Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Εύξεινος Πόντος

1. Location

Extensive geomorphological investigations showed that the area to the SW of the acropolis of the city of Ephesus was initially covered with sea water before later becoming swampy area. In the early 2^nd century AD this area was filled with earth and new land was created. In 1972 investigation trench was dug 70 metres to the north of the church of the Virgin Mary, diagonally over a low mound of Panayir dag. The foundations of an enormous marble temple were then brought to light.

2. Architectural Description

The marble temple was at the centre of a big square, equal in size to the flat area where Domitian’s sanctuary stood. The square had porticoes on all its four sides, possibly of the Corinthian order, defining the sanctuary, which faced south. That monumental complex extended over an area measuring 3.50 x 2.25 m,¹ quite close to the area of the Artemision. The temple stood on high-quality strong and solid foundations measuring 85 x 57 m, built according to the high standards of Roman building art. Two block walls (stereobates), enclosed by οpus caementicium, formed the strong basis of the building.² It was possibly a pseudo-dipteral temple³ of the Corinthian order, 60 m long and 23-25 m high, as estimated by researchers. It had 21 x 12 external columns and 8 x17 internal columns. The roof must have been covered with marble tiles, as it happened in the temple of Artemis. The southern portico is the only one surrounding the sanctuary to have been excavated. It was a three-aisled basilican hall, 263 m long, dating from around 200 and being of particular architectural interest. The southern hall was the monumental entrance to the sanctuary; its side walls were internally supported by pillars, while on both ends were rooms with exedrai (chalkidica),⁴ which were probably used for religious worship. Later on, the church of Virgin Mary was built on the remains of the hall.⁵

3. Chronology

The size of the monument, its ground plan and architectural elements indicate that it must be dated to Hadrian’s era, in the 2^nd century.⁶ In Late Antiquity, around 400 AD, the temple was destroyed probably by Christian zealots. From then on, the monument’s building material was gradually removed, while several of its architectural elements were burned in lime-kilns. Only a small part of the wall of the cella and a few marble slabs were preserved. The monument was again destroyed towards the late 5^th century, when the block foundations were completely dismantled, mainly to extract the metal clamps and the leaden dowels connecting the blocks. The main sanctuary seems to have remained intact as the southern and eastern porticoes must have been reused; besides, the church of the Virgin Mary was built in the southern hall.⁷ In Christian era the external wall of the western portico of the sanctuary must have been used as the fortification wall of the city. Several architectural components of the monument can be seen there.⁸

4. History of Research and Identification of the Monument

The term Olympieion is used for a temple dedicated to the cult of Zeus or other Olympian gods as well as to the cult of an emperor who has been awarded the honorary title ‘Olympios’.⁹ The Olympieion of Ephesus is one of the most important discoveries the Austrian Archaeological Institute made during the latest excavations.¹⁰ Excavations started in 1972 and continued in the following years, 1976-1977 and 1983-1985.¹¹ The identification of the monument has been a major concern among the scholars of Ephesus, as it is a very problematic issue, which may be clarified with the help of the following issues.

4.1. The Cult and the Temple of Zeus in Ephesus

Zeus was worshipped in Ephesus already from the 7^th century BC.¹² Dedicative inscriptions to Zeus Patroos have been found on the NE side of Panayir dag (the hill of the Metroon, the sanctuary of the Mother of Gods), while some of them date from the 5^th century BC.¹³ A temple dedicated to Zeus Olympios must have existed in Ephesus and was possibly within the boundaries of the ancient and the classical city. According to Strabo,¹⁴ the archaic and classical city of Ephesus developed around the Artemision before it was transferred to its final location in the Hellenistic period, namely under Lysimachus’ reign. The Olympieion, given that it is an ancient sanctuary, must have been near the Artemision.¹⁵ The “Olympia” were contests held in honour of Zeus. Although the first written evidence about the Olympia dates to Domitian’s reign (81-96), the contests were first held long before the Archaic period.¹⁶ When the scholar C.P. Jones investigated the relation between the Olympia and the Hadrianeia, the festivals and games held in Ephesus, he concluded that they were two different athletic events.¹⁷ The Hadrianeia must have been founded much later, honouring Hadrian’s first visit in Ephesus in 124. In 131 the festival of the Hadrianeia was associated with the second neokorate of Ephesus, proclaimed on the same year, and were celebrated every five years.¹⁸

