Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία

αναλυτική αναζήτηση

 ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
z
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Αναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΑΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΒΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΓΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΔΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΕΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΖΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΗΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΘΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΙΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΚΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΛΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΜΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΝΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΞΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΟΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΠΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΡΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΣΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΤΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΥΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΦΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΧΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΨΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα Ω

Side (Antiquity), Theatre

Συγγραφή : Aristodimou Georgia (26/9/2002)
Μετάφραση : Dawson Maria - Dimitra , Kamara Afroditi

Για παραπομπή: Aristodimou Georgia, "Side (Antiquity), Theatre",
Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=9774>
Σίδη (Αρχαιότητα), Θέατρο (22/4/2008 v.1) Side (Antiquity), Theatre (10/12/2008 v.1) 
 

1. Location

The theatre is centrally located in the city of Side and constitutes the largest theatre of Pamphylia, while it is also considered as one of the largest and most significant theatres of Asia Minor. The theatre was accessible from a monumental road with colonnades (via porticata), which passed through the central gate on the northeast and ended to the theatre. It is worth noting, however, that the scene building was erected in direct contact with the Commercial Agora of the city.

2. Architectural Design

It is a theatre of a Roman-Asia Minor style, but there are indications that it was built on a previous Hellenistic building, for which we do not have adequate information.1 This tendency was usual in the area of Asia Minor, where the preexisting Hellenistic theatres were modified during the Imperial era.

The theatre is rather large.2 The auditorium (cavea) was larger than a semicircle and had a diameter of 119 m. The ima cavea is built against a natural slope to the west of the Agora, taking advantage of its incline. For the construction of the summa cavea and the retaining walls (anallemata), artificial vaulted substructures were required so as to cover the incline. These appear on the façade as two storeys of arched opening, where solid pillars flanked by antae support the arches. Two annular barrel-vaulted passages were formed inside the substructures.3 The inner passage led directly through arched entrances to the horizontal diazoma(praesinctio).4 Radial walls support the substructures and form staircases between the two passages, as well as radial barrel-vaulted square rooms. These chambers allowed the direct connection between the two passages.

The substructures are built in opus quadratum with blocks of local limestone, while less attention was paid to the construction of the vaults, which were built in rubble masonry.

The auditorium is divided horizontally by a broad corridor (diazoma, praesinctio) into two zones (maeniana). The lower section of seating (theatron, ima cavea-maenianum) is divided vertically by twelve staircases (scalae, scalaria) into eleven wedge-shaped segments (cunei). Each tier includes twenty nine rows of seats.5 The top row of seats had backs such as the theatre of Myra in Lycia, of Selge, and of Termessus of Pisidia.6 Those seats formed a kind of inner wall to diazoma to protect the seated spectators, as well as those who were moving along the semicircular passageway.7 The summa cavea (epitheatron) is divided by twenty five staircases into twenty four cunei, and it included twenty nine rows of seats, from which twenty two are preserved. 8 The seats are finely constructed, while the rows of seats terminate in arm rests in form of griffin’s feet. The summa cavea (epitheatron) was accessible only by the narrow staircases that penetrated the barrel – vaulted rooms between the two passages. Entrance to the staircases was allowed by doors in the outer annular passage of the substructures.

The orchestra was accessible by the radial passageways formed at the inner sides of the retaining walls. At the late imperial period, when the theatre was remodelled as an arena for amphitheatric games (gladiatorial combats and wild animal hunting), a massive wall (1,5 m. high), was built around the orchestra (diameter 14,75 m.) in order to protect the spectators from the violent activities.

In front of the first row of the ima cavea, a circumferential passageway (0,80 m. wide) was uncovered by the excavations, which was 0,80 m. higher than the orchestra’s level9 It was consisted of upright slabs forming a parapet. The orchestra was surrounded by a drain (euripus).10

