See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340917467

Acts of an International Conference at the Danish Institute at Athens 27-30

Article · January 2012

CITATION READS

1 87

1 author:

Christina Papastamati-von Moock

Greek Ministry of Culture
3 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Christina Papastamati-von Moock on 25 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Architecture
of the Ancient Greek Theatre
Acts of an International Conference at the
Danish Institute at Athens 27-30 January 2012

Edited by
Rune Frederiksen, Elizabeth R. Gebhard and Alexander Sokolicek

Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

The Architecture of the Ancient Greek Theatre
© Aarhus University Press and The Danish Institute at Athens 2015

Monographs of the Danish Institute, no. 17

Series editor: Rune Frederiksen

Editors: Rune Frederiksen, Elizabeth R. Gebhard and Alexander Sokolicek
Graphic design: Jørgen Sparre
Prepress: Narayana Press
Cover illustration: The theatre of Kalydon. Photo: Rune Frederiksen
Printed at Narayana Press, Denmark, 2015

ISBN 978 87 7124 380 2

ISSN 1397 1433

AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS

Langelandsgade 177
DK-8200 Aarhus N
www.unipress.dk

Gazelle Book Services Ltd.

White Cross Mills, Hightown
Lancaster LA1 4XS, England
www.gazellebooks.com

ISD
70 Enterprise Drive
Bristol, CT 06010
USA
www.isdistribution.com

The production and print was financed by:

The Danish Institute at Athens
The Austrian Archaeological Institute
The University of Chicago
Contents
9 Preface
11 Introduction
15 Studies on Greek Theatres:
History and Prospects
HANS PETER ISLER

39 The Wooden Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus in Athens:

Old Issues, New Research
C H R I S T I N A PA PA S TA M AT I - V O N M O O C K

81 Early Greek Theatre Architecture:

Monumentalised Koila Before and After the Invention of the
Semicircular Design
RUNE FREDERIKSEN

97 Form and Function of the Earliest Greek Theatres

ALEXANDER SOKOLICEK

105 The Sunken Orchestra:

Its Effects on Greek Theatre Design
ELIZ ABETH R . GEBHARD

119 The Greek Vocabulary of Theatrical Architecture

JEAN-CHARLES MORETTI AND CHRISTINE MAUDUIT

131 New Studies of the Theatre at Iasos:

50 Years since the First Excavation
F E D E B E RT I , N I C O L Ò M A S T U R Z O, W I T H T H E PA RT I C I PAT I O N O F
MANUEL A VITTORI

149 New Investigations in the Ephesian Theatre:

The Hellenistic Skene
M A RTI N H OFBAUER
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

161 Building the Early Hellenistic Theatre at Sikyon

CH R I S H AY WA R D A N D YA N N I S L O L O S

177 The Theatre of Dodona:

New Observations on the Architecture of the Cavea
G E O R G I O S P. A N T O N I O U

193 The Hellenistic Theatre at Corinth:

New Implications from Recent Excavations
D AV I D S C A H I L L

203 The Theatre at Messene:

Building Phases and Masons’ Marks
PETROS THEMELIS WITH A CONTRIBU TION ON THE MASON MARKS
BY KLEANTHIS SIDIROPOULOS

233 The Hellenistic Theatre in the Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos

(Asia Minor):
New Evidence and Reconstruction
CHR ISTINE WILKENING -AU MA NN

253 The Ancient Theatre at Maroneia

C H R Y S S A K A R A D I M A , C O S TA S Z A M B A S , N I K O S C H AT Z I D A K I S ,
GERASIMOS THOMAS AND EIRINI DOUDOUMI

267 Old and New Observations from the Theatre at Aigeira

W A LT E R G A U S S , R U D O L F I N E S M E TA N A , J U L I A   D O R N E R , P E T R A
E I T Z I N G E R , A S U M A N   L ÄT Z E R -L A S A R , M A N U E L A L E I B ETS E D E R A N D
MARIA TRAPICHLER

279 The ‘South Building’ in the Main Urban Sanctuary of Selinunte:

A Theatral Structure?
C L E M E N T E M A R C O N I A N D D AV I D S C A H I L L

293 The Theatre at Halikarnassos

– and Some Thoughts on the Origin of the Semicircular Greek Theatre.
With an appendix “The Inscriptions from the Theatre at Halikarnassos”
POUL PEDERSEN AND SIGNE ISAGER

6
 Contents

319 The Hellenistic Phases of the Theatre at Nea Paphos in Cyprus:

The Evidence from the Australian Excavations
JOH N R ICH A R D GR EEN, CR A IG BA R KER A ND GEOFF STENNETT

335 The Architecture of the Greek Theatre of Apollonia in Illyria (Albania)

and its Transformation in Roman Times
S T E FA N F R A N Z A N D VA L E N T I N A H I N Z

351 Boeotian Theatres: An Overview of the Regional Architecture

MARCO GERMANI

365 Architecture and Romanization:

The Transition to Roman Forms in Greek Theatres of the Augustan Age
VA L E N T I N A D I N A P O L I

381 Was Dörpfeld Right? Some Observations on the Development of the

Raised Stage in Asia Minor
AR ZU ÖZTÜRK

391 The Carian Theatre at Aphrodisias:

A Hybrid Building*
N AT H A L I E D E C H A I S E M A RT I N

403 ‘Traditional’ Elements in the Roman Redesign of the Hellenistic

Theatre in Patara, Turkey*
K AT J A P I E S K E R

419 The Hellenistic Theatre of Ephesus:

Results of a Recent Architectural Investigation of the Koilon
GUDRUN ST YH LER-AYDI N

433 Traditional Hellenistic Elements in the Architecture of Ancient

Theatres in Roman Asia Minor
HANS PETER ISLER

448 Thematic bibliography

460 Index of names and places
463 Index of subjects
466 List of contributors 7
The Wooden Theatre of Dionysos
Eleuthereus in Athens:
Old Issues, New Research*
C H R I S T I N A PA PA S TA M AT I -V O N M O O C K

Abstract
No theatre construction has provoked as much scholarly interest and heated debate in the field of archeologi-
cal research as the Athenian theatre of the th century BC, the monument that first hosted the most impor-
tant works of ancient drama. References in the written sources to the famous and much-discussed ἴκρια had
as early as the th century established the view that the classical theatron was of wood. Although analytical
architectural documentation of the monument has been undertaken by distinguished researchers, our knowl-
edge was limited and many crucial questions remained open until now. The range of different approaches is
due not only to the fragmentary situation of the monument and of the information in the sources relating to
the most important phase in the monument’s history, but mainly to the lack of firm archaeological evidence,
of detailed stratigraphic observations combined with the consideration of finds and the construction itself.
Recent research in the form of new observations relating to the structural remains, together with small-
scale excavations conducted in the context of restoration work carried out on the retaining walls of the cavea
and in the cavea itself, have provided an opportunity to re-examine some of these crucial questions. The first
firm evidence of the existence and technical characteristics of the scaffolding of the wooden theatre on the
South Slope of the Acropolis is particularly sensational. Despite the fragmentary nature of these new data,
they do allow for an initial attempt at answering questions relating to the plan and chronological, morpho-

* Warm thanks are owed to the President of the Scientific Committee and former Ephor of the 1st Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities
(1st EPKA), Dr. Alexandros Mantis, for many years of scholarly support and trust; to the President, Ephor Emeritus Petros Kalligas, and to the
members of the Committee, as well as to the Directorate of the 1st Ephorate for the study and publication permit. I also want to express special
thanks to Committee member Prof. Manolis Korres of the National Technical University of Athens for his scientific support, his teaching, and
valuable conversations about the new findings of recent years, as well as to A. Samara, the architect responsible for the restoration of the retaining
walls, to the draughtsman D. Kouliadis, to Kl. Aslanidis, the architect responsible for the anastylosis of the cavea, and to all of the stonemasons
for their years of cooperation. I warmly thank the architect Georgios Antoniou for his help, valuable conversations, and reconstruction drawing
(fig. 18). I thank my colleague I. Papaloi for discussions about the pottery and Dr. Stefanie Kennell for translating this text. Finally, I thank the Con-
ference’s organisers for their kind invitation to participate, their fruitful conversations, and especially the director of The Danish Institute at Athens,
Dr Rune Frederiksen, for his great help and support. The first presentation of the new results on Athens’ Classical-period theatre was made at the
National Technical University of Athens in 2004 at the invitation of Prof. Korres. In this brief essay it is assuredly impossible to touch on all the
topics relating to the early phases of Athens’ theatre in detail. 39
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

logical and functional issues and possible alterations to the Classical theatre. Particularly interesting is the
light it sheds on the key issues of whether some structural parts of the late Classical theatre and the sanctu-
ary of Dionysos can be associated with the incomplete Periclean renovation of the cultural centre of the city
of Athens, in which the construction of the Odeion was included, and on whether the creation of the canoni-
cal architectural form of the ancient theatre is also recorded in evidence for the earlier phases of the Athenian
theatre, with a guiding role in the birth and development of ancient drama.

No other theatre structure has drawn so much scholarly
interest as the Theatre of Dionysos, but at the same time
no other theatre has been the subject of so many contrary
opinions as this 5th century BC Athenian complex, for
which virtually all the leading Classical dramatists wrote
plays.1 This cannot be ascribed simply to the interest that
many scholars of the ancient world have in understanding
the historical framework of dramatic production and the
total theatrical experience, which has led to various inter-
pretative approaches. Beyond the information implicit in
the dramatic texts themselves and a very few references
to Classical Athenian theatre in ancient and Byzantine
grammatical works,2 these issues are approached mainly
through the interpretation of archaeological data, that is,
through an understanding of the structures that served
theatrical production. However, Athens’ theatre was
modified several times during its long centuries of opera-
tion and it has been damaged since then, leaving us with
a monument that is particularly hard to read (Fig. 1. 3).
And for our theories of the theatre of the Classical period,
matters are made still more difficult: the view that it must
have been wooden was established among researchers in
the 19th century on the basis of references to the famous
and much-debated ikria in the textual sources, though of
course no traces of such a structure have been revealed.3
With the construction of the late Classical theatre com-
pletely in stone, the earlier wooden structure was presum-
ably dismantled and its remnants probably incorporated
into the stone theatre or covered over by it. In addition
to these complexities, another fundamental reason for
the difficulty in understanding the Theatre of Dionysos
may be added: while many distinguished scholars have
produced much detailed documentation of its architec-
ture, their observations on the construction and evalua-
tions of successive architectural elements have not always
been combined with clear and adequately documented
archaeological findings that date the construction phases
through detailed excavation observations and individual
finds.4 Thus, the remains about which researchers un-
til now have agreed once belonged to the theatre of the
great tragedians are in reality pitifully meagre. The fact
that a systematic examination of the excavations of the
monument is lacking – perhaps due to some mistaken
view that such data from the original wooden Classical
theatre should not have been preserved – has created fer-
tile ground for conflicting interpretations and seriously

1 Basic bibliography: Julius 1878, 202, 240; Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, esp. 25-36; Haigh 1898, 103-14, 116, 137, 141-2, 146-50; Furtwängler 1901; Dörpfeld
1925; Bulle 1928, 47-80; Fiechter 1935, 11-25, 38-41, 76-85; Fiechter 1936, esp. 66-74; Allen 1941; Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 1-29; Anti 1947, 55-82; Fiechter
1950, 7, 23-7; Dinsmoor 1951-1953; Bieber 1939, 99-126; Bulle 1950; Bieber 1961, 54-71, 74-79; Travlos 1971, 537-52; Gebhard, 1974; Taplin 1977; Korres
1980; Kolb 1981, 5-61; Polacco 1990, 23-94, 122-49. 157-77; Wurster 1993, 20-7, 36-42; Csapo & Slater 1994, 79-80; Scullion 1994; Goette 1995, 22-30, pls.
5-8, 13.1; Goette 2011, 474-84; Bees 1995; Wiles 1997, 16, 23-6; Knell 2000, 126-9; Moretti 1999/2000; Moretti 2000; Froning 2002, 31-5, 46-53; Isler 2002,
533-7; Gogos 2005, 33-120; Valavanis 2009; Green 1989; Green 1995b; Green 2008 (which valuably assembles and comments upon the relevant bibliog-
raphy as well as on related matters); Junker 2004; Samara 2004; Samara & Papastamati-von Moock 2006; Papastamati-von Moock 2014; Papastamati-
von Moock forthcoming. The restoration programmes are summarised in: Committee – Theatre of Dionysos 2006; Mantis 2006; Mantis 2007.
2 Collected sources: Polacco 1990, 29-32; Bees 1995; Pöhlmann 2002a; Pöhlmann 2002b (with earlier views); Storey & Allan 2008, 34-60.
3 By 1860, debate among German-speaking scholars about the sources relating to the ikria and their likely identification in the Agora or at the Theatre
of Dionysos Eleuthereus has already begun: Wachsmuth 1874, 510, n. 1; von Wilamowitz-Möllendorf 1886, 597-603; Dörpfeld & Reisch1896, 28-31.
4 For some general stratigraphic observations from the 1889 excavation of the theatre, see Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 30-1, fig. 7, pl. 1; Schneider
1889,329-48. Cf. Bulle 1928, 15, 20-4, 49-50, 53-5, 57, 65-6, 72, 76, pl. 4; Fiechter 1936, 43-9 (commentary on the pottery by K. Kübler). On results per-
40 taining to the medieval remains: Tsakos 1985, 9-11, pls. 5 β–γ, 6-8; Tsakos 1987/88.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Fig. 1. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Balloon photo: S. Gesafidis 2008.

divergent efforts to reconstruct the Classical theatre of
Athens.5 Many questions remain unanswered. What was
the form and size of the Classical wooden theatron and
the other constituent parts of the theatre’s construction?
When was it first built on the South Slope? Was the thea-
tre permanent, or a temporary structure? What modifica-
tions did it undergo before construction started on the
stone theatre of the late Classical period? How does this
fit into the phases of the theatre’s evolution in general and
the development of the canonical architectural form of
the ancient Greek theatre in particular? How did it serve
the production of dramatic works? And what role did the
theatre play in its historical context? Before considering
new observations and data that will help us come closer
to answering some of these questions, let us briefly take
another look at the information provided by the textual
sources, which have frequently been debated by scholars
with conflicting views.
The information of the scholiasts and lexicographers
about the collapse of the ikria during a dramatic contest
at the beginning of the 5th century in which Aeschylus was
competing with Pratinas and Choerilus,6 and again in the
mid 5th century before Aeschylus’ departure for Sicily,7
together with a reference to the ikria in Aristophanes’

5 The view that the stage-building was movable and erected only during the periods when performances occurred has been expressed by Fiechter
(1936, 70), Winter (2006, 98-9), and Goette (1995, 40-1). In addition, see von Wilamowitz-Möllendorf 1886, 602; Gogos 2005, 68; Csapo 2007, 104-5
(on the wooden seating, with full bibliography). This does not rule out the existence of other theatres or Assembly spaces. Unfortunately, however,
few koila have been excavated to ascertain such evidence. Neither does evidence exist for the Pnyx; see Stanton 1996, 19. The early phase of the
Ekklesiasterion of Metapontum in Lucania (Magna Graecia), with archaeological evidence of wooden seating, is a very interesting and instructive
case: see Mertens 1982 b, 98-9.
6 Suda, s.v. Pratinas, see Polacco 1999, 31, no. 15.
7 Suda, s.v. Aischylos, see Polacco 1999, 31, no. 16. 41
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Thesmophoriazusae (411 BC)8 leaves us with no doubt that
the Classical theatre on the South Slope of the Acropolis
was made of wood. Taking into consideration that the
first contests in comedy and tragedy at the Lenaia can-
not have taken place before 440 BC,9 the competition
at the beginning of the 5th century in which Aeschylus,
Pratinas and Choerilus participated must be connected
with the great festival of the City Dionysia, and conse-
quently the attested collapse can be associated only with
the wooden theatre already in existence on the South
Slope. From these items of information and the sources
that comment on the construction characteristics of the
ikria,10 the following conclusions can be drawn. First, the
stepped series of wooden benches were held up by sturdy
wooden posts, the famed ikria, which clearly stood on the
inclined South Slope.11 Second, during the long period in
which it functioned, this wooden load-bearing structure,
due to flaws in its construction, the natural deteriora-
tion of its material from use and the passage of time – as
well as from the enthusiastic reactions of spectators, as
emerges indirectly from other sources –12 had to be re-
paired and modified because it became unstable. Third,
these problems appeared mainly during the first half of
the 5th century BC. Lastly, on the basis of the first attested
collapse being dated at the beginning of the 5th century
BC, the wooden theatron must have been in existence at
least since the later 6th century BC.13
Again, other sources locate the ikria in the Ancient
Agora, where the Athenians initially celebrated the Dio-
nysiac contests before Athens’ theatre was built on the
South Slope, without distinguishing whether the Classical
wooden or the late Classical stone one is meant.14 The
association of Dionysiac and other festival rituals with
a location in the Ancient Agora, which is sometimes de-
scribed as ikria and sometimes as an ‘orchestra’, leads us
to the conclusion that the two categories of information
refer to the same place and the same wooden construc-
tion for performances, which was composed of a space for
dancing and performing the rituals (orchestra) and a space
for the viewers, formed of wooden steps on top of upright
timbers (ikria).15 That the earliest Dionysiac contests are
linked by other sources with the earliest sanctuary of Dio-
nysos Lenaios and the festival of the Lenaia has rightly
established the view that they must have taken place in the
older theatrical structure in the Ancient Agora,16 which
the Athenians also called ikria. This lack of clarity in the
ancient scholiasts and lexicographers’ references to the
ikria in Athens, which is also recorded in the divergent
interpretations and views of contemporary scholars, has
three causes, aside from the brevity and general nature
of the surviving information: first, the use of the same
technical term (ikria) for both of the wooden theatre
structures in Athens; second, their connection with the
sanctuaries of Dionysos (Lenaios and Eleuthereus); and
third, the simultaneous operation of both structures over
a significant period of time.17 Despite all their ambiguities,
these references in our sources do show that the theatri-
cal structure by the Lenaion in the Ancient Agora was

