in workshops. Their religious practices also left few material traces. Early Christ worshippers had no distinctive religious buildings, instead meeting in private houses, which resembled those of their neighbors.4 Like other Jews, they were aniconic, and left no images of their god. The archaeological artifacts that do preserve an unambiguous ‘Christian’ identity before 250 ce, aside from random graffiti,5 are almost entirely tombstones and other grave architecture.6 Probably the most important factor in the invisibility of the early Christians, however, is their low economic status. The sheer absence of any durable monuments for any of them save their tombstones is an indication of their relative poverty.7 And a naive belief that archaeology will unlock for us the mysteries 2  Even their self-designation ‘Christian,’ attested a generation after Paul’s lifetime and at a time when the separation from mainstream Judaism was more distinct (Luke 11:26), means “Messianist,” that is, followers of the Christos or “Anointed One.” 3  On the difficulties of distinguishing Christians from Jews and Greeks in the archaeological record, see Kraemer 1991. 4  Private houses only began undergoing architectural modification to accommodate larger communities over the course of the 3rd century ce, see White 1996. 5  Some of the graffiti from the basement of the agora at Smyrna discovered in 2003 can be plausibly dated to the end of the 2nd century ce, and at least one or two of these are most likely Christian. See Bagnall et al. 2016, 36–40, 45–47. Bagnall previously dated the most unambiguously Christian graffito, which appears on a layer of plaster beneath the final layer, prior to 125 ce on the mistaken assumption that the final layer of fresco dated to before the earthquake of 177 ce, when in fact it dates to the reconstruction after the earthquake, Bagnall 2012, 31–32. 6  The ‘Christians for Christians’ gravestones from the Upper Tembris Valley in Phrygia, a three hour drive from Ephesos (300 km), date to the first half of the 3rd century CE, Gibson 1978; Chiricat 2013. 7  Despite a massive literature on the economic status of the early Christians, the evidence is entirely anecdotal. The assumption that the members of Paul’s communities were drawn from the lowliest echelons of society was challenged by Theissen (1982), who argued that the communities had a significant degree of internal stratification; this hypothesis of social diversity was refined by Meeks 1983. Meggitt 1998 challenged this viewpoint with a bleak

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

173

of the lives of the poor is belied by the fact that the main characteristic differentiating wealthy people from the rest of the population is the abundance of their material possessions. In material as well as literary culture, the wealthy predominate. 2

Identifying a Landscape for the Early ‘Christians’ at Ephesos

A final reason for the invisibility of early Christians in the archaeological record, however, may be that scholars have simply been looking in the wrong places. Particularly unfortunate is the almost exclusive focus of modern excavations on the urban centers of the Roman Empire, rather than on smaller towns and rural areas. Because of the nature of ancient agriculture, much of the ancient population during this time lived outside urban areas—at least eighty-five percent by some recent estimates.8 In the urban centers that have been well excavated, much of the archaeological work has been devoted to monumental structures such as theaters and monumental façades, objects of great beauty that attract visitors and admirers, who pay admission and donate money to excavations, but that are not likely to be representative of the social circles in which the early Christ followers moved. In recent years, scholars in early Christian studies have focused on domestic architecture as a way of addressing this ‘monumental bias,’ in a welcome development that provides an alternate way of imagining how the early communities around Paul inhabited urban space.9 This article will also address this problem, but rather than looking for specific structures, I will broaden the question by asking, “What was the urban landscape of the early Christians?” Instead of identifying structures in the excavations at Ephesos that we find mentioned in the early Christian texts, such as the theater (Acts 19:29–41), one could ask rather where in the city someone like Paul would have spent his time during the course of a usual day. In the case of Paul, we have his direct testimony that he was a tradesman who worked to support himself, and he expressed pride in this (1 Cor 9:13– 15, 18). Following Acts 18:3, New Testament translations usually designate his picture of the overwhelming poverty of almost all the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, while Friesen 2004 suggested there were degrees of poverty ranging from abject food insecurity to modest surplus resources. 8  Scheidel 2007, 79 estimates the “aggregate urban population of the Roman empire” at oneeighth or one-ninth of the total population, that is, between eleven and twelve and a half percent. 9  Recent works include Økland 2004; Oakes 2009; Osiek, MacDonald, and Tulloch, 2006.

174

Thomas

profession as a “tentmaker,”10 but there is debate about the full semantic range of the word.11 Paul also emphasized that most of his followers were of humble means and low education (1 Cor 1:26). A century and a half later, around 180 ce, the anti-Christian Platonist Celsus still pokes fun at the Christians as artisans, as “weavers, tailors, fullers, and the most illiterate of rustic fellows, who dare not speak a word before their betters.”12 This ad hominem argument could only be effective if it were largely perceived to be true. So what are the locations in ancient Ephesos where artisans would have spent their working lives? Results from the excavations of Ephesos suggest that this would have been, above all, on the margins of the city, on the periphery near or outside the city walls and away from the major areas of habitation and monumental buildings. In Ephesos in the 3rd and 2nd centuries bce, some centers of manufacturing were located on the eastern, landward, side of the city. One area lay in the vicinity of one of the city gates, the Magnesian Gate (Plan 2, no. 10). Ceramic molds and fragments of Hellenistic pottery were found there.13 Magnetometry also identified ovens and kilns in this area. Both of these suggest the presence of workshops. For the later Hellenistic period, we have similar evidence of ceramic factories and bread ovens located within the city walls, down the street from the Magnesian Gate, on the site on which the Terrace Houses would later be built (Plan 2, no. 50 and 51). These two areas of manufacturing were located on the outskirts of the inhabited city at that time.14 Both of them were in close 10  σκηνοποιὸς τῇ τέχνῃ is the Greek text at Acts 18:30. 11  Most treatments of this question are indebted to Hock 1980; see an evaluation of his work in Still 2006. On the question of Paul’s actual occupation, Lampe 1987. 12  Celsus (fl. 180 ce) neatly associates artisanal activity and domestic spaces with the propagation of early Christianity. “We see, indeed, in private houses workers in wool and leather, and fullers, and persons of the most uninstructed and rustic character, not venturing to utter a word in the presence of their elders and wiser masters; but when they get hold of the children privately, and women as ignorant as themselves, they pour forth wonderful statements.” Note that he uses a specific word for workers in leather (σκυτότομος): Ὁρῶμεν δὴ καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας οἰκίας ἐριουργοὺς καὶ σκυτοτόμους καὶ κναφεῖς καὶ τοὺς ἀπαιδευτοτάτους τε καὶ ἀγροικοτάτους ἐναντίον μὲν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ φρονιμωτέρων δεσποτῶν οὐδὲν φθέγγεσθαι τολμῶντας, ἐπειδὰν δὲ τῶν παίδων αὐτῶν ἰδίᾳ λάβωνται καὶ γυναίων τινῶν σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀνοήτων, θαυμάσι᾽ ἄττα διεξιόντας, Origen C. Cels. in SC 2.136.128, trans. ANF 4.3.55. 13  They were discovered in the fill in secondary context. This material dates to the second and third quarters of the 2nd century bce, Sokolicek 2009a, 341–42; Rogl 2014. 14  In the late classical period, the land on which the Terrace Houses are sited was a cemetery; under Terrace House 2 are burials in tile graves dating to the first half of 4th century bce. The land was formed into three large terraces in the late 3rd to early 2nd century bce. All three terraces seem to have been workshop areas from the 2nd century bce until the construction of the terrace houses, with workshop structures consisting of workrooms with paved floors around an internal court, and with tannur ovens often used to cook

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

175

proximity to a field later developed as a marketplace, the Upper Agora (Plan 2, no. 18), where the goods produced in the workshops would be sold both to the local population and to merchants who would transport them overland to other cities, passing through the Magnesian Gate onto a major road leading to the ancient city of Magnesia on the Maeander, and cities further to the south. Previous to this, however, from the 6th century bce until the 3rd century bce, the field that became the Upper Agora was a cemetery, which indicates that it, and the nearby workshops, were located outside the main area of habitation; in the ancient world, large cemeteries lay outside the cities, usually on the roads leading in and out of them.15 Workshops were also generally located away from residential areas, because of the danger of fire in the more densely populated areas of the city. Houses and larger buildings were sometimes made of stone or brick, with tiles on the roofs, but the structure of the roofs was formed from wooden beams. By the 1st century bce, the archaeological evidence indicates that the workshops near the Magnesian Gate had been abandoned, and the other set of workshops was removed to make way for the construction of the opulent private dwellings known as the Terrace Houses.16 Yet Ephesos remained an important location not only for the export, but also for the manufacture of a number of different products throughout the Roman period.17 Clearly the city continued to need workshops, but where might these have been located during the lifetime of Paul? Since processes of manufacture and export are closely related, the harbor is a good location to investigate. The presence of other classes of artisans is attested in the harbor area, which boasts six of the eight inscriptions at Ephesos with mention of silversmiths or silver shops.18 A generation after flatbread. The small finds suggest, however, that in this case the ovens were used to fire ceramics, Ladstätter 2013b, 104–7. 15  The graves in the Upper Agora date from the late 6th century bce to the late 4th century bce, Langmann 1967. The cemetery seems to have been given up in the 3rd century bce, and it was rebuilt as a market about a century later. See M. Steskal, this volume, on necropoleis in Ephesos. 16  Sokolicek 2009a, 341–42; Sokolicek 2010, 377–79. 17  Important exports include marble, fish sauce, agricultural products, and ceramics. For an important find of Eastern Sigillata pottery from the Augustan period produced in Tralleis, down the road from Magnesia, and then exported from Ephesos, see ZabehlickyScheffenegger 1995. 18  Many of the silversmith inscriptions date to late antiquity but nevertheless indicate the location of artisanal activities near the harbor. Shops of silversmiths indicated solely by the word ἀργυροκόπων: two inscriptions found inscribed on columns in the colonnaded harbor street, IvE 2.547; Engelmann and Knibbe 1978–80, no. 56. Dedications by or to the συνέδριον of the silversmiths: on the Plateia, the road running north from the theater toward the stadium, Knibbe and İplikçioǧlu 1984, 130, no. 4297, silversmiths honor

176

Thomas

Paul’s lifetime, the author of the Acts of the Apostles imagined the silversmiths as natural competitors of Paul (Acts 19:23–31). 3

Locating the Harbor of Ephesos

The initial obstacle to this investigation was the difficulty of locating the Roman-period harbor. The harbor of Ephesos silted up over time, as did much of the coastline of Asia Minor, which has changed dramatically since antiquity. The modern coast of Ephesos, Pamucak Beach, now lies 6 km away from the ancient harbor. Only in the last fifteen years is there solid evidence for the location of the harbor of Ephesos in Roman times. From 1991 through 2006, during an initial phase of the ongoing geoarchaeological work at Ephesos, Chris Kraft of the University of Delaware, Helmut Brückner of the University of Cologne, and İlhan Kayan of Dokuz Eylül University worked with their teams to determine the outline of the harbor during the Hellenistic and Roman periods19 through geological mapping of sedimentary sequences based on core samples.20 This type of survey involves deep borings with large hollow drills to pull up sediment samples from various locations, with strata that can be dated by the included ceramics and other human artifacts using standard archaeological typologies, and sometimes organic material with carbon-14 dating.21 It is analogical to the soil profiles of the vertical walls of trenches that field archaeologists draw, where changes in the type of soil can easily be seen. The quality of the soil in the core samples also allows the analysts to determine what sort of Valerius Festus; in secondary use on the north side of the Kouretes Street, IvE 2.586, a dedication to the silversmiths, Artemis, and Antoninus Pius; in the Scholastikia baths near the theater, a statue base to the προστάτης of the συνέδριον of the silversmiths, Claudius Acilius Iulius, IvE 3.636; a statue base of Ti. Cl. Aristion erected by the silversmiths built into the Scholastikia baths, IvE 2.425, corrected by H. Engelmann in the Corrigenda of IvE. Two gravestones mentioning silversmiths have no known findspot, IvE 6.2212, 6.2441. 19  Kraft et al. 2000; Kraft et al. 2005; Kraft et al. 2007. 20  For later geoarchaeological work at Ephesos, see Stock et al. 2016, who convincingly attribute the Hellenistic and Roman erosion to human factors such as deforestation, agriculture (especially ploughing) and grazing (especially goats). Stock et al. 2013 presents information on the Byzantine period. 21  Part of my interest in this project was my participation at an excavation of the Church of Mary under the direction of S. Karwiese, near the ancient harbor during the years of the initial research of Kraft, Brückner, and Kayan. In a trench that I investigated for Kraft and Kayan in 1992, I excavated a crab shell that yielded a good carbon-14 date from the classical period, Kraft et al. 2000, 188; Kraft et al. 2005, 152–53.

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

177

landscape the given stratum represented during a given period, whether forest, grassland, beach, or ocean. Anoxic sediment, soil with little oxygen, for example, indicates that the soil was under water. “Rolled” ceramics, where the edges of the breaks are worn smooth, indicate that the potsherds were on the shallow seashore and subject to the constant action of the waves.22 The work of Kraft, Brückner, and Kayan provides conclusive evidence that, in the archaic through the classical period, Ephesos possessed two harbors. One of them was the ‘sacred harbor,’ on the edge of which the temple of the goddess Artemis had been built in the archaic period (fig. 10.1). This harbor had filled in with floodplain by the late classical period, so that the temple was no longer on the coast. This archaic harbor was succeeded by the Hellenistic harbor south of it, and north of Panayırdağ, which shifted dramatically to the west (fig. 10.2).23 The process of silting in the commercial harbor was particularly rapid in the couple of hundred years before the Roman empire. One of the reasons for the intensified silting during the Hellenistic period was human intervention. The Hellenistic king of Pergamon, Attalos II Philadelphos (159 to 138 bce), who also ruled Ephesos and its territories, recognized that the harbor was becoming impassable for large ships. So in addition to dredging the harbor, he installed a breakwater, thinking that the action of the waves was filling the harbor with sand.24 Unfortunately for him and for the future of Ephesos, the problem was the other way around: eroded soil from the hills around Ephesos was being carried into the harbor by the Kaystros River (Küçük Menderes). The breakwater amplified the problem, since it further slowed the currents that carried this alluvial silting away from the coast. The rapid silting during this period resulted in swampy land near the ancient shore that eventually filled in completely in the decades before the lifetime of Paul.25 The change in the shoreline opened up huge expanses of real estate on which new buildings could be built (fig. 10.3). This new, undeveloped real estate was located not only on the outskirts of the main areas of habitation, but also in close proximity to the harbor. From the Hellenistic period into the Byzantine period, the city of Ephesos shifted to make use of this new 22  Kraft et al. 2007, 179–80; Kraft et al. 2005, 148–49. 23  Kraft et al. 2007, 188–191 pll. 10, 15; Steskal 2014; Stock et al. 2014. 24  Strabo was better informed than Attalus II and noted that, with the mole, “the result was the opposite, for as the silt, thus hemmed in, made the whole of the harbor, as far as the mouth, more shallow,” 14.1.24. Pliny the Elder noted that the mud coming from the Kaystros river was the force changing the coastline, observing that it had engulfed an island in the harbor of Ephesos called Syrie, HN 5.31.115. 25  Ladstätter 2016, 262–65.

Figure 10.1

Ephesos. Plan of classical harbor based on geoarchaeological results

178 Thomas

Figure 10.2

Ephesos. Plan of Hellenistic harbor based on geoarchaeological results

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

179

Figure 10.3

Ephesos. Plan of Roman imperial harbor based on geoarchaeological results

180 Thomas

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

181

land. The floodplain to the east of the harbor was an area of intense new construction in the 1st century ce. Some of the buildings were built or restructured during the lifetime of Paul, in the Augustan to Neronian periods (17 bc to 68 ce): these include the Lower Agora and the area in front of the theater (Plan 2, nos. 61 and 72). Later in the 1st century, in the Domitianic period, the Harbor Baths and Gymnasium were built; during the Hadrianic period, in the early 2nd century, the Olympieion was constructed further north of these buildings (Plan 2, nos. 92, 93, 94, and 98; see fig. 10.3). 4

Recent Geophysical Surveys at Ephesos

The findings from the geophysical research of Kraft, Brückner, and Kayan have also been confirmed by an extensive survey of the city undertaken by the Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut between 2000 to 2006, involving global positioning systems (GPS), magnetometry, and ground-penetrating radar (GPR).26 The initial goal of the survey was the upper city, the part of Ephesos furthest to the east, and nearest to the Magnesian Gate; in its final two years, the survey moved down the slope to the west, toward the harbor.27 The first part of the work was an extensive surface survey using GPS and digital photography to record visible structures and features, and to map the known findspots of inscriptions. These were entered into a GIS (geographic information system) database for the entire site. Magnetometry survey was the most extensively used imaging method. In some areas, the magnetometry survey was supplemented by GPR. Magnetometry and GPR give immense amounts of information about the ruins that lie beneath the ground, but without the trouble of full-scale excavation.28 This has important intellectual and financial advantages. Magne­ tometry measures how much magnetic radiation is contained in a material. It finds positive and negative anomalies, that is, contrasts in magnetization in relation to the general magnetic field of the earth. Positive anomalies are created by heating materials above their respective Curie points and allowing them to cool undisturbed in the earth’s magnetic environment. This creates a heightened thermal magnetic charge that can be detected in pottery, ovens, 26  The survey work was carried out by Archaeo Prospections of the Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik in Vienna (ZAMG), in cooperation with the Vienna Institute for Archaeological Science under the direction of S. Seren. 27  Groh 2006, 47–50. 28  On the techniques, see Guinnessy 2014.

182

Thomas

and furnaces. The other types of materials that show positive anomalies, that is, higher magnetism, are organic materials that decay, such as wood, because of magnetic qualities that are released at the cellular level by the bacteria during decomposition. Correspondingly, non-organic materials with low water content, such as stone, show negative anomalies, that is, lower magnetism than the surrounding soil. Walls show up as low areas of magnetism, as white areas against the darker background of soil that has more organic matter. Magnetometry can be given a quick evaluation in the field without specialized computer models. This allows the investigators to adjust the areas of the survey immediately as they conduct their fieldwork. The problem for interpretation is that all the results, from every stratum, are shown superimposed on top of one another in a two-dimensional map. For this reason, GPR can be much more productive. In this survey, it was employed strategically in certain areas that seemed particularly significant. Because the technique creates reflections from more angles than magnetometry, it provides a larger amount of data. One can develop complex three-dimensional maps of the results, from which one can then slice out and separate individual layers of the stratigraphy, a sort of holographic display of the ruins beneath the ground that sometimes even indicates which columns are still standing upright and the building materials used. 5

The Built Environment of the Roman Harbor

In 2004 the Austrian Archaeological Institute expanded the geophysical survey and included some areas around the Roman harbor.29 This bears on the question of Paul’s location in Ephesos, because the silting of the harbor not only shifted the city and its newer constructions to the west; it also led to changes in the location of commercial activities in the city. The older marketplace, the Upper Agora (Plan 2, no. 18), in use since the 2nd century bce, was wellplaced during the Hellenistic period as a marketplace in Ephesos, because at the time it was equidistant from the harbor and from the Magnesian Gate, the main gate leading to the large transregional roadways.30 This was no longer the case in the early Roman period, after the harbor silted in and shifted further to the west. This explains the positioning of the more recent of the two

29  A significant part of the financial support for this phase of the project was provided by the Crisler Library in Ephesos (2003–2014) established by Janet V. Crisler. 30  See Steuernagel in this volume.

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

183

marketplaces in Ephesos, the Lower Agora (Plan 2, no. 61), which was nearer to the Roman harbor. Part of the survey in 2005 and 2006 included areas south of the Roman harbor below the scarp of Bülbüldağ (fig. 10.4). This area is of considerable interest for the commercial life of Ephesos in the Roman period. Because the work of Kraft, Brückner, and Kayan demonstrated that most of this land in this area resulted from silting in the Hellenistic period, any structures there would date to the early imperial period, and would be relevant for a reconstruction of Ephesos during the lifetime of Paul. Several considerations suggest that artisanal workshops may have been located in this area. The magnetometry shows that this region is dotted with areas of high thermal activity, represented by dark dots indicating points of high magnetism (see fig. 10.4).31 These nodes could be domestic hearths, but because of their intensity, they are more likely to be furnaces and kilns, or deposits of ceramic or other materials heated to high temperatures, which is what one would expect for an area of artisanal activity, where objects in glass, metal, and ceramic might be produced.32 Many of the structures found in the area also correspond to architecture found elsewhere in Roman-period harbors. The entire area between the main road of this district and the harbor has long halls running parallel to the quay. In the districts 2048–50 are eleven halls, 46 m long and 6 m wide, with their narrow sides to the harbor. These could be wet docks for the storage and repair of ships. Additionally, south of the harbor, the north slope of the mountain is covered with basements of structures cut into the bedrock. Scattered around the surface are large fragments of Roman wine amphorae.33 The north slope of the hill would be a good cool location for wine storage, especially in basement storage rooms. One particularly interesting structure is at 1956–57, a square building measuring 66 by 80 m, a little less than the size of an American football field (fig. 10.5). Further investigation with GPR showed that it had a large central courtyard with a row of small rooms on the north and west sides, and a colonnade forming a porch in front of them (fig. 10.6). The GPR results show floors that were covered with mortar, which was a construction technique not used before the Roman period, and columns were still standing in 31  Groh 2006, 51 pl. 2. 32  Late antique lime kilns also could have created such hot spots, but these are generally located in the vicinity of structures containing large amounts of architectural marbles. There are also no nearby large-scale Christian structures for which significant amounts of mortar would have been needed. 33  Groh 2006, 99–100.

Figure 10.4

Ephesos. Results of geophysical surveys 2004–2006, magnetometry and GPR

184 Thomas

Figure 10.5

Ephesos. Plan of structures on south side of harbor based on geophysical results. Green indicates Roman expansion of city.

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

185

186

Figure 10.6

Thomas

Detail of fig. 10.4

situ.34 This structure must be early Roman at the earliest, because it is built on land that was not available for construction until the silting of the harbor in late Hellenistic period. Comparison with other Roman harbors suggests that this building is a warehouse. The large structure at Ephesos is comparable in plan and dimension with the Horrea of Hortensius, a warehouse facility at the Roman port of Ostia, which has an average width of about 60 meters, and is dated between 30 and 40 ce.35 The small rooms in this horrea (“warehouse”) similarly appear in long rows of rooms fronted by a large peristyle. Other comparable struc34  Groh 2006, 100, 51, pl. 2. 35  Calza 1953, 1.234.

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

187

tures at Ostia exist, such as the Horrea Epagathiana, which has long rows of small rooms without a porch.36 Accurate plans for these buildings are publicly available. There is no direct way of dating these structures except through excavation. But in addition to the geological information, the urban grid and the topography support the supposition that the structures on the south side of the harbor at Ephesos do not predate the early Roman period. The general layout of this south part of the harbor near the north slope of Bülbüldağ dates to the Augustan period, because it corresponds to the street grid presupposed by Augustan structures in the new western district of the city.37 The main road through this area, however, does not follow the grid plan of the city, but probably predates it (fig. 10.5). The contour lines of the topography indicate that this road runs along the edge of the steeply rising scarp of the mountain next to it (Bülbüldağ). The main road most likely represents the path along the shoreline in the Hellenistic period.38 Thus, anything between it and the edge of the Roman harbor could not have been constructed until Roman times, and this is where the wet docks and warehouse are located.39 The buildings found by GPR fit typologically into the Roman period, as we can see by the examples at Ostia, and at least do not contradict such a date. It is more difficult to determine the latest possible date by which the structures could have been built. Here the magnetometrists noted the existence of two different street systems, one that cohered with the general street system of Ephesos in the Roman period, and one that lay at an angle to that grid. The one at an angle is the later of the two, and probably dates to late antiquity, after the Roman period. So the early street grid and the structures along it most likely date between the Hellenistic period and late antiquity, and most likely correspond to the restructuring of the harbor area in the Augustan period.40

36  The structure at Ephesos is most similar to those large warehouse structures at Ostia that were constructed on the south side of the decumanus in region 5 and date to the first half of the 1st century ce, Calza 1953, 1.117–18, pll. 9 and 10. 37  Groh 2006, 78–79. 38  Ladstätter 2016, 241–42. 39  The initial geophysical work done by Kraft, Brückner, and Kayan did not include borings along the north slope of Bülbüldağ. İlhan Kayan carried out some borings here in 2005 in advance of the magnetometry survey. Although I have a copy of his report to the Turkish government that outlines the work that was undertaken, I have not found a publication of the results to date. 40  Groh 2006, 78–79.

188 6

Thomas

Paul on the Periphery of Ephesos

As Stefan Groh has written, some considerations suggest that this area of Ephesos was an emporion, a mercantile district. An emporion is a named area of the city physically and cognitively separate from the rest of the city. It is usually separated either by walls as at Carthage, or by boundary stones as at Athens, or by a city gate.41 At Ephesos there is a monumental city gate, the Medusa Gate, through which runs a broad, colonnaded street that connects to the west end of the Lower Agora, the West Road (Plan 2, no. 65 and 66). The street continued into the area south of the harbor that contains the warehouse and wet docks, and formed its main axis. This was one of the main routes into the city from the boats quayed in the south end of the harbor, and it led directly into the agora, after passing through the gate and past a large temple complex (the ‘Serapeion’).42 The temple complex and gate indicate the liminal status of the Emporion,43 which was separate from the rest of the city because it was viewed as a neutral area of exchange that did not really belong to the city, and as such stood under its own religious protection. Such a city district, an emporion, is a more likely location for Paul than many of the better-known structures at Ephesos, such as the theater, which not even the author of Acts, a generation later, believes he could have entered (Acts 19:30–31). We don’t have conclusive evidence of the economic status of the Christ worshippers in the 1st century, nor even of Paul. The relationship of the Christ worshippers to other Jews and to the Roman government are matters of discussion among scholars. But we do know that the people whom Paul converted to the worship of Jesus joined a minority religion in the Roman Empire, a Jewish sectarian movement that had a troubled relationship with other Jews, and with the traditional religions represented by the temples and statues excavated by modern archaeologists. We know that their meeting places were not monumental and were hardly visible, in the hidden spaces of private homes. Paul, an artisan, an apostate from his native Jewish tradition, was a peripheral character in Ephesos, who apparently spent a good part of his time in the city as a criminal under arrest.44 Finally, the earliest material traces by which followers of Jesus express their identity are the types of quotidian monuments that poor people leave behind: gravestones, or graffiti, such 41  Groh 2006, 97. 42  See Schulz in this volume; Schulz 2016; Schulz 2017. 43  For liminality around another gate of the city, the Magnesian Gate, see Sokolicek in this volume. 44  Trebilco 2008, 83–87.

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

189

as the examples at nearby Smyrna, which were found in the walls of shops in the lower floors of an agora in the ancient harbor district, a commercial space similar to the one I have identified here.45 In short, there is enough evidence both in literary and material evidence to construct an alternate landscape for the early worshippers of Jesus within ancient urban spaces such as Ephesos. We could choose to search, not for the structures in which they lived and met, but rather for the locations where working people would have spent their days,46 or the cemeteries that housed the only enduring monuments most people in antiquity ever left behind. As valuable as is the information that we get from the large structures that are most often excavated and restored—the monumental buildings, government offices, temples of traditional gods, and opulent private houses—we are more likely to find the landscape of the early Christians in the peripheral districts of the cities. Bibliography Bagnall, R. 2012. Everyday Writing in the Græco-Roman East. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Bagnall et al. 2016. Graffiti from the Basilica in the Agora of Smyrna. New York: New York University. Calza, G. 1953. Scavi di Ostia: Topografia Generale. Scavi di Ostia 1. Rome: Libreria dello stato. Chiricat, E. 2013. “The ‘Crypto-Christian’ Inscriptions of Phrygia.” In Roman Phrygia: Culture and Society, 198–214. Edited by P. Thonemann. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Engelmann, H. and D. Knibbe. 1978–80. “Aus ephesischen Skizzenbüchern.” ÖJh 52: 19–61. Friesen, S. 2004. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus.” JSNT 26: 323–61. Gibson, E. 1978. The ‘Christians for Christians’ Inscriptions of Phrygia: Greek Texts, Translation and Commentary. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Groh, S. 2006. “Neue Forschungen zur Stadtplanung in Ephesos.” ÖJh 75: 47–116. Guinnessy, P. 2014. “Digging into the Past Without a Spade.” Physics Today 67: 24–26. Hock, R. 1980. The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 45  Bagnall et al. 2016, 36–40, 45–47; Bagnall 2012, 31–32. 46  For a similar approach in Pompeii, see Oakes 2009.

