Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:42:53.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ariassos and Sagalassos 1988

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Stephen Mitchell ,
Edwin Owens  and
Marc Waelkens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During 1988 the Pisidian survey project continued at a new site, Ariassos, and for a fourth season at Sagalassos. The team, directed at Ariassos by Dr. S. Mitchell and at Sagalassos by Professor M. Waelkens (Dept. of Archaeology, Catholic University of Leuven, Research Associate of the National Fund for Scientific Research (Belgium)) consisted of Bay Sabri Aydal of Antalya Museum (topographer), Dr. E. Owens, Y. Day, and A. Millard (University College of Swansea), S. Cormack (Yale University), Dr. M. Lodewijckx, R. Degeest, L. Vandeput, and C. Nuitjen (University of Leuven), D. Roberts, R. Johnson, and S. Corker (University of Newcastle), A. Schulz and D. Pohl (University of Münster), and Osman Ermişler (Konya Museum), who represented the Turkish Antiquities Department. The main financial support for Ariassos came from the British Academy and the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, and for Sagalassos from the National Fund for Scientific Research (Belgium) and from the Flemish Ministry of Education (Belgium). Thanks are due to the Eski Eserler ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüǧü, who gave permission for the survey and provided surveying equipment, to the staff of the Emniyet Müdürlüǧü in Antalya and in Burdur, and to the Belediye officials and the inhabitants of Bademaǧacı and of Aǧlasun.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 39 , December 1989 , pp. 63 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For earlier reports see Anat. Studs. 33 (1983), 9–11Google Scholar; 34 (1984), 8–10 (Pisidian Antioch); 36 (1986), 8–10; 37 (1987), 37–47; 38 (1988), 53–65 (Cremna and Sagalassos).

2 Hierocles, , Synekdemos 681.4Google Scholar; Not. Ep. I, 450Google Scholar; III, 399; VII. 221; VIII. 500; IX. 410; X. 516; XIII. 366.

3 von Aulock, H., Münzen und Städte Pisidiens I (1977), 26–8; 67–76 catalogue nos. 229–495Google Scholar.

4 Olçay, N., Annual of the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul 15/16 (1969), 289–304Google Scholar.

5 Robert, L., Études anatoliennes (1938), 368–72Google Scholar; Wilhelm, A., Griechische Inschriften rechtlichen Inhalts (Athens 1952), 103–4Google Scholar; (Bulletin épigraphique 1953, 199Google Scholar; SEG XIII 546)Google Scholar.

6 BCH 16(1892), 426 ffGoogle Scholar.

7 Rott, H., Kleinasiatische Denkmäler, 23–5Google Scholar; Paribeni, M. and Romanelli, P., Monumenti Antichi 23 (1914), 241–7Google Scholar.

8 Farrington, A., “Imperial Bath Buildings in South West Asia Minor”, in Macready, S. and Thompson, F. H., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, Society of Antiquaries Occasional Papers X (1987), 50–9Google Scholar; and at length in his Oxford D.Phil, thesis (1987).

9 Niemann's original reconstruction was based on the survey of Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens II (1892), 98 ffGoogle Scholar. Abb. 57–9, Taf. XIV. It is followed in various standard works: Krischen, F., Antike Rathäuser (1941), 16 fGoogle Scholar. Abb. 24–5; Meinel, R., Das Odeion, 179 ffGoogle Scholar. Abb. 75–6; Tuchelt, K., Ist. Mitt. 25 (1975), 99 ffGoogle Scholar. Abb. 3–5; Müller-Wiener, W., Griechisches Bauwesen in der Antike (1988), 160–1Google Scholar Abb. 96. Recently Filgis, M. N. has made new reconstructions, partly based on his own observations, in Altertümer von Pergamon XV. 1 (1986)Google Scholar, Taf. 94b; and “Zur Rekonstruktion der Odeia von Ariassos und Termessos”, Architectura 18 (1988), 1–6Google Scholar.

10 See Waelkens, M., Anat. Studs. 37 (1987), 40–2 with fig. 2Google Scholar.

11 I have discussed these in a forthcoming paper entitled “Hellenistic Pisidia”.

12 See the paper by Sarah Cormack, in this volume pp. 31–40.

13 See already Anat. Studs. 38 (1988) 60Google Scholar.

14 Briefly mentioned by Lanckoronski, K., Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens II, 130Google Scholar.

15 Lanckoronski II, city map at the end.

16 Indicated as Y on Lanckoronski's map.

17 Arrian, , Anabasis of Alexander I 28, 2Google Scholar.

18 Similar shields decorate the two Julio-Claudian arches in the Upper Agora, and abound on ostothecae in Pisidia. See already Mitchell, S.–Waelkens, M., Anat. Studs. 38 (1988) 63Google Scholar note 36 with all references and pl. VI (c).

