Circuses in the Roman East: A Reappraisal

9 782356 130013

le cirque romain et son image

ausonius éditions— mémoires 20 —

le cirque romain et son image

Textes édités par

Jocelyne Nelis-Clément

& Jean-Michel Roddaz

Publié avec le concours du Conseil Régional d’Aquitaine

— Bordeaux 2008 —

ausoniusmaison de l’archéologieuniversité michel de montaigne - Bordeaux 3F - 33607 Pessac cedexhttp://ausonius.u-bordeaux3.fr/editionsausonius

DiFFusion De BoccarD11 rue de médicis75006 Parishttp://www.deboccard.com

Directeur des Publications : Jérôme Francesecrétaire des Publications : stéphanie Vincentcouverture : sophie revault [sophie-revault.com], Aditus-Reditus – 105x403 – 2007.acrylique sur tissus et voiles-plis.

© ausonius 2008issn : 1283-29995isBn : 978-2-35613-001-3

achevé d’imprimer sur les pressesde l’imprimerie gráficas calima, s.a.avda candina, s/ne - 39011 santander - cantabria - espagne

décembre 2008

CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHESCIENTIFIQUE

Circuses in the Roman East: A Reappraisal *

Hazel DoDge

– Le cirque romain et son image, p. 133 à 146

C hariot racing was one of the most popular sports in the Greek and Roman worlds; more importantly, it was the one that enjoyed the greatest longevity. In the archaic, classical and Hellenistic Greek world, horse racing, as well as the usual 2 and 4-horse chariot races, was popular, and although horse racing continued

into the Roman period it was never as popular as the racing of chariots outside the eastern part of the Empire 1. The earliest description of a chariot race can be found in Homer’s Iliad in the context of the funeral games of Patroclus 2. Here a group of heroes raced against each other in 4-horse chariots on a flat plain which served as an improvised race course. They raced in an anti-clockwise direction with only one turning post; there were no starting gates and they drew lots to determine their starting position, clearly a key factor in their success or failure. This is how chariot and horse racing effectively took place before the Roman period, with no purpose-built venue or elaborate facilities provided 3. The only pre-Roman hippodrome for which we have any evidence with regard to form is that at Olympia; archaeological evidence suggests that this was the only Greek-period hippodrome to have purpose-built facilties of any kind. According to Pausanias 4, it was located beyond the stadium, probably to the south 5, and it had an aphesis, a set of starting gates, designed by Cleoetas. The detailed description of the starting gates is worth quoting in full 6:

When you have passed beyond the stadium, at the point where the umpires sit, is a place set apart for the horse-races, and also the starting-place for the horses. The starting-place is in the shape of the prow of a ship, and its prow is turned towards the course. At the point where the prow joins the Stoa of Agnaptus it broadens and a bronze dolphin on a rod has been placed at the very point of the ram. Each side of the starting-place is more than four hundred feet in length, and stalls are built in the sides. These stalls are assigned by lot to those who enter for the races. Before the chariots or race-horses is stretched a cord as a barrier. An altar of unburnt brick, plastered on the outside, is made at every Festival as near as possible to the centre of the prow, and a bronze eagle stands on the altar with its wings stretched out to the fullest extent. The man appointed to start the racing sets in motion the mechanism in the altar, and then the eagle is made to jump upwards, so as to become visible to the spectators, while the dolphin falls to the ground. First on either side the barriers are withdrawn by the Stoa of Agnaptus, and the horses standing there start off first. As they run they reach those to whom the second stall has been allotted, and then the barriers are withdrawn at the second station. The same thing happens to all the horses in turn, until at the ram of the prow they are all equal. After this it is left to the charioteers to display their skill and the horses

1. The numbers competing could vary considerably: Golden 1998, 79 n. 4. Pindar, P., 5.49-54, records 40 chariots in one race, and these were just those which crashed! There are many unknowns in Greek chariot and horse racing: the length of the laps (e.g. was a lap one length of the race track, or a complete circuit?), the length of the overall race. Indeed there may have been no overall standard. A number of depictions on Greek vases include a turning post, e.g. a Panathanaic vase c. 420-400 BC in the British Museum, which shows a 4-horse chariot rounding a turning post: Swaddling 2004, 84.

2. Hom., Il., 23.287-650.3. Humphrey 1986, 5-11.4. Paus. 6.20.10-13.5. To the south of the stadium because Pausanias says that the area for horse-racing was beyond the stadium at the point where the

judges sit; the judges’ box was located on the south side of the stadium. 6. Paus. 6.20.10-15.

* I am very grateful to Dr Jocelyne Nelis-Clément for the invitation to speak at the conference. I would like to thank her, Professor J.-M. Roddaz and all their colleagues at Centre Ausonius de l’Université de Bordeaux 3 for their friendly welcome and generous hospitality during the conference. I benefited greatly from discussions with my fellow speakers and I would particularly like to acknowledge the help of very fruitful discussions with Professor B. Bergmann, Dr Tr. Nogales Basarrate, Professor W. Decker, Dr S. Bell and Dr J.-Cl. Golvin. I would also like to thank Professor K. Coleman and Dr A. Kelly for both general discussion and specific help. Dr D. Stewart was extremely generous in allowing me access to his unpublished work on modified theatres in Greece and Asia Minor; this work is due to be published in Journal of Roman Archaeology. Last, but by no means least, I would like to thank Dr J. Coulston who has not only read the whole text and saved me from many errors, but who has always been with me every step of the way.

134 – Hazel DoDge

Fig. 1 | a. Map showing the location of archaeologically attested purpose-built circuses in the eastern Roman Empire.

1. Antioch-on-the Orontes2. Laodiceia3. Beirut4. Tyre5. Caesarea Maritima6. Alexandria7. Bostra8. Antinoopolis9. Anazarbus10. Gortyn11. Cyrene12. Gadara13. Corinth14. Gerasa15. Constantinopple16. Thessaloniki17. Nicomedia

Location Date Length (m) WiDth (m)

Antioch-on-the-Orontes 1st/2nd century AD 492.5 70-75

Laodicea (Latakia) 2nd/3rd century AD unknown unknown

Beirut 3rd century AD unknown unknown

Tyre 2nd/3rd century AD c. 450 86-92

Caesarea Maritima 2nd/3rd century AD c. 450 c. 90

Alexandria Hellenistic? c. 450 c. 65

Bostra ? 2nd century AD 440-450 83-97

Antinoopolis 2nd century AD 410 58.4

Anazarbus 1st/2nd century AD 410 64

Gortyn 2nd/3rd century AD c. 400 50-60

Cyrene ? 2nd century AD 351 58.4

Gadara (Umm Qeis) unknown at least 250m unknown

Corinth mid-late Augustan At least 300 55 reduced to c. 39 by AD 100

Gerasa (Jerash) 2nd/3rd century AD 244.05 49.5-52.5

Constantinople AD 200 c. 450 c. 90

Thessaloniki Galerius c. 430 c. 84

Nicomedia Diocletian unknown unknown

Fig. 1 | b. Purpose-built Circuses in the eastern Roman Provinces conforming to the canonical architectural circus form according to Humphrey 1986 (NB There can be marked variations in the published figures for the dimensions of many of these structures).

CirCuses in tHe roman east: a reappraisal – 135

their speed. It was Cleoetas who originally devised the method of starting, and he appears to have been proud of the discovery, as on the statue at Athens he wrote the inscription:

Who first invented the method of starting the horses at Olympia, He made me, Cleoetas the son of Aristocles.

It is quite clear that there was no attempt at a staggered start, but the whole process would have raised the pre-race tension as well as increased the spectacle, something which would have been very familiar to a Roman audience 7. It was not until the Roman period that any kind of more permanent facilities were provided for horse and chariot racing in the eastern Mediterranean 8.