190

Thomas

Knibbe, D. and B. İplikçioğlu. 1984. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos IX.” ÖJh 55: 107–36. Kraemer, R. 1991. “Jewish Tuna and Christian Fish: Identifying Religious Affiliation in Epigraphic Sources.” HTR 84: 141–62. Kraft, J. C. et al. 2000. “A Geologic Analysis of Ancient Landscapes and the Harbors of Ephesus and the Artemision in Anatolia.” ÖJh 69: 175–210, pll. 1–17. Kraft, J. C. et al. 2005. “The Sea Under the City of Ancient Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, 147–56. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag. Kraft, J. C. et al. 2007. “The Geographies of Ancient Ephesus and the Artemision in Anatolia.” Geoarchaeology 22: 121–49. Ladstätter, S. 2013b. Terrace House 2 in Ephesos: An Archaeological Guide. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Ladstätter, S. 2016. “Hafen und Stadt von Ephesos in hellenistischer Zeit.” ÖJh 85: 233–72. Lampe, P. 1987. “Paulus: Zeltmacher.” BZ 31: 256–61. Langmann, G. 1967. “Eine spätarchaische Nekropole unter dem Staatsmarkt zu Ephesos.” In Festschrift für Fritz Eichler zum achtzigsten Geburtstag, 103–23. Edited by E. Braun. Vienna: ÖAI. Meeks, W. 1983. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Meggitt, J. 1998. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Oakes, P. 2009. Reading Romans in Pompeii: Paul’s Letter at Ground Level. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Økland, J. 2004. Women in Their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Osiek, C., M. Y. MacDonald, and J. H. Tulloch. 2006. A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Rogl, C. 2014. “Mouldmade Relief Bowls from Ephesos: The Current State of Research.” In Pottery, Peoples and Places: Study and Interpretation of Late Hellenistic Pottery, 133– 39. Edited by P. Guldager Bilde and M. L. Lawall. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Scheidel W. 2007. “Demography.” In The Cambridge Economic History of the GrecoRoman World. Edited by W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. P. Saller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schulz, T. 2017. “Eine antike Großbaustelle: Ausführung und Bauablauf des SerapisTempels in Ephesos.” In Werkspuren: Materialverarbeitung und handwerkliches Wissen im antiken Bauwesen: Internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 13.–16. Mai 2015, 359–72 pll. 1–14. Edited by U. Wulf-Rheidt and D. Kurapkat. Diskussionen zur Archäologischen Bauforschung 12. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Schulz, T. 2016. “The Architecture of the So-Called Serapeion in Ephesos.” In Ancient Quarries and Building Sites in Asia Minor: Research on Hierapolis in Phrygia and

Invisible ‘ Christians ’ in the Ephesian Landscape

191

Other Cities in South-Western Anatolia: Archaeology, Archaeometry, Conservation, 743–849. Edited by T. Ismaelli and G. Scardozzi. Bibliotheca Archaeologica 45. Bari: Edipuglia. Sokolicek, A. 2009a. “Zwischen Stadt und Land: Neues zum Magnesischen Tor in Ephesos: Erste Ergebnisse.” ÖJh 78: 321–47. Sokolicek, A. 2010. “Chronologie und Nutzung des Magnesischen Tores von Ephesos.” ÖJh 79: 259–81. Still, T. 2006. “Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostle’s Tentmaking and Social Class.” JBL 125: 781–95. Steskal, M. 2014. “Ephesos and Its Harbours: A City in Search of Its Place.” In Häfen und Hafenstädte im östlichen Mittelmeerraum von der Antike bis in byzantinische Zeit: Neue Entdeckungen und aktuelle Forschungsansätze, 325–38. Edited by S. Ladstätter, F. Pirson, and T. Schmidts. SoSchrÖAI 52. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Stock, F. et al. 2013. “In Search of the Harbours: New Evidence of Late Roman and Byzantine Harbours of Ephesus.” Quaternary International 312: 57–69. Stock, F. et al. 2014. “The Palaeogeographies of Ephesos (Turkey), Its Harbours, and the Artemision: A Geoarchaeological Reconstruction for the Timespan 1500–300 BC.” Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supp. 58.2: 33–66. Stock, F. et al. 2016. “Human Impact on Holocene Sediment Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean: The Example of the Roman Harbour of Ephesus.” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 41.7: 980–96. Theissen, G. 1982. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Thomas, J. 2001. “Archaeologies of Place and Landscape.” In Archaeological Theory Today, 165–86. Edited by Ian Hodder. Cambridge: Blackwell. Trebilco, P. 2008. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. White, L. M. 1996. The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, vol. 1: Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation Among Pagans, Jews, and Christians. HTS 42. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International. Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. 1995. “Subsidiary Factories of Italian Sigillata Potters: The Ephesian Evidence.” In Ephesos Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, 217–28. Edited by H. Koester. HTS 41. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

Part 3 Objects

∵

Chapter 11

Ruler Cults and Imperial Cults at Ephesos: First Century bce to Third Century ce François Kirbihler The aim of this paper is to present the development of imperial cults at Ephesos, first on a municipal level, then on a provincial level. The first part consists of a description of the beginnings of the cult, including a discovery related to the existence of a cult of Roma and Caesar during the (second) triumvirate. This discovery has consequences for the meaning of Augustus’s measures in 29 bce, discussion of which forms the central part of the present research. The third part treats the well-known topic of neokorate cults.1 The regional and local royal cults in the different parts of Alexander’s empire were an important religious, political and social phenomenon of the Hellenistic period. The Seleucid, Attalid, and Ptolemaic kings and queens had specific priests and priestesses attached to royal cults,2 but the remnants of these cults at Ephesos are very scarce.3 The cult of the goddess Roma developed from the 3rd and 2nd centuries bce forward, and the Roman conquest popularized the spread of this cult into Greece and Asia Minor. Asian cities experienced some early manifestations of the cult of Roma; Smyrna was the first city to erect a temple to the goddess in 195 bce. The cult is also attested in Ephesos between 99–96 bce, but was likely founded after 129 bce as a result of the common victory of the Ephesians and the Romans against Aristonikos. The priests of Roma appear as agonothetes of the festival games of the Dionysia in the list of prytaneis and priests of Roma

1  This paper refers to various studies: Kirbihler 2008; Kirbihler 2016; Kirbihler and Zabrana 2014. It is not possible to give all the details of the historical discussions of ruler cult in this short essay. I have, however, included some information about the cult of the triumviral era, but have primarily presented results or historical conclusions. The paper was written in 2015– 2017. I call the reader’s attention to Kirbihler 2017 and Kirbihler 2019, additional bibliography relevant to the history and political cults of Ephesos in the Augustan period. 2  Habicht 1970; Virgilio 2003; Price 1984, 25–40; Gauthier 1989; Hamon 2004, 169–85; Pfeiffer 2008. 3  Perhaps dedications to Ptolemy II Philadelphos (282–246 bce) and Arsinoë are linked with foreign garrisons in the town: SEG 39 (1989): 1232, and SEG 43 (1993): 749; SEG 39 (1989): 1234.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_013

196

Kirbihler

from 52/1 or 51/50 on to 41/40 or 40/39 bce.4 This cult probably imitated the royal cults, as the vocabulary of their eulogies is the same as those for kings. The cult of some Roman governors is also attested between the end of the Attalid dynasty and the time of Julius Caesar. Some popular proconsuls like Mucius Scaevola and Licinius Lucullus were esteemed with religious honors and temporary games (agônes). At the time of Trajan there is still a priest of Servilius Isauricus, who was a proconsul of Asia between 46–44 bce. The cult of Roma and popular proconsuls is a striking phenomenon of the imperialist Republic and is probably an intermediary stage between the royal Greek cults and Roman imperial cults.5 1

The Foundation of the Local Ruler/Imperial Cult between 41/38 and 30/29 bce

The traditional date for the foundation of the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor and Ephesos is 29 bce. Octavian responded to a request of the Asian koinon and ordered a cult of Roma and Divus Julius in Ephesos for the Roman citizens (most of them were Italians), and he allowed another cult of the goddess Roma and himself for the Asian Greeks at Pergamon.6 According to most historians,7 this year was the beginning of the history of imperial cult in Asia. I will discuss these developments below, but the decisions of Augustus are not the beginning of the imperial cult at Ephesos: there is a ‘prehistory’ of the cult during the second triumvirate. Three forms of evidence—an epigraphical legal fragment, a series of local coins, and a list of eponymous prytaneis and agonothetes—lead to the conclusion that a cult for Roma and Divus Julius existed from 40/39 or 39/8 onward.8 These documents have never been linked before, but when connected they 4  For Smyrna see Tac. Ann. 4.56: a priest of Roma is mentioned in the treaty between Sardis and Ephesos under proconsul Mucius Scaevola (new edition: AE 2010: 1546). The list of prytaneis and priests of Roma is IvE 1a.9. 5  Cults for Roman governors are discussed in Thériault 2001, 85–95; and Thériault 2012, 377– 88. Mucius Scaevola accepted agônes for himself, but they are not certainly attested after the Mithridatic war (but see Cic. Verr. 2.21.51); games for Lucullus are only documented for 70 bce (Plut. Vit. Luc. 23.1–2); there is a priest for Roma and Servilius Isauricus in IvE 3.702 and 7–1.3066. 6  Cass. Dio 51.20.6–7; see text below. 7  For example Price 1984, 76–77; Burrell 2004, 17–22. 8  Respectively FiE 4.3, no. 24 (= IvE 7,2.4324 = Roman Statutes 35) found in the Basilica of St. John; RPC 1.2570–74; 2 pl. 112 and RPCSup 1.2572A; IvE 1a.9.

Ruler Cults and Imperial Cults at Ephesos

197

suggest an earlier date and stage for the creation of what begins as a ruler cult and comes to be known later as the imperial cult. The first piece of evidence is a fragmentary Greek translation of a rogatio, a iussum populi, a legal text adopted by Roman popular assemblies (comitia); by the vote of Roman citizens, it became a Roman law (fig. 11.1). 1 5

[ ] θ̣έλ̣� ̣ ετ̣ ε κελεύετε ἵνα Mᾶρκος Ἀν̣[τώνιος ε̣]ἴτε τι ὑπερ ταύτης ἱερωσύνης τε[λεῖν ἱερομ]νημονήαν θεοῦ Ἰουλίου μετὰ πο[ ]τ̣ε ποῇ μήτε τις τούτων τινὰ τῶν [ ]ων πρὸς ταύτην τὴν ἱερομνημ[ο-] [νήαν πα]ρ̣έχειν τούτων τῶν διδόντων ἢ ὑ[.] [ ]ην τὴν ἐ�ρ̣ ώτησιν ποήσῃ ἢ ει [..] [ κοινῶι σωτῆ ?]ρ̣ι μόνῃ τε αἰτίαι πάντω[ν τῶν] [ἀγαθῶν ? ]τ̣̣ ρκου [ ]

There is not a single complete line, but some words give an indication of the content of the text. The Greek words of the first preserved line, θέλετε κελεύετε, translate the Latin words velitis and iubeatis, and prove that we are dealing with a legal text of the Roman people. In line 3 we read the words θεοῦ Ἰουλίου, the Greek rendering of Divus Julius in the genitive case. Line 2 mentions a priesthood, ἱερωσύνη, and the combined fragments of l. 3 […]νημονήα and l. 5 ἱερομνημ[…] form the word ἱερομνημονήα, a translation of flamonium or flami­ natus, a priesthood (with one single priest) of a divinity. This could be a reference to the sacred celebration of Divus Julius (ἱερομνημονήα θεοῦ Ἰουλίου), and the fragmentary Markos An[…] (l. 1) is certainly Marc Antony, who was inaugurated as the first flamen of Caesar after the peace of Brundisium (September of 40 bce).9 The cult was probably popular in Italy,10 and it is plausible that the decision to deify Caesar was communicated to the capital of the province of Asia. Some bronze coins constitute the second form of evidence that corroborates this hypothesis. This series represents the profile of the triumviri and their concord (concordia, fig. 11.2). A female portrait is interpreted as Octavia, Octavian’s sister, who married Marc Antony after the peace of Brundisium.11 9  For Caesar’s divinization and cult, see Weinstock 1971, 386–91, 398–99; Ferrary 1999; and Ferrary 2010, 20–22. 10  The lex Rufrena of 42 bce (or 40?), implied the erection of statues for Divus Iulius (ILS 73 and 73a). 11  R PC 1.2574 represents Octavia.

198

Figure 11.1

Kirbihler

Ephesos. Greek inscription of a Roman legal text linked with Marc Antony (l. 1) and the cult of Divus Julius (l. 3)

Figure 11.2 Ephesos. The concordia of the triumviri and Artemis, with the Archiereus Glaukon

These coins also include text: ἀρχιερεὺς (καὶ) γραμ(ματεὺς) Γλαύκων Ἐφε(σίων) (“Glaukon, high priest and secretary of the Ephesians”). The secretary of the people (γραμματεὺς τοῦ δήμου) was most of the time responsible for local coinage.12 The presence of Octavia on the coins suggests a date of 40–39 or, less likely, 38–37 bce. The word archiereus is commonly used for priests of kings of the great dynasties after Alexander, but in Ephesos there is, as far as we know, no continuation of a royal cult into the 1st century bce.13 The only logical explanation would be a high priest for a divinized quasi-monarch, Julius Caesar, whose deification was observed from 42–40 bce. 12  See for example Kirbihler 2016, 150–65. The name of the secretary is on the coins between the second triumvirate and the beginning of the reign of Tiberius as the principal official responsible for minting, but sometimes the high priest is on the coins, sometimes a secretary and high priest; see also below note 30. 13  For the use of the word archiereus, see Müller 2000.

Ruler Cults and Imperial Cults at Ephesos

199

The third piece of evidence provides additional support for this interpretation. The engraving of the list of prytaneis and priests of Roma from the skene of the theater is different from 40/39 or 39/8 bce onward (fig. 11.3). The priest of Roma, who appears as an agonothete of the Dionysia from 52/1 or 51/50 bce, vanished from the list. From this date onward, the eponymous prytanis became the new agonothete of the theatrical competition. It is nearly impossible to suppose that the priest of Roma disappeared under Roman rule, and this priesthood continued to exist until Trajan.14 The best explanation would be a new titulature for a new priesthood. This means, from 40/39 or 39/8 bce onward, a new high priest of Roma was combined with the priesthood of Julius Caesar. The three documents all corroborate that the priesthood of Roma and Caesar existed from the triumvirate onward, but it was probably in its first form associated with Marc Antony, because as first flamen of Divus Iulius and ruler of the Greek East, he inspired or allowed this creation. The cult was probably located in the Artemision (see Plan 1, no. 1), since in 48 bce, Caesar acted as the savior of this sanctuary. He diminished the amount of taxes for Asia and was very popular in the province, especially in the region of Ephesos. A local Pharsalic era was in use in the Kaystros valley.15 In the first century bce honorific inscriptions for Roman rulers or official Roman documents were displayed in the area of the Artemision.16 For instance, a female head from this area could be interpreted as Athena or Roma;17 and the fragmentary text of a possible cult for Divus Iulius (discussed above) was discovered in the Basilica of St. John with other epigraphical fragments from the Artemision.18 The existence of an Augusteum, epigraphically attested in 6/5 bce in the sanctuary of the Artemision, long before the death of Augustus,

14  See IvE 7,1.3066 from the reign of Trajan. 15  Caes. BCiv. 3.105 (Artemision and Caesar); App. BCiv. 5.4 (publicans); for the use of the era, see Leschhorn 1993, 221–25. 16  Roman patrons and/or benefactors are: Q. Mucius Scaevola (IvE 3.630A); L. Lucullus (IvE 6.2941 = SEG 39 [1989]: 1173); L. Calpurnius (IvE 3.630 B); L. Antonius (IvE 3.614 A); Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (IvE 3.663); M. Valerius Messala Corvinus (SEG 43 [1993]: 775). All the texts (except IvE 3.630 B) come from the Artemision area. Also see a mutilated senatus consultum with a M. Aemilius M(arci) f(ilius), perhaps M. Aemilius [Scaurus] from the middle of first century bce (IvE 2.204): he could be the praetor of 56 bce or his son who left Sextus Pompeius and fled to Asia in 35 bce (App. BCiv. 5.142, 593). 17  The head of the goddess Athena or Roma in Muss 2005, 249–63. Also see Kirbihler and Zabrana 2014, 110–11, 122–23; and Zabrana in this volume. 18  For example IvE 5.1678; 5.1678 A; 7,2.4327–28; 7,2.4330–32.

200

Figure 11.3

Kirbihler

Ephesos. List of priests of Roma and eponymous prytaneis. Drawing of IvE 1a.9

could also be better explained if an older tradition for Roman cults, especially a local cult of Roma, existed in this area.19 We do not know if this first form of cult was local or provincial, or if it was planned for Romans, Greeks or both. The fact that the coins are local may perhaps support the local hypothesis, but the existence of coins which later 19  See also n. 23 below.

Ruler Cults and Imperial Cults at Ephesos

201

commemorate the awarding of neokorates would also allow the provincial hypothesis. A definitive answer is not possible. But the fact of an actual cult of Roma and Caesar before Actium explains why Octavian’s decisions of 29 bce about ruler cults in Ephesos and Pergamon should now be reassessed. 2

The Evolution of Imperial Cults from Augustus to Nero

Octavian made important decisions after Actium and the Egyptian campaign during the few months he spent in Asia (winter of 30/29 bce): Καῖσαρ δὲ ἐν τούτῳ τά τε ἄλλα ἐχρημάτιζε, καὶ τεμένη τῇ τε Ῥώμῃ καὶ τῷ πατρὶ τῷ Καίσαρι, ἥρωα αὐτὸν Ἰούλιον ὀνομάσας, ἔν τε Ἐφέσῳ καὶ ἐν Νικαίᾳ γενέσθαι ἐφῆκεν· αὗται γὰρ τότε αἱ πόλεις ἔν τε τῇ Ἀσίᾳ καὶ ἐν τε τῇ Βιθυνίᾳ προετετίμηντο. Καὶ τούτους μὲν τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις τοῖς παρ᾽αὐτοῖς ἐποικοῦσι τιμᾶν προσέταξε· τοῖς δὲ δὴ ξένοις, Ἕλληνάς σφας ἐπικαλέσας, ἑαυτῷ τινα, τοῖς μὲν Ἀσιανοῖς ἐν Περγάμῳ τοῖς δὲ Βιθυνοῖς ἐν Νικομηδείᾳ, τεμενίσαι ἐπέτρεψε.20 Caesar, meanwhile, besides attending to the general business, gave permission for the dedication of sacred precincts in Ephesos and in Nicaea to Rome and to Caesar, his father, whom he named the hero Julius. These cities had at that time attained chief place in Asia and Bithynia respectively. He commanded that the Romans resident in these cities should pay honour to these two divinities; but he permitted the aliens, whom he styled Hellenes, to consecrate precincts to himself, the Asians to have theirs in Pergamon and the Bithynians theirs in Nicomedia. There is no clear date for the establishment of this cult of Roma and Caesar (as a hero). Octavian ordered (προσέταξε) the Romans to pay honor to Roma and Caesar. Thus, it could be a modification of an older cult, which was amended in the way Octavian desired, with the aim to wipe out any connection with Marc Antony and to link it instead with his father Divus Iulius (in the case of Ephesos) associated with his own name as reformer of the older cult. In this new form, the cult was intended for Italians residing in Asia, with Ephesos as a principal location,21 while Pergamon was a new center where the Greeks of the province could practice imperial worship. 20  Cass. Dio 51.20.6–7 (Greek text and English translation from LCL). 21  Ephesos was a city with more than 250 non imperial Latin names (gentilicia), which is a sign of an important Italic community: Kirbihler 2014a, 241, and Kirbihler 2016, 267–356

202

Kirbihler

Octavian certainly made important reforms in the Artemision. The last mention of a Megabyzos/Megabyxos (a title since Persian rule for a priest of Artemis) goes back to Marc Antony’s visit (42/1 bce). The Megabyxos was probably replaced after Actium by a priestess of Artemis. The Artemision is one of a few great sanctuaries mentioned by Ulpian allowed to inherit legacies from Roman citizens. This fact, linked with the preceding one, could be a sign of a Roman reform of the sanctuary. P. Vedius Pollio also created a foundation to finance the new festivals (called Sebasta) in honor of the emperor (princeps)—Augustus received a festival game (agôn) soon after Actium.22 We could logically suppose that the cult of Julius Caesar continued in the area of the Artemision where it had been established before 30/29 bce, but it vanished rapidly, or was amalgamated from 20–10 bce into the developing cult of Augustus, for an Augusteum is already known under the proconsulate of Asinius Gallus (6/5 bce).23 The cult of the imperial family is attested later in this area, as there is other evidence in the Artemision for the cult of some Julio-Claudian members, such as Germanicus, Drusus Minor and Tiberius (8–14 ce).24 There was also some epigraphic evidence of a temenos and a shrine for Augustus (and for Artemis?) somewhere in the city itself, perhaps already by 20 bce.25 Around the end of the reign of Augustus and the accession of Tiberius, a temple was built within the Upper Agora (Plan 2, No. 18).26 This was probably a temple of Augustus, called the Augusteum in an epigraphical text. It was built in the same area where the inscription for Augustus that mentions a temenos was discovered.27 In 11 ce the first basilike stoa of Asia was dedicated in Latin and in Greek by C. Sextilius Pollio on the north side of the Upper Agora (251 gentilicia). This modified cult could explain the mention on some coins of a nonimperial neokorate. See Dmitriev 2011, 547–49. 22  Last mention of the Megabyxos in App. BCiv. 5.9.36; the first known priestess of Artemis is Callinoe of Tralleis (IvE 3.615 A). The mention of P. Vedius Pollio and his constitutio/ diataxis for Sebasta in IvE 1a.17–19. The list of sanctuaries comes from a list cited in the fourth century, in fact an extract of Ulpian who died in 223 or 228 (Tit. ex corp. Ulpiani 22.6), but a reform probably took place between 30 and 28 bce, after Actium and before the restitution of the province to the Senate in January of 27 bce. 23  IvE 5.1522 lines 1–2: Imp(erator) Caesar Divi f(ilius) Aug(ustus) co(n)s(ul) XII tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) XVIII pontifex maximus ex reditu Dianae fanum et Augusteum muro muniendum curauit. 24  IvE 2.257; also Kirbihler and Zabrana 2014, 122–23, 126 n. 1. 25  The possibility of a statue and a shrine for Augustus is given by IvE 3.902. 26  The date (first quarter of 1st century ce) is given by Mitsopoulos-Leon 2005, 203–11. Dimensions in Thür 2007a, 80. For the basilica see Stinson 2007, and Steuernagel in this volume. 27  The inscription with the temenos is IvE 3.902; an Augusteum in IvE 2.412 and 5.1522.

Ruler Cults and Imperial Cults at Ephesos

203

(Plan 2, no. 18). Perhaps the basilike stoa became later, under Claudius, a place for the imperial cult, where the statues of Augustus and Livia were exhibited. In late antiquity, the statues were marked with a cross on the forehead and buried.28 So, in the reign of Augustus there was a form of the imperial cult in the main sanctuary of the Artemision—probably the initial site of the cult of Roma. But the cult appeared also inside the city, in a large agora linked with emperors. Should we identify the Upper Agora as a civic agora, with various political and religious institutions, or as a Sebasteion, a sanctuary dedicated to imperial cult and especially to Augustus? The question is perhaps still open for some scholars, but D. Steuernagel argues in this book (chapter 5) that the Upper Agora was not a unified construction project, and probably not even an enclosed place during the early Roman imperial period: so the ‘Sebasteion hypothesis’ would seem unlikely.29 Imperial local high priests existed under the Julio-Claudian dynasty, but few of them (four, five or six high priests under Augustus and Tiberius) are identified; there was also a priestess of Livia. They were probably priests for life or for a period of more than one year. They were members of the most prominent families, and they certainly participated in the minting of local coins.30 The municipal imperial priesthood disappeared, in my view, when Ephesos received the first neokorate, a guardianship of a provincial temple for the emperor(s) (ca. 82–84 ce for the concession of the privilege, but the temple began functioning only in 88/89 or 89/90).31 The position was replaced by provincial high priests—the famous asiarchoi or archiereis tēs Asias (the titulature in Greek is ἀσιάρχης or ἀρχιερεύς τῆς ᾽Ασίας, chief-priest or high priest of Asia), who have been much discussed by scholars.32 28  See Aurenhammer and Sokolicek 2011, 47–48. 29  Livia was divinized by Claudius. In 2014 a new architectural research project (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Project) commenced in order to clarify some problems in this area. This project is linked with T. Schulz and D. Steuernagel from the University of Regensburg, who are associated with the ÖAI. See the paper by D. Steuernagel in this volume. 30  An example is Alexandros, high priest under Tiberius: the name is on coins (RPC 1.2613– 19); Servilia Secunda was priestess of Livia (IvE 7,2.4337). For local high priests in the province of Asia, see also Frija 2012, although I do not always accept her explanations about high priests in Ephesos. In my opinion, there are no more specific local high priests of imperial cults after the first neokorate in the eighties of the 1st century CE. 31  For 82–84 ce as the possible date for the decision to make a provincial temple for Domitian, see Dräger 1993, 122–36; see also Guerber 2009, 265–70, for some points of historiography. 32  For two different points of view about asiarchoi and archiereis, see the bibliography below in nn. 39 and 40.

204 3

Kirbihler

The Era of Provincial Imperial Temples (88/9–262 ce): Ephesos, a Neokorate City

The history of the imperial provincial temples of Ephesos is complex. It was a long time before the city was first designated as a neokoros of the emperors. The capital of Asia obtained its first permanent imperial provincial temple only under Domitian, perhaps 82–84 ce,33 but this first provincial temple was inaugurated in 89 ce, a long time after Pergamon (29 bce) and Smyrna (26 ce).34 Hadrian granted the second guardianship of a provincial sanctuary about 131 ce.35 Caracalla and Geta conferred the third neokorate in the year 211, but Geta’s murder probably led to the transformation of the neokorate into a guardianship of Artemis.36 The fourth neokorate, given by Elagabalus, was lost at the beginning of the reign of Severus Alexander and after the damnatio me­ moriae of his predecessor, only to be granted again by Valerian and Gallienus ca. 255–258 ce.37 Provincial ceremonies took place in Ephesos, in which the delegations from the cities of the province of Asia (the koinon of Asia) took part.38 A high priest, called ἀρχιερεὺς τῆς Ἀσίας or ἀσιάρχης τῆς Ἀσίας, supervised the ceremonies. On this note, there is one point to be emphasized. I think that both appellations refer to a single office, so I am a supporter of the so-called ‘identification theory.’ Both R. A. Kearsley and S. J. Friesen have offered another opinion in the past (for different reasons) and favored the separation of the titles.39 Adhering to the opinion of other scholars, I used Ephesian documentation as a basis for identification.40 In the cases of fourteen different persons the inscriptions never use both expressions in the same text. For example, Ti. Claudius Aristion 33  Dräger 1993, 122–35, 181–82, but see also Burrell 2004, 62–63, and Friesen 1993, 41–49, for the date of inauguration of the temple. For the history of neokorate, see also the original paper of Dmitriev 2011, who discusses the occasional presence on coins of a nonidentified, non-imperial neokorate, which could be that of Julius Caesar. 34  Perhaps Nero gave one in 66 ce, but it was suppressed after his death, see Burrell 2004, 59–62. 35  The first neokorate is mentioned 130/1 (IvE 2.430), the second in the Asiatic year 132/3 (IvE 2.278). Also see Burrell 2004, 66–67. 36  IvE 2.212 lines 15–22; Burrell 2004, 70–75; also see Heller 2006, 221–22. 37  Burrell 2004, 78. The end of the present paper is an English summary of Kirbihler 2008 (in French). 38  Burrell 2004, 343–58. 39  For example Kearsley 1986, 183–92; Kearsley 1989, 57–65; Kearsley 1990, 69–80; Friesen 1999a, 303–7; Friesen 1999b. 40  Herz 1992; Weiss 2002; the Ephesian documentation is discussed in Kirbihler 2008, 110–17; also Ulp. in Dig. 27.1.6.13–14.