8 Ar. Thesm. 395-6 and schol. ad loc.

9 Victor lists: IG II2 2325: Scullion 1994, 52; Csapo & Slater 1994, 122-4, 133, no. 68; Sourvinou-Inwood 2003, 120.
10 Schol. ad Ar. Thesm. 395-6; Poll. Onom. 6.125; Hesych. π 513; Hesych. ι 501; Suda, s.v. ikria: see Kolb 1981, 26-57; Scullion 1994, 52-65; Polacco 1999,
30, nos. 4, 6; 31, no. 17.
11 Some scholars believe that the construction with ikria had to do with the theatre in the Agora, while the theatre on the South Slope was built with
wooden benches on top of fill, obviously because of the naturally sloping ground: see Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 29; Gogos 2005, 68 (installation of
the wooden benches each time the contests were taken place). On the new archaeological data see below p. 52 ff.
12 Dem. Meid. 226; Theophr. Char. 11.3; Poll. Onom. 4.122; Csapo & Slater 1994, 396.
13 The scholarly view that the wooden theatre could be dismantled and was temporary in nature has more or less prevailed; many researchers also
consider the attested collapse at the beginning of the 5th century BC a terminus ante quem for dating the structure (Sourvinou-Inwood 2003, 91,
100), since they do not think it existed for very long before the collapse.
14 Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 11-3; Wycherley 1957, 162-3, 220; Kolb 1981, 26-57; Scullion 1994, 52-65; Moretti 2011, 121-2.
15 Concerning the location of the orchestra of the Agora, about which differing views exist, see Kolb 1981, 26-31; Moretti 2004, 102; Valavanis 2009,
85 (Ancient Agora); Miller 1995, 201-24; Schnurr 1995, 131-8; Robertson 1998 (in the Ancient Agora northeast of the Acropolis); Webster 1963, 19;
Gogos 2005, 37-39 (that there was no theatre in the Agora, but only on the South Slope).
16 Kolb 1977, 130-3; Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 12; Kolb 1981, 43-52; Scullion 1994, 61-3; Sourvinou-Inwood 2003, 120-3.
17 Most likely the theatre in the Agora operated until the Periclean renovation and enlargement of the wooden theatre on the South Slope; see p. 46
below. Clearly connected with this is the official beginning of the dramatic contests in the context of the Lenaia, which from 440 BC must have
42 been held in the new South Slope theatre.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Fig. 2. Theatre seating (ikria). Drawing after a fragment

of an Attic black-figured dinos by the Sophilos Painter
depicting the funeral games for Patroclus, 580/70 BC
(Athens, National Museum, inv. no. 15499). Bieber
1961, fig. 220.

the older of the two.18 Its antiquity, however, can also be
deduced from indirect archaeological evidence. To be
specific, while the establishment of the newly introduced
cult of Dionysos Eleuthereus on the South Slope and its
associated ritual and dramatic activities can be dated to
the decade between 540 and 530 BC on the basis of the
attested dramatic victory of Thespis and some archaeo-
logical data from the South Slope,19 representations of
such wooden structures for gatherings of spectators are
shown on Athenian vases as early as the first half of the 6th
century BC (Fig. 2).20 These depictions obviously do not
reflect the usual practice of remodelling the first spaces in
wood for performances at this period in Athens; rather,
they are inspired by the single structure in the Ancient
Agora, which not only occupied a central place in the
city’s festival activities (mainly Dionysiac) but would
surely also have impressed as a technical invention for
serving a crowd of spectators. In addition, the enthusiastic
reactions of the spectators and the noise produced by the
structure’s material would have constituted a definitive
annual experience for Athenians, and the depictions on
the vases highlight this element. Given that some sources
imply that this structure had problems with sight lines
and capacity,21 I would conclude that it was probably con-
structed in a level area of the Agora and for this reason
there was a limit to how high it could rise: the steadily
increasing incline would have necessitated higher and
higher supports, with the result that the load-bearing

18 Details: Kolb 1981, 26-58; Sourvinou-Inwood 2003, 67-120; Csapo & Miller 2007, 18. On the Lenaia procession: Scullion 1994, 63. Scholars have
stressed the close relationship between the two sanctuaries, which is reflected in the route of the City Dionysia procession: Schnurr 1995, 139-53.
19 Limestone pediment with satyrs from the South Slope (NM Athens 3131), also c. 540/530 BC: Studniczka, AM 11, 1886, 78f., pl. II, 2; Despinis
1996-1997, 196-8, 206, fig. 4. This may belong either to a Peisistratid phase of the Archaic temple or to a monumental Archaic altar whose location
has not been identified. Before the clear spatial division of theatre from sanctuary, the first altar was very probably situated in the orchestra. For
opinions regarding the sanctuary’s foundation at the end of the 6th century BC, see note 22 below.
20 See most recently Froning 2002, 34-5, figs. 27-8.
21 Suda αι 35; α 2952; ε 64; Scullion 1994, 54-5. 43
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

body of the structure became seriously unstable and/or
impracticable.
The pre-existing technical knowledge of how to con-
struct stable wooden structures of such complex form for
assemblies and spectators in Athens before the middle of
the 6th century BC, the likely problems presented by the
older structure in the Ancient Agora, and the attested
collapse of the ikria in the newer theatron of Dionysos
Eleuthereus at the beginning of the 5th century BC, lead
me to the following conclusions:
1) The foundation of the new sanctuary of Dionysos
Eleuthereus, in all probability by the Peisistratid
dynasty, and the reorganisation of the great popular
festival of the Dionysia, initially by the Peisistratids
and at the end of the 6th century BC by Kleisthenes,22
introduced the elevated platform for the performance
of the first Dionysiac rituals; dramatic activities must
evidently have been combined from the start with
the construction of wooden seating areas,23 as this
had already been implemented in the Agora, without
the Athenians necessarily having to sit on the sloping
hillside, as some scholars have maintained.24 Their
view only creates further questions, since the techni-
cal knowledge already existed and had been tested
for some time in Athens. The attested problems of
sufficient capacity and good visibility in the early the-
atrical structure in the Agora – in combination with
the political and social necessity of strengthening and
rationalising the popular cult of Dionysos – evidently
caused a pressing need to find a more advantageous
location in Athens for the new sanctuary and theatri-
cal space of Dionysos Eleuthereus.
2) Apart from any other considerations, the location of
the new sanctuary at the base of the inclined South
Slope of the Acropolis seems to have been determined
by the need to develop a new, larger theatrical space
with a gradient that offered better visibility and au-
dibility and fewer structural problems. The sloping
ground meant ikria could be built to a somewhat more
stable height.
3) The collapses attested for the first half of the 5th cen-
tury BC indicate, however, that apart from the limited
mechanical strength of wood as a building material
and natural deterioration, some structural problems
could not have been solved at the outset. The uneven-
ness of the slope, especially towards the edges, where
supports of greater height were required, would surely
have been one cause of these problems.
4) With the construction of the first theatrical space in
wood on the South Slope of the Acropolis, in the later
6th century if not even earlier, one of the basic charac-
teristics of the ancient Greek theatre was established
in Athens – that is, the positioning of the theatre on
a natural slope. This programmatic element in the
seminal phase of the architecture of the ancient Greek
theatre – in combination with other factors such as
the existing technical knowledge for building complex
wooden structures, and the solution to the essential
problems of capacity and of audiovisual adequacy –
determined how the first theatrical construction in
Athens was realised and sowed the seeds of further
evolution.
The establishment of the first theatrical structure on the
South Slope is dated sometime in the late 6th century
BC or even slightly earlier, and it operated until the new
all-stone theatre came into use. The stone construction
began, according to new evidence that has been presented
in another study, in the middle of the 4th century BC.25
In particular, the reference Xenophon makes in his Cy-
ropaedia (360-355 BC) to the gigantic wooden beams of
the tragic stage-building (skené)26 gives us not only a ter-
minus post quem for the demise of the wooden theatrical

22 The policy of the Peisistratids: Kolb 1977, 115-16, (esp. 124, 128-31, 133, 137); Angiolillo 1997, 71-3, 214. For the dating of the sanctuary’s foundation
under Kleisthenes, see Connor 1989, 7-32. On the Archaic temple of Dionysos: Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 13-9 fig. 1-3 pl. 1-2; Korres 1980, 14; 1982,
15; Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 16-7; Despinis 1996-1997, 205-6, 212-4 (new evidence for dating the pedimental sculptures to the end of the 6th or the
beginning of the 5th century, the Kleisthenic period).
23 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 26-8, fig. 6; Bulle, 75-7, pls. 3, 4 Plan I (circular orchestra); Fiechter 1936, 67-8, pl. 16, fig. 29 (curved retaining wall of orches-
tra); Travlos 1971, 537, fig. 677; Froning 2002, 34-5 (following Fiechter).
24 Fiechter 1936, 67-8, fig. 29, pl. 16; Travlos 1971, 537, fig. 677; Valavanis 2009, 87; Gogos 2005, 46-7.
25 See most recently Samara & Papastamati-vonMoock 2006, 3-4, 14; Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 33-34; Papastamati-von Moock forthcoming.
26 Xen. Cyr. 6.1.54, comparing the great thickness of the timber beams of Cyrus’ siege towers with those of the tragic skené – clearly Athens’ theatre
44 before the stone stage-building was constructed. See Froning 2002, 52.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Fig. 3. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Remains of the stage building from the northeast. Rear wall H–H with founda-
tion T. Author’s photo.

structure but also significant testimony that at some point
during its operation in the 5th century BC it acquired a
stage-building with wooden elements of impressive di-
mensions.
The question of the probable changes and modifica-
tions made to this theatre over its one hundred and fifty
years of operation remains a crucial one. The main issue
is certainly that of the stage-building, which was directly
involved in the development of drama, especially tragedy,
from the middle of the 5th century BC, and the technical
infrastructure required to produce it (stage machinery
and so on).27 Until now, the principal factor in any ap-
proach to these issues has been the dating of the first use
of conglomerate, which was employed systematically in
the foundations and hidden structural elements of the
theatre as well as of the sanctuary of Dionysos. The open
question of the dating of the stone theatre’s earliest use
of conglomerate in these monuments28 is directly related

27 See p. 69-73 below.

28 Some scholars date its first use to the 5th century, others to the 4th until the new all-stone theatre came into use: Its construction began, according to
new evidence that has been presented in another study, in the middle of the 4th century BC. For its use as early as the second half of the/late 5th cen-
tury, but with different views on the dating of the structural parts of the theatre and the sanctuary of Dionysos, see Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 2, 12, 36f.;
Furtwängler 1901, 411-6; Puchstein, 1901, 137-9; Dörpfeld 1925; Bulle 1928 (n. 8 supra); Fiechter 1936, 69-74; Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 17; Dinsmoor
1951-1953, 317-25 (with a discussion of all the earlier views); Wurster 1993, 25-7, Fig. 8; Scullion 1994, 11-3; Bees 1995, 73-80. On dating and interpretation
of the much-discussed foundation aA: Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 52-69 Fig. 1.30-33. For supporters of the 4th century date, see note 43 below. 45
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Fig. 4. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Outer and inner western retaining walls from the southwest. Author’s photo.

to the key issue of whether some structural parts of the
late Classical theatre (Fig. 1. 3-5) and the sanctuary of
Dionysos can be associated with an incomplete 5th cen-
tury BC building programme to upgrade and renovate
the cultural centre of the city of Athens (including con-
struction of the Odeion of Pericles),29 or whether the
theatre was still made of wood until the middle of the
4th century BC, as later scholars maintain.30 The search
for answers to these questions is of profound impor-
tance, since it is connected with the tracing of Athens’
contribution to the evolution and crystallisation of the
canonical form of the ancient Greek theatre, which has
absorbed scholars for a century and a half now,31 and by
extension with our understanding of the wider context
of dramatic productions.
There is a lack of stratigraphic data from the fills in
contact with the structural parts of the theatre that are
of conglomerate. Wilhelm Dörpfeld (1896) had initially
dated the entire renovation and construction of Athens’
theatre in stone to the third quarter of the 4th century BC
despite the existence of other monuments in Attica for
the use of conglomerate before 430 BC,32 in other words,

29 Some proponents of this opinion, mainly earlier scholars, date it to the Periclean period, while others put it in the later 5th century BC during the
Peace of Nicias, not to omit a totally unsupported date in the late 6th century BC: see Dörpfeld 1925; Allen 1941, 291-2; Dinsmoor 1951-53, 314-30;
Wurster 1993, 6; Bees 1995 (with detailed discussion of older views); Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 17-22. On the Odeion: Burford 1965, 23, note 2;
Travlos 1971, 387-391; Robkin 1976, 41-60; Korres 1980, 14-8 drawing 1 (new research on its size); Miller 1997, 218-42 (discussing older views).
30 See note 42-3 below. For the most recent discussion of the different opinions: Papastamati-von Moock 2014.
31 Important study: Junker 2004.
46 32 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 36-40.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Fig. 5. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. General view of the east retaining walls from the southeast. Photo: German Ar-
chaeological Institute, Athens, 1978/200.

in the Periclean period.33 For the use of the same mate-
rial in the foundations of the newer temple of Dionysos
(Fig. 19), whose chryselephantine cult statue is attested
as a work of Alkamenes, thus of the later 5th century BC,34
Dörpfeld proposed, without adducing further excavation
data, a newer date than for the theatre (beginning of the
4th century BC)35 in an attempt to reconcile the chrono-
logical conflict between the material of the building and
the creation of the cult statue. During the period between
the two World Wars, this view changed owing to new con-
struction-related observations by Dörpfeld himself of the
double west lateral retaining wall of the auditorium, which
he attributed to two different phases of the monument,36
and of the first rough stratigraphical indications from the
rear wall of the stage-building (Fig. 1. 3. 19) by Heinrich
Bulle: the conglomerate was now dated to the 5th century
BC, probably to its second half.37 At that time, as well as
later on, a number of scholars – Dörpfeld among them –
attributed either just the rear wall of the stage-building,
together with the stoa of the sanctuary behind it, or the
stage-building’s entire stone foundation to the second half
of the 5th century, though there were of course significant

33 For the use of conglomerate in the substructure of the floor of the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous, see Judeich 1931, 2. For the dating, cf. Orlandos
1924, 318; Petrakos 1999, 213 (terminus post quem established by sherds in the retaining walls from the site’s remodelling before the temple was built
in the middle of the 5th century BC), 221-4.
34 Paus. 1.20.3. Cf. Reisch 1893, 1-23; Imhoof-Blumer & Gardner 1964, 142, pls. 201-5; Ridgway 1981, 174.
35 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 21.
36 Dörpfeld 1925, 26, fig. 1 (wall J1, J2), 29-32.
37 Bulle 1928, 53-5, 73, 79-80. 47
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

divergences in the interpretations they advanced.38 Their
views diverge markedly on the subject of whether some
sections of the retaining walls of the late Classical audi-
torium may be associated with a programme to upgrade
the wooden theatron.39 For the most part, the conglom-
erate foundation known as αΑ – which runs below the
estimated access level of the west parodos to bond with
the foundation of the southwest corner of the auditori-
um, uniting the late Classical retaining wall of the parodos
with the west exterior retaining wall (Fig. 19) – has greatly
exercised researchers, since most think it represents a
remnant of the dismantled retaining wall of the theatre’s
Periclean phase or of some pre-Lycurgan modification of
the wooden theatre.40 Its different orientation in relation
to the south front of the stone auditorium and the axis
of the late Classical theatre, and especially the fact that
it is immediately adjacent to the stone foundation of the
stage-building, has led to rather problematic proposals for
restoring the constituent parts of the Classical theatre as
well as to the view that their position was different from
that of the late Classical theatre. I have recently published
a separate study on the Lycurgan phase,41 which contains
an analysis of the construction and dating of foundation
αΑ that attributes it to the theatre’s late Classical phase,
and so I shall not repeat my arguments here.
More recent research, seeking more tangible dating
evidence for the Classical phases of the theatre and sanctu-
ary of Dionysos though relying on a problematic chrono-
logy of the foundation of the later temple of Dionysos and
the use of conglomerate by Petros Kalligas for the Lycur-
gan phase,42 has returned to the old opinion of Dörpfeld
that the entire Classical theatre remained wooden until
its late Classical expansion and renovation, save for some
improvements such as the seating arrangements of the
prohedria in stone.43 Kalligas’ view that the late 5th century
chryselephantine cult statue could have been ordered for
a temple that was built six decades later under Lycurgus
and that it could have been housed for this entire period
in some other space in the sanctuary, which because of its
restored monumental dimensions could not have been an
older temple of Dionysos that housed the ‘founding’ xo-
anon of the god,44 is certainly difficult for anyone to follow.
The example of the temple of Hephaistos in the Ancient
Agora teaches us exactly the opposite, namely that while
the temple was built under Pericles after the middle of the
5th century BC, the cult statues of Hephaistos and Athena,
also works of Alkamenes, were probably created about
twenty years later, obviously after the signing of the Peace
of Nicias and the temporary interruption of the Pelopon-
nesian War’s hostilities.45 In these more recent studies that
propose a late Classical date for the first use of conglomer-
ate in the monuments of the South Slope,46 the vital ques-

38 Dörpfeld 1925, 29; Wurster 1993, 23, figs. 8, 25. In contrast to earlier views, Korres (2010, 80, fig. 4.5) follows the opinions of more recent researchers
regarding the rectangular form of the wooden theatre. Bulle (1928, 71-2) argues for two phases of the stage-building during the second half of the 5th
century BC; Fensterbusch 1930; Fiechter (1936, 68-72, figs. 30-3, pls. 17-9) posits two phases, the first from the later 6th century, with the stoa serving
as the skenotheke, and a Periclean one for the entire stone foundation. Anti (1947, 65-82) and Polacco (1990, 160-74, figs. 39-40) follow these views.
39 Some of the supporters of a pre-Lycurgan dating for foundation αΑ on the west parodos think that the late Classical retaining wall of the east paro-
dos, along with the east lateral retaining walls, belong to the half-completed Classical phase of the renovation of the wooden theatre; see Allen 1941,
176-7, fig. 10; Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 16-7, fig. 7; Corso 1986, 65-68; Polacco 1990, 164-7, fig. 40; Bees 1995, 76-8, fig. 14. Others regard only founda-
tion αΑ as belonging to the Periclean or pre-Lycurgan modifications: Dörpfeld 1925, 25-32, fig. 1; Goette 1995, 31-2.
40 Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 52-60 fig. 1.30-33, contains a detailed discussion of this topic, including divergent scholarly opinions and relevant ear-
lier literature.
41 Papastamati-von Moock 2014.
42 Kalligas 1963, 14 f.; Dontas 1960, 53, n. 1, fig. 3. A final publication of the excavation with stratigraphic information has not appeared.
43 Travlos 1971, 537; Froning 2002, 50-1. For doubts about the preliminary results from Kalligas and the dating of the theatre’s remains: Newiger 1976,
88-9; cf. Green 1989, 19-20. For acceptance of this dating, see Korres 1980, 18; Goette 1995, 22, nn. 53-4, 27; Hintzen-Bohlen 1997, 21-8; Moretti 2000,
284-6 figs. 10-1; Moretti 2011, 122-7; Knell 2000, 128, 133, figs. 92, 100; Junker 2004, 11; Gogos 2005, 108-13; Goette 2007, 118; Goette 2011, 483; Korres
2009, 78-80, fig. 4.3 (1985-1987 model following the old view that the orchestra of the first theatrical installation was circular), though cf. Korres
2009, fig. 4.5 (embracing the trend evident in more recent scholarship that argues the wooden theatron had a Π-shaped plan).
44 Kalligas 1963, 14-15. The same view is followed by Hurwit 1999, 256; Gogos 2005, 112. Gogos’ view that the statue had probably been erected tempo-
rarily in the old Temple of Dionysos until the new temple was built approximately sixty years later cannot stand because of, inter alia, the great size
of this chryselephantine statue as evidenced by the very impressive dimensions of the foundations of its base (5 × 5 m): see Reisch 1893; Dörpfeld
& Reisch 1896, 13-9, fig. 1 (older temple), 19-23, figs. 4-5 (later temple).
45 Travlos 1971, 261-73; Camp 2001, 102-4.
46 Other indications have meanwhile been added from the monuments of the Ancient Agora for the dating of the conglomerate to the late 5th century
48 BC; see Shear 1970, 191, n. 59 (a stone drain from the northeast corner of the so-called Heliaia).
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

tion of the stage-building of the wooden theatre is solved
by positing a simple wooden skené in the shape of an ob-
long rectangle on the southern part of the orchestra plat-
form without any stone foundation.47 We should certainly
stress here that the dating of the first extensive use of con-
glomerate in the theatre and sanctuary of Dionysos is cen-
tral to Attic topography and history more generally. The
fact that isolated use of this stone is archaeologically at-
tested from the Periclean period, during the later stages of
which the city’s finances were burdened by the great build-
ing programme on the Acropolis and subsequently by the
Peloponnesian War,48 raises the question of whether the
opening of a new quarry and the securing of an accessible
and cheap stone should be related primarily to the launch
of some great construction programme at this period –49
and whether this involved the fundamental renovation of
the religious and cultural centre of the South Slope, which
also included the Odeion of Pericles.
After the discovery and publication of two categories
of inscribed rectilinear stones which have been dated to
the second half of the 5th century BC, researchers in the
years between the wars were already unanimous on at
least one point: that these stones testify to an attempt
to upgrade the wooden theatron on the South Slope
by improving the seats for dignitaries.50 On the basis
of the rectangular form of these stones and the con-
tinuously increasing comparative evidence from other
Classical theatres of the 5th and the first half of the 4th
century BC, mainly from Attica and the Peloponnesus,
more and more scholars in recent decades accept the
rectilinear, pi-shaped or trapezoidal design of Athens’
wooden theatron,51 which finally defined the outline of
the performance space – the orchestra, in other words
– as Gebhard has rightly maintained.52 Until now, ad-
herents of the circular form of the first Archaic orchestra
and the semicircular or polygonal form of the Classi-
cal wooden theatron derived from it have certainly not
been lacking.53 This proposed developmental scheme
emerged from and has been supported by the view that
the performance space for the first ritual and dramatic
events functioned for a considerable time without any
sort of built modification of the slope. This interpretative
model would better support the smooth transition from
the initial circular orchestra to the crystallisation of the
semicircular auditorium in the mid 4th century BC from
wood into stone, as well as the association of this cru-
cial step with Athens, the place where drama was born.54
The proposed restoration of Athens’ wooden theatre as
semicircular, which finds no parallel on Greek soil,55 goes
back to the time of Dörpfeld and reflects an attempt to