4.2. The Imperial Cult and Hadrian’s Temple in Ephesus

The cities of the Greek East, whose koina (provincial leagues) decided to honour the living emperor by establishing a temple, were awarded the honorary title of ‘neokoros’, that is temple’s warden. This was introduced by Augustus (31 BC -14 AD) and was continued by the subsequent emperors as well. Ephesus was first awarded the title of neokoros thanks to the temple dedicated to Domitian.¹⁹ The third neokorate of Ephesus was awarded by Emperor Caracalla (211-217 AD) and was dedicated to Artemis, according to an inscription published by J. Keil in 1915.²⁰

Coin types show that during the second neokorate of Ephesus, the temple was dedicated to Hadrian. Emperor Hadrian was particularly generous to the cities of his empire and, in return, they conferred the highest honours uponhim, among which was the dedication of temples to his worship. Hadrian visited Ephesus several times and benefited it in various ways before he awarded the city the title of “twice neokoros”. The title must have been awarded to the city in 131 during the emperor’s visit.²¹ Tiberius Claudius Piso Diophantus was the person who inspired this honour for the city. According to an inscription, the twice neokoros city, the boule and the demos of Ephesus honoured Tiberius Claudius, the high-priest of the two temples in Ephesus, for the consecration of the divine Hadrian’s temple – an action which Tiberius Claudius had requested from the divine Hadrian. The inscription reports that the patron of the temple is the divine Hadrian rather than Hadrian Olympios.²²

The historians D. Magie, C. P. Jones and other scholars assumed that Hadrian’s worship was possibly associated with the cult of Zeus Olympios, as it happened in the Olympieion of Athens, where the cult statue in the interior of the temple represented Zeus, while the colossal statue of Hadrian stood behind the temple, thus proving the emperor’s modesty. This may have happened because Hadrian, out of modesty, transferred the worship from his own person to Zeus Olympios. However, such modesty is not confirmed in the cases of the Asian cities, such as Ephesus, Cyzicus and Smyrna.²³

4.3. The Olympieion reported by Pausanias

The only source reporting the Olympieion of Ephesus is Pausanias, who mentions the legendary founder of the city Androclos and notes that his tomb was still to be seen in his own day “near the road leading from the sanctuary of Artemis past the Olympieion to the Magnesian Gate”.²⁴ This quotation by Pausanias led the scholars assume that it was a temple dedicated to the cult of Zeus Olympios.²⁵ C.P. Jones states that the Olympieion mentioned by Pausanias was dedicated to Zeus Olympios and might have lain outside the Lysimachean city, to the east of the hill of Metroon (Panayir dag).²⁶ H. Engelmann also supports that the Olympieion of Pausanias was outside the city of Lysimachus²⁷ and was not a temple of Hadrian but a sanctuary of Zeus or some other Olympian god. The architectural form of the Olympieion as well as whether it was a temple or a temenos with one or more altars is not certain, while its exact location remains unknown. Zeus Olympios appears on bronze imperial coins of Ephesus. They show the god seated, just like the type Zeus of Olympia, facing left, holding in his right hand a statuette of Artemis of Ephesus.²⁸ According to C.P. Jones, who adopted a view initially stated by Jean Beaujeu and later by William Metcalf , this persistence proves that the depicted statue must also have existed in Ephesus and it must have been the cult statue of Zeus Olympios placed inside his temple.²⁹ On another coin, a silver denarius of Augustus’ era, the facade of a temple on a podium is depicted, surrounded by the inscription IOVI OLY(MPIO).³⁰ However, P. Scherrer supports that the image of Zeus Olympios on Ephesian coins does not represent the cult statue probably existing in his temple, but serves as a symbol correlating the contests held on the occasion of the second neokorate of Ephesus with the Olympic Games at the sanctuary of Olympia. The god appears to be the patron of the contests rather than the patron of the temple.³¹ G. Bürchner³² was the first to assume that Pausanias’ quotation refers to the temple of Hadrian’s imperial cult. The same assumption was made by the scholars O. Benndorf,³³ W. Weber³⁴ and D. Magie,³⁵ who believe that the Olympieion must have been inside the city of Lycimachus, along the road reported by Pausanias and leading from the Artemision to the Magnesian Gate. Finally, S. Karwiese³⁶ and P. Scherrer³⁷ conclude that when Pausanias referred to the Olympieion he meant the temple founded on the occasion of the second neokorate of Ephesus in 129.

