Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία

1. Location

The asiarch Tiberius Claudius Aristion undertook the funding for a monumental nymphaeum, which formed the majestic terminus of the supply channel which brought water to the town of Ephesus from a river (Küçük Menderes) 20 miles away. The nymphaeum of Trajan (map no. 38) interrupts the colonnade of Curetes Street (map no. 36) and protrudes into the street. According to the inscription on the building’s frieze and the ground floor’s architrave it was dedicated to the emperor Trajan. It was inaugurated before 114 AD and was repaired during the reign of Theodosios.

2. Architectural design

The nymphaeum’s facade follows the example of facades for Roman theatres. Its ground plan is U -shaped as two projecting side wings have been added. Ephesus has two other Nymphaea of this shape. One is the so-called Hydrecdocheion of C. Laecanius Bassus (map no. 29)¹ and the other is the fountain (map no. 15) at the Magnesia gate (map no. 10), also an offering by Tiberius Claudius Aristion to Trajan.²

The nymphaeum had a large basin for the collection of water, rectangular in shape, measuring 11,90x5,40 m. In front of this was a narrower draw basin for pumping water into; this was also rectangular and measured 17x0,90 m. This system of basins is framed by the facade wall which is U- shaped, similar to the nymphaeum in Miletus.

The outlet of the channel which supplied the basin with water was shaped like a large shell. The water ran into the basin which overflowed; then the water fell into the other basin which was at street level. The town’s citizens collected water by using vessels which were held up by ropes attached to this basin’s parapet.

The monument had two floors with a total height of 9,50 m. Its sheer size, combined with the receding façade which created horizontal projections and recessions produced, undoubtedly, an impressive result. The facade wall (17 m. long) and the side projections (7,5 m. long) stood on a compact and continuous podium. It was built with the opus caementicium system of masonry and was faced with marble plaques.

In the ground floor, pilasters divided the central area of the facade into five sections. In front of the pilasters there were columns which stood on Attic-Ionic type bases and had Composite capitals. Similarly, each of the side wings of the ground floor was divided into three sections by two pillars equivalent in height to the columns in the central wall. The pillars were flanked by two shorter columns which stood on pedestals. Each of these architectural elements was of the Composite order and were placed in front of a pilaster. The two columns of the wings and their equivalent pilasters created a small aedicula with a triangular pediment. In each of the three sides of the facade, the central space between the columns was wider, emphasizing in this way the figures which had been placed in the central niches. Columns and pillars supported the receding entablature which was formed by a three-fasciae architrave and a frieze.

The architecture of the upper floor was smaller in scale than that of the lower floor and less detailed. As in the lower floor, each column corresponded to a pilaster formed on the back wall, the only difference being that these columns carried Corinthian capitals and stood on octagonal shaped pedestals which were decorated with reserve mouldings. The columns were placed in absolute equivalence with those of the lower floor. The intercolumnar space supported an entablature which terminated in a triangular pediment. This part of the monument formed a central niche which was equal in height to the entire building and was destined to house the larger-than-life-size statue of Emperor Trajan, fragments of which still survive in situ. The corners of the composition were decorated by horizontal volutes and the wings had round pediments. These details give the impression of theatrical scaenae frons. The edges of the side wings ended in two columns which formed two light and airy peripteral areas, at the end of the U -shaped facade. This solution has also been employed in the numphaea of Miletus and Side, but also in the fountain of the Magnesia gate in Ephesus.³

The monument, as testified by its size and rich decoration, was an expensive work. There are however some indications of attempts to cut costs. For example, the frieze remained undecorated and the moulding on the columns appears liberally processed. Moreover, the frieze was framed by volutes and capitals arranged in two rows which created a flat, shallow result.⁴ Some areas remained unfinished, a fact which implies that attempts were made to reduce the time, financial cost and effort needed to complete the building. It is very probable that local craftsmen were used. The inscription informs that the monument’s sponsor gave priority to its hydraulic system and sculptural decoration rather than of the facade’s architectural details.