Ruler Cults and Imperial Cults at Ephesos

205

is sometimes called archiereus of Asia (IvE 2.234; 2.239; 2.424A; 5.1498; 7,2.4105), sometimes asiarch of Asia (IvE 2.508; 3.638; 2.427?; 2.461), three times high priest (IvE 2.425; 2.425A?) or three times asiarch (IvE 2.424; 7,2.5101; 7,2.5113). Pompeius Hermippus is in one text asiarch and neokoros (guardian), in another high priest of the temples of Ephesos and neokoros (IvE 3.710 and 6.2069). Two inscriptions mention M. Aurelius Mindius Mattidianus Pollio as high priest of temples (ἀρχιερεὺς ναῶν τῶν ἐν …) in Ephesos (IvE 3.627; 7,1.3056), another as asiarch of temples (ἀσιάρχης ναῶν τῶν ἐν …) in Ephesos (OGIS 525). We can thus securely identify the offices on the basis of the similarity of both expressions.41 The provincial imperial high priests were appointed by the koinon in advance of their one-year priesthood. Thus, Ulpius Apollonius Plautus is called designated asiarch,42 and Cn. Dottius Dotti Maryllini f(ilius) Serg(ia) Plancianus of Pisidian Antioch was designated by Marcus Aurelius to be perpetual agonothetes in Ephesos and also was high priest. The function was considered as a liturgy; the expression is used by Hadrian in a letter addressed to Aphrodisias. There was a summa honoraria to pay, and it was much more than 20,000 denarii (80,000 sesterces) in the second quarter of third century.43 It was possible to serve more than once, and the office of asiarch was sometimes compatible with the exercise of another function in the same city in the same year, like the prytany or the secretariate of the people.44 The high priest was responsible for the cult of the emperors and accomplished his duties with his wife, who probably made the sacrifices for the empresses. Sometimes there is a variant, like a mother (Aelia Ammia) and her son (M. Iulius Aquila), from Amorium in Phrygia, but in this case the priests and priestesses are always from the same family.45 The first provincial high priest of Asia at Ephesos, Ti. Claudius Aristion, is known from 88/9 ce. There were 174 or 175 high priests until the earthquake and the Gothic invasion of 262. We know perhaps 85 to 89 priests, who represent 91 to 97 years of the office.46 More than 50% of these officials at Ephesos are known, which is a very high percentage for ancient documentation. 41  The catalogue and commentary are in Kirbihler 2008, 114–17, with many examples. 42  IvE 3.740. An imperial priestess is also designated (IvE 3.897). For the designation see Campanile 1994b, 424–26 and Kirbihler 2008, 117–19. 43  S EG 50 (2000), 1096 (letter to Aphrodisias); 20,000 denarii for working in the harbor of Ephesos, but without the costs for gladiatorial games (IvE 7,1.3071). Dottius Plancianus in IvE 6.2957A; CIL 3.6835–37. 44  Aristion was three times asiarch (see above); IvE 2.279 (secretary); 2.293; 7,2.4109 (prytaneis). 45  IvE 3.686; 3.689; AE 1990: 974. 46  Kirbihler 2008, 119–33, gives the list of 82–85 persons who represent 90–93 years; Kirbihler 2014b, 74–75 n. 103, gives a supplement of one to four possible names.

206

Kirbihler

Only three of them (less than 4% of the provincial priests) were not Roman citizens, and they were living in the period of 165–210 ce, when the great plague of 165–190 made it possible for new families to rise socially. The Claudii and Flavii were undoubtedly important until the 2nd century. In the same century descendants of immigrants, or freedmen of immigrants, like an Ofellius or Gavius, rose socially and became provincial high priests. Some Aurelii after Marcus Aurelius confirm the upward mobility of new families in the last third of the 2nd century. Over 60% of all high priests who served at Ephesos have imperial names.47 It is possible to distinguish three groups among them: 1) a majority of native Ephesians stemming from important families of the city; 2) a group which came from cities near Ephesos, such as Phokaia, Teos and Miletos, on the coast, and Magnesia on the Maeander, Hypaipa, and Tralleis, a little bit more in the hinterland; and 3) some individuals who came from more remote cities, like Aphrodisias, Keramos, Thyatira, Akmonia, Amorium, Pisidian Antioch. Between one quarter and one third of the high priests at Ephesos did not have Ephesian origins; rather, they were designated by the koinon or, in rare cases, by the emperor. A few people had estates in the Ephesian territory, which explains the fact that they were also Ephesian magistrates. Others, from Thyatira, Akmonia, and Miletos, cities with artisanal production, and perhaps from Bithynia, had economic interests in the territory.48 The last group was constituted by the persons designated by the emperor: C. Dottius Plancianus from Antioch or perhaps Aelia Ammia and her son Julius Aquila from Amorium. The high priests carried out religious duties, administrative responsibilities, and acted as benefactors. During the sessions of the Asian koinon, the religious duties consisted of the procession of the delegates of the koinon from the Artemision to the Flavian imperial temple (Plan 2, no. 30), the first neokorate temple, and, after 130/1, to the Hadrianeion (Plan 2, no. 98), the second neokorate sanctuary.49 As part of the koinon, they probably took part in the assessment of the proconsular activity of the year and perhaps also in the appointment of Asian embassies to Rome. During the rest of the year 47  Kirbihler 2008, 134. This is the same percentage for the province of Asia, see Campanile 1994a, 161. 48  Kirbihler 2008, 137: T. Flavius Montanus had links with the cardatori of Akmonia (IvE 6.2062); M. Aurelius Mindius Mattidianus Pollio was promagister of the quadrag­ esima portuum Asiae in Ephesos (IvE 3.627; IvE 7,1.3056). 49  About these temples see Scherrer et al. 2000, 92–93 (Flavian imperial temple), and 184–85 (Olympieion); see also Ladstätter in this volume (Flavian imperial temple).

Ruler Cults and Imperial Cults at Ephesos

207

they probably stayed in Ephesos, making sacrifices for the birthday of various divinized persons of imperial dynasties. They replaced the municipal priests of the Julio-Claudian era in this office50 and had the opportunity to meet important personalities like the proconsul or the procurator of Asia. As benefactors they were agonothetes of competitions like the Hadrianeia, and had to pay for venationes (fights with wild animals) or gladiatorial games; the koinon gave money, but honneur oblige, the high priests added a sum from their own wealth for games or other events.51 More than twenty inscriptions are related to the popular spectacles, hunting, and gladiatorial games.52 These officials contributed to the homonoia (concordia) in the cities, creating and maintaining the union of the populations and their loyalty toward the protective figure of the emperor, benefactor of Rome and the Roman Empire, through these spectacles. They succeeded in consolidating and uniting the municipal and provincial societies of the high empire, but their sacrifices to traditional Greek and Roman gods implicated the marginalization of the Christians and caused some local persecutions.53 The major earthquake in the later 3rd century ce and the invasion of the Goths the same year ushered in a period of major crisis for the city, which caused increased scarcity of epigraphic and numismatic documentation. The society which emerged in the 4th century was very different: Christian influence gradually grew and we find fewer documents about asiarchs. We know they still exist around 372–378 ce,54 but the circumstances of their disappearance would take us beyond the scope of this study. Acknowledgements I would like to thank E. Oudot for improvements of my English in this paper.

50  In my opinion, there are no specific local imperial priests in the epigraphy of Ephesos after the first neokorate temple began functioning. 51  Such a construction (IvE 3.618) or working in the harbor (IvE 7,1.3071). 52  Kirbihler 2008, 138–45, with many examples. 53  But the description of local persecutions against Christians is another story, which is not part of this paper. 54  IvE 1a.43 l. 7.

208

Kirbihler

Bibliography Aurenhammer, M. and A. Sokolicek. 2011. “The Remains of the Centuries. Sculptures and Statue Bases in Late Antique Ephesos: The Evidence of the Upper Agora.” In Archaeology and the Cities of Asia Minor in Late Antiquity, 43–66. Edited by O. Dally and C. Ratté. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. Burrell, B. 2004. Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden: Boston. Campanile, M. D. 1994a. I sacerdoti del Koinon d’Asia (I sec. a.C.–III sec. d.C.): Contributo allo studio della Romanizzazione delle élites provinciali nell’Oriente greco. Pisa: Giardini editori. Campanile, M. D. 1994b. “I sommi sacerdoti del koinon d’Asia: numero, rango e criteri di elezione.” ZPE 100: 422–26. Dmitriev, S. 2011. “The Neokoriai of Ephesus and City Rivalry in Roman Asia Minor.” In Priests and State in the Roman World, 529–52. Edited by J. H. Richardson and F. Santangelo. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Dräger, M. 1993. Die Städte der Provinz Asia in der Flavierzeit: Studien zur kleinasia­ tischen Stadt- und Regionalgeschichte. Frankfurt: Lang. Ferrary, J. L. 1999. “À propos de deux passages des Philippiques (1.11–13 et 2.110). Remarques sur les honneurs religieux rendus à César en 45–44 et sur la politique d’Antoine après les Ides de Mars.” ARG 1.2 1999: 215–32. Ferrary, J. L. 2010. “À propos des pouvoirs et des honneurs décernés à César entre 48 et 44.” In Cesare: precursore o visionario?, 9–30. Edited by G. P. Urso. Pisa: ETS. Friesen, S. 1993. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden: Brill. Friesen, S. 1999a. “Highpriests of Asia and Asiarchs: Farewell to the Identification Theory.” In Steine und Wege: Festschrift für D. Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag, 303–7. Edited by P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür. Vienna: ÖAI. Friesen, S. 1999b. “Asiarchs.” ZPE 126: 275–90. Frija, G. 2012. Les Prêtres des empereurs: Le culte impérial civique dans la province ro­ maine d’Asie. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. Gauthier, P. 1989. Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes II. Genève: Droz. Guerber, E. 2009. Les cités grecques dans l’Empire romain: Les privilèges et les titres des cités de l’Orient hellénophone d’Octave Auguste à Dioclétien. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. Habicht, C. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. München: Beck. Hamon, P. 2004. “Les prêtres du culte royal dans la capitale des Attalides: note sur le décret de Pergame en l’honneur du roi Attale III (OGIS 332).” Chiron 34: 169–85. Heller, A. 2006. Les bêtises des Grecs: Conflits et rivalités entre cités d’Asie et de Bithynie à l’époque romaine (129 a.C.–235 p.C.). Bordeaux: Ausonius.

Ruler Cults and Imperial Cults at Ephesos

209

Herz, P. 1992. “Asiarchen und Arichiereiai: Zum Provinzialkult der Provinz Asia.” Tyche 7: 93–115. Kearsley, R. A. 1986. “Asiarchs, ‘Archiereis,’ and the ‘Archiereiai’ of Asia.” GRBS 27: 183–92. Kearsley, R. A. 1989. “Asiarchs: Titulature and Function: A Reappraisal.” StClas 26: 57–65. Kearsley, R. A. 1990. “Asiarchs, Archiereis and Archiereiai of Asia: New Evidence from Amorium in Phrygia.” EA 16: 69–80. Kirbihler, F. 2008. “Les grands-prêtres d’Éphèse: aspects institutionnels et sociaux de l’asiarchie.” In Pathways to Power: Civic Elites in the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire, 107–49. Edited by A. Rizakis and F. Camia. Athens: Scuola Archeological Italiana de Atene. Kirbihler, F. 2014a. “Des Grecs et des Italiens à Éphèse: les mutations d’une capitale de province.” Pallas 96: 233–52. Kirbihler, F. 2014b. “Artémidore, témoin des sociétés éphésienne et romaine du IIe siècle.” In Artémidore de Daldis et l’interprétation des rêves: quatorze études, 53–103. Edited by C. Chandezon and J. Dubouchet. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Kirbihler, F. 2016. Des Grecs et des Italiens à Éphèse: Histoire d’une intégration croisée: 133 a.C.–48 p.C. Pessac: Ausonius. Kirbihler, F. 2017. “P. Vedius Pollio, préfet d’Octavien en Asie? Les problèmes d’une mission publique entre République et Empire.” In Auguste et l’Asie Mineure, 129–52. Edited by L. Cavalier, F. Delrieux, and M.-Cl. Ferriès. Bordeaux: Ausonius. Kirbihler, F. 2019. “Les prêtresses d’Artémis à Éphèse (Ier s. av. J.-C.–IIIe s. apr. J.-C.), ou: Comment faire du neuf en prétendant restaurer un état ancien?” In Femmes grecques de l’Orient romain, 21–79. Edited by S. Lalanne. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne, Supp. 18. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Besançon. Kirbihler, F. and L. Zabrana. 2014. “Archäologische, epigraphische und numismatische Zeugnisse für den Kaiserkult im Artemision von Ephesos: Der Kult der Dea Roma und des Divus Iulius unter dem Triumvirat.” ÖJh 83: 101–31. Leschhorn, W. 1993. Antike Ären: Zeitrechnung, Politik und Geschichte im Schwar­z­ meerraum und in Kleinasien nördlich des Tauros. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. 2005. “Zur Chronologie des kleinen Tempels auf dem Staatsmarkt in Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, 1.203–11. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos. Müller, H. 2000. “Der hellenistische Archiereus.” Chiron 30: 519–42. Muss, U. 2005. “Das Artemision von Ephesos in römischer Zeit.” In Ramazan Özgan’a Armağan, Festschrift für Ramazan Özgan, 249–63. Edited by M. Şahin and İ. H. Mert. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Pfeiffer, S. 2008. Herrscher- und Dynastiekulte im Ptolemäerreich: Systematik und Einordnung der Kultformen. München: Beck. Price, S. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

210

Kirbihler

Scherrer, P. et al. 2000. Ephesus: The New Guide. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Stinson, P. 2007. “Imitation and Adaptation in Architectural Design: Two Roman Basilicas at Ephesus and Aphrodisias.” In Neue Zeiten – neue Sitten: Zu Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, 91–100. Edited by M. Meyer. Vienna: Phoibos. Thériault, G. 2001. “Remarques sur le culte des magistrats romains en Orient.” In Mélanges Pierre Rodrigue Brind’Amour, 85–95. Edited by P. Senay and P. Brind’Amour. Cahiers des études anciennes 38. Québec: Université du Québec à Trois Rivières. Thériault, G. 2012. “Culte des évergètes (magistrats) romains et agônes en Asie Mineure.” In Stephanèphoros: De l’économie antique à l’Asie Mineure: Hommages à Raymond Descat, 377–88. Edited by K. Konuk. Pessac: Ausonius. Thür, H. 2007. “Wie römisch ist der sog. Staatsmarkt in Ephesos?” In Neue Zeiten – neue Sitten: Zu Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, 77–90. Edited by M. Meyer. Vienna: Phoibos. Virgilio, B. 2003. Lancia, diadema e porpora: Il re e la regalità ellenistica. Pisa: Giardini. Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Iulius. Oxford: Clarendon. Weiss, P. 2002. “Asiarchen sind Archiereis Asias: Eine Antwort auf S. J. Friesen.” In Widerstand-Anpassung-Integration: die griechische Staatenwelt und Rom: Festschrift für Jürgen Deininger zum 65. Geburtstag, 241–54. Edited by N. Ehrhardt and L.-M. Günther. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Chapter 12

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship and Domestic Religion in Terrace House 2 at Ephesos Norbert Zimmermann In the seven peristyle houses that form the insula of Terrace House 2, a broad variety of evidence for private worship, domestic religion, or other religious activities has been uncovered. The archaeological documentation extends from architectural settings such as rooms dedicated to gods and niches with paintings or statuettes of divinities, and finds like small altars and images of deities, to religious objects like thymiateria (“incense burners”) and deposits of offerings. The following contribution will survey these different contexts and address a range of material, although the archaeological situation is rather complex. Before discussing the evidence, some general remarks on the conditions of their preservation and discovery set some parameters for the potential and limits of interpretation. 1

Overview of the Terrace Houses

The seven peristyle houses of Terrace House 2 extend along three terraces (Plan 2, no. 51 and Plan 3). The insula has a common building history of four main phases of construction, use, and reconstruction over a period of nearly 200 years, spanning Tiberian to Gallienic times.1 In addition, each of the seven peristyle houses that comprise the insula has its own character and microhistory of abandonment, burial by erosion in antiquity, and modern excavation and documentation. A few remarks illuminate the problems of interpretation. While Units 1–5 seem to have been in regular use for family housing, Unit 6 may have served

1  For Terrace House 2 and the single peristyle houses called ‘dwelling units,’ see Thür 2005a (Unit 4); Krinzinger 2010 (Units 1 and 2); Thür and Rathmayr 2014 (Unit 6); Rathmayr 2016a (Unit 7). The publication of Units 3 and 5 are still in preparation. For an overview in English on Terrace house 2, its building history, and its paintings, see Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, 42–138.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_014

212

Zimmermann

an association,2 and Unit 7 an imperial cult.3 The units differ not only in the topographical position and extension, but also in our perception of the ground level. This becomes clear when we see how the main entrance of Unit 6 is displayed as the first floor, seen from the main access at the Embolos, while for Unit 1 and 2 we should expect the main entrance from the south, the socalled Hanghausstrasse (‘Terrace House Street’), to the center of the now lost first floor galleries around the main courtyard, and not, as usually done nowadays, from the east or west on today’s ground level. These observations, in combination with the location of finds and their attribution to a specific room, are important for our interpretations of their meaning and use in the different spaces. Furthermore, the excavation revealed that the destruction happened not in a single event, but through a series of earthquakes, documented by evidence for reconstruction of the partially damaged insula preserved in subsequent destruction layers. In some cases it is evident that previous earthquake debris was never moved away, as in Unit 4, where nearly complete sets of household furnishings came to light.4 In other units, precious objects were found in closed rooms, obviously stored there during the unfinished reconstruction process. In other cases, it is evident that certain areas had been cleared of debris for a limited reuse of the space in late antiquity.5 All these different conditions require a careful analysis of each object and setting to reconstruct the context and the original use—something that can hardly be done in this contribution. But what can be done is to select some of the more interesting finds and to discuss as much evidence as possible regarding the private religious practices of the inhabitants. 2 Entrances We begin our survey with the entrances of the houses. They testify to a common concern to control the boundaries between outside and inside for the protection of the house and its inhabitants and visitors. In the entrance of Unit 6, on the Embolos level of the outer vestibulum 1, before entering the main staircase leading to the upper level, the left (east) side of the doorway was protected by a roughly depicted phallus (fig. 12.1), 2  Thür 2014b, 849–53; see also below. 3  Rathmayr 2006, 119–49; Rathmayr 2016a. 4  See Ladstätter 2005a, 242–62. 5  For example, Unit 2; Rathmayr and Wiplinger 2010, 100; Ladstätter 2010, 193.

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship

213

a common apotropaic symbol for protection and fortune, amply attested in similar locations, for example, at Pompeii.6 A similar protection of an outer entrance is not preserved in other units, but the southern Units 1 and 2 offer analogies in protecting the entrances to their courtyards. As mentioned above, the main entrance was probably from the so-called Terrace House Street in the south and led to the ground floor galleries around the court. In Unit 2, a staircase in the southwestern corner descended into the south gallery of the main court (SR 22–23), where the end of the stair was marked from the first building phase onward with a heros equitans relief, visible as one entered the court (fig. 12.2).7 A niche in front of the relief could be used for small offerings, but it was constructed only in the late Severan period (fourth building phase), when the marble slabs that decorate the walls were installed. In this position, the relief was visible to every person entering the court, and at the same time the relief itself ‘saw’ every single door that opened onto the court. In other words, its magical protection covered the entire inner space of the house.8

Figure 12.1 Terrace House 2. Graffito of a phallus in the entrance of Unit 6 6  Taeuber 2014, 119 and n. 672, pl. 111, GR 254B. Apotropaic phallic images are quite common at the entrances of houses in the western empire, e.g., the Priapos in the fauces of the Casa dei Vettii (Pompei 6.1). 7  Cristof 2010, 657–58. For a similar terracotta relief in the late Hellenistic domus of Terrace House 1, see Rathmayr, in this volume, fig. 13.10. 8  On mounted heroes in domestic religion see Tybout 2005.

214

Zimmermann

Figure 12.2 Terrace House 2. Heros equitans relief in the entrance of Courtyard SR 22–23 of Unit 2

Iconographically, we see the mounted hero making an offering to a snake, the animal that represents the agathos daimon, to whom we will soon return. The relief dates, as in similar cases, to the late Hellenistic period, at least one generation before the construction of Terrace House 2. It remains an open question if there is a real personal or familial relationship between the persons represented on the relief and the owners or inhabitants of the house. In any case, during its long history the relief was never moved and never changed function from that which the first inhabitants intended. The situation is similar—but less clear—in Unit 1, where a round base marks an analogical position next to the staircase leading down from the first floor to the south gallery of the courtyard (SR 2). The base could have been the location of the Hekataion (fig. 12.3), a three-sided statuette of Hekate, found very close by.9 The crossing point would have been protected in all directions, and 9  Rathmayr 2010, 338–39.

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship

215

Figure 12.3 Terrace House 2. Hekataion, probably once protecting the entrance of SR 2 of Unit 1

216

Zimmermann

again the effect could be intended in both ways, toward each passing person as well as from the Hekataion toward each door opening onto the courtyard. 3

Domestic Sanctuaries

The entrance of Unit 4 brings us to the issue of real domestic sanctuaries, at least in a secondary context. During the excavation, in the Entrance Room 4 and in the small Room 5 to its north, three late Hellenistic grave reliefs were found, two still in situ inside a niche, and one with an uncertain original location.10 All of them show a man on a kline and his wife sitting to his right side, with several other family members and slaves gathered around the main group. At least twice, a snake is part of the scenery, but again we cannot prove the relationship between the owner or the inhabitants of the house and the persons depicted in the reliefs. Ancestor worship, however, seems a very reasonable possibility.11 Room 5 was the original entrance, and only in phase III, when the huge Marble Hall (31) and Apsidal Hall (8) of Unit 6 occupied a third of the surface of Unit 4, did their entrance shift to the south from Room 5 to 4, creating the small sanctuary. Decorated with all three reliefs, the sanctuary also contains a huge image of a male snake, lifted up in five loops, his mouth gaping open (fig. 12.4) on the opposite northern wall.12 The position of the snake allowed the agathos daimon to control the entrance as well as all the doors of rooms that opened onto the court.13 While the reliefs always remained visible, the snake was only detected during the excavation, as it was covered with white plaster. Within the same layer of white plaster, on the opposite wall beneath the relief, a male portrait had been added, which today, unfortunately, has completely vanished (fig. 12.5). The portrait, like the reliefs, probably functioned as part of a private ancestor cult. In this case, we are able to document the dynamic process of transformation from the entrance reliefs to the installation of the small sanctuary for domestic worship.14 It seems to be possible to read the diachronic changes in the shrine Room 5 as indicating the growth of the occupants’ ancestor cult over time, and for subsequent generations, adapting the images to cohere with the contemporary family while integrating at least partly their ancestral traditions. 10  Thür 2005a, 208–11. 11  See, regarding the house and especially the atrium as place for the ancestor cult, at least in Republican Rome, Stein-Hölkeskamp 2006, 305–10. 12  Strocka 1977, 92–93; see also Quatember 2000, 76–99. 13  Zimmermann 2005a. 14  Rathmayr and Zimmermann 2014, 717–22, 719 with fig. 3.

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship

217

Figure 12.4 Terrace House 2. Wall painting with agathos daimon as snake, from Room 5 of Unit 4

218

Zimmermann

Figure 12.5 Terrace House 2. Drawing, south wall of Room 5, Unit 4, painting of an ancestor’s portrait below the niche with a funerary relief

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship

219

A much larger space probably dedicated to a domestic shrine was discovered in Room 31b of Unit 6. In phase IV, two former niches of the north wall were covered by the construction of a socle, with an aedicule in the center and probably a wooden wardrobe on both sides. Unfortunately, no trace of the cult statue venerated here remains, and the function of the wardrobe, whether for books or for religious objects, is unknown. The monumental dimension and the position close to the entrance of the Courtyard 31a, afford Room 31b a religious function in a dimension and position corresponding to the monumental size of Unit 6.15 It is interesting to note that the rather elaborate system for closing the room, as reconstructed by Hilke Thür, very probably allowed occupants to see inside the room from the courtyard or vice versa even when the doors were closed. A perforation in the middle door allowed for a glimpse inside of, or outside from, Room 31b when the inner door was closed.16 It seems that communication with or from the shrine was intentionally not interrupted by the doors. 4

Niches for Religious Practices

Beside these shrines, some niches for religious practices were preserved in Terrace House 2. A first example was found in Room 45b of Unit 7, on the lowest Embolos level. The room is a part of the tabernae rooms behind the line of monuments known as the Octagon and the Heroon on the south side of the Embolos.17 In the niche on the western side of the wall, an unusual image of Artemis, with her deer and offering at an altar, was painted in phase IV (fig. 12.6). In subsequent decoration, Artemis was painted over by a motif of scattered flowers. Two objects, an inscribed vessel and a terra cotta herm, however, were found on the ground close to the niche, probably previously contained therein.18 As indicated by the wall paintings around the niche—an iconographic program of servants offering goods to the entering guests—the room may have served as a space for hospitality, a kind of tablinum or caupona.19 Another niche adorned with a motif of scattered flowers was discovered in SR 9d of Unit 4, a small kitchen installed on the first level of the unit.20 It is probable that a small head of Serapis once rested in one of the two little niches 15  See Thür 2014a, 33–36. 16  See Thür 2014a, 183, 189–90, pl. 75. 17  See Rathmayr 2016a, 728, 740–43, 769–71; Rathmayr, in this volume. 18  See Rathmayr 2016a, 769–70. 19  Zimmermann 2016, 743. 20  Zimmermann 2005a, 119.

