Exempli Gratia

EXEMPLI GRATIA
SAGALASSOS, MARC WAELKENS

AND INTERDISCIPLINARY ARCHAEOLOGY
EXEMPLI
GRATIA
SAGALASSOS,
MARC WAELKENS AND
INTERDISCIPLINARY
ARCHAEOLOGY
Edited by Jeroen Poblome
LEUVEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

© 2013 by Leuven University Press / Presses Universitaires de Louvain / Universitaire Pers
Leuven. Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium).
All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication
may be multiplied, saved in an automated datafile or made public in any way whatsoever without
the express prior written consent of the publishers.
ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6

D / 2013 / 1869 / 59
NUR: 682
Lay-out and cover design: Frederik Danko (Vuurvlieg)

Jacket photographs: Statue of Hadrian © Bruno Vandermeulen (KU Leuven)
and Marc Waelkens © Yves Nevens (Belspo)
“A scholar’s fire can be kindled
by unexpected sparks”
As a child, Marc Waelkens once said, he already knew that he wanted to become an
archaeologist – apparently encouraged by a cartoon professor in ‘Robbedoes’. A scholar’s
fire can be kindled by unexpected sparks. Be that as it may, already as a young student,
Marc Waelkens did not limit himself to just studying and taking exams. He joined ex-
cavation expeditions whenever he could. During his career, he worked in Italy, Syria,
Egypt and Greece, but his true vocation originated from Turkey. There, in the South-
West of the country, in what was once called Pisidia, was Sagalassos, the archaeological
site which will be linked to professor Waelkens for many years to come.
It was a gift from heaven for our university when, in 1986, Marc Waelkens moved from
Ghent to KU Leuven. He felt welcome in the Leuven climate, and he soon found out
that here he would be able to begin what would turn out to be his magnum opus. Only
the year before he had initiated the archaeological exploration of Sagalassos. His well-
trained eye immediately recognized the enormous potential of the site. Although he was
not the real ‘discoverer’ of Sagalassos, he was the one who understood how a modern
approach could turn a somewhat dormant location into an archaeological site of world
class level. His diplomatic skills in dealing with Turkish authorities made it possible for
him to establish the foundations of what would become a lifelong discovery, in the true
sense of the word. Every year, he would go to Turkey, every time increasing the number
of highly professional collaborators accompanying him, both from Leuven and the West
as well as from Turkey. Training Turkish students to become top class archaeologists
has always been one of his major concerns. Gradually, his team grew, sometimes count-
ing over one hundred members. Obviously, inspiring and leading them required consid-
erable managerial talents, which, time would learn, were abundantly present.
An archaeologist is supposed to dig up things. This is definitely what Marc Waelkens did.
There are the champions’ league treasures, for instance the almost pristine head of emper-
or Hadrian, which, upon discovery, immediately grabbed the attention of the world press,
and which, a couple of years ago, was the center piece of a grand exhibition in the British
Museum, and recently also in the Gallo-Roman Museum in Tongeren. There are the many
buildings in Sagalassos, a number of which were or are being reconstructed, following the
‘anastylosis’ approach, i.e. by making use of original materials – mosaics, bathing facilities,
a giant villa, a theater, fountains, and much, much more. These are things which catch the
public eye. Less spectacular, but scientifically speaking at least of equal importance, are the
many, many results obtained by Marc Waelkens’ interdisciplinary team of specialists, who
were able to truly reconstruct the history of Sagalassos. These results showed how the city
was governed, how the economy was thriving and fading, how people lived, in short, what
Sagalassos was really like. This was the result of cutting edge archaeology, enriched by the
knowledge of geologists, anthropologists, paleobotanists, engineers, DNA specialists etc.
A period of ten thousand years was meticulously rebuilt and thoroughly described in less
than twenty-five years of intensive research. The result: Sagalassos is much more than a
traditional archaeological site, Sagalassos is alive!
5
Maybe that sounds a bit over-enthusiastic, words only allowed in the foreword of a book
such as this, looking for some goodwill of the reader. Still, the phrasing is deliberate and
correct: Sagalassos is truly alive. Archaeologists know this because of the ongoing series
of research reports, articles, specialized books etc. which have been the work of the
Waelkens team. The interest for Sagalassos is not limited to specialists, however. Marc
Waelkens has also paid due attention to ‘spreading the word’. Sagalassos has grown into
an important component of tourism in Turky. The team considers it a regular part of
its job to guide tens of thousands of tourists. Furthermore, Marc Waelkens has always
given many lectures. He has organized a considerable series of exhibitions, displaying
what treasures Sagalassos has to offer. He has written a good deal of articles, text and
books for a wider audience. Obviously, Marc Waelkens is not the only top quality re-
searcher at our university, but there are not many who have spread their findings to a
wider audience so efficiently as he has managed to do. This provided him with some
fame, but that has never been the goal: modesty has always been one of his characteris-
tics. Still, he knew what was his value – or rather, what was the value of his work. This
made him knock on the doors of possible financial supporters, for it goes without saying
that a large-scale project such as his, with so many collaborators and so many material
requirements, could not thrive without well-structured financial support.
Within KU Leuven, professor Waelkens managed to establish a high quality research

group, but he also devoted his talents to research policy. As the chairman of the univer-
sity’s Research Council, he was a key figure in safeguarding the high quality standards of
KU Leuven’s numerous research projects.
Marc Waelkens is a researcher of which many universities can only dream. Obviously,
he is an inspiring example for young researchers. Obviously, he is a figure head of Leu-
ven archaeology, or should I say the figure head. Obviously, he is a researcher who truly
embodies what modern science can accomplish. Obviously, he is a tireless worker, per-
severing and loyal. Obviously, he is a person with qualities given only to the best. But
above all, he is Marc, one of a kind.
Many of these qualities will be visible in the texts of this book. Its scientific contents
will please Marc, but I am sure that these carefully crafted contributions, many of them
written by scholars which he groomed, will also show their friendship for this highly
remarkable Leuven professor. That will make this book into what it was meant to be,
namely a liber amicorum, a book of friends, by friends, for a friend. Friends of Sagalassos,
friends of Marc Waelkens. I am proud to be one of them.
Prof. dr. ir. André Oosterlinck

President-chairman KU Leuven Association
Honorary Rector KU Leuven
6
“An invaluable contribution to the
development of Turkish archaeology”
Professor Marc Waelkens, a very important archaeologist and a specialist on the Ana-
tolian archaeology, acquired a distinguished place in Turkey-Belgium relations through
his continuous efforts on the Sagalassos excavations.
We have followed with appreciation his 23 years of work to promote the Sagalassos proj-
ect. It is indeed the success of Professor Waelkens that transformed the Sagalassos project
into a wide scale interdisciplinary excavation project. Since the start of the excavations, the
team led by Professor Waelkens has gone beyond the classical archaeological excavation
works and benefited from various sciences. I have no doubt that the Sagalassos excavation
will set the stage for even more research and discovery in Turkey in the years ahead.
Today, the bilateral contacts among artists, writers, film directors, educators, and sci-
entists are indispensable to the multifaceted development of international relations. In
the absence of such exchanges, an important pillar would be missing. After spending 23
years of his career on the Sagalassos project, Professor Waelkens made an invaluable
contribution to the development of Turkish archaeology and architecture. We observed
with pleasure that young Turkish academics took part in the Sagalassos excavation
works and benefited from Professor Waelkens’ immense experience in the field.
I believe that Professor Waelkens’ enthusiasm was always a source of inspiration and
motivation for his team members. He has given 500 lectures in Belgium concerning
Sagalassos. It is indeed impossible to measure what Professor Waelkens meant to the
project all these years. Beyond the excavation works, he also played a key role in the
resounding success of the “Sagalassos, City of Dreams” exhibition in Belgium which was
visited by thousands of people in 6 months’ time. The exhibition not only introduced
Sagalassos but also our ongoing scientific and cultural relations and exchanges to the
Belgian people. It is remarkable that there are currently hundreds of “Friends of Sagalas-
sos” in Belgium wholeheartedly supporting the project.
The Sagalassos excavation works also paved the way for the transformation of Ağlasun,
the town nearby the archaeological site. As his personal warmth and humble personality
enabled Professor Waelkens to gain the lasting confidence and respect of the local com-
munity, the small town became an integral part of the Sagalassos project and a center
for tourist facilities. Ağlasun public, “the fellow townspeople” in Professor Waelkens’
words, would always be grateful to Professor Waelkens in this regard.
I know that visiting Turkey was a childhood dream of Professor Waelkens and he real-
ized this dream long before the onset of Sagalassos excavation works. In time, his love
for Turkey has never vanished away but increased more and more. For all his efforts,
Professor Waelkens was granted the Medallion for Outstanding Service, the most pres-
tigious Turkish award for foreign nationals in 2002. I have no doubt that Turkey today,
with its people, is a part of Professor Waelkens’ life and even after his retirement, these
strong ties will endure.
7
As Professor Waelkens proceeds to enjoy a well-earned retirement period after a life-
time of distinguished service in the scientific field, I wish him health, success and hap-
piness in his new life.
M. Hakan Olcay
Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey
to the Kingdom of Belgium
8
“All men dream, but not equally”
“All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds
wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for
they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did.”
Professor Marc Waelkens came to my mind when I read this quote from T.E. Lawrence, better
known as Lawrence of Arabia. Not that Marc Waelkens is a dangerous man, quite the contrary.
But Marc Waelkens is one of the few who acted a dream with open eyes, and made it possible.
Back in 1983, when he first visited the ruins of the city of Sagalassos in the company of
the renowed British archaeologist Stephen Mitchell, Marc Waelkens was struck by the
magic of the area. He was not the first: in 1907 the British writer and traveler Gertrude
Bell, after having climbed the whole way to the site, wrote: “I spent three wonderful hours
at the end of which I understood why the Pisidians had built their city so high in the mountains.”
Yet, in 1907 or in 1983 not much was visible from the ancient Pisidian metropolis built
on the slopes of the Taurus Mountains. In 1983 Marc Waelkens started working, to-
gether with Stephen Mitchell, on Sagalassos and Cremna, another Pisidian city. In 1990
Marc Waelkens assumed the directorship of the archaeological site at Sagalassos on his
own. For over three decades he devoted virtually all his energy and time on this site.
Professor Waelkens not merely focused on the scientific-academic part of the job. By
giving lectures - over 600 since 1990 - he has raised awareness and, more than that, the
indispensable private funds in Belgium, necessary for excavation, conservation and res-
toration of the many monuments found on the site. As a result, it is hard to find another
archaeological site which is to the same extent associated with a single person.
In the four years (2009-2013) that I spent as Belgian ambassador in Turkey, few weeks
went by without any contact with Marc Waelkens. The first Belgian delegation I hosted
at my residence in Ankara was a team from the province of Limburg, led by governor
Herman Reynders. The delegation was in Turkey for talks with high government of-
ficials in preparation of the exhibition on Sagalassos that was to take place in the Gallo-
Roman Museum of Tongeren. This marvelous exhibition drew over 145,000 visitors in
seven months time (November 2010 – May 2011).
I also vividly recall the series of lectures by Marc Waelkens in April 2011 in Turkey.
“Waelkens on tour” covered Ankara, Istanbul, Antalya and Burdur in just four days. The
lectures were in the first place aimed at raising awareness for Sagalassos in Turkey itself,
which is quite a challenge in a country blessed with several hundreds of archaeological
sites, many of which world class. In Antalya we also discussed with tourism industry
representatives on how to attract foreign tourists to Sagalassos.
The Turkish authorities often cite Sagalassos as an example for other archaeological sites
in the country. They do this for obvious reasons. For starters, Sagalassos has evolved into a
multidisciplinary research project. Research by experts reaches far beyond the excavations
area itself: the surrounding territory is also extensively surveyed, providing detailed infor-
mation on all aspects of life of the inhabitants, the functioning of the economy of the city as
9
well as its impact on the broader area. Last but not least, due to its remoteness and altitude,
Sagalassos is one of the best preserved cities from classical antiquity. The site was never pil-
laged for building materials, which makes it most suited for restoration. More than half of
the budget of the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project is devoted to conservation or
anastylosis, i.e. the faithful resurrection of buildings using the original building elements.
Professor Waelkens’ personality and generosity contributed greatly to his excellent rep-
utation. He has always demonstrated profound respect for Turkey’s own interests and
sensitivities. He has made a point of making Sagalassos fully accessible, by free expert-
guided tours to visitors, including unheralded tourists. He has managed to strike the
right balance between the honesty of the undisturbed site and the tourist-inviting re-
building of stone structures. He has also been happy to pass his experience on to the next
generation of Turkish archaeologists.
It is a truism that Sagalassos and Professor Waelkens have been - and continue to be -
of great value for Belgian-Turkish bilateral relations. Sagalassos is not only a very fine
example of scientific cooperation in various fields between the two countries. Moreover,
for over 30 years Professor Waelkens has been a perfect ambassador of Belgium in Tur-
key, held in great esteem by Turkish politicians, officials and all the people he worked
with, especially the inhabitants of the village nearby, Ağlasun.
In every single contact I had with Mr Ertuğrul Günay, Minister of Culture and Tourism
until February 2013, and with senior officials from his ministry, Professor Waelkens and
his great contribution to Turkish and world heritage was mentioned.
I can also witness of the quasi-unlimited access of the Turkish Government for everything
related Sagalassos. It was thanks to Waelkens’ reputation that the Turkish authorities had
agreed to lend 238 pieces from the Burdur Museum (near Sagalassos) for the above-men-
tioned exhibition in Tongeren, including the right leg and the head of Emperor Hadrian,
unearthed in Sagalassos in 2007.
It was out of recognition and respect that I recommended my Government to honour Minis-
ter Günay with a very important Belgian honorary distinction. In October 2012, on the occa-
sion of an important economic mission to Turkey, His Royal Highness Prince Philippe – now
His Majesty King Philippe – bestowed this high distinction on him. Also Mr Ömer Çelik,
who succeeded to Mr Günay in February 2013, in an interview with “Der Spiegel” lauded
Sagalassos as one of best managed foreign-directed archaeological sites in Turkey.
I wish to conclude on a very personal note. I cannot recall how many times my spouse
Ann and I met with Marc Waelkens in the previous four years. I have fond memories
of meetings, dinners and get-togethers in Sagalassos, Ankara, Istanbul, Burdur, Antalya,
Izmir, Tongeren and Leuven. Mutual respect quickly turned into warm friendship. Ann
and I are both very happy and proud to have Marc as a close friend.
Pol De Witte
Ambassador of Belgium in Turkey 2009-2013
10
“Sagalassos would still be sleeping
underground if it were not for Marc bey”
Marc bey’s story started thirty years ago with a simple glass of tea being offered by Meh-
met Efendi, Sagalassos’ guard at that time, to Marc on his first visit to the ancient city of
Sagalassos and it concluded on 29 August 2013 with a spontaneous party attended by all
Ağlasun residents, old and young. Marc bey has and always will have a special place in the
hearts of the Ağlasun and Burdur residents, as well as a special bond with our country’s
archaeological community, for we always acknowledge him as a brother, a comrade and
a friend, with sympathies extending far beyond his Excavation Directorate of Sagalassos.
Professor Marc Waelkens must be one of the very few select foreign scientists who has
excavated non-stop during 25 campaigns at one specific archaeological site in Anatolia.
The Pearl of the Taurus Mountains, Sagalassos – this beautiful Anatolian city – would
still be sleeping underground if it were not for Marc bey and his brothers-in-work from
Ağlasun, who are also his children.
Forty years ago, a foreign scientist had applied for a fairly undefined project at Sagalas-
sos, but since the Turkish Ministry did not give its permission, it was almost as if the
archaeological studies were waiting for Professor Marc Waelkens to initiate them. His
excavations started in collaboration with the Burdur Museum in 1989, and from 1990,
as a result of the trust he had earned, the Cabinet of the Republic of Turkey gave him
permission to continue excavation studies under his own name. Marc Waelkens kept
this trust with sincerity and success until the 29th of August 2013, and he never betrayed
the trust of the Culture and Tourism Ministry of Turkey, the Governorship of Burdur,
the Museum of Burdur and, most importantly, the people of Ağlasun and his team.
Sagalassos, the ancient city which slept covered in rubble at the summit of the Taurus
mountain range for so long, was unearthed during my 21-year tenure as Director of the
Burdur Museum. Works had been initiated already 4 seasons before my service, which
amounts to a quarter of a century in total of archaeological excavations directed at Saga-
lassos. The city was not only excavated archaeologically; it has been studied in an inter-
disciplinary way together with its territory. Beyond this, millions of visitors are exposed
to Anatolian cultural history every year, with Sagalassos representing a true pearl in the
crown, supported not least by innumerable conferences chaired by Marc Waelkens. No
one can ignore the amount this excavation has done to publicise our country.
We love him a lot, and he loves us a lot. He is our brother, our friend and our cultural
ambassador. I wish him many days of well-being and health in his life after today.
H. Ali Ekinci
Director of the Burdur Museum
11
“Will Marc Waelkens never be tired?”
Via academic and personal links and relations I’m happy to have known Marc Waelkens
for many years, also before he became a member of the academic personnel of our
university.
Owing to my interest in archaeology as a lay person, I visited Turkey more than once.
Amongst other places, I also succeeded in learning about Sagalassos, as a place where
quite a few things had been or were being realised in the domain of archaeology, but
where most of the research was still waiting to be done. I was overwhelmed one day
when I happened to see Marc Waelkens and his team at work in Sagalassos.
Part of my management task as vice-rector of the humanities and social sciences at KU

Leuven was to find and attract new colleagues, or at least to check the curricula and
scientific achievements of the person proposed for or charged with a specific task, to
get information about his or her reputation among the students and the colleagues. As
a matter of fact, it usually was a pleasure to follow that person’s achievements in his or
her career.
It was indeed a very great pleasure to see how Marc Waelkens performed his task. I at-
tended several of his talks and lectures for non-student audiences in Leuven, which to
quite some extent dealt with his realisations in Sagalassos. It was a pleasure to see how he
was appreciated by the Turkish Embassy, as well as to receive members of that embassy
at our university, who would come to one or another of his lectures.
It was also splendid to see how Flemish families contribute financially or otherwise to
the restoration and keep-up of specific buildings in Sagalassos.
And there is still more to mention. The exhibition on Sagalassos in the Gallo-Roman
museum at Tongeren was splendid. And it was much appreciated by the Turkish immi-
grants in Limburg. Let me also mention the Sagalassos yearbook publications and those
of the Sagalassos team.
Will Marc Waelkens never be tired? I asked myself that question when, a few months
ago, I went to a lecture given by him in the rather small village where I live (Bierbeek).
I know Bierbeek is not the only village where he goes and talks.
Thanks for all this and much more, Marc. Ad multos annos!
Prof. dr. Emma Vorlat

Honorary vice-rector of the humanities and social sciences at KU Leuven
13
“Did you build it yourself,
that you know it so well?”
The following speech was prepared by Hasan Aynalı, guard at Sagalassos and specialist
worker in the anastylosis team, on the occasion of the surprise party at Sagalassos and in
Ağlasun on 29 August 2013, Marc Waelkens’ final working day of the Sagalassos 2013
campaign.
“Dear employees of Sagalassos and Marc bey, or Marc dayı (uncle Marc), as the people of
Ağlasun usually say,
The day we first met was 23 years ago. Back then, when you were looking for workers
to excavate Sagalassos, people in Ağlasun were asking: “Can we really work with
foreigners?”. Years passed and we could not know that you were actually not a foreigner,
but our well-beloved hodja Marc bey. You raised up today’s Sagalassos. What the people
of Ağlasun, who come from deep in the Taurus Mountains, called ruins back then you
raised up and presented both Sagalassos and Ağlasun to the world.
You have made yourself loved by the people of Ağlasun. As the years pass, our love for
you will not fade. You will always be our Marc hodja to whom we will always feel love
and gratitude, who never forgot the names of our spouses and children, and contributed
to the retirements of most of us.
Now I will tell you about a few of the memories I have with our Marc hodja. The Roman
Baths were being excavated. You arrived in the trench and said that stairways and
windows would be exposed where we were working. After you left, our worker friends
joked with you: “Did you build it yourself, that you know it so well?”. Later, however,
we found the stairway and window, and saw what a valuable and scholarly person you
were and we were amazed.
I will also share this memory. The Library was being restored and it was a rainy day. We
were dismantling the metal scaffolding inside. You were in conversation with some of
your esteemed colleagues, so we workers had stopped so we would not cause too much
noise. That’s when you asked: “Is it also raining there?”, wondering why we had stopped
working. Honest to god, we were not avoiding work that day, but we had stopped so as
not to disturb you.
Dear Marc bey, we can keep on sharing memories, but we cannot finish sharing our
memories with you, because 23 years cannot fit into a few minutes. What we can do is
fold our respect and love for you into our hearts. We love you a lot and we will not forget
you, Marc bey of Ağlasun.”
Hasan Aynalı
Guard at Sagalassos
15
“A milestone in the Gallo-Roman
Museum’s history”
The exhibition ‘Sagalassos. City of Dreams’ (2011-2012) was without a doubt an absolute
highlight for the Gallo-Roman Museum in Tongeren, Belgium. In only six months we
had 146,000 visitors. These are unprecedented numbers for an exhibition about an
archaeological site.
The Gallo-Roman Museum and the province of Limburg are therefore delighted to
have been able to help create the crowning glory of the life’s work of Professor Marc
Waelkens. The Gallo-Roman Museum has followed the excavations in south-western
Turkey with more than usual interest. The ground-breaking interdisciplinary approach
of Marc Waelkens and his team resulted in spectacular findings and in interesting new
insights over the years. Furthermore, year after year, Marc Waelkens increasingly de-
veloped this forgotten site into a city full of glitter and glamour. It thus gradually became
a true tourist magnet. And thanks to his animated lectures across the country, many
Belgians have found their way to the site.
In the many conversations with Marc that preceded our cooperation we noticed that he
was also extremely keen to show the results of his life’s work in Belgium. Thankfully,
Marc Waelkens is one of these scientists who sets great store by opening up scientific
research for a broad and varied public. To fulfil this, he regarded the Gallo-Roman Mu-
seum as the ideal partner. However, the circumstances had to be optimum, which is
why, already in the mid-1990s, we decided to realise an exhibition with him just after
the new museum had been reopened. From the start we also aimed to transfer several
of the monumental pieces of the site to Belgium. These would also really get full play in
the new exhibition area.
It became a complex project. Not only were there long negotiations with the Turkish
government on the loans, there was also a huge amount of extremely complex informa-
tion that had to be told in a comprehensible way.
Marc Waelkens was of invaluable assistance in our diplomatic talks with the Turkish
government. He has built up a huge amount of respect in Turkey. Without him there
would never have been a Sagalassos exhibition.
Yet the negotiations on loans proceeded parallel to an even greater challenge! The life’s
work of Marc Waelkens had to be summarised in an audience-friendly exhibition. It was
a truly new experience of life for the entire museum team!
It was an extremely intensive process. On the one hand, Marc and his team wanted to
help approve every letter in the exhibition, on the other the museum team and Guy
Joosten wanted every word to be understood by visitors. This is why texts, maps, films
and so on were being passed to and fro endlessly. A real marathon session for everyone!
We now laugh about it together and are mainly happy that it has paid off. After all, you
can’t reach 146,000 visitors just like that!
17
We are therefore grateful to Marc Waelkens. The Sagalassos exhibition is without doubt
a milestone in the museum’s history. In turn, we hope to have contributed to an even
greater spread of the ground-breaking work that is being carried out in south-western
Turkey for so many years under the guidance of Professor Marc Waelkens.
We are looking forward to what this site will be offering in the future and would be
happy to create a Sagalassos II within a few years!
We wholeheartedly wish Marc many more wonderful years.