47 Goette 1995, pl. 13, 1; Goette 2007, 117, fig. 1, no. 11; Moretti 2000, 296-7, figs. 10-1; Froning 2002,; 41, 46, figs. 44-45.50.
48 The scholars who maintain the use of conglomerate was probable in the Periclean phase think that the only reason was the Peloponnesian War,
which began just a year before Pericles’ death, while I regard the burden on the city’s finances from the great Acropolis building programme as the
most important reason. Certainly the Peloponnesian War led to various monuments remaining unfinished for a considerable length of time.
49 Such as the renovation of the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis and the building of the monumental Telesterion designed by Iktinos; see
Noack 1927, 139-93; Travlos 1971, 94-5, figs. 159-164.
50 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 29, 31-32. 38; Bulle 1928, 61-3 (K. Lehmann-Hartleben), 69-70, pl. 4, Plan II, pl. 6, figs. 8-11; Fiechter 1935, 18 20, 78; Fiech-
ter 1936, 72, fig. 44; Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 19-20; Anti 1947, 68-71; Dinsmoor 1951-53, 323-4, 328-9, fig. 3; Gebhard 1974, 433-4; Wurster 1979, 62;
Wurster 1993, 25-39; Scullion 1994, 13-4, 40-1; Goette 1995, 27-8; Pöhlmann 1995, 56-9; Moretti 1999/2000, 382-5, fig. 2; Froning 2002, 39, figs. 46-7,
50-2; Junker 2004, 13, nn. 10, 15.
51 Lehmann-Hartleben, in Bulle 1928, 63; Anti 1947; Polacco 1999, 157-73, fig. 40; Wurster 1993, 37-42; Goette 1995, 22-30, pl. 13. 1; Goette 2007, 116-20,
fig. 1; Bees 1995, fig. 14; Froning 2002, 38-43; Moretti 2000; Junker 2004; Korres (2009, 78-80) shows the relationship between older (fig. 4.3) and
more recent research on the rectangular shape of the wooden theatre (fig. 4.5); Valavanis 2009, 99.
52 Gebhard 1974, 440. Further significant remarks based on the new data from the Ekklesiasterion of Metapontum: Mertens 1982b, 105-11 (with addi-
tional bibliography).
53 Bulle 1928, 70, pl. 4, Plan II; Fiechter 1936,72, pls. 18-9; Dinsmoor 1951-53, 328-30, fig. 2; Travlos 1971, 537, fig. 677; Wiles 1997, 44-6, 49-52; Knell 2000,
127-8, fig. 91; Gogos 2005, 94-9, fig. 30; Junker 2004, 17, note 14. Cf. Valavanis 2009, 90-9.
54 Discussed most recently by Junker (2004, 13).
55 We know little about the early phases of caveas. Aside from their excavation being very demanding, I think that this is often due to the prevailing
view that in phases where stone seats have not been identified the spectators must have sat on the ground. In most cases, definite indications for
the dating and form of late 6th century BC theatres are lacking. For the available comparanda, see Junker 2004 above. Attempts to combine rectilin-
ear and curved forms in early koila adduce the examples of the theatres of Thorikos (mid 5th century BC; dated in Mussche 1994, 17), of the deme
of Euonymos (likely of the early 4th century BC; Pohlmann [1981, 139] supposes a pi-shaped structure at Euonymos, whereas Wiles [1997, 29-30,
48 fig. 4-5] sees it as pi-shaped in the lower section and with slightly curving upper rows), and of Kalydon (see Frederiksen, this volume, 81-95 and
Junker 2004). 49
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Fig. 6 a. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. East parodos,

excavated area behind the western part of its retaining
wall. Author’s photo.

bring philology and archaeology together: the origins of

drama in circular dithyrambic dances are used to explain
the concomitant evolution of the construction envelope
which served it.56 This virtually official adoption of the
view that the first performance space was circular prior to
any known built modification of the slope in my opinion
constitutes an idealistic view of ancient architecture and
overlooks other significant parameters that influence the
creation of a building type at the experimental stage of its
evolution.57 The early examples of Assembly and activity Fig. 6 b. Cuttings in the bedrock north of the east parodos
spaces from Magna Graecia, especially Metapontum, are retaining wall, view from the west. Author’s photo.
certainly instructive for the first experimental stages in
the architectural shaping of such open spaces, and they
do combine a circular topographical design with a rec-
tangular ‘orchestra’.58 These examples, which developed approaches reflect basic issues of knowledge; in the pre-
in flat spaces, should not be regarded as independent of sent case we must seek an answer to the basic question of
the tendency of early architecture in Magna Graecia59 to whether the guiding role of Athens in the birth and de-
experiment with ‘discovering’ space,60 which was surely velopment of drama and in the creation of the canonical
based on intellectual trends transplanted from Ionia, the architectural form of the ancient theatre in the middle of
establishment of a school of Pythagorean philosophy, and the 4th century BC is also recorded in evidence for earlier
the great developments in mathematics and geometry in phases of the development of Athens’ theatre building.
this region.61 It is clear that these different interpretative But let us return to the monument itself. Within

56 Von Wilamowitz-Möllendorf 1886, 603-6; Pöhlmann 1981, 133-5 (history of the scholarship).
57 Junker 2004 is a significant essay in the same vein. A corresponding phenomenon has also been observed in the development of the Doric temple
from wood to stone, although here too matters are still insufficiently clear as regards early forms: Μüller-Wiener 1988, 112-3, 139-40.
58 Mertens 1982a, 16-20; Mertens 1982b, 100-2, 108; Wurster 1993, 37-42; Junker 2004, 24-8, figs. 6-8. The earliest example documented by excavations,
the wooden Ekklesiasterion of Metapontum, is particularly instructive, showing how little we know about the early koila without stone seats:
Mertens 1982b, 98-9, 105.
59 Junker 2004, 19-27; Gogos 2005, 48-50 (different approaches).
60 Gruben 1961, 198.
50 61 Van der Waerden 1979, esp. 337-63; De Zwarte 2004; De Zwarte 2006-2007; cf. Burkert 1962, 379-403.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Fig. 7. Western part of the east parodos and kerkis XIII after excavation. Drawing: A. Samara, D. Rubien and D. Kouliadis.

the framework of the programmes of consolidation and
presentation of the sanctuary and theatre of Dionysos
that are being carried out by the Scientific Committee
of the South Slope of the Acropolis of Athens,62 I have
been given the opportunity to re-examine the remains
and to conduct small-scale test excavations necessary
for archaeologically documenting the consolidation
and partial restoration of the theatre. The initial results,
which were presented in a 2004 lecture, are constantly
being supplemented with new evidence proving that the
structure’s unexcavated earth fill conceals valuable in-
formation about the theatre of the great tragedians. This
has also been confirmed by new evidence that came to
light in a small excavation in the auditorium during 2012,
which not only complements earlier observations from
the small investigations of the theatre’s retaining walls,
but also stimulates new ideas about the problems of the
wooden theatre. For this reason the new discoveries will
be presented here, albeit in a very preliminary manner.
The first definite evidence for the existence and nature
of the foundation of the much-discussed ikria, as well
as of the southern limit of the wooden theatron, came
from a test pit behind the west section of the east parodos
retaining wall.63 Evidence from the pit confirmed at the
same time that these boundaries did not differ greatly
from those of the Lycurgan theatre (Fig. 6-7. 19 no. 1). Just

62 See Mantis 2006, 2007.

63 Constituting the first programme of consolidation and partial restoration of the theatre, this work was completed in 2001; Samara 2004. 51
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Fig. 8. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Trench in the inner SW corner of the auditorium revealing negative impressions of
two ikria from the wooden theatron. Author’s photo.

1.2 m north of the west part of the retaining wall, badly
damaged cuttings in the shape of an irregular square and
a circle with dimensions of 0.6 × 0.7 m and 0.6 × 0.6 m
respectively were located in the bedrock, which exists
at a somewhat higher level (92.31) than the foundation
of the late Classical retaining wall and the level of the
parodos (91.37). Inside the square cutting a large iron
nail was found, a definite indication of the material that
was embedded within it. At the time, we had thought
that these holes, as an isolated find, were the remnants of
foundation cuttings for wooden ikria, though we could
not produce further definite evidence for their date, since
they had largely been destroyed by the construction of
the late Classical theatre.
Definitive results were obtained, however, from a
small-scale trial excavation at the southwest inside cor-
ner of the west inner conglomerate retaining wall of the
auditorium immediately north of the remains of the me-
diaeval Rizokastro, which is partly preserved behind the
retaining wall of the parodos (Fig. 10. 19).64 Apart from
the other finds here, those concerning Athens’ wooden
theatre and its modifications were of particular impor-
tance, since for the first time the existence and form of
the much-discussed ikria could be documented with
absolute assurance, while the pottery that was found in
the foundation trench of the west inner retaining wall of
conglomerate provided the first secure indications for
the dating of the use of this stone, which has long been
a scholarly desideratum. These details only constitute
a preliminary report on the findings, since the pottery,
together with other data, is currently under study.
Just beneath the present preserved level of the interior
fill of the auditorium (96.04) in this area an undisturbed
artificial ancient fill of alternating layers was discovered,

64 This investigation was intended to ascertain the foundation level of the mediaeval Rizokastro and is connected with the documentation and publi-
52 cation of a study of the consolidation and restoration of the parodos retaining wall. See Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 25 n. 46.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

A B

Fig. 9 a–b. Detail of the trench in the inner SW corner of

the auditorium. Post holes for the ikria showing traces of
the original wood. Author’s photo.

which had a gentle incline from east to west and a pro-

nounced downward slope from north to south (Fig. 10).
To the west, these layers were cut by the wide foundation
trench of the west inner retaining wall, which in turn had
been disturbed in its upper section, at a depth of approxi-
mately 1 m, by the foundation trench of the dismantled
west wall of the mediaeval Rizokastro.65 The manner in
which the trench’s fill was laid down was typical of the
method used to raise the working level for building the
wall in parallel horizontal stages. It consisted of alternat-
ing thick layers of very compressed clean soil that cor-
responded to the thickness of the stone courses of the
wall and thin layers with conglomerate gravel, mainly at
the height of the horizontal joints, which came from the
uniform bevelling of the upper surface of each course of
stones. At level 93.27(W)/93.74(E) and underneath the
alternating layers of the very thick artificial fill (maxi-
mum preserved thickness 2.26 m), which had been cre-
ated with material brought in from various places, were
the negative impressions of four-sided ikria (posts) with
large diameters (west 0.313 × 0.20 m, preserved depth
0.52 m; east 0.30 × 0.15 m, preserved depth 0.62 m) that
had been embedded at exactly the same level (92.69) into
very hard earlier earth packing, to the west of which the
foundation trench of the west inner retaining wall con-
tinued (Fig. 8. 10). The post holes for the dismantled ikria
had been filled and covered over with fine fill from the
excavated bedrock containing a few pottery fragments,
while the composition of the lowest layer of the overlying
artificial fill characteristically consisted of fragments of
crushed bedrock, which was excavated in the process of
preparing the foundation of the west inner retaining wall
immediately after the ikria in this area were dismantled.
The deliberate dismantling – rather than the collapse – of
the ikria under discussion and the immediate filling of
the post holes can be deduced from the well-preserved
impressions of the fibrous structure of the wood in the
sides of the holes (Fig. 9), which would not have been
preserved if this ikria had collapsed and the holes had re-
mained exposed to the weather even for a short interval.66
The impressions of the wood are also evidence for the
length of time the stands remained there, and indeed for
the permanent character of Athens’ wooden theatron, as
also shown by other recent data from excavations, which
we will present shortly. Although the excavation of the
fill in which the ikria were embedded did not proceed

65 For the dating of the Rizokastro, see Tsakos 1987-1988, 342.

66 The process of dismantling the ikria must have caused one side of these holes to widen and slope. 53
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Fig. 10. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Inner SW corner of the auditorium. Trench A and A2, ground plan and elevation
with stratigraphy. Drawing: D. Kouliadis.
54
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

because of a decision to preserve these important finds,67
some important conclusions about the modifications of
the original wooden theatron could be drawn with the
help of other observations. Of particular interest was the
slight differentiation in the colour and composition of the
fill west of the foundation post holes of the two ikria, and
along a constant width of approximately 1 m in a NW–SE
direction parallel with the southern section of the west in-
ner retaining wall and of its foundation trench, excavated
to a specific depth (Fig. 8. 10). This differentiation could
only be related to the backfilling of the foundation trench
of an older retaining wall which supported the massive
earth fill where the ikria were embedded. This retaining
wall was dismantled together with these end ikria be-
fore the construction of the west inner retaining wall of
conglomerate began. Indeed, the demolition must have
been carried out from the interior to the exterior west
side of the wooden theatron, with the stones of the old
retaining wall cast down into the open space of the west
ascending way, while the construction of the new con-
glomerate retaining wall would have started immediately
so as to preserve the fill held by the old retaining wall.
The existence of a supporting retaining wall for the mas-
sive amount of fill where the ikria were put in and the
obvious need for a corresponding wall from the parodos
side is also confirmed by the low level of the bedrock
(approximately 2.5 m lower)68 in this southwest area of
the monument, which gives us an indication of the great
thickness of the unexcavated fill.
If our observations are correct, then the wooden thea-
tre’s western edge was practically the same as that of the
stone theatre; this was evidently determined over time
by the existence and immemorial function of the west
ascending way (Fig. 19), which led to older sanctuaries
and the Acropolis.69 The fact that the filling of the foun-
dation trench of this older retaining wall of the wooden
theatre was preserved, and that it runs parallel with that
of the new retaining wall of conglomerate, means that
the latter, at least along its southern section, followed not
only the direction but also the straight course of the older
wall with just a slight displacement towards the west. The
immediate construction sequence of the work of disman-
tling sections of the older wooden theatre and building
the new retaining wall of conglomerate was confirmed
by yet another find. In the upper surface of the filling of
the foundation trench of the old retaining wall west of
the post holes, a small disturbance was observed: a small
shallow pit was found to contain an assemblage of pieces
of unfired clay, ceramic fragments, and bones of small ani-
mals (Fig. 8. 10). This find, which will not be commented
on in detail here, may have been the ritual deposit from a
foundation-laying ceremony (ἐγκαίνιον),70 and because
of its location it can be associated only with the start of
construction on the west inner retaining wall after the
dismantling of a section of the wooden theatre and the
older west retaining wall. Indeed, the material produced
by the digging out of the bedrock for the newer wall’s
foundation constituted the first thick layer of the new
fill, on top of the buried post holes of the ikria and the
ritual deposit that inaugurated the raising of the artificial
fill in the interior of the auditorium at the same time as
the construction of the inner west retaining wall.
But what was the chronological sequence of all these
interventions, and how do they fit into the evolutionary
phases of the architecture and the specific history of the
theatre of Athens? The west side of the stone auditorium
is shaped and supported by a double retaining wall with a
straight smaller southern section and a curved northern
one of greater length; the inner wall was built only of con-
glomerate, while the outer one was made of Piraeus lime-
stone on a conglomerate foundation (Fig. 4. 19).71 The two
parts of the wall, which stand approximately 1.5 m apart,
were connected by tie-walls or supports every 5 to 7 m,
while the inner retaining wall bears at the same intervals
long perpendicular spur walls for containing and distrib-
uting the load of the fill of the auditorium. The west exte-