19 Indicated as c on Lanckoronski's map.

20 See already its description by Lanckoronski II, 131.

21 See Anat. Studs. 38 (1988) pl. VI (a)Google Scholar. On the capitals from the Lower Agora gateway, the inner row of acanthus leaves is already moving slightly upwards, while the caules have become completely straight instead of twisted. Yet the treatment of the individual acanthus leaves is very similar.

22 Jacopi, G., Monumenti Antichi 38 (1939), 80–97 fig. 7Google Scholar; 95 fig. 11; 135 fig. 13; 146 figs. 14 f.; 151 fig. 16; Crema, L., Monumenti Antichi 38 (1939), 264–306 figs. 52–3, pls. V–XXX, XLIV–XLVIGoogle Scholar.

23 Robinson, D. M., The Art Bulletin 9 (1926), 13 f. figs. 13–22Google Scholar. On the date of this temple, see recently Waelkens, M., Epigraphica Anatolica 7 (1986), 55–6, 58Google Scholar. A complete new publication of the monuments at Antioch is forthcoming (S. Mitchell–M. Waelkens, Pisidian Antioch. The Site and its Monuments).

24 M. Waelkens, op. cit., 55–6, 59 fig. 11.

25 See already the short description by Lanckoronski II, 134.

26 The square concert hall of the Odeion of Agrippa at Athens which had only 25 m. to a side and 19 rows of seats around an orchestra with a radius of 10·17 m. could seat about one thousand spectators. The Odeion of Herodes Atticus at Athens, whose cavea had a radius of 38 m. accommodated 5000 spectators. See Travlos, J., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London 1971, 365, 378Google Scholar.

27 On the introduction of such techniques, see: Waelkens, M., in Macready, S. and Thompson, F. H., Roman Architecture in the Greek World. London 1987, 95–101Google Scholar.

28 The masonry is already more regular than that of the terrace walls of the late Hellenistic Doric temple in the Upper City. See on those walls Waelkens, M. and Mitchell, S., V. Araştırma sonuçları toplantısı (1987), 245 Fig. 11Google Scholar.

29 Similar pedestals occur already from the Early Imperial period onwards: Waelkens, M. in: Devreker, J. and Waelkens, M., Les fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit te Gent à Pessinonte 1967–73, I A, 124Google Scholar.

30 See Waelkens, M.. Epigraphica Anatolica 7 (1986) 51–2, note 91Google Scholar.

31 Lanckoronski II, 131–3, 148–51, pl. XXV.

32 The first examples are found at Ephesus and at Miletus, around 80 A.D.: Hülsen, J., Das Nymphaeum (Milet I, 2, Berlin 1919) 1–51Google Scholar pls. 1–63 and Strocka, V. M., Das Markttor von Milet (128. Winckelmannsprogramm der Archäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Berlin 1981) 22Google Scholar n. 26 and 64 (correct date) fig. 67; Fossel, E.–Langmann, G., ÖJh 50 (1972–1975) 301–11Google Scholar. On scenographic fountains and their use, see also Ward-Perkins, J. B., Roman Imperial Architecture (Harmondsworth 1981) 299Google Scholar.

33 Its lotus flowers are certainly later than those of the anthemion of the Pollio Nymphaeum at Ephesus, built in 93 A.D. (Strocka, op. cit., 24, fig. 43), and can better be compared with those of the small Temple dedicated to Hadrian at Ephesus in 117/118 A.D. (Strocka, op. cit. 26, fig. 46).

34 See Strocka, op cit. 28, fig. 49.

35 Anat. Studs. 38 (1988) 60Google Scholar.

36 The shallow bowls of types 2–3 and type 1 (see Fig. 7) are clearly influenced by respectively the African Red Slip forms 81 A and 81 B, dated to the second half of the fifth century A.D. See Hayes, J. W., Late Roman Pottery, London 1972, 126, 128Google Scholar. The bowls of types (5) and (13) can best be compared with similar bowls from Alexandria, dated to the same period (and even later): Rocziewicz, M., La céramique romaine tardive d'Alexandrie, Alexandrie I, Varsovie 1976, 33–4, 37Google Scholar, pl. II (groupe B, forme 25, c and e–f). The dishes (7) and (8) seem to be an imitation of late Roman C dishes, dated respectively after the middle of the fifth century (Hayes, op. cit. 328: form 2B) and to the second half of the fourth century (Hayes, op. cit. 328–9: form 2C). Finally the bowl of type (10) is related to the Alexandrine group C 1c, dated between the fifth and the seventh century A.D. (Rocziewicz, op. cit. 40).