THE SANCTUARY OF DEMETER AT PERGAMON: ARCHITECTURE AND DYNASTY IN THE EARLY ATTALID CAPITAL by Cornelie Piok Zanon Dipl. Ing. Arch. Fachhochschule M¨unchen, 1997 M.A. University of Pittsburgh, 2000 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of the History of Art and Architecture, FAS in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2009 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DEPARTMENT OF THE HISTORY OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE, FAS This dissertation was presented by Cornelie Piok Zanon It was defended on 17 April, 2009 and approved by H. Anne Weis, Ph. D., Associate Professor Katheryn M. Linduff, Ph. D., Professor Barbara McCloskey,Ph. D., Associate Professor C. Drew Armstrong, Ph. D., Assistant Professor Kai K. Gutschow, Ph. D., Associate Professor, Carnegie Mellon University Dissertation Director: H. Anne Weis, Ph. D., Associate Professor ii Copyright c by Cornelie Piok Zanon 2009 iii THE SANCTUARY OF DEMETER AT PERGAMON: ARCHITECTURE AND DYNASTY IN THE EARLY ATTALID CAPITAL Cornelie Piok Zanon, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2009 The Sanctuary of Demeter at Pergamon, capital of the Attalid kingdom in Asia Minor (283- 133 BCE), is among the city’s oldest, largest, and best-preserved monuments, and it affords a unique view into its development. The cult-site was established in the fourth century BCE and renovated twice in the Hellenistic period — by Philetairos (283-263 BCE), founder of the Attalid dynasty, and by Queen Apollonis, wife of Attalos I (241-197 BCE) — and again in Roman times. Despite its well-documented history, the sanctuary still awaits analysis as an architectural, ritual, and dynastic space, along with integration into the scholarship on Pergamon. This dissertation reexamines the precincts of Philetairos and Apollonis with the aim of reconstructing a context for the sanctuary in the Attalid capital. The investigation proceeds from a reassessment of the archaeological remains, formal and comparative analysis of the monuments, and consideration of cultic requirements. It offers a revised picture of the iv precinct’s development by proposing new reconstructions for the pre-Attalid temenos and the building phases of Philetairos and Apollonis. It presents new evidence for narrowing the time-frame of Apollonis’ dedication, making it one of the most precisely dated monuments at Pergamon. Although the lack of precise information on the cult prevents ritual identification of all structures on the site, an attempt is made to explain the precinct’s ceremonial use. A focal point of the dissertation is the contextualization of the sanctuary’s architectural detail. My analysis shows that the monuments of the Demeter Sanctuary were rooted in an Anatolian building tradition and that the style(s) of Apollonis’ buildings elaborated on the architectural language of Philetairos’ designs, conveying both unity and continuity. My reevaluation of the Demeter Sanctuary as an architectural and ritual space lays the groundwork for my future, broader investigations into the role of this cult-site in the Attalid capital — studies that address the intersection of gender, cult, dynasty, and building style in this space. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ......................................... x 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 2.0 THE SANCTUARY OF PHILETAIROS ................... 21 2.1 The Pre-Attalid Precinct ............................ 22 2.2 The Architecture of Philetairos ........................ 26 2.2.1 The Main Altar (Altar A) ....................... 28 2.2.2 The Temple ............................... 42 2.2.3 The Temenos .............................. 68 2.2.3.1 The Lower North Stoa. ................... 70 2.2.3.2 The Theatron. ........................ 78 3.0 THE SANCTUARY OF APOLLONIS .................... 85 3.1 The Architecture of Apollonis ......................... 86 3.1.1 The Propylon .............................. 91 3.1.1.1 The Propylon East Elevation. ................ 93 3.1.1.2 The Propylon West Elevation. ................ 103 3.1.2 The Theatron .............................. 106 3.1.3 The West Stoa Complex ........................ 109 3.1.3.1 The West Stoa. ........................ 110 3.1.3.2 The Rooms. .......................... 111 3.1.4 The South Stoa ............................. 112 3.1.4.1 The Basement. ........................ 114 3.1.4.2 The Porticos on Temenos Level. ............... 118 vi 3.1.5 The Upper North Stoa ......................... 122 3.1.6 The Lower North Stoa Complex .................... 127 3.1.7 The Temenos of Apollonis ....................... 131 3.1.8 The Forecourt and Service Rooms ................... 134 3.2 The Date of Apollonis’ Project ........................ 136 4.0 FINAL REMARKS ................................ 