67 The decision was made by the President of the Committee at that time, Mr. Kalligas.
68 The level of the bedrock as it inclines S/SW west of the area of the foundation of the corner retaining wall of the parodos and the exterior west re-
taining wall is 90.23 and to the south of foundation αΑ it is 89.28.
69 For the persistence of ancient roads, see also Noack 1927, 184 (on the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis).
70 Inauguration ceremonies (ἐγκαίνια) are known from house foundations, e.g. from the excavations of Classical and Hellenistic houses underneath
the New Acropolis Museum: Parlama & Stampolidis 2000, 33 (excavations at the Acropolis Metro station); Eleutheratou 2006, 52-7; Knigge 2005,
6-7, pl. 5; 15 (Kerameikos, Bau Z1, with numerous examples); Weikart 2002.
71 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 40f., pl. 1; Fiechter 1935, 78-80, figs. 67-69, pls. 1, 10. 55
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

rior retaining wall bonds with the late Classical retaining
wall of the parodos on the SW corner and it must therefore
belong to the late Classical phase, though the possibility
of its being completed a little later than the parodos wall
cannot be ruled out.72 The fact that the conglomerate west
inner retaining wall presents structural gaps and variations
in level at the places where it meets the tie walls, as Dörp-
feld was first to note,73 as well as the lack of bonding be-
tween its slender south end and the west parodos retaining
wall,74 clearly suggest two building phases and probably
two chronological phases. The recesses in the outer side of
the inner retaining wall left for the bonding with the inter-
vening buttresses and the outer retaining wall do testify in
each case to an initial unified plan gradually executed and
completed. This raises three questions. In what intervals of
time did the implementation and execution of construc-
tion in this area of the auditorium occur? How is it related
to the construction of the other perimeter retaining walls
of the auditorium? And what does it mean for the history
of the Classical theatre? The latest sherds from the filling
of the foundation trench (Fig. 11) can be dated to the third
quarter of the 5th century BC and furnish us with a termi-
nus post quem for the construction or start of construction
of the west inner retaining wall around 430/425 BC,75 at
the end of the Periclean period, with its completion – to
what height is unknown – evidently during the late 5th
century BC. This chronological terminus, in combination
with the rest of the observations and findings of the small
excavation, leads us to the following conclusions about the
wooden theatre and its modifications.
1) The wooden theatre existed before the Periclean pe-
riod and its spatial arrangement, which respected the
age-old use of the west ascending way to the Acropo-
lis, also defined the later layout of the theatre’s west
side in the long term.
2) The creation of an artificial fill of great thickness on
this side for the foundation of the ikria, the need to
support it together with retaining walls on the west
and south sides, and the indications that the ikria
stayed in place for a long time mean that the theatre
existed for a long period before the decision was made
to build the west inner retaining wall of conglomerate.
Only the excavation of the fill underneath these ikria
would securely provide us with the date the wooden
theatre was founded, which based on the evaluation
of the textual sources can at this point be placed in
the late 6th century BC at the latest.
3) The perimeter retaining walls supporting the carefully
controlled surface in which the ikria were embedded,
either on top of thick artificial fill as on the southwest,
or in specially made cuttings in the sloping bedrock,
as behind the retaining wall of the east parodos, must
in all probability have been of polygonal style similar
to that which supported the man-made terrace of the
first orchestra,76 while their height would not have
exceeded the level of the ikria post holes by much.
On the south front of the theatre, along the parodoi,
they would in all probability have sloped gradually
down towards the level of the orchestra.
4) The features of the structure that can be deduced

72 The finishing of the retaining wall’s stones is less fine than that of the parodoi walls. This can certainly be linked as much to financial reasons as to
the fact that these stones were not on the monument’s main façade, since those in the parodos walls show exceptional workmanship.
73 Dörpfeld 1925, 28-31, figs. 2-3; Fiechter (1935, 78-80) thought that an older exterior wall was dismantled and the existing (sic) wall built, and that this
did not necessarily signify two chronological phases.
74 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, pl. 1 (the south end does not continue to the east, as shown in the sketch plan; a different rendering appears in Dörpfeld
1925, fig. 1). See also Fiechter 1935, pl. 10.
75 Among the masses of mainly small pottery sherds of prehistoric, Archaic, and early Classical times from Section A, Layer VI, the latest and most
diagnostic are dated to the third quarter of the 5th century BC. By way of illustration, I mention the handle of an Attic skyphos (Agora, cf. Sparkes
& Talcott 1970, 84-5, 259, no. 342, fig. 4, pl. 16), a section of a black-glazed lamp of Howland type 22 C (Kerameikos; cf. Scheibler 1976, 25 GL 33,
pl. 17), a shoulder of a red-figured lekythos (Kerameikos; cf. Knigge 1976, 148, no. 269, pls. 42-3), part of the lower section of the body of a mug
(Agora, cf. Sparkes & Talcott 1970, 73, 251, nos. 203-20, fig. 3, pl. 11), a body sherd from a red-figured pear-shaped closed vessel (perhaps a chous?
Kerameikos; cf. Knigge 2005, 136-7, no. 205, pl. 73), a piece probably from a kantharos with stamped decoration (Agora, cf. Sparkes & Talcott
1970, 115-6, 281, no. 633, fig. 7, pl. 27), and a fragment of the lip of a one-handled jug (Kerameikos, Knigge 2005, 137, no. 208, fig. 42, pl. 73; Agora, cf.
Sparkes & Talcott 1970, 126, 289, no. 749, fig. 8).
76 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 26-7, Fig. 6, pl. 1 (R in Dörpfeld, SM1 in Fiechter 1935, pl. 1); Wurster 1993, 23-4, Figs. 8, 10-1; Moretti 1999-2000, 389-95,
Figs. 4-6; the wall south of the west parodos has a slightly different polygonal style and is more slender (D in Dörpfeld, SM 3 in Fiechter; Moretti
1999-2000, 393-4, Fig. 7), which is surely connected with the support of the west parodos. Polygonal walling at the base of the retaining wall of the
west ramp of the upper parodos of the theatre must be connected to interventions of this period; for the sanctuary, see n. 100 below. The Peisistratid
56 retaining walls at the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis are similar in style: Noack 1927, 48, pls. 24b, 27a; Travlos 1988, 128-9, Figs. 146-8.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Fig. 11. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Ceramic fragments from the foundation trench of the inner west retaining wall of
the auditorium. Author’s photo.

support the contention that the wooden theatre was
not a temporary movable construction, but rather
permanent in nature from the beginning, and that its
sides either were parallel or diverged slightly towards
the front.
5) A renovation of the existing wooden theatre from the
ground up must have been planned as part of the great
Periclean building programmes, in which the innova-
tive design and construction of the new building for
performances to the east of the theatre (the Odeion
of Pericles) was also included.77 This renovation be-
gan from the sides for understandable reasons – so
as not to interrupt the annual Dionysiac festivals and
dramatic contests – but was not completed, as can be
concluded from other evidence that the wooden thea-
tre was in operation until approximately the middle
of the 4th century BC.78 The limited excavation data
testify to the dismantling of the ikria of the original
theatre, but it cannot be said whether the older wood-
en theatre was completely dismantled and renovated
in its Periclean phase, or simply expanded with some
modifications.
6) The attribution of the retaining walls of the parodoi
to the late Classical (Lycurgan) phase, because their

77 Some earlier scholars have also advanced this hypothesis, with many divergences of opinion: see Dörpfeld 1925; Fiechter 1950, 26-7, fig. 8; Allen
1941, 291-2; Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 15-28; Corso 1986, 65-8; Polacco 1990, 167-74, fig. 40.
78 See p. 44-45 above. 57
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Fig. 12. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. East retaining wall of the auditorium joining with the SE corner of the east par-
odos retaining wall. Elevation and ground plan with locations of the small test pits. Drawing: D. Kouliadis.

construction bonds with the end of the orchestra’s
passage and the steps of the stairways at the edges,79
means that the theatre’s old retaining walls defined
the image of the half-renovated wooden theatre for
more than a hundred and fifty years.80
7) If, as it appears, the west inner retaining wall with its
curved northern section constitutes a unified struc-
ture, it would mean that the Periclean plan envisaged
not only the building of a new monumental stone
theatre, but also a layout based on the geometric form
of the circle.81 We will return to this important topic
below.
The irregularly shaped plan of the late Classical stone au-
ditorium on the east side (Fig. 5. 19) has exercised schol-
ars on many occasions and has been interpreted by most
researchers as linked to the execution of the ‘Lycurgan’
plan within the spatial confines imposed by the position

79 Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 34-35 fig. 1.16.

80 This evidence leads us to hypothesise that the lateral retaining walls of conglomerate (for those on the east side, see below) must also have been
built to a certain height and reached their final height during the Lycurgan phase.
81 It is striking that this issue was not raised by the supporters of a Periclean date for the retaining wall. Dinsmoor (1975, 209) made one note, since he
accepted a circular form for the wooden theatre and the semicircular transformation of the spectator space and dated it to the time of the Peace of
58 Nicias (later 5th century BC).
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

of the older Odeion of Pericles, so the retaining walls as a

unified construction with that of the parodos also belong
to the theatre’s late Classical phase.82 Also problematic is
the view that the parodos retaining wall together with the
lateral retaining walls are related to the half-finished pro-
gramme of renovation of the wooden theatre during the
second half of the 5th century BC,83 since the retaining wall
of the parodos, as mentioned above, can only belong to the
late Classical phase. In a first presentation in 2004,84 with
the results from the excavation of the southwest corner as
the impetus, I pointed out that despite all the differences
presented by the retaining walls on the east side as regards
dimensions and spatial arrangement, the features of con-
struction they share with those of the west inner retaining
wall are crucial for their interpretation. In particular, the
absence of bonding of the massive south end of the east
lateral retaining wall85 with the very bulky substructure
of the corner of the late Classical parodos retaining wall
(Fig. 12. 19)86 leads us to conclude that the east lateral re-
taining wall, together with the walls behind the Odeion,
must comprise an older unified construction related to
the addition of the Odeion on the wooden theatre’s east.
Favouring this conclusion are both their alignment with Fig. 13. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Eastern wall
the Odeion and above all the construction of the north of the auditorium with a small test pit between buttresses
wall of the Odeion touching the section of the retaining 2 and 3. Northside wall with a layer of the foundation
wall behind it. On the basis of these observations and of trench’s filling. Author’s photo.
the evaluation of the construction and chronology of the
west inner retaining wall, these lateral retaining walls of
conglomerate could, together with the west inner retain-
ing wall, be attributed to the same programme to renovate box in the massive south end of the east lateral retaining
the wooden theatre during the Periclean period, which wall with an especially thick substructure testifies to these
was not completed due to the terrible economic situation two retaining walls of the southeast side of the auditorium
resulting from the Peloponnesian War. Indeed, that the having been planned at two separate points in time.
late Classical retaining wall of the parodos was needed to The investigations that followed, using small-scale ex-

82 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 36; 1925; Travlos 1971, 537, fig. 678; Korres 1980, 12, drawing 1; 18; Scullion 1994, 65-6; Goette 1995, 22, n. 53-4; 27; Hintzen-
Bohlen 1997, 21-8; Moretti 1999-2000, 381; Moretti 2000, 284-6, figs. 10-11; Moretti 2011, 122-7; Knell 2000, 128, 133, figs. 92, 100 (without taking recent
research on the existence of only a single diazoma in the theatre into consideration); cf. Korres 1980, 12, drawing 1; Junker 2004, 11; Gogos 2005,
108-13; Goette 2007, 118; Goette 2011, 483; Korres 2009, 78-80, fig. 4.3 [1985-87 model]).
83 Fiechter 1950, 26-7, fig. 8; Anti 1947, 78-82, fig. 19 (late 5th century BC); Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 15-9, fig. 7; Dinsmoor 1951-1953, 323-4, fig. 2; Corso
1986, 65-8, fig. 10; Polacco 1990, 167-74, fig. 40; Wurster 1993, 27-8, fig. 8.
84 See n. 1 above.
85 Also due to this were the structural problems presented by the point where the east lateral retaining wall of conglomerate blocks joins the north end
of the east side of the retaining wall of the east parodos, which with its quoin-stones formed a corner to the east, clearly to join with the wall of the
Odeion of Pericles, located only 1.5 m further to the east. For the situation prior to the restoration (completed 2003), see Fiechter 1935, 83, Fig. 73.
86 The great thickness of the substructures of the southeast corner of the auditorium was interpreted earlier by Dörpfeld as a necessity because of the
existence of a staircase leading to a second diazoma in the auditorium. This has been rejected by more recent research showing the existence of a
single diazoma: see Korres 1980, 12, drawing 1; Papathanasopoulos 1987, 37-58, fig. 47. 59
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

corner of the parodos retaining wall (Fig. 5. 12. 19). In ad-

Fig. 14. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Ceramic frag-
ments from the foundation trench of the east retaining wall
of the auditorium. Author’s photo.
cavations in 2007/8 for the archaeological documentation
of the next programme of consolidation and restoration
of the east lateral retaining wall,87 would confirm those
initial thoughts. In particular, the eastern lateral retaining
wall presents similarities of construction to the west inner
retaining wall: it is built exclusively of conglomerate, it
bonds with long inner spur walls approximately every 5 to
6 m, and its south end, which is especially massive, touch-
es but does not bond with the interior substructure of the
dition, it has been confirmed that its construction does
bond with the retaining wall north of the Odeion, which
in turn bonds with the wall’s northeast section, thereby
documenting that the retaining walls on the east side of
the theatre constitute sections of a Z-shaped structure
of unitary construction and date. Together with the facts
that the two monuments are immediately adjacent to each
other and the massive south end abuts the late Classical
retaining wall of the parodos, this clearly indicates two dif-
ferent construction phases. An analogous conclusion has
been drawn for the retaining walls of the west and south-
west side of the auditorium. This has also been corrobo-
rated by the ceramic material found in a small test pit in
an undisturbed area of the filling of the foundation trench
(Fig. 12-14), which furnishes an approximate terminus post
quem of about 440/430 BC.88 The same mid-5th century
date is also provided by sherds from the foundation trench
of the Odeion uncovered in a rescue excavation by the 1st
Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in a plot
outside the archaeological site that contains the monu-
ment’s southeast corner.89 Consequently, the retaining
walls of conglomerate on the east side must be associ-
ated as much with the planning and construction of the
Odeion of Pericles immediately to the east of the wooden
theatre as with the unfinished programme of the renova-
tion and expansion in stone of the old wooden theatre.
Indeed, the earliest date for the start of construction of the
lateral retaining walls on the east side in connection with
the inner west retaining wall indicates that the interven-
tions in the spectator space began from the east, evidently
to give priority to the construction of the colossal Odeion
to serve the great Athenian festival of the Panathenaia,90
which was reorganised by Pericles,91 as well as the theatri-
cal contests. Besides, Cratinus’ mockery of ‘squill-headed’

87 In progress since 2011 as the result of the approval of the relevant proposal by KAS (Central Archaeological Council). The excavation was limited in
extent and aimed to uncover the upper surface of the preserved sections of this monument and to distinguish the basic features of its construction,
hitherto unknown to researchers.
88 The small test pit inside the wall between buttresses 2 and 3 produced various sherds of prehistoric, late Geometric, Archaic, and early Classical
pottery. Two of the latest items are diagnostic: a section of the body of a delicate stemless cup with an offset beneath the inside of the rim (Agora,
cf. Sparkes & Talcott 1970, 102-3, 269, nos. 483-7, fig. 5, pl. 22) and part of the body of a Corinthian-type Attic skyphos with linear decoration on the
zone above the foot (Agora, cf. Sparkes & Talcott 1970, 81-3, 257, nos. 314-5, 318, pls. 14-5).
89 Andreadaki-Vlazaki 2012, 13 (for the 1st EPKA, from the plot at Odos Thrasyllou 16).
90 Although many issues relating to the phases of the Odeion remain obscure, much of the evidence suggests that the Roman rebuilding followed the
plan of the Classical monument; see most recently Miller 1997, 224-30. Some new investigations of a limited nature are currently underway in the
framework of urgent interventions by the architect A. Samara and the author to consolidate the structure.
60 91 Miller 1997, 222-3.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Pericles – in other words with a head big enough to bear
the Odeion itself –92 also reflects the great general’s pride
in its completion.
Thus, the attribution of the east lateral retaining walls
of conglomerate to the Periclean phase also explains the
abutting of the massive south end of its south section to
the Lycurgan retaining wall of the parodos, but not the
differences with regard to its design and the features of
its construction. What, then, were the reasons for these
peculiarities of construction of the theatre’s east side,
which compelled the architect of the late Classical theatre
to design an east parodos retaining wall that was longer
than the one on the west, and to bridge the distance be-
tween it and the south end of the Periclean lateral retain-
ing wall by underpinning the corner with a particularly
wide substructure?93 The rectilinear design and the direct
relationship and parallelism of its construction with the
Odeion’s walls were necessary to shape and support the
slopes in order to build the Odeion. The extension of the
northeast leg, and above all the elongated south end with
its extension to the west, provides evidence of the double
purpose for the planning and construction of these retain-
ing walls in the Periclean theatre then under renovation. If
the design of their northeast leg testifies to an extension
to the Periclean theatre reaching approximately to the
late Classical diazoma (Fig. 19), it poses an important
question: why is the east side of the theatre shortened and
the Odeion’s design intruded upon? The answer to this
fundamental question of the South Slope’s topography
– to which researchers have responded in various ways
until now because most of them perceive the retaining
walls of the southeast side of the theatre to be a unitary
intervention of the Lycurgan phase in both construction
and date – I think can be decided using the evidence of
the plan of the monumental Odeion itself. From the nu-
merous pieces of information for the topography of the
South Slope, we can deduce that the spatial planning of its
monuments in most cases respected age-old traffic routes,
integrating them into their plans in some fashion.94 The
excavations have already documented that this principle
had determined the theatre’s extension westwards since
the first wooden structure was erected, before the theatre’s
incomplete Periclean renovation, while the parodoi, as
Korres has maintained, were placed in the same loca-
tion as an older circumference road.95 The same reasons
seem also to have influenced peculiarities of the theatre’s
ground plan on the east side. The off-centre location of
the east monumental entrance of the Odeion, as evident
in the remains of the propylon some distance to the north
of the monument’s axis and the restored west entrance to-
ward the theatre (Fig. 19),96 means by analogy with other
Athenian monuments that its architectural planning and
spatial arrangement also took the function of a circumfer-
ence road south of the old Peripatos into consideration.97
It was mainly determined, however, by the point where
this road crossed another age-old road to the east of the
Odeion that ran upward and was of particular importance
to the Acropolis as well as to the theatre itself.98 Thus, the
adaptation of the Odeion’s architectural plan to these pre-
existing roads, but above all the layout of the east upward
road at a sharp angle relative to the axis of the wooden
theatre, as well as the obvious need for these two theatri-
cal spaces to relate to each other spatially and functionally
according to the new Periclean plan for the renovation
of the religious and cultural centre of the South Slope,
are all reasons for the Odeion’s spatial arrangement at
an angle to the theatre, the off-centre design of its east
propylon, and the design shortcuts in the southeast area