Hopefully he can enjoy the splashing water in the fountain of his ‘Upper Agora’ in a much
more peaceful way than before.
Carmen Willems Gilbert Van Baelen

Director Gallo-Roman Museum Honorary Representative
Tongeren of the Province of Limburg
18
Contents
Exempli gratia. Sagalassos, Marc Waelkens and Interdisciplinary Archaeology 21
Editorial Note
Jeroen Poblome
Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos 27

Ebru Torun and Semih Ercan
Die Dedikation des Apollo Klarios unter Proculus, legatus Augusti pro praetore 43
Lyciae-Pamphyliae unter Antoninus Pius (with abstract in English)
Werner Eck
Two Decennia of Faunal Analysis at Sagalassos 51

Wim Van Neer and Bea De Cupere
Holistic Archaeology and Archaeological Science at Sagalassos: 59

Contributions to a Discipline
Patrick Degryse
The Relation between Archaeology and Geography in Studying Past Human- 71

environment Interactions: Is Interdisciplinary Geoarchaeology the Answer?
Gert Verstraeten
Money Makes Pottery Go Round 81

Jeroen Poblome
Sagalassos and the Pisidia Survey Project: In Search of Pisidia’s History 97

Stephen Mitchell and Lutgarde Vandeput
Interdisciplinarity in Archaeology and the Impact of Sagalassos 119

on the Komana Research Project
Deniz Burcu Erciyas
The Contribution of Regional Surface Survey to Byzantine Landscape 127

History in Greece
John Bintliff
A First Characterization of a New bigio antico Marble from a Hitherto Unknown 141
Ancient Quarry at Aghios Petros (Tripolis-Peloponnesus)
Lorenzo Lazzarini
Segmented Mills in Classical Antiquity 153

David Peacock
Interdisciplinary Non-invasive Survey Approaches to Ancient Towns: 165
Some Applications and Visualisations from the Roman West
Frank Vermeulen
La nouvelle identité urbaine au Ve siècle dans le Nord de la Gaule 185

(with abstract in English)
Raymond Brulet
Postscript 201
Wolfgang Radt
Contributing authors 219

Exempli gratia
Sagalassos, Marc Waelkens
and Interdisciplinary
Archaeology
Editorial Note
Jeroen Poblome
“Your statue, which stands there, has merit in the idea of the figure, and of the design, as
it represents you pointing towards the sea; but it bears no resemblance to the original, and
the execution is in other respects but indifferent. Send therefore a statue worthy to be called
yours, and of a similar design to the one which is there at present, as the situation is well
calculated for perpetuating, by these means, the memory of any illustrious person.”
Quotation from ‘Periplus Ponti Euxini’, by Arrian of Nicomedia (c. 86-160 AD),
translated by William Falconer in 1805.
As part of his tour of duty as governor of the Black Sea province of Cappadocia ap-
pointed in 131 AD, Lucius Flavius Arrianus Xenophon visited Trapezus (present-day
Trabzon) and found a local sanctuary overlooking the Black Sea in an unworthy condi-
tion properly to bestow honour upon his imperial overlord, Hadrian. The statuary in
particular, including an effigy of the emperor, seemingly did not generate much awe and
respect for this great and widely travelled statesman. Arrian duly reported this condi-
tion to Hadrian in his Periplus (see quotation), reminded the emperor of his previous
visit to Trapezus and the sanctuary, and requested proper statuary to be donated by the
emperor. It is not known whether the new statue of Hadrian ever arrived in Trapezus.
Clearly, in this respect, ancient Sagalassos was much more fortunate. The more than
life-size military portrait of emperor Hadrian, of which fragments were discovered in
the south-western corner of Frigidarium 1 of the Roman Imperial bath complex, is of
such prestige and natural beauty that no official, no matter what his rank, would have
felt the need to request a new copy from Hadrian. It is possible that Hadrian never saw
his portrait statue at Sagalassos, but the local community must have shared feelings of
civic pride nonetheless when confronted with the statue in its original glory.
Also no ancient author commented on Hadrian’s statue at Sagalassos. Sagalassos is ac-
tually mentioned only a few times by contemporary authors. One such author was none
21
Jeroen Poblome
other than Titus Livius Patavinus (59 BC-17 AD), known as Livy in English, who in his
History of Rome reported on the expedition of the consul Gnaeus Manlius Vulso against
the Galatians in Asia Minor in 189 BC, following the events of the Battle of Magnesia
the year before. En route, “… he entered the territory of Sagalassus, a fertile district rich in all
kinds of fruits. Its Pisidian inhabitants are by far the best soldiers in that part of the world. Their
military superiority, the fruitfulness of their soil, their large population, and the situation of
their exceptionally strong city make them a brave people. As no envoys appeared when the consul
reached their frontiers, he sent out plundering parties into their fields. At last, as they saw their
crops carried off and their cattle driven away, their stubbornness yielded. The envoys whom they
sent agreed to pay a fine of 50 talents, 20,000 medimni of wheat and an equal amount of barley,
and on these terms they obtained peace” (Livy, Ab urbe condita libri, 38.15.7, translated by C.
Roberts in 1905). Even if the fine was in line with those demanded from other poleis in
the region1, no doubt its payment was not good news for the community at Sagalassos.
In this context, however, it is important to remember mainly the good words Livy wrote
on the conditions in the territory of Sagalassos and the strength of its community.
The other, famous ancient source on Sagalassos is Arrian, albeit in a work other than
the passage cited above. His report on Alexander the Great’s conquests takes us back to
Sagalassos in 333 BC. Although Alexander had initiated the siege of Termessos, upon
concluding a pact of friendship with Selge, he “… concluded that a siege of Telmissus would
be a long one, and so moved on the Sagalassus, also a fairly large city, inhabited by Pisidians,
the most warlike of this warlike tribe” (Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri, I.28, translated by E. Iliff
Robson in 1929). Although Sagalassos was no match for Alexander’s troops, again in this
context it is good to read that fourth century BC Sagalassos is considered to be a city in
its own right and that its citizens were brave soldiers.
It is as if there was some sense of destiny in both passages. More than two millennia
after Alexander the Great witnessed the brave actions of the soldiers of Sagalassos and
Manlius Vulso took note of their enduring bellicose reputation, it seems entirely fit-
ting that a descendant of those other notorious fighters in antiquity, the Belgae2, was to
start his courageous quest aimed at investigating what remained of ancient Sagalassos.
In line with both ancient authors it is important in this context to stress the good things
Marc Waelkens’ choice of Sagalassos brought about. Basically, that is what this volume
is about: a celebration of the good that developing Sagalassos into a major topic for in-
terdisciplinary archaeological project brought about.
But make no mistake, this volume is not a Festschrift in the strict sense of the word.
Leuven University Press kindly increased the challenge by wishing to create a wider,
thematic platform in which scholars, friends and colleagues close to Marc took the op-
portunity to reflect critically upon the value of the interdisciplinary message of the Saga-
lassos Archaeological Research Project. As a result, no open call for papers was launched
and the editorial team contacted a selection of international authorities in the field of
Anatolian and Roman archaeology, bio-archaeology, geo-archaeology, ancient history
1 Tabae: 25 talents of silver and 10,000 medimni of wheat, Kibyra: 100 talents and 10,000 medimni of corn,

Termessos, Aspendos and the other cities of Pamphylia: 50 talents of silver each.
2 “Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae” (Gaeus Julius Caesar, Commentarii de bello Gallico, I.3).
22
Editorial Note
and cultural heritage. The crucial question asked of each contributor is in what way Sa-
galassos, Marc Waelkens and interdisciplinary archaeology caused wider shifts in their
scientific practices.
In theory, method and practice, archaeology is a complex discipline. Its main raison d’être
is the study of the human past. As a discipline, archaeology develops a long-term perspec-
tive in order to grasp fundamental aspects of human evolution and behaviour, in particular
those of communities and the historical processes within which these develop. In a lot of
cases, interdisciplinary collaboration impacts on how archaeology approaches the human
past, in shifting both practices and interpretation. The contributors to the volume engage
with archaeology from a wide variety of angles. Even though they are nested in humanities
or science & technology departments, their concern is not so much their disciplinary field
or boundaries per se, but a more widely inspired understanding of the past.
The Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project, at Marc’s instigation, has made inter-
disciplinary practices part of its scientific strategy from the very beginning. The project
is internationally acknowledged for its achievements in this respect. Aspects of its ap-
proach to ancient Sagalassos can be considered ground-breaking for the archaeology of
Anatolia and the wider fields of classical and Roman archaeology.
Now that Marc Waelkens himself is at the stage of shifting practices, from an active
academic career to an active academic retirement, this volume represents an excellent
opportunity to reflect on the impact of the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project.
In accordance with the best of scientific traditions, this task was required from peers,
who used their academic freedom and wisdom to reflect critically on the state of the art.
Also in the best of scientific traditions, peers do not necessarily agree on all aspects of
how basic buildings blocks should be defined or combined to create meaning from actual
theories, methods and practices in science for understanding patterns of human behav-
iour in the past. To be sure, the last words on the phenomenon of ancient Sagalassos are
not to be found in this volume, nor does the editorial team expect this to be the last book
on Sagalassos or involving Marc Waelkens.
Measuring the impact of scientific progress will always be a hot topic in performing
science. In the best of the Sagalassos Project’s traditions of striving towards impacting
on scientific progress, this volume uses impact as its structuring logic. As a result, top-
ics and contributors are arranged from the very core of classical Sagalassos, its monu-
ments, to very far away Northern Gaul. Apart from their representational archaeological
value, the urban monuments of Sagalassos are also strong test-cases for circumscribing
values in current cultural heritage management practices and policies (Ebru Torun and
Semih Ercan). Monuments, especially those with dedicatory inscriptions, lend them-
selves to critical historical analysis as well, creating a challenge for some aspects of their
archaeological interpretation (Werner Eck). The urban excavation programme at Saga-
lassos focuses on much more than just monuments, however, and wishes to understand
manifold basic aspects of daily life in the past. The study of animal bones has proven
a very strong proxy for approaching many such aspects (Wim Van Neer and Bea De
Cupere). The collaboration between many disciplines focused on ancient Sagalassos and
its territory is an intricate operation, however, which works well only when balances
are struck carefully and respected by all parties involved. It is actually in the grey zones
23
Jeroen Poblome
where disciplines touch one another that true scientific, and perhaps less disciplinarily
focused, progress becomes possible, for archaeological science (Patrick Degryse) and ge-
ography (Gert Verstraeten). Doing science amongst the ruins of ancient Sagalassos re-
quires funds, however, much in the same way as money was needed in the past to oil the
many wheels of the ancient urban economy (Jeroen Poblome). The success of the urban
and regional economy of ancient Sagalassos resulted in its developing a strong trajectory
in the contemporary region of Pisidia, which is well worth a wider regional comparison
(Stephen Mitchell and Lutgarde Vandeput).
In many ways, ancient Pisidia has grown into one of the better studied regions in
Anatolia, thanks to the exemplary results and policies of the projects and the scholars
involved in its study. The Sagalassos Project can be considered a benchmark in this re-
spect and it is valuable to consider how its impact is viewed by Turkish Archaeology
Departments, as well as by other Anatolian Projects (D. Burcu Erciyas). The Komana
Project presented in this volume started out as an archaeological survey project. It is fair
to state that the degree to which Marc’s work changed our understanding of the town
of Sagalassos is matched by the degree to which the application of survey archaeology in
Sagalassos and its territory has changed Marc’s understanding of the past. Survey proj-
ects bring some of the strongest assets of the archaeological discipline to the fore, linking
different time scales with change and continuity in human behavioural patterns affect-
ing and affected by evolving natural landscapes and climate. The survey programme of
the Sagalassos Project has been very fortunate in the inspirational examples set by the
regional survey projects in Central Greece (John Bintliff), as well as in Central Adriatic
Italy (Frank Vermeulen). The latter projects fostered improved survey methodologies,
technologies and patterns of interpretation for many Mediterranean projects, including
the Sagalassos and the Pisidia Survey Projects.
When asked about the blueprint for developing an interdisciplinary programme on
ancient Sagalassos, Marc often cites developments in prehistoric archaeology as his tem-
plate inspiring him to shift away from ‘traditional classical archaeology’, with a strong
typological, classificatory and factual approach to mostly representational aspects of
classical societies, such as their statuary programmes and civic architecture. It is fair to
acknowledge that Marc broke away from this tradition, and that indeed practices and
strategies in prehistoric archaeology were inspirational. Another major source of inspi-
ration for this achievement, certainly, was the archaeology of stone. In the years before
Sagalassos, his work and interests were already attracted to important developments in
this field, which in those days represented in a nutshell the interdisciplinary scientific
philosophy which was to drive the Sagalassos Project in later years. In homage to this
impact, this volume presents two contributions by original and still active protagonists
in the field of the archaeology of stone, considering a range of marble (Lorenzo Lazza-
rini) and the use of stone in milling (David Peacock).
Finally, the regional Pisidian overview made clear that the impact of the Sagalassos
Project is particularly strong in the field of late antique archaeology. As this is a period
of many complexities and shifts it is logical to a certain degree that interdisciplinary pro-
grammes on the town and territory of Sagalassos have laid hitherto unknown patterns
bare, allowing the project to reach higher level synthesis. In the best traditions of scien-
24
Editorial Note
tific collaboration this rationale was opened up to many collaborating partners, instigat-
ing new approaches, practices and patterns of thinking in other regions of the ancient
world, exemplified in this volume by the region of Northern Gaul (Raymond Brulet).
Even though centred on Sagalassos, Marc Waelkens and interdisciplinary archaeology,
clearly this volume wishes to be more than a traditional Festschrift. The academic post-
script by Wolfgang Radt takes critical measure of this attempt, and evaluates, based on a
life of personal experience, in what way interdisciplinary archaeology has enriched classical
archaeology, and paves the way for the next generation of the exciting study of the past.
25
Two Decades of
Anastylosis Experience
at Sagalassos
The Sagalassos Project:

a place of interdisciplinary research and anastylosis
The last two decades saw the start and growth of the ‘Sagalassos Archaeological Research
Project’, one of the first interdisciplinary classical excavations in Turkey. The Sagalassos
Project emerged as a spin-off of the Pisidia Survey in 1990, and was conceived from the
start to evaluate all feasible data that can be gathered through survey and excavations, in
collaboration with other related disciplines1. The site and the territory of ancient Sagal-
assos became the focus of intensive research, and at present the monumental centre of the
town is for the large part unearthed, while four anastylosis projects and a shelter structure
are completed.
Architectural recording, research and conservation have always been part of the excava-
tion programme since the initial years of excavations at Sagalassos and gradually became
the project’s crucial components. Conservation of the exposed archaeological remains
has been considered an ethical responsibility by the excavation director Professor Marc
Waelkens and the team, in accordance with the contemporary international debate and
the ICOMOS charter of the period on this matter2. In the 1990’s, this was an outstanding
and pioneering attitude towards conservation, within the discipline of archaeology.
Alongside the demonstrated potential of the results obtained through collaboration of
varied fields of research, the conservation and anastylosis projects conducted on the site
became ‘trademarks’ of the Sagalassos Project in archaeology. The anastylosis of the Late
Hellenistic Fountain House (1994-1997) and the shelter built for the Neon Library (1995-
1997) were followed by the anastylosis projects of the Northwest Heroon (1998-2009), the
Antonine Nymphaeum (1998-2010)3 and the Arch of Claudius (2010-2013)4. The anasty-
losis of the monuments on the northern half of the Upper Agora are going on since 2011.
The Northeast and Northwest Honorific Columns at the two corners of the agora as well
as the Exedera of the East Portico have already been completed, and the anastylosis of the
1 Waelkens et al. 2011.

2 ICOMOS 1990.
4 Torun, in press.
27
Northeast Gate marking the entrance to the agora is scheduled to be finished in 20145
(Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. The silhouette of the monumental centre of Sagalassos. Doric Temple (1), Northwest Heroon (2),
Antonine Nymphaeum (3), Arch of Claudius (4).
At sites analogous to Sagalassos where excavated ashlar monuments are often found in
good state of preservation and with high rates of original material available, anastylosis
may seem at first the evident, if not desirable path to take. However, the decision to rebuild
a collapsed ancient structure at an archaeological site should be a process that depends
on a wide range of criteria, with practical prerequisites like an appropriate method of
excavation and documentation as well as techniques specifically devised for the purpose.
Furthermore, anastylosis decisions should be taken and principles must be set in such a
way that, in each project to be carried out across the site, it remains possible to consist-
ently abide by the contemporary principles of conservation as well as specific anastylosis
techniques. The final decision regarding the execution of an anastylosis project, however,
should be the result of an assessment process that takes all values of the monument into
account. And more importantly the decision-making process should consider the project’s
effect on the values of the site in general6, or rather the ‘landscape’ it belongs to. Anasty-
losis projects in that sense should be part of a conservation programme which in its turn
must be bound to the management of the site as a cultural resource.
As such, scientifically well-based, justified and accurate anastylosis projects that ulti-
mately serve the sustainable management of an archaeological site are not easy to establish
and accomplish. Nonetheless, in recent years anastylosis started to be a common practice
in Turkish archaeology with the support and demands of the Ministry of Culture and
Tourism7. This rapid spread and execution of anastylosis in archaeological sites across
5 Ercan, in press.
6 Mason and Avrami 2000.
7 TCKTB 2013.
28
Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos
Turkey and the persistence of the Ministry for further restorations, especially of the
ancient theatres, calls for a closer look to what constitutes “justified anastylosis practice”.
This article suggests some fundamental criteria to be employed in the decision-making
process regarding execution of anastylosis at archaeological sites, as well as the basic prin-
ciples and techniques, based on the experience accumulated at Sagalassos during the last
two decades.
Suggested criteria for anastylosis

It is widely accepted, following the 1964 Venice Charter, that reconstruction should be
totally avoided in ancient sites while only anastylosis can be permitted. The definition of
anastylosis, which literally means to re-erect a column, is concise and clear in the Venice
Charter: ‘Reassembling a monument using its existing but dismembered parts’8. Anasty-
losis also strictly requires that when reinstated, each building member is used in its original
position and structural function9.
An accurate anastylosis in that sense is an effective method of conservation, as rebuilding
a collapsed ancient structure means individually repairing and reassembling the scattered
ancient building stones. It is known that the original blocks reinstated to their original
position are better preserved than when they would be left on the ground unprotected
against the deterioration factors and even prone to getting lost. When anastylosis is a
product of meticulous research, architectural study and documentation, it is also a learning
process in a variety of disciplines such as archaeology, history, architecture, structural engi-
neering and material sciences. As powerful visual media, rebuilt monuments contribute to
the intelligibility of an archaeological site which in some cases simultaneously support the
image and identity making of a country, as well as functioning as generators of tourism
income10. These are generic arguments of justification for anastylosis projects. However,
these generally rather legitimate incentives should not be allowed to overshadow that a
correct anastylosis is bound to some strict criteria.
Prerequisites: is it practically possible?

To determine whether rebuilding a certain structure is possible at all in practical terms,
while being in strict accordance with conservation principles, should remain the initial
concern of anastylosis projects. Elaborated through time and experience at Sagalassos, the
following checklist sums up seven practical points that must be met before an attempt to
re-erect a structure of any scale on an archaeological site is considered:
Well-documented and complete excavation

The first prerequisite for an anastylosis project is definitely a well-documented excava-
tion. Ideally, archaeologists and architects should be working in tandem from the start
8 ICOMOS 1964, 1965, art. 15.

9 Mertens 1995, p. 121.; Hueber 2002, p. 77.
10 Demas 1997; Hueber 2002, p. 79; Mertens 1995; Schmidt 1997; Hamilakis 2007.
29
during the excavation process especially where further conservation and/or anastylosis
works will be conducted. Geo-referenced documentation of collapsed and dispersed
building members in relation to the stratigraphy, the in situ parts of the structure and
to each other is of utmost importance for obtaining an accurate restitution in the next
stage of the project. It is also crucial that the surroundings of the structure in question
where building members may still be buried are also excavated to make sure all preserved
pieces are discovered. The excavation of the surroundings is also necessary to interpret
and present the monument in its urban and topographical context which will most likely
demonstrate different phases of use and alterations.
Available original material

The existence of a high number of original building material obtained as a result of
excavations is one of the most important criteria for an anastylosis project. This is often
expressed as a percentage that is expected to be as high as 80-90% for justified anastylosis
works11. However, such a ratio can be somewhat speculative. For certain monuments,
not the ‘number’ of available original blocks but the proportion of the ‘visible surface area’
of the original to that of the supplementary pieces needed may be a more representative
ratio. For instance, when the available original stones often miss the front sides, the new
supplemental pieces may end up dominating the façades.
Similarly, complete lack of a certain type of building member, commonly columns, can
be a more critical factor than the total number of other available pieces. Missing informa-
tion on certain physical aspects of the building in question, such as the total height and/or
proportions inevitably leads to hypothetical restitution solutions. As conjecture must be
totally ruled out in restoration12, in such cases availability of the rest of the building blocks
cannot justify a complete rebuilding of the edifice. In such cases, partial anastylosis can
be used to display the available pieces on the ground, in relation to the in situ parts of the
structure. However, for these compositions to make sense to the visitor they must always
be accompanied with visual information given in different media such as site panels,
brochures, or more recently, web information that can be downloaded on the site13.
Reliable and accurate restitution

While a high number of available original material is an important point of departure, a
reliable restitution is a must for any anastylosis project. An accurate restitution can only be
achieved through a meticulous architectural study of the building. This field study should
always be combined with comparative and historic/archaeological research which is needed
to interpret certain features and the spatio-historical context of the structure in question.
During the excavation phase, once the collapse is well-documented, the labelled
architectural blocks will have to be organised on a flat and clear area nearby (i.e. ‘stone
platform’), according to the preliminary identification of their typology. The organisa-
tion of the stone platform, must be mapped where the new position of the architectural
11 Waelkens et al. 2006; Rizzi 2007.