220

Zimmermann

Figure 12.6 Terrace House 2. Wall painting showing Artemis making an offering at an altar, niche in Room 45b of Unit 7

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship

221

in the western wall over the cooking place, where the open fire requires, so to speak, the presence of a deity for protection and welfare.21 The position recalls the western lararia with their natural connection to the fire and the cooking place of the house.22 A final example of a niche for a domestic shrine comes again from Unit 6. Located on the south wall of the Small Room 36e, on the west side of the Peristyle Court 31a, it can probably be interpreted as a domestic shrine and may even be connected to the presence of fire: this small room contained the praefurnium of the heating system for Room 36d, and was built in the fourth phase. The ensemble of finds that may be attributed to the niche is a lamp with a satyr, and a thymiaterion with the portrait of Serapis.23 Wherever there was a place for open fire in the house like cooking places or prefurnia, its presence required protection by deities, often displayed in niches. 5 Thymiateria With the thymiaterion, often documented and found widely in contexts for daily offerings of incense, we arrive at a natural group of objects for everyday worship in Terrace House 2.24 The god being worshipped (usually Dionysos or Serapis) is depicted in the center flanked by two lamps under a little altar platform for incense (fig. 12.7). An overview of the find spots of thymiateria demonstrate, as in Unit 4, their widespread distribution in the entrances of houses and in their main rooms.25 One can imagine that when guests passed the entrance of these rooms, everyone brought an offering to the deity. This is confirmed by the plans of Unit 2 and Unit 6, with indications of the positions of the thymiateria detected during the excavation.26 The thymiateria belong to the last period of use, from the mid-3rd century onward, and attest that the inhabitants of Terrace House 2 were largely devoted to Dionysos and Serapis. 6

Ensembles of Deities, Ensembles of Portraits

A consistent quantity of sculpted deities of every genre has been detected in Terrace House 2, showing a variety of possibilities for creating sacred spaces, 21  Thür 2005a, 219 and 225. 22  On lararia, see Giacobello 2008. 23  Thür and Rathmayr 2014, 286–88, 390. 24  Ladstätter 2013a. 25  Ladstätter 2005a, 248–56, especially fig. 46. 26  Ladstätter 2014, 468–70 (Unit 6); Ladstätter 2005a, 539–40 (Unit 2).

222

Figure 12.7

Zimmermann

Thymiaterion with head of Serapis, from Terrace House 2

protected areas or devotional places in various architectural and functional settings. The oldest example is a relief of a fountain from the Hellenistic period, originally part of a preexisting building that was incorporated into the eastern wall of the east gallery in court 21 of Unit 4: inside the rectangular well enclosure, facing the person drawing water, a marble relief with three nymphs protects the water and may safeguard its healing effect.27 An interesting ensemble of statuettes of deities was found throughout Terrace House 2, confirming generally the connection to the Roman and Greek Olympian gods, as well as to some Egyptian gods like Isis and Serapis. Some finds belonged to small ensembles and can most likely be attributed to (now lost) domestic shrines. This is the case for ensembles of deities from an explicitly religious context, as in the gallery of the first floor of Unit 2. The ensemble consists of three bronze statuettes of Serapis, Isis Panthea, and Athena 27  See Rathmayr 2005, 214–16, pl. 141.2.

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship

223

(fig. 12.8), and a small bronze altar.28 One can also hypothetically link them to some of the private portraits found in the vicinity, and think about an installation including the portraits and the statuettes. A religious function could thus be proposed for the little ivory portraits of a man, a woman, and a boy,29 belonging to a family dating to the mid-3rd century ce. It is possible that they show the family of the last patron of Unit 2. Taking into account other finds which demonstrate a military career in Egypt, the explicit devotion to Egyptian deities is even more comprehensible.30 Unit 2 documents this relationship, due to the preservation of the destruction layers, better than any other unit of Terrace House 2. Other units preserved even more material, but yielded fewer clear examples of personal devotion. 7

Offerings and Evidence for Sacrifices during Construction (Foundation Deposits)

As a last and very important group we should mention the evidence for sacrifices during the construction of a building. These offerings to the gods, petitioning for a stable and enduring construction, were found occasionally, wherever an excavation was possible, under the ground level.31 They usually consist of sets of ceramic or glass objects that are uncommonly well preserved and intentionally buried in a strategic position at the center of a court or beyond a door sill. The largest group of objects was found in court 21 of Unit 4 and can be attributed to the very first phase of construction.32 The deposition of a complete set of tableware allows for the reconstruction of a religious meal that could have taken place during the process of construction, with the ritual burying of the remains as protection for the building (fig. 12.9). Due to the absence of written sources, we lack more detailed information on the circumstances of such offerings, but they occur in contexts connected not only to the first building phase but also to later renovations. Similar offerings were found in later construction phases, close to new or renewed doorways. In Unit 3, the new opening of the door between Rooms 16b and 17 (in phase III) was marked by the deposition of an offering under the 28  See Christof 2010, 659. 29  See Christof 2010, 666, pl. 293. 30  See Flessa 2010, 670–76, pl. 494. 31  There is not yet any general overview on such construction sacrifices in the Roman period. For coins see Donderer 1984. 32  Ladstätter 2005a, 238, pl. 214; a construction offering was also detected in 2004 under the pavement of room 12a in Unit 5, see Ladstätter 2005b n. 96.

224

Zimmermann

Figure 12.8 Terrace House 2. Bronze statuettes of Serapis, Isis Panthea, and Athena, from Unit 2

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship

225

Figure 12.9 Terrace House 2. Construction sacrifice, deposited in Courtyard 21 of Unit 4

new soil and the new mosaic floor of Room 17.33 In a similar manner, in Unit 6 the transformation of the doorway between the western part of the gallery around the peristyle court and its southern part was protected by an offering under the soil of the entrance.34 We could expect a ritual for similar transformations in the house connected to ritual eating and drinking intended to protect the new part of the house and its inhabitants.35 As mentioned, literary sources are widely lacking for this kind of offering, making the archaeological evidence even more precious. 8 Graffiti Finally, one could list a large number of graffiti from wall surfaces expressing religious feelings or documenting a relationship to religious phenomena. Very often the wish for fortune is expressed with only a name and the intention for good luck (eutyche).36 Sometimes a selected deity is named, such as Roma (fig. 12.10),37 or drawn as an image, like Athena.38 In one instance, we can see the imprint of the finger ring of the patron of Unit 2 (in phase IV), with the 33  Ladstätter 2005b, 179–86. 34  Waldner 2014, 460–61, par. 4. 35  On the meals and their spaces and decorations, see Zimmermann 2017. 36  Taeuber 2005, 133 (GR 87, GR 44, GR 90, GR 28, GR s73). 37  Taeuber 2005, GR 73. The inscription reads: ῾Ρώμη πανβασίλια, τὸ σὸν κράτος οὔποτ᾽ ὀλῆται. “Rome, queen over all, may your power never perish” (transcription by Taeuber, translation by Steven J. Friesen). 38  Taeuber 2014, 337 (GR 242), pl. 108.

226

Figure 12.10 Terrace House 2. Graffito evoking Roma, Unit 4

Zimmermann

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship

227

image of Isis-Fortuna stamped into the still wet plaster of the new wall paintings. This was an action intended to seal the building activity with the personal seal of fortune,39 but we know that it soon failed. Only one generation later a series of earthquakes destroyed Terrace House 2, and also preserved this unusual and precious evidence of domestic and private religion. To sum up, then, in Terrace House 2 we do not have standardized domestic shrines like the lararia at Pompeii. But the rich evidence attests a range of important religious phenomena, including at least the veneration of Greek, Roman, and Egyptian deities, the presence of agathos daimon as a snake, the maintenance of ancestor cults, and the practice of sacrifices during construction. Further excavation and analysis will certainly enhance the already impressive array of objects connected to religious activity in the private houses of Ephesos. Acknowledgements I want to express my gratitude to Sabine Ladstätter, the director of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and the Austrian excavation at Ephesos, and to all colleagues of the Terrace House team who shared their knowledge and scientific results with me over the years. Bibliography Brandt, B., V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter, eds. 2005. Synergeia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger. Vienna: Phoibos. Christof, E. 2010. “Skulpturen.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde, 656–66. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Donderer, M. 1984. “Münzen als Bauopfer in römischen Privathäuser.” BJ 184: 177–87. Flessa, N. 2010. “Der ägyptische Priester aus SR 12.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde, 670–76. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Giacobello, F. 2008. Larari pompeiani: iconografia e culto dei Lari in ambito domestico. Milano: LED. Krinzinger, F., ed. 2010. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. 39  Zimmermann 2005b, 377–83.

228

Zimmermann

Ladstätter, S. 2005a. “Keramik.” In H. Thür, Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 230–358. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Ladstätter, S. 2005b. “Zur Datierung des Löwenmosaiks im Hanghaus 2 von Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger, 179–86. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna, Phoibos. Ladstätter, S. 2010. “Keramik.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde, 333–42. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Ladstätter, S. 2013a. “Thymiaterien der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit aus Ephesos.” In Orhan Bingöl’e 67. Yaş Armağanı, 317–38. Edited by G. Kökdemir. Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık. Ladstätter, S. 2014. “Keramik.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 461–72. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Quatember, U. 2000. Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos im Spiegel seiner Hausheiligtümer. Master’s Thesis. University of Vienna. Rathmayr, E. 2005. “Skulpturenausstattung der Wohneinheit 4.” In H. Thür, Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 207–29. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2006. “Götter- und Kaiserkult im häuslichen Bereich anhand von Skulpturen aus dem Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos.” RHM 48: 119–49. Rathmayr, E. 2010. “Skulpturen.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde, 333–342. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2014a. “Skulpturenausstattung.” Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 367–433. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E., ed. 2016a. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. and G. Wiplinger. 2010. “Spätantike Adaptionen und byzantinische Bebauung.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde, 670–76. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. and N. Zimmermann. 2014. “Dynamische Konzepte: Interaktion zwischen Skulptur und Wandmalerei im Kontext.” In Antike Malerei zwischen Lokalstil und Zeitstil: Akten des XI. Internationalen Kolloquiums der AIPMA 13.–17. September 2010 in Ephesos, 717–22. Edited by N. Zimmermann. Vienna: ÖAW. Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. 2006. “Das römische Haus: die memoria der Mauern.” In Erinnerungsorte der Antike: Die römische Welt, 300–20. Edited by E. SteinHölkeskamp and K. J. Hölkeskamp. München: Beck. Strocka, V. M. 1977. Die Wandmalerei der Hanghäuser in Ephesos. FiE 8.1. Vienna: ÖAW.

Archaeological Evidence for Private Worship

229

Taeuber, H. 2005. “Graffiti.” In H. Thür, Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 132–43. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Taeuber, H. 2014. “Graffiti und Steininschriften.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 331–34. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Taeuber, H. 2016. “Graffiti.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 233–57. Edited by E. Rathmayer. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2005a. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2014a. “Rekonstruktion der Bauphasen.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 121–39. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2014b. “Die WE 6: Vereinshaus eines dionysischen Kultvereins?” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 849–53. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. and E. Rathmayr, eds. 2014. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Tybout, R. 2005. “‘Herrscher, erhalte dieses Haus’: Reiterheroen im Hauskult.” In Otium: Festschrift für Volker Michael Strocka, 391–98. Edited by T. Ganschow and M. Steinhart. Remshalden: Greiner. Waldner, A. 2014. “Keramik.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 435–60. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Zimmermann, N. 2005a. “Die Wandmalereien der Wohneinheit 4.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4. Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 105–31. Edited by H. Thür. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Zimmermann, N. 2005b. “Ein Gemmenabdruck im Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Überlegungen zum Hausherrn der Wohneinheit 2.” In Synergia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger, 377–83. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos. Zimmermann, N. 2016. “Wandmalerei.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 731–50. Edited by E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Zimmermann, N. 2017. “Archäologische Zeugnisse von Gemeinschafts- und Kultmählern aus römischer Zeit am Beispiel von Ephesos.” In The Eucharist— Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, 1615–32. Edited by D. Helholm and D. Sänger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Zimmermann, N. and S. Ladstätter. 2011. Wall Painting in Ephesos from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Chapter 13

The Meaning and Use of Terracotta Figurines in the Terrace Houses in Ephesos Elisabeth Rathmayr 1 Introduction The Terrace Houses in Ephesos are among the best preserved residential blocks in the Greek East.1 Terrace House 2 comprises seven residences labeled as Units 1 to 7, while Terrace House 1 contains one large house, the so called Domus, as well as other buildings that varied in function throughout their existence (see Plan 2, no. 50 and 51 and Plan 3).2 After a brief overview of the Terrace Houses, this paper focuses on the use and function of the terracotta figurines found in these households. The site of the Terrace Houses had already been used for residential purposes in the Hellenistic period.3 One Hellenistic peristyle house was situated in the northern part of the later Terrace House 1, and another dwelling that was organized around a court—presumably a peristyle—was located on the area of the later Unit 6 of Terrace House 2. Both of these earlier houses were in existence in the 1st century bce and were destroyed by an earthquake in 23 ce. While Units 1 to 7 of Terrace House 2 were built shortly after this destruction, the Domus of Terrace House 1 was not erected until the first two decades of the 2nd century ce. All of the dwellings in the area of the Terrace Houses follow the most common type of residence in the Greek East, the peristyle house. Each house, however, was differently furnished. Generally, mosaic floors, wall paintings, and marble slabs, used for both floors and walls, were the standard decor in all of the houses. In addition to these decorations, which were directly connected to the architecture of the buildings, sculptures and furnishings played a vital role in the composition of each house. These latter decorations were made of 1  The published monographs of these residential blocks are: Lang-Auinger 1996; Lang-Auinger 2003a; Krinzinger 2010; Thür 2005a; Thür and Rathmayr 2014; Rathmayr 2016a. For the chronology of Terrace House 2 see also Ladstätter 2002a, 9–40. 2  Rathmayr in press. 3  Lang-Auinger 1996, 86–91, 181–86; Thür 2014a, 122–23; Rathmayr 2016a, 103–6; Rathmayr and Scheibelreiter-Gail in press.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004401136_015

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

231

different materials (stone, metal, ivory, and terracotta), had different sizes, and depicted various topics. 2

Themes and Chronological Distribution

In contrast to the marble and bronze sculptures, which for the most part were found in the debris of the destruction layers of the various residences, some terracotta figurines were unearthed in the excavations underneath the most recent floor level of some rooms. While the terracottas found in the destruction layers can be dated no later than the late 3rd century ce, and were certainly part of the latest inventory of the respective houses, those from the excavations span from the Hellenistic period to the 2nd century ce.4 Thus, the latter were presumably assembled in the houses of the Hellenistic period or in the houses of the Roman imperial period. Some of the finds from the excavations are fully preserved figurines, which could indicate that their use was limited in time for different, unknown reasons. The percentage of terracotta figurines, measured according to the total number of sculptures, decreased from the Hellenistic period to the later Roman period. This can be related to a noticeable increase of sculptures made of marble and other precious materials such as ivory and bronze from the turn of the 1st century ce onwards. For example, depictions of Aphrodite follow this trend since later residents of the Terrace Houses preferred marble representations of the goddess instead of terracotta.5 To my mind, the change of material does not imply that terracotta figurines were always less appreciated than those made of marble and other material, but that this ‘other’ material was preferred in the later periods. Even though the number of terracotta figurines found in the Terrace Houses diminished, they still made up around 30% of the known sculptures. Let us look at particular details concerning the figurines from the excavations. Among the topics of the Hellenistic period to the early 2nd century ce, Aphrodite is prominent (fig. 13.1) but we also find examples of Athena, Apollo, Asklepios, Hermes, and Eros, as well as groups of Eros and Psyche, caricatures 4  For the use of terracotta figurines in private dwellings from the 6th century bce to the 1st century ce in the Greek East and Roman West see Rumscheid 2006, 123–31; for the presence and use of terracotta figurines in Pompeii see D’Ambrosio and Borriello 1990. 5  Only two fragments from Terrace House 1 with a find context dating from the 1st to the 3rd century ce are interpreted by Lang-Auinger as Aphrodite, see Lang-Auinger 2003a, 80–81, pl. 129. All the others have a find context dating to the Augustan-Tiberian period, see LangAuinger 2003b, cat. no. 1, 5, 6, and 51, pll. 122, 123, and 127.

232

Figure 13.1 Terrace House 2. Aphrodite from Dwelling Unit 5

Rathmayr

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

233

or grotesques, genre figurines, masks, and portraits. The themes changed in the later imperial period, however, as evidenced by a comparison to the later terracotta figurines, which were part of the inventories from the second half of the 2nd and the 3rd centuries ce. In the later period Aphrodite does not appear any more. Rather, Serapis, Harpokrates, Herakles, Nike, and gladiators are among the new topics. Of these new themes, the presence of gladiators can be explained by the introduction of gladiatorial fights into the Greek East in the early Roman imperial period (fig. 13.2).6 In respect to chronology, only one such figurine was found in a context datable to the Flavian period, while all the others belong to the late 2nd and 3rd centuries ce. This increase can presumably be ascribed to the popularity of gladiatorial fights among the local populace in this period. In addition to the figurines, gladiators were also depicted in the Terrace Houses on lamps and as graffiti in wall paintings,7 some of which provide the names of the fighters.8 Whereas Martin Langner assumes that the terracotta gladiators found in Pompeii were used as gifts in the course of certain feasts,9 the handmade and solid figurines from the Terrace Houses were, in my opinion, toys or collectibles of fans. This does not exclude, however, the possibility that they came into the houses as gifts.10 These figurines were conceivably sold during gladiator fights in the vicinity of the venues. While depictions of gladiators can be explained by Roman influence in the Greek East, the veneration of Isis, Serapis, and Harpokrates point to an increased adoration of Egyptian deities in the 2nd and 3rd centuries ce (figs. 13.3 and 13.4).11 The bronze figurines of Isis Panthea, Serapis, and Athena were found together with a bronze altar in Unit 2 of Terrace House 2, and certainly

6  For gladiator fights as a sign of romanization see Weismann 1981, 34. Regarding the influence of these games in Ephesos see the articles in Erdemgil and Krinzinger 2002; and for figurines of gladiators from the Terrace Houses see Rathmayr 2014a, 374; Rathmayr 2015, 272; Lang-Auinger, 2002, 103–5. 7  Ladstätter, 2002b, 97–102; Taeuber 2005, 132, 141 GR 80 pl. 100. 8  For instance, on a graffito showing a gladiator fight in Unit 7 of Terrace House 2, one fighter is named Eutychianos. See Taeuber, 2005, GR 374; Taeuber 2016, 251 GR 374 pl. 126. 9  Langner 2013, 55–64; Iorio 2015, 95–103, thinks that “they could also represent scenes of gladiators as in the pictorial, stucco and marble decorations” (p. 95). To my mind this interpretation does not exclude the view of Langner. 10  See Lang-Auinger 2002, 103–5. 11  The huge sanctuary of Serapis in Ephesos was built in the 2nd century ce in the center of the town; Scherrer et al. 2000, 148–50. For new investigations of this building conducted by the ÖAI see Schulz in this volume. On evidence of cults for Egyptian deities in Ephesos see Hölbl 1978, esp. for terracotta figurines 65–66; Oster 1990, 1677–81.

234

Rathmayr

Figure 13.2 Terrace House 2. Gladiators

were used in domestic worship.12 So, too, the terracotta figurines should be evaluated as expressions of the religious perspective of the inhabitants of the Ephesian Terrace Houses. This notion is reinforced by the many terracotta thymiateria decorated with busts of Serapis from Terrace Houses 1 and 2 (fig. 13.5).13 A unique topic among the preserved terracotta figurines from the Terrace Houses is a male figurine wearing high boots reaching up to the knees and a chiton affixed with bells (fig. 13.6). According to his style of dress, the figurine may depict a bacchant.14 If this interpretation is correct, the figurine points 12  Rathmayr 2006, 106–10; Rathmayr 2010, 693–94; Rathmayr 2018; Zimmermann in this volume. 13  For the different kinds of incense burners used by the inhabitants of the Terrace Houses see Ladstätter 2005a, 253–56; Ladstätter 2013a. 14  For the meaning of bells within the cult of Dionysos see Trumpf-Lyritzaki 1981, 175–76.

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

Figure 13.3 Terrace House 2. Serapis from Dwelling Unit 7

235

236

Figure 13.4 Terrace House 2. Harpocrates from Dwelling Unit 6

Rathmayr

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

237

Figure 13.5 Terrace House 2. Thymaterion with Serapis from Dwelling Unit 6

to participation in Dionysiac feasts, which were organized in Ephesos since at least the early Hellenistic period.15 Figurines depicting caricatures or grotesques seem to show real persons such as hetaerae, entertainers, and acrobats, who were present at the residences of the elite either as slaves or during the festivities (fig. 13.7). Among the figurines are puppets16 with articulated arms and legs that could be moved with a vertical stick inserted into their bodies (fig. 13.8). In agreement with Claudia LangAuinger, I think that these figurines could have played a role within symposia.17 15  For Dionysos in Ephesos see Oster 1990, 1373–76. 16  According to Lang-Auinger, with the exception of one such figurine from Tralleis, all the others are from Ephesos, where eleven have been found. See Lang-Auinger 2015, 83–92. 17   Lang-Auinger 2015, 83–92.

238

Figure 13.6 Terrace House 2. Male figurine wearing a chiton festooned with bells

Rathmayr

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

239

Figure 13.7 Terrace House 2. Grotesque caricature from Dwelling Unit 5

Residents possibly bought them to amuse participants at their symposia, or as presents for the hosts of the symposia, who kept them as a memento.18 The many masks from the Terrace Houses would have been used differently according to their size and technical design. While bigger masks, containing holes for wall mounting, could have decorated the intercolumniations of peristyle courts, as depicted, for instance, in wall paintings,19 the smaller masks could have been decorations or attributes for figurines or vessels.

18  For the latter see Langner 2013, 55–64. 19   Lang-Auinger 1998, 117–31.

240

Rathmayr

Figure 13.8 Terrace House 2. Puppet in the form of a grotesque caricature from Dwelling Unit 6

A large number of terracottas represent animals, such as lions, horses, cows, birds, dogs, rams, and snakes. In general, animal figurines were found together with deities and other objects that served domestic religion,20 so that a religious function should be considered for the animal figurines from the Terrace Houses as well. Furthermore, the animals also could have been attributes of gods or other figurines such as children, not excluding a function within

20  Lange 1990, 112; Kaufmann-Heinimann 1998, 192–94, fig. 123–39.

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

241

domestic worship. If they were solid, they were not so easily breakable and therefore could also have been toys.21 Portraits appear among the terracotta figurines from all periods of habitation. Many show rough, individualized facial features combined with contemporary hairstyles, which allow a more precise dating.22 In addition to a female portrait of high quality, which will be discussed below in the context of its display, a male portrait head also stands out (fig. 13.9).23 The portrait was found in an excavation underneath a floor in Dwelling Unit 6. Through ceramic finds, the head can be dated to the first half of the 2nd century ce,24 and might have been displayed in the first usage period of the house. Both the anastole and facial features of the portrait are reminiscent of Alexander the Great and his successors. In fact, Alexander or Lysimachos may be the subject of the portrait, since the latter was the founder of the Hellenistic city of Ephesos. Additionally, since both Alexander and Lysimachos were still venerated in Roman Imperial times,25 the figurine from Unit 6 could have been set up and venerated in the context of domestic worship, perhaps together with other figurines and objects. The reason for its disposal is unknown; perhaps it was broken, or the new residents had no use for it. As with the gladiators, terracotta figurines wearing togas are ascribed to Roman influence. Two of these figurines from the Terrace Houses can be dated to the early Roman Imperial period and two to the 3rd century ce. Unfortunately, all of them were found without their heads. Although they are largely unidentifiable, they likely depicted either real persons or geniuses. Since there is hardly any evidence for Roman household deities such as the lares and geniuses in Ephesos, I suspect that the figurines’ heads displayed personalized portraits.26 If this is true, they might have depicted ancestors who were exhibited and venerated in shrines associated with domestic worship. A terracotta base from Unit 6 of Terrace House 2 is unique, since it bears a name in the accusative case on one side (presumably the front).27 If we treat this name in the same fashion as we treat inscriptions that appear on statute 21  Rathmayr 2005, 379. 22  Rathmayr 2014a, 374–75 with further literature to the topic ‘terracotta portraiture,’ cf. e.g. Bentz 1992, 229–46; Fejfer 2008, 177–78. 23  Rathmayr 2014a, 430 cat. no. 89 pl. 179. 24  In the present contribution a different dating for this head is provided than is found in Rathmayr 2015, 270–71 (late Hellenistic/early Roman). This new dating can be explained by changes concerning the ceramic evidence. 25  Fischer 2012, 142–44. 26  Rathmayr 2006, 132–33; Rathmayr 2015, 271–72. 27  Rathmayr 2014a, TK 82; for the inscription see Taeuber 2014, 341 IKL 20.

242

Rathmayr

Figure 13.9 Terrace House 2. Head of Alexander the Great or Lysimachos (?) from Dwelling Unit 6

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

243

bases in reference to the marble statues they support, then this inscription names the person represented in the figurine, which is unfortunately missing. The semi-preserved name can be restored to the female name Andronike or to the male name Andronikos.28 According to Hans Taeuber, Andronike was used in Ephesos as the alias of the priestess Bassilla of the famous Vedii family. It could, however, also denote Andronikos, the peripatetic philosopher of the 1st century bce from Rhodes.29 This figurine seemingly expresses either a personal relationship or the philosophical orientation of its owner. Accordingly, it might have been kept in a more private location in the house, either alone or with other similar figurines. 3

Display of Terracotta Figurines

According to archaeological records and finds, the inhabitants of the Ephesian Terrace Houses believed in the protection of powerful forces and heroes.30 For instance, in the Hellenistic peristyle house on the area of the later Terrace House 1, a heros equitans relief made of terracotta was placed high up in a niche on the southern wall of the peristyle (fig. 13.10).31 Occupying a central location in the house, the hero and the snake depicted on the relief acted as divine forces watching over the house and keeping out evil. Although no altar is preserved in the peristyle, we can surely assume that the whole household offered sacrifices to these apotropaic powers. The same forces also protected the inhabitants of Unit 2, an imperial period dwelling of Terrace House 2.32 Here, a heros equitans relief was likewise set up in the peristyle, with the only difference from the previous example being that it was made of marble and set up at eye level.33 A large cylindrical base situated in the line of sight might have been part of an altar used for sacrifices in connection with the divine powers represented on the relief. In general, big altars are very rare in the Terrace Houses.34

28  Taeuber 2014, 341. 29  Taeuber 2014, 341. 30  Rathmayr 2006, 110–12; Rathmayr 2018. 31   Lang-Auinger 2003b, 229–32, pl. 159–60, 162–63. 32  Rathmayr 2010, 693; Zimmermann in this volume for a discussion of this relief. 33  Rathmayr 2006, 110; Rathmayr 2018. For further comparisons see Tybout 2005. 34  There was another cylindrical altar in Dwelling Unit 7 that was used for imperial cult; Rathmayr 2016b, 650–51.

244

Rathmayr

Figure 13.10 Terrace House 1. Heros equitans relief from the predecessor Hellenistic peristyle house on its site

Small altars of various material (terracotta, stone and bronze),35 as well as terracotta incense burners, are far more common.36 A small herm from a dwelling on the lowest terrace of Terrace House 2 (fig. 13.11) must also have been part of a household shrine, since its placement and, therefore, its context and meaning can be reconstructed.37 The herm was found with a miniature jar38 beneath a wall niche, where both objects were presumably installed. In contrast to other niches of the Terrace Houses which consist of simple decoration (“Streublumenmalerei,” painting with floral motifs), a painting of Artemis offering at an altar, accompanied by a deer, is 35   Lang-Auinger 2003b, cat. no. 14, 48, 77, and 128; Rathmayr 2006, 108, fig. 5; Quatember 2005, 411 MI 2 pl. 243.3. 36  Ladstätter 2014, 253–56; Ladstätter 2013a. 37  In contrast to Zimmermann, in this volume, who defines room 45b as a taberna, the architecture and furnishings as well as major changes concerning the buildings directly north of rooms 45, 46 and T IV.UG indicate that from late Hellenistic/Early Imperial times until the late 3rd century CE this is a multi-storied dwelling. For this and the niche used in household religion see in detail Rathmayr 2016c, 768–72 pl. 477 (plan of the rooms north of Units 6 and 7); pl. 506 (herm and jar from the niche in room 45b). 38  For the inscription on the jar, Λύκιον (meaning an extract of sea buckthorn), see Taeuber 2016, 763 IKL 33 pl. 325 and 506, who thinks that this extract, which was used for medical purposes, could also have been used in religious practices.

