Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Key Takeaways
Figures
FAQs
All Topics
History
Ancient History

• The “Temple of Hadrian” on Curetes Street in Ephesus: new research into its building history, JRA 23, 2010, 376–394.

Profile image of Ursula QuatemberUrsula Quatember
visibility

…

description

19 pages

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. The research delves into the architectural history of the Temple of Hadrian in Ephesus.
  2. It analyzes construction techniques and materials used in the temple's building phases.
  3. The study includes a critical assessment of previous archaeological findings.
  4. It provides insights into the cultural significance of the temple in ancient Ephesus.
  5. The text contributes to the broader understanding of Roman temple architecture.
Figures (13)
Fig. |. The “Temple of Hadrian” on Curetes Street (© OAT). The building commonly known as the Temple of Hadrian is one the best-known buildings of Roman Ephesus (fig. 1), occupying a prominent location in the W section of Curetes Street (fig. 2), one of the chief thoroughfares of the Roman city. The street lies in the valley between the two hills that shape the urban layout, the Panayirdag to the north and the Bulbiildag to the south.' Discovered in 1956 and re-erected during the following two years, the “Temple of Hadrian” has never been systematically analyzed, and scholars have been unable to establish its chronology, function, and definitive reconstruction. A new project is underway at the Austrian Archaeological Institute to address these questions? and the present article presents preliminary results on the building phases and history of the structure.
Fig. |. The “Temple of Hadrian” on Curetes Street (© OAT). The building commonly known as the Temple of Hadrian is one the best-known buildings of Roman Ephesus (fig. 1), occupying a prominent location in the W section of Curetes Street (fig. 2), one of the chief thoroughfares of the Roman city. The street lies in the valley between the two hills that shape the urban layout, the Panayirdag to the north and the Bulbiildag to the south.' Discovered in 1956 and re-erected during the following two years, the “Temple of Hadrian” has never been systematically analyzed, and scholars have been unable to establish its chronology, function, and definitive reconstruction. A new project is underway at the Austrian Archaeological Institute to address these questions? and the present article presents preliminary results on the building phases and history of the structure.
Fig. 3. Plan of the temple superimposed on the 3D point cloud (© OAI).
Fig. 3. Plan of the temple superimposed on the 3D point cloud (© OAI).
Fig. 4. “Temple of Hadrian” during excavation in 1956 (© OAD).
Fig. 4. “Temple of Hadrian” during excavation in 1956 (© OAD).
58 cannot be dismantled.” From what we can conclude from its present state, the mod- ern rebuilding generally seems to be accurate for the original position of the blocks. We recorded it by means of 3D-surface scanning in 2009,%7 documenting the remains in situ (fig. 6) as well as additional individual architectural members (fig. 7); our documentation will be used to establish a definitive stone-by-stone reconstruction, and ortho-projections of the scans will be presented in the final publication.
58 cannot be dismantled.” From what we can conclude from its present state, the mod- ern rebuilding generally seems to be accurate for the original position of the blocks. We recorded it by means of 3D-surface scanning in 2009,%7 documenting the remains in situ (fig. 6) as well as additional individual architectural members (fig. 7); our documentation will be used to establish a definitive stone-by-stone reconstruction, and ortho-projections of the scans will be presented in the final publication.
Fig. 10. Western horizontal architectrave of the street facade, ancient replacement (© OAI) on the W side, which broke into two pieces and was repaired using iron clamps™ (fig. 5). The westernmost horizontal architrave on the street front (fig. 10) is an example of a replacement of an original block. The decoration of the soffit reveals major differences n the decoration, also visible at the front. The soffit panel lacks the framing kymation ind its decoration is only a schematic copy of the original. The egg-and-dart at the front, oarticularly the casing of the eggs, is much coarser, and the bead-and-reel is decidedly ess filigreed than its Hadrianic counterparts (fig. 7 and 11). This substitution of an older iece also explains why the beginning of the original dedicatory inscription is missing. ‘urther, two cornice blocks of the front arch deviate from the rest of the ornamentation ind might be replacements. To judge by its design, the base underneath the western- nost front column (fig. 12) must also be part of this repair.*> The above evidence shows hat the W part of the front hall, including the western column and therefore the arch of he Syrian pediment, collapsed. Replacements of blocks and ancient repairs can only be ound in this part of the pronaos. During the rebuilding, the amta wall on the W side was hortened (figs. 3 and 5) and, in accordance with the change, the relief underneath the chitrave was probably cut back. This W side was designed as a doorway to the next- loor structure, but because this neighbouring area subsequently underwent changes the jopearance and function of that space is hard to discern.