12 ICOMOS 1964, 1965, art. 9.
13 Torun et al., in press.
30
elements are recorded. Such a platform is also needed for further architectural study of the
blocks and field mock-ups.
Measured drawings of the in situ parts and the detailed documentation of individual
blocks should record and study the type, connection holes, surface treatments, masons’
marks and other attributes of the architectural elements that give clues about their position
in the building, and accordingly assist the restitution on paper. The architectural study also
often leads to further discovery of possible building phases, alterations or the construction
technique and/or sequence of the structure in question. The reliability and accuracy of
the resulting restitution must certainly be double-checked with test constructions by field
mock-ups on the ground and/or the building itself.
Structural condition of the in situ parts

In many cases, certain parts of the monument in question are found in situ during the
excavations. These often load-bearing sections such as terrace walls, podiums or pillars, to
name but a few, should be well-documented and examined before any attempt for further
rebuilding is made.
The unearthed in situ parts usually show different degrees of structural problems such as
cracks, differential settlement, displacement, leaning, buckling or instability. It should be
thoroughly examined whether the observed structural issues can be tolerated or rectified
without an intrusive intervention. The degree of structural intervention deemed neces-
sary for the in situ parts can be a crucial factor in the decision whether or not an anasty-
losis project should be carried out, especially if the intervention calls for a major original
part to be dismantled and rebuilt. It is highly possible that the in situ ashlars will be still
tied together with ancient connections in iron and lead. In such cases, dismantling needs
to be strictly avoided as that would involve the breaking of original dowels and clamps.
Dismantling in such instances involves risk of damaging the original material while inevi-
tably enlarging the scope of the anastylosis project, thus the timing and budget.
State of preservation of the material and the deterioration process

The architectural study and documentation should include the identification of the
different types of materials used in the original structure (typically natural stone for anas-
tylosis projects) as well as their characteristics and current state of preservation. Collabo-
ration with archaeometrists is required at this stage to determine especially the scale of
material deterioration. Furthermore, the deterioration process that will be active on the
original building materials during and in the aftermath of excavations, and following an
eventual anastylosis must also be defined.
Both the condition of the material and the actual weathering factors on the site help
determine in the first place whether the original building members are suitable to be
reused, if that is the case, define what sort and scale of conservation and consolidation
interventions these members require. Original building blocks that have seen fire or have
been exposed to the elements for several centuries on the surface may show a too advanced
degree of disintegration and/or material loss to be remedied and re-used.
Secondly, such basic archaeometric information can be critical in the choice of the
material to be used for completing the missing parts. At Sagalassos, severe weathering
31
conditions played an important role in the choice of using appropriate natural stone for
supplementary pieces instead of any mortar mix. The high number of freeze-thaw cycles
recorded on the site, located between 1450-1600 m altitude, proved to be the main cause
of rapid deterioration of all exposed materials but especially of the ancient and modern
mortars on the site14. The risk of observing rapid and differential deterioration on the
supplemental parts of the re-erected structure was one of the reasons why artificial mixes
were not preferred at Sagalassos.
Expertise and craftsmanship

As can be deduced from the phases of research and documentation mentioned above,
anastylosis projects require close collaboration of different disciplines; mainly amongst
archaeologists, architects specialised in conservation, engineers, and archaeometrists. The
scientific team should be equipped with the necessary technical knowledge particular to
the field of anastylosis. There should be a clear and consistent set of conservation princi-
ples established and techniques developed specific to the site that can be applied consist-
ently on different anastylosis projects across the site15. The research and field work of the
experts should overlap and they must remain in contact throughout different stages of
preparation, planning and eventual execution of an anastylosis project.
The craftsmen are equally important team members as the scientists of the anastylosis
project. It should in particular be the type, material and the finishing of the supplementary
pieces and the modern conservation solutions to be employed that determines the kind of
skilled workforce to be sought. For instance, decision to use the pantograph to produce
supplementary fitting pieces from new stone blocks requires contracting stone carvers
who know how to produce the gypsum cast of the missing part accurately as well as how
to use the pantograph itself. The type of surface finish and decorative features to be carved
also calls for skilled and experienced stone carvers.
Anastylosis should not be attempted unless the right team can be formed beforehand, as
repair and rebuilding stages of work involve a considerable handling of invaluable ancient
material. When carried out unprofessionally relatively straightforward conservation
interventions such as reassembling of fitting broken pieces, stitching of cracks or even
cleaning may cause irreversible damage.
Schedule and budget

The schedule and budget of a certain anastylosis work can be estimated on the basis of
the restitution. More specifically, based on the restitution of the monument, the amount
of required supplementary pieces, as well as the modern conservation solutions devised
for repair and consolidation of the original material and for the structural interventions
can be determined. The future maintenance of the restored monument, and accessibility,
presentation and dissemination of information must also be budgeted and scheduled. The
number of team members, workmen, safety requirements, insurance and transport costs
also take up a considerable sum in the budget and play a role in the estimated time span of
14 Degryse et al. 2001 and 2002.

15 see Waelkens et al. 2011; Ercan et al. 1997.
32
the project. Weather conditions of the site are certainly another critical factor that has to
be considered in the planning.
However, notwithstanding the crucial role of pre-planning in any conservation project,
anastylosis cannot be seen as an ordinary, pre-planned construction work. The main
material of the building activity is the ancient original architectural blocks that are often
somewhat deteriorated. Even though the restitution on paper will be a good basis for the
rebuilding stage of the project, it is the field trials that determine the final position of each
piece. These mock-up trials on the ground and/or on the building itself may need to be
repeated many times, until the exact position of each stone is determined and the necessary
levelling and aligning adjustments are made. It is only after being sure about its position
and level that a certain part of the monument can be permanently reinstated. This is a
process that will be full of unexpected discoveries concerning the original construction,
and may require the restitution to be revised and the trial constructions to be dismantled
and rebuilt. Therefore, budget and scheduling of anastylosis projects should be flexible
enough to deal with such uncertainties and should not force the project leader to skip trial
constructions, make rapid decisions, or, worse, make alterations on the original blocks
such as physical interventions to their size or surface finishes to make them ‘fit’. Ideally,
anastylosis projects should be an undertaking of the scientific institution running the exca-
vations, where the team comprise scientific collaborators, rather than being conducted
by external contractors who naturally have to work under tight schedules determined by
‘lowest offer’ budget. It is also crucial in terms of research that the scientific team runs
the anastylosis project from the beginning to the end, as it is during the documentation
and trial construction phases that the most important observations and discoveries can be
made about the ancient structure16.
Beyond the practical: is anastylosis a must?

The above mentioned practical points are fundamental in deciding whether or not anas-
tylosis of a certain ancient structure is possible and justified. Indeed, it is the conviction
of the authors that no anastylosis project can be attempted unless those criteria are met
in the first place. On the other hand, it should also be made clear that ticking all the boxes
of the above discussed checklist does not necessarily make carrying out an anastylosis a
fashionable must.
Anastylosis and restoration at archaeological sites in general, should be discussed not
only on the basis of practical/material possibilities. And certainly, the ‘desire’ to conduct
anastylosis projects in favour of visibility and tourism generated income should not
replace the scientific concerns and questions that should remain to be the motive behind
archaeological excavations.
A scientifically justifiable way of approaching anastylosis is actually to realise that it is
one of the methods of conservation at archaeological sites17. This way it can be ensured not
only that implementations abide by the universal conservation principles, but also that any
16 Hueber 2002, p. 80; see also Korres 1994; Nohlen 1999, p. 94.
17 Hueber 2002, p. 77-78.
33
anastylosis decision is -ideally- a function of a wider conservation programme, linked to

the ‘sustainable management’ of the site.
The field of conservation has been expanding ever since its recognition as an inde-
pendent field of study, together with the definition of its subject matter, ‘the monument’.
Throughout the 20th century, the scope of ‘what needs to be conserved’ moved away from
the singular and static definition of monument, and has evolved to encompass a much
larger scale and diverse phenomena under the paradigm of ‘cultural heritage’18. Cultural
heritage, recognized as a ‘non-renewable resource’ that requires sustainable management,
has come closer to conceptualisation of ‘nature’, more than ever. Today, conservation of
archaeological sites has evolved beyond the physical preservation of the remains towards
management. Subsequently, the concern of heritage management expanded to the scale
and towards the notion of landscape19; a transformation best signified by the Florence
(Landscape) and Faro Conventions20.
Conservation and therefore anastylosis should be approached from the perspective of
values–based heritage management practices. Any rebuilding activity on a site should, on
the one hand, take into account the results of an analysis of the ‘values’ the structure in
question bears21, and, on the other, the specific characteristics and the significance of the
site and landscape it belongs to22. At both scales, these values should take into account the
viewpoints and expectations of diverse stakeholders.
Subsequently, the inevitable impact of anastylosis should be pre-analysed in search of a
sustainable balance between the benefits and costs it may bring in the long run both for
the monument and for the future of the archaeological site23. Experience at Sagalassos has
shown that the decision-making process must examine the following aspects of individual
anastylosis projects.
Significance of the monument: is it ‘worth’ rebuilding?

The historical value of any unearthed ancient structure as a testimony of the time passed
is self-evident. On the other hand, some monuments do have unique characteristics that
render them ‘special’ in many ways and thus may justify their rebuilding.
These can be architectural attributes, such as the size, the composition, the construc-
tion technique of the monument and/or a specific style or type decoration it bears. There
can also be other important attributes that make the rebuilding worthwhile such as the
original utilitarian (e.g. a fountain) and symbolic value of the building in its ancient
urban and landscape context. Some of these specific characteristics enhance the historic
or art historical value as well as the didactic potential of anastylosis when it is seen as a
‘documentation and learning process’.
Such an evaluation was made for each rebuilt monument at Sagalassos before its anas-
tylosis, for which the Northwest Heroon presents a good example. This 15-meter-high
18 Erder 1986; Ahunbay 1996; Jokilehto 2007.

19 Fairclough et al. 2010.
20 Council of Europe 2004 and 2009.
21 Mason and Avrami 2000; Vacharopoulou 2005; Fielden 2003, pp. 268-272.
22 Fielden 2003, pp. 271-272; Antrop 2012.
23 Torun, in press; Vacharopoulou 2005.
34
monument dedicated to a prominent citizen is dated to the mid-Augustan period. It has

an exceptional architectural composition in three distinct parts. An almost life-size frieze
of dancing girls surrounds the monument on three sides in the middle, elevated on a high
platform; over the frieze section, a temple-like structure crowns the composition on top.
The Heroon also bears architectural decoration that refers to the architectural trends of the
time, observed in the more central parts of the empire, rather than in Asia Minor. These
architectural qualities reflect the values of the progressive and ambitious elite of Sagalassos
and in that sense link with the debate of Romanisation in the region. It is located near
the acropolis of the city, nearby the oldest temple, at the end of a street that was possibly
adorned with similar structures. This tower-like monument must have been a landmark
that dominated the ancient city for centuries. Excavations and further research also showed
that it was incorporated into the 5th century AD city walls reflecting another episode in the
history of urban transformation at Sagalassos24. The Northwest Heroon also had a very
specific, consistent and masterfully applied original construction technique that helped to
locate the position of the architectural blocks as well as the original sequence of construc-
tion at every row of the masonry. These were the unique characteristics of the monument
that enhanced the argument for its anastylosis. Adequate assessment of such special scien-
tific values of a monument can only be made by experts of the related fields working as a
team, namely the archaeologists, architectural historians, architects and engineers.
However, opinion and expectations of stakeholders other than the scientists (e.g. the
government, local community…) and the contemporary symbolic, cultural, political and
economic values that may be attributed to the anastylosis of the monument in question
today, cannot be ignored in the process. Moreover, these may play a more pressing role,
such as the persistence of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism about restora-
tions, going so far to bind the issuing of the yearly excavation permits to the progress
of the restorations conducted on the site. The main difficulty in this decision-making
process will be to find a balance that will not tip towards the contemporary demands but
give priority to the well-being of the ancient city and its monuments in the long run.
The physical impact of anastylosis on the site

Rebuilding activity of any scale, be it a single column or an entire nymphaeum, affects
several aspects of the site. When anastylosis is an eventuality of excavations, its physical
impact should be assessed in comparison to the condition of both the monument and the
site in the aftermath of the excavations. The activity that primarily changes the physi-
ognomy, fabric and the specific ‘sense of place’ of a site is often the excavations in the
first place25. Anastylosis in many ways ‘tidies up’ the excavated area bringing together the
scattered building members and clearing large stone platforms. It is also fair to say that
anasylosis contributes to the intelligibility of the monument as well as of the history, scale
and grandiose nature of the site.
On the other hand, experience at sites like Ephessos and Sagalassos has shown that
anastylosis potentially creates a sharp point of attraction and physically dominates the
24 Waelkens et al. 2000 and Waelkens 2002.

25 Ashurst and Shalom, 2007.
35
site overshadowing other remains. This depends on the location and the visibility of
the structure, and on the topographical characteristics of the site together with the still
standing building remains.
Sagalassos presents a special case in this sense, worth taking a closer look. The monu-
mental remains of Sagalassos are spread over terraces and hills, with the mountain chain
to the north forming a visual boundary and providing a background to the city. The
two naiskos walls of the so-called Doric Temple on the acropolis and many more parts
of different monuments are still standing in the city centre. These topographical assets
and the physical context provide a relatively favourable setting for anastylosis projects at
Sagalassos. Rebuilding a monument such as the Arch of Claudius or a high one like the
Northwest Heroon could have much more dramatic effects at a site with a flat topography
and little amount of standing remains, whereas today these monuments complement and
blend into the silhouette of Sagalassos (cf. Fig. 1).
As for creating focal points, the attraction that the Northwest Heroon creates is towards
the Upper Agora which used to be the important political and social heart of the city
where the entire history of Sagalassos can be told. The other two rebuilt monuments,
namely the Late Hellenistic Fountain House and the Antonine Nymphaeum, are both not
visible upon entrance to the site, despite the grandiosity of the latter. These fountains are
structures that are embedded into the topography and physical fabric of the city and as
such contribute to the feeling of ‘discovery’ Sagalassos still offers to the visitor.
As much as the visual impacts, any rebuilt structure in a site effects the unique ‘sense
of place’ the site conveys26. An ‘untouched’ site with remains partially visible on the
surface, where no excavation has taken place, holds a unique ‘sense of place’ and value as
a ‘ruin’ linked to its incompleteness, desertedness and organic bond with the landscape it
forms part of. The intensity of joy and excitement discovering such a place gives to the
explorer27 can be followed in the testimonies of early visitors to Sagalassos, as well as that
of Professor Marc Waelkens himself28.
Although the fragile ‘ruin value’ of the site and the ‘sense of place’ are intangible values
easy to harm as a result of excavations, partial or complete anastylosis projects conducted
non-selectively may have an even more radical effect on the site. Multiple partial anasty-
losis projects that simply rise up from each trench may end up hindering the legibility of
the urban scale and fabric of the ancient city instead of contributing to it.
Each contemporary intrusion to the site for that matter plays a role in this process.
This includes a wide range of interventions inside the archaeological site that may seem
innocent and small, but tend to accumulate to have a large impact, such as (digital) ticket
offices, flags on high poles at the entrance, the material used on the pathways as well as
the type of signage and panels used all over the site. These combined with a non-selective
anastylosis approach, can cause the site to lose all characteristics that used to render it
special, turning into a recreation area with an urban language.
Therefore, any intervention on an archaeological site from the initial excavations to
26 cf. Feld et al. 1996.

27 see also Tilley 1994.
28 Waelkens et al. 2011; see also Philippot 1996.
36
anastylosis, presentation and use, should actually be the result of an integrated, value-
based approach to the site and a function of a common vision established among all
stakeholders concerning the safeguarding of the landscape the site belongs to.
Principles
As mentioned above, anastylosis should be considered as a method of conservation.
Therefore, contemporary conservation principles are valid for any anastylosis project,
the most important of which can be cited as minimum and distinguishable intervention,
faithfulness to original structural properties and behaviour, respect to all phases and
later alterations, material and aesthetic compatibility of supplementary material. More
specifically, the following principles were applied to the anastylosis projects conducted
at Sagalassos:
The purpose of anastylosis is not to reconstruct the monument entirely, but to rein-
state, as much as possible, the available original building members back into their exact
position. It is also not the intention to present the ‘original’ phase of the monument but
to respect and keep all alterations or changes that took place on it or its surrounding until
the time of its collapse. Missing parts are only completed when sufficient information
is available and with the sole purpose of making the reinstatement of original elements
structurally possible. None of the missing parts of the monument is reconstructed for
aesthetic or didactic reasons based on assumptions.
The original structural system of the monument is also considered a characteristic
that should be conserved and therefore the structural interventions, materials and tech-
niques are chosen in a way not to change the original load distribution and the behav-
iour of parts, allowing them to work as individual members. The structural restoration
aims at improving to a certain extent the structural behaviour of the building, but not
to protect it forever against potential misfortunes such as a severe earthquake, as this
would require important interventions and put the original material at risk.
Therefore, each structural element of the building is strengthened in a way that it
becomes only as strong as it was originally, when it was still a monolith. While reas-
sembling the building, the connections inserted between reinstated elements should not
be too strong, the criterion being the limited strength of the stone proper. In this way,
the original material is protected during an earthquake, as its impact on the building will
be reduced to breaking connections and moving blocks, instead of crushing the original
stone as the result of too rigid connections. In the worst case, the blocks would fall one
by one, causing a new situation, whereby restored blocks should break by preference at
the places where they have been repaired. This approach will not only assure minimal
damage to the original material, but it can also allow another repair of the fallen blocks,
should the case ever arise29.
29 see also Nohlen 1999, p. 99.
37
The choice of conservation materials and techniques