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

245

Figure 13.11 Terrace House 2. Herm from Room 45b on its lowest terrace

depicted on the front side of the niche.39 Accordingly we can interpret the niche and all the objects which were once placed in it, presumably the herm and the jar, as a place of domestic worship. Concerning the herm, Hermes as well as Artemis and Hekate, heroes and snakes (like the ones mentioned before on the heros equitans reliefs) were believed to be apotropaic powers40 that would protect the household. 39  Zimmermann 2016, 540–41 pl. 503 fig. 18. 40  Rathmayr 2006.

246

Rathmayr

As mentioned earlier, one female head stands out among the portraits from the Terrace Houses due to its exceptional quality, which is comparable to marble heads (fig. 13.12). The portrait was found in the destruction layers of one room on the ground floor of Unit 6 of Terrace House 2. Through its facial features and hairstyle the head can be dated to the Severan period. Since the majority of all the portraits of the Roman Imperial period from the Terrace Houses appear in bust form, the head probably was originally part of a bust. Besides its outstanding quality, the find context is worth noting since it might explain the use of the portrait within the household of Unit 6. The portrait was found with a jar, a lamp, and an incense burner decorated with a Serapis bust in Room 36e, which is accessible from the central peristyle.41 All the objects point to use within domestic worship, whereby the portrait bust may hint at ancestor worship, as it had already been on display for at least 50 to 70 years when the Terrace Houses were destroyed in the late 3rd century ce. A possible location for the setting of the bust, jar, lamp, and Serapis thymiaterion in Room 36e is a niche on the southern wall in the front part of the room, which was erected around 220/230 ce.42 4 Conclusions Terracotta figurines played a vital role within the repertoire of sculptures displayed in the Ephesian Terrace Houses. While they dominated in the Hellenistic period and in the 1st century ce, their number, although still high, decreased from the 2nd century ce until the destruction of the dwellings in the late 3rd century. It is noticeable that certain topics, such as Aphrodite, appeared less in terracotta, but were still prominent in marble sculpture. Later, new topics, such as the Egyptian gods Isis, Serapis, and Harpokrates—depicted in terracotta as well as in other material such as marble and bronze—predominate. Yet particular themes such as gladiators, caricatures or grotesques, masks and animals occur almost only in terracotta. Topics such as gladiators and figurines wearing a toga can be explained through the influence of Roman culture. Moreover, when comparing the size of terracottas and marble sculptures, the terracotta figurines from the Terrace Houses had an average size of around twenty centimeters, whereas the marble sculptures had sizes ranging from a similar small size to life-sized statues, busts, and reliefs. 41  Rathmayr 2014a, 387–88; Ladstätter 2014, 470 (Fundkomplex Z/6—Raum 36e, Praefurnium bis Boden). 42  For this rebuilding see Thür 2014a, 136.

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

Figure 13.12 Terrace House 2. Female portrait from Dwelling Unit 6

247

248

Rathmayr

The function of the majority of terracotta figurines from the Terrace Houses seems to have been within domestic worship.43 Some, however, seem to have been used as toys or for decorative purposes. The terracotta figurines were found in the same areas of the houses as sculptures of other material. As such, sculptures of different materials could have been placed together, although definitive evidence for this assumption is missing. Terracotta reliefs and figurines that were found in situ in peristyle courts and major rooms have the marked advantage of coming from a find spot in which their specific context can be reconstructed. But whether found in situ, as deposits, or in destruction layers, these images provide valuable new evidence for household religion in Ephesos. For when the figurines and sculptures are viewed together, they begin to elucidate patterns and chronological trends in the religious use of domestic space. Bibliography Bentz, M. 1992. “Zum Porträt des Pompejus.” MDAI (R) 99: 229–46. D’Ambrosio, A. and M. R. Borriello. 1990. Le terracotta figurate di Pompei: Cataloghi Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 4. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Erdemgil, S. and F. Krinzinger, eds. 2002. Gladiatoren in Ephesos: Tod am Nachmittag: Eine Ausstellung im Ephesos Museum Selçuk seit 20. April 2002. Istanbul and Vienna: Museum Selçuk and ÖAI. Fejfer, J. 2008. Roman Portraits in Context. Berlin: de Gruyter. Fischer, J. 2012. “Herrscherverehrung im antiken Ephesos.” In Rituale: Identitäts­ stiftende Handlungskomplexe: 2. Tagung des Zentrums Archäologie und Altertums­ wissenschaften an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2./3. November 2009, 139–56. Edited by G. Danek and I. Hellerschmid. Vienna: ÖAW. Hölbl, G. 1978. Zeugnisse ägyptischer Religionsvorstellungen für Ephesus. ePRO 73. Leiden: Brill. Iorio, V. 2015. “Statuette di gladiatori in terracotta da Pompei.” In Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine, vol. 2: Iconographie et contexts, 95–105. Edited by A. Muller and E. Lafli. BCHSup 54. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Spetentrion. Kaufmann-Heinimann, A. 1998. Götter und Lararien aus Augusta Raurica: Herstellung, Fundzusammenhänge und sakrale Funktion figürlicher Bronzen in einer römischen Stadt. Forschungen in Augst 26. Augst: Römermuseum. Krinzinger, F., ed. 2010. Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2. Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW.

43  Likewise, for the terracottas of Priene, see Rumscheid 2006, 347–50.

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

249

Ladstätter, S. 2002a. “Die Chronologie des Hanghauses 2.” In Das Hanghaus 2 von Ephesos: Studien zur Baugeschichte und Chronologie, 9–40. Edited by F. Krinzinger. AForsch 7 = DenkschrWien 302. Vienna: ÖAW. Ladstätter, S. 2002b. “Lampen mit Gladiatorendarstellungen aus den Hanghäusern in Ephesos.” In Gladiatoren in Ephesos: Tod am Nachmittag. Eine Ausstellung im Ephesos Museum Selçuk seit 20. April 2002, 103–5. Istanbul and Vienna: Efes Müzesi Selçuk and ÖAI. Ladstätter, S. 2005a. “Keramik.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 230–358. Edited by H. Thür. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Ladstätter, S. 2013a. “Thymiaterien der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit aus Ephesos.” In Orhan Bingöl’e 67. Yaş Armağanı, 317–38. Edited by G. Kökdemir. Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık. Ladstätter, S. 2014. “Keramik.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 461–72. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Lang-Auinger, C. 1996. Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Der Baubefund. FiE 8.3. Vienna: ÖAW. Lang-Auinger, C. 1998. “Masken aus Ton und Masken in der Wandmalerei, eine Gegenüberstellung.” ÖJh 67: 117–31. Lang-Auinger, C. 2002. “Gladiatoren aus Ton.” In Gladiatoren in Ephesos: Tod am Nachmittag: Eine Ausstellung im Ephesos Museum Selçuk seit 20. April 2002, 97–102. Istanbul and Vienna: Efes Müzesi Selçuk and ÖAI. Lang-Auinger, C., ed. 2003a. Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung. FiE 8.4. Vienna: ÖAW. Lang-Auinger, C. 2003b. “Terrakotten.” In Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung, 299–352. Edited by C. Lang-Auinger. FiE 8.4. Vienna: ÖAW. Lang-Auinger, C. 2015. “Männliche Puppen aus Ephesos.” In Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine, vol. 2: Iconographie et contexts, 83–93. Edited by A. Muller and E. Lafli. BCHSup 54. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Spetentrion. Lange, H. 1990. Römische Terrakotten aus Salzburg: Katalog zur Ausstellung im Salzburger Carolino Augusteum. Schriftenreihe des Salzburger Museums Carolino Augusteum 9. Salzburg: Salzburger Museum Carolino Augusteum. Langner, M. 2013. “Geschenke zum Fest: Terrakottastatuetten im römischen Wohnhaus.” AW 44.6: 55–64. Oster R. E. 1990. “Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate.” ANRW 2.18.3.1661–728. Quatember, U. 2005. “Marmorinventar.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4. Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 409–13. Edited by H. Thür. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2005. “Skulpturenausstattung der Wohneinheit 4.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 207–29. Edited by H. Thür. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW.

250

Rathmayr

Rathmayr, E. 2006. “Götter- und Kaiserkult im häuslichen Bereich anhand von Skulpturen aus dem Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos.” RHM 48: 119–48. Rathmayr, E. 2009. “Das Haus des Ritters C. Flavius Furius Aptus: Beobachtungen zur Einflussnahme von Hausbesitzern an Architektur und Ausstattung in der Wohneinheit 6 des Hanghauses 2 in Ephesos.” MDAI (I) 59: 307–36. Rathmayr, E. 2010. “Auswertung.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 688–96. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2014a. “Skulpturenausstattung der Wohneinheit 6.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 367–433. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2015. “Terrakotten aus dem Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos.” In Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine, vol. 2: Iconographie et contexts, 267–80. Edited by A. Muller and E. Lafli. BCHSup 54. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Spetentrion. Rathmayr, E., ed. 2016a. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2016b. “Ergebnisse.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 645–84. Edited by E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2016c. “Die Funktion der 45er-Räume und von Raum T IV.UG.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 765–72. Edited by E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2018. “Sculptural Programs of Specific Dwelling Units of Terrace House 1 and 2 in Ephesus.” In Sculpture in Roman Asia: Proceedings of the Conference in Selçuk 2013. Edited by M. Aurenhammer. Vienna: Holzhausen. Rathmayr, E. In press. “The Significance of the Ephesian Terrace Houses as Residences of the Elite in the Greek East.” In The Palimpsest of the House: Re-Assessing Roman, Late Antique, Byzantine and Early Islamic Living Patterns, 8th International RCAC Annual Symposium 30/11–01/12 2013. Edited by A. A. Ricci and I. Uytterhoeven. Rathmayr, E. and V. Scheibelreiter-Gail. In press. “Kontinuität und Wandel in Wohnbau und Wohnkultur in Ephesos vom späten Hellenismus bis in die hohe Kaiserzeit.” In Zwischen Bruch und Kontinuität: Architektur in Kleinasien am Übergang vom Hellenismus zur römischen Kaiserzeit: Continuity and Change—Architecture in Asia Minor During the Transitional Period from Hellenism to the Roman Empire. Edited by U. Lohner-Urban and U. Quatember. Conference at the University of Graz, April 26–29, 2017. Byzas 25. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Rumscheid, F. 2006. Die figürlichen Terrakotten von Priene: Fundkomplexe, Ikonographie und Funktion in Wohnhäusern und Heiligtümern im Licht antiker Parallelbefunde. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

The Meaning & Use of Terracotta Figurines

251

Scherrer, P. et al. 2000. Ephesus: The New Guide. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Taeuber, H. 2005. “Graffiti.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 132–43. Edited by H. Thür. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Taeuber, H. 2014. “Graffiti.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 331–44. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Taeuber, H. 2016. “Graffiti.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 233–57 and 751–63. Edited by E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H., ed. 2005. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2014a. “Rekonstruktion der Bauphasen.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 121–39. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. and E. Rathmayr, eds. 2014. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Trumpf-Lyritzaki, M. 1981. “Glocke.” RAC 11: 164–96. Tybout, R. 2005. “‘Herrscher, erhalte dieses Haus’: Reiterheroen im Hauskult.” In Otium: Festschrift für Volker Michael Strocka, 391–98. Edited by T. Ganschow and M. Steinhart. Remshalden: Greiner. Weismann, W. 1981. “Gladiator.” RAC 11.23–45. Zimmermann, N. 2016. “Wandmalerei.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 731–50. Edited by E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW.

Bibliography Adam, J. P. 1982. L’architecture militaire grecque. Paris: Picard. Agelidis, S. 2012. “Zur architektonischen Fassung von Prozessionswegen.” In Mani­ festationen von Macht und Hierarchien in Stadtraum und Landschaft, 81–98. Edited by F. Pirson. Byzas 13. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Ahrens, S. 2015. “‘Whether by Decay or Fire consumed …’: Cremation in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor.” In Death and Changing Rituals: Function and Meaning in Ancient Funerary Practices, 185–222. Edited by J. Rasmus Brandt, M. Prusac, and H. Roland. Studies in Funerary Archaeology 7. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Alzinger, W. 1961–63. “Ionische Kapitelle aus Ephesos I.” ÖJh 46: 105–36. Alzinger, W. 1970. “Ephesos B.” In RESup. 12.1644. Alzinger, W. 1972–1975. “Grabungen in Ephesos von 1960–1969 bzw. 1970. Das Regierungsviertel.” ÖJh 50, Beiheft: 229–300. Alzinger, W. 1974. Augusteische Architektur in Ephesos. Vienna: ÖAI. Alzinger, W. 1980. “Ephesos vom Beginn der römischen Herrschaft in Kleinasien bis zum Ende der Principatszeit: B. Archäologischer Teil.” ANRW 2.7.2: 811–30. Aneziri, S. 2003. Die Vereine der dionysischen Techniten im Kontext der hellenistischen Gesellschaft: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Organisation und Wirkung der hel­ lenistischen Technitenvereine. Historia Einzelschriften 163. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Asamer, B. 2003. “Frühbyzantinische Architektur: Die sogenannte Kapelle.” In Das Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung, 117–20. Edited by Claudia LangAuinger. FiE 8.4. Vienna: ÖAW. Audin, A. 1960. “Inhumation et incinération.” Latomus 19: 312–22 and 518–32. Aurenhammer, M. 2011. “Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Imperial Portraits from Ephesos.” In Roman Sculpture in Asia Minor, 101–15. Edited by F. D’Andria and I. Romeo. JRASup 80. Portsmouth, RI: JRA. Aurenhammer, M. and A. Sokolicek. 2011. “The Remains of the Centuries: Sculptures and Statue Bases in Late Antique Ephesos: The Evidence of the Upper Agora.” In Archaeology and the Cities of Asia Minor in Late Antiquity, 43–66. Edited by O. Dally and C. Ratté. Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. Bagnall, R. 2012. Everyday Writing in the Græco-Roman East. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Bagnall et al. 2016. Graffiti from the Basilica in the Agora of Smyrna. New York: New York University. Baier, C. 2013. “Attolitur monte Pione: Neue Untersuchungen im Stadtviertel oberhalb des Theaters von Ephesos.” ÖJh 82: 23–68.

254

Bibliography

Baier, C. 2016. Eine hellenistische Palastanlage oberhalb des Theaters von Ephesos und ihre Entwicklung bis in die Spätantike: Architektur, Organisation und Transformation eines bislang kaum bekannten Stadtareals. Master’s Thesis Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus—Senftenberg. Bakirtzis, N. 2010. “The Practice, Perception and Experience of Byzantine Fortification.” In The Byzantine World, 352–71. Edited by P. Stephenson. New York: Routledge. Bammer, A. 1978–80. “Elemente flavisch-trajanischer Architekturfassaden aus Ephesos.” ÖJh 52: 67–90. Bammer, A. 1985. Architektur und Gesellschaft in der Antike. 2nd edition. Vienna: Böhlau. Barbet, A. 2015. “Le semis de fleurs en peinture murale entre mode et style?” In Antike Malerei zwischen Lokalstil und Zeitstil: Akten des XI. Internationalen Kolloquiums der AIPMA 13.–17. September 2010 in Ephesos, 199–208. AForsch 23. Edited by N. Zimmermann. Vienna: ÖAI. Barrier, J. W. 2009. The Acts of Paul and Thecla: A Critical Introduction and Commentary. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Bauer, F. A. 1996. Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike: Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung des öffentlichen Raumes in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Benndorf, O. 1898. “Vorläufige Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 1: 53–82. Benndorf, O., ed. 1906. Forschungen in Ephesos. FiE 1. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Bentz, M. 1992. “Zum Porträt des Pompejus.” MDAI (R) 99: 229–46. Berns, C. 1998. “Zur Datierung der Tempel in Seleukia am Kalykadnos und in ElaiussaSebaste Kilikien.” MDAI (D) 10: 136–54. Berns, C. 2003. Untersuchungen zu den Grabbauten der frühen Kaiserzeit in Kleinasien. Asia Minor Studien 51. Bonn: Habelt. Blümel, W. 1985. Die Inschriften von Iasos I. Bonn: Habelt. Blümner, H. 1884. Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern 3. Leipzig: Teubner. Bollmann, B. 1998. Römische Vereinshäuser: Untersuchungen zu den Scholae der römisch­ en Berufs-, Kult- und Augustalen-Kollegien in Italien. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Bouraselis, K. 2003. “Zur Asylie als aussenpolitisches Instrument in der hellenistischen Welt.” In Das antike Asyl: Kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und poli­ tische Funktion, 143–58. Edited by M. Dreher. Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte 15. Cologne: Böhlau. Bowes, K. 2011. “Christian Images in the Home.” AntTard 19: 171–90. Brands, G. 1988. Republikanische Stadttore in Italien. BAR International series 459. Oxford: BAR.

Bibliography

255

Brandt, B., V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter, eds. 2005. Synergeia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger. Vienna: Phoibos. Broughton, T. R. S. 1959. “Roman Asia.” In An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, 4.499– 918. Edited by T. Frank. New Jersey: Pageant Books. Bürchner, L. 1905. “Ephesos.” In RE 2. 2773–822. Burrell, B. 2004. Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors. Leiden: Brill. Büyükkolancı, P., C. M. Thomas and H. Engelmann. 2010. “Neue Ostotheken aus Ephesos.” In Metropolis İonia II: Yolların Kesiştiği Yer: Recep Meriç İçin Yazılar = The Land of the Crossroads: Essays in Honour of Recep Meriç, 87–94. Edited by S. Aybek and A. K. Öz. Istanbul: Homer Kitabevi. Calza, G. 1953. Scavi di Ostia: Topografia Generale. Scavi di Ostia 1. Rome: Libreria dello stato. Campanile, M. D. 1994a. I sacerdoti del Koinon d’Asia (I sec. a.C.–III sec. d.C.): Contributo allo studio della Romanizzazione delle élites provinciali nell’Oriente greco. Pisa: Giardini editori. Campanile, M. D. 1994b. “I sommi sacerdoti del koinon d’Asia: numero, rango e criteri di elezione.” ZPE 100: 422–26. Chaniotis, A. 1996. “Conflicting Authorities: Asylia between Secular and Divine Law in the Classical and Hellenistic Poleis.” Kernos 9: 65–86. Chaniotis, A. 2003. “Negotiating Religion in the Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire.” Kernos 16: 177–90. Chaniotis, A. 2005. War in the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Blackwell. Chatzidakis, T. 1980. Das Kloster Kaisariane. Milan: Apollo-Verlag. Chavane, M. and T. Oziol. 1976. “Les inscriptions de la terrasse du temple et de la région nord du sanctuaire.” Fouilles de Délphes 3.4.5. Paris: De Boccard. Chiricat, E. 2013. “The ‘Crypto-Christian’ Inscriptions of Phrygia.” In Roman Phrygia: Culture and Society, 198–214. Edited by P. Thonemann. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Christof, E. 2010. “Skulpturen.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde, 656–66. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Cipriano, G. 2008. El-Bagawat: Un cimitero paleocristiano nell’alto Egitto. Todi: Tau. Concannon, C. 2016. “The Acts of Timothy.” In New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures Vol. 1, 395–405. Edited by T. Burke and B. Landau. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Cormack, S. 2004. The Space of Death in Roman Asia Minor I. Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie 6. Vienna: Phoibos. Coulton, J. J. 1976. The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

256

Bibliography

Curtius, C. 1870. “Inschriften aus Ephesos.” Hermes 4.2: 174–228. Curtius, E., ed. 1872. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Topographie Kleinasiens. Berlin: Abhandlungen der königlichen preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. D’Agostino, B. 2009. “Archäologie der Gräber: Tod und Grabritus.” In Klassische Archäologie: Eine Einführung, 313–31. Edited by A. H. Borbein, T. Hölscher, and P. Zanker. Berlin: Reimer. Dagron, G. 1977. “Le Christianisme dans la ville byzantine.” DOP 31: 1–25. Daltrop, G., U. Hausmann and M. Wegner. 1966. Das römische Herrscherbild 2.1: Die Flavier: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Julia Titi, Domitilla, Domitia. Berlin: Mann. D’Ambrosio, A. and M. R. Borriello. 1990. Le terracotta figurate di Pompei: Cataloghi Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei 4. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Deichmann, W. 1974. “Die spätantike Bauplastik von Ephesos.” In Mélanges A. M. Mansel, 549–70. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi. De La Chaise, P. 1999. The Holy Virgin’s House: The True Story of Its Discovery. Translated by I. Richichi. Edited by G. Özer. Istanbul: Arikan Yayınları. de Palol, P. and M. Hirmer. 1991. Spanien: Kunst des frühen Mittelalters vom Westgotenreich bis zum Ende der Romanik. Munich: Hirmer. Diels, H. and W. Kranz, eds. 1974. Die Fragmente Der Vorsokratiker: Griechisch und Deutsch. 6th reprint ed. Zürich: Weidmann, 1985. Dignas, B. 2002. Economy of the Sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dmitriev, S. 2011. “The Neokoriai of Ephesus and City Rivalry in Roman Asia Minor.” In Priests and State in the Roman World, 529–52. Edited by J. H. Richardson and F. Santangelo. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Donderer, M. 1984. “Münzen als Bauopfer in römischen Privathäuser.” BJ 184: 177–87. Dorl-Klingenschmid, C. 2001. Prunkbrunnen in kleinasiatischen Städten: Funktion im Kontext. Studien zur antiken Stadt 7. Munich: Pfeil. Dowden, K. 2010. “Rhetoric and Religion.” In A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, 320–35. Edited by I. Worthington. Oxford: Blackwell. Dräger, M. 1993. Die Städte der Provinz Asia in der Flavierzeit: Studien zur kleinasiatisch­ en Stadt- und Regionalgeschichte. Frankfurt: Lang. Eichler, F. 1961. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1960.” AAWW 98: 65–74. Eichler, F. 1962. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1961.” AAWW 99: 37–53. Eichler, F. 1963. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1962.” AAWW 100: 45–59. Eichler, F. 1964. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1963.” AAWW 101: 39–44.

Bibliography

257

Eichler, F. 1965. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1964.” AAWW 102: 93–109. Eichler, F. 1966. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1965.” AAWW 103: 7–18. Eichler, F. 1969. “Ephesos: Grabungsbericht 1968.” AAWW 106: 131–47. Engelmann, H. 1991. “Beiträge zur ephesischen Topographie.” ZPE 89: 275–95. Engelmann, H. 1993. “Zum Kaiserkult in Ephesos.” ZPE 97: 279–89. Engelmann, H. 1998a. “Ephesiaca.” ZPE 121: 305–11. Engelmann, H. 1998b. “Zur Agonistik in Ephesos.” In Colloquium “Agonistik in der römischen Kaiserzeit”: Landhaus Rothenberger bei Münster, 25–27: Oktober 1995, 101–8. Edited by W. Orth. Stadion 24. St. Augustin: Academia-Verlag. Engelmann, H. 2001. “Inschriften und Heiligtum.” In Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos, 33–44. Edited by Ulrike Muss. SoSchrÖAI 37. Vienna: ÖAI. Erdemgil, S. and F. Krinzinger, eds. 2002. Gladiatoren in Ephesos: Tod am Nachmittag: Eine Ausstellung im Ephesos Museum Selçuk seit 20. April 2002. Istanbul and Vienna: Efes Müzesi Selçuk and ÖAI. Ervine, J. 1938. “John Turtle Wood, Discoverer of the Artemision 1869.” Isis 28.2: 376–84. Esch-Wermeling, E. 2008. Thekla: Paulusschülerin wider willen? Strategien der Leserlenkung in den Theklaakten. Münster: Aschendorff. Étienne, R. and P. Varène. 2004. Sanctuaire de Claros: L’architecture: Les propylées et les monuments de la voie sacrée. Paris: Éd. Recherches sur les civilisations. Fabrizii-Reuer, S. and E. Reuer. 1995. “Die Ergebnisse der anthropologischen Unter­ suchung von 18 kg Leichenbrand aus der Ringnekropole von Ephesos.” In Via sacra Ephesiaca II: Grabungen und Forschungen 1992 und 1993, 62–66. Edited by D. Knibbe and H. Thür. BerMat 6. Vienna: Schindler. Fejfer, J. 2008. Roman Portraits in Context. Berlin: de Gruyter. Felten, F. 1983. “Heiligtümer oder Märkte?” AK 26: 84–105. Fergusson, J. 1883. “The Temple of Diana at Ephesus.” Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects (1882–1883): 147–68. Ferrary, J. L. 1999. “À propos de deux passages des Philippiques (1.11–13 et 2.110): Remarques sur les honneurs religieux rendus à César en 45–44 et sur la politique d’Antoine après les Ides de Mars.” ARG 1: 215–32. Ferrary, J. L. 2010. “À propos des pouvoirs et des honneurs décernés à César entre 48 et 44.” In Cesare: precursore o visionario?, 9–30. Edited by G. P. Urso. Pisa: ETS. Ferrua, A. 1991. Katakomben: Unbekannte Bilder des frühen Christentums unter der Via Latina. Stuttgart: Urachhaus. Feuser, S. 2014. “A Stroll along the Sea: The Processional Way in Ephesus and the Littoral.” CHS Research Bulletin 3.1. Accessed April 5, 2015. http://wp.chs.harvard .edu/chs-fellows/2015/02/20/a-stroll-along-the-sea/.

258

Bibliography

Fiocchi Nicolai, V. et al. 2000. Roms christliche Katakomben: Geschichte—Bilderwelt— Inschriften. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Fischer, J. 2012. “Herrscherverehrung im antiken Ephesos.” In Rituale: Iden­ titätsstiftende Handlungskomplexe: 2. Tagung des Zentrums Archäologie und Altertumswissenschaften an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2.–3. November 2009, 139–56. Edited by G. Danek and I. Hellerschmid. Vienna: ÖAW. Flessa, N. 2010. “Der ägyptische Priester aus SR 12.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde, 670–76. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Foss, C. 1979. Ephesus after Antiquity: A Late Antique, Byzantine and Turkish City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fossel, E. 1967. “Zum sogenannten Odeion in Ephesos.” In Festschrift für Fritz Eichler zum achtzigsten Geburtstag, 72–81. Vienna: ÖAI. French, D. 1991. “Sites and Inscriptions: Phrygia, Pisidia and Pamphylia.” EA 17: 51–68. French, D. 2012. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor, vol. 3: Milestones, Fasc. 3.1: Republican. Electronic Monograph 1. London: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Friesen, S. 1993. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden: Brill. Friesen, S. 1999a. “Highpriests of Asia and Asiarchs: Farewell to the Identification Theory.” In Steine und Wege: Festschrift für D. Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag, 303–7. Edited by P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür. Vienna: ÖAI. Friesen, S. 1999b. “Asiarchs.” ZPE 126: 275–90. Friesen, S. 2004. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Consensus.” JSNT 26: 323–61. Frija, G. 2012. Les prêtres des empereurs: Le culte impérial civique dans la province ro­ maine d’Asie. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. Frisk, H. 1955–72. Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Fugger, V. 2017. “Shedding Light on Early Christian Domestic Cult: Characteristics and New Perspectives in the Context of Archaeological Findings.” In Sacra privata: From Pagan Religiosity to Early Christian Domestic Cult, 201–36. Edited by M. Öhler and N. Zimmermann. ARG 18–19. Berlin: de Gruyter. Funck, B. 1996. “Beobachtungen zum Begriff des Herrscherpalastes und seiner machtpolitischen Funktion im hellenistischen Raum: Prolegomena zur Typologie der hellenistischen Herrschaftssprache.” In Basileia: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige: Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992–20.12.1992, 44–55. Edited by W. Hoepfner and G. Brands. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Gasparini, V. 2013. “Staging Religion: Cultic Performances in (and Around) the Temple of Isis in Pompeii.” In Memory and Religious Experience in the Greco-Roman World, 185–211. Edited by N. Cusumano et al. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.

