HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN INFLUENCE IN THE IMPERIAL ARCHITECTURE OF ASIA MINOR

MARC WAELKENS

1. Building Techniques

Nearly two years ago the Society of Antiquaries of London organised a symposium on “Roman Architecture in the Greek World”. On that occasion I presented a paper on “The Adoption of Roman Building Techniques in the Architecture of Asia Minor”. My conclusion was that typically Roman building techniques, by which I mean a generalised use of lime-mortared walls and the replacement of ashlar masonry by a concrete-like structure with or without a facing, became adopted here only - and at first very hesitantly - from the middle of the first century BC onwards, nearly two centuries after the first appearance of these features in Italy.’ One of the reasons for this late adoption was the plentiful supply of fine building stones and of timber in many regions of Anatolia, which made these the natural materials for use in monumental architecture.2

Equally important, however, was a long-established tradition of excellent ashlar masonry, on which the standard Hellenistic building practices with their emphasis on the architecture of the exterior had been based.3 In fact, one of the most striking features of Greek architecture, the highly expressive nature of the wall: which became a decorative element in its own right through the assembly and dressing of its stones, had found its finest expression in the Hellenistic architecture of Asia Minor. As a result it comes as no surprise that, during the imperial period, several regions, such as for instance Lycia, Pamphylia, Pisidia and Phrygia, largely remained faithful to this old ashlar tradition, and that characteristically Hellenistic wall treatments continued in use.5 In Lycia, for instance, polygonal masonry, first revived in Hellenistic times: maintained its popularity right into the imperial era.’ Pulvinated walls were

I M. Waelkens, “The Adoption of Roman Building Techniques in the Architecture of Asia Minor”, in (ed. S. Macready-F. H. Thompson) Roman Architecture in the Greek World (Society of Antiquaries, Occasional Papers, New Series 10, London, 1987), 94-105.

See R. L. Vann, A Study of Roman Construction in Asia Minor: The Lingering Role of a Hellenistic Tradition of Ashlar Masonry (Come11 University, PhD., 1976, Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor), especially 21-71.

R. Martin, Manuel d’architecture grecque. I . Matkriaux et techniques (Paris, 1965), 356; compare A. W. Lawrence, Greek Aims in Fortifcations (Oxford, 1979), 232-45; A. W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture, revised with additions by R. A. Tomlinson (Pelican History of Art, Harmondsworth, 1983), 288-93. Waelkens (n.l), 98-100.

Polygonal terrace or city walls thus occur, at e.g. Pinara and Balbura. (D. De Bemardi Ferrero, Teatri classici in Asia Minore. 2 . Cittd di Pisidia, Licia e Curia (Roma, 1969), 82-3, figs. 133-4.) Similar walls can also be found at Cnidus on the nearby Carian coast: I. Love, “Knidos. Excavations in 1968”, TAD 17, 2 (1969), 126 fig. 18; I. Love, “Excavations at Knidos 1971”, TAD 20,2 (1973), 122 fig. 41.

* J. B. Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture (Pelican History of Art, Harmondsworth, 1981), 273.

For instance the granaries at Patara and at Andriace: J. Borchardt, Myra (Istanbuler Forschungen 30, Berlin, 1975), 65-7,73 PIS. 34,36A-C, 44-5.

78 THE GREEK RENAISSANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

still used in the substructures of the Neronian stoa alongside the agora at Ephesus.8 Rusticated walls also remained popular, for instance in the aqueduct at Antioch’ and in the stadium at Perge,”’ while decorative drafting of otherwise smooth masonry, which had only a limited vogue in early imperial Rome, remained popular in Asia Minor until the third century AD, especially in religious architecture.l’ The lingering Hellenistic ashlar tradition also explains to a certain extent why ashlar was at first maintained as a facing of concrete cores, often even penetrating the cores and thus retaining its function of maintaining stability.’* In this respect the mortared rubble could be considered a mere replacement of the earth and rubble fill of the Hellenistic emplekton walls. At Ephesus, for instance, ashlar facing continued to be arranged in pseudo-isodomic courses throughout the reign of Augustus. l 3

Again, as far as archs and vaults are concerned, Asia Minor had a far better established tradition of ashlar vaulting than is commonly acknowledged. It goes back at least to the third century BC, when such complicated structures as sloping barrel vaults were built at Didyma.I4 The architects of Hellenistic Asia Minor also knew how to handle intersecting vaults, as is shown by the theatre at Alinda and by some Pergamene constructions.15 This tradition of ashlar vaulting lived on in the single barrel-vaulted subterranean chamber, built of solid stone, supporting the Temple of Zeus at Aezani (mid-second century AD);I6 in the sloping barrel vaults of dressed pitched stones, supporting the seating of the second-century stadium at Perge, and in the annular vaults below the contemporary theatre at Side.!’ Yet the introduction of Roman building techniques widened options considerably, as it allowed vaulting in free- standing buildings, where the outward movement of the ceiling was no longer counteracted by earth or by sections of long wall. The experience so gained was also applied to ashlar, as is shown by the second-century Large Baths at Phrygian Hierapolis, in which is preserved one of the largest spans of ashlar vaulting known from antiquity.I8

In general, however, and especially from the second century AD onwards, most monumental buildings show a combination of traditional ashlar and new “Roman” techniques, imposed by the poor quality of lime-mortar in most districts of Asia Minor.l9 Ashlar or ashlar-faced concrete, the stability of which was largely guaranteed by clamps and dowels rather than by the quality of the mortar, continued to be used for all supporting elements, while mortared rubble cores faced with small cut stones or field-stones, or with sections of fired brick, were used for

W. Wilberg, Forschungen in Ephesos Ill (Wien, 1923), 78 fig. 129. ’ A monograph on Antioch by S. Mitchell and the writer is in preparation.

lo K. Lanckoronski, Stadte Parnphyliens und P isidiens 1. Parnphylien (Prag-Wien-Leipzig, 1890), 55 fig. 40.