Joining of the fitting pieces and connections between stone blocks
The materials and techniques to be used in anastylosis should be mechanically and aesthet-
ically compatible with the original, have no adverse effect and furthermore fulfil the
requirements of the structural approach explained above. The scientific research carried
out between 1994-96 at the Reyntjens Laboratory of the Civil Engineering Department
of the University of Leuven has established stone conservation techniques based on the
use of epoxy based adhesives and mortars combined with fibreglass reinforcing rods30. A
proper design and use of epoxy adhesives with fibreglass rods as reinforcement enables to
join fitting pieces and complete stone blocks so that they are as strong as the monolithic
stone of origin. Precise dimensioning of the fibreglass rods and limiting the adhesion area
are effective to provide a join less strong than the original material. Fibreglass and epoxy
adhesives are also appropriate materials to connect stone blocks – horizontally or verti-
cally – in such a way that the connection will be slightly less strong than the stone itself.
These techniques developed through laboratory tests and called ‘the fibreglass-epoxy
system’, have already been successfully applied since 1994 in different anastylosis projects
at Sagalassos without any sign of failure or adverse effect.
Since 2008 ‘carbon fibre’ rods were employed for the vertical connections between the
repaired blocks, replacing the fibreglass rods, because of their higher shear resistance. To
reduce the earthquake effect on the re-erected buildings, ‘neoprene’ earthquake isolation
panels were employed since 2008. This earthquake isolation system, generally used on
the building bases, separates the building or a part of it from the moving lower surface,
thus reduces the earthquake effects in the upper parts. This system also allows a limited
movement for the upper part of the neoprene level, capable of partially absorbing earth-
quake effects.
Supplementary parts
Supplementary pieces are only incorporated, when it is inevitable to complete a missing
part of the monument in order to reinstate one or more original stones into their place;
i.e. when it is structurally necessary. The material of the supplementary parts must be a
site specific solution. At Sagalassos, for this purpose, natural stone compatible not only
aesthetically, but also in its mechanical properties to the original stone is chosen as the
most suitable material. In the anastylosis of the Antonine Nymphaeum, where seven
different types of natural stone were used originally, the project manager visited all active
stone quarries in the region to detect the most suitable stone type to carve supplemen-
tary pieces. The same surface finish is given to the supplementary parts as that of the
original stones. These new pieces, which anyhow lack the patina and worn surface texture
of the original blocks, are easy to distinguish, as well as documented in many ways. The
structurally needed missing part of an original block is carved in natural stone using a
pantograph. The use of the pantograph as a tool to copy statues dates back to antiquity.
In anastylosis projects it serves to carve on a new stone block the negative of the broken
surface of an original building member. In this way, a new piece, which is actually a copy
30 Ercan et al. 1997.
38
of the missing original part that can closely fit to the broken block, is reproduced. Since
2012, CNC copying machines are employed for the preparation of the supplementary
pieces, replacing the pantograph system gradually, because of the excellence in copying
and the quick production advantage they provide. This way, overall, the only additions
made to the monument are the sections that need to be completed in order to reassemble
the original building blocks, whereas natural stone remains the main building material.
Conclusion
Under the directorship of Professor Dr Marc Waelkens covering twenty four excavation
seasons, the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project has gradually become a platform
where considerable experience on anastylosis was generated and accumulated.
This was fundamentally due to Marc Waelkens’ immense knowledge and interest in
ancient architecture and techniques as well as the scientific research atmosphere that he
created for the collaborators of his team. The authors are truly grateful for the continuous
support, trust and liberty that he endowed upon them from the very start of their careers
at Sagalassos. Looking back, we are amazed with his sincere faith in these two enthusiastic
young Turkish specialists in their late twenties, about their ability to carry the respon-
sibility of such anastylosis projects in the calibre of the Antonine Nymphaeum and the
Northwest Heroon.
The accomplished anastylosis projects in the last twenty years at Sagalassos instigated
others at classical sites in Turkey. The same two decades have also been a remarkable
period for the disciplines of archaeology and conservation, bringing about fundamental
changes both in theory and practice, paving the way towards integrated heritage manage-
ment for archaeology projects. The Sagalassos Project should maintain its exemplary role
in the field and promote accurate and justifiable anastylosis achieved within a heritage
management framework.
References
Ahunbay 1996 = Z. Ahunbay, Tarihi Çevre Koruma ve Restorasyon, Istanbul 1996, pp. 8-21.
Antrop 2012 = M. Antrop, Intrinsic values of landscape, in T. Papayannis and P. Howard, eds.,
Reclaiming the Greek Landscape, Athens, 2012, pp. 31-42.
Ashurst and Shalom, 2007 = J. Ashurst and A. Shalom, Short story: The demise, discovery, destruction
and salvation of a ruin, in J. Ashurst, ed., Conservation of Ruins, Oxford, 2007, pp. xxxi-xlii.
Council of Europe 2004 = European Landscape Convention, 2004. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/
en/Treaties/Html/176.htm
Council of Europe 2009 = Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural
Heritage for Society, 2009. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/199.htm
Degryse et al., 2001 = P. Degryse, M. Van Geet, M. Waelkens, R. Swennen, M. Wevers and W. Viaene,
Microfocus computer tomography as a qualitative approach to frost damage in modern restoration mortars,
“International Journal for Restoration of Buildings and Monuments”, 7, 2001, pp. 47-62.
Degryse et al., 2002 = P. Degryse, J. Elsen and M. Waelkens, Study of ancient mortars from Sagalassos
(Turkey) in view of their conservation, “Cement and Concrete Research”, 32, 2002, pp. 1457-1463.
39
Demas 1997 = M. Demas, Ephesus, in M. de la Torre, ed., The Conservation of Archaeological Sites
in the Mediterranean Region An International Conference Organised by the Getty Conservation Institute
and the J. Paul Getty Museum. May 1995, Los Angeles, 1997, pp. 127-149.
Ercan et al., 1997 = S. Ercan, T.C. Patricio and K. Van Balen, The Structural restoration of the Late Hellen-
istic Nymphaeum: principles, laboratory tests and field applications, in M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds.,
Sagalassos IV. Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1994 and 1995, Leuven, 1997,
pp. 423-437.
Ercan 2013 = S. Ercan, Yukarı Agora yapılarının restorasyonu, in M. Waelkens et al., Sagalassos’ta
2012 yılı kazı ve restorasyon çalışmaları, 35th International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys
and Archaeometry, 27-31 May 2013, Muğla, in press.
Erder 1986 = C. Erder, Our Architectural Heritage: from Consciousness to Conservation, Paris 1986.
Fairclough et al., 2010 = G. Fairclough and H. van Londen, Changing landscapes of archaeology and
heritage, in T. Bloemers, H. Kars, A. Van der Valk, M. Wijnen, eds., Protection and Development of the
Dutch Archaeological-Historical Landscape and its Eurpoean Dimension, Amsterdam, 2010, pp. 653-669.
Feld et al. 1996 = S. Feld and K.H. Basso, eds., Senses of Place, Santa Fe, 1996.
Fielden 2003 = B.M. Fielden, Conservation of Historic Buildings, Oxford, 2003.
Hamilakis 2007 = Y. Hamilakis, The Nation and Its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology an National Imagination
in Greece, Oxford, 2007.
Hueber 2002 = F. Hueber, Building Research and Anastylosis, in K. De Jonge and K. Van Baelen, eds.,
Preparatory Architectural Investigation in Restoration of Historic Buildings, Leuven, 2002, pp. 77-82.
ICOMOS 1964, 1965 = International Charter for the Conservation and restoration of Monuments
and Sites. Venice, 1964, 1965. http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf
ICOMOS 1990 = Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage.
Lausanne, 1990. http://www.icomos.org/charters/arch_e.pdf
Jokilehto 2007 = J. Jokilehto, Conservation concepts, in J. Ashurst, ed., Conservation of Ruins, Oxford, 2007,
pp. 3-9.
Korres 1994 = M. Korres, Recent discoveries on the Acropolis, in R. Economakis, ed., Acropolis Restoration
The CCAM Interventions, London, 1994, pp. 175-180.
Mason and Avrami, 2002 = R. Mason and E. Avrami, Heritage values and challenges of conservation
planning, in J. M. Teutonico and G. Palumbo, eds., Management Planning for Archaeological Sites,
Los Angeles, 2002, pp. 13-26.
Mertens 1995 = D. Mertens, Planning and executing anastylosis of stone buildings, in N. P. Stanley Price,
ed., Conservation on Archaeological Excavations, Rome, 1995, pp. 113-134.
Nohlen 1999 = K. Nohlen, The partial re-erection of the Temple of Trajan at Pergamon in Turkey.
A German Archaeological Institute project, “Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites”, 3, 1999,
pp. 91-102.
Philippot 1996 = P. Philippot, Historic preservation: Philosophy, criteria, guidelines, II, in N. Stanley Price,
M.K. Talley Jr., A.M. Vaccaro, eds., Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation
of Cultural Heritage, Los Angeles, 1996, pp. 358-363.
Rizzi 2007 = G. Rizzi, Preface, in J. Ashurst, ed., Conservation of Ruins, Oxford, 2007, pp. xix-xiii.
Schmidt 1997 = H. Schmidt, Reconstruction of ancient buildings, in M. de la Torre, ed., The Conservation of
Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region An International Conference Organised by the Getty Conser-
vation Institute and the J. Paul Getty Museum. May 1995, Los Angeles, 1997, pp. 41-50.
40
TCKTB 2013 = T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarıyla İlgili Yapılacak
Yüzey Araştırması, Sondaj ve Kazı Çalışmalarının Yürütülmesi Hakkında Yönerge.
http://teftis.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,50815/kultur-ve-tabiat-varliklariyla-ilgili-yapilacak-yuzey-a-.html
Tilley 1994 = C. Tilley, A Phenomenology of Landscape. Places, Paths and Monuments, Oxford, 1994.
Torun, in press = E. Torun, Yukarı Agora Claudius Kemeri anastilosis projesi, in M. Waelkens et al.,
Sagalassos’ta 2012 yılı kazı ve restorasyon çalışmaları, 35th International Symposium of Excavations,
Surveys and Archaeometry, 27-31 May 2013, Muğla, in press.
Torun et al., in press = E. Torun, S. Ceylan, D. Shoup, Sagalassos’ta arkeolojik miras yönetimi çalışmaları,
35th International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys and Archaeometry, 27-31 May 2013, Muğla, in press.
Vacharopoulou 2005 = K. Vacharopoulou, Conservation and management of archaeological monuments and
sites in Greece and Turkey: A value-based approach to anastylosis, “Papers from the Institute of Archaeology”
16, 2005, pp. 72-87.
Waelkens et al., 2000 = M. Waelkens, L. Vandeput, C. Berns, B. Arıkan, J. Poblome and E. Torun,
The Northwest Heroon at Sagalassos, in M. Waelkens and L. Loots, eds., Sagalassos V. Report
on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997, Leuven, 2000, pp. 553-593.
Waelkens 2002 = M. Waelkens, Romanization in the East. A case study: Sagalassos and Pisidia (SW Turkey),
“Istanbuler Mitteilungen”, 52, 2002, pp. 311-368.
Waelkens et al., 2006 = M. Waelkens, S. Ercan, E. Torun, Principles of Archaeological Management
at Sagalassos, in Z. Ahunbay and Ü. Izmirligil, Management and Preservation of Archaeological Sites.
Proceedings of the 4th Bilateral Meeting of Icomos Turkey – Icomos Greece, 29 April - 02 May 2002,
Side (Antalya-Turkey), Istanbul, 2005, pp.67-77.
Waelkens et al., 2011 = M. Waelkens, J. Poblome, P. De Rynck, E. Torun, eds., Sagalassos.
City of Dreams, Gent, 2011.
41
Abstract in English
The Dedication of the Temple of Apollo Klarios during
the Governorship of Proculus, legatus Augusti pro praetore
Lyciae-Pamphyliae during the Reign of Antoninus Pius
Roman provinces were relatively stable structural elements of the Roman Empire, the extent
of which often remained unchanged for centuries. Only occasionally were cities or administra-
tive units removed from one province and attached to another. This process, however, has been
claimed for Sagalassos.
Originally a city of Pisidia, and as such belonging to the province of Galatia, it became part of
a new double province early in the reign of Vespasian, when the region of Pamphylia (including
Pisidia) was detached from Galatia and joined to the existing province of Lycia.
Recently, a different opinion has been put forward, according to which Sagalassos remained
part of Galatia under Vespasian as it was joined to Cappadocia. Shortly afterwards, between
75/78 and 86 AD, the city would have been removed from the double province and incorporated
into the province of Asia. This has been argued on the basis of an honorific statue erected at Saga-
lassos for Sex. Iulius Frontinus as “governor” and “benefactor”. The assumption of such a transfer
to Asia is thought to be confirmed by the dedicatory inscription of the temple of Apollo Klarios.
This text mentions how the renovated sanctuary was dedicated under the governor Proculus.
The latter has been identified with several senators but, based on the different building phases of
the temple, C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modestus, the governor of Lycia-Pamphylia in 101-
102/3, and of Asia in 119/120, has been put forward as the most likely candidate. This identifica-
tion would not only allow a more precise date for the renovation of the sanctuary but also prove
that Sagalassos formed part of Asia, at least until early in the reign of Hadrian. Only later during
his reign would the city become part of Lycia-Pamphylia.
The decisive element in this reasoning, however, namely the identification of Proculus as a gov-
ernor of Asia, does not apply. The title hegemon given to him in the dedicatory inscription of the
temple was an unofficial but widely accepted title frequently used for governors in Lycia-Pamphy-
lia, but never in Asia. As a result, that Proculus was a governor of Asia is disproved, and Sagalassos
could not have belonged to that province in the early Hadrianic period. What is more, with this
element out of the way, there is no further evidence to allocate Sagalassos to Asia at all, as the statue
of Frontinus can easily be explained as the honouring of a governor of a neighbouring province.
These clarifications raise the question of the identity of the governor mentioned in the dedicatory
inscription. According to archaeological arguments, the renovation of the temple should be dated to
the early Hadrianic period, which could still fit the governorship of C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius
Modestus. That said, his main name is C. Mettius Modestus, which cannot be reconciled with the
position of the cognomen Proculus in the inscription. The position of the cognomen does fit Cn.
Arrius Cornelius Proculus, the governor of Lycia-Pamphylia during the early Antonine period, who
was already identified as the Proculus of the inscription by Count K. Lanckoroński.
All things considered, there is not a single indication that Sagalassos ever belonged to a differ-
ent province from the rest of Pisidia between the reign of Augustus and that of Antoninus Pius.
Die Dedikation des
Apollo Klarios unter
Proculus, legatus Augusti pro
praetore Lyciae-Pamphyliae
unter Antoninus Pius
Werner Eck
Römische Provinzen waren relativ stabile Strukturelemente des römischen Reiches, die in
ihrem Umfang wesentlich durch die ihr zugehörigen Selbstverwaltungseinheiten definiert
waren, nicht durch konkrete Grenzen der Provinz. Nur in seltenen Fällen sind wirklich
Provinzgrenzen eigens fixiert worden, während das Territorium von Gemeinden öfter
solcher Abgrenzungen bedurfte. Provinzen blieben oft über Jahrhunderte unverändert
in ihrer Ausdehnung. Nur gelegentlich wurden einzelne Selbstverwaltungseinheiten
oder Städte aus einer Provinz herausgenommen und einer anderen zugewiesen. In der
konkreten administrativen Praxis des Reiches wird dann die Liste aller Selbstverwaltungs-
einheiten, die zur Provinz eines Statthalters gehörten, erweitert worden sein.
Eine der Städte, deren Zugehörigkeit zu einer Provinz mehrmals gewechselt haben
soll, ist Sagalassos.1 Ursprünglich war es eine Stadt Pisidiens und damit Teil der Provinz
Galatien. Deutlichster Beweis dafür ist das Edikt des galatischen Statthalters Sex. Sotidius
Strabo Libuscidianus, mit dem er die Pflichten und Rechte für die Benutzung des staat-
lich organisierten und kontrollierten Transportsystems gerade für das Territorium von
Sagalassos bestimmte.2 Dieser galatische Statthalter wird jetzt in die Zeit zwischen ca 20
n. Chr. und dem Ende der Regierungszeit des Tiberius gesetzt.3 Innerhalb der Provinz
Galatien war die Stadt Teil von Pamphylien, das mit Galatien zusammen eine Provinz
bildete. Als im Jahr 43 n. Chr. Lykien provinzialisiert wurde, änderte sich daran nichts,
da Lycia als eine, wenn auch kleine Provinz eingerichtet wurde, ohne dass die kaiserliche
Regierung bereits Pamphylien angeschlossen hat.4 Diese Phase einer kleinen Provinz
Lycia und eines mit Galatia verbundenen Pamphylia dauerte bis zum Beginn der Herr-
schaft Vespasians, unter dem schließlich sehr früh Pamphylia von Galatia getrennt und
1 Siehe dazu im Detail Waelkens 2002, pp. 311 ff.

2 Mitchell 1976, pp. 106-32; SEG 26, 1392 = AE 1976, 653 = AE 1978, 789 = AE 1989, 727.
3 Çoşkun 2009, pp. 159-164; vgl. Eck 2012a, pp. 125-127.
4 Zuletzt dazu Eck et al. 2008, pp. 91ff. = AE 1446.
43
Werner Eck
mit Lycia zu einer größeren Küstenprovinz vereinigt wurde.5 Dabei wurde ganz offen-
sichtlich Gesamtpamphylien einschließlich Pisidien und damit auch Sagalassos an diese
neue Provinz Lycia-Pamphylia angeschlossen.
Dies ist in letzter Zeit öfter anders gesehen worden.6 Danach soll Sagalassos in flavi-
scher Zeit zunächst Teil der Provinz Galatia geblieben sein, das von Vespasian zusammen
mit Cappadocia einem gemeinsamen Statthalter, einem legatus Augusti pro praetore
unterstellt wurde. Bald darauf aber sei die Stadt aus diesem Provinzverband gelöst und
an die prokonsulare Provinz Asia angeschlossen worden und zwar am ehesten zwischen
75/78 und 86 n. Chr. Zum einen wird darauf verwiesen, dass ein Mitglied der Führungs-
schicht von Sagalassos, T. Flavius Collega, das römische Bürgerrecht in flavischer Zeit
erhalten habe, auf Vermittlung des Cn. Pompeius Collega, kaiserlichen Statthalters
von Galatia-Cappadocia in den Jahren zwischen 75-787 oder eher zwischen 73/74 und
76/77.8 Damals sei also Sagalassos noch Teil der Provinz Galatia-Cappadocia gewesen.
Diese Vermittlung des römischen Bürgerrechts ist durchaus möglich, allerdings sagt
diese Vermittlung keineswegs, dass Collega dies in seiner Eigenschaft als Statthalter der
Provinz, zu der Sagalassos damals gehörte, getan haben muss. Da gab es viele andere
Möglichkeiten, wodurch die entsprechenden Beziehungen, die schließlich zur Vermitt-
lung des Rechtsstatus führten, hergestellt werden konnten. So hat etwa Plinius der
Jüngere sich an Traian gewandt, damit dieser zwei Freigelassenen einer Antonia Maxi-
milla, einer ornatissima femina, das ius Quiritium verleihe.9 In ähnlicher Weise setzte er
sich für die Verwandten seines Arztes Postumius Marinus ein, ebenso für die Freigelas-
senen anderer Patrone.10 D.h. in allen Fällen haben sich andere an Plinius gewandt, um
ihn für die Vermittlung zu engagieren. Es muss also nicht einmal eine direkte Beziehung
zwischen Pompeius Collega und Flavius Collega bestanden haben, geschweige denn,
dass Flavius Collega, Bürger von Sagalassos, zu diesem Zeitpunkt innerhalb der Provinz
des Pompeius Collega, also Galatia-Cappadocia, gelebt haben muss. Dass dies der Fall
gewesen sein müsse, wäre nur durch ein direktes Zeugnis beweisbar.
Kurze Zeit nach dieser Bürgerrechtsvermittlung um die Jahre 75/78 soll dann Saga-
lassos aus Galatia-Cappadocia ausgegliedert und Asia eingegliedert worden sein. Grund
dafür ist die statuarische Ehrung des Sex. Iulius Frontinus durch die Stadt Sagalassos.11
Auf der Inschrift wird Frontinus schlicht ἀνθύπατος und ἐυεργέτης genannt, ohne
Hinweis auf die Provinz. Das lässt tatsächlich zunächst den Gedanken aufkommen, er sei
geehrt worden, weil er der für Sagalassos zuständige Prokonsul war. Das ergab sodann
den fast zwangsläufig erscheinenden Schluss, Sagalassos sei während der Amtszeit
Frontins Teil der prokonsularen Provinz Asia gewesen.
5 Zuletzt Eck 2012b, pp. 27 ff. und vor allem Adak und Wilson 2012, pp. 1 ff.
6 Vor allem Waelkens 2002 (Anm. 1), pp. 324 ff.
7 Devijver 1966, pp. 113-114.
8 Eck 1982, pp. 293 ff.; vgl. Thomasson 2011, Nr. 29:006 (die erste Ziffer bezeichnet die Provinz,

die zweite die laufende Nummer innerhalb einer Provinz).
9 Plinius, ep. 10, 5, 2.
10 Plinius, ep. 10, 11.
11 Waelkens 2002 (Anm. 1), p. 324 und anderswo, so z. B. Eck und Mägele 2008, pp. 177 ff.,

wo die Implikationen dieser Annahme noch nicht bedacht wurden.
44
Die Dedikation des Apollo Klarios
Diese Annahme eines Transfers der Stadt in die Provinz Asia sollte sodann durch eine
weitere Inschrift aus Sagalassos abgesichert werden, durch die Dedikationsinschrift des
Apollo Klarios-Tempels. Dieser Tempel hat offensichtlich mehrere Bauphasen erlebt,
von deren letzter ein Teil der Dedikationsinschrift erhalten ist. Bereits Lanckoronski
hatte diesen Text in seinem fundamentalen Werk publiziert; 12 während der Ausgra-
bungen der vergangenen Jahre waren die Fragmente, die er gesehen hatte, erneut
gefunden worden. Auf diesen Fragmenten ist folgender Text erhalten:
Zeile1: Ἀπόλλωνι Κλαρίῳ καὶ Θεοῖς Σεβαστοῖς καῖ τῇ πατρίδι Τ. Φλ. Κολλήγας, μετὰ
Φλ. Λονγίλλης τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ, τὸ περίπτερον·[τὸν δὲ ναὸν μὲτα -- καὶ -- Ἑπμο]λάου
τῶν Διομήδους καὶ Ἀδὸς πατρὸς
Zeile 2: καὶ μητρὸς τοῦ Κολλήγα ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων καὶ ἐκ δηναρίων μυρίων τῶν ἐπιδοθέντων
ἐν χρόνῳ τῆς ἀρχιερωσύνης τοῦ Κολλήγα κατασκευάσας ἀνέθηκε καὶ καθιέρωσε[ν αὐτὸς
διὰ -- ἐπὶ --] Πρόκλου τοῦ σεμνοτάτου ἡγεμόνος
Zeile 3: τὴν δὲ σκούτλωσιν τῶν τοίχων τ[ο]ῦ ναοῦ ὁ αὐτὸς Φλ. Κολλήγας καὶ T. Φλ.
[Οὐ]ᾶρος Δαρεῖος, ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ, διὰ Φλ. Διομ[ήδους --] καὶ +++++++ vacat
In dem Text wird auf verschiedene Teile des Tempels verwiesen, die damalsin irgend-
einer Form erbaut wurden, ferner auf die Personen, die die finanziellen Mittel bereit
gestellt hatten und schließlich auf den Statthalter, unter dem der Tempel dediziert
worden war: [ἐπὶ --] Πρόκλου τοῦ σεμνοτάτου ἡγεμόνος. Dieser Statthalter Proculus ist
mit sehr unterschiedlichen Senatoren identifiziert worden. Zum einen kennen wir einen
kaiserlichen Legaten von Lycia-Pamphylia C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modestus im
Jahr 102/103, der direkt nach seiner Statthalterschaft in dieser Provinz Suffektkonsul
in Rom geworden ist. Er ist durch mehrere Inschriften in der Provinz bezeugt.13 Einige
Jahrzehnte später, zu Beginn der Regierungszeit des Antoninus Pius, amtierte ein C.
Arrius Cornelius Proculus als kaiserlicher Legat; unmittelbar nach seiner Statthalter-
schaft gelangte er im Jahr 145 zu einem Suffektkonsulat, wie das auch sonst ganz üblich
war.14 Schließlich ist nochmals unter Pius ein weiterer Statthalter bekannt, dessen
Gentilnomen oder Cognomen mit Pro[--] begann.15
Wem die Inschrift aus Sagalassos zugewiesen werden darf, war in der prosopographischen
Forschung lange Zeit klar gewesen, nämlich dem Cornelius Proculus zu Beginn der Zeit
des Antoninus Pius. Doch zuletzt wurde in Verbindung mit der Datierung der verschie-
denen Phasen des Apollo Klarios-Tempels dieser Proculus mit Nachdruck mit C. Trebo-
nius Proculus Mettius Modestus identifiziert, der Statthalter in Lycia-Pamphylia war, ohne
durch Kautelen auf die damit verbundenen Probleme zu verweisen. Dabei wurde, als Folge
der Interpretation der Inschrift des Sex. Iulius Frontinus, die entscheidende Voraussetzung
gemacht, dass man ihn ihm nicht einen prätorischen kaiserlichen Legaten, eines legatus
Augusti pro praetore = πρεσβευτὴς καὶ ἀντιστράτηγος Σεβαστοῦ zu sehen habe, sondern einen
12 Lanckoronski 1892, pp. 226 f., Nr. 200 = IGR III 342.

13 Thomasson 2011 (Anm. 8) Nr. 30:016. Siehe auch Rémy 1988, pp. 291-293.

14 Thomasson 2011 (Anm. 8) Nr. 30:028; Rémy 1988 (Anm. 13), pp. 302 -303.

15 Thomasson 2011 (Anm. 8) Nr. 30: 034.

45
Werner Eck
proconsul = ἀνθύπατος von Asia.16 Denn dieser Senator ist zwar als prätorischer kaiserlicher
Statthalter von Lycia-Pamphylia 101-102/3 bezeugt, aber eben auch als konsularer Prokonsul
der Provinz Asia im Jahr 119/120.17 In dieser Eigenschaft soll er auf der Inschrift des Apollo
Klarios-Tempels erscheinen. Damit soll nicht nur ein präzises Datum für die Dedikation des
Tempels gefunden, sondern vor allem auch der entscheidende Beweis erbracht sein soll, dass
Sagalassos mindestens bis zum Beginn der hadrianischen Regierungszeit Teil der Provinz
Asia gewesen war.18 Erst im weiteren Verlauf der hadrianischen Herrschaft sei dann die Stadt
endgültig Lycia-Pamphylia zugewiesen worden.
Sagalassos hätte, wenn die kurz vorgestellten Schlussfolgerungen aus den genannten
Inschriften zuträfen, eine sehr bewegte Vergangenheit gehabt, jedenfalls was die Zuge-
hörigkeit zu einer Provinz betrifft.
Doch das entscheidende Element in dieser Argumentationskette, eben die Nennung
des Proculus als eines angeblichen Prokonsuls der Provinz Asia in der Inschrift des Apollo
Klarios-Tempels, trifft nicht zu. Das liegt zunächst ganz entscheidend an der Benennung des
Proculus als τοῦ σεμνοτάτου ἡγεμόνος. Dieses Wort ist nicht die offizielle Amtsbezeichnung
des Statthalters, wie sie der römischen administrativen Terminologie entspricht, es ist aber
ein Terminus, der in manchen Provinzen häufig für einen Statthalter verwendet wird. Doch
die Provinzialen wussten sehr wohl, welcher Statthalter in welcher Provinz wie genannt
werden konnte oder durfte, wenn man nicht den offiziellen Terminus verwenden wollte.
Gerade Lycia-Pamphylia mit seinen sehr vielen Zeugnissen für gewesene, aber vor allem
auch für amtierende Statthalter ist dafür ein glänzendes Beispiel. Nicht nur in dem langen
Dossier für Opramoas von Oinoanda findet sich in zahlreichen Varianten die Bezeichnung
ἡγεμών, sondern auch in sehr vielen anderen Zeugnissen. Das Wort ist geradezu typisch
dafür, wie man in Lycia-Pamphylia neben der offiziellen Amtsbezeichnung die Statthalter
hier benannte, wozu als weitere nichtoffizielle Kennzeichnung das Wort δικαιοδότης
getreten ist. In den vollständigen Listen der Statthalter, ihrer Inschriften und ihrer Benen-
nungen bei Thomasson und Rémy treten diese inoffiziellen Termini deutlich hervor - und
zwar in markantem Gegensatz zur Provinz Asia.19
Sieht man nämlich die Einträge bei Thomasson für diese älteste Provinz in Klein-
asien durch, die seit augusteischer Zeit immer von einem Prokonsul geleitet wurde,
dann wird ganz klar, dass es dort kein einziges inschriftliches Zeugnis für einen Prokonsul
gibt, in dem dieser ἡγεμών genannt worden wäre. Die einzigen Ausnahmen sind lite-
rarische Quellen wie z. B. Aelius Aristides; dies aber ist eine andere Gattung, die man
unter diesem Aspekt nicht mit der epigraphischen Terminologie vermischen darf.20
Doch in den vielen Hunderten von Inschriften, in denen die Prokonsuln der Provinz
16 Waelkens 2002 (Anm. 1), pp. 325 ff.; Talloen und Waelkens 2004, pp. 171-216.