In 1986 John Humphrey, in his book Roman Circuses, listed more than a dozen cities in the eastern provinces known to have had monumental circuses, and where some form of physical evidence had survived 9. Circus games became particularly popular in late antiquity, which gave rise to the construction of circuses at Thessaloniki, Nicomedia and Constantinople, but a number of purpose-built venues were previously constructed in the Roman period during the first two centuries AD 10. Generally these structures took the traditonal form of the circus, that of a long hairpin shape, but they vary in size, and more importantly, in function, to a greater degree than in the Western Roman Empire (fig. 1b). The variation in size, along with the evidence from recent excavations, suggests that circuses in the East were much more multi-functional in nature, but this has caused considerable debate amongst modern scholars about what modern terminology should be applied to such structures. Two such re-definitions are “amphitheatrical-hippo-stadia” and “multi-functional audience buildings/structures” 11. The present paper examines the provision of circuses in the Roman East, through a re-evaluation of the evidence, and explores the reasons behind this apparent need to re-define these structures in terms of both their form and function, and asks whether the invention of such terms helps or hinders the study. Three structures, excavated in the last two decades, are of particular importance in this context: the circus at Corinth, the circus at Jerash (ancient Gerasa) in Jordan, and the circus attached to Herod’s palace at Caesarea Maritima in Israel 12. These three buildings demonstrate the “problem” faced by modern scholarship in their identification and interpretation of eastern Roman circuses in particular, and entertainment buildings in general. They further highlight the need to rethink not only the function of circuses in the East, but also to adopt a mode of reference that is at the same time flexible, but not misleading, a mode of reference which hopefully reflects the complex cultural environment of the eastern Roman provinces of which these entertainment buildings are a very important part.

Generally speaking, in the ancient world, the buildings associated with public entertainment and leisure were distinguished by their function and the activities which they housed, as much as by the building technology employed to construct them. As a result we have very clear ideas on the form of the different types of entertainment building created by the Romans. The Roman theatre had a semi-circular cauea, semi-circular orchestra which was often used for elite seating, a low stage with an often very elaborate scaenae frons, and its traditional primary function was to house dramatic performances 13. The permanent amphitheatre, a building exclusively associated with the Romans, was usually elliptical in plan with an oval arena, completely surrounded by seating; amphitheatre, a term derived from the Greek adjective ἀμφιθέατρος, -ον, simply means a structure surrounded by seats or with seats on all sides. This was a typical Roman building type which accommodated first and foremost that very Roman type of spectacle, gladiatorial display 14. Twenty-five years ago there were only six amphitheatres known in the eastern Roman provinces (Corinth in Greece, Cyzicus, Pergamum,

7. Harris 1968.8. This introduces the problem of terminology, in this instance, the difference between “circus” and “hippodrome”. Modern scholars

use them interchangeably, and more specifically use hippodrome for any structure for chariot- and horse-racing in the eastern Mediterranean irrespective of chronological period. In this paper, the term “hippodrome” is reserved for structures which, though meant to predominantly accommodate horse- and chariot-racing, do not have any of the more permanent features which are particularly characteristic of the Roman period (defined, monumental shape and form, starting gates, central barrier, turning posts). This is a practice recommended by Campbell in his report on the circus at Antioch: Campbell 1934, n. 2. On terminology, see Pisani-Sartorio in this volume.

9. Humphrey 1986, 438-539; his accompanying map (his Fig. 205) is very misleading. It purports to show the circuses of the eastern provinces, but in fact shows not only those, but also those cities for which we have evidence for chariot racing but which had no circus. Further on p. 522 he confusingly refers to the structure at Cyrene as both a stadium and a hippodrome.

10. Moretti 1990. For the important political and cultural role played by the circus in late antiquity, see Cameron 1976. Humphrey 1986, 625-631 (Thessaloniki), 631-632 (Antioch), 581-582 (Nicomedia).

11. Humphrey 1996; Yorath 1995, 2003, 2004; Patrich 2002a. However, even with these new terms, there is a great detail of inexactitute in their use.

12. Corinth: Romano 2005; Jerash: Ostrasz 1991, 1995; Caesarea Maritima: Patrich 2001, 2002a, 2003; Porath 1995, 2003, 2004.13. For the most recent and most comprehensive study to date: Sear 2006.14. It is quite clear that other types of display, such as animal fights and aquatic displays, were also staged in amphitheatres but gladiators

were particularly associated with them from the earliest permanent amphitheatres: Golvin 1988, 17-22; Golvin & Reddé 1990; Welch 1994.

136 – Hazel DoDge

Anazarbus, Antioch-on-the-Orontes in Asia Minor, and Dura-Europos on the Euphrates) 15. Despite the extensive work of Louis Robert, the bulk of which was published in 1940 16, it has been common amongst scholars and the general public alike to assume that the Greek East was somehow too refined to indulge in the types of bloodthirsty spectacle associated with such buildings. As a result of research in the last twenty years, we can now archaeologically identify 16 purpose-built amphitheatres in the East (20 if the Balkan examples at Philippopolis, Marcianopolis, Dyrrachium and the newly discovered structure at Serdica are included), with perhaps another dozen known from literary and other sources 17. Even more were provided by the modification of other classes of entertainment buildings 18.

By the Roman imperial period the circus had taken the form of a hairpin shape and was the largest class of entertainment building, used first and foremost for chariot races 19. Size is significant because of its purpose; the arena length of the Circus Maximus is approximately 580 m with a width of about 79 m. The length of most of those known in the West are in the region of 400 - 450 m (e.g. Merida, Lepcis Magna). In the East there is much greater variety, with those at the smaller end of the range resembling more the form and proportions of the standard stadium, a building type which has a similar plan to the circus but which is usually much shorter (the track usually about 180-190 m in length) (fig. 1b). The stadium traditionally housed athletics games, a form of entertainment which never enjoyed such a popular following in Rome and the West as it did in the Greek East during the Roman period 20.

These Roman building classes (theatre, amphitheatre, circus, stadium) therefore have a recognisable and definable form, and a primary function defined and acknowledged in modern scholarship. Nevertheless, a problem arises from our modern compulsion to define a building according not only to its function but also to the displays it housed. However, the ancient function did not always correspond neatly to our discrete physical categories. Furthermore, the use of terminology in the ancient sources in relation to entertainment buildings is open to varying interpretations. It is for these reasons that the whole subject of circuses and chariot racing in the eastern Mediterranean presents modern scholars with major challenges for description and interpretation.

Two circuses which serve to establish the pattern in the East are those at Antioch-on-the-Orontes, (Antakya, Turkey) and at Tyre, (Sur, Lebanon) 21. The circus at Antioch is located on the north side of the ancient city and was excavated in the 1930s 22. According to Malalas 23, in 67 BC, a circus was built at Antioch-on-the-Orontes by Quintus Marcius Rex, making it the earliest example of a Roman circus in the eastern provinces 24. However, it probably did not take any significant monumental form until it was rebuilt in the 2nd century AD; its arena length of 492.5 m and suggested estimated spectator capacity of 80 000 puts it amongst the largest circuses of the empire 25. There was major remodelling in the late 3rd and 4th

15. Ward-Perkins 1981, 258 (Corinth), 290 (Cyzicus, Pergamum and Anazarbus), 325 (Antioch-on-the-Orontes), Dura-Europos, 352; there is very little discussion.