I ’ For instance, the second-century cella walls of the Temple of Zeus at Aezani and an early third-century arch at Pessinus. See R. Naumann, Der Zeusternpel zu Aizanoi. Nach den Ausgrahungen von D . Krencker und M . Schede hearheitet von R. Naurnann (Denkmaler antiker Architektur 12, Berlin, 1979). 17; M. Waelkens in J. Devreker-M. Waelkens, Les fouilles de la “Rijksuniversiteit re Gent” a P essinonte 1967-1973 (Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandenses 22, Brugge 1984), IA 82,90-I; IB figs. 104, 11 1.

I 2 See Waelkens @ . I ) , 96 (Ephesus), 98 (Limyra).

l 3 W. Alzinger, Augusteische Architektur in Ephesos (Wien, 1974), Textband 16-19, 22-3,42-3; Waelkens (n.l), 96.

l 4 T. D. Boyd, “The Arch and the Vault in Greek Architecture”, AJA 82 (1978), 86-7 fig. 4.

I s Boyd (n.14), 94-6 figs. 11-12, ill. 3-4; R. Martin in J. Charbonneaux-R. Martin-F. Villard, GrLce hellinistique

l 6 Naumann (n. 11) 14-6. 17 Lanckoronski (n.lO) 55, 57 figs. 40-2; Vann (n.3), 110-17; A. M. Mansel, Die Ruinen von Side (Berlin, 1963),

l 8 C. Humann-C. Cichorius-W. Judeich, Alterturner von Hierapolis (JDI Erg.-H. 4, Berlin, 1898), 9-1 1; Vann (n.3),

I y Ward-Perkins (n.2), 273.

(L’univers des formes, Paris, 1970). 44-6, fig. 43; Vann (n.3), 56-8, figs. 33-6.

122-4 figs. 105, 107, 109; Waelkens @ . I ) , 98-9.

157-8.

M. WAELKENS 79

the non-structural curtain walls in between.*O Most arches and vaults were for the first time built of radially laid bricks, sometimes used in combination with ashlar keystones or even a stabilising ashlar facing.*’ As this survey shows, Asia Minor was no mere recipient in this process, but adapted Roman influences to local traditions and to locally available building materials. The result was a blend of Hellenistic and Roman building practices. Among the most striking innovations were the use of fired brick walls, with the bricks running through the wall,** and perhaps also the introduction of pitched brick vaults, actually an adjustment of long- established Near Eastern mudbrick techniques to fired

We may also conclude that, with the exception of Pergamum, where there had already been some experiments with lime-mortar in the Hellenistic age,24 one of the most decisive factors for the introduction of Roman concrete seems to have been a personal involvement of persons with explicit western ties, be it individuals (Italian residents, natives who had become Roman officials) or groups (colonists, army). In fact, in the initial phase of its application, most monuments in which concrete was used were either built for or by such people, or construction was supervised by them.25 One gets the impression that native patrons wanted to express their own “Romanitas” by imitating in their constructions techniques from the capital. Good examples include the Library of Celsus at Ephesus, one of the first buildings of Asia Minor with solid brick walls (in its upper section),26 and perhaps also the Baths of Capito at Miletus, the first large “concrete” building of this

Yet the history of Asia Minor during the Roman period is very largely one of the development and mutual assimilation of Hellenistic and Roman building traditions, not only in techniques, but also in the planning of buildings. Here, however, the Hellenistic tradition seems to have been stronger, sometimes absorbing new ideas from Italy, but almost always giving them a new direction, more suited to local taste. Again, the introduction of new building types seems to have been connected with people who had explicit ties with Italy.

2. The Orders

One of the most drastic changes was the widespread growth in use in Roman times of the Corinthian order, and the rapid replacement of Doric by Ionic or Corinthian. As has been shown by R. A. Tomlinson and J. J. Coulton, the Doric order was not in decline in Hellenistic times, as was suggested in earlier studies.28 In fact it was used in the outer colonnade of practically every stoa and in the proskenion of practically every theatrez9 throughout the period.

*O Waelkens (n.l), 95-7,99-101. Waelkens (n.l), 95-101.

22 See J. B. Ward-Perkins in D. Talbot-Rice (ed.), The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors (Edinburgh, 1958), 85,97; H. Dodge, “The use of brick in Asia Minor”, Yayla 3 (1984), 10, 13; Waelkens (n.l), 101.

23 See on this matter Ward-Perkins in Talbot-Rice (n.22), 90-6; Dodge (n.22), 13; Waelkens (n.l), 99, 101. Yet the oldest known example, dated to ca. AD 90-100, occurs in an Egyptianizing building at Argos. See P. Aupert, “Un SCrapeion argien?”, CRAI (1985), 169, and this volume, pp.151-5.

24 Waelkens (n.l), 95 n.7. 25 Waelkens (n.l), 101-2.

26 C. Praschniker, Forschungen in Ephesos V.I (Wien, 1953), 35-6; W. Alzinger, “Ephesos”, ANRW 11.7.2 (1980), Recently V. M. Strocka informed me that there may be an earlier example in a 822; Dodge (n.22), 13.

Vespasianic bath building at Lycian Patara. *’See Waelkens (n.l), 97.

28 R. A. Tomlinson, “The Doric Order: Hellenistic Critics and Criticism”, JHS 83 (1963), 133-43; J. J. Coulton, The

29 D. S . Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture. Second Edition (Cambridge, 1974) 166; D. De Bemardi Ferrero, Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa (Oxford, 1976), 99-100.

Teatri classici in Asia Minore 4 (Rome, 1974), 46-50, 91-3.

80 THE GREEK RENAISSANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Even in religious architecture, the use of Doric was far more extensive than has been assumed in the past. Whereas Tomlinson listed three Doric temples in Asia Minor,?O at least sixteen Hellenistic temples are known to have been built in this order,?’ one third of all sanctuaries built in Asia Minor during this period. The use of the order continued into the second century AD,’2 albeit on a very limited scale, and Ionic or Corinthian colonnades gradually replaced the older Doric stoas. As a result, Anatolian cities lost their predominantly Doric appearance. Ionic continued to be used, but, for more prestigious projects, such as temples or theatre faqades, it was increasingly supplanted by Corinthian. This order seems to have been especially favoured by the Hellenistic kings and was enthusiastically adopted from them by the Romans.?? But, as a study of the known material, some of it still unpublished, shows, Corinthian was already we!l-established in the architecture of several Anatolian cities by the late Hellenistic pe r i~d . ’~ Thus its success in the imperial architecture of Asia Minor may have been an obvious local development rather than the result of Roman influence, and may reflect a general taste for a richer architecture, which was rooted in the increasing wealth of the Asiatic cities.

