1. Introduction

The complex is located in the lower city, to the west of one of the main streets, which connected the stadium and the theatre of Ephesus (so-called ‘Theaterstraße’). Approximately 70m to the west of the complex lies the city's Bishop's palace. The urban integration and the outlook of the building's surroundings are unknown because of missing archaeological references.

Τhe excavator F. Miltner initially interpreted the complex as a bath, hence its denotation in older literature as Byzantine Bath or Sarhoş Hamam, which means “bath of a drunkard”. This name derived from its irregular plan. Later H. Vetters identified it as the Governor’s palace. Its various parts date from the 1^st to the 6^th c. AD.

2. Architectural description

The complex (75 by 50 m, i.e. nearly 4000 m²) falls in two differently aligned main parts (fig.1): a bath in the north and a reception hall in the south. These two areas are interconnected by a very long and narrow hall (45.4 by 7.6 m) in the west. Both quoins are apsed, the storefront was not closed but open (arcades). The main façade of the building and the main entrance were not the side of the ‘Theaterstraße’ but in a parallel street to the west.

The entrance hall gives access to the bath which consisted of several rooms (all together: 30 by 26 m). Accordingto the interior installations a specific succession of rooms could be allocated: caldarium (tetraconch room), sudatorium (room with two apses), frigidarium (rectangular room in the south). But there also existed typical living spaces. The orientation of the bath follows that of the nearby Embolos¹ of the Roman city.

A corridor (width of 3.3 m running from east to west) separated this housing and bathing unit from a quadratic hall (19 by 19 m). Four semicircular niches (width of 6 m, depth of 3.3 m) in the four corners of the room constitute an octagonal plan. Accordingly eight pilasters or columns had to support a huge dome (diameter of 9 m).² The main entrance of this tetra-concha hall (260 m²) was in the west, andadditional three rooms were attached in the east. The room in the middle (5.7 by 8.6 m) was asped (width of 7.5 m, depth of 3 m). On the southern façade of the complex a small church (12 by 4.5 m, fig.2) with a synthronon in the apse was added. There are no indications for a narthex in the west.

The monument is one of the most important secular buildings of Byzantine Ephesus. The groundplan as well as the supposed elevation rather reminds one of the well known representative buildings than of a public bath.³ The complex (the Roman as well as the Byzantine parts) was constructed by using the Roman foot of about 30 cm⁴ as a unit of measurement.

A few parts of the wall decoration are preserved in the northern area of the complex (i.e. the Roman bath). There are two layers of frescoes which can be distinguished. The older one is comparable to Pompeji (3^rd style, first half of the 1^st c. AD),⁵ the ornamentation of the younger one is similar to the paintings in the Slope House 2 (no. 51) in Ephesus.⁶ Therefore this layer can be dated to the 1^st half of the 3^rd c. AD.

Only very few fragments indicate that the walls of the Reception hall were painted too. The Entrance hall as well as the Reception hall were floored with polychrome mosaics, but only few parts of the original opus tessellatum are preserved.⁷ Especially the walls of the Reception hall were decorated with marble panels. Quite a number of architectural spolia have beenfound.

The building is made of quarrystones and bricks. The brick-work of the Roman chamber system (bath) was set up in theopus incertum technique, while the early Byzantine walls show opus mixtum.⁸ The domed roof of the Reception hall consisted of bricks.

3. History

An exact chronology of the complex has not yet been determined. Due to its decoration (painting) the northern part of the complex (i.e. the bath) can be dated to the 1^st c. AD. Several repairs are verified for the 3^rd c. AD. Later the bath was incorporated into a complex with a somewhat different orientation. This alteration of the complex and the addition of the Reception hall and the Entrance hall perhaps took place atthe beginning of the 6^th c. AD.⁹

Because of its dimension the Roman bath cannot be interpreted as a public building. Besides, there were three contemporary and very large baths in the neighbourhood (Harbour-Gymnasium, Vedius-Gymnasium, and Theater-Gymnasium). That is why a presumption of a private house with an enclosed private bath seems to be more probable. In early Byzantine times this building was adapted and incorporated into a representative complex. There are no features which would indicate a further function as a bath.¹⁰

In fact the complex can be interpreted as the residence of the Late Antique proconsul and later the Byzantine strategos.¹¹ His palace contained two units: the bath with the enclosed living rooms¹² and the tetra-concha hall (Reception hall) with the adjacent apsed room in the east (possibly somekind of an audience hall?).¹³ The little church at the southern facade was not a parochial church but it was rather a private chapel.¹⁴ Thus the spiritual and secular centres (i.e. the bishop’s and the governor’s palace) would have stood side by side.

The building has been excavated from 1954 to 1956 by F. Miltner and today it is only partly accessible to visitors.