17 Eck1983, p. 152; Thomasson 2011 (Anm. 8) Nr. 26:108.

18 Die weiteren Identifizierungen wie sie Devijver and Waelkens, im Druck, Nr. 9 und 10 mit C. Aquillius

Proculus oder Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus vorgeschlagen worden waren, sind inzwischen nicht mehr
erwähnt worden. Der letztere Senator hätte ebenfalls nie ins Spiel gebracht werden dürfen, da sein Haupt-
name Q. Fulvius Gillo war; bei jeder üblichen Anführung eines Statthalters mit nomen + cognomen hätte
zwingend Gillo, nicht Proculus vor hegemon stehen müssen.
19 Siehe Thomasson 2011 (Anm. 8); Rémy 1988 (Anm. 13).

20 Autoren nehmen sich häufig die Freiheit, Statthalter anders zu nennen, als es der offiziellen Bezeichnung

entspricht. Das gilt z.B. für Tacitus, noch mehr für Flavius Iosephus; siehe Eck 2008, pp. 218 ff.
46
Asia erscheinen, gibt es diesen in der Apollo Klarios Inschrift in Sagalassos verwendeten
Ausdruck ἡγεμών nicht ein einziges Mal. Damit aber ist es ausgeschlossen, den ἡγεμών
Proculus als Prokonsul von Asia und, in logischer Folge Sagalassos in frühadrianischer
Zeit als eine Stadt der Provinz Asia anzusehen. Als Proculus amtierte, war diese Stadt
ein Teil der Provinz Lycia-Pamphylia. Die Bezeichnung als ἡγεμών zeigt in nicht zu
widerlegender Klarheit und Eindeutigkeit.
Wird aber einmal dieses angeblich entscheidende Zeugnis aus der Argumentations-
kette entfernt, dann spricht nichts mehr für diese Zuweisung von Sagalassos an Asia.
Denn die Ehrung des Frontinus in Sagalassos als Prokonsul ist leicht auf andere Weise
zu erklären. Die Provinz Asia war nicht weit. Sagalassos hatte notwendigerweise Bezie-
hungen zu Asia, denn der Landweg nach dem Westen führte komplett durch diese
Provinz. Dabei kann es schnell zu Problemen für Bürger von Sagalassos oder auch für die
gesamte Stadt gekommen sein, die z.B. vor den Prokonsul als Gerichtsherrn kamen und
im Sinn von Sagalassos entschieden wurden. Aber auch andere Gründe sind denkbar.
Für solche nach den Interessen der Stadt vorteilhafte Entscheidungen des Prokonsuls
von Asia konnte man sich durch die Dedikation einer Statue revanchieren oder auch für
viele andere Arten von beneficia, die vorstellbar sind. Eine Ehrung musste nicht immer
dort erfolgen, wo das Geschehen, das die Statuendedikation auslöste, sich ereignet hatte.
So hat beispielsweise die Stadt Flavia Neapolis in Iudaea in hadrianischer Zeit in Ephesus
eine Statue ihres ehemaligen Statthalters Cn. Pompeius Falco aufgestellt, nicht wegen
eines Verdienstes während seines Prokonsulats in Asia, sondern in der Zeit davor.21
Aus diesen Klärungen zum Titel ἡγεμών stellt sich dann sogleich die Frage, welcher
Senator in der Inschrift des Apollo Klarios-Tempels genannt war. Denn es sind ja
mehrere prätorische Statthalter von Lycia-Pamphylia bekannt, die das Cognomen
Proculus führen. Nach den archäologischen Argumenten soll die Erneuerung des
Tempels in die frühhadrianische Zeit gehören, weshalb dann am ehesten C. Trebonius
Proculus Mettius Modestus in der Inschrift genannt gewesen sein könnte, wenn man
den stilistischen Kriterien eine gewisse Unsicherheitsmarge zugesteht. Denn C. Trebo-
nius Proculus Mettius Modestus war in frühtraianischer Zeit Statthalter, also zwei Jahr-
zehnte früher als die archäologisch datierte Erneuerung des Tempels. Doch das trifft
auf eine weitere Schwierigkeit, die im Übrigen auch bei dem Verständnis von ἡγεμών
als Prokonsul gegeben ist, auf die aber bei der Identifizierung nicht geachtet wurde.
Der Hauptname dieses Senators lautet nämlich nicht C. Trebonius Proculus, sondern
vielmehr C. Mettius Modestus. Als Mettius Modestus wird er z.B. in den Fasti Ostienses
zum Jahr 103 als Konsul angeführt. Und mit diesem Namen erscheint er auch in den
meisten Inschriften, in denen er als prätorischer Legat von Lycia-Pamphylia genannt
ist.22 Lediglich in einer einzigen Inschrift aus Lydae wird in Verbindung mit dem
Namensteil Mettius Modestus auch der Name Trebonius Proculus in der Form [Τρ]
εβώνι[ον Πρό]κλον angeführt.23 Damit aber ist es ausgeschlossen, dass in der Inschrift
21 Inschriften von Ephesus III 713; Eck 1999, pp. 67 ff.

22 PIR2 M 568.

23 IGR III 523 = TAM II 1, 134, wenn sich denn diese Inschrift tatsächlich auf diesen Senator bezieht;

es fehlt jeder Hinweis auf die offizielle Stellung der Person, was bisher nicht beachtet wurde.
47
Werner Eck
dieser Senator genannt war; denn wenn der Name dieses Senators hier gestanden hätte,
dann müsste zum einen dem cognomen Proculus das Gentile Trebonius vorausgegangen.
Doch damit wäre dieser Senator gar nicht richtig benannt gewesen; damit dies der Fall
gewesen wäre, hätte dann vielmehr den Namenbestandteilen Trebonius Proculus der
viel wichtigere Hauptname Mettius Modestus vorausgehen müssen, also das Hauptgen-
tile und das Hauptcognomen. Dann hätte der Name C. Mettius Modestus Trebonius
Proculus gelautet, in mehr als unnormaler, willkürlicher Reihenfolge - was man jedoch
in der Lücke einer Inschrift nicht annehmen darf, es sei denn man hätte ein konkretes
Zeugnis, dass dieser Senator diese Veränderung seines Namens zugelassen hätte. Das
gleiche methodische Prinzip gilt auch für die Cognomina: Sie konnten innerhalb eines
Namens nicht willkürlich zwischen zwei Gentilizia verschoben werden, etwa in der Art,
dass der Name des Legaten dann C. Trebonius Modestus Mettius Proculus gelautet
hätte. Eine Provinzstadt hat sich eine solche Umstellung im Namen des amtierenden
senatorischen Statthalters sicherlich nicht erlaubt. Damit aber ist klar: dieser traianisch-
hadrianische Senator ist in der Inschrift nicht genannt gewesen.
Ganz anders ist es dagegen bei dem Senator und Statthalter der frühen antoninischen
Zeit, Cn. Arrius Cornelius Proculus. Sein Hauptname ist Cornelius Proculus, wie er auch
in offiziellen Dokumenten heißt, etwa den Arvalakten, wo er als Konsul erscheint, oder
in Militärdiplomen, wo er als Statthalter von Pannonia superior angeführt wird.24 Sein
Name lässt sich in der Tempelinschrift somit, ohne damit Probleme zu kreieren, als [ἐπὶ
Κορνηλίου] Πρόκλου τοῦ σεμνοτάτου ἡγεμόνος integrieren. Es ist genau der Name, den
schon Lanckoronski treffsicher in seine Publikation aufgenommen hatte, woran auch
sehr lange zu Recht nicht gezweifelt wurde.25
Sieht man alles zusammen, dann gibt es keinen einzigen Beweis, ja nicht einmal einen
abgesicherten Hinweis darauf, dass Sagalassos jemals zwischen der augusteischen Regie-
rungszeit und dem Beginn derjenigen des Antoninus Pius einer anderern Provinz zuge-
wiesen worden wäre als die Masse der Städte Pamphyliens oder Pisidiens. Seit der Einglie-
derung des galatischen Königreichs gehörte die Stadt zu zur Provinz Galatien, an das
Pamphylia bis zum Jahr 70/71 angeschlossen war.26 Seit dem Zusammenschluss Pamphy-
liens mit Lykien zu Beginn der vespasianischen Zeit aber war Sagalassos dem Statthalter
dieser neuen Doppelprovinz untergeordnet, der schließlich zu Beginn der Regierung des
Antoninus Pius auch die Dedikation des erneuerten Apollo Klarios-Tempels vornahm.
Falls dieser Tempel tatsächlich durch die Erneuerung der Neokorietempel der Stadt
geworden sein sollte, dann wäre auch dieses Ereignis erst in diese Zeit zu setzen oder in die
Spätzeit Hadrians. Die Baumaßnahme könnte leicht erst einige Jahre nach dem offiziellen
Verleihungsakt abgeschlossen worden sein. T. Flavius Collega, der zusammen mit seiner
Frau die Finanzierung übernahm, wäre vermutlich der Sohn dessen gewesen, der unter
den Flaviern das römische Bürgerrecht erhalten hatte.
24 Siehe PIR2 C 1422 und RMD IV 250.

25 Siehe z.B. Alföldy 1977, p. 149 und 257; Eck 1983, p. 184; Rémy 1988 (Anm. 13) pp. 302 f.

26 Siehe z.B. noch den Statthalter unter Galba L. Nonius Calpurnius Asprenas: legatus pro pr(aetore) provinc[ia]

e Galateae Paphlagoniae Pamphyliae Pisidiae, AE 1952, 232 = IRT 346.
48
References
Adak und Wilson 2012 = M. Adak und M. Wilson, Das Vespasiansmonument von Döşeme und
die Gründung der Doppelprovinz Lycia-Pamphylia, “Gephyra”, 9, 2012, pp. 1 ff.
Alföldy 1977 = G. Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen, Bonn 1977.
Çoşkun 2009 = A. Çoşkun, Das Edikt des Sex. Sotidius Strabo Libuscidianus und die Fasten der Statthalter
Galatiens in augusteischer und tiberischer Zeit, “Gephyra”, 6, 2009 (2011), pp. 159-164.
Devijver 1966 = H. Devijver, Local Elite, Equestrians and Senators. A Social History of Roman Sagalassos,
“Ancient Society”, 27, 1996, pp. 113-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/AS.27.0.632400.
Devijver and Waelkens = H. Devijver and M. Waelkens, Roman Inscriptions from the Sixth and Seventh
Campaigns at Sagalassos, in Sagalassos VII. The Upper and Lower Agora. The Porticoes, the Bouleuterion,
the Basilica of St. Michael and the Northeast Building, in I. Jacobs, P. Bes, M. Waelkens und
J. Poblome, hg., Leuven, im Druck.
Eck 1982 = W. Eck, Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139. 1. Teil,
“Chiron”, 12, 1982, pp. 293 ff.
Eck 1983 = W. Eck, Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/
139. 2. Teil, “Chiron”, 13, 1983, pp. 147 ff.
Eck, 2008 = W. Eck, Die Benennung von römischen Amtsträgern und politisch-militärisch-administrativen
Funktionen bei Flavius Iosephus – Probleme der korrekten Identifizierung, “Zeitschrift für Papyrologie
und Epigraphik”, 166, 2008, pp. 218 ff.
Eck 1999 = W. Eck, Flavius Iuncus, Bürger von Flavia Neapolis und kaiserlicher Prokurator, Gedenkschrift
zu Ehren von U. Vogel-Weidemann, “Acta Classica”, 42, 1999, pp. 67 ff.
Eck et al. 2008 = W. Eck, H. İşkan-Işik und H. Engelmann, Der Leuchtturm von Patara und Sex.
Marcius Priscus als Statthalter der Provinz Lycia von Nero bis Vespasian, “Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie
und Epigraphik”, 164, 2008, pp. 91ff.
Eck und Mägele 2008 = W. Eck - S. Mägele, Kolossalstatuen in Sagalassos. Marcus Lollius und seine
politische Machtstellung im Osten als Begleiter des Gaius Caesar, in E. Winter, hg.,Vom Euphrat bis zum
Bosporus. Kleinasien in der Antike. Festschrift für Elmar Schwertheim zum 65. Geburtstag, Bonn, 2008,
pp. 177 ff.
Eck 2012a = W. Eck, Iulius Tarius Titianus als Statthalter von Syria Palaestina in der Herrschaftszeit Elaga-
bals in Inschriften aus Caesarea Maritima und Hippos, “Gephyra 9”, 2012, pp. 69-73.
Eck 2012b = W. Eck, Der Anschluß der kleinasiatischen Provinzen an Vespasian und ihre Restrukturierung
unter den Flaviern, in L. Capogrossi Colognesi und E. Tassi Scandone, hg., Vespasiano e l’impero dei
Flavi, Atti del Convegno, Roma, Palazzo Massimo, 18-20 novembre 2009, Rom, 2012, pp. 27 ff.
Lanckoronski 1892 = H. Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens (Band 2): Pisidien, Wien, 1892,
pp. 226 f.
Mitchell 1976 = St. Mitchell, A new inscription from Pisidia: requisitioned transport in the Roman empire,
“Journal of Roman Studies”, 66, 1976, pp. 106-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/299783.
Rémy 1988 = B. Rémy, Les fastes sénatoriaux des provinces romaines d’Anatolie au Haut Empire
(31 av. J.C.–284 ap. J.C.), Paris, 1988.
Talloen und Waelkens 2004 = P. Talloen und M. Waelkens, Apollo and the emperors (I).
The material evidence for the Imperial cult at Sagalassos, “Ancient Society”, 34, 2004, pp. 171 ff.
Thomasson 2011 = B.E. Thomasson, Laterculi praesidum, Göteborg 2011.
Waelkens 2002 = M. Waelkens, Romanization in the East. A case study: Sagalassos and Pisidia
(SW Turkey), “Istanbuler Mitteilungen” 52, 2002, pp. 311 ff.
49
Two Decennia
of Faunal Analysis
at Sagalassos
Faunal analysis at Sagalassos began in 1991 with a two week research stay of the first
author, who during that excavation season analysed a few boxes of hand collected animal
bones that had been retrieved the previous year. Since then, more than 20 additional exca-
vation campaigns have taken place during which archaeozoologists were always part of
the team. In total, faunal specialists have been present on site during a total of about 250
weeks, and the amount of material grew spectacularly: it is now taking up the space of
almost two storage containers. In this contribution we will focus on the archaeozoological
studies carried out thus far at Sagalassos, their integration with other archaeological disci-
plines, and the methodological studies that were initiated as a result of the possibilities
offered by the wealth of suitable faunal material. Attention will be paid to the advantages
of working in an interdisciplinary environment, but also to the inherent challenges and
difficulties that are sometimes encountered.
General faunal studies and their archaeological integration

Just as with all the other material categories, the faunal remains need to be recorded as
the first part of the analysis of the material after it has been excavated. In the case of the
animal bones at Sagalassos it has always been a very time consuming task as a result of the
large find numbers: thus far more than a million remains (both hand and sieved collected)
have been analysed of which about one quarter was identifiable. Each excavation season
between 6 and 15 man-weeks have been spent on the technical task of identifying and
recording of faunal remains, on the organisation and supervision of the sieving proce-
dures, on the sorting process of the sieved residues, and on the packing and registration
of the enigmatic pieces and sieved bones. The enigmatic material consists of a relatively
small number of hand collected remains that cannot be adequately identified in the field
with the on-site comparative collection. The sieved material consists of smaller bones of
various small taxa (mainly small rodents, birds and fish) that cannot be identified because
there is no reference collection of modern skeletons available in the field, or elsewhere in
Turkey, to permit reliable identification. For several months after the excavation season
the identification work hence also continues in the home laboratory. In years with excep-
tionally rich organic layers, such as the floor levels from the Late Roman Urban Mansion
51
in 2001 and the cattle butchery dump inside the Odeon in 2005 and 2006, the identifica-
tions were hardly finished (and sometimes not) when the following excavation season
started. It is thus obvious that these large amounts of material can be both an advantage
and a disadvantage.
Over the years, the scientific research, including the faunal studies carried out at Sagal-
assos, received generous funding from various agencies. For the archaeozoology, the IAP
(Interuniversity Poles of Attraction, Belgian Science Policy Office), the GOA (Concerted
Research Actions of the KU Leuven) and the FWO (Research Foundation - Flanders) were
of major importance and allowed the employment of faunal specialists as well as financing
doctoral students. It is obvious that continued financing depends heavily on the scientific
output and that dealing with the initial phase of the research, i.e. the actual excavation and
technical treatment of the numerous finds, risks hampering the scientific exploitation and
publication of results. Difficulties are not only the large amounts of material, but also the
necessity to have context information at the disposal of the faunal specialists, in particular
on the dating of the studied assemblages. Chronological information is vital to put the
materials in perspective, but this can only happen when pottery, coinage and stratigraphic
data have been looked at in an integrated way.
In the ‘early days’ this was still quite manageable, allowing a first general archaeozoo-
logical study of the material excavated between 1991 and 1994. This doctoral study1 not
only described and interpreted the faunal remains excavated in the period mentioned, but
also provided a detailed compilation of contemporaneous faunas in Anatolia. As such this
work, which has also been published as a monograph,2 is still of use today when faunal
data of the concerned periods need to be put into context. Later on, archaeozoological
research and publication focussed on particular special find contexts or methodological
issues (see below) on the one hand and on the other hand an effort was made to integrate
the faunal data with other material categories and architectural data. Such joint studies
were carried out at the Lower Agora and the Urban Mansion where contextual analyses
combined architectural data with evidence from pottery, glass, metal objects, macrobot-
anical remains and fauna3. The animal remains and some of the other find categories such
as the pottery involved very large numbers of specimens. At Düzen Tepe an integrated
study was also carried out4. Besides stimulating this type of interdisciplinary work, the
Sagalassos project also provided an opportunity for developing methodological research
that was of relevance for other sites and regions.
Methodological studies
The cattle remains from Sagalassos show a relatively high frequency of pathologies on the
foot elements, mainly bony outgrowths on the phalanges and metapodials. Such defor-
mations are seen on many archaeological sites from the Neolithic onward, but they are
1 De Cupere 1998.

2 De Cupere 2001.

3 Putzeys 2007; Putzeys et al. 2008.

4 Vanhaverbeke et al. 2010; Vyncke 2013.

52
Two Decennia of Faunal Analysis at Sagalassos
particularly prevalent at many Roman Imperial sites, including Sagalassos. Although the
literature suggested that these pathologies are related to traction work by the animals, no
skeletons of modern draught cattle had ever been analysed from an osteomorphological
and pathological point of view. The high amount of pathological cattle bones at Sagal-
assos and the fact that funding was available triggered the setup of a methodological
study. The feet of 18 draught oxen of known age, weight and life history were collected
from slaughterhouses in Romania and shipped to Belgium for preparation and study.
The monograph published on this study5, as well as the first archaeological application
of the method6 are, according to Google Scholar Citations, in the top three of the most
cited publications of the present authors. It is in our opinion, thanks to the important
funds raised for the Sagalassos research, that topics such as this have been studied in
more depth than is usually possible in an interdisciplinary environment.
Another example where a continued scientific investment and financial effort was
made is in the study of the fish remains, and in particular the analysis of the provenance
of the species. Thanks to the systematic sieving of relevant contexts, a large quantity of
fish remains was recovered at Sagalassos. Three broad categories of fish were found,
namely Anatolian freshwater fish, Mediterranean species and exotic freshwater species.
The latter group contains two taxa that can be confidently considered as imports from
the Nile, namely the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and a bagrid catfish (Bagrus sp.). The
two other exotic taxa are tilapia (Tilapiini indet.) and clariid catfish (Clarias sp.). The
geographical distribution of these two taxa includes not only Africa, but also the Syro-
Palestinian area and southeast Anatolia. Since ceramological and written evidence show
that contacts existed with both North Africa and the Levant, these aspects do not help to
decide the provenance of the fish. A pilot study was therefore set up that attempted to
identify the provenance of the Clarias with the aid of ancient DNA.7 In a first instance,
tissue samples were analysed of modern catfish from various localities in North Africa,
the Levant and south-eastern Anatolia. It appeared that the mitochondrial DNA of
the modern populations allowed the definition of several haplotypes, each typical for
a particular region. In a next step it was tried to extract and amplify ancient DNA from
Clarias bones from Sagalassos. This was successful in 6 of the 16 examined samples.
Comparison of the genetic information of the archaeological bones and of the modern
tissues clearly showed that the fish found at Sagalassos came from the Egyptian Nile. The
numerically most abundant fish at Sagalassos are Anatolian freshwater fish, which in the
initial stages of the research were designated as ‘local freshwater fish’. Verification of the
literature showed, however, that the modern ichthyofauna of major parts of Anatolia
was still poorly documented and that it was therefore not possible to establish if the
fish found at Sagalassos may indeed have come from the local Ağlasun river, the Aksu
river, or even farther away. A collaboration was therefore set up with the Eğirdir Fish-
eries Faculty of Isparta University that aimed at exploring the Anatolian freshwater fish
through a series of four surveys carried out in late spring and summer. In total around
5 Bartosiewicz et al. 1997.