Yet, throughout the imperial period, isolated examples of archaising features occur in monumental architecture, such as Ionic capitals with the old Ephesian pulvinus in the probably Julio-Claudian Harbour Gate at Ephesus,” or the old Asiatic-Ephesian column bases in the second-century Temple of Zeus at Aezani.’h Moreover, some unclassical types of column familiar in Roman imperial architecture, such as those with smooth or reeded shafts, were already established in Asiatic architecture by the third century BC.” Thus the main

3o Tomlinson (n.28), 134 (Temple of Athena at Ilium, temples of Athena Polias and of Hera Basileia at Pergamum).

31 A study by the author of Hellenistic religious architecture of Asia Minor is in preparation. Besides the three temples mentioned in n.30, the list includes four peripter-oi (Temple of Apollo at Clarus, Temple B at the Letoon near Xanthus, the main sanctuary at Aegae and probably also the temple to the south of it), four prostyloi (temple on the Upper Agora and Temple of Hera Basileia at Pergamum, the Agora Temple at Assus, a late Hellenistic temple at Miletus), four or five distylos in antis temples (the Temple of Artemis at Amyzon, Temple of the Magna Mater at Mamurtkale near Pergamum, Temple of Athena at Heracleia on the Latmus, Temple R at Sagalassus and a possible late Hellenistic temple at Caunus) and the circular Temple of Aphrodite Euploia at Cnidus.

32 For instance, the lower order of the exterior facade of the stage building at Aezani: R. Naumann-A. Hoffman, “Ausgrabungen in Aizanoi 1984”, Vll. Kazr sonuGlari toplantrsr (Ankara, 1985), 3 17-8, figs. 2-3.

33 Compare the remarks of Tomlinson (n.28), 143; Coulton (n.28), 100.

34 For examples of the Corinthian order in Anatolian architecture of the Hellenistic period, see, for instance: K. Lanckoronski, Stiidte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens 11. Pisidien (Wien, 1892), pl. 17 (Hellenistic monument, Terrnessus); Y. Boysal, “Die Korinthischen Kapitelle der hellenistischen Zeit Anatoliens”, Anatolia 2 (1957), 123-32, pls. XII-XIX; G. Roux, L’Architecture de I’Argolide aux IVe et I l k siPcles avant J.-C. (Bibliothkque des Ecoles Franqaises d’Ath&nes et de Rome 119, Paris, 1961), 375-78, pl. 98, 3; W. D. Heilmeyer, Korinthische Normalkapitelle (Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Romische Abteilung. Erg.-H. 16, Heidelberg, 1970), 78, pls. 20,1-2; 2 1,l ; Ch. Leon, Die Bauornamentik des Trajansforum (Wien-Koln-Graz 197 I ) , 156, pl. 56, 4 (wrongly ascribed to the Antalya Museum: the capital is kept at the fire station of Aaasun); Ch. Borker, “Die Datierung des Zeus-Tempels von Olba-Diokaisareiz”, AA 197 1, 40-54; H. Bauer, Korinthische Kapitelle des 4 . und 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung. 3. Beiheft, Berlin, 1973), 109-22, pls. 30-2; C. Williams, “The Corinthian Temple of Zeus Olbios at Uzuncaburq. A reconsideration of the date”, AJA 78 (l974), 405-14; K. Tuchelt, “Buleuterion und Ara August?’, IstMitr 25 (1973, 118-9; R. Fleischer, “Der hellenistische Fries von Sagalassos in Pisidien”, AW 12 (1981), 16, fig. 20; Alzinger (n.13), Textband 83 nrs. 1-2; 135 n. 523a; Tafelband 69-70 figs. 107-8, 110 fig. 178. Other Hellenistic Corinthian capitals from Sagalassus are published by S. Mitchell - M. Waelkens, “Cremna and Sagalassus 1986”, AnatSt 37 (1987), 38-42, pls.111-IV. Recently a late Hellenistic capital has been published by A. Machatschek - B. Schwarz, Bauforschungen in Selge (Denkschriften Wien 152, Wien 1986), fig. 70. Others have been found by Y. Boysal in Stratoniceia.

3s Alzinger (n.13), Textband 80 nr. 17; Tafelband 68-9 figs. 106a-b.

3h Naumann (n.1 I ) , 21, pl. 20b, 68-9 (with references to other Hellenistic features of the peristasis).

Borker (n.34), 39-47.

M. WAELKENS 81

developments in the use of the orders during the imperial period, as outlined above, were probably not perceived at the time as innovative.

3. Town Planning

As far as urban development was Concerned, the concept of the street as an architectural entity, to be given a monumental character of its own, may already have become a widespread feature of those Hellenistic cities possessing a plateiu of distinctive width. The concept was the result of conscious aesthetic aims rather than of compelling functional The impressive lengths eventually achieved in some of the stoas flanking such plateiai led to the development of the colonnaded street. This striking architectural form may have originated in late Hellenistic coastal Syria, but by the second century AD it had become a truly local feature of Asia Minor, applied on a scale unmatched in the Colonnaded streets were gradually monumentalised through the concentration of public or religious monuments along them, but even this was a natural development, for the agoras where these monuments had earlier been concentrated, in city plans of the “Ionian” or Hellenistic “colonial” type, had become saturated.

The main squares of the Hellenistic cities continued to serve little changed through imperial times. The growing tendency to treat them as closed colonnaded courts4o had nothing to do with Roman influence, but was the logical result of earlier developments. I do not believe that the lost autonomy of the cities was somehow involved in this process. For the local citizen, the agora continued to be the centre of civic life, just as it had been before. Nor did political activity cease, even if from now on it was mainly concerned with local issues. The number of decrees was higher than ever before, and the architectural embellishment of the agoras shows that they became a showcase of civic pride and of the wealth of the cities.

