Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία

1. Site - History of research

On the southwest slope of Panayır Dağ, far away from the center of Ephesus and the busy area of the Embolos, stands an extraordinary structure, believed to be a ‘victory monument’.

The so-called ‘Round Monument’ on Panayır Dağ (no. 34), as it is usually called today in literature, was discovered in 1897 by R. Heberdey. In the early 20^th century, a detailed study of the monument’s surviving architectural remains was published in the first volume of the Austrian Institute’s excavation reports from Ephesus, accompanied by a reconstruction suggestion by G. Niemann.¹ In 1974 it was described in brief by W. Alzinger in his work on the architecture of the Augustan era at Ephesus,² while the morphological elements of the monument’s architectural design have been examined by F. Rumscheld.³ Parts of its superstructure are today on display in the Ephesus Museum of Vienna.

2. Architectural description

The monument was solid – its interior featured no chamber, and it was built employing the opus caementicium technique with unworked stones, surrounded by an imposing two-storey architectural composition. It was arranged into four successive structural levels: 1. The square base, which was shaped like a podium; 2. The first storey with the cylindrical bathron, which supported Doric order semicolumns; 3. The second storey with the cella-like round core and the Ionic order peristasis; 4. The (Attic) parapet which supported a roof, probably of a conical shape.

More specifically, the building rested on a base with a square ground plan (2.05 m. in height, 7.84 m. in width), which comprised one step, three rows of convex stone blocks, and the euthenteria of the superstructure.⁴ The architectural form of the base of this building is reminiscent of the tall podium at Memmius Monument.

The first storey of the superstructure comprised a cylindrical structure measuring 6.04 m. in height. This structure rested on a limestone circular base, whose cross-section formed a spiral (torus). Next followed a bathron made up of marble orthostatai (0.77 m. in height). At their upper and lower sides these orthostatai culminated in cymae, which allowed a smooth transition to the overlying section. Between the two levels of the first storey⁵ a step intervened; this functioned simultaneously as a toichobate and a stylobate. This supported a wall, made up of three layers of marble cornerstones.⁶ Doric order semicolumns measuring 2.65 m. in height (their total number remains uncertain)⁷ and arranged in regular intervals decorated the wall of the first storey. The entablature consisted of an epistyle, a frieze with metopes and triglyphs and an Ionic type cornice.⁸ The spouts of the sima had the shape of relief lions’ heads, alternating with cornucopia horns.

A two-step crepidoma-like structure followed, which supported the Ionic peristasis of the second storey, whose columns did not correspond exactly to the semicolumns of the lower storey. The total height of the columns is estimated to 3.15 m. These rested on unusual bases, differing radically from the Attic and Asia Minor type bases.⁹ Their capitals were also peculiar: on one side we have helices, over the echinus, which bore relief decoration, while on the main side the helices are replaced by floral patterns. Winding shoots and anthemia were arranged in place of the helices, while relief anthemia adorned the volutes.¹⁰ These are ‘baroque’ morphological elements revealing the influence of Roman aesthetics.¹¹

The entablature, with an S-shaped profile, comprised a three-fascia epistyle, an undecorated frieze and a cornice with corbels.¹² Floral patterns adorned the cornice and the sima.¹³ The roof of the peristasis was covered with coffers decorated with anthemia and geometric patterns.¹⁴ The outer wall of the cella-like core was made up of marble slabs, possibly in the pseudo-isodomic system of rectangular masonry. It is believed that the decoration of the wall's surface was completed by corbels. However, the position of the corbels -two of which have been discovered in situ- remains uncertain; nonetheless, in the pictorial reconstruction of the monument they are shown on the section of the outer wall of the ‘cella’, between the intercolumnal spaces.¹⁵

Over the Ionic entablature of the second storey stood a three-step base, with two circular steps and one polygonal, believed to have twelve sides. On this base rested a cylindrical (Attic) parapet, which was carefully framed, culminating in a fillet (taenia) below, while its crowning was accentuated with cymae.¹⁶ The reconstruction of the roof remains tentative, for we lack sufficient evidence about the monument’s roofing. The excavators have supposed that the monument featured a stepped conical roof, whose apex supported a sculpture, probably a trophy or a statue.¹⁷