16. Robert 1940.17. The list of 13 eastern amphitheatres provided by Golvin 1988 (Antioch-on-the-Orontes, Ptolemais in Cyrenaica, Cyrene, Dura-

Europos, Corinth, Cyzicus, Pergamum, Dyrrachium, Marcianopolis, Caesarea Maritima, Comana, Hierapytna and Salamis) is highly problematic because not all the structures have definitely been identified as purpose-built amphitheatres; the example at Cyrene is in fact a converted archaic period theatre, so having a rather different development and history. A number of examples can now also be added. See Welch 2007, 163-185 and Dodge forthcoming, for a longer, revised list of eastern amphitheatres and further discussion.

18. For the modification of theatres and other buildings for arena type displays, see Golvin 1988, 236-247; Dodge 1999, 223; Sear 2006, 43-45; Dodge forthcoming. I am grateful to Dr D. Stewart for generously sharing with me his research ahead of publication. This type of modification tends to be a phenomenon of theatres in Greece and Asia Minor as well as Cyprus (Kourion and Nea Paphos: Green & Stennett 2002). Some theatres in Sicily were also modified in this way: Wilson 1990, 57-78; a particularly good example is the theatre at Tindari.

19. Other spectacles were also staged in the circus (Jennison 1937, 42-59; Golvin 1988, 61-65; Coleman 2000, 216-217), sometimes as interval entertainment, e.g. singing rope-dancers mentioned in one of the few surviving circus programmes (the 6th century AD, P. Oxy., 34, 2707; see Decker in this volume), but also as major events in their own right, for example in 204 when Septimius Severus staged a shipwreck which turned into a large-scale animal hunt (D.C. 76.1.3-5; see Bajard in this volume). Dancers and pantomime performances were an important part of circus activities as entertainment between races, see Cameron 1976 193-226; Simpson 2000.

20. Newby 2005; Coleman 2000, 242; Wistrand 1992, 48-52.21. Antioch: Humphrey 1986, 444-461; Tyre: Humphrey 1986, 461-477; Golvin & Fauquet 2008.22. Campbell 1934. The circus was very clear in air-photographs of the time (Campbell 1934, Fig. 3, reproduced in Humphrey 1986,

Fig. 211) and the overall shape can still be made out in satellite images, although both ends are being encroached upon by modern building: Google Earth (http://earth.google.com/ as observed on 25.8.07) 36° 13’ N 36° 10’ E.

23. Malalas 225.7-11.24. Humphrey 1986, 456-457. There are some major problems with the interpretation of this particular passage in Malalas, see Downey

1937.25. Humphrey 1986, 447 attributes this figure to Campbell 1934, although there is no mention of it in the original report. Seating capacities

of ancient entertainment buildings are notoriously difficult to estimate and this figure should not be taken too literally.


centuries AD when Antioch became an imperial capital, although what remains today, the concrete cores of stairways in the substructures, probably dates to the early 2nd century AD 26.

The circus at Tyre was first discovered in 1967 outside the city walls to the east of the city, on the neck of land created by Alexander’s causeway, and was excavated between 1969 and 1971 (fig. 2 and 3). It remains one of the most fully exposed and best preserved, yet least comprehensively published, of all Roman circuses 27. It was constructed in the Severan period and its arena is about 450 m long and between 86 and 92 m wide, a little wider than many circuses in the western provinces, though both Merida and Vienne have this same characteristic 28. Indeed, an interesting feature is that the two long sides are not parallel but bulge or curve slightly outwards about half way along so that the arena was at its widest at the central point. This feature can also be identified in the circuses at Antioch-on-the Orontes, Caesarea Maritima and Jerash 29. This would certainly have improved visibility for spectators; the same feature can also be recognised in the design of a number of stadia in the eastern Mediterranean, notably those at Aphrodisias and Nemea 30. An obelisk of red Aswan granite from Egypt was placed on the central barrier of the circus at Tyre, clearly a reference to the practice established by Augustus in the Circus Maximus in Rome and seen also at Caesarea Maritima, and followed later at Constantinople 31.

The circus at Jerash was located outside the south gate of the city and is particularly noteworthy because of its size and other features revealed by excavation; it is the smallest of all known buildings referred to as “circuses” in the Roman world (fig. 4). It was constructed in the second half of the 2nd century AD and was excavated in the 1930s and more extensively in the 1980s. 32 The length of the arena was 244 m with a width of 49-52 m. Despite its small size it can be defined as a circus because of

26. Campbell 1934, 36-37, 40; Humphrey 1986, 447-451; 458-459. The chronology of the Antioch circus is still problematic: Humphrey 1986, 455.

27. Humphrey 1986, 461-477 remains the fullest account of the structure.28. Humphrey 1986, 362-376 (Merida), 401-407 (Vienne). Sánchez-Palencia et al. 2001.29. Humphrey 1986, 462.30. Welch 1998b, 548-550; Miller 2001, 29-37, where the same explanation for this feature is given. However, Miller also suggests that at

Nemea (and possibly in some other stadia), this was also for the protection of spectators, shielding them from off-target javelins (the starting line was also the point from which javelins were thrown in competition).

31. Augustus and Circus Maximus: Plin., Nat., 36.71; Amm. 17.4.12; CIL, VI, 701; LTUR 3, 355-6; Iversen 1968, 65-75; Roullet 1972, 69-70; Habachi 1984, 117-120; Coulston et al. forthcoming, Appendix 5. The combination of obelisk and circus became a common one: Golvin 1990, 49-54; Humphrey 1986, 269-272. For Egyptian obelisks outside Egypt generally, see Iversen 1968 and 1972. An obelisk was also placed on the central barrier of the circus at Arles, though the material significantly was not the same, but of Troad granite from North-Western Turkey: Charron & Heijmans 2001.

32. For the original excavations, Müller 1938 (where the term “hippodrome” is used). Humphrey 1986, 495-504, effectively provides a detailed account of the building before excavation. For the recent excavations, see Ostraz 1989, 1991, 1995. The full report on the structure is in the final stages of preparation.

Fig. 2. Tyre. View of the circus looking south towards the curved end |(Photo: J. C. N. Coulston).

Fig. 3. Tyre. View of circus looking north towards the | carceres (Photo: J. C. N. Coulston).

138 – Hazel DoDge

the presence of carceres; for Humphrey the presence of carceres and a central barrier are defining features of the building type 33. There are 10 stalls, arranged in two groups of five, with a central wider entrance. The excavations of the 1980s revealed that there was a central barrier, although at 35 m in length it was proportionally much shorter than would be usually expected, but this dimension may be as a result of erosion on the site 34. The building was certainly used for chariot racing as well as horse racing but only 5 of the carceres were equipped with a starting mechanism 35. The width of the arena would certainly have allowed more than 5 chariots to be raced in Greek style, but it is unclear whether more would have competed 36. It has been suggested that the five other “carceres” allowed horses or chariots to easily leave the building at the end of a race or performance. After earthquake damage in the middle of the 4th century the building was substantially remodelled when the performance area at the northern, curved end was enclosed by a roughly built semi-circular wall of stones removed from other parts of the building, effectively forming an elliptical arena (fig. 4) 37.

The most recent circus in the eastern Mediterranean to be identified is at Corinth in the Peloponnese. Although excavations continue, and the building is fragmentary, all the evidence indicates that a building similar in proportions to the circus at Jerash was constructed here. In the late 1960s, during the excavations of the Gymnasium on the northern edge of the city, a long narrow stone-built structure was uncovered 38. This was aligned roughly east-west and was designated at the time the “Apsidal Building”. This was at least 19 m in length, but with a maximum width of only 4.49 m. Several pieces of sculpted stone were also found, included a marble, cone-shaped object (surviving height 1.38 m). This has recently been identified as one of the metae and the western part of the spina of the circus of Corinth 39. The building, substantially robbed after antiquity, had a long and complicated history. The excavator identified four main phases. It was originally built

33. Humphrey 1986, 18-24, but see the opposing views of Yorath 2003 and Patrich 2003 whose vigorous discussion on terminology and function in the context of the Herodian structure at Caesarea Maritima has unwittingly served to highlight the problem caused by loose, and sometimes incorrect, terminology.