The scene (63 m. long, 9,20 m. wide), which was rectangular in shape, was almost as high as the auditorium. It was a two storey structure with an underground chamber. The scene was divided into two (oblong) sections. Each of these sections was divided by eight radial walls into nine barrel-vaulted square rooms. Most of the rear rooms provided direct access to the Agora. However, these entrances were closed, as soon as the inner city wall was erected and the scene building was incorporated to the fortification. It is worth noting, that the three central rooms of the two sections of the scene led directly to the orchestra, and for this reason they are narrower.11 They correspond to the three central doorways of the front wall of the stage (scaenae frons). The scene had an elaborate proscaenium with an alteration of curved and rectangular niches between the door openings (thyromata). The front wall of the scene (scaenae frons) was penetrated by five doorways12 and was decorated by columns supported by rectangular podia. Each podium supported four columns grouped in pairs, and one column at the angles. The half columns engaged to the wall of the scaenae fonts corresponded to the front columns. The columns of the lower storey stood on marble Attic– Ionic bases, they had smooth shaft made of grey granite and carried capitals of composite order, while the half - columns were made of white marble. The two-fasciae architrave was integral with the frieze, which was decorated with relief theatrical masks. Above the frieze, there was a dentil cornice. The ground floor was 9,25 m. high. The columns of the upper storey were made of coloured marble and carried Corinthian capitals. The frieze was decorated with floral patterns. The upper storey was 8,75 m. high, while the height of the scaenae fronts was 20 m. The scaenae frons was a columnar marble screen two storeys high decorated with niches, aediculae and sculpture. This lavish architectural synthesis was completed by a central Syrian pediment.13 It is worth noting that the scaenae frons of the theatre in Side presents similar characteristic features with that of the theatre of Aspendos.

3. Sculptural Decoration

The sculptural decoration is not very well preserved, but it was surely lavish, as it can be seen by the many fragments of statues and inscriptions found scattered at the area of the orchestra. Their destruction was due to the collapse of the colonnade of the scaenae frons.14 It is worth referring to an inscription that names one of the sculptors who worked for the sculptural decoration of the theatre. 15

The relief frieze, that decorated the podia of the two storey colonnade was found in situ, but the sculptures are destroyed and too fragmentary. Its damage was probably due to the first Christians’ rage. The podia were decorated with scenes of the Dionysian Cycle together with depictions influenced by the city’s local myths. Of great interest are the coffers of the scaenae frons adorned with relief figures of Gods with their representative symbols

Consequently, there can be recognized Athena, Apollo, Artemis, as well as Demeter and Kore.16 There are also many statues preserved. Among them are the head of the statue of the Emperor Augustus17 the group of the three Charites,18 the statue of Tyche, dated to the 3rd Century AD, 19 the copy of the Kassel type Apollo20 the copy of the Hope Athena, dated to the Antonine era21 a head of a Satyr,22 the copy of the Dresden type Satyr-Hermaphrodite group,23 also fragments of two Sphinxes ,24 as well as male and female portraits ,25 and finally a female statue which probably depicted a Roman woman.26

4. Date

The theatre in Side is dated to the mid of 2nd century AD based on its architectural design and the morphological characteristics. It might have replaced the pre existent Hellenistic building, as shown by the shape of the cavea that is bigger than a semicircle. In the late imperial era (3rd century AD) the theatrical building was transformed into an arena, while in the 4rth century A.D. it was incorporated into the fortification of the city. At the same period, the theatre was usedas an open-air sanctuary with the additionof two small chapels adorned with frescoes, which were formed at the angles between the scene building and the retaining walls.27 The theatre was rebuilt during the 5th century because it suffered great damages due to the intense seismic activity of the area. Those repairs were made during the last period of economic prosperity of the city.

5. State of Preservation

One of the first studies about the theatre of Side was that of Lanckoronski in cooperation with G. Niemann and E. Petersen, in the periods 1884/5. From 1948 the Turkish excavations began under the supervision of M. Mansel. It is considered one of the best preserved theatres of Asia Minor. Until the time of the Turkish excavations, the lower section of the seating was covered by trees and bushes. The scene building which has been preserved at a height of 23 m. has been damaged. Cleanings have taken place in the area, but the architectural and sculptural decoration of the scaenae front is almost damaged. Many of the damages of the sculptures are due to their exposure to atmospheric conditions and also due to the rage of the first Christians against pagan monuments.28

1. Bean, G. E., Turkey’s Southern Shore – An Archaeological Guide, 2 (London 1979) p. 92.

2. It is one of the largest theaters of Asia Minor, see PECS (1976) p. 835-836, see Side (Selimiye, arch. Eski Antalya) (G. E. Bean).

3. De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma 1970) p. 137-138. PECS (1976) p. 835-836, see Side (Selimiye, arch. Eski Antalya) (G. E. Bean).

4. De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma 1970) p. 137, fig.140.

5. 30 rows of seats at the lower section of the seating are recorded by De Bernardi Ferrero, while in the time of the travelling mission of Lanckoronski in the cavea there were preserved only 26 rows of seats, see De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma 1970) p. 137, fig. 140, table.ΧΧVII.