3. Epigraphic evidence

Three inscriptions are connected with the numphaeum. One is the monument’s votive inscription and comes from the architrave of the upper storey. It mentions that the monument is an offering by the asiarch Tiberius Claudius Aristion and his wife Julia Laternas , who dedicated the nymphaeum to Artemis of Ephesus and Trajan.⁵ The other two inscriptions come from statue bases. The first of these was found in the central niche of the facade wall and supported a colossal figure. According to the inscription this figure was the Emperor Trajan.⁶ The second base was found in one of the niches in the western side wingof the monument and bears the name of Nerva.⁷

4. Sculptural decoration

The monument was decorated with a rich iconographic program, as is the case with most monumental nymphaea in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (Miletus, Side, Perge, Sagalassos).

It has been calculated that around 15 statues would have been placed in the niches and aediculae. Excavations have brought to light fragments of nine statues, eight of which date from the reign of Trajan.

The larger-than-life-size portrait statue of Trajan was placed in the centre. Its height covered the entire height of the building. The inscribed base, with traces of the right foot and of the sphere of the world, which he held as a symbol of his authority, has survived. The emperor was portrayed in a state of idealized nudity. He was possibly depicted in the Kyme-Munich type, i.e. in a standing position of repose, with heroic nudity, wearing only a chlamys over the left shoulder and possibly holding a sword.⁸

The emperor Trajan would have been flanked by members of the imperial family, possibly Nerva and Plotina but also by the monument’s sponsors, Tiberius Claudius Aristion and his wife Julia Lydia Laternas.

Apart from statues depicting individuals, the iconographic program was completed by idealized statues: two figures of Dionysus, the figure of a Cupid possibly from a statue of Aphrodite, a figure of Aphrodite holding a sea shell low, near her underbelly, a reclining figure of a Satyr and a male figure in the statue type of Scopas’ Meleagros, identified as Ephesus’ mythical founder, Androclos.⁹

The figures of the mythical founder of Ephesus Androclos and of Dionysus, the portraits of the monument’s sponsors and the portraits of members of the imperial family would have been placed at the lower floor, thus connecting Ephesus’ mythical past with her political present.

Androclos is depicted as a hunter, naked, wearing only a chlamys which ties in the front with a clasp at the neck and falls onto the shoulders.¹⁰ He leans against a tree trunk, next to which is his dog. In front of the animal are some traces possibly of the hero’s hunting spear. The presence of Androclos in the entire town of Ephesus and especially along CuretesStreet is marked.¹¹ This statue was placed at the centre of the western wing.

It is flanked by the base which according to its inscription bore the statue of Nerva,¹² but has wrongly been replaced by the headless figure wearing Greek himation, and by Plotina who is identified as the female figure in the Kore type.¹³ The later is depicted in a position of standing repose her left foot bearing the weight and her right foot relaxed, slightly bent at the knee. She wears a chiton and himation which cover the body and the left shoulder. The covered left hand held the himation at thigh height. It dates from the late Julio-Claudian era or the first years of Trajan’s reign.

According to another reconstruction, these figures, as members of the imperial family would have been placed on either side of Trajan.¹⁴ One of the two statues of Dionysus is placed in the centre of the eastern wing, opposite Androclos.¹⁵ The god is depicted wearing the characteristic clothing of actors: long, theatrical chiton with wide belt under the chest, an animal skin fastened at the right shoulder and a himation. This statue type of Dionysus is connected to the annual festival which took place in Ephesus in honour of the god already from the 4th century BC and the large procession which ended in Curetes Street.¹⁶ The presence of the god on the nymphaeum honours local cults and the celebrations of Ephesus.