34. In the early publications it was thought that the depression which probably curtails the central barrier came about as a result of the building being used for naumachiae (an idea dismissed firmly by Müller 1938, 98-99).

35. Ostraz 1989, 67-70; 1991, 237-239.36. Ostraz 1995, 189-191 argues that if the intention was for only 5 chariots to race, the design of the eastern (right-hand) track would not

have incorporated a bulge exactly at the break line, although in fact even without it there was still more than enough room for 5 chariots to race. The excavations show that the explanation was probably very simple, and that settlement at the time of and immediately after construction made the use of the western carceres virtually impossible and so they were never finished to be used as starting gates. Humphrey 1986, 503 suggests that more Greek style racing took place here as opposed to Roman (for which see also Humphrey 1986, 9-11).

37. Ostraz 1989, 73. Such a wall would have reduced the length of the track to the extent that chariot racing would have been impossible, but other games could have continued. This phenomenon is not unusual in stadia and circuses in the eastern Provinces (see for example for Palestine, Weiss 1999, 34-41; for Aphrodisias: Welch 1998b). For further discussion on this type of phenomenon, see Dodge forthcoming.

38. Wiseman 1969, 62-72.39. Romano 2005, 396-398.

Fig. 4. | Gerasa (Jerash). Plan of circus with the late modification at the north end (after Ostraz 1989, fig. 3).


in the mid to late Augustan period, thus essentially the building goes with the original founding of the Roman colony in common with the amphitheatre 40; renovations were made in the later 1st century. Further work did not take place until the 6th century and the building was finally abandoned later in that century. In its original form it comprised a race track with starting gates, probably at the east end 41, and a spina with metae at either end; it is unknown whether the spina extended the full length of the arena at this early stage 42. There is also little evidence of any substantial seating, although there is no reason why this might not have been provided in timber. The arena width of about 55 m was certainly wide enough for a race track, but this was reduced in the first set of modifications to only 39 m, when a more substantial seating area was added; evidence for this new, enlarged seating has been traced on the north side of the circus and presumably extended around the curved west end to the south side. The length of the circus arena would have been as great as 388 m if the carceres were at the east end, but as short as 330 m if they were at the west end 43. Further excavation will hopefully fill in the gaps in our knowledge, but the presence of a circus at the Roman colony of Corinth is not unexpected.

A circus has long been know at Caesarea Maritima; it lay on the eastern outskirts of the city. It was similar to Tyre in both dimensions and in the provision of a red granite obelisk for the euripus. Limited excavation has shown that it was not built until the later 2nd century 44, and yet equestrian events were held at Caesarea as early as 11 BC when Herod staged games in the city connected with its foundation; these involved a musical contest, athletics, gladiatorial combat, wild beast displays and other lavish shows of the kind seen at Rome 45. The venue for these displays has been the subject of much discussion in the context of Josephus’ description 46.

Josephus records that Herod built a stone theatre and an amphitheatre at Caesarea 47: “Herod also built a theatre of stone in the city, and further back on the south side of the harbour, an amphitheatre (ἀμφιθέατρον) large enough to hold many people and conveniently placed for a view of the sea”. According to his description, the amphitheatre was located to the south of the harbour, had a large seating capacity and had a view of the sea. This does not correspond to the location of the known amphitheatre visible to the north-east of the city, 750 m from the present shoreline and outside the line of the Herodian walls 48. As a result, modern commentators have suggested that Josephus was confused and was actually talking about the theatre. A survey carried out in 1951 and soundings made in the early 1980s proved inconclusive in terms of dating. Its form, however, does not discount an earlier date 49.

Further excavations in the early 1990s along the shore to the south of the harbour at Caesarea have revealed a structure which is now accepted as that referred to by Josephus (fig. 5). This is an area some 290 m in length and about 50m wide associated with Herod’s palace complex, located right by the sea 50. It was constructed between 22/21 and 10/9 BC and is curved at the south end; it appears to be a classic stadium type of building. On the east side there was a high bank of 12 rows of seating whilst on the west seaward side, the tiers of seats were much lower, recalling Josephus’ description of the sea view from the building. The terminology used by Josephus is important here; in Antiquities of the Jews 15.341 he refers to it as an amphitheatron (ἀμφιθέατρον), but elsewhere 51 he refers to it as “the great stadium”. It is clear that Josephus was using the term to describe the building and the arrangement of seats, rather than it primarily being a reference to any particular type of spectacle which might be staged there 52. Physically we have a structure that has a hairpin

40. Welch 1999, 133-138; Welch 2007, 255-259; Dodge forthcoming. The date of the unexcavated amphitheatre at Corinth has traditionally been assigned to the 3rd century AD, for the most part on the basis of literary evidence.

41. Romano 2005, 600 for a discussion of the location of the carceres at the east end and how the circus would fit into the colonial street grid.

42. Romano 2005, 598-599, stresses that the details of the carceres, the full length of the spina and the seating in this phase are still conjectural.

43. Humphrey 1986, 334 and Fig. 148 suggests that the preferred orientation of circuses in North Africa was with starting gates at the west end, but there is no reason why this should have been consistently adhered to elsewhere.

44. Humphrey 1974; 1975; 1986, 477-491.45. Jos., AJ, 16.136-38; BJ, 1.415.46. Humphrey 1996; Yorath 1995; 2004; Patrich 2002; Weiss 1999, 34-35.47. Jos., AJ, 15.341.48. Holum et al. 1988, 85-86; Golvin 1988, 256; Reifenberg 1950-1951.49. Roller 1982; Golvin 1988, 256. The earliest permanent amphitheatres of the late Republic (for example Pompeii, Sutri and Paestum in

Italy, Carmona in Spain and Antioch-on-the-Orontes in Syria (Golvin 1988, 32-42) to which can probably be added Corinth in Greece: see Welch 1994; 1999; 2007 passim but particularly 163-185; Dodge forthcoming) all share a number of characteristics: simple ovoid plan, making as much use of the natural terrain as possible to support the seating, and an absence of arena substructures.

50. The main excavation reports so far published are Porath 1995 and Patrich 2001a, with further discussion and interpretation (often offering different perspectives), Patrich 2002a, 2003; Porath 2003, 2004; see also Humphrey 1996 and Weiss 1999, 34-35.

51. Jos., AJ, 18.57; BJ, 2.172.52. The term amphitheatron is not used as a noun before the time of Augustus (Golvin 1988, 24, 34); the dedicatory inscription of the

amphitheatre at Pompeii (CIL, X, 852, dated 70-65 BC) refers to the building with the term spectacula. For the origin and development of the use of the word amphitheatre, Étienne 1965; see Porath 2004 for a discussion of the use of the term by Josephus. Roman entertainment buildings

140 – Hazel DoDge

Fig. 5. | Caesarea Maritima. View from the south curved end of the seaward side of the Herodian period circus attached to the palace complex (Photo: Z. Rodgers).

Fig. 6. | Caesarea Maritima. View looking south from the carceres of the Herodian period circus attached to the palace complex (Photo: Z. Rodgers).