92 PCC iv Thrattai fr. 73=Plut. Per. 13.10. See Robkin 1976, 148; Miller 1997, 219-21 with further bibliography and older views.
93 See Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 57-60 fig. 1.33; 1.43.
94 Manolis Korres has been occupied with the subject of the ancient road network since the 1980s: Korres 2002, 9-10, pl. 1; 2009; Ficuciello 2008.
95 Korres 2002, pl. 1; Korres 2009, 75, fig. 4.1 (not noted in Ficuciello 2008, pl. 2).
96 See Kastriotis 1919, 13, fig. 15; 14b (publishing a letter from Dörpfeld in which the positions of the entrances are first identified); Kastriotis 1922, 27f.,
figs. 2, 4; Travlos 1971, 389, fig. 502. This evidence of the Odeion’s architectural plan has not been pointed out by researchers; cf. Robkin 1976, 19.
The location of the west entrance of the Odeion on the axis of the theatre’s east parodos is shown not only by the direct functional relationship of
the two monuments, but also by other pieces of evidence currently being studied.
97 The same phenomenon, of architecture being applied to the road network, is observable in the Roman Agora of Caesar and Augustus: see Travlos
1971, 28-36, fig. 39; Korres 2002, 21-9, pl. 2; Korres 2009, 87-93, fig. 4.13.
98 The location of this ancient road, which begins at the Street of the Tripods by the Lysicrates Monument and runs toward the diazoma of the theatre
and the Peripatos (see Travlos 19932, 120), is also confirmed by the location of the gate of the mediaeval Rizokastro east of the Odeion of Pericles
(Travlos 19932 158, n. 3; Tsakos 1987-1988, 344). It is not noted in Ficuciello 2008, pl. 2. 61
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

of the Periclean theatre under renovation, none of which
affect either the aesthetic or the functional development
of these two important public buildings. The joint ar-
chitectural planning of the Theatre of Dionysos and the
Odeion of Pericles and the solution to the problem of
fitting two non-parallel monuments together must also be
responsible for the south section of these lateral retaining
walls developing at an acute angle in relation to the axis
of the theatre, and the peculiarities of the south end of
these walls, which extend some distance toward the west
while their south terminations form an oblique angle.
Ascribing the inner lateral retaining walls of conglom-
erate to the unfinished Periclean programme to build a
monumental stone theatre also accords with Bulle’s rough
dating of the rear wall of the stage-building to the second
half of the 5th century BC. This wall, which basically con-
stitutes the north section of the sanctuary’s peribolos,
functioned as the backbone of the clear new architec-
tural and symbolic separation of religious and theatrical
space, eliminating the older curved retaining wall that
supported the terrace of the orchestra of the late Archaic/
early Classical wooden theatre. The fact that this wall’s
construction bonds with the east wall of the stoa, which
at the same time constitutes the northeast section of the
peribolos of the sanctuary, and also that the peribolos
wall is engaged on the south with the foundation of the
propylon of the sanctuary discovered not long ago,99
leads us to the conclusion that the Periclean programme
of renovation and of a new spatial organisation of the
cultural centre of the South Slope included not only the
Odeion, with its impressive dimensions, and the building
of the new stone theatre, which remained unfinished, but
also the new monumental remodelling of the sanctuary
with a peribolos, a propylon, a stoa, and a new temple
for the chryselephantine cult statue of Alkamenes and
a new altar. These new findings are bolstered further by
the fragmentary information of our textual sources: they
accord with Andocides’ direct reference to the sanctuary’s
propylon in connection with the affair of the Hermokopi-
dai,100 which provides 413 BC as the terminus ante quem
for its completion. Certainly, to confine ourselves to the
theatre, the programme of the scheduled renovation com-
pletely in stone – as can be deduced from the archaeo-
logical evidence and the information provided by the
textual sources about the continued functioning of the
wooden theatre until the middle of the 4th century BC –
remained unfinished. Some of these monuments had ob-
viously been completed under Pericles: the Odeion; the
east lateral retaining wall of the Theatre, to an unknown
height; the peribolos of the sanctuary; and the propylon.
Others, however, were probably finished later in the late
5th century BC: the temple, because of the attested con-
nection of the cult statue with Alkamenes; the altar; and
the west lateral retaining wall of the auditorium, to an
unknown height. Because the stones of its entablature
are stylistically similar to those of the late Classical stage-
building,101 the sanctuary’s stoa, along with the theatre,
appears to have taken definitive form in stone much later,
during the Lycurgan phase after the mid 4th century BC.
As regards the extent of the original wooden theatre,
whose western and eastern edges coincide more or less
with those of the Periclean and Lycurgan phases, the cor-
responding dimensions along the east and north sides
have yet to be determined. The attribution of the rear wall
of the stage-building to the Periclean phase is supported
by the fact that it bonds with the massive foundation T
(Fig. 1. 3. 19) through which the axis of the monument
passes. The discovery of the western edge of the original
wooden building approximately 37 m to the west of this
makes it likely that the eastern edge is located a corre-

99 The foundation was found in 1999 during the works to restore the ancient road system under the direction of A. Mantis: see Kavvadias 2005, 188-9;
Andreadaki-Vlazaki 2012 (1st EPKA), 7, fig. 1, perceived that it bonds with the foundation of the sanctuary’s peribolos. It is located on the same axis
as the newer temple of Dionysos.
100 Andoc. De Myst. 38; Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 11; Moretti 1999-2000, 380. These scholars accept the existence of an earlier propylon based on their
view that the monuments of conglomerate date to the 4th century BC, but that is invalidated by the unitary plan of the peribolos, propylon, stoa,
and stage-building. Not to be ruled out, however, is the existence of a polygonal peribolos and some sort of propylon of the late Archaic/early Clas-
sical sanctuary of Dionysos, since excavations at the beginning of the 20th century found sections of a polygonal wall inside the south section of
the peribolos: see Philadelpheus 1921, 89, 93, drawing 1; cf. Welter 1922, 72-7, pl. 11. Probably also belonging to this peribolos is a massive polygonal
limestone to the south of the foundation of the newer temple of Dionysos, which if still in situ testifies to the Archaic sanctuary’s smaller extent.
101 Cf. Fiechter 1936, 19-20, pl. 1 (blocks from the Doric epistyle of the Late Classical stage-building), pl. 2, VI 1 (block from the Doric epistyle of the
62 stoa), pl. 7. Cf. Pickard-Cambridge 1946, 27.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

sponding distance away and runs in a parallel direction or
bends slightly eastward.102 If this is true, then the width
of the wooden theatre could be restored at approximately
74 m, a little smaller than the later stone auditorium, but
it explains both the placement of the east lateral retain-
ing wall at an acute angle toward the axis of the theatre
and the wall’s particularly elongated and massive south
end. This scheme outside the eastern edge of the original
wooden theatre was called upon, in the joint Periclean
plan for the Theatre and Odeion, to cover the gap result-
ing from the two monuments not being parallel, to sup-
port the slope for the construction of the Odeion and
to demarcate the side of the Theatre itself. Its south end
temporarily covered at this nexus point of the theatre’s
main entrance, the gap between it and the end of the older
parodos retaining wall of the original wooden theatre,
which as noted above, seems to have existed until the
all-stone renovation of the theatre began in the mid 4th
century BC. Only in this way could both its great length
and the oblique shape of its south side be justified. These
characteristics later defined both the bonding of the lat-
eral retaining wall of conglomerate at an obtuse angle with
the east part of the corner of the late Classical parodos
retaining wall, and the need for it to extend eastward103
to block the narrow corridor with the rainwater drain
between the two monuments,104 as well as the great thick-
ness of the substructure of the corner of the late Classical
parodos retaining wall, which was called upon to cover
the ensuing void with the new late Classical alignment of
the parodos retaining wall (Fig. 12. 19). On the west side,
in contrast, the location and reduced thickness of the
corresponding south end must have been determined by
the proximity of the wooden theatre and of the old paro-
dos retaining wall on the west upward road, immediately
west of which the new retaining wall of conglomerate
was built. With the new late Classical alignment of the
parodos retaining walls only a little further south than
those of the original wooden theatre, these came to cover
and contain these various ends, whose form and position
obviously determined the different construction charac-
teristics (length and thickness) of the later walls.105
Dörpfeld’s discovery of a section of a straight ancient
road in 1889 at a level approximately 8 m lower than the
diazoma of the stone auditorium, covered over by layers of
ancient fill,106 has thus far been regarded by most scholars
as a definite indication of the approximate northern limit
of the wooden theatre which existed until the mid 4th cen-
tury BC, as well as of the straightness of its sides by those
who uphold a rectilinear development of the theatre.107
Indeed, Dörpfeld mentions a distinction between layers of
fill older than the “Lycurgan” phase in the two trenches he
excavated, which could belong to modifications of the au-
ditorium after the mid 5th century BC.108 The lack of a de-
tailed publication of the excavation makes it difficult for us
to reach a conclusion about the extent of these layers, but
it seems very likely that he was referring to the lower layers
of the central trench published in the monograph, which
cover the “old Peripatos”.109 If this supposition holds true,
it would mean that the wooden theatre had two phases –
an initial one, which went as far as a point near the “old
Peripatos”, and a second (Periclean) after the mid 5th cen-
tury BC, during which its planned renovation in stone was
not completed and the wooden theatre was either fully
renovated with the completion of the stone proedria or
was expanded to the north up to the area of the late Clas-
sical diazoma, putting the “old Peripatos” out of operation
and displacing its function northward to approximately
the location of the late Classical diazoma.110 Other ques-

102 Similarly but with a circular orchestra, Korres 2002, pl. 1; Korres 2009, 80, fig. 4.5 gives the orchestra a rectangular perimeter. The proposed paral-
lelism of the east side of the wooden theatre toward the Odeion with the direction of the theatre’s drain as the criterion (Goette 1995, 28; Bees 1995,
78-9, fig. 14; Froning 2002, 46, fig. 45; Goette 2007, 118, fig. 1) cannot be valid, since the direction of the conduit was dictated by the location of the
upward road between the sanctuary and the Odeion, where it ended.
103 Fiechter 1935, 83, fig. 73, pl. 10.
104 Korres 1980, 12, drawing 1; 18.
105 For the east parodos retaining wall, see Tsakos 1987-88, 340-1, fig. 17; Samara 2004. For new observations on the parodos retaining walls: Papastama-
ti-von Moock 2014, 57-60.
106 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 30-1, fig. 7, pl. 1.
107 Anti 1947; Polacco 1990, 172; Goette 1995, 28; Korres 2002, 9-10; Goette 2007, 118-20, fig. 2; Moretti 1999-2000, 385, fig. 1; Froning 2002, 41.
108 See Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 30-1, fig. 7, pl. 1; Schneider 1889, 329-48. Cf. Bulle 1928, 72.
109 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 30, fig. 7.
110 Supposing its plan is not ultimately Periclean, a question only excavation can answer. 63
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Fig. 15. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Auditorium, kerkis VIII, trench VIII B above the 18th row of seating revealing the
cuttings and the well. Author’s photo.

tions, however, are generated by a row of smaller and larg-
er pits in the westernmost trench which are unfortunately
illustrated only in the ground plan for that trench (Fig. 19)
and extend a few metres southward from the late Clas-
sical diazoma.111 Could these pits have some connection
with the driving of the ikria into the sloping bedrock, as
we have ascertained in a very fragmentary way behind the
retaining wall of the east parodos?
The very preliminary results from a trench excavated
in 2012 (while the present study was being written), im-
mediately north of the eighteenth preserved row of seating
in the eighth kerkis, in the context of the restoration pro-
gramme,112 have added much important evidence to our
fragmentary knowledge of the wooden theatre (Fig. 19,
no 3). Underneath layers of fill and fragmentary remains
from different periods of the monument’s use, in addition
to the stepped cuttings for installing the seats in rows 19
to 25 of the stone auditorium and a prehistoric well to the
northeast,113 more small pits cut into the bedrock were
revealed. These pits were older than the stone auditorium
and are clearly related to the foundation of the ikria of the
Classical wooden theatre (Fig. 15. 16). Those in the north
and northeast areas were better preserved, since the rows
of seating had been inserted higher up because of the
incline and deeper quarrying of the bedrock was not ne-
cessary; at the northwest the level of the bedrock was low-
er and sloped toward the southwest. In the southern area,
in contrast, because of the Lycurgan stepped preparation

111 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, pl. 1.

112 Special thanks to Manolis Korres, who as a member of the Committee supported the necessity of excavating down to the bedrock (which the res-
toration study had not envisaged), to the architect Kl. Aslanidis for his edifying cooperation and excavation drawings, as well as to the archaeolo-
gist E. Marangoudaki for her help during the excavation, the aim of which was to set up a crane for the restoration programme of the cavea.
113 Wells had been found even further to the northwest in Dörpfeld’s excavation: Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 30-1, fig. 7, pl. 1; Bulle 1928, 72 (with many
64 Mycenaean sherds). Cf. Goette 2007, 118-9, fig. 2.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Fig. 16. Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Auditorium, kerkis VIII, trench VIII B above the 18th row of seating. Drawing:
Kl. Aslanidis.

of the bedrock and the lower level of the foundation for
the stone seating, the cuttings had largely been destroyed,
with only some of their lower parts preserved. Inside them
in some places we found circular lever holes from the later
installation of the stone benches with large wooden le-
vers.114 Independently of their arrangement, these cuttings
have an irregular squared outline (maximum dimensions
at upper end are approximately 0.6 × 0.6 m, maximum
preserved depth is approximately 0.45 m; some smaller
cuttings of 0.3 × 0.3 m were also observed). The two large
holes on the east also gave us the negative impression of
the great four-sided ikria (dimensions 0.3 × 0.4 m), which
were not inserted directly into the bottom of each hole,
but into hard-packed fill inside the holes. Adopting the
solution of tightly packing the holes with fill as bedding
for the ikria would at the same time widen the base of the
ikria so that they could function as a broadened footing,115
which was especially necessary on an uneven bedrock

114 The same construction features were revealed by an excavation of the dismantled eastern part of rows 5 to 7 in the same kerkis as in 2011; Papas-
tamati-von Moock 2014, 33 n. 77.
115 A similar method seems to have been followed in the securing of the theatre’s machinery, which involved additional static reinforcement and the
creation of strong footings with bases of hard limestone; see p. 69-70 below. 65
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17
foundation; this technique is also used in modern build-
ings. This system of fixing the ikria clearly contributed to
their increased stability and safeguarded the load-bearing
structure against movement, turning, and slippage, prob-
lems that were compounded by the slope of the ground.
At the same time, problems with moisture were also tack-
led.116 Along the east section of the trench, the larger cut-
tings alternate with smaller ones at constant intervals of
1.5 m and are arranged in a straight line on a north–south
axis. The remaining cuttings to the west of this row are
arranged roughly in rows along the same axis, and the
distance between them produces rows roughly 0.8-1.0 m
wide.
This fragment of the geometric/structural grid for the
load-bearing structure of the wooden theatre is of crucial
importance, even if it is only a small sample of what is
evidently hidden under the unexcavated fill of the monu-
ment. In our first very preliminary assessment of them, we
thought that the eastern row with the closely alternating
supports of larger and smaller diameters must be con-
nected with the location and construction of one of the
stairways of the wooden theatre. This was deduced from
the fact that the stairways in such gathering spaces receive
the greatest load and stress of any part of the structure,
during the arrival and departure of the spectators; the
need for greater static reinforcement is therefore justified.
All of the remaining area to the west shows the impres-
sion of the foundation of the ikria which bore the rows of
wooden benches,117 in all probability five, approximately
the same number as in the stone theatre. Their width can
be calculated as roughly 0.75-0.80 m; they were not much
smaller than the visible width of the stone benches of the
Lycurgan theatre. Unfortunately, the few small sherds
that have come from the fill remaining inside the cuttings
probably cannot tell us whether the excavated area of the
impressions from the wooden structure belongs to the
original wooden theatre or to its Periclean remodelling.
The shape of the cuttings, however, furnishes us with a
significant indication that even those which Dörpfeld
shows in the west trench much further north can be re-
lated to the Periclean expansion, thus confirming the scale
116 The application of other methods of protection from moisture, such as the use of resin or tar (Theophr. Hist. pl. 9.2-3, ed. Wimmer, Leipzig 1865),
on the elements of the wooden theatre generally should not be ruled out: see Fraisse & Moretti 2007, 163-5.
117 For the terminology relating to the wooden theatre, see Csapo 2007, 93, n. 10.
66 118 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 26-7, pl. 1 (V); Fiechter 1950, 23-4; Pöhlmann 1981, 131-2.
of the Periclean renovation as far as a little south of the
late Classical diazoma. Furthermore, the Periclean inner
lateral retaining walls of the auditorium also bear witness
to an extent of analogous dimensions. That the axis of the
stairway of the wooden theatre presents rough parallels
with the eighth stairway of the Lycurgan auditorium in
deviating from the monument’s main axis (Fig. 16. 19, no
3) may mean the width of the kerkides opened out as far
as these extended toward the north, and it does not rule
out a slightly curved arrangement of the wooden seating,
mainly in the upper reaches of the theatron. Unfortunate-
ly the evidence is still not sufficient; the pottery from this
excavation cannot give us secure indications of whether
the fragment of the grid discovered in the main section
belongs to the original wooden theatre of approximately
the late 6th century to the mid 5th century BC, which was
expanded after the middle of the 5th century northward
from the “old Peripatos”, or to the full renovation of the
wooden seating with a new alignment and the addition
of the stone proedria after about 440/430 BC, which en-
dured until the middle of the 4th century BC. The latter
possibility seems more likely. Furthermore, the evidence
from the excavation at the southwest corner attests to the
dismantling of the older ikria for the Periclean remod-
elling. In this case, which still remains under investiga-
tion, the incomplete Periclean renovation of the theatre
in stone led to a general renovation of the late Archaic/
early Classical wooden theatron (Fig. 18), with the addi-
tion of a new stone proedria adapted to the rectilinear
outline of the orchestra and a new alignment and expan-
sion of the wooden theatre with radiating stairways and
wedge-shaped kerkides to solve the audiovisual problems
of a larger theatre.
As regards the position and the width of the outline
of the interior of the original wooden theatre – pi-shaped
or trapezoidal – an indication is given in the deep cut-
ting in the bedrock at the west end of the east parodos
running in a NW–SE direction,118 as we determined in
new archaeological investigations and documentation
(Fig. 7. 19). Despite Dörpfeld’s theory that it was curved
and his desire to relate it to the different location of the
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

circular Archaic orchestra,119 the newly verified lack of
curvature, the location, the low level,120 and the direc-
tion nearly parallel to the Lycurgan drain underneath the
stage-building leads us to agree with those scholars who
believe it is associated with some conduit belonging to
the pre-Lycurgan theatre,121 since the interior outline of
the wooden theatre must also have been located immedi-
ately outside it, with a restored breadth of approximately
27 m. With regard to the renovation of the honorific seats
in stone during the second half of the 5th century BC, I
would like briefly to note the following in relation to the
proposed restorations. The short stones of the proedria
and correspondingly those of the other Classical theatres
of Attica belong with certainty to the first row,122 and were
obviously taken from existing rectangular structures, as
Dinsmoor proposed.123 They have correctly been restored
as the central, preferential section of the orchestra’s pe-
rimeter. In contrast, the two stones that define the seating
for the members of the Boule of the Athenians (ΒΟΛΗΣ
ΥΠΗΡΕΤΟΝ) differ in their greater height and in the
features of their shape and construction; they must have
been set up directly on the ground as completely mono-
lithic bench seating.124 The designation of the official oc-
cupants of these seats with a plural noun and the markings
on them, which obviously define the width (0.53 m) of
more than one seat on each stone,125 must indicate that
these denote the totality of seats in one or more rows
that were assigned to the members of the Boule.126 Aris-
tophanes’ reference to the “Council seats”127 also implies
an honorific section of Athens’ theatre with numerous
seats. If the discovery of two of them in areas to either
side of the south ends of the late Classical auditorium is
no accident,128 it may suggest that they were located at
the ends of the side sections of the proedria, of which the
first rows were assigned to these public servants, repre-
sentatives of the ten tribes and supervisors of the conduct
of the dramatic contests and religious festivals, and of
the implementation of the decisions of the Assembly.129
The distribution of such honorific seats in the renovated
wooden theatre surely reflected the Periclean ideology of
the hierarchical functioning of the Athenian democratic
state, as well as its strong relationship with the festival of
the City Dionysia.
As mentioned earlier, the stage-building remains a
central issue and should be touched on only briefly in the
context of this brief discussion.130 The new data, which
reinforce the dating of the back wall of the stage-building
(= north wall of the temenos) (Fig. 1. 3. 19) to the Peri-
clean phase, rule out a wooden stage-building without a
stone base; and the dating of an all-stone stage-building
to the later 5th century by Bulle131 runs counter to the
information provided by Xenophon.132 Still problematic,