6 De Cupere et al. 2000.

7 Arndt et al. 2003.

53
200 localities were sampled between 1996 and 1999. This produced results that were of
relevance for the determination of the provenance of the Sagalassos fish,8 but in addition
pure ichthyological results were also obtained and equally published in collaboration
with the Turkish colleagues. These include first records of species9 as well as a revision
of a particular group of fish.10 Unlike some of the fish species that were identified at
Sagalassos and that have a restricted distribution (i.e. Pseudophoxinus handlirschii only
occurring in Lake Eğirdir) there are also taxa with a wide distribution within Anatolia.
The most frequent one is the wild carp (Cyprinus carpio) that lived in numerous lakes
and rivers. A palaeogenetic approach similar to the one used for the provenancing of
the catfish is not possible for carp because the wild form is virtually extinct and has been
replaced by domestic carp. As an alternative it was tried to use oxygen and strontium
isotopes from the pharyngeal teeth of the carp.11 Comparison of the oxygen values in
the archaeological teeth with those of modern carp and water samples from various
Anatolian lakes and rivers showed that the carp from Sagalassos originated from a lake,
but it was not possible to establish which one exactly. A similar procedure was used with
the strontium isotopes, but surprisingly, given the success in provenancing terrestrial
animals and man, the results were inconclusive as a result of the large variation in the
Sr-isotope ratios within modern fish from the same locality and even within the teeth of
a single tooth row of one individual. All the projects mentioned above involved substan-
tial fieldwork and sampling also beyond the territory of Sagalassos and this was only
possible thanks to the financial means and scientific freedom offered within the project.
The more than 20 years of excavation have produced large amounts of bones from
domestic fowl and it was striking that a high proportion of them contained medullary
bone, a kind of secondary bone that serves as a calcium reserve for egg shell production
during the laying season. Two methodological studies were carried out on these chicken
bones. The first one managed to establish that three types or ‘breeds’ of domestic fowl
existed by considering, unlike previous studies, only the female animals (with medullary
bone) and by applying mixture analysis to them combined with traditional osteometric
analyses.12 Another study considered the growth rings and the amount of medullary
bone in a series of 55 modern fowl with the aim of testing the hypothesis that the high
amount of chicken with medullary bone at Sagalassos (and also at Berenike, a site along
the Red Sea coast of Egypt) was a result of the slaughtering of older hens at the end of
the laying season, as prescribed by classical authors.13 This was, as with the draught oxen,
a study on modern specimens in order to better understand archaeological phenomena.
Another study carried out on Sagalassos material that is of wider relevance for the
archaeozoological community is the one on the prey remains of eagle owl (Bubo bubo) found
in the Roman baths.14 The composition of the discovered assemblages made it possible to
8 Van Neer et al. 2000; 2008.

9 Wildekamp et al. 1997; Van Neer et al. 1999.

10 Wildekamp et al. 1999.

11 Dufour et al. 2007.


13 Van Neer et al. 2002.


54
distinguish roosting from nesting sites for the first time in an archaeological context and
hence serve as a prime reference for deposits made by these large birds of prey.
Finally, it should be mentioned that within the Sagalassos project two doctoral studies
were carried out that dealt with husbandry practices. The one by Ingrid Beuls on sheep
and goat herding focussed heavily on the possibilities and shortcomings of methods such
as microwear analysis and the use of cementum lines for ageing and seasonality determina-
tion.15 This work involved intensive fieldwork to observe the feeding behaviour of modern
sheep and goat, and, in addition, skulls and skeletons were prepared of 75 animals that served,
and still serve, for comparative purposes. The doctoral thesis of Sofie Vanpoucke provided
a diachronic reconstruction of pig keeping and was based on the analysis of metrical data,
dental microwear and linear enamel hypoplasia.16 The diachronic approach was again only
possible thanks to the large amount of material that was available for each period.
Although intrasite comparisons are possible on a diachronic and spatial level, the
possibilities are somewhat limited when it comes to intersite comparisons for the simple
reason that there is hardly any other contemporaneous site where faunal remains have
been so systematically collected during excavation. For the domestic fauna, which can
be quite adequately collected by hand, some comparisons within Anatolia are possible
when it comes to the analysis of the faunal spectrum and thus the choices made in the
husbandry practices. Evaluating the role of, for example, fowling and fishing in the
subsistence is seriously hampered by the fact that thus far few other classical excavations
have carried out sieving of the excavated sediment.
The latest results and prospects for the future

The fortunate situation that the multiperiod site of Sagalossos yielded so much faunal
remains of excellent preservation makes it attractive for carrying out pilot projects in
close collaboration with colleagues from other disciplines working within the Center for
Archaeological Science (CAS) at the University of Leuven. As an example, the study on
the heavy metal pollution observed in the bones of domestic animals can be mentioned.
This study documented different provenances of the main domestic mammals (cattle, pig
and goat) through time that can be linked to socio-economic and political changes and
developments in the countryside.17 This type of approach had never been used before
and the first results were confirmed and even more detailed by an analysis of carbon
and nitrogen stable isotopes involving no less than 454 animals.18 Work is continuing
along these lines, now with sequential isotopic analysis of teeth of sheep, goat, cattle and
pig (Frémondeau et al. in preparation) that will allow the reconstruction of livestock
mobility and seasonality of husbandry practices. Plant remains are also being studied
isotopically in order to better understand the whole food web.19
15 Beuls 2004.

16 Vanpoucke 2008.

17 Vanhaverbeke et al. 2011.

18 Fuller et al. 2012.

19 Riehl et al., in preparation.

55
Thus far the stable isotope analysis of the human remains has dealt with carbon and
nitrogen of 49 individuals dated between the Classical-Hellenistic and Middle Byzantine
periods. Thanks to the continued excavations, especially in the eastern necropolis and, in
2013, in the area of the Eastern Suburbia Church, no less than 37 individuals are available
for analysis in the meantime. Of the new individuals that will be studied in the near future
not only carbon and nitrogen isotopes will be analysed, but also the sulphur isotopes, which
will allow better documentation of the aquatic component in the diet and which also has the
possibility of recognising immigrants from coastal areas. It will obviously be very challenging
to confront this type of information with the palaeogenetic data that are available20 or that
will be obtained from the newly excavated individuals. In addition, the traditional physical
anthropological analyses will continue to be carried out to establish age, sex and stature of the
individuals and to document their health condition through palaeopathological analysis. Of
course, information on the type and method of burial, and grave goods will also need to be
included in order to approach human identity and diet in an integrated way.
Besides the aforementioned palaeogenetic studies on the catfish and humans, other animal
species (pig and cat) found at Sagalassos are also being studied, taking advantage of the good
preservation of ancient DNA at the site. In both cases, it was the material of Sagalassos that was
first analysed, but each study has been gradually extended both chronologically and spatially in
order to address more globally the domestication history of these animals. The results of the
pig study document the human mediated spread of domestic pigs from Anatolia into Europe
during the Neolithic, and the subsequent reintroduction of domestic pigs from Europe into
Anatolia and the Near East during the Bronze Age, which eventually replaced the local domestic
pigs with a Near Eastern signature.21 This turnover is also evident in the region of Pisidia, where
domestic pigs from Sagalassos and Düzen Tepe were analysed, chronologically spanning the 5th
century BC to the 12th century AD and all showing a European maternal signature. Recently,
the cats from Sagalassos, but also from other Anatolian, Levantine, and North African sites, are
being studied with the aim of verifying whether one or more domestication events took place.22
It was, and still is, worth systematically retrieving the animal remains, both by hand-collecting
in the trench and by wet sieving. The materials that are stored in the storage containers at the
excavation house are a valuable ‘library’ that can be used in the future for additional ‘traditional’
analyses of a osteomorphometric, osteological or palaeopathological nature. They need also to
be taken care of in the future so that they can serve for more analyses of a technical nature such
as ancient DNA work, stable isotope studies, and possible new techniques such as geometric
morphometrics that may well gain importance in the future.
In the examples mentioned above, besides archaeologists, specialists are involved from
various disciplines such as archaeozoology, macrobotany, palaeogenetics, stable isotope
analysis and physical anthropology. All this expertise is presently available at the University
of Leuven and this can also be seen as a legacy of Marc Waelkens. It was thanks to his initia-
tive and efforts that the Center for Archaeological Sciences (CAS) was created in 2005. He
realised the potential of the wide variety of disciplines involved in the interdisciplinary work
20 Ottoni et al. 2011.

21 Ottoni et al. 2013.

22 Ottoni et al., in preparation.

56
at Sagalassos and promoted this type of approach to other archaeological sites excavated by
teams from the University of Leuven. Within this structure of CAS expertise grew and in
a next step, in 2010, the project was prolonged for seven years, this time, however, with
archaeological sites of the University of Leuven no longer being the focus but rather the
application of new and multiple methodologies to interesting assemblages. Again Sagalassos
triggered research that goes beyond the actual site itself. As for ourselves, it has always been
possible to find a good equilibrium between providing the relevant archaeozoological infor-
mation from find contexts the archaeologists were interested in and, on the other hand, to
exploit particular aspects of the faunal material from a methodological point of view. All this
has been very satisfying and we want to express our sincere gratitude to Marc for the possi-
bilities offered over the years and for the pleasant cooperation that we have enjoyed.
References
Arndt et al. 2003 = A. Arndt, W. Van Neer, B. Hellemans, J. Robben, F. Volckaert, M. Waelkens,
Roman trade relationships at Sagalassos (Turkey) elucidated from mtDNA of ancient fish remains, “Journal
of Archaeological Science”, 30, 2010, pp. 1095-1105.
Beuls 2004 = I. Beuls, Design of odontological tools to elucidate small ruminant herd management at Sagalassos
(SW-Turkey) in the Roman-Byzantine period (0-650 AD), Unpublished PhD, University of Leuven, 2004.
De Cupere 1998 = B. De Cupere, Archeozoölogische studie van Romeins – vroeg-Byzantijns materiaal van
Sagalassos (Zuidwest-Turkije), Unpublished PhD, University of Leuven, 1998.
De Cupere 2001 = B. De Cupere, Animals at Ancient Sagalassos. Evidence of the Faunal Remains,
(Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 4), Turnhout, 2001.
De Cupere et al. 2005 = B. De Cupere, W. Van Neer, H. Monchot, E. Rijmenants, M. Udrescu,
M. Waelkens, Ancient breeds of domestic fowl (Gallus gallus f. domestica) distinguished on the basis of traditional
observations combined with mixture analysis, “Journal of Archaeological Science”, 32, 2005, pp. 1587-1597.
De Cupere et al. 2009 = B. De Cupere, S. Thys, W. Van Neer, A. Ervynck, M. Corremans,
M. Waelkens, Eagle owl (Bubo bubo) pellets from Roman Sagalassos (SW Turkey): distinguishing the prey
remains from nest and roost sites, “International Journal of Osteoarchaeology”, 19, 2009, pp. 1-22.
Dufour et al. 2007 = E. Dufour, C. Holmden, W. Van Neer, A. Zazzo, W.P. Patterson, P. Degryse,
E. Keppens, Oxygen and strontium isotopes as provenance indicators of fish at archaeological sites: the case
study of Sagalassos, SW Turkey, “Journal of Archaeological Science”, 34, 2007, pp. 1226-1239.
Fuller et al. 2012 = B.T. Fuller, B. De Cupere, E. Marinova, W. Van Neer, M. Waelkens, M.P. Richards,
Isotopic reconstruction of diet and animal husbandry practices during the Classical-Hellenistic, Imperial and Byzan-
tine Periods at Sagalassos, Turkey, “American Journal of Physical Anthropology”, 149, 2012, pp. 157–171.
Ottoni et al. 2011 = C. Ottoni, F. Ricaut, N. Vanderheyden, N. Brucato, M. Waelkens, R. Decorte, Mito-
chondrial analysis of a Byzantine population reveals the differential impact of multiple historical events
in South Anatolia, “European Journal of Human Genetics”, 19, 2011, pp. 571-576.
Ottoni et al. 2013 = C. Ottoni, L. Flink, A. Evin, C. Geörg, B. De Cupere, W. Van Neer, L. Bartosie-
wicz, A. Linderholm, R. Barnett, J. Peters, R. Decorte, M. Waelkens, N. Vanderheyden, F. Ricaut,
A. Rus Hoelzel, M. Mashkour, A. Karimlu, S. Seno, J. Daujat, F. Brock, R. Pinhasi, H. Hongo,
M. Perez-Enciso, M. Rasmussen, L. Frantz, H. Megens, R. Crooijmans, M. Groenen, B. Arbuckle,
N. Benecke, U. Vidarsdottir, J. Burger, T. Cucchi, K. Dobney, G. Larson, Pig domestication and
human-mediated dispersal in Western Eurasia revealed through ancient DNA and geometric
morphometrics, “Molecular Biology and Evolution”, 30, 2013, pp. 824-832 .
57
Putzeys 2007 = T. Putzeys, Contextual analysis at Sagalassos: developing a methodology for classical
archaeology, Unpublished PhD, University of Leuven, 2007.
Putzeys et al. 2008 = T. Putzeys, M. Waelkens, J. Poblome, W. Van Neer, B. De Cupere, T. Van
Thuyne, N. Kellens, P. Bes, Shops and retail in late Antiquity: a contextual approach to the material
evidence from Sagalassos, in H. Vanhaverbeke, J. Problome, F. Vermeulen, M. Waelkens, R. Brulet,
eds., Thinking about Space: the Potential of Surface Survey and Contextual Analysis in the Definition of Space
in Roman Times (Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 8), Turnhout, 2008, pp. 161-217.
Vanhaverbeke et al. 2010 = H. Vanhaverbeke, M. Waelkens, K. Vyncke, V. De Laet, S. Aydal,
B. Mušič, B. De Cupere, J. Poblome, D. Braekmans, P. Degryse, E. Marinova, G. Verstraeten,
W. Van Neer, B. Šlapšak, I. Medarič, H. Ekinci, M. Erbay, ‘Pisidian’ culture? The Classical-Hellenistic site
at Düzen Tepe near Sagalassus (southwest Turkey), “Anatolian Studies”, 60, 2010, pp. 105-128.
Vanhaverbeke et al. 2011 = H. Vanhaverbeke, P. Degryse, B. De Cupere, W. Van Neer,
M. Waelkens, P. Muchez, Urban-rural integration at ancient Sagalassos (SW Turkey). Archaeological,
archaeozoological and geochemical evidence, “Archaeofauna”, 20, 2011, pp. 73-83.
Van Neer et al. 1999 = W. Van Neer, R.H. Wildekamp, F. Küçük, M. Ünlüsayın, First inland records of
the euryhaline goby Knipowitschia caucasica from lakes in Anatolia, Turkey, “Journal of Fish Biology”, 54,
1999, pp. 1334-1337.
Van Neer et al. 2000 = W. Van Neer, R.H. Wildekamp, F. Küçük, M. Ünlüsayın, M. Waelkens,
E. Paulissen, Results of the 1996 survey of the fish fauna of the Aksu river and some lakes in southwestern
Anatolia, and the implications for trade at Sagalassos, in M. Waelkens, L. Loots, eds., Sagalassos V. Report
on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997, Leuven, 2000, pp. 828-842.
Van Neer et al. 2002 = W. Van Neer, K. Noyen, B. De Cupere, I. Beuls, On the use of endosteal layers
and medullary bone from domestic fowl in archaeozoological studies, “Journal of Archaeological Science”, 29,
2002, pp. 123-134.
Van Neer et al. 2008 = W. Van Neer, R.H. Wildekamp, F. Küçük, M. Ünlüsayın, The 1997-1999
surveys of the Anatolian fish fauna and their relevance to the interpretation of trade at Sagalassos,
in P. Degryse, M. Waelkens, eds., Sagalassos VI. Geo- and Bio-Archaeology at Sagalassos and
in its Territory, Leuven, 2008, pp. 299-323.
Vanpoucke 2008 = S. Vanpoucke, Varkensbeheer in het Romeinse en vroeg-Byzantijnse Sagalassos (Turkije):
een archeozoölogische benadering, Unpublished PhD, University of Leuven, 2008.
Vyncke 2013 = K. Vyncke, Düzen Tepe: the potential of contextual analysis and functional space analysis
by means of an interdisciplinary archaeological and archaeometric research at a Classical/Hellenistic site,
Unpublished PhD, University of Leuven, 2013.
Wildekamp et al. 1997 = R.H. Wildekamp, W. Van Neer, F. Küçük, M. Ünlüsayın, First record of the
eastern Asiatic gobionid fish Pseudorasbora parva from the Asiatic part of Turkey, “Journal of Fish Biology”,
51, 1997, pp. 858-861.
Wildekamp et al. 1999 = R.H. Wildekamp, F. Küçük, M. Ünlüsayın, W. Van Neer, The genus Aphanius
Nardo 1827 (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae) in Turkey, “Turkish Journal of Zoology”, 23, 1999, pp. 23-44.
58
Holistic Archaeology
and Archaeological Science
at Sagalassos: Contributions
to a Discipline
Patrick Degryse
Introduction
Within the framework of the excavations and surveys in and around the ancient city of
Sagalassos (SW Turkey) and its 1,200 km² large territory, much geo- and bioarchaeo-
logical or archaeometrical research has been performed. This work has been carried out
since 1986 and is still ongoing, and the endeavour can best be placed under the denomi-
nator of the ‘archaeological sciences’, though the terms ‘interdisciplinary archaeology’ or
‘holistic archaeology’ have been used too to refer to this type of research.
‘Holistic archaeology’ has been defined as an inclusive approach to archaeology,
comprising all aspects of human societies, from ecology and economy, to social organiza-
tion and politics, to art and ideology.1 It encompasses several sources, including ethnog-
raphy and history, and has contextual archaeology as a clear methodology. In the context
of the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project (SARP), the term has particularly been
used to refer to the integration in archaeology of the work and results of ‘exact’ or beta
scientists2, and less so to the work of ethnoarchaeologists, anthropologists or humanistic
scholars (although these scholars are active at Sagalassos).
Consequently, the work performed by the many scientific disciplines and scientists
active within SARP, often called the ‘auxiliary’ or ‘support’ disciplines (hulpwetenschappen
in Dutch), is an excellent case to look into the cross fertilization of the sciences and
humanities, and the remarkable results achieved by such cooperation. The relevance
of this interaction and its contribution to the field of archaeology (or anthropology,
in North American terms) cannot be underestimated. However, the semantics used to
describe the work of all these disciplines, and their place within archaeology or anthro-
pology as a whole, is also indicative of possible pitfalls in the cooperative research
performed in this interdisciplinary science par excellence.
1 Renfrew and Bahn 2005, pp. 106-108.

2 Referred to henceforth as ‘scientist’, in no way implying that archaeology or archaeologists are

not scientific by method or approach.
59
Patrick Degryse
History of the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project

Within the ‘Pisidia Project’ of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (initi-
ated in 1982, under the direction of Stephen Mitchell), from 1985 onwards the city of
Sagalassos underwent a survey described as a ‘city-oriented architectural study, rather
than regional exploration‘.3 This work was supervised by Marc Waelkens, and had a
major focus on architectural survey and recording new inscriptions.4 The discovery of a
Potters’ Quarter in 1987 identified Sagalassos as a major pottery producing centre. Still
under the umbrella of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, a rescue excavation
was carried out in 1989, in collaboration with and under the supervision of the Burdur
Museum.5 The year after, activities in the Potters’ Quarter resumed as a collaborative
effort between the team of the University of Leuven and the Burdur Museum, pending
the decision of the Turkish government to grant a full scale excavation permit. This
was eventually issued to Marc Waelkens on August the 24th 1990.6 Sagalassos became
a Belgian enterprise, but always involved many nationalities, representing various
disciplines. Chronologically, interdisciplinary research at Sagalassos has been divided
into four periods by Marc Waelkens.7 Each period has been described as delineating an
important step forward towards a ‘holistic archaeology’ at Sagalassos.
In the years 1989-1992, with the conviction of Marc Waelkens that only an interdis-
ciplinary approach (studying all artefacts and ecofacts) could provide complete archaeo-
logical and historical evidence, a geologist, topographer, physical anthropologist, epig-
rapher and engineer-conservator joined the very first archaeological field teams. This
team was enlarged with geomorphologists and archaeolozoologists, and by the end of
this period the scientific team had expanded to some 40 scientists from several countries.
The research focus of archaeological science at that time was mainly on clay and stone
as a locally obtained raw material, on the physical environment of the site in terms of
hydrology, vegetation and erosion, and on the study of flora and fauna obtained from all
excavation contexts.
During the years 1993-1998, the number of research topics and disciplines expanded.
Prehistory research and palynology were introduced at Sagalassos, and the geomorpho-
logical research directed itself more and more towards environmental reconstruction
and climate. Geological research in the area expanded into a full study of all the inor-
ganic raw materials present in the territory of the city. Further environmental approaches
were incorporated into the research portfolio, involving engineers studying ancient and
modern land use, irrigation and forest engineering, and biologists making an inventory
of the current vegetation. This period also witnessed the start of ancient DNA analysis
on skeletal material from Sagalassos, studying family relationships in and between burials
and establishing genetic characteristics and connections of the city’s ancient population.
The year 1993 was not only important because of the expansion of archaeological science
3 Alcock 1994, p. 181.

4 Waelkens 2009, p. 1.



7 Waelkens 2009, p. 2.

60
Holistic Archaeology and Archaeological Science at Sagalassos
at Sagalassos. Also from that year onwards, the Turkish Antiquities Department required
all excavations to make an inventory of the cultural heritage in the region around their
sites. This meant that for the whole of the Sagalassos territory, a systematic survey started,
investigating topographical maps, travel and epigraphical records, physically surveying
and describing new sites, and interviewing local people, who were asked to point out aban-
doned structures, concentrations of sherds, etc.8
The years 1999-2003 provided a new boost to the reconstruction of the ancient
settlement pattern in the territory, and to the study of the urban fabric of Sagalassos
proper. ‘State-of-the-art’ surveying approaches were newly applied, and more and more
geophysical research was incorporated in reconstructing the urban area of Sagalassos, and
beyond. Street patterns, buildings, public monuments and workshops with kilns were
revealed without intrusion of the subsoil, but consequent excavations always confirmed
the results and predictions of the geophysical research. During the same years, residue
analysis allowed the identification of lipids in ancient ceramics, and the biomolecular
research within SARP expanded, while all aforementioned scientific research continued.
The years 2004 until present saw the further incorporation of newly developed and
even custom-made scientific techniques in archaeological research at Sagalassos. Remote
sensing and predictive/quantitative modelling adopted from geomorphology allowed
looking at the territory at large. Newly developed techniques in medical imaging and
biomolecular research (including the use of CT analysis, new DNA techniques, biomo-
lecular and residue analysis and C-N-O stable isotopic research) have given ways to look
at people and their health, diet, genetics… thousands of years in the past. Developments
in chemical techniques and using isotopic systems not looked into before, have given
new approaches to provenancing inorganic and organic archaeological materials.
Managing archaeological acience (and scientists)

At the start of research at Sagalassos, several approaches and sciences were used to answer
particular questions on particular materials or objects from the excavations and surveys
or the physical environment. Archaeological science within SARP then evolved to
answering more and more questions on humans in their natural environment, on effects
of climate and landscape on the people in it (and vice versa), and on the exploitation of the
Sagalassos territory as a whole. An all-encompassing approach was followed, where scien-
tific methods were applied to every possible (archaeological) topic studied. In the last few
years of archaeological science within SARP, more and more effort has gone into generic
method development - often driven by questions asked by the archaeologists within the
Sagalassos context, and initiated on the well-known and best contextualized materials
from the Sagalassos excavations and territorial surveys.
An example close to the author is the development of isotopic techniques to provenance
the flux and silica raw materials (by B and Sr-Nd isotopes) and opacifying and colouring
agents (by Sb and Cu isotopes) used in ancient glass production. These isotopic methods
and systems were already known and used in the geosciences, but were adjusted to fit
8 Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003.