Fig. 7. | Caesarea Maritima. Herodian circus. Podium wall with paintings of animal hunts (Photo: Z. Rodgers).


plan in common with the canonical circus and stadium plans. Admittedly its size (290 m long) makes it longer than the usual size for Roman period stadia (180-200 m), but it is certainly larger than the structure at Jerash which is considered a circus. Its size in fact is on a par with the entertainment buildings at Aphrodisias and Laodiceia in Turkey which are usually called stadia 53. Excavations at the north end of the Caesarea arena have uncovered starting gates that, according to the Humphrey definition, further suggests that this building, at least in architectural form, is a circus (fig. 6) 54. Evidence for a central barrier, if that is the correct interpretation, further supports this identification, at least architecturally 55. The arena area is surrounded by a podium wall about 1.7 m high which was decorated with painted plaster showing animal hunts (fig. 7); this type of decoration is known from the amphitheatres at Pompeii and Merida, as well as the converted theatre at Corinth 56. The high wall would certainly protect spectators from inadvertent audience participation during many of the displays, but there were also cuttings into the stone surface for timber uprights to which nets could be attached, adding further height. This would have been particularly important if larger animals, particularly big cats, were part of the display; these are capable of jumping in excess of 4 metres 57. Equally the gladiatorial and musical displays mentioned by Josephus could also be accommodated in this venue. Thus, in this complex at Caesarea, we have a truly multi-functional building that incorporated the traditional functions of the circus, the amphitheatre and the stadium, a set of circumstances which has caused a number of scholars to attempt a re-evaluation of the use of this traditional terminology 58.

The multi-functional nature of the physical form that can be observed in the Herodian complex at Caesarea is paralleled in a number of other structures in the eastern provinces. A particularly good example is the stadium at Aphrodisias (fig. 8) 59. This is one of the best preserved ancient stadia, dating to the later 1st century AD, and its arena was 270 m long and 59 m wide at its broadest point. Its 30 or so tiers of seats could have accommodated approximately 30 000 spectators. Unlike most other stadia it terminates at both ends in a curve, thus entirely enclosing the arena with seating. The long sides are not parallel but bulge out slightly at their centre to allow for better spectator viewing, just as has already been observed of several circuses in the region 60. The epigraphic record from Aphrodisias is vast and provides a great deal of evidence for athletics contests, but it also indicates that the stadium was used for more Roman types of spectacle such as

were by their nature multi-functional; animal displays were a part of Circus and arena displays in Rome from the 2nd century BC: Golvin 1988, 61-65. See also above n. 20. Dion H., Ant., 4.44) referred to the Circus Maximus as ἀμφιθέατρος ἱππόδρομος, a clear reference to the nature of the seating and primary function rather than specifically to any other types of display which might have been performed there.

53. Aphrodisias: 270 m long and 59 m wide; Laodiceia: nearly 350 m long; see Welch 1998b. 54. On the starting gates Patrich 2001a and response Porath 2003, 451; Humphrey 1986, 19-24. 55. There are definitely turning posts, but there is much disagreement about the presence of a central barrier between them: Patrich

2001a; cf Porath 2003. There is possibly a similar situation at Jerash: Ostraz 1991, 238-240.56. The paintings of the Pompeii amphitheatre are now lost: Mau & Kelsey 1908, 208; Golvin 1988, 37. Those of the Merida amphitheatre

are displayed in the Museo Nacional de Arte Romano: Alvarez Martínez & Nogales Basarrate 1994. Corinth theatre: Shear 1926, 451-453; Capps 1949; Stillwell 1952, 87-94.

57. Gebhard 1975; Calp. Sic., Ecl., 7.50-56 describes arrangements in Nero’s temporary amphitheatre in Rome, comprising a fence and netting which had some kind of device with horizontally-mounted rollers which would turn as an animal put his paws on it: Jennison 1937, 154-164.

58. Porath 1995; Humphrey 1996, who uses two slightly different terms for the same building, hippo-stadium or amphitheatral hippo-stadium; Patrich 2002.

59. Welch 1998b.60. See above n. 31.

Fig. 8. Aphrodisias. Stadium looking east (Photo: H. Dodge). |

142 – Hazel DoDge

animal displays 61. The podium surrounding the performance area was 1.60 m high and had holes cut into the stonework for timber uprights. To support nets, the same kind of arangement already observed at Caesarea. Furthermore there were “refuges” in the podium similar to those found in amphitheatres in the West 62. Since both these features were provided at the time of construction, the building was intended to be multi-functional from the outset. This is not an isolated example. Similar provision was also made in the rebuilding of the stadium in Athens by Herodes Atticus in the middle of the 2nd century AD 63. Evidence for similar arrangements has also been recorded in the modifications to a number of theatres in Greece and Asia Minor 64.

Two other stadia are relevant here and demonstrate the varied nature of the provision of entertainment buildings in the East. The stadium at Laodicea ad Lycum, in Western Turkey, erected in AD 79 in honour of the emperor Vespasian, has the same plan as that at Aphrodisias, but with a length of nearly 350 m it is twice the usual length for a stadium 65. The building is actually described in inscriptions as a σταδίον ἀμφιθέατρον λευκόλιθον (literally an “amphitheatral stadium of white stone”), clearly a term used to describe its physical form with seating all round the track/arena, and its appearance, rather than a reference to the types of spectacle accommodated by the building 66. The epigraphic evidence clearly illustrates the building’s use for both athletic and gladiatorial contests, but this should not influence how we describe the physical shape of the architectural type. The stadium at Nikopolis in north-western Greece has a very similar plan, though it is shorter. It was almost certainly constructed for the Aktia, the games instituted there by Augustus after Actium 67. The latter included chariot races, although no hippodrome has yet been found, and whilst they could have taken place in a nearby open area, it has been suggested that this building could also have been a venue 68. Particularly apposite to this discussion is an inscription from Aphrodisias, which as well as listing prizes for various competitions, names additional costs that must be covered, including 300 denarii for ἀφετηρίας μαγγάνων, a “letting go of the pulleys”. This is an obscure term which may refer to some form of set-up for temporary starting gates 69. If one can accept this concept, it is only a small step to accept that there was no real necessity to have a permanent barrier to race around; poles set into the ground at the appropriate turning points would have served just as well.

As a further complication, the Herodian building at Caesarea Maritima discussed above was modified some time before the 3rd century AD with the addition of a curved wall, effectively truncating the arena at the south end, creating an elliptical area which can be confidently recognised as an amphitheatre 70. This is not an isolated phenomenon; it has already been noted at Jerash (fig. 4), but it also occurs in the circuses at Neapolis (Nablus) and Scythopolis (Bethshe’an) in Israel, as well as in the stadium at Aphrodisias (fig. 9) and in the Stadium of Herodes Atticus in Athens 71. The dating of this feature

61. Roueché 1993, 61-80, and n° 14, 15, 40, 41, 44. 62. Welch 1998b, 558-559.63. Travlos 1971, 498; Welch 1999, 127-132 and Welch 2007, 163-185 for gladiatorial games at Athens.64. Evidence for a wooden post and net system has long been reconstructed for the Colosseum, but definitive evidence and reconstruction

of such an arrangement was first properly explored in the context of the excavation of the theatre at Stobi in Macedonia (Gebhard 1975), which was built from the outset to function as both a theatre and an amphitheatre. Many theatres in Greece and Asia Minor were modified in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD for gladiatorial and/or animal displays, for example the odeion and the theatre at Corinth (Broneer 1932; Stillwell 1952, 58-98) and the theatre at Philippi (Golvin 1988, 237-249). See also Sear 2006, 43-45, Dodge forthcoming. Interestingly, Stillwell refers to the modifications at Corinth by the Greek term θέατρον κυνηγετικόν, meaning hunting theatre; this is used by Dio on several occasions: D.C. 43.22.3 for a wooden structure built by Julius Caesar in Rome for his quadruple triumph in 46 BC (Ville 1981, 70; Golvin 1988, 48-49); 51.23.1 in reference to the Amphitheatre of Statilius Taurus built in Rome in 29 BC; and more generally in 78.9.7 (Caracalla’s reign); see Golvin 1988, 48-49, 52.