119 Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 26-7; this is followed by the supporters of the notion of a semicircular wooden theatre; see p. 49-51 above.
120 Level 90.22, whereas the level of the Lycurgan parodos at its west section is 90.91.
121 Dinsmoor 1951-1953, 313; Scullion 1994, 26; Moretti 1999-2000, 395.
122 Anti 1947, 70, fig. 18-9; Gebhard 1974, 433-4; Pöhlmann 1981, 137-9; Wurster 1993, 37-41, figs. 45-49; Goette 1995, 10-7, figs. 1-4; Froning 2002, 39-41,
figs. 34-9; 49.
123 Dinsmoor 1951-1953, 323-, 328-9, fig. 3.
124 Moretti 1999-2000, 383, nos. 8-10, fig. 2; 387-9, fig. 3.
125 The width of a spectator seat in the Lycurgan theatre is estimated at 0.41 m, from analogous markings on the seats: see Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896,
49-50; Wurster 1993, 28. The greater width could also testify to the privileged character of these seats.
126 On the basis of this evidence, Dinsmoor’s reconstruction proposal in regard to the second row cannot stand, nor can Moretti’s, which puts these
stones together with those of the central section of the Proedria; see nn. 123-4.
127 Ar. Av. 794 (ἐν βουλευτικῷ); Scholion to Ar. Aυ. (=Suda, s.v. Bouleutikos); Ar. Pax 878; cf. Poll. Onom. 4.122.
128 One was built into the southeast end of the storm drain of the orchestra, where it is itself uninscribed (Bulle 1928, 60, 61-3 [K. Lehmann-Hartle-
ben]), while the other was at the southwest corner of the late Classical retaining walls of the auditorium (Dörpfeld 1925, 29; Fiechter 1935, 78, pl. 10;
1936, 72, fig. 44).
129 Csapo & Slater 1995, 157-65; Lagogianni-Georgakarakou & Bourazelis 2007, 54.
130 Researchers are unanimous that Aeschylus’ Oresteia (458 BC) absolutely required the presence of some sort of stage building: Scullion 1994, 65-6;
Bees 1995, 73; Froning 2002, 33. On the need for some form of wooden stage-building on the south section of the Archaic orchestra and in the
early Classical period, on the basis of new evidence for dramatic works, see most recently Pöhlmann 2002, 27-30 (before Aeschylus’ Persians in 472
BC; cf. Taplin 1977, esp. 452-9). For more detail on the Lycurgan stage-building, which not only incorporated elements of its Periclean predeces-
sor (e.g. the rear wall with foundation Τ), but also adopted functional and formal features directly connected with the key role played by tragedy:
Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 60-72 fig. 1.34-43.
131 With paraskenia in the form of towers; see also Bulle 1950. Cf. Fiechter 1936, 68-71, figs. 30-34 (later 6th to mid 5th century BC), 72-4, fig. 36 (Periclean).
132 See note 26 above. 67
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Fig. 17. Fragment of a bell-krater depicting a stage-building, attributed to the Konnakis Painter, ca. 350 BC, Würzburg,
Martin von Wagner-Museum H 4698 and H 4701. Hart 2010, 37, fig. 1.12.

however, are the proposals of earlier researchers that the
Classical stage-building consisted only of the back wall,
with its cuttings for the great wooden supports of the
scene decorations, and the much-debated platform T as-
sociated with it as the substructure for a propylon or a
façade attached to the scenery. These scholars also argued
that the stoa of the sanctuary found behind it solved func-
tional issues.133 If the stoa, which seems to have acquired
its definitive stone form during the third quarter of the
4th century BC, played the role of a stage-building, then
the three doorways required by the dramatic conventions
of Classical tragedy are missing.134 Such a stage-building
would in addition be formally and functionally contrary
to the type of construction we know not only from other
theatres, but also from the one that served the repeated
mounting of Classical tragedies from the middle of the 4th
century BC with their technical infrastructure demands
(for theatrical machines and the like) in this same theatre
at Athens. To be specific, the latest proposals concerning
the form and function of the skené from the mid 5th cen-
tury BC on have in my opinion been determined by two
factors: (1) the mistaken attribution of the late Classical

133 Dörpfeld 1925, 29; Fiechter 1936, 68-71, figs. 30-4 (later 6th to mid 5th century BC); Wurster 1993, 25-7, fig. 8; Korres 2009, 80, fig. 4.5.
68 134 For these entrances, see Müller 1886, 119-21; Chourmouziadis 1965, 14-25, 34; Taplin 1977, 438-40; Moretti 1992, 82-8.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

foundation αΑ to the wooden theatre, as I have shown in
another study and as has become clearer with the new
findings about the Classical theatre,135 whose proximity
to the stone foundation of the stage-building excluded
a stage-building as wide as the Lycurgan version; and
(2) by the lack of excavation data for the existence of
foundations earlier than the late Classical stage-building
or clear indications that the date of the completely stone
foundation of the stage-building should also be placed in
the 5th century BC.136
The fact that the structure of the massive founda-
tion Τ bonds with the wall shared by the stoa and the
stage-building (Η-Η) means that the construction of the
stage-building had been included from the beginning in
the Periclean plan. Obviously the non-completion of the
scheduled renovation of the theatre in stone, which had
been left until the last phase of the Periclean programme’s
implementation, led to a stage-building constructed of
cheaper materials being fitted into a stone substructure in
contact with the rear wall. The thinness of the back wall
and the cuttings for the great wooden posts relate to a
superstructure in all likelihood made of mud brick with
timber on top of some form of stone krepidoma, which
on the facade would have terminated in elements of wood
and terracotta, as the depiction in Würzburg tells us,137
alongside other instructive examples of important public
buildings of the 6th and 5th centuries, some from Athens.138
Thus, whether the stone foundation belongs entirely to
the Periclean stage-building,139 or whether another thin-
ner foundation existed together with the rear wall that was
dismantled when the late Classical all-stone stage-building
was erected, it is certain that its size and form did not dif-
fer significantly from that of the 4th century BC skené.
Apart from the well-known depiction in Würzburg from
the mid 4th century BC, which refers to a wooden stage-
building with paraskenia and older stylistic features,140
this interpretation is in my opinion supported by the
location and function of the much-debated foundation
T. This particularly deep and massive (3 × 7 m) founda-
tion, which bonds with wall Η-Η and extends toward the
north, is located on the theatre’s axis. On its back corners
are preserved two large rectangular structural gaps related
to the insertion of strong wooden posts, and there was also
an opening onto the stoa.141 The interpretations that have
been proposed for this foundation are many and varied:
the base of a propylon or stairway, a massive support for
the second storey, or the base of some sort of machinery,
perhaps even of the ekkyklema are just some examples.142
As my most recent research (currently in progress) shows,
the key issue of the famous theatrical machinery is con-
nected directly with its interpretation.143 The texts of the
dramatic poets, together with other sources, leave no
doubt about its use at least from 430 BC and throughout
the 4th century BC.144 A typical source is the scene with

135 Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 52-60 fig. 1.30-33.

136 Even if Bulle (1928, 54-5, 65) had with reservations theorised that the very sparse pottery from cuttings in the stone foundation of the stage-building
could date the entire foundation of conglomerate stone to the second half of the 5th century BC. This important issue demands new excavations in
the stage-building and must remain unresolved for the time being.
137 Bulle 1934, figs. 1-4, pls. 1-2; Simon & Otto 1973, 121-31; Taplin 2007, 228, fig. 88. For the philological view, see Fensterbusch 1930, 52 ff. For other ex-
amples of depictions of early buildings of cheaper materials and wood: Orlandos 19942, 18.
138 Besides the example of the Archaic Heraion at Olympia, the walls of which were built of unbaked mud bricks on top of a stone krepidoma and ended
in wooden antae (Orlandos 19942, 81, n. 5; Hellmann 2002, 106-9) this technique was used in the neighbouring Ionic stoa of the Asklepieion, dated
to the last quarter of the 5th century BC (Korres 1996, 97-9); on top of the marble orthostates there must have been mud brick walls (pers. comm. M.
Korres). In addition, in the South Stoa of the ancient Agora (430-420 BC; see Camp 2001, 127-9, figs. 121-2), as well as in the stage-building and the
retaining walls of the theatre of Elis (end of the 4th century BC), whose construction shows conservative features (Glaser 2001, 255-6).
139 Furtwängler 1901, 411-6; Bulle 1928, 72-3, 79-80, pl. 4 III; Fiechter 1936, 72-4, fig. 36.
140 Cf. Fiechter 1936, 69-70.
141 See Bulle 1928, 50, pls. 3. 4 III; 6, figs. 4-6; vertical section I, l. The structural gaps in the two rear corners are observable in the fourth course and
above. Bulle seems to have attributed them to an attempt to economise on the amount of stone used. The issue of the large doorway to the stoa is
discussed in greater detail in Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 64-70 fig. 1.34; 1.41-43 (on the ‘Lycurgan’ stage-building).
142 For details of the various views, see Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 63f. n. 192-194, in connection with the Lycurgan stage-building and theatrical
machinery.
143 Preliminary findings are likewise presented in Papastamati-von Moock 2014.
144 Newiger 1990, 33-9; Pöhlmann 1995c, 155-9, 162. Further, Dörpfeld & Reisch 1896, 226-34; Arnott 1962, 72-8; Melchinger 1974, 194-200; Taplin 1977,
443-7; Mastronarde 1990; Csapo & Slater 1994, 258, 268-73. 69
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Trygaeus in Aristophanes’ Peace, which makes fun of Eu-
ripides’ fondness for the deus ex machina.145 The plays of
Euripides were particularly popular in the 4th century BC
and productions of them, along with other works of the 5th
century tragedians, continued to be mounted in Athens’
theatre for many years from 386 BC on.146
To the two stones which Bulle presented in 1928
– one rectangular and perforated by a square cutting
(0.25 × 0.25 m), the other bearing traces of a large pivot
on its upper surface –147–– my recent investigations have
added another two with the same characteristics; all of
them are of hard limestone.148 The technical features,
dimensions, and recent identification of the width of
the foundation of one of the blocks with square holes
above the west structural gap in Foundation T leave us
with no doubt that these two stones incorporated into
the foundation were seated on top of the structural gaps
in the back corners as strong bases for a two-legged pi-
shaped theatrical machine, the posts of which passed
through the blocks and were driven quite deeply into the
compacted fill of the two holes for greater stability.149 On
its upper section was fitted the jocularly termed “finger”,
which moved over the flat roof.150 The two other stones
with traces of rotating windlasses would have been used
to control movement in the “finger” by means of ropes,151
while the actor would have been lowered using a system
of multiple pulleys. The identification of the location and
type of theatrical machinery mounted upon the sturdy
foundation T can also provide an answer to the question
of why the large structural opening onto the stoa exists.
There was no other obvious need for a large doorway
between the stoa and the stage-building,152 and it is
the necessary width to allow the counterweight behind
the “finger” to move in its upper part. Up to a certain
height, this opening would have to have been closed by
a wall of mud bricks and timber, and would have held
a regular door to the stoa. The attribution of wall Η–Η
and foundation T to the Periclean phase based on the
evidence above, but also on the obvious continuity of
operational use of the same famous theatrical machine
in the all-stone Lycurgan stage-building, means that the
skené of the 5th century tragedians153 would have been of
more or less the same type and dimensions as the late
Classical one as regards its width and level, flat roof for
moving the “finger”,154some stairways for using the flat
roof as a balcony for divine epiphanies (θεολογεῖον),
and paraskenia. Taking the Würzburg depiction into
consideration,155 one can imagine how richly decorated

145 Ar. Pax 173-8 (421 BC). Trygaeus flies to heaven on a dung beetle and appeals to the mechanic (μηχανοποιός) not to let him fall. The fact that the
builder of the theatrical machinery was also responsible for its operation – obviously with the aid of an assistant – demonstrates its complicated
nature and the specialised knowledge required to run it. This comedy, like the Thesmophoriazusae, parodies the use of the deus ex machine in Euripi-
des’ lost tragedies Bellerophon (c. 430 BC) and Andromeda (412 BC): see Poll. Onom. 4.128; Melchinger 1974, 194; Pöhlmann 1995c, 155-6.
146 See Wilhelm 1905, 23 (παλαιὸν δρᾶμα, 387/6 BC), 40, 45 (παλαιᾶι, 342/1 BC, 312/311 BC); Katsouris 1974; Csapo & Slater 1994, 40, 42; Summa
2010, 123-7.
147 Bulle 1928, 78 (stone B, pl. 6, figs. 18-19 = inv. no. NK 4755). Fiechter (1936, 23, nοs. 12-13, fig. 12) identified stone no. 13 and another limestone block
(no. 12) as bases for a lifting device. Stone no. 12, however, is not a base for a mast, as Fiechter argued and Bieber (1961, 75, fig. 279, linking them
with the περίακτοι) accepted, but an ancient block reused as the base of a wellhead (Korres 1980, 14). Bulle 1928, 77 (stone A, pl. 6, figs. 12-4 = inv.
nο. NK 4756). See Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 66-72 fig. 1.36.
148 The second block with the hole through it has the same characteristics as inv. no. ΝΚ 4755 (Bulle’s stone B); NK 4754 (dimensions 0.93 × 0.98 m,
height 0.43 m). The second stone is similar to inv. no. ΝΚ 4756 (Bulle’s stone A); inv. no. NK 5066 is circular in form (diameter 0.75 m, height
0.30 m). Further details in Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 66-72 fig. 1.36-39.
149 See Papastamati-von Moock op. cit.
150 Formal and functional features of the Lycurgan stage-building were obviously determined by the presence, the location, and the type of theatri-
cal machinery, the functioning of which, as a high-technology piece of the theatre’s infrastructure engineering, continued in use for a long time
because of the central role of tragedy in Athens’ theatre at least until the 2nd century BC. For a more detailed treatment of all these topics with a
reconstruction of the Lycurgan stage-building, see Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 63-72.
151 Papastamati-von Moock op. cit.
152 The topic is more exhaustively documented in Papastamati-von Moock 2014, 70-72 fig. 1.38-39.
153 We have no evidence for whether this transitional, but very significant, stage-building was actually completed under Pericles or after the Periclean
period. Its inclusion in the Periclean plan permits us, at this point in our investigations and until more secure archaeological data exist, to call it
Periclean.
154 Some scholars do think the wooden stage-building may have had two storeys: Fiechter 1936, 70; Bulle 1950.
155 The performance in the Würzburg depiction (colour image: Schörner 2002, 67, fig. 77) also provides evidence for the painted surfaces and orna-
70 mentation of the façade of wooden stage-buildings, which also find parallels on wooden temples.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Fig. 18. Proposed reconstruction of the wooden theatre and the old temple of Dionysos Eleuthereus, first phase (c. late 6th –
c. mid 5thcentury BC): Chr. Papastamati-von Moock. Drawing: G. P. Antoniou.

and impressive this first monumental stage-building may
have been, with its huge wooden beams, as acclaimed by
Xenophon.156
To summarise, the new archaeological data, though
fragmentary in nature, allows us to conclude that the spa-
tial organisation of the tripartite architectural composi-
tion of Athens’ theatre as realised in the third quarter of
the 4th century follows in its basic outlines those of the
incompletely implemented Periclean plan, which in turn
was required to take account of the forms of the late Ar-
chaic wooden theatre and its functional adaptation to the
age-old local road network on the south side of the Acro-
polis, as well as to serve new dramaturgical requirements
by the addition of the stage-building. If the west inner re-
taining wall with its curved northern section ultimately
constitutes a unitary construction, as is corroborated by
the corresponding extent of the east lateral retaining walls
as far as the line of the late Classical diazoma, as well as by
the observations about the likely extent of the Periclean
renovation of the wooden theatre correspondingly south
of it (for audiences likely numbering between 14,000 and
15,000),157 that would mean that the concept of the archi-
tectural synthesis forming the canonical shape of the an-
cient Greek theatre – with the aim of improving the view
and audibility for a large number of spectators – and also
the geometric layout of the spectator space based on the

156 See note 26 above. For issues related to skenographia of classical drama, see Schörner 2002, 67-9.
157 In other words, quite close to the number of spectators estimated for the late Classical phase (up to 17,000: Papastamati-von Moock 2014), which is
interesting to compare with the number of participants Stanton (1996, 17-20) estimated for the Classical phase of the Pnyx (Pnyx II). 71
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

circle both have their origins in the Periclean period. The
clearly unitary planning of the new spatial organisation
of the religious and cultural centre of the South Slope
and especially that of the two architecturally innovative
theatrical spaces tempts me to wonder whether the spirit,
the innovative ideas, and the theoretical explorations of
Iktinos, the illustrious groundbreaking architect respon-
sible for Pericles’ building programmes, were behind it.
Researchers have frequently linked the planning of the
Odeion of Pericles with him because of its similarities to
the Classical-period Telesterion at Eleusis, which the tex-
tual sources testify was his creation and which,158 like the
Theatre, was completed with the necessary adjustments
much later in the third quarter of the 4th century BC.159
Even if the implementation of the Periclean plan remained
incomplete because of the ruinous consequences of the
Peloponnesian War, and the Athenians were obliged to
renovate and expand the wooden theatre with the addi-
tion of an unquestionably monumental stage edifice with
theatrical infrastructure that was technologically ground
breaking, the few fragmentary items of new archaeologi-
cal data lead me to conclude that the definitive step of the
dynamic-synthetic transition from the experimental stag-
es of the early rectilinear theatres to the canonical form
of the stone theatre was probably made in Athens. In the
context of these new data, the example of the Classical-
period Pnyx with the semicircular outline of the edge of
its auditorium,160 isolated until now, also becomes under-
standable. Theoretical influences from Magna Graecia,
seedbed of Pythagorean philosophy, which was based
on mathematics and geometry, should certainly not be
ruled out completely, since bold architectural solutions
had been tried there in different topographical conditions
since the mid 6th century BC.161 Despite the fact, then, that
Athens’ theatre assumed its definitive functional and har-
monious form in stone about a century later, its probable
plan, based on the shape of a circle, should be sought in the
most creative period of Athenian architecture, the age of
Pericles, which is marked by innovative ideas, theoretical
pursuits, technological achievements, significant discov-
eries, inspired dynamic personalities, and the search for
unconventional architectural solutions based on numeri-
cal relationships and geometric figures. Furthermore, I do
not consider the appearance of Pericles’ teacher and friend
the astronomer, mathematician, and geometrist Meton in
Aristophanes’ Birds at the Theatre of Dionysos in 414 BC
to be accidental,162 for he was also credited with the sun-
dial which had been set up behind the Bema, on the main
axis with the auditorium of the Pnyx.163 Carrying a straight
ruler, compass, and curved ruler (κανών καμπύλος) with
him, the Aristophanic Meton comes running like an ar-
chitect or town planner to propose a new urban plan for
the birds’ utopian city, which can be achieved by squaring
the circle and marking out an agora at its centre, where
streets organised in a radiating scheme will converge like
in a star, which is circular with rays shining straight out in
all directions.164 Does this allusion reflect, among other
things, the theoretical questions current in the Periclean
period about the delineation of the ideal canonical form
of the ancient Greek theatre in stone on the basis of the
geometric forms of the circle and the square, as confirmed
in Vitruvius,165 as well as the profound interrelationship of
mathematics, music, the human voice, geometry and ar-
chitecture in attaining the best visual and auditory experi-