Dionysus is flanked by a female figure in the Ceres type with a trajan hairstyle. It is thought to represent Claudius Aristion’s wife, Julia Lydia Laternas.¹⁷ T. Claudius Aristion was possibly depicted in the headless male figure wearing himation.¹⁸

The reclining figure of a Satyr emphasizes Dionysus’ presence on the nymphaeum and in Ephesian cult worship.¹⁹ He is depicted reclining on a panther skin, supported on his bent left arm. He is reminiscent of the figure of the dying Gaul in the Vatican Museum.²⁰ The wreathed head with its short curly hair and the intense characteristics of the face suggest that it may have been placed on the second floor (as long as it didn’t bear faucet opening for water), although its size suggest a position on the ground floor.

The Aphrodite with sea shell belongs to the local pantheon.²¹ The goddess is headless and is depicted in a standing position of repose. He holds a himation around her thighs and a sea shell low in front of her underbelly. A drain hole cannot be distinguished, a fact which would suggest its function as a fountain statue. However, her substantiated relationship with water offers the monument the necessary timbre and an atmosphere of leisure and enjoyment. There has been much discussion on where these two figures should be placed.

H. Pellionis places the figures of Aphrodite and the Satyr on the upper floor, under the condition that, for reasons of symmetry, these figures also had their pairs.²² He places, in other words, two Aphrodites in the aediculae at the ends of the side wings and two reclining Satyrs in the aediculae, which flank the central niche of the emperor. As their pairs have not been found, however, we cannot support this opinion. The size of the figures is smaller-than-life-size, which means that these figures could not be removed from the gaze of the monument’s visitor by being placed so high. Moreover, the subject of the figures demands their positioning in direct proximity with the water in the basin, despite the fact that these particular figures do not technically function as spouts.²³ A position exists on the lower floor, on either side of Trajan. This seems more logical both in connection to size and function.

The figure of a young naked Dionysus belongs to the later phase of decoration²⁴ and is placed in the centre of the eastern wing flanked by the figure of Dionysus with the long chiton and the female figure in the kore type identified as Plotina.²⁵

Among the idealized statues, fragments of a group depicting Cupids (Erotes) riding on dolphins, which belonged to the nymphaeum’s decoration, were discovered in 1957, on Curetes Street, near Trajan’s nymphaeum. These were marble groups, 0,07 m. high which functioned as fountains, as shown by the drain holes on the base.²⁶ They are quite damaged and were possibly the supports for another figure, e.g. Aphrodite.²⁷

The Nymphaeum Traiani is a typical example of the combination of the local pantheon with the town’s benefactors, the correlation in other words of divine and imperial authority, in the same way as in the nymphaeum in Olympia,²⁸ with which it shares many architectural characteristics, and in the nymphaeum of Miletus .

5. Date

The date for the erection of the monument is placed in the years 102-114 AD,²⁹ i.e. during the reign of Emperor Trajan. In 362 AD an earthquake caused serious damages and led to restoration and renovations works.

6. State of preservation and history of the research

Many of architectural members from the building’s foundation, the socles of the columns and the bases, as well as plaques from the basin’s parapet are today preserved in situ. These, combined with the architectural components from the building’s elevation, which were discovered during excavations in 1958, assisted the reconstruction of the monument’s facade and layout by H. Pellonios.³⁰ Most descriptions of the monument are based on his drawings.

The restoration of the nymphaeum of Trajan has already been planned by F. Miltner, but was organized only in 1962 by H. Pellionios and W. Mach. The facade did not retain its original height, so the columns were replaced by small plaster pillars which stood on the original columns bases, while on top of these were placed the capitals which supported the richly decorated entablature. In this way however, the monument’s original dimensions were lost, while the statues which were found in the area and came from the niches of the facade are no longer able to be placed in their original positions. The drawn reconstruction by H. Pellionis shows a two-storey facade, with capitals of the Composite order on the ground floor and Corinthian capitals on the upper floor. From the upper floor the central pediment has been reconstructed.³¹

1. Dorl-Klingenschmid, C., Prunkbrunnen in kleinasiatischen Städten. Funktion im Kontext (2001), p. 186-187, no. 25, fig. 55, 113 a-b.