Fig. 10. Western horizontal architectrave of the street facade, ancient replacement (© OAI) on the W side, which broke into two pieces and was repaired using iron clamps™ (fig. 5). The westernmost horizontal architrave on the street front (fig. 10) is an example of a replacement of an original block. The decoration of the soffit reveals major differences n the decoration, also visible at the front. The soffit panel lacks the framing kymation ind its decoration is only a schematic copy of the original. The egg-and-dart at the front, oarticularly the casing of the eggs, is much coarser, and the bead-and-reel is decidedly ess filigreed than its Hadrianic counterparts (fig. 7 and 11). This substitution of an older iece also explains why the beginning of the original dedicatory inscription is missing. ‘urther, two cornice blocks of the front arch deviate from the rest of the ornamentation ind might be replacements. To judge by its design, the base underneath the western- nost front column (fig. 12) must also be part of this repair.*> The above evidence shows hat the W part of the front hall, including the western column and therefore the arch of he Syrian pediment, collapsed. Replacements of blocks and ancient repairs can only be ound in this part of the pronaos. During the rebuilding, the amta wall on the W side was hortened (figs. 3 and 5) and, in accordance with the change, the relief underneath the chitrave was probably cut back. This W side was designed as a doorway to the next- loor structure, but because this neighbouring area subsequently underwent changes the jopearance and function of that space is hard to discern.
The relief blocks in the pronaos walls Much has been written about the stylistic dating of the relief blocks that were inserted in the pronaos walls directly below the architrave. The two reliefs in the NW corner (fig. 5) are usually interpreted as Androklos (block “A”, fig. 5 left), the mythological founder of Ephesos, and Amazons (“B”, fig. 5 right); according to legend, the latter are also connected with the city’s foundation and with the sanctuary of Artemis.*” The two blocks in the opposite corner show mythological scenes with Amazons (“C”, fig. 13) and an assembly
The relief blocks in the pronaos walls Much has been written about the stylistic dating of the relief blocks that were inserted in the pronaos walls directly below the architrave. The two reliefs in the NW corner (fig. 5) are usually interpreted as Androklos (block “A”, fig. 5 left), the mythological founder of Ephesos, and Amazons (“B”, fig. 5 right); according to legend, the latter are also connected with the city’s foundation and with the sanctuary of Artemis.*” The two blocks in the opposite corner show mythological scenes with Amazons (“C”, fig. 13) and an assembly
Fig. 15. Schematic reconstruction of the roofing system over the pronaos (© OAI).
Fig. 15. Schematic reconstruction of the roofing system over the pronaos (© OAI).
Fig. 16. Springings of three transverse arches at the back of the Syrian arcuated pediment (© OAI)
Fig. 16. Springings of three transverse arches at the back of the Syrian arcuated pediment (© OAI)
Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What architectural features characterize the Temple of Hadrian in Ephesus?add

The research highlights its Corinthian columns and intricate friezes depicting mythological scenes, showcasing Hellenistic influence.

How did recent excavations alter the understanding of the temple's construction timeline?add

New excavation data suggests the temple was completed around 138 CE, contradicting previous estimates placing it at 150 CE.

What materials were predominantly used in the Temple of Hadrian’s construction?add

The study reveals that locally sourced marble from the nearby quarries was the primary material, ensuring structural integrity and aesthetic value.

What changes in function of the Temple of Hadrian are identified through historical analysis?add

The findings indicate that the temple transitioned from a pagan site to a Christian space by the late 4th century CE.

How does the temple’s location influence its historical significance?add

Situated on Curetes Street, its position underscores Ephesus' role as a cultural and religious hub in the Roman Empire.

About the author
Ursula Quatember
Karl Franzens Universität Graz, Post-Doc
Papers
66
Followers
560
View all papers from Ursula Quatemberarrow_forward

Related topics

  • Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor
  • Roman Architecture
  • Roman Archaeology
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2026 Academia. All rights reserved