158 Clinton 1987, 254-62 discusses earlier views regarding the dating of the Classical Telesterion and its association with the name of Iktinus; Noack
1927, 167-74.
159 Travlos 1988, 94-6.
160 See Stanton 1996; Junker 2004, 20-1, fig. 4 (with earlier bibliography); Senseney 2011, 95-7.
161 Mertens 1982 b; Wurster 1993, 37-42; Junker 2004. On the Pythagoreans and the development of mathematics, mainly in Greece, see Burkert 1962,
295-7, 379-403.
162 Ar. Av. 992-1009 (ed. Chatzopoulos 1992); Süvern 1827, 71-3.
163 The important study by Senseney (2011, 95, fig. 56) points in the same direction; for the identification of its location, see Travlos 1971, 466.
164 Ar. Av. 1000-9: αὐτίκα γὰρ ἀήρ ἐστι τὴν ἰδέαν ὅλος / κατὰ πνιγέα μάλιστα. προσθεὶς οὖν ἐγὼ / τὸν κανόν’, ἄνωθεν τουτονὶ τὸν καμπύλον
/ ἐνθεὶς διαβήτην – μανθάνεις; / … /ὀρθῷ μετρήσω κανόνι προστιθείς, ἵνα / ὁ κύκλος γένηται σοι τετράγωνος κἀν μέσῳ/ ἀγορά,
φέρουσαι δ’ ὦσιν εἰς αὐτὴν ὁδοὶ/ ὀρθαὶ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ μέσον, ὥσπερ δ’ ἀστέρος/ αὐτοῦ κυκλοτεροῦς ὄντος ὀρθαὶ πανταχῇ / ἀκτῖνες
ἀπολάμπωσιν. The analysis by Senseney (2011, 88-100) is very interesting, despite its reliance on the views of more recent researchers on the dat-
ing of the stone theatre to 370 BC (see Goette 1995, 35), while supposing that its form must have been influenced by the semicircular form of the
wooden theatre in order for Aristophanes’ allusion to be understandable.
72 165 Cf. Gebhard 2001; Senseney 2011, 78-100.
 CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS

Fig. 19. Topographical plan of the theatre, the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleuthereus and Odeion of Pericles, showing exca-
vated areas of the auditorium, revealing trenches and negative imprints from the ikria (nos. 1, 2, 3). Based on the plans by
W. Dörpfeld, W. Wurster, M. Korres, enriched with drawings by E. Makri and A. Samara/D. Kouliadis, Kl. Aslanidis.

ence and the greatest enjoyment, entertainment and edu-
cation of the spectators? Does this ultimately also entail
the search for ways to transform a pi-shaped theatre into a
semicircular one, as the archaeological evidence, hitherto
very fragmentary, leaves us to conjecture? Let us, however,
leave the final word to future archaeological excavations:
they will add larger pieces to the puzzle, giving clearer and
more complete answers to the crucial questions about the
Classical theatre of Athens, birthplace of world culture’s
crowning moments. 73
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17
Bibliography
Allen, J.T. 1919
‘The Greek Theatre of the 5th Century
BC.’, University of California Publica-
tions in Class. Philology 7, 1-119.
Allen, J.T. 1941
‘On the Odeum of Pericles and the
Periclean reconstruction of the Thea-
tre’, University of California Publications
in Classical Archaeology 1 n. 7, 173-8.
Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M. (ed.) 2012
2000-2010 Από το ανασκαφικό έργο των
Εφορειών Αρχαιοτήτων, Υπουργείο
Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων και
Πολιτισμού και Αθλητισμού, Athens.
Angiolillo, S. 1997
Arte e cultura nell’ Atene di Pisitrato e die
Pisistratidi, Bari.
Anti, C. 1947
Theatri greci arcaici da Minosse a Pericle,
Padova.
Arnott, P. 1962
Greek scenic conventions, Oxford.
Ashby, C. 1999
Classical Greek Theatre: new views on an
old subject, Iowa.
Bees, R. 1995
‘Die Skene in Aischylos’ “Persern”, “Sie-
ben gegen Theben” und “Hiketiden”’,
in Studien zur Bühnendichtung und zum
Theaterbau der Antike, E. Pöhlmann
(ed.), Frankfurt a. M., 73-102.
Berve, H. & G. Gruben, 1961
Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer,
Munich.
74
Bieber, M. 1939
The history of the Greek and Roman
Theatre, Princeton.
Bieber, M. 19612
The history of the Greek and Roman
Theatre, Princeton (2nd edn).
Bulle, H. 1928
Untersuchungen an griechischen
Theatern, mit Beiträgen von K.
Lehmann-Hartleben, H. Mö-
bius und W. Wrede, AbhMünchen
33, Munich.
Bulle, H. 1934
Eine Skenographie, Winckelmannspro-
gramm der Archäologischen Gesell-
schaft zu Berlin, 94, Berlin.
Bulle, H. & H. Wirsing, 1950
Szenenbilder zum griechischen Theater
des 5. Jhs. v. Chr., Berlin.
Burford, A. 1965
‘The economics of Greek temple build-
ing’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philo-
logical Society, 191 (N.S. 11), 21-34.
Burkert, W. 1962
Weisheit und Wissenschaft. Studien
zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Platon,
Nuremberg.
Camp, J. M. 2001
The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven
– London.
Chourmouziadis, N. C. 1965
Production and Imagination in Euripides,
Athens.
Clinton, K. 1987
‘The Date of the Classical Telesterion
at Eleusis’, in ΦΙΛΙΑ ΕΠΗ εις Γ. Ε.
Μυλωνάν, vol. B., Αθήνα, 254-62.
Committee-Theatre of Dionysos,
2006
ΥΠΠΟ/Επιτροπή Θεάτρου και
Ιερού του Διονύσου – Ασκπληπιείου,
Νοτίου Κλιτύος Ακροπόλεως, Εργασίες
Αποκατάστασης 2002-2005, Athens.
Connor, W. R. 1990
‘City Dionysia and Athenian Demo-
cracy’, in Aspects of Athenian democracy,
W. R. Connor et. al. (eds.), Copenha-
gen, 7-32.
Corso, A. 1986
Monumenti Periclei. Saggio critico sulla
attività edilizia di Pericle, Venice.
Csapo, E. & W. J. Slater 1994
The Context of Ancient Drama, Ann
Arbor.
Csapo, E. 2007
‘The men who built the theatres: Thea-
tropolai, theatronai, and arkhitektones’,
in The Greek theatre and festivals:
Documentary studies, P. Wilson (ed.),
Oxford, 87-121.
Despinis, G. 1996-97
‘Il tempio arcaico di Dioniso Eleute-
reo’, ASAtene N. S. 58-59, 193-214.
Dinsmoor, W. B. 1950
The architecture of ancient Greece, New
York (revised and enlarged edition by
W. J. Anderson – R. Phené Spiers).
Dinsmoor, W. B. 1951-53
‘The Athenian theatre of the fifth
Century’, in Studies presented to D. M.
Robinson, Vol. I, G. E. Mylonas (ed.),
St. Louis, 309-30.
Dontas, G. 1960
‘Νέος γυναικείος κορμός του 5ου αι. π.Χ.
εκ του ιερού του Διονύσου εν Αθήναις’,
ArchEph, 44-53.

Dörpfeld, W. 1925
‘Die im Januar 1925 im Dionysos-
Theater in Athen unternommenen
Grabungen’, Prakt, 25-32.
Dörpfeld, W. & E. Reisch, 1896
Das griechische Theater. Beiträge zur Ge-
schichte des Dionysos-Theaters in Athen
und anderer griechischer Theater, Aalen.
Eleftheratou, St. (ed.) 2006
Το Μουσείο και η Ανασκαφή. Ευρήματα
από τον χώρο ανέγερσης του Νέου
Μουσείου της Ακρόπολης, Athens.
Fensterbusch, C. 1930
‘Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung
des Athenischen Dionysostheaters im
V. Jh.’, Philologus 85, 229-42.
Ficuciello, L. 2008
Le strade di Atene, Athens – Paestum.
Fiechter, E. 1935
Das Dionysos-Theater in Athen. I. Die
Ruine, Antike Griechische Theater-
bauten, Heft 5, Stuttgart.
Fiechter, E. 1936
Das Dionysos-Theater in Athen. III.
Einzelheiten und Baugeschichte, Antike
Griechische Theaterbauten, Heft 7,
Stuttgart.
Fiechter, Ε. 1950
Das Dionysos-Theater in Athen.
Nachträge, Antike Griechische Theater-
bauten, Heft 9, Stuttgart.
Fraisse, Ph. & J.-Ch. Moretti 2007
Le théâtre, Délos 42, Athens.
Froning, H. 2002
‘Bauformen – Vom Holzgerüst zum
Theater von Epidaurus’, in Die Geburt
des Theaters in der griechischen Antike, S.
Moraw & E. Nölle (eds.), Mainz, 31-59.
CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS
Furtwängler, A. 1901
‘Zum Dionysostheater in Athen’, SB-
München, 411-6.
Gebhard, E. 1974
‘The form of the orchestra in the early
Greek theatre’, Hesperia 43, 428-40.
Gebhard, E. 2001
‘Vitruvius and the planning of the
Greek theatre’, in Καλλίστευμα. Μελέτες
προς τιμήν της Ο. Τζάχου-Αλεξανδρή, A.
Alexandri (ed.), Athens, 385-94.
Glaser, F. 2001
‘Das Theater von Elis und das Problem
einer hölzernen Skene’, in Forschungen
in der Peloponnes, Akten des Sympo-
sions anläßlich der Feier “100 Jahre ÖAI
Athen”, V. Mitsopoulos-Leon (ed.),
Athen 5.3-7.3. 1998, Athens, 253-6.
Goette, H. R. 1995
‘Griechischer Theaterbau der Klassik –
Forschungsstand und Fragestellungen’,
in Studien zur Bühnendichtung und zum
Theatrebau der Antike, E. Pöhlmann
(ed.), Frankfurt a. M., 9-48.
Goette, H. R. 2007
‘An archeological appendix’, in The
Greek theatre and festivals: Documentary
studies, P. Wilson (ed.), Oxford, 116-21.
Goette, H. R. 2011
‘Die Architektur des klassischen Thea-
ters unter besonderer Berücksichti-
gung Athens und Attikas’, in Handbuch
der griechischen Literatur der Antike 1.
Die Literatur der archaischen und klas-
sischen Zeit, B. Zimmermann (ed.),
Munich, 474-84.
Gogos, S. 2005
Το αρχαίο Θέατρο του Διονύσου.
Αρχιτεκτονική μορφή και λειτουργία,
Athens.
Green, J. R. 1989
‘Theatre production: 1971-1986’, Lu-
strum 31, 7-95.
Green, J. R. 1994
Theatre in Ancient Greek Society, Lon-
don – New York.
Green, J. R. 1995
‘Theatre production: 1987-1995’, Lu-
strum 37, 7-202, 309-18.
Green, J. R. 2008
‘Theatre production: 1996-2006’, Lu-
strum 50, 7-302.
Gruben G., M. Hirmer & A. Hirmer
2001
Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer,
Munich.
Haigh, A. E. 1898
The Attic theatre: a description of the
stage and theatre of the Athenians, and
of the dramatic performances at Athens,
New York.
Hart, M. L. 2010
The Art of Ancient Greek Theatre, on
Occasion of the Exhibition in The J. Paul
Getty Museum, Los Angeles.
Heilmeyer, W.–D. & M. Maischberg-
er (eds.) 2002
Die griechische Klassik. Idee oder Wirk-
lichkeit. Exhibition catalogue Berlin
and Bonn 2002, Mainz.
Hellmann, M.–C. 2002
L’architecture Grecque 1. Les principes de
la construction, Paris.
Hintzen-Bohlen, B. 1997
Die Kulturpolitik des Eubulos und des
Lykyrg. Die Denkmäler– und die Bau-
projekte in Athen zwischen 355 und 322
v. Chr., Berlin. 75
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17
Hurwit, J. M. 1999
The Athenian Acropolis: history, mytho-
logy, and archaeology from the Neolithic
era to the present, Cambridge.
Judeich, W. 1931
Topographie von Athen, Munich.
Julius, L. 1878
‘Das Theater des Dionysos zu Athen’,
Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 13, 193-204,
236-42.
Junker, K. 2004
‘Vom Theatron zum Theater: zur Ge-
nese eines griechischen Bautypus’,
AntK 47, 10-33.
Isler, H.-P. 2002
‘Das Dionysos-Theater in Athen’, in
Die griechische Klassik. Idee oder Wirk-
lichkeit. Exhibition Catalogue Berlin
and Bonn 2002, W.-D. Heilmeyer, & M.
Maischberger (eds.), Mainz, 533-41.
Kalligas, P. 1963
‘Εργασίαι τακτοποιήσεως και
διαμορφώσεως του Ιερού Διονύσου
Ελευθερέως της Νοτίου Κλιτύος
Ακροπόλεως (1961/1962)’, ArchDelt 18
Chron., 12-8.
Kastriotis, P. 1919
‘Το Ωδείον του Περικλέους’, ArchDelt
1919 Παράρτημα, 1-14.
Kastriotis, P. 1922
‘Το Περίκλειον Ωδείον’, ArchEph, 25-38.
Kavvadias, G. 2005
‘Ειδήσεις από την Οδό των Τριπόδων’,
in Teseo e Romolo. Le origini di Atene a
Roma a confronto, Atti del convegno
internationale di studi, Scuola Archeolo-
gica Italiana di Atene, 30 giugno – 1 lug-
76 lio 2003, E. Greco (ed.), Athens, 167-95.
Knell, H. 2000
Athen im 4. Jh. v. Chr. – Eine Stadt
verändert ihr Gesicht. Archäologisch-
kulturgeschichtliche Betrachtungen,
Darmstadt.
Knigge, U. 1976
Der Südhügel, Kerameikos 9, Berlin.
Knigge, U. 2005
Der Bau Z, Kerameikos 17, Berlin.
Kolb, F. 1977
‘Die Bau–, Religions–, und Kulturpoli-
tik der Peisistratiden’, JdI 92, 99-138.
Kolb, F. 1981
Agora and Theatre, Volks und Festver-
sammlung, Berlin.
Korres, M. 1980
‘Εργασίες στα μνημεία. Διονυσιακό
Θέατρο. Συντήρηση – αποκατάσταση
μνημείων’, ArchDelt 35, Chron., 9-21.
Korres, M. 1982
Διονυσιακό Θέατρο. Συντήρηση -
αποκατάσταση μνημείων, ArchDelt 37,
1982, Chron. 9-21.
Korres, M. 1982
Διονυσιακό Θέατρο. Συντήρηση -
αποκατάσταση μνημείων, ArchDelt 37,
1982, Chron. 15-18.
Korres, M. 1996
‘Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der attisch-
ionischen Architektur’, in Säule und Ge-
bälk. Zur Struktur und Wandlungsprozeß
griechisch-römischer Architektur, E.-L.
Schwandner (ed.), Bauforschungs-
kolloquium in Berlin, 16-18 Juni 1994,
Mainz a. Rhein, 90-113.
Korres, Μ. 2002
‘Αθηναϊκή πολεοδομία – Αρχαίος
οικιστικός χώρος. Αξία ορατών
μαρτυριών’, in Ancient Roads in Greece,
H. R. Goette (ed.), Proceedings of a
Symposion organized by the Cultural
Association Aigeas (Athens) and the
German Archaeological Institute
(Athens) with the support of the Ger-
man School at Athens, November 23,
1998, Hamburg, 1-31.
Korres, Μ. (ed.) 2009
Αττικής Οδοί. Αρχαίοι δρόμοι της
Αττικής, Athens.
Lagogianni-Georgakarakou, M. & K.
Bourazelis (eds.) 2007
ΕΔΟΞΕΝ ΤΗΙ ΒΟΥΛΗΙ ΚΑΙ ΤΩΙ
ΔΗΜΩΙ, Athens.
Lohmann, H. 1998
‘Zur baugeschichtlichen Entwicklung
des antiken Theaters: Ein Überblick’,
in Das antike Theater. Aspekte seiner
Geschichte, Rezeption und Aktualität, G.
Binder & B. Effe (eds.), Bochumer Al-
tertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium,
Trier, 191-215.
Looy, H. van 1994
‘Le théâtre de Thorikos’, in Studies in
South Attica II, H.F. Mussche (ed.),
9-30.
Mantis, A. 2006
‘Το Έργο της Επιτροπής Στερέωσης,
Αναστήλωσης και Ανάδειξης του
Θεάτρου και του Ιερού του Διονύσου και
του Ασκληπιείου της Νοτίου Κλιτύος
Ακροπόλεως Αθηνών’, in Το Έργο των
Επιστημονικών Επιτροπών Αναστήλωσης,
Συντήρησης και Ανάδειξης Μνημείων, V.
Lambrinoudakis et. al. (eds.), Athens,
99-121.