145 APPENDIX. ORTHOSTATE BLOCKS OF THE DEMETER TEMPLE . 153 Bibliography ....................................... 155 vii LIST OF TABLES 1 Temple Orthostates: First Orthostate Row. Measured August 2004. ..... 154 2 Temple Orthostates: Second Orthostate Row. Measured August 2004. .... 154 3 Temple Orthostates: Third Orthostate Row. Measured August 2004. ..... 154 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1 View of the Demeter Sanctuary in its current state (2004). .......... 2 2 Proposed plan of the Demeter Sanctuary of Apollonis. ............. 20 ix PREFACE This project originated when I first set foot into the office of my (then future) academic advisor, H. Anne Weis. On her desk sat a book on Pergamon, a subject that stayed with me ever since and will probably do so for a long time to come. This manuscript would not have been completed without Prof. Weis’ steady guidance and her enduring and tireless support. It developed its form in long hours of discussions — in her office, over dinner, and by email or phone — and through her critical reading and editing of drafts. Her eye for the detail and her demand for precision have been invaluable for formulating my ideas and for putting them into writing. Her probing questions and willingness to go against the grain time and again have shaped my thinking in the most profound ways. I owe her more than one can put into words and I will never cease to be inspired by her. Many others have contributed to the advancement and completion of this project. I am greatly indebted to my dissertation committee, Profs. Drew Armstrong, Katheryn Linduff, Barbara McCloskey, and David Wilkins at the University of Pittsburgh, and Prof. Kai Gutschow at Carnegie Mellon University, for their ongoing support and guidance, helpful comments on drafts, and above all their patience with the often slow pace of my progress. I would also like to express my gratitude to the University of Pittsburgh community, foremost the Department of the History of Art and Architecture: to the faculty and fellow graduate students for superb lectures, inspiring discussions, and friendship; to the staff, especially Linda Hicks and Emily Lilly, for their help with administrative matters, and in the library to Margaret McGill, Marcia Rostek, and Ray Anne Lockard for maintaining a first-rate research environment. In the Department of Classics, I should like to thank Prof. Edwin Floyd for introducing me to the Greek language, and Prof. Harry Avery for his help with translations, his guidance in approaching and using ancient literature, and his continued x interest in my work. I am also tremendously grateful for the financial assistance in the form of both research and teaching fellowships and travel grants the University has so generously provided. The observations and ideas put forth in this manuscript have to a large extent been shaped by travel and research abroad and I am indebted to many for having turned my travels into productive and memorable endeavors. My thanks go to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, especially to Dr. Robert Bridges and Prof. Stephen Tracy, and to Prof. Mark Fullerton, director of the summer program in 2001, and from the Agora Excavation team, to director Prof. John Camp and to architect Richard Anderson for a private tour of the Stoa of Attalos. This project could not have come about without the enormous support of the Deutsches Arch¨aologisches Institut (DAI): my heartfelt thanks go to Dr. Heinz Beste for patiently introducing me to the silent but powerful language of the ashlar block. I am greatly indebted to Prof. Wolfgang Radt, his wife Barbara Radt, and the Pergamon excavation team of the summers 2003 and 2004, especially Martin Bachmann, Corinna Br¨uckener, and Ulrich Mania, for providing help and expertise on Pergamene matters and for allowing me to explore the Pergamene landscape and territory with them. My time at Pergamon has contributed much to my understanding of living and building in this rugged but intensely beautiful landscape. Marianne Schmitz kindly assisted my research at the DAI library in Berlin. Dr. Volker K¨astner at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin has been most accommodating while I was conducting research in the museum archives. Financial support for my travels was provided by a generous grant from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation. The present project also profited from scholarly exchange. Sincere thanks go to the following for sharing manuscripts and engaging in scholarly discussions on subjects related to my dissertation: Prof. Boris Dreyer (Universit¨at G¨ottingen), Prof. Mary Hollinshead (University of Rhode Island Kingston), Prof. Susan Kane (Oberlin College), Prof. Elizabeth Kosmetatou (University of Illinois Springfield), Prof. W. Raeck (Universit¨at Frankfurt), Prof. K. Rheidt