61
Patrick Degryse
archaeological research questions on the history of glass making and trade, and on the
origin of pyrotechnical materials. This research line stemmed from the question whether
local glass making or shaping was performed at Sagalassos, and from the use of a standard
technique such as Pb isotope analysis to look at local metallurgical practices (lead recy-
cling and iron smelting). It was immediately clear that chemical analysis of glass at Sagal-
assos could not be significant outside the context of the then just developing division of
production theories on Roman glass making.9 Soon, SARP participated in this research,
and method development to be able to trace the primary origin of Roman glass was a
main research focus.10 This led to further research on the link between the origins of early
metallurgy (using e.g. Sb isotopes11) and the first known glass making in Egypt and Meso-
potamia12, and even initiated the new book series ‘Studies in Archaeological Sciences’ of
Leuven University Press.13
This path seems an almost natural way for the exact scientific research within SARP to
evolve throughout the project years. Having looked at more and more particular aspects
of the site and its territory, research was up scaled to greater questions on humans in their
environment, and eventually taken outside the Sagalassos territory to greater research
questions or method development, always in concurrence with archaeologists. To manage
this path, however, has not been evident, and question is whether this approach is afford-
able or desirable in general within archaeology.
Publication
“Publish or perish” is a well- known paradigm in academia. More and more (just) calls
are made for slow science and a more qualitative rather than quantitative approach to
publication. The fact remains that research money is obtained and careers are made by
publishing, this with the highest possible ‘impact’. Both quantity and quality of publi-
cations have been and are interpreted in very different ways in the humanities and the
sciences in Europe, and in an even different way in the Americas. While publications can
be counted in absolute numbers, essential is the definition of which publications are worth
the count. The esteem of books and monographs as compared to articles in international
peer-reviewed journals, is different in archaeology compared to geology or medicine.
While the approach of academic governors to publishing in different media has maybe
become more tolerant, as a rule of thumb one can still say that books and monographs are
valued more in the humanities (US & Europe) in general and archaeology in particular,
while in the exact and biomedical sciences papers in journals with high impact factors
are the real top publications. Books are often considered too much of a time investment
to obtain value for money in the sciences. Moreover, absolute impact in the sciences is
often counted by impact factors of journals and citations of papers, while anthropology
9 Freestone et al. 2000; 2002.

10 Degryse et al. 2008.

11 Lobo et al. 2012.

12 Degryse et al. 2010.

13 Degryse et al. 2009; Shortland 2012; Shugar and Mass 2013.

62
and archaeology have often adopted a more personal approach to peer review of publica-
tions, particularly including books, and curricula. It is clear that neither approach is all
encompassing nor does it provide a full and objective view of the capacity of a young (or
more experienced) researcher. While this debate is out of scope for this paper, it is clear
that the differences described put an interdisciplinary archaeological research project such
as the Sagalassos Project, for important choices in publication strategy. There are quite
some disadvantages for scientists working in archaeology, or archaeologists working with
scientists, in terms of a standard assessment of the impact of their work.
Publishing the development of a new analytical approach of high relevance to archae-
ology in an archaeological journal, might prove its value for the archaeological research
field, but will receive a lower impact factor (if any), and hence on average a lower number
of countable citations. Publishing the same in an engineering or biomedical journal, will
not reach the archaeological community (and likely will not be cited much by any of the
research communities). Moreover, while multi-authored papers are common in sciences,
they are not as much in the humanities, and are often valued less there. Likewise, while
publishing a monograph may be essential for the career of an archaeologist, writing such
book takes much time and does not acknowledge as much the work and results of a whole
interdisciplinary effort. A monograph is also seldom multi-authored.
Thus, the publication strategy followed by an interdisciplinary project has an imme-
diate effect on the career development of young researchers. Additionally, for an academic
government, assessing value-for-money of such project is more difficult, and this may
significantly affect the success rate of the project at obtaining research funds. The Sagalassos
Project has been extremely successful at both. In principle, all collaborators on a particular
piece of work are mentioned as authors. Archaeological scientific research in terms of
method and technique is often published with a scientist as lead author, in a (high impact)
journal from the sciences. Simultaneously, the work in its broader context is published in
an archaeological journal, often with an archaeologist as lead author, to explain the impact
for history and the archaeological record. Many doctoral studies resulting from SARP, in
sciences but mainly in archaeology, have been published as monographs. The progress of
the excavations and the proceedings of many meetings organized under the project flag,
have been published as edited volumes. This has led to an impressive publication record,
despite the work load involved.
Caution is needed, however, to maintain the balance between publications led by
archaeologists versus those written by scientists. This is essential in keeping research
efforts advantageous for all involved, and hence needs and will need continuous attention.
Moreover, such approach inevitably requires the appropriate number of staff (i.e. funds)
for all partners to be able to handle this multi-media multi-discipline publication strategy.
Funding
Competition for funds is omnipresent in scientific research, not only between institutions
and laboratories, but also between disciplines. All are often applying to the same funding
bodies, which have limited means. Even between colleagues within an interdisciplinary
project, applying for funds and distributing them to the greatest effect, can be a challenge.
63
Patrick Degryse
From the start of this research in the late eighties, funds for archaeological science
within the Sagalassos Project were obtained through specific project applications, where
exact scientists and archaeologists worked together from the planning and writing stages
of the project, until the final publication of its results. This practice is ongoing, and has
proven the best guarantee for joint research interests, leading to results.
However, much of the (technical) staff in this research, and almost all of the specialized
(read: expensive) laboratory equipment, has been made available through the goodwill
of many departments at University of Leuven. Only by teaming up with several research
units, most of them with main research activities outside archaeology, and sometimes by
linking laboratories over several universities, could heavy research equipment be funded
and maintained, and thus be made available to archaeology. The example of the use of
radiogenic isotopes in archaeological science at the University of Leuven, where the facili-
ties and staff are shared between three Flemish universities over several departments in
Earth Sciences, Chemistry, Biology and Medicine, is telling. Only in this way, a radiogenic
isotope lab performing full-time in archaeology can be kept.
Two major steps that made the holistic approach to archaeology at Sagalassos more
durable were the creation of the ‘Centre for Geo- and Bio-Archaeological Sciences and
Archaeological Image Processing’ in 2003, and the consequent ‘centre of excellence’ under
the name of ‘Centre for Archaeological Sciences’ (CAS) in 2005. The funds within this
set-up have been used exclusively to pay for scientific staff performing graduate and post-
graduate research in the archaeological sciences. The publication record of SARP and the
vision of Marc Waelkens have undoubtedly been critical for creating CAS. Currently, the
centre continues to be active in many fields of archaeological science, managing several
own research projects throughout the world, not exclusive to SARP. It should be stressed,
however, that little permanent staff is active within CAS (or SARP). Its structure depends
very much on university or external project funding, a continuing challenge for the future.
Students
Educating students is still a principal aim of universities. The approach to teaching
science in archaeology (or anthropology) programs around the world, if at all in the
teaching schedule, is usually that of a (limited) number of introductory courses on
absolute dating and environmental reconstruction (both in terms of fauna and flora,
next to landscape and climate). Some programs offer a module where more archaeo-
logical science can be taken up, but usually only as elective courses. Very little specific
programs in archaeological science exist, mainly at UK based universities. There, several
models for training archaeological scientists exist. One model is to take in many fee-
paying masters students, often with little prior knowledge of science, and teach them
specific scientific skills. This may then lead to (and fund) a smaller and more rigorous
PhD program. Another approach is to train only few students, almost always with a
background in science, and keep them in a trajectory leading to a PhD. Funding such a
program is more difficult. Overall, the influx of students in archaeological science seems
to be from the sciences, rather than from archaeology programs. Most senior academics
currently active in archaeological science, have received formal training in a science
64
program rather than having a degree in archaeology. In the years to come, it will be
interesting to observe whether graduates from specific archaeological science programs
will come to lead laboratories and teaching programs in this field.
Contrary to what could be termed a ‘CSI’ hype, where entire teaching programs in
forensic sciences (including forensic archaeology) have profited from the success of tele-
vision series about crime scene investigators, the success of science in answering larger
research questions in archaeology, anthropology and human evolution does not seem to
have sparked an increase in number of students, or in specific teaching programs. It may
even be that in some fields of archaeological science, it will become difficult to maintain a
critical mass of academics involved in archaeological research. Where editors, publishers,
project leaders and funding bodies are looking for cutting-edge research and newer and
bigger techniques and machines in a quest for scoops and top publications, some tech-
niques that are absolutely essential but deemed routine and unexciting are under pressure.
Examples such as simple ceramic petrography or pollen analysis and carpology spring to
mind. In this way, it becomes increasingly difficult to fund and perform such tasks which
are quintessential in e.g. material studies or environmental reconstruction, then to be able
to continue to more ‘frontier research’. The fact that the global crime rate should multiply
significantly to offer all forensic scientists a job in the field, has not had an effect on student
numbers in forensic science programs. There conversely may be an immediate danger that
a lack of students/researchers active in certain fields of archaeological science, may lead to
the disappearance of specific skills.
It is true one cannot teach all sciences in an archaeology program, despite that many
of them are useful for the archaeologist. But something may be said for the fact that a
broad training and education can increase job chances and opportunities for archaeology
graduates. A module in archaeology programs with more science skills and practical work
could therefore be advisable. Archaeological scientists should generally be employed in
archaeology departments, to teach science in archaeology, and to lead interdisciplinary
research efforts there.
Most of the senior academics participating in the Centre for Archaeological Science
teach scientific courses in the archaeology program at University of Leuven (and else-
where). This is done both on the bachelors and masters level. All supervise graduate (both
master and doctoral) research in archaeological sciences, in several domains.14 Postdoctoral
researchers within CAS are likewise involved in teaching graduate students. For many of
these researchers, this is their first teaching experience. Under the help and guidance of
their peers, this becomes an easier task. Several of the CAS postdocs have in the mean-
while taken up permanent posts in several research and education institutes outside the
University of Leuven, and outside Belgium. Teaching experience and skills have always
proven an asset in their applications. Science teaching, and involvement of the researchers
active at Sagalassos, has been promoted by Marc Waelkens from the very start of archaeo-
logical science at Sagalassos.
14 It should be stated here that in the Flemish university system, staff allocation and funding are only partly

dependent of or at least buffered from absolute student numbers.
65
Patrick Degryse
The future of interdisciplinarity

Is archaeological science a discipline in its own right? It certainly has its own journals, and
is mentioned in the list of research disciplines of several funding bodies in Europe, such as
the European Research Council and the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). However,
not many separate research laboratories for archaeological science exist in the world, and
most of these, if not all, are teamed up with major archaeological research projects or
archaeology/anthropology departments. Much research is performed within the frame-
work of other departments or research structures, often in the geosciences, biosciences or
medicine. While the field has grown and matured in Europe, it is much more dispersed in
the Americas. In the opinion of the author, archaeological sciences should never be sepa-
rated from archaeology. The key issue in archaeological science is still the reconstruction
of human behaviour in the environment in the past, and is at the very heart of archae-
ology. Research has to be articulated from questions about human behaviour, and should
avoid the path of ‘analysis for the sake of it’.
The course of research associations on specific archaeological material categories, such
as the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones In Antiquity (ASMOSIA)15 or
the Association Internationale de l’Histoire de Verre (AIHV)16, both of which the author
is a member, can be put forward as interesting cases in this matter. Both these associations
have the aim of uniting archaeology and archaeometry in the study of their respective
material category, and principal goals are to enhance communication between archae-
ologists, art historians, conservators and scientists, and to encourage interdisciplinary
research efforts to better understand ancient man’s use of the material. Conferences and
publications of both ASMOSIA and AIHV have been well received for many years by the
art historical, archaeological and scientific communities. However, at every conference,
attendance to ‘the other side’s’ lectures is rather limited. Also, the relevance to the broader
picture of ancient man’s use of the material is often questioned both for the more archaeo-
logical as well as the more scientific talks or publications. Is an intense collaboration and
good communication between archaeologists and archaeometrists then more exception
than rule in the study of stone and glass? Or could it be that the isolation of one particular
material category for research, conferences and publications is not advantageous for inter-
disciplinary research efforts? Because of the detailed interest and expertise in one aspect of
the past, maybe focus on the overall questions on human behaviour is more easily lost. It
certainly takes much effort to understand the significance of all sides of holistic research.
Conversely, certainly for (the analysis of) individual material categories, relevant larger
archaeological research questions can be formulated.
Much scientific analysis on stone or glass is interpreted by using known databases and
typically plotting data in existing diagrams from literature, usually to indicate provenance
of the material in question. However, the databases used and the literature referred to, are
seldom taken further or questioned. It seems very little interdisciplinary or holistic work
15 Founded in 1988 at a NATO Advanced Research Workshop “Marble in Ancient Greece and Rome: Geol-

ogy, Quarries, Commerce, Artifacts”, organized by Marc Waelkens and the late Norman Herz.
16 These associations are merely used as examples, from the personal experience of the author. Many others

have experienced similar debates.
66
is currently being done on e.g. the social context of stone extraction or the discovery of
unknown ancient quarries. Surely, not all quarries, mines or ore fields have been discov-
ered. Undoubtedly, much work remains to be done on the primary or secondary prov-
enance of (raw) materials, their origin, invention and spread or trade, and the origin of
technologies and industries. This makes the combined archaeological and archaeometrical
study of materials all the more relevant, and necessary.
The description of an archaeometrist as ‘an accomplished scientist with a hazy knowl-
edge of archaeology’ exists.17 It is suggested archaeologists should understand the physical
sciences to suggest methods to this collaborator and should question ‘scientific methods
that yield results with high precision but low accuracy’. The archaeometrist, on the other
hand, should always ‘strive to keep the archaeologist honest’.18 This description of the
nature of and relation between archaeologists and scientists seems somewhat harsh to
this author. It reflects a view on archaeology as mere storytelling, and on any science as
a discipline of generating numbers in support to come to ‘real’ results on human behav-
iour. This is not a good definition of interdisciplinarity, and ignores the idea of scholars
trained in both aspects of research, such as the new generation of researchers educated in
archaeological science but with a thorough knowledge of archaeology and the humanities.
The definition of archaeological science as a separate discipline would not be benefi-
cial for the amount of funding or graduate students coming into this field. Competition
already exists with research funds for archaeology sensu strictu, and with such fields as art
history, history and/or anthropology. At this time, funding for research in the humani-
ties is not expected to increase. Most funding and governing bodies like to steer research
towards defined topics such as Big Science or socio-economically relevant research, putting
pressure on free or fundamental research. Even in cultural heritage programs, preferred
themes such as the development of conservation materials and economic valorisation of
heritage are defined. Separating archaeological science, with its (expensive) need for labo-
ratories and technical staff, from archaeology and anthropology, could endanger a critical
mass of research units performing this type of research as a major research activity. This
is, however, not a plea for the establishing of a few large research units with all-encom-
passing views on and means for archaeological science. Rather consortia of research labo-
ratories, fully or partially involved in only certain aspects of archaeological science, may be
a better answer to issues of critical mass and funding.
Conversely, as the particular expertise of archaeological scientists is (hopefully) recog-
nized within the archaeological community, funding archaeological science as such,
supporting fundamental research in this field, should be an open option for funding bodies
in cultural heritage, the humanities and/or archaeology. It is all too easy to discard scien-
tific research in archaeology as a matter of ‘another’ selection committee or funding body,
bouncing archaeological sciences between the hard sciences and the humanities.
Archaeological science need not be a discipline by itself, though it will need to keep
shaping and highlighting its identity within archaeology. With a specific research profile
and recognition of its particular expertise, using a dual strategy in output and by keeping
17 www.asmosia.org

18 www.asmosia.org

67
Patrick Degryse
a high visibility within the humanities, archaeological science can obtain the funds and
keep the necessary infrastructure for its continuity. This has been the view of CAS from
the beginning. Project development has involved all disciplines from the conceptual
and writing phase onward. Archaeologists and scientists have always gone in the field
together, excavating, performing surveys and collecting materials for analysis. Often,
scientific discussion already started there, and continued until the final publication stages.
Conclusion
Essential in teaching and applying archaeological science will not be to approach this/these
discipline(s) as Big Science with more and bigger machines, but instead with bigger (and
better) research questions relevant to humans and society. A task lies ahead for new gradu-
ates, who have come into the field with the full realization of the expanding possibilities
of science, and the concept that archaeology has societal relevance outside tourism. The
interest in societal collapse, drought and disease, war and politics has never been greater,
and is omnipresent in popular culture (from Jared Diamond’s books to television series
such as BBC’s Rome). All of the aforementioned themes are relevant topics in archae-
ology, to be investigated with/as an interdisciplinary science. They prove the inseparable
connection of archaeology to human society, and the impact archaeology and archaeo-
logical science can have. The principle of free research, however, without the necessity of
an immediate economic effect, is essential for this development. Also, employing archae-
ological scientists in archaeology departments is a necessary next step, beneficial for all
parties involved. Even from fundamental archaeological research, new developments in
analytical and interpretative techniques have sprung, with more and more wide applica-
tions (forensics, chemistry, medicine…) and undoubted socio-economic impact.
As site-based projects tend to narrow their research vision, only rarely can big research
questions in archaeology be approached from the context of one site. However, such projects
can raise the necessary funds to allow an all-encompassing approach, studying all topics with
scientific methods where applicable. Extremely comprehensive research is done in this way,
but to be taken as a general standard for future excavation, the cost of this approach may be
very (too) high. In the case of SARP, this approach has led to significant developments in
archaeological scientific methods and techniques, applicable anywhere. Such generic research
could have been done outside the focus of a one-site project, but raising funds for it would
have been difficult. No separate funding for archaeological science exists, and this necessi-
tates profiling and advertising the usefulness of this domain to selection committees within
funding bodies in archaeology. Formulating scientific research to answer bigger questions
in archaeology can help. Making clusters of instruments and networks of laboratories will
make science in archaeology less vulnerable to failure of one group or lab to obtain sufficient
funding. Still, basic funding for free, fundamental research in archaeological science remains
necessary, and funding bodies in archaeology need to be aware of this.
Marc Waelkens expressed the hope ‘that in a near future real interdisciplinary collabo-
ration will become a widespread characteristic feature of classical archaeology’. He has
certainly nurtured a model for it.
68
Acknowledgements
Professor David Killick is greatly acknowledged for help with and discussion on earlier
versions of this manuscript. The author greatly acknowledges the support and friend-
ship of (in order of appearance) Willy Viaene, Philippe Muchez, Marc Waelkens, Etienne
Paulissen, Wim Van Neer, Gert Verstraeten, all his students and anyone who participated
in the interdisciplinary study of Sagalassos and its the territory from the beginning of time.
References
Alcock 1994 = S. Alcock, Breaking up the Hellenistic world: survey and society, in I. Morris, ed., Classical
Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 171-190.
Degryse et al. 2009 = P. Degryse, J. Henderson, G. Hodgins, eds., Isotopes in Vitreous Materials
(Studies in Archaeological Sciences 1), Leuven, 2009.
Degryse et al. 2010 = P. Degryse, A. Boyce, N. Erb-Satullo, K. Eremin, S. Kirk, B. Scott, A. Shortland,
J. Schneider, M. Walton, Isotopic discriminants between Late Bronze Age glasses from Egypt and
the Near East, “Archaeometry”, 52 (3), 2010, pp. 380-388.
Degryse and Schneider 2008 = P. Degryse, J. Schneider, Pliny the Elder and Sr-Nd isotopes: tracing the
provenance of raw materials for Roman glass production, “Journal of Archaeological Science”, 35 (7), 2008,
pp. 1993-2000.
Freestone et al. 2000 = I.C. Freestone, Y. Gorin-Rosen, M.J. Hughes, Primary glass from Israel and the
production of glass in Late Antiquity and the Early Islamic period, in M.D. Nenna, ed., La route du verre.
Ateliers primaires et secondaires du second millénaire avant J.C. au Moyen Age (Travaux de la Maison de
l’Orient Méditerranéen 33), Lyon, 2000, pp. 65-82.
Freestone et al. 2002 = I.C. Freestone, R. Greenwood, M. Thirlwall, Byzantine and Early Islamic Glass-
making in the Eastern Mediterranean: production and Distribution of Primary Glass, in G. Kordas, ed.,
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Hyalos-Vitrum-Glass. History, Technology and Restoration
of Glass in the Hellenic World, Athens, 2002, pp. 167-174.
Lobo et al. 2012 = L. Lobo, V. Devulder, P. Degryse, F. Vanhaecke, Investigation of natural isotopic vari-
ation of Sb in stibnite ores via multi-collector ICP-mass spectrometry – perspectives for Sb isotopic analysis of
Roman glass, “Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry”, 27 (8), 2012, pp. 1304-1310.
Shortland 2012 = A.J. Shortland, Lapis Lazuli from the Kiln: Glass and Glassmaking in the Late Bronze Age
(Studies in Archaeological Science 2), Leuven, 2012.
Renfrew and Bahn 2005 = C. Renfrew, P. Bahn, Archaeology The Key Concepts, London, 2005.
Shugar and Mass 2013 = A. Shugar, J. Mass, Handheld XRF for Art and Archaeology (Studies in Archaeo-
logical Sciences 3), Leuven, 2013.
Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003 = H. Vanhaverbeke, M. Waelkens, The Chora of Sagalassos: the Evolu-
tion of the Settlement Pattern from Prehistoric until Recent Times (Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archae-
ology 5), Turnhout, 2003.
Waelkens et al. 1990 = M. Waelkens, S. Baser, W. Viaene, Sagalassos 1989. The rescue excavation in the
potters’ quarter and the Sagalassos ware, “Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia”, 1990, 28-29, pp. 75 – 98.
Waelkens et al. 1991 = M. Waelkens, A. Harmankaya, W. Viaene, The Excavations at Sagalassos 1990,
“Anatolian Studies”, 41, 1991, pp. 197-213.
Waelkens 2009 = M. Waelkens, Geo- and Bio-archaeology at Sagalassos and in its territory, in
P. Degryse, M. Waelkens, eds., Sagalassos VI, Leuven, 2009, pp. 1-13.
69
The Relation between
Archaeology and Geography
in Studying Past Human-
environment Interactions:
Is Interdisciplinary
Geoarchaeology the Answer?
Gert Verstraeten
Prologue
July, 1995. It is nearly two hours since we left Antalya in a chartered bus. Most of the drive
is through a narrow valley with steep, forested limestone slopes. Then the valley opens
and we enter the small rural village of Ağlasun. The bus finds its way through a maze of
small, unpaved streets winding between old houses. We pass a tea house where at least
seven local men are sitting side by side, nipping from their tea cup, and staring at us. A few
minutes later the bus stops in front of a large white house, near the edge of the village. We
finally arrived at our destination. ‘We’, that is a group of young, and some older, students
and scientists with a variable background: geographers, geologists, biologists, architects,
archaeologists, .... And the white house is the Sagalassos excavation house as is clearly
indicated by the metal plate attached to the gate. Moments later we are warmly welcomed
by Marc Waelkens in his team. Now we are really part of the interdisciplinary Sagalassos
Archaeological Research Project.
At the time, I was an undergraduate Geography student who came to Sagalassos to
collect field data for a thesis. It was my first time to work in such an environment where
people from various disciplines worked and lived together. I made my thesis on the topic
of giant landslides that occurred well before human occupation in the territory of the
ancient city. The archaeological relevance of this topic could certainly be questioned.
Nevertheless, on the few occasions that I encountered Marc Waelkens in the excavation
house, he always showed his genuine interest in our work.
Introduction
I was not the first and certainly not the last geographer participating in the annual excava-
tion campaigns. Many have experienced the interdisciplinary character of the Sagalassos
71
Gert Verstraeten
Archaeological Research Project (SARP). Another contribution in this volume discusses

in detail the evolution and the various aspects of the interdisciplinary archaeology or
holistic archaeology applied at Sagalassos1. I hereby would like to focus in more detail on
the relation between the scientific disciplines of Archaeology and Geography. Indeed,
these two disciplines have more in common than many of the other traditional scien-
tific disciplines within SARP, including amongst others geology, biology, chemistry and
architecture. Archaeology aims at better understanding human behaviour in the past by
analysing the physical remains left within the landscape. It not only includes a recon-
struction and analysis of human culture in the past, but also a reconstruction of how
humans operated within a changing environment. In order to achieve this, the disci-
pline needs to link tightly with many other subjects, including geography, history, social
sciences, maths, physics, biology, chemistry, art, religion, and technology.2 Archaeology
can therefore also be considered to be ‘both a science and a humanity’.3 This is certainly
also true for geography, which is ‘unique in bridging the social sciences with the natural
sciences’.4 Like archaeology, geography also follows an integrated or holistic approach
to ‘explore how environments emerge by natural processes, how societies produce,
organize, use and misuse environments, and how societies themselves are influenced by
the environments in which they are located’.5 The main difference between both disci-
plines is that geography focuses on space or the natural and human environment, and
thus examines the spatial patterns that are the resultant of human-environment interac-
tions at various timescales (including the past), whereas archaeology mainly examines
the physical remnants of past human culture. As spatial patterns of various physical
properties within the landscape are the result of past human cultures, it is clear that there
is a certain overlap between the two disciplines. In this contribution I will sketch how
both disciplines were related to each other in the framework of SARP. Furthermore, I
will also share my view on how basic questions on human-environment interactions
in the past need to be solved in future and what implications this has on the relation
between the various disciplines.
The relation between archaeology and geography at Sagalassos

Several geographers from the University of Leuven have been involved nearly from the
start of the archaeological excavations under the direction of Marc Waelkens in 1990.
It is remarkable to note that these were not regarded as ‘geographers’ but rather as
‘geomorphologists’ or ’cartographers’. Irrespective of how this came about, it certainly
reflects the way geography and in particular its sub-disciplines, were regarded in archae-
ological excavations, not only at Sagalassos. Indeed, it was the specific expertise of the
various geography staff members that called them to participate in SARP during the first
1 Degryse 2013.