65. Golvin 1988, 243; Humphrey 1996, 123. 66. IGR, 4, 845 and 861.67. Str. 7.7.6. For gladiatorial inscriptions from Laodiceia: Robert 1940, n° 116-120. Welch 1998b, 564 suggests that the design of these

stadia was conceived and planned in Rome; she uses the terms “stadium-amphitheatre” and “amphitheatral stadium” in her discussion of these buildings. However, as has already been noted, the term ἀμφιθέατρον is often used by Strabo to describe buildings which have seating on all sides, but which archaeological and epigraphic evidence show were neither architecturally nor functionally amphitheatres (although they may have come to accommodate arena games over time): Nysa (Str. 14.1.43) and Alexandria Taurus (Str. 17.1.10).

68. Humphrey 1996.69. CIG, 2758; Roueché 1993, 170 (n° 52.III); she translates this phrase as “releasing the pulleys”. Humphrey 1996, 124 makes this

suggestion in slightly more positive terms, but it is difficult to see what else it may refer to. The presence of ἀφέται is attested in the context of people working in the hippodrome in Egypt (P. Oxy., 1, 152; Shelton 1990, 266 n° 3; Shelton 1988 = O. Ash. Shel. 89, 118, 150; see Decker 2001, 501) and in Constantinople (Const. Porph., Book of Ceremonies, 1.78.616; see Dagron et al. 2000, 56 who translate the term with “les starters”); in the Book of Ceremonies are also mentioned the θυρανοίκται (1.78.616) and the μαγγανάριοι (1.78.7; 1.78.38; 1.81.58; see Dagron et al. 2000, 19: “les machinistes” in charge of the barriers or κάγκελλα). On these jobs related to the circus: Nelis-Clément 2002, 302-304. I am grateful to Brian McGing for discussing these obscure terms with me and to Jocelyne Nelis-Clément for assistance with references.

70. Weiss 1999, 34-35.71. Weiss 1999, 34-41; Welch 1998b, 565-569. This kind of adaptation is also well-known in theatres, although the exact nature of the

spectacles associated with these adaptations may have varied: Golvin 1988, 237-249; Sear 2006, 43-45. See the work of Stewart, n. 19 above; Dodge forthcoming.


is usually stated in vague terms in publications, very often simply “late” 72. What is particularly noteworthy is that scholars have usually assumed that such modifications to incorporate an arena indicates a rise in popularity of gladiatorial games, whereas other evidence suggests the high point of munera in the East as having been in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD (that is when most of the evidence can be dated) 73. Even in Rome, by the later 3rd century, gladiatorial games were not so common, partly because of the expense, but also because the socio-political incentives were no longer as compelling 74. Gladiatorial displays continued in the capital into the 4th century but it is clear their frequency declined 75. Perhaps this is the physical manifestation of political, economic and cultural changes in the organisation of a range of different types of display. Firstly, chariot racing became a highly organised, and politicised, sport in the 5th and 6th centuries and it was an activity which became particularly concentrated in the larger centres in the East such as Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Tyre and Antioch 76. It may simply have become too expensive to put on games involving horse and chariot racing in the smaller cities –added to which there was legislation increasingly limiting the holding of different types of games and displays– although this is not as widespread or as all-encompassing as is often presented 77. Secondly, documentary evidence suggests that gladiatorial games became rare in the East after the mid-late 4th century 78. Thirdly, whilst uenationes continued to be popular, they were also spiralling upward in expense, and from the 4th century onwards it is possible to detect a change in the nature of displays. No longer could organisers afford to kill huge numbers of animals all in one go. An Anastasian decree of AD 498 banned the slaughter of beasts in uenationes in the East and from this time on mites uenationes became the practice where often

72. Welch 1998b, 568, gives a terminus ante quem for the modification at Aphrodisias of the end of the 5th or beginning of the 6th century AD. Other stadia which were similarly remodelled are at Perge in southern Turkey and Messene in the southern Greek Peloponnese.

73. Gladiatorial games in the East: Robert 1940; Golvin 1988, 237-249. Welch 1998b, 568-569 suggests that this modification was to accommodate animal displays and that the reduction in size came about as a result of economic considerations.

74. Constantine’s edict of 325 on gladiators had an economic basis rather than specifically trying to ban gladiatorial games. 75. The latest record of a munus in Rome is variously given as 404 and 438: see Devoe 2002 140-141 for the problems with the literary

evidence.76. Humphrey 1986, 579-638; Vickers 1972; Cameron 1976.77. See Devoe 2002, 135-139, for the way in which Roman spectacle was incorporated into the Christian calendar, arguing against the

all-out Christian banning of many types of “pagan” display. Cameron 1976, 216-217, makes the very good point that there was almost certainly a genuine change of popular taste in spectacle and entertainment. Legislation against different types of spectacle had been in existence for centuries. It seems as though it was a combination of factors which were bringing about these more significant and long-term changes.

78. Ville 1960, 318; in 392, John Chrysostom was still referring to gladiators at Antioch (Welch 1998b, 568); Libanius, Or., 1.5, gives a passing reference to gladiators also.

Fig. 9. Aphrodisias. Stadium |east end with the late Roman amphitheatre (Photo: H. Dodge).

144 – Hazel DoDge

the tables were turned on the human participants 79. This sort of entertainment may be observed on some of the early 6th century diptychs, where many different types of display were housed in one venue, though obviously not all at once! 80

In conclusion, there are a number of observations which can be made on the location and distribution of circuses in the eastern Roman provinces.

1. There were essentially two types of circus structure built in the region, and they mainly differ in terms of length (see fig. 1b). The larger type of building (such as Tyre and Antioch) had major similarities with circuses built in the West. The smaller type seems to have been more a development of the complex cultural mix of the eastern Mediterranean, one which was intended to be multi-functional from the outset, and which was often further modified to accommodate different types of spectacle.

2. There were virtually no monumental circuses in Greece and Asia Minor; exceptions include Gortyn in Crete and Corinth, both of which were not only provincial capitals but also major Roman cultural centres. It is perhaps surprising that no chariot racing structure has yet been found at Ephesus. This perhaps may be explained by a continued preference for Greek style horse and chariot racing at a local level, not requiring the same kind of provision as the larger scale Roman style of racing 81. A number of open areas without structures have been identified as venues for chariot racing in Greece and Asia Minor 82. However, at Anazarbus in Cilicia, an unexcavated circus is clearly still visible outside the city walls. It was 410 m in long and 64 m wide and had a central barrier 83.

3. Further East, the examples at Caesarea, Jericho and Jerusalem are the products of a very particular set of political circumstances and cultural influences, linked with the Herodian regime 84. That many of these were multi-functional in nature from the outset should not be a surprise; a number of Jewish sources refer to both animal displays and gladiatorial combat taking place in the stadium, and some of the inscriptions published by Robert in 1940 refer to gladiators fighting έν σταδίοις 85.

4. Elsewhere in the East, those circuses built before the Tetrarchic period and over 400 m in length are in major centres of imperial importance (e.g. Bostra, Tyre, Antioch and Alexandria) 86.