Bibliography

259

Gauthier, P. 1989. Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes II. Genève: Droz. Giacobello, F. 2008. Larari pompeiani: iconografia e culto dei Lari in ambito domestico. Milano: LED. Gibson, E. 1978. The ‘Christians for Christians’ Inscriptions of Phrygia: Greek Texts, Translation and Commentary. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Görkay, K. 2012. “The Temple of Augustus and Roma in Ancyra: A Reassessment.” In Dipteros und Pseudodipteros: Bauhistorische und archäologische Forschungen, 203– 18. Edited by T. Schulz. Byzas 12. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Graen, D. 2011. Tod und Sterben in der Antike: Grab und Bestattung bei Ägyptern, Griechen, Etruskern und Römern. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag. Graepler, D. 2006. “Gräber.” In Klassische Archäologie, 129–39. Edited by T. Hölscher. Darmstadt: WBG. Graf, F. 2011. “Ritual Restoration and Innovation in the Greek Cities of the Roman Imperium.” In Ritual Dynamics in the Ancient Mediterranean: Agency, Emotion, Gender, Representation, 105–17. Edited by A. Chaniotis. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Groh, S. 2006. “Neue Forschungen zur Stadtplanung in Ephesos.” ÖJh 75: 47–116. Gros, P. 1996. “Les nouveaux espaces civiques du début de l’Empire en Asie Mineure: les exemples d’Éphèse, Iasos et Aphrodisias.” In Aphrodisias Papers, 3: Including the Papers Given at the Fourth International Aphrodisias Colloquium, London 1992, JRASup 20, 111–20. Edited by Ch. Roueché and R. R. R. Smith. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Gros, P. and M. Torelli. 1988. Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo romano. Rome and Bari: Laterza. Guerber, E. 2009. Les cités grecques dans l’Empire romain: Les privilèges et les titres des cités de l’Orient hellénophone d’Octave Auguste à Dioclétien. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. Guinnessy, P. 2014. “Digging into the Past Without a Spade.” Physics Today 67: 24–26. Habicht, C. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. München: Beck. Halfmann, H. 2001. Städtebau und Bauherren im römischen Kleinasien. MDAI (I) Beiheft 43. Tübingen: Wasmuth. Hamon, P. 2004. “Les prêtres du culte royal dans la capitale des Attalides: note sur le décret de Pergame en l’honneur du roi Attale III (OGIS 332).” Chiron 34: 169–85. Harreither, R. 2002. “Die Synoden von Ephesos.” MiChA 8: 76–91. Heberdey, R. 1900. “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesus.” ÖJh 3: 83–96. Heberdey, R. 1912. “IX. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 15: 182. Heberdey, R. 1915. “XI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 18: 77–88. Heil, G. 1986. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita: Über die himmlische Hierarchie: Über die Kirchliche Hierarchie. Stuttgart: Hiersemann.

260

Bibliography

Heller, A. 2006. Les bêtises des Grecs: Conflits et rivalités entre cités d’Asie et de Bithynie à l’époque romaine (129 a.C.–235 p.C.). Bordeaux: Ausonius. Hellmann, M. C. 2010. L’architecture grecque. Paris: Picard. Herda, A. 2006. Der Apollon-Delphinios-Kult in Milet und die Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma: Ein neuer Kommentar der sog. Molpoi-Satzung. Milesische Forschung 4. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Herda, A. 2008. “Apollon Delphinios—Apollon Didymeus: Zwei Gesichter eines milesischen Gottes und ihr Bezug zur Kolonisation Milets in archaischer Zeit.” In Kult(ur)kontakte: Apollon in Milet/Didyma, Histria, Myus, Naukratis und auf Zypern, Akten der Table Ronde in Mainz vom 11.–12. März 2004, 13–86. Edited by R. Bol, U. Höckmann, and P. Schollmeyer. Internationale Archäologie 11. Rahden: Leidorf. Herrmann, J. J. and R. Newman. 1995. “The Exportation of Dolomitic Sculptural Marble from Thasos: Evidence from Mediterranean and Other Collections.” In The Study of Marble and Other Stones Used in Antiquity, 73–86. Edited by Y. Maniatis, N. Herz and Y. Baziakos. Asmosia 3. London: Archetype. Herrmann, P. 1989. “Rom und die Asylie griechischer Heiligtümer: Eine Urkunde des Dictators Caesar aus Sardeis.” Chiron 19: 127–64. Herz, P. 1992. “Asiarchen und Arichiereiai: Zum Provinzialkult der Provinz Asia.” Tyche 7: 93–115. Hild, F. and H. Hellenkemper. 1990. Kilikien und Isaurien. Vienna: ÖAW. Hinks, R. P., ed. 1933. Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Paintings and Mosaics in the British Museum. London: British Museum. Hirsch, B. 1994. Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Grossen bis zur römischen Eroberung. Darmstadt: WBG. Hirsch, B. 2001. “Orte des Dionysos: Kultplätze und ihre Funktion.” MDAI (I) 51: 217–72. Hock, R. 1980. The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Hoepfner, W. 1996. “Zum Typus der Basileia und der königlichen Andrones.” In Basileia: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige: Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992–20.12.1992, 1–43. Edited by W. Hoepfner and G. Brands. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hoepfner, W. and G. Brands, eds. 1996. Basileia: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige: Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992–20.12.1992. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Hogarth, D. G. 1908. Excavations at Ephesus the Archaic Artemisia. London: British Museum. Hölbl, G. 1978. Zeugnisse ägyptischer Religionsvorstellungen für Ephesus. EPRO 73. Leiden: Brill. Hölbl, G. 1987. Zeugnisse ägyptischer Religionsvorstellungen für Ephesos. Leiden: Brill. Hölbl, G. 1994. Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Grossen bis zur römischen Eroberung. Darmstadt: WBG.

Bibliography

261

Hope, V. M. 2007. Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge. İçten, C. and H. Engelmann. 1995. “Inschriften aus Ephesos und Metropolis.” ZPE 108: 88–94. Iorio, V. 2015. “Statuette di gladiatori in terracotta da Pompei.” In Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine, vol. 2: Iconographie et contexts, 95–105. Edited by A. Muller and E. Lafli. BCHSup 54. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Spetentrion. Ivison, E. A. 1996. “Burial and Urbanism at Late Antique and Early Byzantine Corinth (c. AD 400–700).” In Towns in Transition: Urban Evolution in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, 99–125. Edited by N. Christie and S. T. Loseby. Aldershot: Scolar Press. Jackson, A. 2016. The Christian Saints of Turkey: A Guide Inside the Early Church of Asia Minor. Istanbul: ArkeoEge. Jacottet, A.-F. 2003. Choisir Dionysos: Les associations dionysiaques ou le face cachée du dionysisme. Kilchberg: Akanthvs. Jacottet, A.-F. 2008. “Das bakchische Fest und seine Verbreitung durch Kult, Literatur und Theater.” In Festrituale in der römischen Kaiserzeit, 201–13. Edited by J. Rüpke. Studien zu Antike und Christentum 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Jäggi, C. 2013. Ravenna: Kunst und Kultur einer spätantiken Residenzstadt. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Jastrzębowska, E. 2006. “Das Viersäulendenkmal von Ephesos: Römische Idee, Kon­ stantinopler Dekoration, lokale Herstellung.” In Frühes Christentum zwischen Rom und Konstantinopel: Acta Congressus Internationalis XIV Archeologiae Christianae, 447–54. Edited by R. Harreither, P. Pergola, R. Pillinger and A. Pülz. Studi di Antichità Cristiana 62 = AForsch 14. Vatican City and Vienna: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana and ÖAW. Jessen, O. 1905. “Ephesia.” In RE 5.2758. Jobst, W. 1980. “Zur Lokalisierung des Sebasteion-Augusteum in Ephesos.” MDAI (I) 30: 241–59. Jobst, W. 1986. “Ein spätantiker Straßenbrunnen in Ephesos.” In Studien zur spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst II: FS F. W. Deichmann, 47–62. Edited by O. Feld. Bonn: Habelt. Jordan-Ruwe, M. 1995. Das Säulenmonument: Zur Geschichte der erhöhten Aufstellung antiker Porträtstatuen. Asia Minor Studien 19. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt. Kadioğlu, M., K. Görkay and S. Mitchell. 2011. Roma Dönemi’nde Ankyra. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları. Karwiese, S. 1970. “Die Münzprägung von Ephesos.” In RESup 12.309–11: 323–29. Karwiese, S. 1989. Die Marienkirche in Ephesos: Erster vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1984–1986. DenkschrWien 200. Vienna: ÖAI.

262

Bibliography

Karwiese, S. 2012. Die Münzprägung von Ephesos, 5: Katalog und Aufbau der römerzeitli­ chen Stadtprägung mit allen erfassbaren Stempelnachweisen. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 14. Vienna: Ö sterreichische Forschungsgesellschaft für Numismatik. Kaufmann-Heinimann, A. 1998. Götter und Lararien aus Augusta Raurica: Herstellung, Fundzusammenhänge und sakrale Funktion figürlicher Bronzen in einer römischen Stadt. Forschungen in Augst 26. Augst: Römermuseum. Kearsley, R. A. 1986. “Asiarchs, ‘Archiereis,’ and the ‘Archiereiai’ of Asia.” GRBS 27: 183–92. Kearsley, R. A. 1989. “Asiarchs: Titulature and Function: A Reappraisal.” StClas 26: 57–65. Kearsley, R. A. 1990. “Asiarchs, Archiereis and Archiereiai of Asia: New Evidence from Amorium in Phrygia.” EA 16: 69–80. Keil, J. 1912. “X. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Arbeiten in Ephesos 1912.” ÖJh 15: 183–86. Keil, J. 1915. “Ephesische Funde und Beobachtungen.” ÖJh 18: 279–86. Keil, J. 1919. “Die erste Kaiserneokorie von Ephesos.” NZ 52: 115–20. Keil, J. 1926. “XII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 23: 265–71. Keil, J. 1930. “XV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen II in Ephesos.” ÖJh 26: 5–66. Keil, J. 1932a. “XVI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 27 Beiheft: 5–72. Keil, J. 1932b. “Inschriften.” In Die Marienkirche in Ephesos, 79–106. Edited by E. Reisch. FiE 4.1. Vienna: B. Filser. Keil, J. 1935. “Zum Martyrium des heiligen Timotheus in Ephesos.” ÖJh 29: 82–92. Keil, J. 1951. “Inschriften.” In Die Johanneskirche, 275–95. Edited by J. Keil. FiE 4.3. Vienna: ÖAI. Keil, J. 1964. Ephesos: Ein Führer durch die Ruinenstätte und ihre Geschichte. Vienna: ÖAI. Kenzler, U. 2006. “Die augusteische Neugestaltung des Staatsmarkts von Ephesos: Kultgemeinschaften und die Erschaffung einer römischen Stadt.” Hephaistos 24: 169–81. Kirbihler, F. 2008. “Les grands-prêtres d’Éphèse: aspects institutionnels et sociaux de l’asiarchie.” In Pathways to Power: Civic Elites in the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire, 107–49. Edited by A. Rizakis and F. Camia. Athens: Scuola Archeological Italiana de Atene. Kirbihler, F. 2014a. “Des Grecs et des Italiens à Éphèse: les mutations d’une capitale de province.” Pallas 96: 233–52. Kirbihler, F. 2014b. “Artémidore, témoin des sociétés éphésienne et romaine du IIe siècle.” In Artémidore de Daldis et l’interprétation des rêves: Quatorze études, 53–103. Edited by C. Chandezon and J. Dubouchet. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Kirbihler, F. 2016. Des Grecs et des Italiens à Éphèse: Histoire d’une intégration croisée: 133 a.C.–48 p.C. Pessac: Ausonius.

Bibliography

263

Kirbihler, F. 2017. “P. Vedius Pollio, préfet d’Octavien en Asie? Les problèmes d’une mission publique entre République et Empire.” In Auguste et l’Asie Mineure, 129–52. Edited by L. Cavalier, F. Delrieux, and M.-Cl. Ferriès. Bordeaux: Ausonius. Kirbihler, F. 2019. “Les prêtresses d’Artémis à Éphèse (Ier s. av. J.-C.–IIIe s. apr. J.-C.), ou: Comment faire du neuf en prétendant restaurer un état ancien?”In Femmes grecques de l’Orient romain, 21–79. Edited by S. Lalanne. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne, Supp. 18. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Besançon. Kirbihler, F. and L. Zabrana. 2014. “Archäologische, epigraphische und numismatische Zeugnisse für den Kaiserkult im Artemision von Ephesos: Der Kult der Dea Roma und des Divus Iulius unter dem Triumvirat.” ÖJh 83: 101–31. Knibbe, D. 1972–75. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos IV.” ÖJh 50: 1–79. Knibbe, D. 1978. “Ephesos: Nicht nur die Stadt der Artemis: Die ‘anderen’ ephesischen Götter.” In Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner, 489–503. Edited by S. Şahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner. Leiden: Brill. Knibbe, D. 1998. Ephesus: Geschichte einer bedeutenden antiken Stadt und Porträt einer modernen Großgrabung. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Knibbe, D. 1999. “Via Sacra Ephesiaca.” In 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposiums Wien 1995, 451–52. Edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger. AForsch 1 = DenkschrWien 260. Vienna: ÖAW. Knibbe, D. and M. Büyükkolancı. 1989. “Zur Bauinschrift der Basilica auf dem sog. Staatsmarkt von Ephesos.” ÖJh 59: 43–45. Knibbe, D., H. Engelmann, and B. İplikçioğlu. 1993. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII.” ÖJh 62: 113–50. Knibbe, D. and B. İplikçioğlu. 1984. “Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos IX.” ÖJh 55: 107–36. Knibbe, D. and G. Langmann. 1993. Via Sacra Ephesiaca I. Vienna: ÖAI. Knibbe, D., R. Meriç, and R. Merkelbach. 1979. “Der Grundbesitz der ephesischen Artemis im Kaystrostal.” ZPE 33: 139–47. Kolb, A. and J. Fugmann. 2008. Tod in Rom. Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 106. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Kraemer, R. 1991. “Jewish Tuna and Christian Fish: Identifying Religious Affiliation in Epigraphic Sources.” HTR 84: 141–62. Kraft, J. C. et al. 2000. “A Geologic Analysis of Ancient Landscapes and the Harbors of Ephesus and the Artemision in Anatolia.” ÖJh 69: 175–210, pll. 1–17. Kraft, J. C. et al. 2005. “The Sea Under the City of Ancient Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift Für Friedrich Krinzinger, 147–56. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag. Kraft, J. C. et al. 2007. “The Geographies of Ancient Ephesus and the Artemision in Anatolia.” Geoarchaeology 22: 121–49. Kreikenbom, J. 1992. Griechische und römische Kolossalporträts bis zum späten ersten Jahrhundert nach Christus. JDAISup 27. Berlin: de Gruyter.

264

Bibliography

Krinzinger, F., ed. 2010. Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Krinzinger, F. and P. Ruggendorfer, eds. 2017. Das Theater von Ephesos: Archäologischer Befund, Funde und Chronologie. FiE 2.1. Vienna: ÖAW. Kubinska, J. 1999. Ostothèques et kaustrai dans les inscriptions grecques d’Asie Mineure. Światowit Supplement Series A, Antiquity 3. Warsaw: Warsaw University. Kukula, R. C. 1906. “Literarische Zeugnisse über den Artemistempel von Ephesos.” In Forschungen in Ephesos, 237–77. Edited by O. Benndorf. FiE 1. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Ladstätter, S. 2002a. “Die Chronologie des Hanghauses 2.” In Das Hanghaus 2 von Ephesos: Studien zu Baugeschichte und Chronologie, 9–40. Edited by F. Krinzinger. AForsch 7 = DenkschrWien 302. Vienna: ÖAW. Ladstätter, S. 2002b. “Lampen mit Gladiatorendarstellungen aus den Hanghäusern in Ephesos.” In Gladiatoren in Ephesos: Tod am Nachmittag: Eine Ausstellung im Ephesos Museum Selçuk seit 20. April 2002. Istanbul and Vienna: Efes Müzesi Selçuk and ÖAI. Ladstätter, S. 2005a. “Keramik.” In H. Thür, Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 230–358. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Ladstätter, S. 2005b. “Zur Datierung des Löwenmosaiks im Hanghaus 2 von Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger, 179–86. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos. Ladstätter, S. 2010. “Keramik.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde, 333–42. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Ladstätter, S. 2011. “Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit: Das letzte Kapitel einer antiken Großstadt.” In Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit, 3–30. Edited by F. Daim and S. Ladstätter. Mainz: RGZm. Ladstätter, S. 2013a. “Thymiaterien der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit aus Ephesos.” In Orhan Bingöl’e 67. Yaş Armağanı, 317–38. Edited by G. Kökdemir. Ankara: Bilgin Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık. Ladstätter, S. 2013b. Terrace House 2 in Ephesos: An Archaeological Guide. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Ladstätter, S. 2014. “Keramik.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 461–72. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Ladstätter, S. 2016. “Hafen und Stadt von Ephesos in hellenistischer Zeit.” ÖJh 85: 233–72. Ladstätter, S. 2017. “Ephesus.” In The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia: From the End of Late Antiquity until the Coming of the Turks, 238–48. Edited by P. Niewöhner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ladstätter, S. and A. Pülz. 2007. “Ephesos in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Period: Changes in its Urban Character from the 3rd to 7th century AD.” In The

Bibliography

265

Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and Beyond, 391–433. Edited by Andrew Poulter. PBA 141. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2009. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2009. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/ Institute/OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2009.pdf. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2010. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2010. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/ Institute/OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2010.pdf. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2011. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2011. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/ Institute/OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/OeAI_Jahresbericht_2011.pdf. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2012. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2012. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/ Institute/OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/ÖAI_Jahresbericht_2012.pdf. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2013. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2013. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/ Institute/OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/ÖAI_Jahresbericht_2013.pdf. Ladstätter, S., ed. 2014. Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 2014. Vienna: ÖAI. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/ Institute/OEAI/pdf/Kommunikation/Jahresberichte/ÖAI_Jahresbericht_2014.pdf. Lampe, P. 1987. “Paulus: Zeltmacher.” BZ 31: 256–61. Landskron, A. 2005. “Die Pfeilerfiguren der Domitiansterrasse in Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger, 187–95. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos. Landskron, A. 2016. “Architectural Ornament under the Flavian Dynasty in Asia Minor: The Case of the Altar of the Temple of Domitian and Other Monuments in Ephesus.” In Décor: Decorazione e architettura nel mondo Romano: Atti del Convegno internazionale, 251–62. Edited by P. Pensabene et al. Rome: Edizioni Quasar. Landesmann, P. 2004. Die Himmelfahrt des Elija: Entstehen und Weiterleben einer Legende sowie ihre Darstellung in der frühchristlichen Kunst. Vienna: Bölau. Lang-Auinger, C. 1996. Das Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Der Baubefund. FiE 8.3. Vienna: ÖAW. Lang-Auinger, C. 1998. “Masken aus Ton und Masken in der Wandmalerei: Eine Gegenüberstellung.” ÖJh 67: 117–31. Lang-Auinger, C. 2002. “Gladiatoren aus Ton.” In Gladiatoren in Ephesos: Tod am Nachmittag: Eine Ausstellung im Ephesos Museum Selçuk seit 20. April 2002, 103–5. Istanbul and Vienna: Efes Müzesi Selçuk and ÖAI. Lang-Auinger, C., ed. 2003a. Das Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung. FiE 8.4. Vienna: ÖAW. Lang-Auinger, C. 2003b. “Terrakotten.” In Das Hanghaus 1 in Ephesos: Funde und Ausstattung, 299–352. Edited by C. Lang-Auinger. FiE 8.4. Vienna: ÖAW.

266

Bibliography

Lang-Auinger, C. 2014. “Römische Tempelanlagen in griechischen Städten.” In Akten des 14. Österreichischen Archäologentages am Institut für Archäologie der Universität Graz vom 19. bis 21. April 2012, 229–37. Edited by E. Trinkl. Vienna: Phoibos. Lang-Auinger, C. 2015. “Männliche Puppen aus Ephesos.” In Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine, vol. 2: Iconographie et contexts, 83–93. Edited by A. Muller and E. Lafli. BCHSup 54. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Spetentrion. Lang-Auinger, C. and V. Mitsopoulos-Leon. 2007. Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos, 2: Funde klassischer bis römischer Zeit. FiE 9.2, 3. Vienna: ÖAI. Lange, H. 1990. Römische Terrakotten aus Salzburg: Katalog zur Ausstellung im Salzburger Carolino Augusteum. Schriftenreihe des Salzburger Museums Carolino Augusteum 9. Salzburg: Salzburger Museum Carolino Augusteum. Langmann, G. 1967. “Eine spätarchaische Nekropole unter dem Staatsmarkt zu Ephesos.” In Festschrift für Fritz Eichler zum achtzigsten Geburtstag, 103–23. Edited by E. Braun. Vienna: ÖAI. Langner, M. 2013. “Geschenke zum Fest: Terrakottastatuetten im römischen Wohnhaus.” AW 44.6: 55–64. Lauter, H. 1986. Die Architektur des Hellenismus. Darmstadt: WBG. Lavan, L. 1999. “The Residences of Late Antique Governors: A Gazette.” AntTard 7: 135–64. Lawrence, A. W. 1979. Greek Aims in Fortification. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lehner, M. F. 2004. “Die Agonistik im Ephesos der römischen Kaiserzeit.” Ph.D. Diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich. Leschhorn, W. 1993. Antike Ären: Zeitrechnung, Politik und Geschichte im Schwar­z­ meerraum und in Kleinasien nördlich des Tauros. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Lindsay, H. 2000. “Death-Pollution and Funerals in the City of Rome.” In Death and Disease in the Ancient City, 152–73. Edited by V. M. Hope and E. Marshall. London: Routledge. Lohner-Urban, U. 2013. “Bericht über die archäologischen Untersuchungen am Osttor von Side 2012.” Annual Reports University of Graz. https://static.uni-graz.at/file admin/gewi-zentren/Antike/Tagung_2013/Bericht_side_2012_01.pdf. Lohner-Urban, U. and E. Trinkl. 2012. “Untersuchungen am Osttor von Side 2011.” Forum Archaeologiae 63.6. http://farch.net. Luschin, E. M. 2002. Cryptoporticus: Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte eines multifunktion­ alen Baukörpers. ErgÖJh 5. Vienna: ÖAI. Lyttelton, M. 1987. “The Design and Planning of Temples and Sanctuaries in Asia Minor in the Roman Imperial Period.” In Roman Architecture in the Greek World, 38–49. Edited by S. Macready and F. H. Thompson. London: Thames & Hudson. Maier, C. 2006. “Die Weiheinschriften zur Verleihung der ersten Kaiserneokorie an Ephesos IvE II 232–235, 237–242; V 1498; VI 2048: Das Schriftbild.” Tyche 21: 117–30.

Bibliography

267

Mansel, A. M. 1956. “Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Pamphylien in den Jahren 1946–1955.” AA 1956: 34–120. Mansel, A. M. 1968. “Osttor und Waffenreliefs von Side (Pamphylien).” AA 1968: 239–79. Marksteiner, T. 1999. “Bemerkungen zum hellenistischen Stadtmauerring von Ephesos.” In 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposiums Wien 1995, 413–19. Edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger. AForsch 1 = DenkschrWien 260. Vienna: ÖAW. Marth, R., ed. 1999. Meisterwerke aus Elfenbein der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Martin, R. 1951. Recherches sur l’agora grecque: Études d’histoire et d’architecture urba­ ines. BEFAR 174. Paris: de Boccard. May, N. N. 2014. “Gates and Their Function in Mesopotamia and Israel.” In The Fabric of Cities: Aspects of Urbanism, Urban Topography and Society in Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome, 77–121. Edited by N. N. May and U. Steinert. Leiden: Brill. McCredie, J. R. 1976. “Recent Investigations in Samothrace.” In Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern: Symposion Olympia 10.–12. Oktober 1974, 91–102. Edited by U. Jantzen. Tübingen: Wasmuth. Meeks, W. 1983. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Meggitt, J. 1998. Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Merkelbach, R. 1979. “Die ephesischen Dionysosmysten vor der Stadt.” ZPE 36: 151–56. Merkelbach, R. 1988. Die Hirten des Dionysos: Die Dionysos-Mysterien der römischen Kaiserzeit und der bukolische Roman des Longus. Stuttgart: Teubner. Meriç, R. 1985. “Rekonstruktionsversuch der Kolossalstatue des Domitian in Ephesos.” In Pro Arte Antiqua: Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner, 2.239–41. Edited by W. Alzinger. SoSchrÖAI 18.2. Vienna: Koska. Mileta, C. 2008. “Die prorömischen Kulte der Provinz Asia als Brücke zwischen dem hellenistischen Herrscherkult und dem frühen Kaiserkult.” Altertum 53: 111–23. Miltner, F. 1955. “XX. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 42: 23–60. Miltner, F. 1956/58. “XXI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 43: 1–64. Miltner, F. 1958. Ephesos: Die Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes. Vienna: F. Deuticke. Miltner, F. 1959a. “XXII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 44: 243–314. Miltner, F. 1959b. “Die österreichischen Ausgrabungen in Ephesos im Jahre 1958.” AAWW 96: 31–43. Miltner, F. 1960. “XXIV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.” ÖJh 45, Beiheft: 1–76.

268

Bibliography

Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. 2005. “Zur Chronologie des kleinen Tempels auf dem Staatsmarkt in Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger, 1.203–11. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos. Moretti, L. 1953. Iscrizioni agonistiche Greche. Rome: Signorelli. Morris, I. 1996. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Müller, H. 2000. “Der hellenistische Archiereus.” Chiron 30: 519–42. Müller-Wiener, W. 1989. “Bischofsresidenzen des 4.–7. Jhs. im östlichen Mittel­ meerraum.” In Actes du XIe Congrès international d’archéologie chrétienne 1986, 651–709. Edited by N. Duval, F. Baritel, and P. Pergola. Studi di antichità cristiana 41. Collection de l’École française de Rome 123. Rome: École française de Rome; Studi di Antichità Cristiana 41. Vatican City: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana. Muss, U. 2005. “Das Artemision von Ephesos in römischer Zeit.” In Ramazan Özgan’a Armağan: Festschrift für Ramazan Özgan, 249–63. Edited by M. Şahin and İ. H. Mert. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Muss, U. and A. Bammer. 2001. Der Altar des Artemisions von Ephesos. FiE 12.2. Vienna: ÖAI. Müth, S. 2010. “Fortifikationskunst und Repräsentation an der Stadtmauer von Messene.” In Neue Forschungen zu antiken Stadtbefestigungen im östlichen Mittel­ meerraum und im Vorderen Orient, 57–83. Edited by J. Lorentzen et al. Byzas 10. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Nairn, J. A. 1904. The Mimes of Herodas. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nielsen, I. 2002. Cultic Theatres and Ritual Drama. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Niessen, J. 1906. Panagia-Kapuli: Das neuentdeckte Wohn- und Sterbehaus der heil. Jungfrau Maria bei Ephesus. Dülmen: A. Laumann. Nock, A. D. 1932. “Cremation and Burial in the Roman Empire.” HTR 25: 321–59. Noll, R. 1986. Die griechischen und lateinischen Inschriften der Wiener Antikensammlung. Vienna: KHM. Oakes, P. 2009. Reading Romans in Pompeii: Paul’s Letter at Ground Level. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Økland, J. 2004. Women in Their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Osiek, C., M. Y. MacDonald, and J. H. Tulloch. 2006. A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Oster R. E. 1990. “Ephesus as a Religious Center under the Principate.” ANRW 2.18.3: 1661–728. Paneli, E. 2001. “Die Ikonographie der Opferung Isaaks auf den frühchristlichen Sarkophagen.” Ph.D. Diss., University of Marburg. Parke, H. W. 1977. Festivals of the Athenians. London: Thames and Hudson.