Another argument that has been invoked to explain the origin of the closed agora is the removal of all commercial activities to squares specially developed for this purpose. This would have made of the agora a place set apart for expressing civic virtues, consciously closed off from all trade and c~mmerce.~’ Yet the evidence for the classification of many public squares of the imperial period into “political” or “commercial” agoras is not always very con~inc ing .~~ Moreover, as the architectural evidence shows, agoras were not closed off to distinguish them from commercial areas, but were actually given an architectural form first developed for commercial agoras. Specialised market buildings were already known in Asia Minor in the late fourth century BC, and from the very beginning some of them took the form of a closed colonnaded Markets may thus have been the prime influence upon the gradual transformation of the old agoras.44 In both types of public square, Hellenistic notions of design, in which buildings were seen not as separate entities but as the constituent parts of a larger came to full expression. The old free-standing stoas lost their autonomy in the

38 R. Martin, L’Urbanisme dans la G r k e antique. Seconde Cdition augumentke (Paris, 1974), 116-18, 165-73. This seems also to have been the case at Phrygian Hierapolis.

39 On the origin of the colonnaded street and its popularity in Asia Minor, see Martin (n.38), 176-7, 216-7; Coulton (n.28), 177-80; Ward-Perkins (n.2), 262-3,482 n.23; Waelkens in Devreker - Waelkens (n.1 l), IA 123-4.

40 Compare R. Martin, Recherches sur l’agora grecque. Etudes dhistoire et darchitecture urbaines (Bibliothkque des Ecoles FranGaises d’Athknes et de Rome 174, Paris, 1951), 508-41; Martin (n.38), 275; Coulton (n.28), 173-6.

41 See for instance Coulton (n.28), 174-5 (among several other reasons). 42 On this difficulty, see also Coulton (n.28), 176. There is in my opinion not a single reason to connect the South

43 For instance at Miletus: Martin (n.40), 524-5; Coulton (n.28), 176 fig. 86, 4; at Pergamum; Coulton (n.28), 176

44 See also the remarks of Martin (n.40), 526 (peristylar agora influenced by market buildings and by peristylar

Market at Miletus with any political activity.

fig. 101,6.

sanctuaries).

82 THE GREEK RENAISSANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

process,4h and were incorporated within the squares, whose outlines they were supposed to define. This was already apparent in the development of agoras of the “Ionian” type, with stoas on all four sides, interrupted by a street only on one side. In such agoras, for instance at Priene and Magnesia, the agora had already become, by the third century BC, a “building” in its own right.47 Once the desire for a more regular appearance and for uniformity became predominant in late Hellenistic the step during the early empire to a completely closed agora was an easy one. The addition or modification of the bordering stoas, already used as a unifying device from the middle Hellenistic period was a logical way to achieve this end. The colonnaded market buildings may have shown the way. As in the case of market buildings, the monumental entrances to closed agoras were not allowed to affect the interior appearance of the courts, which were regarded as architectural units. This feature, which sets the eastern agora apart from many Italian or western fora, was already present in the late third/early second century BC at Magnesia. Although two streets opened through the rear wall of the South Stoa, its colonnades were not interrupted by them.”)

Thus the development of the colonnaded agoras of Asia Minor, a process which in the case of the Northern Agora at Aphrodisias must have been planned at the latest during the early Augustan period,” had nothing to do with Roman influences. By the second century AD, such agoras could be found in most Asiatic cities. During the same period, markets of the macellum type, consisting of a colonnaded court with a circular pavilion in the middle, are found in several cities.s2 Even if this type may have spread to Asia Minor from southern Italy,s3 the long indigenous tradition of colonnaded market buildings may have endowed it with local character, the only new element being the tholos.

4. Religious Architecture

Another field in which the continuity of established tradition was bound to make itself strongly felt is religious architecture. Here too Hellenistic architects had been far more innovative than is usually assumed, not only in respect of the use of the orders (see above), but also of the plans. The Temple of Athena Polias at Priene, with its equally spaced columns, its opisthodomos of one intercolumnium and other elements taken from Doric temple architecture, established a new Ionic peripteral type, first tried out at L a b r a ~ n d a . ~ ~ This had more influence

45 See Coulton (n.28), 168. 46 On this process, see Coulton (n.28), 168-83. 47 Martin (n.40), 394-408; Coulton (n.28), 62-5. 48 Compare Coulton (n.28). 174. 4y See Coulton (n.28), 173. so Coulton (n.28), 173,254 fig. 81.

On its date, see: M. Waelkens, “Notes d’architecture sur I’agora et le Portique de Tibbre h Aphrodisias de Carie” in (ed. J. de la Geniitre-K. T. Erim), Aphrodisias de Carie. Colloques de I’Universite‘ de Lille If1 (Lille, 1987),

s2 For instance at Aezani, at Sagalassus, at Perge. See Ward-Perkins (n.2), 302 (Perge); Lanckoronski (n.34), 135, 159-60 fig. 138 (Sagalassus); R. und F. Naumann, Der Rundhau in Aezani mit dern Preisedikt des Diokletian und das Gehaude mit dem Edikt in Stratonikeia (IstMitt Beiheft 10, Wiesbaden, 1973).

77-83.

s3 See Ward-Perkins (n.2), 162. s4 See P. Hellstrom - Th. Thieme, The Temple of Zeus (Labraunda. Swedish Excavations and Researches. I, 3,

Stockholm, 1982), 47-5 1 pl. 4 1.

M. WAELKENS 83

that is usually accepted.ss A similar scheme occurs not only at Teos,s6 but also at Selge, where the Temple of Zeus Kesbelios offers a much better cornparis~n.~~ As early as the middle Hellenistic period, the design was combined with a pseudo-dipteral arrangement of the porch in Temple C of the Letoon near Xanthus,s8 and possibly also at Pisidian A n t i o ~ h . ~ ~ In the late Hellenistic period, the type may have survived with the addition of a prostyle porch in the Temple of Apollo Chresterios near Aegae.60 In the imperial period, the pseudo-dipteral arrangement of the porch occurs in at least five temples.6’ Whereas most of the other original features were maintained, the opisthodomus was abandoned, a development already announced by Temple C at the Letoon, which had a false opisthodomus with half-columns in antis. On the other hand, the prostyle porch of the temple near Aegae is also found in the Hadrianic Temple of Zeus at Euromos, where the opisthodomus was retained.62 Another new characteristic of these imperial peripteral temples is the reduction in size of most porches.63 Yet most of these features seem to represent a local development of the temple type over several centuries.