It is evident that the provision of circus buildings in the eastern Mediterranean during the Roman period is not uniform across the region, and the terminology used by modern scholars in describing these buildings has not helped the understanding of an already complex situation. The reality that function of building does not neatly map onto architectural type has generated much discussion about the terminology used for these structures, leading to such awkward terms as “ampitheatrical hippo-stadium”, “multi-purpose audience entertainment building/structure”, “ampitheatre-stadium”, and “amphitheatral stadium” being coined in the pursuit of technical exactitude. However, the real issues are being obscured by the application of such terms. The fact that a building in the East, which can be architecturally defined as a circus, housed other types of display in addition to chariot and horse racing, should not cause the invention of new terminology for the description of the physical form of a building that remains broadly consistent, always admitting variation in size. Nor should the fact that, in the ancient terminology, the exactitude and neat categories that modern scholarship has come to expect of its evidence, just is not there. What is of prime importance is to define the venue architecturally, no matter how it might have been used from the beginning, or later modified. If this is not done, then there is the risk of becoming locked into an ever-increasing spiral of definition and re-definition which will result in no one knowing what is being referred to. Rather than look for difficulties, such rich variety should be celebrated for what it represents: a meeting of different traditions, and a major and intensively productive cultural dialogue.

79. Schrodt 1981, 50, though see Ville 1960, 327-329 for a discussion of the problems involved in the interpretation of the sources. Venationes were not officially banned until the Council of Trullo in 692: Devoe 2002, 142.

80. Jennison 1937, 179-180; Dyggve 1958. Diptychs such as those produced by Areobindus when he became consul in 506 and of Anastasius in 517 depict the games the official sponsored when they took up office. They show in particular various types of animal displays where the animals are enticed to react, for example the cochlea a kind of revolving door which was rotated on a central axis. This and other types of devices are described by Cassiod., Var., 5.42.6-10, in the context of Rome in the early 6th century.

81. Humphrey 1986, 525-528. See Roos 1994, particularly 187-188, on the problem of identification and the interchangability for many scholars of the terms “stadium” and “hippodrome”.

82. Humphrey 1986, 525-528.83. Gough 1952, 100-101 who refers to it rather confusingly as a “two-ended stadium”; Humphrey 1986, 527. Interestingly, Anazarbus

also has an amphitheatre: Dodge forthcoming.84. See amongst others Porath 1995; Weiss 1999; Netzer 2001a; 2001b, 64-67. The problem and confusion over terminology has been

particularly highlighted in this context.85. Weiss 1999, 34-45; Robert 1940, 21 and 35.86. Humphrey 1986, 439-441.


References

Alvarez Martínez, J. M. and J. J. Enríquez Navascués, ed. (1994): El Anfiteatro en la Hispania Romana. Coloquio Internacional Mérida, 26-28 Noviembre 1992, Merida.

Alvarez Martínez, J. M. and T. Nogales Basarrate, T. (1994): “Las pinturas del anfiteatro de Merida”, in: Alvarez Martínez & Enríquez Navascués 1994, 265-283.

’Amr, K., F. Zayadine and M. Zaghloul, ed. (1995): Studies in the History and Archeology of Jordan V, Art and Technology throughout the Ages. Department of Antiquities, Amman.

Bergmann, B. and C. Kondoleon, ed. (1999): The Art of Ancient Spectacle, Washington DC.

Bouet, A., ed. (2008): D’Orient et d’Occident. Hommages offerts à Pierre Aupert, Ausonius Éditions, Mémoires 19, Bordeaux.

Broneer, O. (1932): Corinth X: The Odeum, Cambridge, MA.

Cameron, A. (1976): Circus Factions, Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium, Oxford.

Campbell, W. A. (1934): “The Circus”, in: Elderkin 1934, 34-41.

Capps, E. (1949): “Observations on the Painted Venatio of the Theatre at Corinth and on the Arrangements of the Arena”, in: Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear, Hesperia Suppl. 8, Princeton, 64-70.

Charron, A. and M. Heijmans (2001): “L’obélisque du cirque d’Arles”, JRA, 14, 373-380.

Coulston, J., H. Dodge and C. J. Smith (forthcoming): The Ancient City of Rome. A sourcebook, London.

Dagron, G. et al. (2000): L’organisation et le déroulement des courses d’après le Livre des Cérémonies, Travaux et Mémoires 13, Paris.

Decker, W (2001): “Furor circensis”, JRA, 14, 499-511.

Devoe, R. F. (2002): Christianity and the Roman Games, Philadelphia.

Dodge, H. (1999): “Amusing the masses: buildings for entertain-ment and leisure in the Roman world”, in: Potter & Mattingly 1999, 205-254.

— (forthcoming): “Amphitheatres in the Roman East”, in: Wilmott forthcoming.

Domergue, Cl., Chr. Landes and J.-M. Pailler, ed. (1990): Spectacula I. Gladiateurs et Amphithéâtres, Lattes.

Downey, G. (1937): “Q. Marcius Rex at Antioch”, Classical Philology, 32.2, 144-151.

Dyggve, E. (1958): “Le théâtre mixte du Bas-Empire d’après le théâ-tre de Stobi et les diptyques consulaires”, Revue archéolo-gique, 1958/2, 20-39.

Elderkin, G. W., ed. (1994): Antioch-on-the-Orontes I. The Excavations of 1932, Princeton.

Étienne, R. (1965): “La Naissance de l’Amphithéâtre : le mot et la chose”, Revue des Études Latines, 43, 213-220.

Gebhard, E. R. (1975): “Protective Devices in Roman Theatres”, in: Wiseman 1975, 43-63.

Golden, M. (1998): Sport and Society in Ancient Greece, Cambridge.

Golvin, J.-Cl. (1988): L’amphithéâtre romain : essai sur la théorisa-tion de sa forme et de ses fonctions, Paris.

— (1990): “Les obélisques dressés sur la spina des grand cirques”, in: Landes 1990, 49-54.

Golvin, J.-Cl. and F. Fauquet (2008): “Essai de restitution du cirque de Tyr”, in: Bouet 2008, 169-176.

Golvin, J.-Cl. and M. Reddé (1990): “Naumachies, jeux nautiques et amphithéâtres”, in: Domergue et al. 1990, 165-177.

Gough, M (1952): “Anazarbus”, Anatolian Studies, 2, 85-150.

Green, J. R. and G. Stennett (2002): “The Architecture of the Ancient Theatre at Nea Pafos”, Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, Nicosia, 155-188.

Habachi, L. (1984): The Obelisks of Egypt. Skyscrapers of the Past, Cairo.

Harris, H. A. (1968): “The Starting Gates for Chariots at Olympia”, Greece and Rome, 15, 2nd ser., 113-126.

Holum, G., R. J. Bull and A. Raban (1988): King Herod’s Dream. Caesarea on the Sea, New York-London.

Humphrey, J. H. (1974): “Prolegomena to the Study of the Hippodrome at Caesarea Maritima”, BASOR, 213, 2-45.

— (1975): “A Summary of the 1974 Excavations in the Caesarea Hippodrome”, BASOR, 218, 1-24.

— (1986): Roman Circuses. Arenas for Chariot Racing, Berkeley-Los Angeles.

— (1996): “Amphitheatrical Hippo-Stadia”, in: Raban & Holum 1996, 121-129.

Humphrey, J. H., ed. (1995): The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research, JRA Supplement Series 14, Ann Arbor.

— (1999): The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research, vol. 2, JRA Supplement Series 31, Portsmouth.

Iversen, E. (1968): Obelisks in Exile: I. The Obelisks of Rome, Copenhagen.

— (1972): Obelisks in Exile: II. The Obelisks of Istanbul and England, Copenhagen.

Jennison, G. (1937): Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome, Manchester; repr. Philadelphia 1961.

Kraeling, C. H., ed. (1938): Gerasa. City of the Decapolis, New Haven.