When describing the architecture of the Round Monument it becomes clear that this was a structure of unusual and innovative design. It preserves elements of the Hellenistic architectural tradition, while one can also discern certain Roman influences. More specifically, the masonry systems, the construction using stone blocks with clamps and dowels, and the decorative architectural elements, austerely rendered, are based on the principles of Greek architecture; on the other hand, the flowing masonry of the structure’s solid core, the absence of a stepped crepidoma at the monument’s base and certain stylistic elements of the Doric and Ionic order capitals suggest the influx of Roman standards.¹⁸

Typologically, the monument belongs to the category of ‘commemorative-honorary monuments’, which were very popular during the Late Hellenistic and mainly in the Roman period.¹⁹

3. Dating and Interpretation

The Round Monument has been dated by the excavators to the second half of the 2^nd century BC and has been identified as a dedication of the Ephesians following their victory at Cyme in 132 BC against Aristonicus, probably an illegitimate son of king Eumenes II and a contender to the throne of the Pergamum kingdom which was controlled by Rome.²⁰ Later it was suggested, albeit with some reservations, that this was a heroon dedicated to proconsul P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus(47/6-44 BC).²¹ W. Alzinger, however, considered this interpretation problematic, while he also left open the question of whether this monument was erected in the Classical era (Xenophon mention the Ephesians built a monument to celebrate their victory over the Athenians in 409 BC) and was reconstructed in the Imperial period.²²

A dating to the mid-1^st century BC appears more convincing, as it relies on typological and morphological elements of the edifice, especially on its similarities to the Memmius Monument and the Octagon, buildings at Ephesus that have been dated to the 1^st centuryP. Servilius Vatia Iasuricus BC.²³

1. Benndorf, O. – Heberdey, R. – Karabacek, J.v. – Kukula, R.C. – Niemann, G. – Schindler, W. – Winberg, W., Städtegeschichte, Rundbau auf dem Panayır Dağ, Viersäulenmonument auf der Arkadiane, Bronzeathlet, Seldschukische Bauten, Artemision, antike Quellen (FiE 1, Wien 1906), pp. 145-180.

2. Alzinger, W., Augusteische Architektur in Ephesos (Wien 1974), pp. 37-40.

3. Rumscheid, F., Untersuchungen zur Kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (Mainz 1994), pp. 165-169.

4. 4. According to W. Alzinger the first step formed the euthenteria; three courses of cornerstones followed. These bore a protruding unadorned crowning, which served in fact as the euthenteria of the superstructure, See Alzinger, W., Augusteische Architektur in Ephesos, (Wien 1974) p. 37.

5. By different levels of the first storey we mean the orthostatai bathron and the round ‘bathron’ of the semicolumns.

6. The height of each block differed, ranging from 0.85 to 0.88 m. Benndorf, O. – Heberdey, R. – Karabacek, J.v. – Kukula, R.C. – Niemann, G. – Schindler, W. – Winberg, W., Städtegeschichte, Rundbau auf dem Panayır Dağ, Viersäulenmonument auf der Arkadiane, Bronzeathlet, Seldschukische Bauten, Artemision, antike Quellen (FiE 1, Wien 1906), p. 146.

7. The pictorial representation of the monument’s first level features 12 columns. Cf. Benndorf, O. – Heberdey, R. – Karabacek, J.v. – Kukula, R.C. – Niemann, G. – Schindler, W. – Winberg, W., Städtegeschichte, Rundbau auf dem Panayır Dağ, Viersäulenmonument auf der Arkadiane, Bronzeathlet, Seldschukische Bauten, Artemision, antike Quellen (FiE 1, Wien 1906), p. 148, fig. 82.

8. For more details on the stylistic features of the Doric semicolumns and the entablature see F. Rumscheld, Untersuchungen zur Kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (Mainz 1994) pp. 165-166.

9. On the unusual shape of the bases of the Ionic columns see F.Rumscheld, Untersuchungen zur Kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (Mainz 1994) p. 166.