The second great innovation of Hellenistic temple architecture, commonly ascribed to Hermogenes, the pseudo-dipteral temple,64 remained the model for larger temples throughout the imperial period, either with or without an opisthodomus.6s Prostyle porches were built at the latest from the reign of Augustus onwards.66 The appearance of these porches may be connected with the popularity of frontal emphasis in the temples of Asia Minor, already established in Ionic buildings of the archaic period,67 which found stronger expression in a great

s5 For a recent discussion of the temple, see: W. Koenigs, “Der Athenatempel von Priene”, IstMitt 33 (1983),

56 E. Akurgal, Civilisations et sites antiques de Turquie (Istanbul, 1986), 149, fig. 48; M. Uz, “Teos Dionysos tapinagi temenos alani”, III . Arastzrma sonuflari toplantzsz (Ankara, 1985), 227-42, fig. 1. On its relation to the Priene temple, see Koenigs (n.55), 169.

s7 A. Machatschek - M. Schwarz, Bauforschungen in Selge (Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.- hist. Klasse Denkschriften 152, Wien, 1982), 89-91, pl. 18,l.

s8 See S. Mitchell, “Archaeology in Asia Minor 1979-84”, Archaeological Reports 31 (1984-85), 101

s9 The Temple of M&n near the city: Mitchell (n.57), 100 fig. 43. A more detailed publication by S. Mitchell is in

134-76.

preparation. My statement is based upon my own observation on the spot.

R. Bohn, Altertiimer von Aegae (JdI Erg.-H.2, Berlin l889), 46-9, fig. 64. 61 Lanckoronski (n.52), pls. 3 (Temple of Zeus at Termessus), 24 (Corinthian Temple of Antoninus Pius at

Sagalassus); H. Stiller, Das Trajaneum (Alterturner von Pergamon V, 2, Berlin, 1895), Corinthian and placed upon a podium; A. Mansel, Side. 1947-1966 yillarz kazzlan ve arastirmalarinin sonu&m (Turk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari V. Seri 33, Ankara 1978). 122-3 figs. 133-5 (two Corinthi’an Harbour Temples at Side); M. Waelkens, “The Imperial Sanctuary at Pessinus: archaeological, epigraphical and numismatic evidence for its date and identification”, Epigraphica Anatolica 7 (1986), 40, fig. 2,44-7.

62 Akurgal (n.56), 267 fig. 93.

63 For instance the temples at Pergamum, at Pessinus and at Side. Compare Waelkens (n.61), 45-6. @For a recent summary of the theories concerning the date of Hennogenes’ works and his involvement in the

creation of the pseudo-dipteral temple type, see J. J. Pollitt, Art in the Hellenistic Age (Cambridge, Mass., 1986), 246, 316, n.7-8. Most recent studies seem to favour a late third century date for several of his works. See Pollitt (n.64), 316 n.7. To the bibliography cited there add: R. Ozgan, “Zur Datierung des Artemisaltars in Magnesia am Maander, IstMitt 32 (1982), 209. For a recent discussion of the temple at Messa (Lesbos) see M. Pfrommer, “Bemerkungen zum Tempe1 von Messa auf Lesbos” IstMitt 36 (1986), 77-94. See Ch. RattC, Th. Howe, C1. Foss, “An Early Imperial Pseudodipteral Temple at Sardis”, M A 90 (1986), 61, ill. 7.

The earliest example may be the Temple of Roma and Augustus at Ancyra. On its date, see Waelkens (n.61), 48-57. Later examples are the temple at Sardis, the Temple of Vespasian at Ephesus and the Temple of Zeus at Aezani, all illustrated in the article mentioned in 11.65. According to a recent study by D. Theodorescu, now in press, the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias had a porch with an arrangement of columns in antis.

67 As expressed in the wider spacing and the resulting smaller number of columns in the frontal pteron, as well as in the forest of columns in the deep porch at Samos, Ephesus and Didyma. See A. W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture. Revised with additions by R. A. Tomlinson (The Pelican History of Art, Harmondsworth, 1983), 162-7.

84 THE GREEK RENAISSANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

number of Hellenistic prostyle temples. No less than thirteen examples survive, nearly one- third of all temples built in Hellenistic Asia Minor.6x

Again, such features as the enclosure of many temples by colonnaded courts, and the use of symmetry in the overall design of sanctuaries during the imperial period,6y even if stimulated by Roman examples, had clearly developed from Hellenistic practice. The trend towards colonnaded courts is already apparent in the Sanctuary of Zeus at Priene and the Delphinion at Miletus,7” and axially arranged temples within a simple enclosure were known at Miletus from the early third century BC onwa~ds.~’ The combination of this last arrangement with closed halls on three sides of the court was already present in the early third century in the Sanctuary of the Mother of the Gods at Mamurt Kale near Pe~gamum,~’ and was partially established with porticoes in the second-century Artemision at Magnesia and in the first-century North Agora at Milet~s.~’ In both cases the peristyle is incomplete, with one side composed of a simple wall. The replacement of the wall by a portico was the next logical step.