Bibliography

269

Parker Pearson, M. 1984. “Economic and Ideological Change: Cyclical Growth in the Pre-State Societies of Jutland.” In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, 69–92. Edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pfeiffer, S. 2008. Herrscher- und Dynastiekulte im Ptolemäerreich: Systematik und Einordnung der Kultformen. Munich: Beck. Pietsch, W. 1999. “Außerstädtische Grabanlagen von Ephesos.” In 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposiums Wien 1995, 455–60. Edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger. AForsch 1 = DenkschrWien 260. Vienna: ÖAW. Pillinger, R. 1996. “Die christlichen Denkmäler von Ephesos: Eine Bestandsaufnahme als Rück- und Vorschau.” MiChA 28: 39–70. Pillinger, R. 2005. “Martyrer und Reliquienkult in Ephesos.” In Synergia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger, 235–42. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos. Pillinger, R. 2009. “La cosiddetta grotta (chiesa rupestre) di S. Paolo ad Efeso.” In Paolo di Tarso: Archeologia, Storia, Ricezione, 1.21–30. Edited by L. Padovese. Cantalupa: Effatà. Pillinger, R. 2010. “Paratextual Literature in Early Christian Art (Acta Pauli et Theclae).” In In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature, 239–66. Edited by P. S. Alexander et al. Leiden: Brill. Pillinger, R. 2011a. “The Grotto of St. Paul.” In Wall Painting in Ephesos from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period, 174–81 and 217. Edited by N. Zimmermann and S. Ladstätter. Istanbul: Avrupa Kultur Baskenti. Pillinger, R. 2011b. “Nuova scoperta nella cosiddetta grotta (chiesa rupestre) di S. Paolo ad Efeso: Raffigurazione di Re Davide come suonatore di lira.” In In caritate veritas: Luigi Padovese, Vescovo cappuccino, Vicario Apostolico dell’Anatolia: Scritti in memo­ ria, 611–13. Edited by P. Martinelli and L. Bianchi. Bologna: EDB. Pillinger, R. 2015. “La representació de Tecla a l’anomenada gruta de Sant Paul a Efes.” In El culte de Tecla, Santa d’orient i d’occident. Congrés de Tarragona 27.–29. Octubre 2011. Studia historica tarraconensia 2. Edited by A. Puig i Tàrrech, A. Pérrez de Mendiguren, and J. M. Galvaldà. Barcelona: Ediciones Graficas Rey. Pillinger, R. 2017. “Thekla in der Paulusgrotte von Ephesos.” In Thecla: Paul’s Disciple and Saint in the East and West. Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha 12. Edited by J. W. Barrier, J. N. Bremmer, T. Nicklas, A. Puig i Tàrrech. Leuven: Peeters. Pillinger, R., O. Kresten, F. Krinzinger, and E Russo. 1999. Efeso paleocristiana e bizan­ tina: Frühchristliches und byzantinisches Ephesos. AForsch 3 = DenkschrWien 282. Vienna: ÖAW. Polinskaya, I. 2003. “Liminality as Metaphor: Initiation and the Frontier of Ancient Athens.” In Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives: New Critical Perspectives, 85–106. Edited by D. B. Dodd and C. A. Faraone. London: Routledge.

270

Bibliography

Poulin, E. 1896. Panaghia-Capouli ou Maison de la Sainte Vierge près d’Éphèse: La vrai histoire de sa découverte. Paris: H. Oudin. Price, S. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prochaska, W. and S. M. Grillo. 2012. “The Marble Quarries of the Metropolis of Ephesos and Some Examples of the Use for Marbles in Ephesian Architecture and Sculpturing.” In Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone: Asmosia IX: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity (Tarragona, 8–13 June, 2009), 584–91. Edited by A. Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno, P. Lapuente Mercadal, and I. Rodà de Llanza. Tarragona: Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica. Pülz, A. 2010a. Das sog. Lukasgrab in Ephesos: Eine Fallstudie zur Adaption antiker Monumente in byzantinischer Zeit. FiE 4.4. Vienna: ÖAW. Pülz, A. 2010b. “Zum Stadtbild von Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit.” In Byzanz: Das Römerreich im Mittelalter, 541–71. Edited by F. Daim and J. Drauschke. Monographien des RGZM 84.2.2. Mainz: RGZm. Pülz, A. 2010c. “Ephesos als christliches Pilgerzentrum.” MiChA 16: 71‒102. Pülz, A. 2012. “Archaeological Evidence of Christian Pilgrimage at Ephesus.” HEROM: Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture 1: 225–60. Pülz, A. 2017. “Zur Ikonographie der sogenannten kleinasiatischen Pilgerampullen.” In Space, Landscapes and Settlements in Byzantium, 265–82 and 501–2. Edited by A. Külzer and M. S. Popović. Studies in Historical Geography of the Eastern Mediterranean 1. Vienna—Novi Sad: Akademska knjiga. Pülz, A. 2018. “Some Remarks on Late Antique and Early Christian Ephesus.” In Geç antik çağ’da Lykos vadisi ve çevresi: The Lykos Valley and Neighbourhood in Late Antiquity, 385–400. Edited by C. Şimşek and T. Kaçar. Laodikeia Çalişmalari Ek Yayın Dizisi / Supplementary Series 1. Istanbul: Zerobook. Quatember, U. 2000. Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos im Spiegel seiner Hausheiligtümer. Master’s Thesis, University of Vienna. Quatember, U. 2005. “Marmorinventar.” In H. Thür, Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 409–13. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Quatember, U. 2011. Das Nymphaeum Traiani in Ephesos. FiE 11.2. Vienna: ÖAW. Raja, R. 2012. Urban Development and Regional Identity in the Eastern Roman Provinces, 50 BC–AD 250: Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Athens, Gerasa. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Rathmayr, E. 2005. “Skulpturenausstattung der Wohneinheit 4.” In H. Thür, Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 207–29. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2006. “Götter- und Kaiserkult im häuslichen Bereich anhand von Skulpturen aus dem Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos.” RHM 48: 119–48.

Bibliography

271

Rathmayr, E. 2009. “Das Haus des Ritters C. Flavius Furius Aptus: Beobachtungen zur Einflussnahme von Hausbesitzern an Architektur und Ausstattung in der Wohneinheit 6 des Hanghauses 2 in Ephesos.” MDAI (I) 59: 307–36. Rathmayr, E. 2010. “Auswertung.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 688–96. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2014a. “Skulpturenausstattung der Wohneinheit 6.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 367–433. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2014b. “Die Besitzerfamilie.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 846–48. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2014c. “Skulpturenfunde.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 849–53. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2015. “Terrakotten aus dem Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos.” In Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine, vol. 2: Iconographie et contexts, 267–80. Edited by A. Muller and E. Lafli. BCHSup 54. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Spetentrion. Rathmayr, E., ed. 2016a. Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2016b. “Ergebnisse.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 645–84. Edited by E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2016c. “Die Funktion der 45er-Räume und von Raum T IV.UG.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 765–72. Edited by E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. 2018. “Sculptural Programs of Specific Dwelling Units of Terrace House 1 and 2 in Ephesus.” In Sculpture in Roman Asia: Proceedings of the Conference in Selçuk 2013. Edited by M. Aurenhammer. Vienna: Holzhausen. Rathmayr, E. In press. “The Significance of the Ephesian Terrace Houses as Residences of the Elite in the Greek East.” In The Palimpsest of the House: Re-Assessing Roman, Late Antique, Byzantine and Early Islamic Living Patterns: 8th International RCAC Annual Symposium 30/11–01/12 2013. Edited by A. Ricci and I. Uytterhoeven. Rathmayr, E. and G. Wiplinger. 2010. “Spätantike Adaptionen und byzantinische Bebauung.” In Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheiten 1 und 2: Baubefund, Ausstattung und Funde, 670–76. Edited by F. Krinzinger. FiE 8.8. Vienna: ÖAW. Rathmayr, E. and N. Zimmermann. 2014. “Dynamische Konzepte: Interaktion zwischen Skulptur und Wandmalerei im Kontext.” In Antike Malerei zwischen Lokalstil und Zeitstil: Akten des XI. Internationalen Kolloquiums der AIPMA 13.–17. September 2010 in Ephesos, 717–22. Edited by N. Zimmermann. Vienna: ÖAW.

272

Bibliography

Rathmayr, E. and V. Scheibelreiter-Gail. In press. “Kontinuität und Wandel in Wohnbau und Wohnkultur in Ephesos vom späten Hellenismus bis in die hohe Kaiserzeit.” In Zwischen Bruch und Kontinuität: Architektur in Kleinasien am Übergang vom Hellenismus zur römischen Kaiserzeit: Continuity and Change—Architecture in Asia Minor During the Transitional Period from Hellenism to the Roman Empire. Edited by U. Lohner-Urban and U. Quatember. Conference at the University of Graz, April 26–29, 2017. Byzas 25. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Rheidt, K. 2010. Aizanoi und Anatolien. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Rife, J. L. 2012. The Roman and Byzantine Graves and Human Remains. Isthmia 9. Princeton: ASCSA. Rife, J. L. et al. 2007. “Life and Death at a Port in Roman Greece: The Kenchreai Cemetery Project, 2002–2006.” Hesperia 76: 143–81. Rigsby, K. J. 1996. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rogers, G. 1991. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City. London: Routledge. Rogers, G. 2007. “From the Greek Polis to the Greco-Roman Polis: Augustus and the Artemision of Ephesos.” In Regionalism in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor: Acts of the Conference Hartford, Connecticut (USA) 22–24 August, 1997, 137–45. Edited by H. Elton and G. Reger. Paris: Ausonius. Rogers, G. 2012. The Mysteries of Artemis of Ephesos: Cult, Polis, and Change in the Graeco-Roman World. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rogl, C. 2014. “Mouldmade Relief Bowls from Ephesos: the Current State of Research.” In Pottery, Peoples and Places: Study and Interpretation of Late Hellenistic Pottery, 133– 39. Edited by P. Guldager Bilde and M. L. Lawall. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Roueché, C. 1993. Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman Periods. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Rumscheid, F. 1994. Untersuchungen zur kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Rumscheid, F. 2006. Die figürlichen Terrakotten von Priene: Fundkomplexe, Ikonographie und Funktion in Wohnhäusern und Heiligtümern im Licht antiker Parallelbefunde. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Rüpke, J. 2001. Die Religion der Römer: Eine Einführung. Munich: Beck. Ruppert, C. 2015. Das Hauptportal des sogenannten Serapeions in Ephesos. Master’s Thesis, Ostbayrische Technische Hochschule, Regensburg, Germany. Russo, E. 1999. “La scultura a Efeso in età paleocristiana e bizantina Primi lineamenti.” In Efeso paleocristiana di bizantina: Frühchristliches und byzantinisches Ephesos, 26–53. Edited by R. Pillinger et al. AForsch 3 = DenkschrWien 282. Vienna: ÖAW. Russo, E. 2010. Sulla cronologia del S. Giovanni e di altri monumenti paleocristiani di Efeso. AForsch 19. Vienna: ÖAW.

Bibliography

273

Schäfer, A. 2002. “Raumnutzung und Raumwahrnehmung im Vereinslokal der Iobakchen von Athen.” In Vereinslokale in der römischern Kaiserzeit, 173–219. Edited by U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser and J. Rüpke. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schäfer, A. 2006. “Dionysische Gruppen als städtisches Phänomen der römischen Kaiserzeit.” In Gruppenreligionen im römischen Reich, 161–80. Edited by J. Rüpke. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schattner, T. and F. Valdés Fernández. 2006. Stadttore: Bautyp und Kunstform: Akten der Tagung in Toledo vom 25. bis 27. September 2003 = Puertas de ciudades: Tipo arquitec­ tónico y forma artística: Actas del coloquio en Toledo del 25 al 27 de septiembre 2003. Iberia archaeologia 8. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Scheibelreiter-Gail, V. 2016. “Ephesos: The New Finds.” In Estudios sobre mosai­ cos antiguos y medievales, 342–51. Edited by L. Neira Jiménez. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Scheidel W. 2007. “Demography.” In The Cambridge Economic History of the GrecoRoman World. Edited by W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. P. Saller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scherrer, P. 1990. “Augustus, die Mission des Vedius Pollio und die Artemis Ephesia.” ÖJh 60: 87–101. Scherrer, P. 1995. “The City of Ephesos: From the Roman Period to Late Antiquity.” In Ephesos, Metropolis of Asia: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology, Religion and Culture, 1–25. HTS 41. Edited by H. Koester. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International. Scherrer, P. 1997. “Anmerkungen zum städtischen und provinzialen Kaiserkult: Paradigma Ephesos: Entwicklungslinien von Augustus bis Hadrian.” In “… und ver­ schönerte die Stadt …”: Ein ephesischer Priester des Kaiserkultes in seinem Umfeld, 93–112. Edited by H. Thür. SoSchrÖAI 27. Vienna: ÖAW. Scherrer, P. 2001. “The Historical Topography of Ephesos.” In Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 57–87. JRASup 45. Edited by D. Parrish. Portsmouth, RI: JRA. Scherrer, P. 2005. “Das sogenannte Serapeion in Ephesos: ein Mouseion?” In Ägyptische Kulte und ihre Heiligtümer im Osten des römischen Reiches, 109–38. Edited by A. Hoffmann. Byzas 1. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Scherrer, P. 2006. “Hellenistische und römische Stadttore in Kleinasien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Ephesos.” In Stadttore: Bautyp und Kunstform: Akten der Tagung in Toledo vom 25. bis 27. September 2003 = Puertas de ciudades: Tipo arquitec­ tónico y forma artística: Actas del coloquio en Toledo del 25 al 27 de septiembre 2003, 63–78. Iberia archaeologia 8. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Scherrer, P. 2007. “Der conventus civium Romanorum und kaiserliche Freigelassene als Bauherren in Ephesos.” In Neue Zeiten – neue Sitten: Zu Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, 63–75. Wiener Forschungen zur Archäologie 12. Edited by M. Meyer. Vienna: Phoibos.

274

Bibliography

Scherrer, P. 2008. “Die Stadt als Festplatz: Das Beispiel der ephesischen Bauprogramme rund um die Kaiserneokorien Domitians und Hadrians.” In Festrituale in der römischen Kaiserzeit, 35–65. Edited by J. Rüpke. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Scherrer, P. et al. 2000. Ephesus: The New Guide. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Schillebeeckx, E. and E. Lessing. 1982. Paulus: Der Völkerapostel. Freiburg: Herder. Schindel, N. and S. Ladstätter. 2016. “An Early Byzantine Hoard from Ephesos.” NC 176: 390–98. Schneemelcher, W., and R. McL. Wilson. 1992. New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 2. Cambridge and Lexington: J. Clarke & Co and Westminster/John Knox. Schörner, G. 2014. “Wie integriert man Rom in die polis? Der Kult des Senats in Kleinasien.” In Integration of Rome in the Roman World, 217–42. Edited by G. de Kleijn and S. Benoist. Leiden: Brill. Schrumpf, S. 2006. Bestattung und Bestattungswesen im Römischen Reich: Ablauf, sozia­ le Dimension und ökonomische Bedeutung der Totenfürsorge im lateinischen Westen. Bonn: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht Unipress. Schultheß, Otto. 1935. s.v. Νεωποιοί. In RE 16.2.2433–39. Schulz, T. 2010. “Die Gebälk- und Dachkonstruktion des Zeustempels.” In Aizanoi und Anatolien, 88–97. Edited by K. Rheidt. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Schulz, T. 2012. “Vergleich der Pseudodipteroi: Aufbau und Konstruktion.” In Dipteros und Pseudodipteros: Bauhistorische und archäologische Forschungen, 165–79. Edited by T. Schulz. Byzas 12. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Schulz, T. 2017. “Eine antike Großbaustelle: Ausführung und Bauablauf des SerapisTempels in Ephesos.” In Werkspuren: Materialverarbeitung und handwerkliches Wissen im antiken Bauwesen: internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 13.–16. Mai 2015, 359–72, pll. 1–14. Edited by U. Wulf-Rheidt and D. Kurapkat. Diskussionen zur Archäologischen Bauforschung 12. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Schulz, T. 2016. “The Architecture of the So-Called Serapeion in Ephesos.” In Ancient Quarries and Building Sites in Asia Minor: Research on Hierapolis in Phrygia and Other Cities in South-Western Anatolia: Archaeology, Archaeometry, Conservation, 743–849. Edited by T. Ismaelli and G. Scardozzi. Bibliotheca Archaeologica 45. Bari: Edipuglia. Schwaiger, H. 2012. “Comparing Houses: Domestic Architecture in Ephesus from the Mid Imperial Period to Late Antiquity.” In Privata Luxuria: Towards an Archaeology of Intimacy: Pompeii and Beyond, 187–207. Edited by A. Anguissola. Münchner Studien zur Alten Welt. Munich: Utz. Schwaiger, H. 2016. “Domestic Architecture in Ephesos from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity.” In Mediterranean Families in Antiquity: Households, Extended Families, and Domestic Space, 79–91. Edited by S. R. Huebner and G. S. Nathan. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Bibliography

275

Schwarzer, H. 2002. “Vereinslokale im hellenistischen und römischen Pergamon.” In Vereinslokale in der römischern Kaiserzeit, 221–60. Edited by U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser and J. Rüpke. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 48. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schwarzer, H. 2006. “Die Bukoloi in Pergamon: Ein dionysischer Kultverein im Spiegel der archäologischen und epigraphischen Zeugnisse.” In Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft: Kosmopolitische Zentren des antiken Mittelmeerraumes als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen und Religionsgemeinschaften: Akten eines Symposiums des Archäologischen Instituts der Universität Hamburg (12–14 October 2005), 153–67. Edited by I. Nielsen. Hephasistos 24. Augsburg: Camelion. Seiffert, A. 2006. “Der sakrale Schutz von Grenzen im antiken Griechenland: Form und Ikonographie.” Ph.D. Diss., University of Würzburg. Seiterle, G. 1982. “Das Hauptstadttor von Ephesos.” AK 25: 145–49. Seiterle, G. 1998. “Grabungen.” ÖJh 67: 78. Sjöqvist, E. 1954. “Kaisareion: A Study in Architectural Iconography.” ORom 1: 86–108. Sokolicek, A. 2009a. “Zwischen Stadt und Land: Neues zum Magnesischen Tor in Ephesos: Erste Ergebnisse.” ÖJh 78: 321–47. Sokolicek, A. 2009b. Diateichismata: zu dem Phänomen innerer Befestigungsmauern im griechischen Städtebau. Vienna: Ö A I. Sokolicek, A. 2010. “Chronologie und Nutzung des Magnesischen Tores von Ephesos.” ÖJh 79: 259–81. Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. 2006. “Das römische Haus: Die memoria der Mauern.” In Erinnerungsorte der Antike: Die römische Welt, 300–20. Edited by E. SteinHölkeskamp and K. J. Hölkeskamp. Munich: Beck. Stengel, P. 1896. “Artemisia.” In RE 2.1442. Steskal, M. 2010. Das Prytaneion in Ephesos. FiE 9.4. Vienna: Ö AW. Steskal, M. 2011. “Badewesen und Bäderarchitektur von Ephesos in frühbyzantinischer Zeit.” In Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit, 83–101. Edited by F. Daim and S. Ladstätter. Mainz: RGZm. Steskal, M. 2013. “Wandering Cemeteries: Roman and Late Roman Burials in the Capital of the Province of Asia.” In Le mort dans la ville: Pratiques, contextes et impacts des inhumations intra-muros en Anatolie, du début de l’Âge du Bronze à l’époque romaine: Istanbul 14–15 Novembre 2011: 2èmes Rencontres d’archéologie de l’IFÉA, 243–57. Edited by O. Henry. Istanbul: IFEA. Steskal, M. 2014. “Ephesos and Its Harbours: A City in Search of Its Place.” In Häfen und Hafenstädte im östlichen Mittelmeerraum von der Antike bis in byzantinische Zeit: Neue Entdeckungen und aktuelle Forschungsansätze, 325–38. Edited by S. Ladstätter, F. Pirson, and T. Schmidts. SoSchrÖAI 52. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Steskal, M., A. Rembart, A. Pülz and M. Binder. 2015. “Die Bestattungen im sogenannten Serapeion von Ephesos.” ÖJh 84: 259–99.

276

Bibliography

Still, T. 2006. “Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostle’s Tentmaking and Social Class.” JBL 125: 781–95. Stinson, P. 2007. “Imitation and Adaptation in Architectural Design: Two Roman Basilicas at Ephesus and Aphrodisias.” In Neue Zeiten – neue Sitten: Zu Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, 91–100. Edited by M. Meyer. Vienna: Phoibos. Stock, F. et al. 2013. “In Search of the Harbours: New Evidence of Late Roman and Byzantine Harbours of Ephesus.” Quaternary International 312: 57–69. Stock, F. et al. 2014. “The Palaeogeographies of Ephesos (Turkey), Its Harbours, and the Artemision: A Geoarchaeological Reconstruction for the Timespan 1500–300 BC.” Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supp. 58.2: 33–66. Stock, F. et al. 2016. “Human Impact on Holocene Sediment Dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean: The Example of the Roman Harbour of Ephesus.” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 41.7: 980–96. Stone, D. L. and L. M. Stirling. 2007. “Funerary Monuments and Mortuary Practices in the Landscapes of North Africa.” In Mortuary Landscapes of North Africa, 3–31. Edited by D. L. Stone and L. M. Stirling. Phoenix Supplementary Volume 43. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Strocka, V. M. 1977. Die Wandmalerei der Hanghäuser in Ephesos. FiE 8.1. Vienna: ÖAW. Strocka, V. M. 1989. “Zeus, Marnas und Klaseas: Ephesische Brunnenfiguren von 93 n. Chr.” In Festschrift für Jale Inan, 77–92. Edited by N. Başgelen. Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. Strocka, V. M. 2010. Die Gefangenenfassade an der Agora von Korinth: ihr Ort in der rö­ mischen Kunstgeschichte. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Stucchi, S. 1975. Architettura cirenaica. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Taeuber, H. 2005. “Graffiti.” In H. Thür, Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 132–43. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Taeuber, H. 2014. “Graffiti.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 331–44. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Taeuber, H. 2016. “Graffiti.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 233–57 and 751–63. Edited by E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Tek, F. 1972. “1969–1970 Yılı Domitianus Tapınağı Kriptoportik kazısında bulunan kandiller.” Efes Harabeleri ve Müzesi Yilliği 1: 36–42. Theissen, G. 1982. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Thériault, G. 2001. “Remarques sur le culte des magistrats romains en Orient.” In Mélanges Pierre Rodrigue Brind’Amour, 85–95. Edited by P. Senay and P. Brind’Amour. CEA 38. Québec: Université du Québec à Trois Rivières.

Bibliography

277

Thériault, G. 2012. “Culte des évergètes (magistrats) romains et agônes en Asie Mineure.” In Stephanèphoros: De l’économie antique à l’Asie Mineure: Hommages à Raymond Descat, 377–88. Edited by K. Konuk. Pessac: Ausonius. Thierry, J.-M. 2002. Armenien im Mittelalter. Translated by H. Goltz. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Thomas, C. M. 2005. “Placing the Dead: Funerary Practice and Social Stratification in the Early Roman Period at Corinth and Ephesos.” In Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches, 281–304. Edited by D. N. Schowalter and S. J. Friesen. HTS 53. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Thomas, C. M. 2010. “Greek Heritage in Roman Corinth and Ephesos.” In Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society, 117–47. NovTSup 134. Edited by S. J. Friesen, D. Schowalter and J. Walters. Leiden: Brill. Thomas, C. M. and C. İçten. 1999. “The Ephesian Ossuaries and Roman Influence on the Production of Burial Containers.” In 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos: Akten des Symposions Wien 1995, 549–54. Edited by H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger. AForsch 1 = DenkschrWien 260. Vienna: ÖAW. Thomas, C. M. and C. İçten. 2007. “The Ostothekai of Ephesos and the Rise of Sarcophagus Inhumation: Death, Conspicuous Consumption, and Roman Freedmen.” In Akten des Symposiums des Sarkophag-Corpus 2001: Marburg, 2.–7. Juli 2001, 335–44. Edited by G. Koch. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Thomas, J. 2001. “Archaeologies of Place and Landscape.” In Archaeological Theory Today, 165–86. Edited by Ian Hodder. Cambridge: Blackwell. Thür, G. 2003. “Gerichtliche Rolle des Asylanspruchs.” In Das antike Asyl: Kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und politische Funktion, 23–36. Edited by M. Dreher. Akten der Gesellschaft für griechische und hellenistische Rechtsge­ schichte 15. Cologne: Böhlau. Thür, H. 1985. “Ephesische Bauhütten in der Zeit der Flavier und der Adoptivkaiser.” In Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festschrift für H. Vetters, 181–87. Edited by M. Kandler et al. Vienna: A. Holzhausen. Thür, H. 1995. “Der ephesische Ktistes Androklos und (s)ein Heroon am Embolos.” ÖJh 64: 63–105. Thür, H. 1996. “Ein dorischer Torbau am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos.” In Fremde Zeiten: Festschrift für Jürgen Borchhardt, 1.345–61. Edited by F. Blakolmer et al. Vienna: Phoibos. Thür, H. 2002. “Kontinuität und Diskontinuität im ephesischen Wohnbau der frühen Kaiserzeit.” In Patris und Imperium: Kulturelle und politische Identität in den Städten der römischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium Köln November 1998, 257–64. Edited by C. Berns et al. BABeschSup 8. Leuven: Peeters.

278

Bibliography

Thür, H. 2004. “Ephesos: Bauprogramme für den Kaiser.” In Macht der Archiktur— Architektur der Macht, 221–30. Edited by E. L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Thür, H. 2005. Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2007a. “Wie römisch ist der sog. Staatsmarkt in Ephesos?” In Neue Zeiten – neue Sitten: Zu Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, 77–90. Edited by M. Meyer. Vienna: Phoibos. Thür, H. 2007b. “Das Gymnasion an der oberen Agora in Ephesos.” In Πότνια Θηρῶν: Festschrift für Gerda Schwarz zum 65. Geburtstag, 403–14. Edited by E. Christof et al. Vienna: Phoibos. Thür, H. 2014a. “Rekonstruktion der Bauphasen.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 121–39. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2014b. “Die WE 6: Vereinshaus eines dionysischen Kultvereins?” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 849–53. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2014c. “Türen.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 179–89. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Thür, H. 2018. “Dionysos in Ephesos: Das Theater und Umgebung als (s)ein Kultort.” In Akten des 16. Österreichischen Archäologentages am Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Wien vom 25.–27. Februar 2016, 455–68. Edited by G. Schörner and K. Meinecke. Vienna: Phoibos. Thür, H. and E. Rathmayr, eds. 2014. Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Tırpan A., Z. Gider and A. Büyüközer. 2012. “The Temple of Hekate at Lagina.” In Dipteros und Pseudodipteros: Bauhistorische und archäologische Forschungen, 181– 202. Edited by T. Schulz. Byzas 12. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1996. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Trebilco, P. 2008. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Trümper, M. 2006. “Negotiating Religious and Ethnic Identity: The Case of Clubhouses in Late Hellenistic Delos.” In Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft: Kosmopolitische Zentren des antiken Mittelmeerraumes als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen und Religionsgemeinschaften: Akten eines Symposiums des Archäologischen Institutes der Universität Hamburg (12–14 October 2005), 113–40. Edited by I. Nielsen. Hephaistos 24. Augsburg: Camelion. Trumpf-Lyritzaki, M. 1981. “Glocke.” RAC 11: 164–96.