2. Scherrer P. (ed.), Ephesus. The New Guide, (trans. L. Bier – G.M. Luxon, 2000), p. 72, no. 15; Dorl-Klingenschmid, C., Prunkbrunnen in kleinasiatischen Städten. Funktion im Kontext (2001), p. 187-188, numb. 25, pict. 114; Bammer, A., “Elemente flavisch-trajanischer Architekturfassaden aus Ephesos”, ÖJh 52 (1978-1980), p. 86-87.

3. Longfellow, B., Imperial Patronage and Urban Display of Roman Monumental Fountains and Nymphaea (2005), p. 114, note 86.

4. Strocka, V.M., “Wechselwirkungen der stadtrömischen und kleinasietischen Architektur unter Trajan und Hadrian”, IstMitt 38 (1988), p. 291-307, particularly 295.

5. Börker, C. – Merkelbach, R. (ed.), Die Inschriften von Ephesos, Teil II (Nr. 101-599) (Bonn 1979), no. 424, 424 Α, p. 147-149: 1. [Ἀ ]ρτέμιδι Ἐφ[ε] σία κα[ι] Αὐ [τοκράτορι] Νέρουᾳ Τρα[ιανῶι Κα]ίσα[ρι Σεβαστῶ]ι Γερμ[ανικ]ῷ Δακικῶι καί τῇ πατρίδι Κλαύδιος Ἀ ριστίων τρίς ἀ σιάρχης καί νεωκό[ρος]. 2. [με]τά Ἰ ουλίας Λυδίας Λα[τερανῆ ς -ίλ]λη[ς] τῆ [ς γυναικός,] θυγα[τ]ρός Ἀ σίας, ἀ ρχιε[ρείας καί πρυτά]νεως [ ] ὕ δωρ [εἰ ς]αγαγών δι’ οὗ κ [ατεσκεύασεν ὀ χ]ετοῡ διακοσίων καί δέκα σταδίων καί το ὑ δρεκδοχῖ ον σύν παντί τῷ κόσμῳ ἀ νέθηκεν ἐ κ τῶν ἰ δί[ων]; S. Settis, “’Esedra" e ‘Ninfeo’”, ANRW, 1.4 (1973), p. 662-740, [art. σελ. 709; Dorl-Klingenschmid, C., Prunkbrunnen in kleinasiatischen Städten. Funktion im Kontext (2001), p. 119.

6. Miltner, F., “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos”, ÖJh 44 (1959), p. 326-354, particularly 327: Αὐ τοκράτορa Κ]αίσαρa Νέρβaν Τραιανόν Σεβαστόν Γερμανικόν Δακικόν θεoῦ υἱόν.

7. Börker, C. – Merkelbach, R. (ed.), Die Inschriften von Ephesos, Teil II (Nr. 101-599) (Bonn 1979), no. 420, p. 144: [θ]εόν Νέρβαν.

8. For this type, Παπαζαφειρίου, Γ., Οι ιδεαλιστικές απεικονίσεις των Ρωμαίων αυτοκρατόρων (2004) (unpublished doctoral thesis Aristotel University of Thessaloniki), p. 116 ff.

9. The majority of surviving statues belong to the initial phase of the iconographical program, i.e. the reign of Trajan. The figure of the naked Dionysus was added in the Late Antonine period.

10. Ephesus, Archaeological Museum, no. 773. Miltner, F., “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos”, ÖJh 44 (1959), p. 332 ff, fig. 177; Bammer, A. – Fleischer, R. – Knibbe, D., Führer durch das Arch. Mus. in Selçuk-Ephesos (1974), p. 24 ff; Fleischer, R., “Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos”, in Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner, SoSchrÖAI (Wien 1982), p. 123; LIMC I (1981), p. 766, no. 7, in entry “Androklos” (M.L. Bernhard); Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 124, no. 104, fig. 73a-b.

11. In the late Hellenistic heroon of Androclos, the library of Celsus, the baths of Vedius, the baths of Varius, the temple of Hadrian.