In those parts of Asia Minor strongly influenced by Pergamene architecture, temples set on a podium with steps only on the front need not be considered an Italian innovation. For practical reasons at Didyma an additional stairway between two wings had been incorporated within the krepidoma at the front.74 At Pergamum, several temples dated to the second century BC had a supplementary flight of steps at the front, leading to the podium or terrace on which the temple

This arrangement was certainly imposed by the setting of the buildings against a steep slope, but it also corresponded very well with the frontal emphasis expressed in their prostyle plans. During that same century, similar podium temples were constructed at Pergamum on more level ground, which seems to imply that this had become an established temple type.76 Despite the strong political ties of second century BC Pergamum with Rome, the type does not seem to have been imported from Italy,77 since there was a Pergamene predecessor in the sanctuary at Mamurt Kale, built by Philetai~us.~~ Thus the Temple of Trajan at Pergamum, set on a podium, may have continued an established “local” tradition. In 1986 we mapped at Sagalassus a Doric distyle in antis temple, probably built about 100 BC, which stood on a small

hX Even if the popularity of this temple type may also have been connected with the fact that it was smaller and less expensive than a peripteros, the number of such temples remains impressive. Examples are found at Assus, Pergamum (5 examples), Miletus (4 examples), Didyma, Magnesia and Priene.

hy One of the best examples is the Sanctuary of Zeus at Aezani: Naumann (n.1 I ) , 44, fig. 18a, pl. 4.

70 Martin (n.40), 528, fig. 76 (Priene); Coulton (n.28), 260, fig. 86 (Miletus).

7 1 There are several examples at Miletus. For instance: W. Miiller-Wiener, “Milet 1977”, IstMitt 29 (1979), 162-9, figs. 2-3; id., “Milet 1982”, IstMitt 33 (1983), 73; Akurgal (n.56), 236, figs. 81.

72 A. Conze-P. Schazmann, Mamurt-Kaleh. Ein Tempel der Gottermutter unweit Pergamon (Jdl Erg.-H. 9, Berlin, 191 I ) , pl. I ; Martin (n.40), 527-29 fig. 78. Here too the arrangement was the result of an effort to straighten the different levels around the temple.

73 Martin (n.40), 396-8, fig. 49 (Miletus); Coulton (n.28) 253-4, fig. 81 (Magnesia); 63,259-60, fig. 86 (Miletus). 74 W. Voigtlander, Antike aktuell. Didyma und Milet im Modell (Frankfurt, 1986), 13-15, figs. 8-10, 21, fig. 17,

22-3, figs. 20-29,27 figs. 34-5.

7s R. Bohn, Die Theater-Terrasse (Altertiimer von Pergamon IV, Berlin, 1896), 41-68, pls. XXV-XLIII; P. Schazmann, Das Gymnasion. Der Tempelhezir-k der Hera Basileia (Altertiimer von Pergamon VI, Berlin, 1923), 102-7 Beibl. 6; W. Radt, Pergamon. Archaologischer Fuhrer (Istanbul, 19845, 17, 23, 55 , fig. 19,63, fig. 27.

76 For instance the temples on the Upper Agora and in the Middle Gymnasium: J. Schrammen, Der grosse Altar, Der ohere Markt (Alterturner von Pergamon 111, 1, Berlin 1896), 108-18; Schazmann (n.73, 40-3, fig. 17; Akurgal (n.56), 95, figs. 33b and e, 106.

77 See for instance W. Alzinger, “Ephesos”, ANRW 11.7.2 (1980), 815. 7R Conze-Schazmann (n.72), 17, pls. 4-6.

M. WAELKENS 85

podium with a frontal stairway set on top of a larger krepis of normal Greek type.79 Because of its date and the history of the site, the temple at Sagalassus may also betray Pergamene rather than Roman influence. Yet elsewhere podium temples do not occur before the early imperial period; the earliest of these were mostly concerned with the cult of the imperial family.80 In at least two of these cases, the people who commissioned them came from the west.81 The podium temple was then quickly adopted for other cults throughout Asia Minor, but the characteristic western variety with a pseudo-dipteral plan occurs, to my knowledge, only twice.82 These examples show that Roman concepts in temple architecture eventually reached Asia Minor, and may again be partially attributed to the activities of Westerners or of Roman officials. This much is clear in some of the early imperial foundations of the newly established province of Galatia. At Antioch, a Roman colony, the sanctuary dedicated to Augustus, now dated to the reign of Tiberius, with a curved portico surrounding the temple, was entirely Roman in its design.83 At Pessinus, another Galatian city, where the provincial authorities seem to have interfered strongly in urban development, another Sebasteion of similar date seems to take its plan of a small axially placed theatre in front of the temple proper directly from late republican examples in Italy.84 Round temples were never popular in Asia Minor, but the domed example dedicated to Asklepios at Pergamum was directly modelled on the Pantheon at Rome. It was built, perhaps at the instigation of Hadrian himself, who visited the sanctuary in AD 123, by L. Cuspius Rufus, a Pergamene who was to become consul in AD 142.85

Even within the largely traditional imperial temple architecture of Asia Minor, there was sometimes room for experiment: the temenos of the sanctuary of Hadrian at Cyzicus had colonnades with arches springing directly from the which were decorated with criss- crossed vines.87 Some of the temples at Termessus had arches inserted in the pediment above a broken entablature, or were decorated with volute pediments. Another innovative temple was dedicated to Hadrian at Ephesus; the corners of the facade were carried on rectangular piers instead of columns, and the pediment contains a lunette inside an entablature arched up into the gable.88 This type of pediment was an early imperial innovation, perhaps originating from Syria.89 One of the most unclassical buildings of Roman Asia Minor, perhaps reflecting

79 A plan of the sanctuary and a photograph of the podium are included in the first preliminary report on the survey of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, now in press. See Mitchell - Waelkens (n.34). For instance the double podium temple at Ephesus, probably dedicated to Divus Julius and Roma, serving the cult organized by the Roman residents of the city and the province; the Temple of Augustus at Mylasa; the Temple of Augustus at Pisidian Antioch (a final publication by the writer is now in preparation) and the Claudian temple for the Theoi Soteres Sebastoi at Didyma. See Waelkens (n.61), 71 n.231. The cult of the early imperial pseudo- peripteral temple at Side has never been convincingly identified: Ward-Perkins (n.2), 299 fig. 195a.

81 The Italian residents at Ephesus, and westem colonists at Antioch.

82 The temple at Side mentioned in n.81 and a temple at Cnidus (with a true opisthodomus): I. C. Love, “Knidos. Excavations in 1968”, TAD 17,2 (1968), 124, 132-3, figs. 5-7.