Bibliography

279

Tuchelt, K. 1981. “Zum Problem ‘Kaisareion—Sebasteion’: Eine Frage zu den Anfängen des römischen Kaiserkultes.” MDAI (I) 31: 167–86. Türkoğlu, S. 1972. “Domitianus Kriptoportik’i Kazısında Bulunan Portreler.” Efes Harabeleri ve Müzesi Yıllığı 1: 15–31. Türkoğlu, S. and R. Meriç. 1972. “Domitian Kripto-portiği Kazısı Ön Raporu.” Efes Harabeleri ve Müzesi Yıllığı 1: 5–11. Turner, V. 1967. “Betwixt and Between: The Liminal Period in Rites de Passage.” In The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual, 93–111. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Tybout, R. 2005. “ ‘Herrscher, erhalte dieses Haus’: Reiterheroen im Hauskult.” In Otium: Festschrift für Volker Michael Strocka, 391–98. Edited by T. Ganschow and M. Steinhart. Remshalden: Greiner. Vallois, R. 1944. L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos jusqu’à l’éviction des Déliens (166 av. J.-C.), 1: Les monuments. BEFAR 157. Paris: de Boccard. van Bremen, R. 1993. Review of The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City by Guy Rogers. JRS 83: 245–46. van Gennep, A. 1999. Übergangsriten (Les rites de passage). Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag. van Tilburg, C. 2007. Traffic and Congestion in the Roman Empire. New York: Routledge. van Tilburg, C. 2008. “Gates, Suburbs and Traffic in the Roman Empire.” BABesch 83: 133–47. Vetters, H. 1966. “Zum byzantinischen Ephesos.” JÖByz 15: 273–87. Vetters, H. 1971. “Ephesos: Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1970.” AAWW 108: 85–101. Vetters, H. 1972. “Ephesos: Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht 1971.” AAWW 109: 1–20. Vetters, H. 1972–75a. “Die Hanghäuser an der Kuretenstraße.” ÖJh 50: 331–79. Vetters, H. 1972–75b. “Grabungen in Ephesos von 1960–1969 bzw. 1970: Domitiansterrasse und Domitiangasse.” ÖJh 50: 310–30. Virgilio, B. 2003. Lancia, diadema e porpora: Il re e la regalità ellenistica. Pisa: Giardini. Volp, U. 2002. Tod und Ritual in den christlichen Gemeinden der Antike. VCSup 65. Leiden: Brill. von Gerkan, A. 1924. Griechische Städteanlagen: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des Städtebaues im Altertum. Berlin: de Gruyter. von Hesberg, H. 1992. Römische Grabbauten. Darmstadt: WBG. von Hesberg, H. 1994. Formen privater Repräsentation in der Baukunst des 2. und 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Vienna: Böhlau. von Hesberg, H. 2002. “Die Basilika von Ephesos: Die kulturelle Kompetenz der neuen Stifter.” In Patris und Imperium: Kulturelle und politische Identität in den Städten der römischen Provinzen Kleinasiens in der frühen Kaiserzeit: Kolloquium Köln, November 1998, BABeschSup 8, 149–58. Edited by C. Berns et al. Leuven: Peeters. von Hesberg, H. and P. Zanker. 1987. “Einleitung.” In Römische Gräberstraßen.: Selbstdarstellung—Status—Standard: Kolloquium in München vom 28. bis 30. Oktober 1985, 9–20. Edited by H. von Hesberg and P. Zanker. Bayerische Akademie

280

Bibliography

der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Abhandlungen 96. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Waldner, A. 2014. “Keramik.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 6: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 435–60. Edited by H. Thür and E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.9. Vienna: ÖAW. Walker, S. 1985. Memorials to the Roman Dead. London: British Museum. Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Iulius. Oxford: Clarendon. Weismann, W. 1981. “Gladiator.” RAC 11: 23–45. Weiss, P. 2002. “Asiarchen sind Archiereis Asias: Eine Antwort auf S. J. Friesen.” In Widerstand-Anpassung-Integration: die griechische Staatenwelt und Rom: Festschrift für Jürgen Deininger zum 65. Geburtstag, 241–54. Edited by N. Ehrhardt and L.-M. Günther. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. White, L. M. 1996. The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, vol. 1: Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation Among Pagans, Jews, and Christians. HTS 42. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International. Wilberg, W. 1906. “Das Viersäulendenkmal auf der Arkadiane.” In Forschungen in Ephesos: Veröffentlicht vom Ö sterreichischen Archäologischen Institute, 132–42. Edited by O. Benndorf. FiE 1. Vienna: Alfred Hölder. Wild, R. A. 1981. Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Sarapis. Leiden: Brill. Winter, F. 1971. Greek Fortifications. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Winter, J. J. 1992. “The Ephebes’ Song: Tragoidia and Polis.” In Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context, 20–62. Edited by J. J. Winkler and F. I. Zeitlin. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wiplinger, G. 2006. “Wasser für Ephesos: Stand der Erforschung der Wasserversorgung.” In Cura Aquarum in Ephesus: Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, 23–39. Edited by G. Wiplinger. BABeschSup 12 = SoSchrÖAI 42. Leiden: Peeters. Wiplinger, G. 2011. “Die Wasserversorgung von Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit.” In Ephesos in byzantinischer Zeit, 103–23. Edited by F. Daim and S. Ladstätter. Mainz: RGZm. Wiplinger, G. and G. Wlach. 1995. Ephesos: 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen. Vienna: Böhlau. Witulski, T. 2007. Kaiserkult in Kleinasien: die Entwicklung der kultisch-religiösen Kaiserverehrung in der römischen Provinz von Augustus bis Antoninus Pius. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht. Wood, J. T. 1877. Discoveries at Ephesus: Including the Site and Remains of the Great Temple of Diana. London: Longmans. Yegül, F. 2010. Bathing in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

281

Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, S. 1995. “Subsidiary Factories of Italian Sigillata Potters: The Ephesian Evidence.” In Ephesos Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture, 217–28. Edited by H. Koester. HTS 41. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International. Zabrana, L. 2011. “Vorbericht zur sog. Tribüne im Artemision von Ephesos: Ein neues Odeion im Heiligtum der Artemis.” ÖJh 80: 341–64. Zabrana, L. 2012. “Im heiligen Bezirk des Artemisions: Neue Erkenntnisse zur ‘Tribüne’ in Ephesos.” AW 5: 74–81. Zibawi, M. 2004. Koptische Kunst: Das christliche Ägypten von der Spätantike bis zur Gegenwart. Translated by K. Pichler. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner. Zimmermann, N. 2005a. “Die Wandmalereien der Wohneinheit 4.” In H. Thür, Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 4: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 105–31. FiE 8.6. Vienna: ÖAW. Zimmermann, N. 2005b. “Ein Gemmenabdruck im Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Überlegungen zum Hausherrn der Wohneinheit 2.” In Synergia: Festschrift für F. Krinzinger, 377–83. Edited by B. Brandt, V. Gassner, and S. Ladstätter. Vienna: Phoibos. Zimmermann, N. 2009a. “Nuove immagini di S. Paolo nella pittura di Efeso e Roma.” In Tra Ostia ed Efeso: Immagini dipinte e rappresentazioni di S. Paolo tra oriente e oc­ cidente: Catalogo della Mostra Museo della via Ostiense a Porta San Paolo 24 aprile– 30 giugno 2009, 37–40. Edited by S. Falzone et al. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Zimmermann, N. 2009b. “Virtuelle Reise durch eine römische Totenstadt.” Thema: Das Forschungsmagazin der ÖAW 4: 8–9. Zimmermann, N. 2010a. “Die spätantike und byzantinische Malerei in Ephesos.” In Byzanz – Das Römerreich im Mittelalter: Pracht und Alltag eines Weltreiches, 615–62. Edited by F. Daim and J. Drauschke. Mainz: RGZm. Zimmermann, N. 2010b. “Nuove immagini da Roma: Una rappresentazione di S. Tecla nella catacomba di Domitilla.” In Atti del X congresso internazionale dell’A IPMA = Annali di Archeologia e Storia Antica 18.2, 671–81 and pl. 64–65. Edited by I. Bragantini. Naples: Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale.” Zimmermann, N. 2011. “Das Sieben-Schläfer-Zömeterium in Ephesos: Neue Forschungen zu Baugeschichte und Ausstattung eines ungewöhnlichen Bestattungskomplexes.” ÖJh: 365–407. Zimmermann, N. 2016. “Wandmalerei.” In Das Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7: Baubefund, Ausstattung, Funde, 731–50. Edited by E. Rathmayr. FiE 8.10. Vienna: ÖAW. Zimmermann, N. 2017. “Archäologische Zeugnisse von Gemeinschafts- und Kultmählern aus römischer Zeit am Beispiel von Ephesos.” In The Eucharist:

282

Bibliography

Its Origins and Contexts: Sacred Meal, Communal Meal, Table Fellowship in Late Antiquity, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, 1615–32. Edited by D. Helholm and D. Sänger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Zimmermann, N. and S. Ladstätter. 2011. Wall Painting in Ephesos from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları.

Subject Index Abgar 3, 69, 83–84 Abraham 64 pictured with Isaac 64, 69 acclamation 63–64 Acilius Iulius, Claudius 176 Acts of John 69 Acts of Timothy 69 afterlife 123, 124, 125 agathos daimon 214, 216–17, 227 Agonothete(s) 137, 195–96, 199, 205, 207 Alexander the Great 136, 195, 198, 241, 242 altar 5, 7, 11–13, 18–20, 22, 31, 35, 63, 68, 117, 137–38, 141–42, 152–53, 164–66, 211, 219–21, 223, 233, 243–44 of the Artemision see Temple of Artemis Alytarchos Stoa 84 Ancestor cult 216, 218, 227, 241, 246 Androklos 75, 114 Heroon of 74–76, 219 Anubis 58 Aphrodite 149, 231–33, 246 apocryphal writings 2, 67, 69 Apollo 13, 96, 231 Apollonius of Tyana 118 apostle 64, 66, 68–69, 176 Aqueduct 18, 112 Aristion, Tiberius, Claudius 21, 112, 176, 204–5 Aristonikos 195 architectural order 13 Corinthian 15, 29, 45, 53 Doric 25, 27–29, 95–96, 111, 165, 168 Ionic 15, 29, 53, 141, 146 Arkadiane Street 77, 80 Artemis 5, 113–16 152–53, 158–62, 164–66, 176–77, 198, 202, 204, 219–20, 244–45 Artemision see Temple of Artemis artisans 174–75, 183, 188, 206 association/collegium 2, 5, 27, 124, 135–38, 143–44, 146–47, 149–50, 153–54, 212 asylia 118 Athena 199, 221, 224–25, 231, 233 Attalos II Philadelphos 138, 177

Augusteum/Sebasteion 5–6, 160, 162, 164, 168, 199, 202–3 Augustus, emperor 3, 5, 94–95, 103, 117–18, 131, 141, 163, 195–96, 199, 201–3 Octavian 94, 196–97, 201–2 Austrian Archaeological Institute 63–64, 82, 93, 95, 165, 166, 182, 227 balneum 77 banquet/banquet hall 5, 84, 135, 137, 142–47, 150, 152–54 barbarian figures 29 barrier slab 74, 82–83 basileia 116, 142–43 Basilica of St. John 199 basilike stoa 95, 103–4, 202–3 baths/bathing 18, 73, 76–77, 79, 93, 103, 142, 144, 147, 176, 181 areas within a bath 77 Bath, Harbor see Harbor Baths Baths of Varius 93 bishop 3, 79, 124, 136 bishop’s palace/Episkopeion 3, 79 Bouleuterion 93 burial containers 126 ostotheke 125–27, 130 pottery 126 sarcophagus 64, 112, 126–27, 130 burial goods 123 burial house/tomb/grave 4, 5, 67–68, 76, 117, 126–27, 129–31, 168, 172, 174–76, 216 catacomb 64 Catacomb of Commodilla 68 Catacomb of Domitilla 69 New Catacomb 64 reuse of 130 uniformity of 127, 130 wall painting 130 burial/funeral ( funus) practice 1, 4–5, 84–85, 123–31, 174, 218 cremation 4, 125–26 inhumation 4, 125 procession (pompa funebris) 130–31 burial monuments/gravestones 124–25, 130–31, 172, 176, 188–89, 216

284 burial site/necropolis/cemetery 1, 4, 73, 126–29, 130–31, 174–75, 189 intra-urban 130–32 Byzantine Asia Minor 80 Byzantine Christianity 3, 73, 86 Byzantine city 80, 86 Byzantine district/quarter 77, 82 Byzantine period 1–4, 8, 18, 29, 35, 62, 65, 73, 77, 80, 82, 86, 131, 176–77 Byzantine structures 17 bath 77 fountain 19 house 75 palace 77–79 reservoir 18 tower 18 wall 11, 18, 27 well house 75 Caesar, Caius Julius see Divus Iulius 94, 195–99, 201, 204 cult of 94, 201–2 flamen of 197 Forum of 94 Caesareum at Cyrene 94 capital, architectural 31, 46, 49, 53, 57, 63, 82, 85–86, 141–42, 146, 197 capital of the province of Asia 4, 95, 123, 197, 204 Caracalla, emperor 42, 204 castellum aquae 93 catacomb see Burial house/tomb/grave cavea 5, 138, 140, 145, 154, 166–67 cella 11, 13, 15, 17–18, 41, 45, 53, 57–58 Celsus, Library of 45, 76, 130 Celsus, Platonist author 174 cemetery see Burial site ceramics/pottery 7, 31, 35, 95, 126, 166, 172, 174–77, 181, 183, 223, 241 Chapel of Peace, El Bagawat, Egypt 69 Christ 64–66, 69, 171–73, 188 Christ-child 64 resurrection 125 Christian iconography/symbols 3, 63, 66–67, 73–75, 82–83, 86 Christianity 2–3, 73, 86, 171, 174 cross 3, 57, 63–64, 73–75, 82–86, 203 evangelists 75 nimbus 64

Subject Index saints/relics/martyrs 65, 83, 131 Third Ecumenical Council 76 Christians, early followers 124, 172–73 Church of Mary 77, 79–80, 83, 176 cistern 18 cistophori 136 citizen 4, 126, 130–31, 196–97, 202, 206 citizenship 108 city grid 23, 145, 150, 187 city wall 4, 18, 77, 110–11, 113, 117, 146, 174 Lysimachian city walls 110 Claudius, emperor 28, 41, 176, 203 Cleopatra 94, 143, 159 coin 13, 22, 31, 35, 63, 196–98, 200, 202–4, 223 collegium see association/collegium colonnade 11, 21–25, 27, 31, 33, 35–36, 73, 147, 175, 183 Doric colonnade 25, 27 column 13, 28–29, 31, 33, 45–46, 49, 57, 60, 63, 75–76, 79, 82, 96, 98, 103, 136, 138, 141–42, 144, 147, 150, 152, 162, 164–65, 175, 182–83 commemoration (memoria) 5, 124 Commodus, emperor 42, 136 contamination/purification 57, 124 cremation see burial/funeral ( funus) practice cross see Christian iconography/symbol cryptoporticus 12, 22–27 cuirass 15 cyma 52 Damianus, Titus Flavius 112 via tecta 112 damnatio memoriae 12, 21, 35, 204 David, King 64, 69 Demeter 24, 26, 136–37 diakonia 79 diazoma 138, 145 dining couch 140, 144 Dionysia festival 116, 195, 199 Dionysos 1, 5, 94, 135–40, 142–43, 145–47, 149–50, 152–54, 221, 234, 237 festival (Dionysia) 116, 136, 145, 153–54, 195, 199 ivy/thyrsos imagery 33, 75, 136–37 mysteries/initiation rites 58, 136–37, 145, 150, 153–54

Subject Index priesthood of 5, 137, 147, 153 sanctuary of 5, 135–36, 145–46, 154 synhedroi of 136 votive altars of 138 Divus Iulius 6, 196–99, 201, 210 domestic religion 1, 3, 7, 85, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221–22, 227, 234, 240–41, 245–46, 248 Domitian, emperor 2, 11–18, 20–28, 30, 32, 35–36, 93, 159, 203–4 Domitian Plaza 12, 22–23, 27–28 Domitian Street 12 Domitianic period 181 domus 5, 7, 142–143, 150–52, 212, 228 earthquake 3, 6, 45, 76, 150, 172, 205, 207, 212, 227, 230 seismic catastrophe 76 Elijah 65, 69 Embolos 115, 136, 144, 150, 212, 219 ephebes 4, 115–16 Ephesos as caput viae 112 management of space 76 manufacturing centers 174 Episkopeion see bishop’s palace/ Episkopeion Eros/erotes 46–47, 231 Etchmiadzin Cathedral, Armenia 69 excavation 1–8, 11–13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 29, 31, 33, 35, 41–42, 45, 57, 73, 79, 80, 93, 100, 103, 109–11, 117, 126–27, 158, 161, 165–66, 171, 173–74, 176, 181, 187, 211–12, 216, 221, 223, 227, 231, 241 festival 21, 171 Artemisia 6 Artemis Agrotera 115–16 Dionysia 115, 136, 153–54, 195 Eleusinia 116 Hadrianeia 207 katagogia 145 Panathenaia 116 penteteric 115 Sebasta 202 Sebasteia 115 Soteria 115 Flavian era 6, 19, 138, 233 foundation deposit 7, 211, 223, 225, 248

285 fountain 3, 12, 18, 19, 29, 33, 73–75, 86, 147, 149–150, 152, 222 nymphaeum 24, 33–34, 41 of Laecanius Bassus 12, 24 Four Column Memorial 75–76 freedmen 103, 126, 206 frieze 19, 45–47, 52–53, 57, 111 frieze of weapons 19, 111 funeral ( funus) see burial/funeral ( funus) practice Gate of Herakles 141 geophysical survey 1–3, 6, 13, 19, 21, 31, 79–80, 127, 144, 171, 181–82, 184–85, 187 gladiators 7, 231, 232, 239, 244 GPR (Ground-penetrating radar) 6, 31, 181–84, 187 GPS (Global positioning systems) 181 graffito/i 2, 7, 63, 172, 188, 213, 225–26, 233 grave see burial house griffin 47 gylloi, Miletos 117 Hadrian, emperor 76, 136–38, 142, 144, 150, 153, 181, 204–5 Halls of Verulanus 77, 80, 82–83 harbor 3, 6, 18, 41, 45, 77, 80–84, 108, 127, 136, 159, 175–83, 185–89, 205, 207 commercial harbor 177 Harbor Baths 181 Harbor Gymnasium 77, 80–82, 84, 159 Hellenistic harbor 179 sacred harbor 177 Harpokrates 58, 233, 246 Hebrew Bible 69 Hekate 13, 27, 160, 214, 245 Hekateia 84 Hellenistic period 4, 6–7, 12–13, 105, 108–11, 116–18, 125, 130, 136, 138, 142–43, 146, 174, 176–77, 182–83, 186–87, 195, 213–14, 221–22, 228, 230, 237, 241, 244, 246 architecture 95–96, 110–11, 138, 140, 142, 146, 152, 166, 230–31, 243–44 city 108–9, 146, 241 grave relief 216 pottery 174 pre-Hellenistic 113, 118, 154 ruler cults 143

286 herm 152, 219, 244–45 honorific memorials/monuments 76, 86, 130, 199 horos (boundary) stone 117–18, 188 iconography 74–75, 86 immortality 57 imperial cult 1, 6–7, 11–12, 20, 29, 31, 60, 93–94, 143, 146, 164, 195–97, 201–7, 212, 243 altar 20 imperial forum 93–94, 105 fora of Caesar and Augustus in Rome  94 inhumation see burial/funeral (funus) practice inscriptions 3–5, 8, 20–22, 31, 36, 42, 45, 57, 63–66, 69, 83–84, 86, 113–18, 125–26, 136–37, 146–47, 152–53, 158, 160–62, 164, 166, 175, 181, 198–99, 202, 204–5, 207, 241, 243–44 insula 7, 23, 211–12 Isis 42, 94, 222, 224–25, 233, 246 Jewish scribes 66 Julio-Claudian imperial house 22, 202–3, 207 Jupiter 15, 164

Subject Index Magnesian Gate 1, 4, 73–74, 93, 108–18, 174–75, 181–82, 188 magnetometry 174, 181–84, 187 maphorion 66 Marc Antony 94, 136, 143, 197–99, 201–2 and Cleopatra 94, 143, 159 Marcus Aurelius, emperor 205–6 mask 233, 239, 246 Megabyzos/Megabyxos 202 merchant 175 Messene South Gate 108, 110 metropolitan see of Ephesos 180 mosaic 33–34, 68, 78, 80, 82, 96, 147, 149, 152, 162, 225, 230 Mouseion 45 necropolis see burial site/necropolis/ cemetery neokoros 204–5 neokorate 6, 12–13, 20, 22, 93, 195, 201–4, 206 neopoioi 115, 164 Nerva, emperor 17 Nile see river Nimbus see Christian iconography/symbols nymphaeum see fountain

koinon of Asia 196, 204–7 Koressos Gate 108, 115–16 Kouretes Street 31, 74, 84, 115, 141, 150, 176

Octavian see Augustus Olympieion 181, 206 Onesiphoros, tomb of 67 opisthodomos 13 Osiris 57, 94, 136

Laecanius Bassus, Nymphaeum of see fountain lamp 3, 27, 82, 221, 233, 246 landscape 108, 123, 125–27, 153, 171, 173, 177, 189 landscape archaeology 171 latrine 33, 80 liminality 4, 108, 113, 116–17, 188 liturgical installations 3, 84 liturgical contexts 86 liturgical function 84 Lower Agora/Tetragonos Agora 28, 41, 76, 93, 114, 136–37, 181, 183, 188 Lysimachos 108, 114, 146, 241–42

palace 3, 26, 77–79, 146 Parthian Monument 11 pedestal 57, 140, 144 pendentives 75 peristasis 11, 13 peristyle 13, 80, 82–84, 93, 137, 142, 147, 150, 152–54, 186, 211, 221, 225, 230, 239, 243–44, 246, 248 phallus 212–13 Pollio, Caius Sextilius 202 Marcus Aurelius Mindius Mattidianus  205–6 monument 130 Publius Vedius 202

Subject Index pomerium 118 Pompa/procession 4, 27, 108, 112–17, 130–31, 136, 146, 153–54 portico 6, 22, 27, 29, 80, 138, 144–45, 147, 150, 153, 165 pottery see Ceramics/pottery presbyter 69, 124 presbyterium 41 propylon 42, 45, 96–99 Prytaneion 93 prytanis/prytaneis 195–96, 199–200 205 Prytany 205 pseudo-dipteral 13, 15 public religion 73 Reliefs 7, 12, 18–19, 75, 84, 212, 213, 215, 217, 221, 241–244, 246 river: Kaystros 158, 177 Nile 42, 57 of paradise 65 Roma, cult of 6, 153, 195–96, 199–201, 203, 225–26 Salutaris, Caius Vibius 4, 113–15, 117–18 Sanctuary 2, 5–6, 12, 17, 20, 28–29, 70, 105, 115, 117–18, 135–36, 142, 145–46, 152–54, 158–60, 162, 165, 199, 202–4, 206, 216, 219, 233 Sebasteion see Augusteum Sebastoi 11, 21 Septimius Severus, emperor 66 Serapeion see Temple of Serapis Serapis 42, 45, 218, 219, 221–22, 224, 233–35, 237, 246 Seven Sleepers, Ephesos 64, 73 Side, East Gate 108, 110 silversmiths 175–76 Socrates 66 South Street (Südstrasse) 93, 96, 98, 100, 110–11 spoliation 19 St. Mary/Mother of God 64–65, 69 St. George 66, 69 St. Luke 67, 172 St. Paul 1–3, 62–69, 171–77, 181–83, 188 Cave of 62–70 Staatsmarkt see Upper Agora

287 statue 4, 12–13, 15, 17, 20–21, 27, 31, 42, 58, 75, 113–16, 136–38, 145, 152, 160, 162, 164, 176, 188, 197, 202–203, 219, 243, 246 statuettes 7, 211, 214, 222–24 stoa 29, 45, 84, 94–96, 100–4, 112, 117, 202–3 symbol/symbolic 2, 3, 57, 63, 73–75, 82–83, 86, 117–18, 125, 135, 213 taberna 12, 22, 27, 29, 84–85, 219 Tarragona Cathedral 68 temenos 5, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21–22, 27, 29–32, 94, 117–18, 202 temple/templum 1–2, 5–7, 11–13, 15, 17–28, 30–32, 35–36, 41–60, 76, 93–95, 105, 115–118, 125, 140–46, 154, 158–62, 164–66, 168, 177, 188–89, 195, 202–7 Temple of Artemis/Artemision 1, 4–6, 108, 110, 112–18, 141, 146, 158–60, 162–68, 199, 202–3, 206 altar of 5, 117, 141, 165–66 Temple of Domitian 2, 11, 15, 17, 20–26, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36 Flavian Temple 2 Temple of the Sebastoi 11, 21 Terrace of 12–14, 18, 21–25, 27–28, 35 Temple of Serapis/Serapeion 1–2, 41–44, 47–57, 59–60, 188 Temple of the Sebastoi see Temple of Domitian Temple of Zeus, Aizanoi 27 templon 63 Terrace Houses 7, 80, 174–75, 210, 227, 230–31, 233–34, 239–40, 243–44, 246, 248 Terrace House Street (Hanghaussttrasse)  212–13 Terrace House 1 5, 7, 84–85, 137, 150–51, 213, 230–31, 234, 243–44 Terrace House 2 5, 7, 18, 64, 84, 135, 137, 147–49, 153, 174, 211, 213–15, 217–27, 230, 232–47 Tertullian 69 Tetragonos Agora see Lower Agora/ Tetragonos Agora tetrakonchos 78 theater of Ephesos 1, 3, 5, 76–77, 84, 114–15, 136–46, 152–54, 173, 175–76, 181, 188, 199

288

Subject Index

Thekla 1–3, 62, 64–69 Tiberius, emperor 164, 198, 202–3 Theodosius II, emperor 76 Theokleia 3, 66–67, 69 thymiaterion 7, 211, 221–22, 234, 246 Timothy 136 Titus, emperor 15–16 Trajan, emperor 28, 113, 142, 196, 199 tunic 66

Verulanus Halls 77, 80, 82–83 Vespasian, emperor 12, 15, 21 Via Latina 64

Upper Agora 1–4, 6, 11, 22, 31, 35, 93–105, 110–11, 114–15, 175, 182, 202–3

Zeus 27, 137

wall paintings 2, 63, 82, 130, 217, 219–20, 225, 230, 233, 239 warehouse (horrea) 186–88 xenodocheion 80

Index of Place Names Actium 94, 201–2 Aizanoi 27 Alabanda 13 Ankyra 13 Armenia 69 Asia Minor 1, 12–13, 20, 80, 111, 114, 123, 125–26, 145, 176, 195, 196 Athens 63, 116–17, 142, 152, 188 Aziziye 112 Bülbüldağ 11, 41, 62, 69, 77, 108, 166, 183, 187 Caesareum at Cyrene 94 Cyrene 94 Daphne 67 Delos 96, 142, 153 Egypt 42, 69, 136, 221 El-Bagawat 69 Kaisariane 63 Kaystros river 177

Lagina 13, 15 Magnesia on the Maeander 175 Melos 152 Messene 108, 110 Miletos 117, 135, 142, 145, 147, 154, 206 Panayırdağ 77, 84, 108, 127, 146, 166, 177 Pergamon 111–12, 118, 136, 142, 145–47, 153–54, 177, 196, 201, 204 Ravenna 68 Rome 27, 29, 64, 68–69, 94, 103, 114, 169, 201, 206–7, 215 Samothrace 152 Side 108, 110 Smyrna 172, 189, 195–96, 204 Tarragona 62, 68 Thasos 15, 142 Thrakesion 77