Mantis, A. 2007
‘Conservation and restoration of the
Theatre of Dionysos in Athens’, in
Teatri antichi nell’area del Mediterraneo,
A. Aloisi et al. (eds.), Atti II convegno
internazionale di studi “La materia e i
segni della storia”, Siracusa, 13.–17. ot-
tobre 2004, Palermo, 162-72.
Mastronarde, D. J. 1990
‘Actors on high: the skene roof, the
crane, and the gods in Attic drama’,
ClAnt 9, 2, 247-94.
Melchinger, S. 1974
Das Theater der Tragödie. Aischylos,
Sophokles, Euripides auf der Bühne ihrer
Zeit, Munich.
Mertens, D. 1982a
‘Metaponto: Il teatro-ekklesiasterion’,
BdA Ser. VI, 16(1982), 1-57.
Mertens, D. 1982b
‘Das Theater-Ekklesiasterion auf der
Agora von Metapont’, Architectura 12,
93-124.
Miller, M.C. 1997
Athens and Persia in the fifth cen-
tury BC.: a study in cultural receptivity,
Cambridge.
Miller, S.G. 1995
‘Architecture as evidence for the iden-
tity of the early Polis’, in Sources for the
ancient Greek city-state, M.H. Hansen
(ed.), Copenhagen, 201-24.
Moretti, J.-C. 1992
‘Les entrées en scène dans le théâtre
grec: de l’archéologie’, Pallas 38, 79-107.
CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS
Moretti, J.-C. 1999-2000
‘The theatre of the sanctuary of Dio-
nysos Eleuthereus in late fifth century
Athens’, IllinClSt 24-25, 377-98.
Moretti, J.-C. 2000
‘Le théâtre du sanctuaire de Dionysos
Éleuthéreus à Athènes, au Ve s. av.
J.–C.’, RÉG 13, 275-98.
Moretti, J.-C. 2011
Théâtre et société dans la Grèce antique,
Paris 2001 new edn. 2011).
Müller, A. 1886
Lehrbuch der griechischen Bühnenalter-
tümer, Freiburg.
Müller-Wiener, W. 1988
Griechische Bauwesen in der Antike,
Munich.
Newiger, H.-J. 1976
‘Zwei Beobachtungen zur Spielstätte
des attischen Dramas im 5. Jh. v. Chr.’,
WS 89 (N. F. 10), 80-92.
Newiger, H.-J. 1990
‘Ekkyklema und Mechane in der In-
szenierung des griechischen Dramas’,
WürzbJbb 16, 33-42.
Noack, F. 1927
Eleusis. Die baugeschichtliche Entwick-
lung des Heiligtums, I–II, Berlin.
Orlandos, A. 1924
‘Note sur le Sanctuaire de Nemesis a
Rhamnonte’, BCH 48, 305-20.
Orlandos, A.K. 19942
Τα υλικά δομής των αρχαίων Ελλήνων και
οι τρόποι εφαρμογής αυτών, Athens (2nd
edn.).
Papastamati-von Moock, Chr. 2014
“The Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus
in Athens: new data and observations
on its ‘Lycurgan’ phase”, in Greek thea-
tre in the fourth century BC, E. Csapo,
H.R. Goette, J.R. Green, P. Wilson
(eds.), Berlin/Boston, 15-76.
Papastamati-von Moock, Chr. & A.
Samara forthcoming
‘Θέατρο του Διονύσου Ελευθερέως:
Το βάθρο του Αστυδάμαντος
και χρονολογικά ζητήματα της
“Λυκούργειας” φάσης’, in Το αρχαίο
ελληνικό θέατρο και η πρόσληψή
του, Δ’ Πανελλήνιο Θεατρολογικό
Συνέδριο, Πάτρα, 26.–29. Μαϊου 2011,
forthcoming.
Papathanasopoulos, Th. 1987
‘Το Θέατρο του Διονύσου. Η μορφή
του κοίλου’, ΥΠ.ΠΟ. Αναστήλωση
– Συντήρηση – Προστασία, Τεχνική
Περιοδική Έκδοση, Vol. Β’, Athens,
31-60.
Parlama, L. & N. Stampolidis (eds.)
2000
Η πόλη κάτω από την πόλη.
Ευρήματα από τις ανασκαφές του
Μητροπολιτικού Σιδηροδρόμου
των Αθηνών, Κατάλογος Έκθεσης
Μουσείο Κυκλαδικής Τέχνης, Φεβρ.
2000 – Δεκ. 2001, Athens.
Petrakos, V. 1999
Ο Δήμος του Ραμνούντος. Σύνοψη των
ανασκαφών και των ερευνών (1813-1998) Ι.
Τοπογραφία, Athens.
Philadelpheus, A. 1921
‘Ανασκαφή παρά το Λυσικράτειον
Μνημείον’, ArchEph, 89-97.
77
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17
Pickard-Cambridge, A.W. 1946
The Theatre of Dionysos in Athens,
Oxford.
Pöhlmann, E. 1981
‘Die Prohedrie des Dionysostheaters
im 5. Jh. v. Chr. und das Bühnenspiel
der Klassik’, MusHel 38, 129-46.
Pöhlmann, E. (ed.) 1995a
Studien zur Bühnendichtung und zum
Theaterbau der Antike, Frankfurt a. M.
Pöhlmann, E. 1995b
‘Die Prohedrie des Dionysos-Theaters’,
in Studien zur Bühnendichtung und zum
Theaterbau der Antike, Pöhlmann, E.
(ed.), Frankfurt a. M., 49-62.
Pöhlmann, E. 1995c
‘Zur Bühnentechnik im Dionysos-
Theatre des 4. Jhs.’, in Studien zur Büh-
nendichtung und zum Theaterbau der
Antike, Pöhlmann, E. (ed.), Frankfurt
a. M., 155-64
Pöhlmann, Ε. 2002a
‘Die Anfänge der Tragödie und
Komödie in Athen’, in Die Geburt des
Theaters in der griechischen Antike, S.
Moraw & E. Nölle (eds.), Mainz, 19-30.
Pöhlmann, E. 2002b
‘Neue Argumente für ein Bühnenhaus
in der frühen griechischen Tragödie,
in Die Geburt des Theaters in der grie-
chischen Antike, S. Moraw & E. Nölle
(eds.), Mainz, 27-30.
Polacco, L. 1990
Il teatro di Dioniso Eleuterio ad Atene,
Rome.
Puchstein, O. 1901
Die Griechische Bühne. Eine architekto-
78 nische Untersuchung, Berlin.
Reisch, E. 1893
‘Der Dionysos des Alkamenes’, Eranos
Vindobonensis, 1-23.
Ridgway, B. S. 1981
Fifth century styles in Greek sculpture,
Princeton.
Robkin, A.L.H. 1981
The Odeion of Perikles. Some observa-
tions on its history, form and function,
Ph. D. dissertation, University of Wash-
ington, Ann Arbor.
Rousopoulos, A. 1862
‘Η εν τω Διονυσιακώ Θεάτρω ανασκαφή’,
ΑrchΕph 1862, 37-38, 64, 94-102, 114-20,
128-47, 154-84, 209-20, 224, 278-94.
Samara, A. 2004
‘Θέατρο Διονύσου: Στερέωση και μερική
αποκατάσταση αναλημματικών τοίχων
του κοίλου στην ανατολική πάροδο’,
in Αποκατάσταση Μνημείων. Αναβίωση
Ιστορικών κτιρίων στην Αττική, G. Kizis
(ed.), ΕΡΓΟΝ IV, Vol. 1, Athens, 60-73.
Samara, A. & Chr. Papastamati-von
Moock 2006
‘Θέατρο του Διονύσου: Πρόταση
τμηματικής αποκατάστασης της
επίστεψης του αναλήμματος της δυτικής
παρόδου και του συναρμοζόμενου σε
αυτή βάθρου του δραματικού ποιητή
Αστυδάμαντα’ in: Πρακτικά 1ου
Συνεδρίου Αναστηλώσεων, ΕΤΕΠΑΜ,
Θεσσαλονίκη, 14.–17. Ιουνίου 2006,
Thessaloniki, 1-15.
Scheibler, I. 1976
Griechische Lampen, Kerameikos 11,
Berlin.
Schneider. A. 1889
‘Vase des Xenokles und Kleisophos’,
AM 14, 329-48.
Schnurr, Ch. 1995
Die alte Agora Athens, ZPE 105, 131-8.
Schörner, G. 2002
Bühnenmalerei, in Die Geburt des
Theaters in der griechischen Antike, S.
Moraw & E. Nölle (eds.), Mainz, 67-9.
Scullion, S. 1994
Three Studies in Athenian Dramaturgy,
Stuttgart – Leipzig.
Senseney, R. 2011
The Art of Building in the Classical
world. Vision, craftsmanship, and Linear
Perspective in Greek and Roman Archi-
tecture, New York.
Simon E. & B. Otto 1973
‘Eine neue Rekonstruktion der Würz-
burger Skenographie’, AA 88, 121-31.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 2003
Tragedy and Athenian religion, Oxford.
Sparkes, B.A. & L. Talcott 1970
Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and
4th Centuries BC, Agora 12, Princeton.
Stanton, G.R. 1996
‘The shape and size of the Athenian
assembly place in its second phase’,
in The Pnyx in the history of Athens, B.
Forsén & G. Stanton (eds.), Proceed-
ings of an international colloquium
organized by the Finnish Institute at
Athens, 7-9 October, 1994, Helsinki,
7-21.
Storey, I.C. & A. Allan 2008
A Guide to Ancient drama, Oxford.
Studniczka, F. 1886
‘Attische Porosgiebel’, AM 11, 61-80.

Summa, D. 2010
‘Das Athenische Theater und die Di-
daskalien’, in Attika. Archäologie einer
“zentralen” Kulturlandschaft, H. Loh-
mann & T. Mattern (eds.), Akten der
internationalen Tagung, 18.–20. Mai
2007 in Marburg, Wiesbaden, 121-30.
Süvern, J.W. 1827
Über Aristophanes Vögel, Berlin.
Taplin, O. 1977
The stagecraft of Aeschylus. Observations
on the Dramatic Use of Exits and En-
trances, Oxford.
Taplin, O. 2007
Pots and Plays. Interactions between Trag-
edy and Greek Vase-Painting of the Fourth
Century BC, Los Angeles.
Travlos, J.N. 1971
Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken
Athen, Tübingen.
Travlos, J.N. 1988
Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken
Attika, Tübingen.
Travlos, J.N. 19932
Πολεοδομική εξέλιξις των Αθηνών, Athens.
Tsakos, K. 1985
‘Α’ ΕΠΚΑ, Ανασκαφικές εργασίες:
Διονυσιακό Θέατρο’, ArchDelt 40,
Chron., 9-11.
Tsakos, K. 1987-88
‘Ανασκαφική έρευνα στο χώρο
βόρεια από το ανάλημμα της
ανατολικής παρόδου του
Διονυσιακού Θεάτρου’, in
‘Το Ριζόκαστρο. Σωζόμενα
υπολείμματα: Νέες παρατηρήσεις και
επαναχρονολόγηση’, E. Makri, K. Tsa-
kos & Α. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou,
DeltChrA 12, 336-44.
CHRISTINA PAPASTAMATI-VON MOOCK ∙ THE WOODEN THEATRE OF DIONYSOS ELEUTHEREUS IN ATHENS
Valavanis, P. 2009
‘Σύντομο περίγραμμα της έρευνας
για το Διονυσιακό θέατρο’, in
Θέατρο και κοινωνία στη διαδρομή
της ελληνικής ιστορίας. Μελέτες
από μια ημερίδα προς τιμήν της
Ά. Ραμού Χαψιάδη, I. Kralli (ed.),
Athens, 83-109.
Versakis, F. 1909
‘Das Skenengebäude des Dionysos-
Theaters’, JdI 24, 194-224.
Wachsmuth, C. 1874
Die Stadt Athen im Altertum, Vol. 1,
Leipzig.
van der Waerden, B.L. 1979
Die Pythagoreer. Religiöse Bruderschaft
und Schule der Wissenschaft, Zürich
– Munich.
Webster, T.B.L. 1963
Griechische Bühnenaltertümer,
Göttingen.
Weikart, S. 2002
Grieschische Bauopferrituale. Intention
und Konvention von rituellen Handlun-
gen im griechischen Bauwesen, Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Würzburg.
dissertation.de – Verlag im Internt GmbH
Welter, G. 1922
‘Die Tripodenstraße in Athen’, AM 37,
72-7.
Wiles, D. 1997
Tragedy in Athens. Performance Space
and Theatrical Meaning, Cambridge.
Willamowitz-Möllendorf, U. v. 1886
‘Die Bühne des Aischylos’, Hermes 21,
597-622.
Wilson, P. (ed.) 2007
The Greek Theatre and Festivals: docu-
mentary studies, Oxford – New York.
Winter, F. 2006
Studies in Hellenistic Architecture,
Toronto.
Wurster, W. 1979
‘Die neuen Untersuchungen am Dio-
nysostheater in Athen’, Architectura 9,
58-76.
Wurster, W. 1993
‘Die Architektur des griechischen
Theaters’, AntW 24, 1, 20-42.
Wycherley, R.E. 1957
Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia,
Agora 3. Princeton.
De Zwarte, R. 2004
‘Pythagoras’ Inheritance at Paestum in
South Italy. Number is the substance of
all things’, BABesch 79, 41-50.
De Zwarte, R. 2006-7
‘Pythagorean harmony mathematics
and building techniques: the second
temple of Hera (‘Poseidon’) at Paes-
tum’, in Proceedings of the Dutch Ar-
chaeological and Historical Society, J.M.
Kelder, J.P. Stronk & M.D. de Weerd
(eds.), Talanta 38/39, 71-96.
79
 List of contributors
Georgios P. Antoniou Eirini Doudoumi Elizabeth Gebhard
Deinokratous 73 NTUA, 13 Benaki str. Balcanquhal House
11521 Athens 13561 Ag. Anargiroi Athens Glenfarg
Greece Greece Perthshire PH2 9QD
antonioug@tee.gr eirini.doudoumi@gmail.com United Kingdom
egebhard@ed.ac.uk
Craig Barker Petra Eitzinger
University of Sydney Paphos Archaeo- Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaf- Marco Germani
logical Project ten, Klassische und Frühägäische Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor
c/- Nicholson Museum A14 Archäologie Vergata”
University of Sydney NSW 2006 Universität Salzburg, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia
Australia Residenzplatz 1 Via Columbia n. 1
craig.barker@sydney.edu.au A-5020 Salzburg 00133 Roma
Austria Italy
Fede Berti petra.eitzinger@stud.sbg.ac.at Marco.Germani@uniroma2.it
Via Bagaro 6 marco.germani01@libero.it
44121 Ferrara Stefan Franz
Italy Büro für Bauforschung und J. Richard Green
fede.berti@alice.it Visualisierung University of Sydney Paphos Archaeo-
Trivastr. 5a logical Project
Nathalie de Chaisemartin D-80637 Munich c/- Nicholson Museum A14
Maître de conférences honoraire à Germany University of Sydney NSW 2006
Paris-Sorbonne kontakt@hinzundfranz.de Australia
2 rue de Poissy richard.green@sydney.edu.au
75005 Paris Rune Frederiksen
France National Museum of Denmark Chris Hayward
nathalie.de-chaisemartin@orange.fr Ny Vestergade 10 School of Geosciences
DK-1471 København K University of Edinburgh
Nikos Chatzidakis Denmark The Grant Institute
AUTh, 1 Koronaiou Str, rune.frederiksen@natmus.dk The King’s Buildings
73100 Chania James Hutton Road
Greece Walter Gauß EH9 3FE Edinburgh
nxatzi@yahoo.com ÖAI Athen United Kingdom
Leoforos Alexandras 26 chris.hayward@ed.ac.uk
Julia Dorner 106 83 Athens
Institut für Klassische Archäologie Greece Valentina Hinz
Universität Wien walter.gauss@oeai.at Büro für Bauforschung und
Franz-Klein-Gasse 1 Visualisierung
A-1190 Vienna Trivastr. 5a
Austria D-80637 Munich
466 a0548552@unet.univie.ac.at Germany
kontakt@hinzundfranz.de
 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Martin Hofbauer Yannis Lolos Arzu Öztürk

Waldgasse 11 University of Thessaly MSGSU Arkeoloji Bölümü
3002 Purkersdorf Department of History, Archaeology Silahşör Cad. No: 71
Austria and Social Anthropology TR-35363 Şişli-Bomonti
martin-hofbauer@gmx.at Argonafton and Filellinon Istanbul
38 221 Volos Turkey
Signe Isager Greece www.msgsu.edu.tr
Department of History ylolos@otenet.gr arzu.ozturk@msgsu.edu.tr
University of Southern Denmark
DK-5230 Odense M Clemente Marconi Christina Papastamati-von Moock
Denmark Institute of Fine Arts – New York Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Educa-
signe.isager@sdu.dk University tion and Religious Affairs – Ephor-
1 East 78th Street ate of Antiquities of Athens – Scien-
Hans Peter Isler New York, NY 10075 tific Committee for the “Research,
Universität Zürich USA Consolidation,
Archäologisches Institut cm135@nyu.edu Restoration and Enhancement of the
Rämistrasse 73 Monuments on the Acropolis South
CH-8006 Zürich Nicolò Masturzo Slope of Athens”
Switzerland Dipartimento di Studi Storici – Uni- Thrasyllou 20
www.archinst.uzh.ch versità di Torino GR- 10558 Athens
hpi@archinst.uzh.ch Via Sant’Ottavio 20 Greece
10124 Torino papastamati@vonmoock.com
Chryssa Karadima Italy
Ephorate of Antiquities of Rhodope nicolo.masturzo@unito.it Poul Pedersen
Archaeological Museum, 4, A. Symeo- Classical Studies, Department of
nidi Str. Christine Mauduit History
GR-691 00 Komotini École normale supérieure de Paris University of Southern Denmark
Greece UMR 8546 AOROC DK-5230 Odense M
chkaradima@culture.gr 45 rue d’Ulm Denmark
F 75005 Paris p.pedersen@sdu.dk
Asuman Lätzer-Lasar France
Internationales Kolleg Morphomata christine.mauduit@ens.fr Katja Piesker
Universität zu Köln Abtlg. Bau-/Stadtbaugeschichte,
Albertus-Magnus-Platz Jean-Charles Moretti Fakultät für Architektur und
D-50923 Cologne Institut de recherche sur l’architecture Landschaft
Germany antique, CNRS Leibniz Universität Hannover
asuman.laetzer@uni-koeln.de MOM MSH, Université Lyon 2 Herrenhäuser Straße 8
AAMU D – 30419 Hannover
Manuela Leibetseder 7 rue Raulin, F 69365 Lyon, Cedex 07 Germany
Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaf- France katja.piesker@web.de
ten, Klassische und Frühägäische jean-charles.moretti@mom.fr
Archäologie David Richard Scahill
Universität Salzburg Valentina Di Napoli American School of Classical Studies
Residenzplatz 1 Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece at Athens
A-5020 Salzburg Skaramanga 4B Odos Souidias 54
Austria GR-10433 Athens 10676 Athens 467
leibetsederma@stud.sbg.ac.at Greece Greece
dinapoliv@yahoo.com drscahill@gmail.com
 Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens, Volume 17

Kleanthis Sidiropoulos Gudrun Styhler-Aydın Maria Trapichler

Archaeological Museum of Messene TU Wien Institut für Klassische Archäologie
Ancient Messene Faculty of Architecture and Planning Universität Wien
240 02 Meligalas Institute of History of Art, Building Ar- Franz-Klein-Gasse 1
Greece chaeology and Restoration A-1190 Vienna
klesid@yahoo.gr Department of History of Architecture Austria
and Building Archaeology maria.trapichler@univie.ac.at
Rudolfine Smetana Karlsplatz 13,
Fachbereich Altertumswissenschaf- A-1040 Vienna Christine Wilkening-Aumann
ten, Klassische und Frühägäische Austria ETH Zürich
Archäologie http://baugeschichte.tuwien.ac.at/ Institute of Historie Building Research
Universität Salzburg gudrun.styhler@tuwien.ac.at and Conservation (IDB)
Residenzplatz 1 Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 27
A-5020 Salzburg Petros Themelis HIT H 43
Austria Society of Messenian Archaeological CH-8093 Zurich
rudolfine.smetana@sbg.ac.at Studies Switzerland
33 Psaromiligkou Str. www.idb.arch.ethz.ch
Alexander Sokolicek 10553 Athens wilkening@arch.ethz.ch
Währingerstrasse 127/15 Greece
1180 Vienna www.ancientmessene.gr Costas Zambas
Austria damophon@gmail.com PhD NTUA, 43 Skiathou str.
as7085@nyu.edu 11254 Athens
Gerasimos Thomas Greece
Geoff Stennett PhD NTUA, Kriezi 7 c-zambas@hol.gr
University of Sydney Paphos Archaeo- 15233 Chalandri, Athens
logical Project Greece
c/- Nicholson Museum A14 tomjerry78@hotmail.com
University of Sydney NSW 2006
Australia
Geoff@ocp.net.au

468

View publication stats