83 On its date, see Waelkens (n.61), 48-58. On the general design, see K. Tuchelt, “Bemerkungen zum Tempelbezirk von Antiochia ad Pisidiam”, in: R. M. Bohmer - H. Hauptmann, Beitrage zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift fiir K . Bitrel (Mainz, 1983), I, 501-22. On its identification, see M. Waelkens, “Pisidian Antioch: finds in the museum of Konya, Afyon and Istanbul”, 111, Arastirma sonuclari toplantisr (Ankara, 1985), 194. A final publication by the writer is in preparation.

84 Waelkens (n.61), 40, fig. 2,44-7,60-7,70-2.

85 See Ch. Habicht, Die Inschriften des Asklepieions (Altertiimer von Pergamon VIII, 3, Berlin, 1969), 9-1 1. 86 Such porticoes occur already in the first century AD at Mintumae (forum) and in a monumental building at Argos:

87 See M. Lyttelton, Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquio (London, 1974), 261-2, pls. 178, 180-1.

89 Compare Lyttelton (n.87), 196-7,260-1, pl. 7; Ward-Perkins (n.2), 339-41, fig. 220.

Aupert (n.23), 153, fig. 2.

Lyttelton (n.87), 259-61, pls. 174-5, 179.

86 THE GREEK RENAISSANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Egyptian models, is the Serapeum at Pergamum, where a lofty hall with galleries, symmetrically flanked by a pair of courtyards opening into a domed rotunda, forms the eastern extremity of a huge rectangular courtyard.”I But even some apparently new temple types had Hellenistic predecessors: for instance, the semicircular Temple of MCn at Side” is more or less related to the Hellenistic Temple of Endymion at Heraclaea.’*

5. Theatres and Other Public Buildings

The same picture of buildings continuing established Hellenistic traditions, occasionally absorbing and adapting Roman ideas in planning, is also found in more utilitarian architecture, notably theatres. Only one example is known of a theatre of completely Roman type, with a semicircular orchestra and auditorium, both elements enclosed within a single perimeter as the seating was carried across vaulted parodoi to meet the stage building. This is the late Antonine theatre at Pamphylian Aspendus.y3 In most Hellenistic theatres, the seating was extended during the empire both upwards and outwards, sometimes over vaulted parodoi, but the auditorium retained its old form describing substantially more than half a circle. This shape was also retained in new theatres of imperial date, in which auditorium and stage at first remained separate units with open lateral entrances.“ As elsewhere, the stage now became the focus of architectural interest. In Asia Minor it was usually of “eastern” type, with rectilinear wall enriched with columnar aediculae set over continuous orders.ys Such “baroque” facades became a hallmark of the architecture of Asia Minor, made possible by its advantageous position in the supply and handling of marble.y6 The development of “baroque” facades, perhaps derived from the architectural fantasies of the vanished palaces and villas of Alexandria and the Levant, may have taken place in the first century BC.” Apaturius’ paintings on the walls of the Ekklesiasterion at Tralles suggest familiarity with the genre.ys

Columnar screens were rapidly reinterpreted and widely applied to other types of monuments, such as gateways,yy of which we now have a Julio-Claudian example in the propylon of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.lno Some of the early imperial arches of Asia Minor, such as the South Gate of the “Commercial Agora” at Ephesus or the propylon of the Sanctuary of Augustus at Pisidian Antioch, were clearly allied in form and function to the triumphal arches of the west.“” Normally, however, the Asiatic arches had more in common with the

yo 0. Deubner, “Das Heiligtum der alexandrinischen Gottheiten in Pergamon genannt Kizil Avlu” (“Rote Halle”), I.TtMitt 27-28 (1977-78), 228-50. See Mansel (n.61), 137, fig. 152; Ward-Perkins (n.2), 300-1, fig. 19%.

y2 For its plan, see: G. E. Bean, Aegean Turkey. An archaeological guide (London, 1967), 256-7, fig. 49. y3 D. De Bernardi Ferrero, Tearri classici in Asia Minore 3. CiftQ dullu Troude alla Pamfilia (Rome, 1970), 161-74,

y4 For a good illustration of the Imperial theatre types, see Bemardi Ferrero (n.29), pls. 4-6. ”See on these faGades V. M. Strocka, Das Markrtor von Milet (128, Winckelmannsprogramm der Archaologischen

yh Compare Ward-Perkins (n.2), 296-99. y7 Compare Ward-Perkins (n.2), 297; Strocka (11.93, 36; A. Schmidt-Colinet, “Nabataische Felsarchitektur”, BJb

yx See Schmidt-Colinet (n.97), 223, fig. 36.

yy See Strocka (n.95), esp. pp.36-7, figs. 1,3, 8-9, 14-15, 17,69; Ward-Perkins (n.2), 297. loo K. Erim, “Aphrodisias 1984”, Vll. Kazi sonuglarr toplantrsr (Ankara, 1985), 541-2, figs. 3-6. I o l Strocka (11.93, 35 fig. 64 (Ephesus).

PIS. 3 1-5.

Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Berlin 1981), 36-7, figs. 66,70.

180 (1980), 220-3.

On the archway at Pisidian Antioch, see D. M. Robinson, “Roman sculptures from Colonia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch)”, The Art Bulletin 9 (1926), 21-41 fig. 1; Waelkens (n.83). 193-4. A final publication by the writer is in preparation.

M. WAELKENS 87

facades of local stage buildings, preferring two smaller orders to the single colossal order favoured in the west.