10. Benndorf, O. – Heberdey, R. – Karabacek, J.v. – Kukula, R.C. – Niemann, G. – Schindler, W. – Winberg, W., Städtegeschichte, Rundbau auf dem Panayır Dağ, Viersäulenmonument auf der Arkadiane, Bronzeathlet, Seldschukische Bauten, Artemision, antike Quellen (FiE 1, Wien 1906), pp. 150-152, fig. 86, 87.

11. F. Rumscheld expresses a different opinion; he believes that they reflect earlier types of Asia Minor, cf. F. Rumscheld, Untersuchungen zur Kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (Mainz 1994) pp. 166-167.

12. Cf. Rumscheid, F., Untersuchungen zur Kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (Mainz 1994), pp. 167-168.

13. For more details on the decoration of the sima see Rumscheld, Untersuchungen zur Kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (Mainz 1994) p. 168.

14. The horizontal surfaces of the coffered slabs rested over the epistyle, and in fact constituted the front of the entablature’s frieze on the second storey. For more details on the coffers see Rumscheld, F. Untersuchungen zur Kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (Mainz 1994) pp. 167-168.

15. Benndorf, O. – Heberdey, R. – Karabacek, J.v. – Kukula, R.C. – Niemann, G. – Schindler, W. – Winberg, W., Städtegeschichte, Rundbau auf dem Panayır Dağ, Viersäulenmonument auf der Arkadiane, Bronzeathlet, Seldschukische Bauten, Artemision, antike Quellen (FiE 1, Wien 1906), table V.

16. Benndorf, O. – Heberdey, R. – Karabacek, J.v. – Kukula, R.C. – Niemann, G. – Schindler, W. – Winberg, W., Städtegeschichte, Rundbau auf dem Panayır Dağ, Viersälenmonument auf der Arkadiane, Bronzeathlet, Seldschukische Bauten, Artemision, antike Quellen (FiE 1, Wien 1906), p. 153.

17. According to Fedak, I., Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age: A Study of Selected Tombs from the Pre-Classical to the Early Imperial Era (Toronto 1990), the Round Monument was roofed with a dome.

18. Benndorf, O. – Heberdey, R. – Karabacek, J.v. – Kukula, R.C. – Niemann, G. – Schindler, W. – Winberg, W., Städtegeschichte, Rundbau auf dem Panayır Dağ, Viersäulenmonument auf der Arkadiane, Bronzeathlet, Seldschukische Bauten, Artemision, antike Quellen (FiE 1, Wien 1906), pp. 156-167.

19. The Round Monument is examined under the category of honorary monuments, “Memorialbauten”, in handbooks and specialized studies of Hellenistic architecture. It is believed that this type draws inspiration from the monuments donated by benefactors of the Late Classical period. Cf. H. Lauter, Die Architektur des Hellenismus (Darmstadt 1986) pp. 207-212. H. von Hesberg, Formen privater Repräsentation (Wien 1994) (Arbeiten zur Archäologie) pp. 14-19.

20. The absence of an internal chamber means the structure cannot be interpreted as a place of worship or a funerary monument. Thus the excavators have identified the round building as a victory memorial which would have featured a trophy. For more details on this issue see Benndorf, O. – Heberdey, R. – Karabacek, J.v. – Kukula, R.C. – Niemann, G. – Schindler, W. – Winberg, W., Städtegeschichte, Rundbau auf dem Panayır Dağ, Viersäulenmonument auf der Arkadiane, Bronzeathlet, Seldschukische Bauten, Artemision, antike Quellen (FiE 1, Wien 1906), pp. 162-165.

21. Keil, J., Ephesos, Ein Führer durch die Ruinenstätte und ihre Geschichte (Wien 1964), pp. 115-116.

22. Alzinger, W., Augusteische Architektur in Ephesos (Wien 1974), p. 40.

23. On the dating of the monument to the mid-1^st cent. BC on the basis of its stylistic features cf. also Rumscheld, F., Untersuchungen zur Kleinasiatischen Bauornamentik des Hellenismus (Mainz 1994) pp. 165-168.