4.4. The Identity of the Marble Temple

As regards the problematic issue of identifying the temple, C.P. Jones calls the temple Hadrianeion, considering it dedicated to the worship of Emperor Hadrian, although he doubts its identification with the Olympieion reported by Pausanias, which must have existed outside the Lysimachean city , on the eastern side of Panayir dag.³⁸ On the other hand, P. Scherrer is quite convincing and concludes that the enormous temple excavated on the northern edge of the city of the Imperial period, near the church of Virgin Mary, and certainly dating fromHadrian’s era, may as well be identified with the Olympieion reported by Pausanias.³⁹ Since the temple of Ephesus’ second neokorate is associated with Hadrian, the excavated temple must have been dedicated to the worship of Hadrian as Zeus Olympios and not to the common cult of Hadrian and Zeus.⁴⁰ Based on Pausanias’ quotation, St. Karwiese reaches the same conclusion and also associates the construction of the southern hall with the third neokorate of Ephesus during Caracalla’s reign, in 211; he believes that the sacred complex accommodated all the new imperial cults.⁴¹ Finally, the assumption that the small temple in the quarter of Embolos, near the Couretes Street, was dedicated to the worship of Hadrian must be rejected because of its small size.⁴² It has been lately argued that the particular building is not a temple but a propylon carried from the sacred complex of the Olympieion.⁴³

1. Scherrer, P. (ed.), Ephesos. The new Guide (Istanbul 2000), p. 184· Scherrer, P. “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 137.

2. Karwiese, S., “The Church of Mary and the temple of Hadrian Olympius”, in Koester, H. (ed.), Ephesos. Metropolis of Asia. An interdisciplinary approach to its archaeology, religion, and culture. Papers presented at a symposium organized by Harvard Divinity School, March 1994 (Valley Forge 1995), p. 313. Scherrer, P. (ed.), Ephesos. The new Guide (Istanbul 2000), fig. 1, p. 185· Hueber, F., Ephesos. Gebaute Geschichte (Mainz am Rhein 1997), p. 52-53.

3. As peripteral temple is characterized by Karwiese, S., “The Church of Mary and the temple of Hadrian Olympius”, in Koester, H. (ed.), Ephesos. Metropolis of Asia. An interdisciplinary approach to its archaeology, religion, and culture. Papers presented at a symposium organized by Harvard Divinity School, March 1994 (Valley Forge 1995), p. 313. As dipteral (or pseudo-dipteral) temple is cited by Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 137.

4. Chalcidicum: annex on a narrow end of a colonnade or stoa.

5. See Karwiese, S., “The Church of Mary and the temple of Hadrian Olympius”, in Koester, H. (ed.), Ephesos. Metropolis of Asia. An interdisciplinary approach to its archaeology, religion, and culture. Papers presented at a symposium organized by Harvard Divinity School, March 1994 (Valley Forge 1995), p. 311-319.

6. Hueber, F., Ephesos. Gebaute Geschichte (Mainz am Rhein 1997), p. 53· Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 137.