An outstandingly successful application of columnar facades is offered by a large group of scenographic fountains, with two or even three orders of columns forming a backdrop to a basin of water. They appeared during the reign of Domitian in some major Ionian cities,Io2 and rapidly spread all over the peninsula. ‘03

Among western architectural forms which were eventually established with some success in Asia Minor, we mention first the bath-building. The earliest major example was built during the reign of Claudius by a Roman official at Miletus (above, p.79). Although baths were an important medium for the transmission of Roman building techniques because of the large spans which they required, examples in Asia Minor were mostly not slavish copies of Italian types. At the symposium organised by the Society of Antiquaries of London in 1985, Andrew Farrington gave a most interesting paper on the typology of Asiatic baths of the imperial period. He distinguished several types, only one of which, characterised by a row of three rooms arranged on a parallel axis, with an apse in one of the outer rooms (a type especially popular in Lycia and Rough Cilicia), seems to have been adopted with little change from second century BC Campanian prototypes. Perhaps as a response to simpler bathing customs, the circular room featured in Italian baths was abandoned. In other districts of Asia Minor, some other types of baths (for instance those of Pamphylia and Cilicia with a central covered gallery) seem to be of local origin.Iw But there can be no doubt that most of the baths of the province of Asia, characterised by an axial layout of the baths proper on one side of a palaestra, had an Italian prototype in baths of the “imperial” type. However, the established position of the gymnasium in the Hellenistic cities of Asia deterred slavish copying. Since such baths had to incorporate the functions of a gymnasium, they took the form of a large palaestra surrounded by rooms, some of which were used for teaching. Early imperial baths were far more developed and architecturally more aggressive than their Italian prototypes. It was only from the second century AD onwards that the baths proper became an element equivalent to the palaestra. Eventually they dominated it, though the palaestra was never lost.Io5 As J. B. Ward- Perkins has pointed out, the “Kaiser- or Marmorsaal, a recurrent feature on one side of the palaestra, in plan and location showed a suspicious resemblance to the ephebeion of the old gymnasium.Io6 In some instances, new bath-buildings such as those built by Cn. Vergilius Capito incorporated existing Hellenistic gymnasia; others, such as those connected to the Middle Gymnasium at Pergamum, were mere additions to them.lo7 The plan of the Hellenistic gymnasium of Miletus,Ios with a concentration of rooms along one side of a large palaestra, may even have survived to the second century AD in the “State Agora” of Side.Iog

Io2 The first examples are found at Ephesus and at Miletus, around AD 80: J. Hulsen, Das Nymphuum (Milet I, 2, Berlin, 1919) 1-51, pls. 1-63 and Strocka (11.99, 22 n.26 and 64 (correct date), fig. 67 (nymphaeum near the South Agora at Miletus); E. Fossel-G. Langmann, “Nymphaum des C. Laekanius Bassus”, OJh 50 (1972-75), 301-1 1 (Ephesus).

Io3 Compare Ward-Perkins (n.2). 299. Io4 A. Farrington, “Imperial Bath Buildings in South-West Asia Minor”, in Macready and Thompson (n.l), 50-9. Io5 On this type of bath-building, its evolution and the importance of the palaestra, see Ward-Perkins (n.2), 292-5. IO6 See Ward-Perkins (n.2), 294-5, fig. 191. lo’ Compare Ward-Perkins (n.2), 295-6. lo* J. Onians, Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age. The Greek World View 350-50 BC (London, 1979), 170-1, fig.

log See on this “agora” Manse1 (n.61), 169-86, fig. 185. 74.

88 THE GREEK RENAISSANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Other western architectural forms found only rarely in Asia Minor include the basilica and the amphitheatre. In the place of the fairly broad rectangular Italian basilica divided by a nave with an aisle running all round it and with clerestory lighting, we find in Asia Minor hybrid buildings illustrating the continued strength of the Hellenistic stoa. These “basilicas”, which were never popular, were virtually three-aisled stoas, with the middle aisle one storey higher. I L o

The first example of the type was built by a western official during the reign of Augustus.”) The convergence of the two traditions seems to be reflected in the dedicatory inscription of the Ephesian basilica. The building is described as a basilica in Latin, but in Greek as a basilike stoa. I*

As for amphitheatres, they always remained an Italian rarity in Asia Minor, where normal practice was to adapt theatres or stadia for public spectacles.IL3

Only exceptionally, then, did Asia Minor adopt Italian models unchanged. The only example is the arcaded aqueduct. As the Madradag aqueduct at Pergamum, the most impressive surviving siphon of classical an t iq~ i ty , ”~ and the aqueduct of Priene show,ILs Hellenistic Asia Minor was in no way inferior to Italy as far as the engineering of water supply was concerned. Only political instability may have prevented the development of aqueducts above ground.’I6 The peace established by Augustus, as well as the near-simultaneous introduction of Roman “concrete” in Asia Minor, explain why its fast-growing cities, with their increasing need for good water supplies, adopted an existing Italian model for aqueducts. Here again, it is characteristic that the earliest example, the arcaded aqueduct at Ephesus, was built by Cn. Sextilius Pollio, a supervisor sent by the emperor himself and the very man who had introduced the “basilica” to Anat01ia.I~~

In conclusion, we can thus propose that, during the imperial period, both in building techniques and in urban planning, Asia Minor largely continued the traditions of its rich Hellenistic past. Its wealth of good building materials, and the dominance of local patronage and of craftsmen trained in the Hellenistic tradition favoured this trend. Italian innovations were introduced by people with explicit western ties, and were quickly absorbed by local traditions and thus given a new direction. On the whole, however, Asia Minor was not a mere recipient of western notions of design, but the creator of a new repertory, which was to be inherited by Byzantine architects and thus spread all over the eastern Mediterranean.’]*

Catholic University of Leuven

1 1 ( ) See the excellent discussion in Ward-Perkins (n.2). 287-8, 302 and in Alzinger (n.13), Textband 33-4.

Alzinger (n.13), Textband 26-37; Tafelband 14, fig. 17. See Alzinger (n.13). Textband 28; Tafelband 12, fig. 1%. Some missing characters of this particular part of the inscription have recently been discovered and confirm this restoration. I thank W. Alzinger for this information.

Compare Ward-Perkins (n.2), 290. Perge should be incorporated in his list of adapted stadia. G . Garbrecht, “Die Madradag-Wasserleitung von Pergamon”, A W 9 (1978), 40-9.

Th. Wiegand - H. Schrader, Priene (Berlin, 1904), 68-80.

See Alzinger (n. 13), Textband 21-3; Tafelband 7 fig. 11.

Ii6 J. J. Coulton, “Roman Aqueducts in Asia Minor”, in Macready and Thompson (n. l ) , 72-84.

[Ix Compare Ward-Perkins (n.2), 306.