6. Machatschek, A., Schwartz, M., Bauforschungen in Selge (TAM Suppl. 9a, Wien 1981) p. 73, fig. 4.

7. De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma 1970) p. 137 note 17.

8. Ciancio Rossetto, P., Pisani Sartorio, G. (ed.), Teatri Greci e Romani, alle Origini del Linguaggio rappresentato, ΙΙΙ (Seat 1994/5/6) p. 499. During the decate of 1970 there were still 25 preserved, see De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma 1970) p. 137.

9. Mansel., A., “Die Ruinen von Side”, Belleten XXVI (1962) res. 11, 40. De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma 1970) p. 137.

10. Width 0,73m., and depth 0,68m. This drain for the collection of the rain water was covered by slabs 0,24m thick.

11. De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma 1970) p. 139.

12. The doorways’ size decreased towards sides, see De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma1970) p. 140.

13. It’s an arcuated pediment or Syrian pediment, see Ginouves, R., Dictionnaire Methodique de l’Architecture Grecque et Romaine (Roma 1992), p. 128, fig 66.5-6.

14. De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma 1970) p. 140. Mansel, A. M., Die Ruinen von Side (1963) p. 137-138, fig. 116-117.

15. ….ιμός Γλύκωνος ηργάς[στο] [τα αγ]άλματα της άνω σκη[νής], see Mansel, A. M., Die Ruinen von Side (1963) p. 137 ff

16. De Bernardi Ferrero D., Teatri classici in Asia Minore 3 (Roma 1970) p. 141, fig. 150. Mansel, A. M., Die Ruinen von Side (1963) p. 134, fig.112-113.

17. It was found in second use engaged in a later wall, which was erected in front of the scaenae frons, see Inan, J., Rosenbaum, Ε, Roman and Early Byzantine portrait sculpture in Asia Minor (1966) p. 58 no.127, fig. V.1-3.

18. It was found in front of the doorway B of the scaenae frons. LIMC III (1986) p. 209, No.134, Charis, Charites/Gratiae. Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 158-161 No. 85, table.74. Bejor, G., Hierapolis, Scavi e ricerche, III. Le statue (1991) p. 45 note 54.

19. Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 108-109 No. 45, table. LI.2. Bejor, G., Hierapolis, Scavi e ricerche, III. Le statue (1991) p. 45.

20. Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 31 No. 5, fig. ΧΙΙΙ.1-3. Bejor, G., Hierapolis, Scavi e ricerche, III. Le statue (1991) p. 45, note 51.

21. Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 56-57 No. 14, table. XXIV.2-3. Bejor, G., Hierapolis, Scavi e ricerche, III. Le statue (1991) p. 45, note 52.

22. Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 116 No. 51, table. LV.1.

23. It was in front of doorway C of the scaenae frons. Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 56-57 No. 14, Table. XXIV.2-3. Bejor, G., Hierapolis, Scavi e ricerche, III. Le statue (1991) Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 123-125 No. 56. Bejor, G., Hierapolis, Scavi ericerche, III. Le statue (1991) p. 45, note 55.

24. Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 132-133 No. 63. Bejor, G., Hierapolis, Scavi e ricerche, III. Le statue (1991) p. 45, note . 53.

25. Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 178 No. 114, table. LXXXIII. 3(female head), p. 151-152 No. 79, table. LXXII 3-4 (head of a negro, of the 4rth Century A.C.), p. 177 No. 110, table. LXXXII. 6 (male head).

26. It is a pudicitia type see Inan, J., Roman Sculpture from Side (1975) p. 126-127 No. 57, table. LX.1-3.

27. Bean, G. E., Turkey’s Southern Shore – An Archaeological Guide, 2 (London 1979) p. 93.

28. Bean, G. E., Turkey’s Southern Shore – An Archaeological Guide, 2 (London 1979) p. 93.
     
 
 
 
 
 

Δελτίο λήμματος
 
press image to open photo library
 

>>>
 
 
 
 
 
 

copyright © 2008, ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ

Το έργο Μεγάλη Δικτυακή «Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Ελληνικού Πολιτισμού» - Μέρος Α΄ συγχρηματοδοτήθηκε σε ποσοστό 80% από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΤΠΑ) και κατά 20% από εθνικούς πόρους στο πλαίσιο του Επιχειρησιακού Προγράμματος "Κοινωνία της Πληροφορίας" του Γ΄ ΚΠΣ.

Το έργο ΕΓΚΥΚΛΟΠΑΙΔΕΙΑ ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ συγχρηματοδοτήθηκε σε ποσοστό 80% από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΤΠΑ) και κατά 20% από εθνικούς πόρους στο πλαίσιο του Επιχειρησιακού Προγράμματος "Κοινωνία της Πληροφορίας" του Γ΄ ΚΠΣ.