7. See Karwiese, S., “Grabungen 1994, Ephesos”, ÖJh (1995), Beiblatt, p. 12-15· Karwiese, S., “The Church of Mary and the temple of Hadrian Olympius”, in Koester, H. (ed.), Ephesos. Metropolis of Asia. An interdisciplinary approach to its archaeology, religion, and culture. Papers presented at a symposium organized by Harvard Divinity School, March 1994 (Valley Forge 1995), p. 311-319.

8. Hueber, F., Ephesos. Gebaute Geschichte (Mainz am Rhein 1997), p. 53.

9. Engelmann, H., “Das Grab des Androklos und ein Olympieion (Pausanias VII 2.9)”, ZPE 112 (1996), p. 132.

10. Hueber, F., Ephesos. Gebaute Geschichte (Mainz am Rhein 1997), p. 52, fig. 60, 61, 109.

11. Wiplinger, G. – Wlach, G. (ed.), Ephesos. 100 Years of Austrian Research (Vienna, Cologne, Weimar 1996), p. 114.

12. The earliest evidence is from the poet Kallinos see Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 150, footnote 6· Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ wegbeschreibungin Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 138.

13. Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ wegbeschreibungin Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 138.

14. Strabo 640c.

15. Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 150· Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ wegbeschreibungin Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 138.

16. Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 150, foonote 9· Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 138, footnote 9.

17. Thus, according to P. Jones, they provide no ground for supposing that the Hadrianeion and the Olympieion were the same, see Jones, P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 151. For the Olympia see especially Lehner, M.F., Die Αgonistik im Ephesos der römischen Kaiiserzeit (Diss. Ludwig Maximillians Universität, München 2004), p. 182-196.

18. D. Magie argued that the construction of an Olympieium built on the outskirts of the city for the worship of the new Zeus Olympius was planned during Hadrian’s second visit in Ephesus (129). Upon its completion, Ephesus, now possessing a second temple dedicated to the emperor, obtained the title of “Twice Neokoros”. Then, the contests established during Hadrian’s first visit, received the additional name of Olympia. That the Hadrianeia are cited as Olympia means either, that they are related with the Hadrian’s adjective (Olympios), which he received after 128, or that there is a correlation with the Olympic Games in Greece. See Magie, D., Roman rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950), p. 619, footnote. 1479, no. 30· Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 151, footnote 17· Scherrer, P., Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 138-139, footnote 13-16. For further information about the Hadrianeia see Lehner, M.F., Die Αgonistik im Ephesos der römischen Kaiiserzeit (Diss. Ludwig Maximillians Universität, München 2004), p. 198-205.

19. The first temple of the provincial cult of the emperors at Ephesos was granted by Domitian, though after his death his colossal statue was removed and the grant ascribed to Vespasian. The sanctuary is located in the south-east of the city , adjoining the Upper Agora at its western end. Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 151.

20. Cited by Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 151, footnote 15.

21. The first citation of the title “Twice neokoros” is found on an inscribed base of a statue dated to 132, which was set up in the Olympieion in Athens. (IG II² 3297).

22. The inscription (IvE 428) was published in 1895 by Benndorf and was examined again in 1960 by Keil. See Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 151, footnote 16· Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 139, footnote 23.

23. See Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 151, footnote 18· Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 137-144.

24. Paus, VII 2, 9: Εφέσιοι δέ ανελόμενοι του Ανδρόκλου τόν νεκρόν έθαψαν της σφετέρας ένθα δείκνυται καί ες εμέ έτι τό μνήμα κατά τήν οδόν τήν εκ του ιερού παρά τό Ολυμπιείον καί επί πύλας τάς Μαγνήτιδας. See Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 149. Engelmann, H., “Das Grab des Androklos und ein Olympieion (Pausanias VII 2, 9)”, ZPE 112 (1996), p. 131, footnote 1. Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 138, 141-142.

25. Engelmann, H., “Das Grab des Androklos und ein Olympieion (Pausanias VII 2, 9)”, ZPE 112 (1996), p. 131-132, footnote 8· Wood, J.T., Discoveries at Ephesus (London 1877), p. 126.

26. Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 152· Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 138.

27. Engelmann, H., “Das Grab des Androklos und ein Olympieion (Pausanias VII 2, 9)”, ZPE 112 (1996), p. 131-133.

28. Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 150· Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 138.

29. J. Beaujeu assumed that Domitian founded both the Olympieion in Ephesos and the Olympia contests in honor of the god. However it is difficult to believe that a cult of such antiquity, as that of Zeus did not have its own temple until the reign of Domitian. C.P. Jones thinks Beaujeu's thesis logical and adds that there must have been a temple and a statue of Zeus Olympios already by the end of the first century, and the Olympieion cannot therefore have been founded by Hadrian. See Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 150, footnote 11· Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thur, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift fur Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 138, footnote. 10-12.

30. If the coin comes from the Ephesus’ mind, as M. Grant proposes, then it can be testified that the Olympieion existed already in Ephesus by the time of Augustus. Given the antiquity of the cult of Zeus in Ephesos, and the early date ascribed to the foundation of the Olympia, there may have been a cult already in the classical period, and a temple at least by the hellenistic. It may also be that Roman emperors such as Augustus, Nero, Domitian and Hadrian exploited the cult and embellished his temple, though there no testimonies concerning this. See Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 150, footnote 12.

31. Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 139, footnote 20-21.

32. Bürchner, G., De Neocoria (Gissae 1888), p. 59, 98, cited by Engelmann, H., “Das Grab des Androklos und ein Olympieion (Pausanias VII 2, 9)”, ZPE 112 (1996), p. 132, footnote 9.

33. Benndorf, Ο., Forschungen in Ephesos I (Wien 1905), p. 94.

34. Weber, W., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus (Leipzig 1907), p. 214-215.

35. Magie, D., Roman Rule I (Princenton 1950), p. 619, footnote 30.

36. Karwiese, S., “The Church of Mary and the temple of Hadrian Olympius”, in Koester, H. (ed.), Ephesos. Metropolis of Asia. An interdisciplinary approach to its archaeology, religion, and culture. Papers presented at a symposium organized by Harvard Divinity School, March 1994 (Valley Forge 1995), p. 313-314.

37. Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ Wegbeschreibung in Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 137-144.

38. Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p. 152. H. Engelmann also suggests that the Olympieion recorded by Pausanias should have been placed outside the Hellenistic and Roman city. See Engelmann, H., “Das Grab des Androklos und ein Olympieion (Pausanias VII 2, 9)”, ZPE 112 (1996), p. 132-133.

39. Regarding the discussion on Pausanias’ quotation about the possible site of Androclus’ tomb, as well as the possible routes to Artemision , see Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ wegbeschreibungin Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 142-144.

40. Scherrer, P., “Am Olympieion vorbei…? Pausanias’ wegbeschreibungin Ephesos und der hadrianische Neokorietempel”, in Scherrer, P. – Taeuber, H. – Thür, H. (ed.), Steine und Wege. Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe zum 65. Geburtstag (Wien 1999), p. 142, footnote 49.

41. Karwiese, S., “The Church of Mary and the temple of Hadrian Olympius”, in Koester, H. (ed.), Ephesos. Metropolis of Asia. An interdisciplinary approach to its archaeology, religion, and culture. Papers presented at a symposium organized by Harvard Divinity School, March 1994 (Valley Forge 1995), p. 313-315.

42. F. Miltner argued that this was the second neokorate temple dedicated to imperial cult. His view was based on an inscription, according which the temple was dedicated to Artemis, Hadrian and the Demos of Ephesus. However E. Bowie and M. Wörrle rejected this assumption and due to the small size of the building considered that it was not related with the imperial cult. See Jones, C.P., “The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos”, JHS 113 (1993), p.151-152, footnote 22.

43. Hueber, F., Ephesos. Gebaute Geschichte (Mainz am Rhein 1997), p. 53, 86-88.