Landes, Chr., ed. (1990): Le cirque et les courses de char, Rome-Byzance. Catalogue de l’exposition, Lattes.

Mau, A. and F. Kelsey (1908): Pompei im Leben und Kunst, Leipzig.

Miller, S. G. (2001): Excavations at Nemea II: The Early Hellenistic Stadium, Berkeley.

Moretti, J.-Ch. (1990): “Les courses de char dans l’Orient grec”, in: Landes 1990, 21-32.

Müller, E. B. (1938): “The Hipporome”, in: Kraeling 1938, 85-102.

Nelis-Clément, J. (2002): “Les métiers du cirque, de Rome à Byzance : entre texte et image”, Cahiers du Centre Glotz, 13, 265-309.

Netzer, E. (2001a): Hasmonean and Herodian palaces at Jericho: final reports of the 1973-1987 excavations, 2, Jerusalem.

— (2001b): Hasmonean and Herodian palaces at Jericho, Berlin.

Newby, Z. (2005): Greek Athletics in the Roman World. Victory and Virtue, Oxford.

146 – Hazel DoDge

Nogales Basarrate T. and F.J. Sánchez-Palencia, ed. (2001): El Circo en Hispania romana, Madrid.

Ostrasz, A. A. (1989): “The Hippodrome of Gerasa: a report of the excavations and research 1982-1987”, Jerash Archaeological Project 1984-1988 II, Paris, 51-77.

— (1991): “The Excavation and Restoration of the Hippodrome at Jerash. A Synopsis”, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 25, 237-250.

— (1995): “The Hippodrome of Gerasa: A Case of the Dichotomy of Art and Building Technology”, in: ’Amr et al. 1995, 183-192.

Patrich, J. (2001a): “The carceres of the Herodian hippodrome/stadium at Caesarea Maritima and connections with the Circus Maximus”, JRA, 14, 269-283.

— (2001b):”On the lost circus of Aelia Capitolina”, Scripta Classica Israelica, 21, 2001, 173-188.

— (2002a): “Herod’s Hippodrome-Stadium at Caesarea and the Games conducted therein”, in: Rutgers 2002, 29-68.

— (2002b): “Herod’s Theater in Jerusalem - a new proposal”, Israel Exploration Journal, 52, 2002, 231-239.

— (2003): “More on the Hippodrome-Stadium of Caesarea Maritima: a response to the comments of Y. Porath”, JRA, 16, 456-459.

Porath, Y. (1995): “Herod’s ‘Amphitheatre’ at Caesarea: a Multipurpose Entertainment Building”, in: Humphrey 1995, 15-27.

— (2003): “Herod’s Circus at Caesarea: a reponse to J. Patrich (JRA 14, 269-83)”, JRA, 16, 451-455.

— (2004): “Why did Josephus Name the Chariot-Racing Facility at Caesarea ‘Amphitheater’?”, Scripta Classica Israelica, 23, 63-67.

Potter, D. S. and D. J. Mattingly, ed. (1999): Life, Death and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, Ann Arbor.

Raban, A. and K. G. Holum, ed. (1996): Caesarea Maritima: A retrospective after two millennia, Leiden.

Reifenberg, A. (1950-51): “Caesarea: A Study in the Decline of a Town,” Israel Exploration Journal, 1, 20-32.

Roller, D. (1982): “The Wilfrid Laurier University Survey of Northeastern Caesarea Maritima”, Levant, 14, 90-103.

Romano, D. G. (2005): “A Roman Circus in Corinth,” Hesperia, 74, 585-611.

Roos, P. (1994): “In search of ancient stadia and hippodromes in Anatolia’, Opuscula Atheniensia, 20.12, 178-188.

Roueché, Ch. (1993): Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and late Roman Periods, JRS Monograph 6, London.

Rutgers, L. V. ed. (2002): What Athens has to do with Jerusalem: essays on classical, Jewish, and early Christian art and archaeology in honor of Gideon Foerster, Leuven.

Sánchez-Palencia, F. J., A. Montalvo and E. Gijón (2001): “El Circo Romano de Augusta Emerita”, in: Nogales Basarrate & Sánchez-Palencia 2001, 75-95.

Schrodt, B. (1981): “Sports of the Byzantine Empire”, Journal of Sport History, 8, 40-59.

Sear, F. (2006): Roman Theatres. An Architectural Study, Oxford.

Shear, T. L. (1926): “Excavations in the Theatre District of Corinth in 1926”, AJA, 30, 444-463.

Shelton, J. C. (1988): Greek Ostraca in the Ashmolean Museums from Oxyrhynchos and Other Sites Edited with Translations and Notes, Papyrologica Fiorentina XVII, Florence (= O.Ashm.Shelt.).

— (1990): “New Texts from the Oxyrhynchus Racing Archive”, ZPE, 81, 1990, 265-266.

Simpson C. J. (2000): “Musicians and the Arena: Dancers and the Hippodrome”, Latomus, 59.3, 633-639.

Sperber, D., ed. (1998): The City in Roman Palestine, New York-London.

Stillwell, R. (1952): Corinth II: The Theatre, Princeton.

Swaddling, J. (2004): The Ancient Olympic Games, 3rd edition, London.

Travlos, J. (1971): A Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London.

Vickers, M. (1972): “The Hippodrome at Thessaloniki”, JRS, 62, 25-32.

Ville, G. (1960): “Les jeux de gladiateurs dans l’empire Chrétien”, MEFRA, 72, 273-335.

— (1981): La gladiature en Occident des origines à la mort de Domitien, Rome.

Weiss, Z. (1996): “The Jews and the Games in Roman Caesarea”, in: Raban & Holum 1996, 443-453.

— (1998): “Buildings for Entertainment”, in: Sperber 1978, 77-102.

— (1999): “Adopting a novelty: the Jews and the Roman games in Palestine”, in: Humphrey 1999, 23-49.

Welch, K. (1998a): “Greek stadia and Roman spectacles: Asia, Athens, and the tomb of Herodes Atticus”, JRA, 11, 117-145.

— (1998b): “The Stadium at Aphrodisias”, AJA, 102, 547-569.

— (1999): “Negotiating Roman Spectacle Architecture in the Greek World: Athens and Corinth”, in: Bergmann & Kondoleon 1999, 124-145.

— (2007): The Roman Amphitheatre from its origins to the Colosseum, Cambridge.

Wilmott, T. ed. (forthcoming): Roman Amphitheatres and spec-tacular: a 21st century perspective. Papers from the Chester conference, February 2007, Oxford.

Wiseman, J. R. (1969): “Excavations in Corinth: The Gymnasium Area, 1967-1968”, Hesperia, 38, 64-106.

Wiseman, J., ed. (1975): Studies in the Antiquities of Stobi II, Beograd.

Wistrand, M. (1992): Entertainment and Violence in Ancient Rome, Göteborg.

Jocelyne Nelis-Clément & Jean-Michel Roddaz, éd.

Le cirque romain et son image

Archéologues, historiens, philologues et architectes originaires de 10 pays se sont réunis pour présenter le dernier état de la recherche sur le cirque romain. Au travers de plus de vingt communications qui privilégient l’approche interdisciplinaire et prennent appui sur les ressources des technologies modernes, c’est l’un des plus emblématiques monuments de la Rome antique qui se trouve ainsi revisité.

Mémoires 20ISSN : 1283-2995 ; ISBN : 978235613001370 €

RenseignementsAusonius ÉditionsMaison de l’ArchéologieUniversité de BordeauxF – 33607 Pessachttp://ausonius.u-bordeaux3.fr/EditionsAusonius

VenteLibrairie De Boccardhttp://www.deboccard.com

Circuses in the Roman East: A Reappraisal

Documents