12. Börker, C. – Merkelbach, R. (ed.), Die Inschriften von Ephesos, Teil II (Nr. 101-599) (Bonn 1979), no. 420 (base inscription), p. 144. Fleischer, R., “Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos”, in Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner, SoSchrÖAI (Wien 1982), p. 123, 128, no. 1403; Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 125, note 15.

13. Kruse, H.J., Römische weibliche Gewandstatue des 2. Jh.s.n.Ch. (1975), p. 122 ff., 337, no. D24; Atalay, E., Weibliche Gewandstatue des 2. Jhs.n.Chr. aus ephesischen Werkstätten (1989), p. 23, no. 12, 73-77, fig. 23; Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 125, note 15; Filges, A., Standbilder jugendlicher Göttinnen (1997), p. 45-47, 159, 202, 219, 256, no. 65; Alexandridis, A., Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses. Eine Untersuchung ihrer bildlichen Darstellung von Livia bis Julia Domna (Mainy am Rhein 2004), p. 267, no. 6; Longfellow, B., Imperial Patronage and Urban Display of Roman Monumental Fountains and Nymphaea (2005), p. 120.

14. Wiplinger, G. – Wlach, G. (ed.), Ephesos. 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen (Wien 1995), p. 96, fig. 127 (reconstruction by H. Pellionis). Dorl-Klingenschmid, C., Prunkbrunnen in kleinasiatischen Städten. Funktion im Kontext (2001), p. 189.

15. Ephesus, Arch. Museum, no. 1405. It was found on the eastern wall in front of the south colonnade. He is depicted at a young age. He wears a long, sleeved chiton and an animal skin fastened with a clasp at the right shoulder. His clothing is fastened by a wide belt under the chest. Traces at the left shoulder and the knees suggest that the god held an object, possibly a thyrsos. Miltner, F., “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos”, ÖJh 44 (1959), p. 339, fig. 181; Haubner, D., Die Tracht des Gottes Dionysos in der griechischen Kunst (1971), p. 106, 109, no. 272; Pochmarski, E., Das Bild des Dionysos in der Rundplastik der klassischen Zeit Griechenlands (1974), p. 67-69, pict. 15; Kapossy, B., Brunenfiguren der hellenistischen und römischen Zeit (1969), p. 63; Bammer, Α. – Fleischer, Ρ. – Knibbe, D., Führer durch das Arch. Mus. in Selçuk- Ephesos (1974), p. 26-27; Fleischer, R., “Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos”, in Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner I (1982), p. 124; LIMC III (1986), p. 434, no. 115, on entry “Dionysos” (C. Gasparri)· Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1(1990), p. 53-55 no. 31, fig. 21-22.

16. Chi, J., Studies in the Programmatic Statuary of Roman Asia Minor (2002), p. 53-54. Along Couretes Street were many statues of Dionysus. Engelmann, H., “Statue und Standort”, in Betz, A. et al., (ed.), Römische Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Epigraphik für Artur Betz zur Vollendung seines 80. Lebensjahres (1985), p. 249-255, part. 251; Longfellow, B., Imperial Patronage and Urban Display of Roman Monumental Fountains and Nymphaea (2005), p. 121.

17. Fleischer, R., “Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos”, in Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner I (1982), p. 123-124, note 8; Longfellow, B., Imperial Patronage and Urban Display of Roman Monumental Fountains and Nymphaea (2005), p. 121.

18. F. Miltner has wrongly placed on this base the statue of Nerva. See Miltner, F., “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos”, ÖJh 44 (1959), p. 332, fig. 175; Longfellow, B., Imperial Patronage and Urban Display of Roman Monumental Fountains and Nymphaea (2005), p. 121, fig. 4.24.

