In the ancient theaters of both Megalopolis and Sparta excavations revealed that one parodos had been modified into a large shed, identified from stamped roof tiles as a skanotheka. It was in large part this unusual feature which led Heinrich Bulle to surmise that each of these theaters had, at one period in their respective histories, a wheeled, wooden skene that was stored in the skanotheka when not in use. Bulle found further evidence for his reconstruction of the skene at Sparta in 32 grooved blocks that he claimed were part of three stone on which the wheeled skene was moved. This article re-examines the archaeological evidence, considering the reports and conclusions of the excavators and the opinions of other scholars. It is concluded that the archaeological evidence in the theater at Megalopolis does not support Bulle's theory. In fact, the presence inside the skanotheka of a sill running the length of the building argues strongly against the proposal. It is also argued that a wheeled skene such as that envisioned by Bulle cannot have existed in the theater at Sparta, the principal argument against it being differences in the heights of the three tracks significant enough to have prevented movement of the wheeled building. Grooved blocks similar to those found in Sparta are noted in the theaters in Gytheion, Boeotian Orchomenos, Isthmia, and Tyndaris, and it is suggested that in all these theaters, including that at Sparta, these blocks may have been used for the storage of wooden frames or flat scenery. In his 1928 study of Greek theaters Heinrich Bulle introduced his ideas for movable stage buildings in the theaters of Megalopolis and Sparta.1 He substantially expanded his theory for the latter in Das Theater zu Sparta, published nine years later.2 Curiously, his reconstructions provoked virtually no criticism or controversy. In a 1935 review of Untersuchungen an den griechischen Theatern, Broneer rejected Bulle's proposal for the Spartan wheeled skene, agreeing with Woodward, the British excavator, that the cuttings in certain blocks appeared to be nothing more than water channels.3 That is apparently the only dissenting opinion. In 1931, Fiechter, in Das Theater in Megalopolis, accepted the idea of a Rollskene but without entering into any detail.4 His reconstruction drawing of the wheeled skene shows a box-like structure of considerably more modest design than that of Bulle.5 If it is any criticism of the latter, it is purely passive. Thereafter, the theories of the stage buildings on wheels for these two theaters were accepted without question by Dinsmoor,6 Bieber,7 and most recently by Gebhard.8 They are still the standard reconstructions. There is, however, much in these proposals that needs re-examination. There are apparent contradictions, inconsistencies, and a great amount of supposition taken as fact. A reassessment of Bulle's theories is