19. Ephesus, Arch. Museum, no. 754; Miltner, F., “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos”, ÖJh 44 (1959), p. 339, fig. 182; Ηelbig II4, 488, no. 1702 (H.v.Steuben)· Bammer, A. – Fleischer, R. – Knibbe, D., Führer durch das Arch. Mus. in Selçuk-Ephesos (1974), p. 29 ff., Fleischer, R., “Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos”, στο Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner I (1982), p. 123 ff., fig. 27-29. Söldner, M., Untersuchungen zu liegenden Eroten in der hellenistischen und römischen Kunst (1986), p. 591, note 1577. Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1(1990), p. 70-72, no. 51, fig. 34a-b.

20. Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 71.

21. Ephesus, Arch. Museum no. 768; Fleischer, R., “Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos”, in Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner I (1982), p. 124, note 10.

22. Wiplinger, G. – Wlach, G. (ed.), Ephesos. 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen (Wien 1995), p. 96, fig. 127 (reconstruction H. Pellionis); Scherrer, P. (ed.), Ephesus. The New Guide (trans. L. Bier – G.M. Luxon, 2000), p. 117, fig. 2 (reconstruction H. Pellionis).

23. Fountain statues were usually placed on the lower floors, so that the water could spout from the sea shell, the flask or vessel they held directly from the nearby cistern. Βλ. Fleischer, R., “Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos”, in Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner, SoSchrÖAI (Wien 1982), p. 124.

24. Ephesus, Arch. Museum, no. 769. It was found in the middle of the colonnade of the eastern wall of the lower floor. He is depicted naked at a young age. He wears an ivy wreath on his head. The long hear is tied low at the neck from where begin two plats which end at the shoulders. The tympanum is discernible. There was also possibly a thyrsos, while also on the right side there would have been other symbols of the god. According to Fleischer, R., Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos in Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift H. Kenner I (1982), p. 123 ff., it was flanked by a female portrait of the Ceres type (Trajan reign) and by Dionysus (no. 1405). See also Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 63, note 11; Miltner, F., “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos”, ÖJh 44 (1959), p. 333, fig. 178; Pochmarski, E., Das Bild des Dionysos in der Rundplastik der klassischen Zeit Griechenlands (1974), p. 84 ff., Kapossy, B., Brunenfiguren der hellenistischen und römischen Zeit (1969), p. 63(“Apollon”). Bammer, A. – Fleischer, R. – Knibbe, D., Führer durch das Arch. Mus. in Selçuk-Ephesos (1974), p. 30; Fleischer, R., Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos, in Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner I (1982), p. 123 ff., fig. 27-29; Ridgway, B.S., Roman Copies. The problem of the original. Jérôme Lectures, 15th series (1984), p. 101; Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 62-63, no. 41, fig. 28-29a-b.

25. Fleischer, R., Zwei eklektische Statuen aus Ephesos, στο Pro Arte Antiqua, Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner, SoSchrÖAI (Wien 1982), p. 123 ff., fig. 27-29; Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 63, note 11; Longfellow, B., Imperial Patronage and Urban Display of Roman Monumental Fountains and Nymphaea (2005), p. 116.

26. Ephesus, Arch. Museum, numb. 758. (exc. Numb 57/77). Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 91, no. 71, fig. 50a-b. Ephesus, Arch. Museum, no. 1553 (exc. Numb. P60/47. Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 90, no.70, fig. 49c-d.

27. Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 91, note. 1.

28. Γιαλούρη, Α. – Γιαλούρης Ν., Ολυμπία. Οδηγός του Μουσείου και του Ιερού (1987), p. 26 ff., 168; Bol, R., Das Statuenprogramm des Herodes- Atticus-Nymphäums, Olymp. Forsch. XV (1984).

29. Aurenhammer, M., Die Skulpturen von Ephesos, Idealplastik I. Forschungen in Ephesos X/1 (1990), p. 71, note 10.

30. Bammer, A., “Architektur”, ÖJh 50 (1972-1975), p. 395-398, where the ground plan and drawn reconstruction of the nymphaeum of Trajan have been published, drawings by H. Pellionis.

31. Wiplinger, G. – Wlach, G., Ephesus. 100 Years of Austrian Research (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar 1996), p. 96-97.