2 Council for British Archaeology, www.archaeologyuk.org.

3 Renfrew and Bahn 2004.

4 Royal Geographical Society, www.rgs.org.

5 International Geographical Union, www.igu-online.org.

72
The Relation between Archaeology and Geography
years of the project. Some geomorphologists contributed to the project by providing

a general geomorphic description of the immediate surroundings of the site.6 Others
concentrated their work on the geomorphic processes active at the site and that might
have affected the redistribution of artefacts and site stratigraphy.7 Expertise in fluvial
geomorphology and hydrology was also applied to estimate water production from
springs and the potential discharges through the various aqueducts leading towards the
site.8 Meanwhile, cartographers set up a map coordination grid on the site and mapped
in detail the topography of the site.9 Both tasks were essential to map and thus document
the evolution of the excavations by archaeologists. All these tasks were performed by
geographers at the site upon ‘request’ and illustrate the service-based character of the
work by the so-called ‘support’ disciplines.10
In a next phase, geographers (although still called geomorphologists) left the site and
its immediate surroundings and discovered the whole territory of Sagalassos. Intense
archaeological surveys were accompanied by scholars from the other ‘support’ disciplines
including geomorphologists. But more importantly, geomorphologists and botanists
concentrated their work mainly on the sedimentological and palynological analysis of
various sediment archives in order to reconstruct the vegetation over time.11 Thus, in this
period not only the spatial scale at which geographers were active broadened, but also the
thematic scale. One of the main goals of the various pollen studies was to detect changes
in vegetation that could either be related to human impact or that could have influenced
human behaviour. For instance, the timing and intensity of deforestation and the rise or
fall of cultivated species in relation to cultural, political and socio-economic changes at
Sagalassos was examined.12 Especially the identification of the so-called Beyşehir Occupa-
tion Phase (BOP), the period with distinct human impact on the pollen record roughly
coinciding with the Classical Period in SW Turkey, was a main goal. In addition the role
of climatic changes was considered: a more favourable climate was needed for instance
for olive cultivation to become feasible in the territory. Detailed studies of the sediment
archives themselves also revealed more insights into the timing and the intensity of the
sedimentation process, and the relation to both climatic and human impact.13 Although
the outcome of this research was published in peer-reviewed international (geo)scientific
journals, much of this work can still be considered as ‘support’ research with research
questions being steered from an archaeological ‘wish list’, and less from the palynolog-
ical and geomorphic disciplines itself. This is certainly the case for palynology, which is
simply seen as a technique that provides interesting results that serve as input for the
6 Paulissen et al. 1993; Verstraeten et al. 2000; Librecht et al. 2000.

7 Poesen et al. 1995.

8 Steegen et al. 2000.

9 Van Rompaey and Depuydt 1997.

10 Degryse 2013.

11 Although researchers with a background in biology carried out all palynological studies at Sagalassos, this

has been under the (co)supervision of geography staff members with whom fieldwork was carried out and
results discussed in terms of palaeo-environmental change.
12 Vermoere et al. 2000 and 2002.

13 Six et al. 2008.

73
Gert Verstraeten
archaeologist’s interpretation of the human past. A similar conclusion can be made with
respect to the application of remote sensing technology to the territory of Sagalassos by
geographers.14 The first decade of the 21st century sees an explosion of the use of satellite
imagery for detecting archaeological sites and artefacts all around the world, ranging from
pure visual examination of images to fully automated extraction procedures.15 Many of the
applied methods, however, have been used in other contexts before and are now tested or
further developed in an archaeological context. Rarely do the results of this research find
their way into the higher ranked remote sensing journals that report on frontier research
in the remote sensing discipline itself.
Gradually this changed. Consequent palynological analysis did not only provide detailed
reconstructions of vegetation changes in response to climate and human activity, but
also applied new innovative techniques that provided a boost to modern palynology.16
In recent years, the focus of the pollen studies also shifted towards later periods, i.e. the
post-BOP.17 Now the relation between climate change, human occupation history and
vegetation dynamics is analysed for a period during which the territory of Sagalassos goes
through a major socio-economic and political decline compared to the Roman Imperial
Period.18 These studies started from ‘truly’ palaeo-environmental research questions on
human-environment interactions that are not only of high relevance for archaeology but
are also at the core of geographical research. The same is true for the analysis of sediment
archives in recent years. Holocene sediment dynamics are now studied at the more regional
catchment scale, i.e. the scale at which the processes of erosion and sediment transport are
taking place, and not only at site-specific locations coupled to the local analysis of pollen.
Spatial and temporal patterns of erosion, sediment delivery, floodplain sediment storage
and the hydrological connectivity between the various landscape units have become the
main research topics.19 In particular, the role humans have played in controlling sediment
fluxes in this Mediterranean mountain environment is considered. These are all relevant
issues addressed by contemporary (physical) geographers worldwide. The applied meth-
odologies – including quantification of sediment storage, the statistical analysis of large
radiocarbon databases on sediment chronology, the use of spatially explicit erosion models
and the statistical analysis of geochemical sediment properties for sediment fingerprinting
– are all innovative within the geographical discipline as a whole, and geomorphology in
particular.20 In order to explain the observed spatial and temporal variability in sediment
production, transport and storage in terms of changes in human occupation, geographers
now rely on input from archaeology. To some extent, archaeology has become a ‘support’
discipline for geographers. Most recently, also social geographers have become part of
14 De Laet et al. 2007 and 2009.

15 De Laet and Lambers 2009.

16 Kaniewski et al. 2007a and 2007b.

17 Bakker et al. 2012a, 2012b and 2013.

18 This period still receives most attention by archaeologists as, amongst other reasons, most of the monu-

mental buildings on the site date from this period.
19 Dusar et al. 2012 ; D’Haen et al. 2012 and 2013.

20 The doctoral thesis of Dusar in 2011 and D’Haen in 2012 were the first in geography (forming part of

SARP) without ‘Sagalassos’ in the title, reflecting the more generic character of the work.
74
SARP and within various newly approved research projects, geographers now also play
an important role in reconstructing society-environment interactions within the context
of regional sustainable development.
The evolution of research performed by geographers within an archaeological excavation
and research project over a period spanning more than 20 years is evident. From a situa-
tion whereby sub-disciplines of geography supported archaeological questions to a situation
whereby geography in an archaeological context has become a mature discipline addressing
key questions that are at the core of the geographical discipline. Geography has become more
prominent as such within this interdisciplinary endeavour. What made this evolution possible?
Why at Sagalassos but not at many other excavation projects? In my opinion two main reasons
can be argued. First of all, geography underwent an important evolution in Leuven during the
last 10 years. Contrary to the evolution of the discipline at many other universities, where an
evolution towards specialisation in (and divergence of) various sub-disciplines occurred, the
geography curriculum now focuses more on the integration between the various types of geog-
raphy. Where many of the geography staff members in the early 1990’s were highly specialised
in one of the sub-branches of either physical or human geography, much research is nowadays
on the interactions between humans and their environment.21 Secondly, the openness of Marc
Waelkens should not be underestimated. Although he is, of course, much interested in those
research results on vegetation and sediment dynamics that help him in solving the archaeo-
logical research questions, he also remains interested in other facets of our work. He certainly
shared my concern that every discipline involved in the project should benefit from the cooper-
ation and let the other disciplines do their job. This is a quite essential prerequisite for a durable
long-term cooperation between multiple disciplines.
Despite the changing role of geography within SARP, our understanding of the human
past has not increased as much as anticipated and hoped for. Indeed, both the original situ-
ation as the more recent one share a major, fundamental problem, which is not limited to
SARP but typical for so many other projects. Whilst it is recognized that interdisciplinary
research is favoured over multi-disciplinary research, the reality is that all too often we do
not achieve sufficient ‘interaction’ between the various disciplines involved. This has to a
large extent to do with the fact that we do not understand each other enough. The opinion
of an archaeologist and environmental scientist with respect to the long during debate
whether climate change has caused the Maya collapse or not nicely illustrates this problem:
‘Archaeologists have been too willing to overlook the problems inherent in
the interpretation of palaeoclimate data, whereas climate scientists have too
often relied on obsolete archaeological information. Part of the problem is that
researchers from both fields write and present in different venues for different
audiences. We must do a better job of collaborating if we are to be considered
more than just good storytellers.’22
Similar conclusions can be drawn for SARP. Geographers publish their results in
geosciences journals whereby the archaeology is often limited and simplified, whilst
archaeological publications often tend to misinterpret the geomorphic and palynological
21 http://ees.kuleuven.be/geography/.

22 Aimers and Hodell, 2011.

75
Gert Verstraeten
data. There is thus a risk that environmental scientists are tempted to a (physical) deter-
ministic view on human-environment interactions neglecting not only detailed analysis
of the archaeological record but also the adaptive capabilities of complex social systems.
Likewise, archaeologists and anthropologists tend to overemphasize (and often overesti-
mate) the resilience of complex societies and rely too much on theoretical concepts, while
they disregard the physical constraints of the environment. Such contrasting views often
set the scene for intense debates and criticism. One of the key examples is the award-
winning bestseller ‘Collapse’ by UCLA geographer Jared Diamond, which is highly criti-
cised by anthropologists and archaeologists for his deterministic view on human-envi-
ronment interactions.23 In my opinion this fierce debate is to a large extent rooted in the
fact that scholars from both disciplines speak a different language and are reluctant to
cooperate. Both archaeologists and geographers (and other environmental scientists)
within SARP fortunately do recognise this problem, and do not fight out public debates
yet continue their cooperation efforts. Indeed, the complexity of human-environment
interactions requires input from a variety of disciplines and viewpoints and cannot be
solved solely by one ‘master’ discipline.
Is geoarchaeology a solution?
At Sagalassos, but also in many other archaeological sites around the world, the interdis-
ciplinary approach has become evident, although it still bears some problems as discussed
above. It can be questioned now whether such an approach should move forward towards
an integrated discipline on its own. With respect to the broad spectrum of all archae-
ological sciences, I support the notion by others that this might not be the right path
to follow.24 But what about the use of geosciences or environmental sciences within an
archaeological context? Could geoarchaeology as a new discipline serve as a solution that
can resolve questions on past human-environment interactions? It is my personal view
that this is not the case either and this for several reasons.
Geoarchaeology is certainly a booming business with many international working
groups, journals and symposia dedicated to this discipline. The definition of geoarchae-
ology varies a lot but it is mostly restricted to the use of methods and techniques typical
for the geosciences to archaeology. The Geoarchaeology working group of the Inter-
national Association of Geomorphologists (IAG), already established in 1997, defines
geoarchaeology as ‘the geosciences and geographical methods and techniques applied to
Prehistory, Archaeology, and History’.25 English Heritage defines it as ‘application of earth
science principles and techniques to the understanding of the archaeological record’.26 The
international peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal ‘Geoarchaeology’ advertises that ‘it
presents (...) research at the methodological and theoretical interface between archae-
23 Diamond 2005; McAnany and Yoffee 2009.

24 Degryse 2013.

25 IAG www.geomorph.org.

26 English Heritage http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/advice-by-topic/heritage-

science/archaeological-science/geoarchaeology/.
76
ology and the geosciences’.27 The journals scope is mainly oriented towards understanding
archaeological sites, their environmental context, and the processes forming sites.
However, a discipline that is focusing more on methods and techniques, and thus on
answering questions raised by scholars from other disciplines, is not the way to go. This
leads us again to the traditional path with ‘supporting’ disciplines. Rarely do we see that
geoarchaeology is considered as a mature scientific discipline that has its own major
research questions to be solved, related to the understanding of human-environment
interactions in the past. For instance, at the 2013 General Assembly of the European
Geosciences Union, a geoarchaeology session was organised with the following descrip-
tion: ‘Modern research into geoarchaeology can be described as the interaction between
modern humans, our ancestors and the physical environment and as a discipline it is
strongly rooted in the earth sciences’.28 However, in this viewpoint, the role of archae-
ology can rightfully be questioned as it is clearly biased towards geosciences.
No, geoarchaeology as an entire new discipline in itself is not the best solution. What
will the training be of typical geoarchaeology scholars? A geoscientist or archaeologist?
Even if both have experienced a training program in which an introduction into the other
discipline is foreseen (or even better, when complete geoarchaeology curricula are being
established), they still will not be able to be specialist in all methods, theories and practices
that are nowadays covered by archaeologists, geographers, geologists and palynologists.
There is a risk that geoarchaeology thus becomes a second rank scientific discipline that
is not able to keep track with all new developments in the various other fields of science.
Furthermore, one of the main limitations of geoarchaeology – but is true also for archae-
ology proper – is the site-specific approach that is followed. In order to capture the full
complexity of society and the environment and the interactions between both, a regional
synthesis that exceeds the scale of a single site is needed.29
This, however, does not mean that geoarchaeology should be abandoned at all. Rather
it should further develop as a forum where scientists from a variety of disciplines can
meet and share their ideas and results with respect to innovative research. This research
should aim at understanding how humans have interacted with the environment they
lived in under different socio-economic, cultural and political systems, how they coped
with environmental change and how they influenced the landscape themselves. At best
it can be seen as a ‘virtual’ discipline where scholars with a background in archaeology,
geography, geology, biology, ... meet, talk, discuss, collaborate and – most of all – learn
from each other.
Where to go from here?

The above sketched desirable evolution of geoarchaeology as a forum rather than a disci-
pline also provides the key for future cooperation between archaeology and geography.
27 http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-GEA.html.

28 http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2013/session/12210.

29 The fact that within SARP much attention has been paid to the entire territory of Sagalassos is certainly

positive to note. Furthermore, through other research programmes initiated by Marc Waelkens, other
regions and sites were involved as well allowing interregional comparison.
77
Gert Verstraeten
Both disciplines have their own objectives and methods to achieve these objectives. This
should remain. However, both disciplines can learn a lot from each other. Rather than seeing
the other as a ‘support’ discipline, cross-fertilization of ideas and exchange of findings ‘en route’
towards different goals probably yields the best results. This requires not only a better under-
standing of the methods and results of the other discipline, but also of the objectives, theories
and viewpoints that can be so much apart. As stated before, this requires true collaboration.
Interdisciplinary research is not limited to jointly collecting field data. It starts well before
joint research projects are being written and ends long after all results have been obtained.
At Sagalassos, Marc Waelkens has always shared this vision. The fact that after 20 years of
joint research truly integrated interdisciplinary research is not yet where we would like to
have it should not be seen as a failure. On the contrary, given the wide gap between different
research cultures and the status of both disciplines in Leuven 25 years ago, it is remarkable
what has been achieved so far. The perseverance of Marc Waelkens and all the other scien-
tific partners involved in SARP certainly made this possible.
Epilogue
August 2012, after dinner. We are sitting in the dining room of the excavation house enjoying
a fine white Turkish wine and some biscuits. ’We’, that is now myself, my wife, our three
children and Marc Waelkens. For me, the – at this moment last – geomorphic field campaign
finished a few days before and with the family we visited the site and the region. The scene
impresses my children deeply: sitting together with the famous professor ‘knight’ Waelkens
who keeps talking! Indeed, with the same enthusiasm and interest as 17 years before, Marc
discusses the importance of interdisciplinary research and shares his passion for archaeology,
Turkey and Sagalassos in particular. I do hope that he can share this passion with many other
young scientists and genuinely interested people outside academia for many more years.
The next day we left Ağlasun, passing a tea house where four local men were sitting side
by side, nipping from their tea cup. However, they were not staring at us, being used of
so many Belgians in a place that is no longer a rural village dominated by dirt roads, but
rather a small town with paved streets. A town, which attracts more and more tourists
that come to visit Sagalassos. Hopefully they will not only be amazed by all the impres-
sive monuments that have been unearthed or restored but also by the intertwining story
of humans and the changing environment they lived in. A story that can only be recon-
structed through enduring interdisciplinary research in which true respectful collabora-
tion is more important than the creation of a new discipline.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the many colleagues from various disciplines and his
master and doctoral students that participated in the Sagalassos Archaeological Research
Project for the stimulating discussions and rewarding field work. The author also greatly
acknowledges Marc Waelkens for enthusiastically promoting interdisciplinary research at
Sagalassos, and Etienne Paulissen for developing the geomorphological research at Sagal-
assos for more than 15 years.
78
References
Aimers and Hodell 2011 = J. Aimers, D. Hodell, Societal collapse: drought and the Maya, “Nature”, 479,
2011, pp. 44-45.
Diamond 2005 = J. Diamond, Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, London, 2005.
Bakker et al. 2012a = J. Bakker, D. Kaniewski, G. Verstraeten, V. De Laet, M. Waelkens, Numerically
derived evidence for late-Holocene climate change and its impact on human presence in the southwest Taurus
Mountains, Turkey, “The Holocene”, 22/4, 2012, pp. 425-438.
Bakker et al. 2012b = J. Bakker, E. Paulissen, D. Kaniewski, V. De Laet, G. Verstraeten, M. Waelkens,
Man, vegetation and climate during the Holocene in the territory of Sagalassos, Western Taurus Mountains,
SW Turkey, “Vegetation History & Archaeobotany”, 21/4-5, 2012, pp. 249-266.
Bakker et al. 2013 = J. Bakker, E. Paulissen, D. Kaniewski, J. Poblome, V. De Laet, G. Verstraeten,
M. Waelkens, Climate, people, fire and vegetation: new insights into vegetation dynamics in the eastern
Mediterranean since the 1st century AD, “Climate of the Past”, 9, 2013, pp. 57-87.
Degryse 2013 = P. Degryse, Holistic Archaeology and Archaeological Science at Sagalassos: Contributions
to a Discipline, this volume.
De Laet et al. 2007 = V. De Laet, E. Paulissen, M. Waelkens, Methods for the extraction of archaeological
features from very high-resoluition Ikonos-2 remote sensing imagery, Hisar (southwest Turkey), “Journal of
Archaeological Science”, 34/5, 2007, pp. 830-841.
De Laet et al. 2009 = V. De Laet, E. Paulissen, K. Meuleman, M. Waelkens, Effects of image characteristics on
the identification and extraction of archaeological features from Ikonos-2 and Quickbird-2 imagery, Case study:
Sagalassos (southwest Turkey), “International Journal of Remote Sensing”, 30/21, 2009, pp. 5655-5668.
De Laet and Lambers 2009 = V. De Laet, K. Lambers, Archaeological prospecting using high-resolution
digital sattelite imagery: recent advanced and future prospects, “AARGnews - The newsletter of the Aerial
Archaeology Research Group”, 39, 2009, pp. 9-17.
D’Haen 2012 = K. D’Haen, Fingerprintng Late Holocene sediment fluxes in an Eastern Mediterranean
mountain catchment, PhD thesis Geography, Leuven, 2012.
D’Haen et al. 2012 = K. D’Haen, G. Verstraeten, B. Dusar, P. Degryse, J. Haex, M. Waelkens, Unravel-
ling changing sediment sources in a Mediterranean mountain catchment: a Bayesian fingerprinting approach,
“Hydrological Processes”, 27/6, 2012, pp. 896-910.
D’Haen et al. 2013 = K. D’Haen, B. Dusar, G. Verstraeten, P. Degryse, H. De Brue, A sediment finger-
printing approach to understand the geomorphic coupling in an eastern Mediterranean mountainous river
catchment, “Geomorphology”, 197, 2013, pp.64-75.
Dusar 2011 = B. Dusar, Late Holocene sediment dynamics in a Mediterranean mountain environment,
PhD thesis Geography, Leuven, 2011.
Dusar et al. 2012 = B. Dusar, G. Verstraeten, K. D’Haen, J. Bakker, E. Kaptijn, M. Waelkens, Sensitivity
of the Eastern Mediterranean geomorphic system towards environmental change during the Late Holocene: a
chronological perspective, “Journal of Quaternary Science”, 27/4, 2012, pp. 371-382.
Kaniewski et al. 2007a = D. Kaniewski, E. Paulissen, V. De Laet, K. Dossche, M. Waelkens,
A high-resolution Late Holocene landscape ecological history inferred from an intramontane basin in the
Western Taurus Mountains, Turkey, “Quaternary Science Reviews”, 26/17-18, 2007, pp. 2201-2218.
Kaniewski et al. 2007b = D. Kaniewski, V. De Laet, E. Paulissen, M. Waelkens, Long-term effects of
human impact on mountainous ecosystems, western Taurus Mountains, “Journal of Biogeography”, 34/11,
2007, pp. 1975-1997.
79
Gert Verstraeten
Librecht et al. 2000 = I. Librecht, E. Paulissen, G. Verstraeten, M. Waelkens, Implications of environ-

mental changes on slope evolution near Sagalassos, in M. Waelkens, L. Loots, eds., Sagalassos V, Report on
the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997, Leuven, 2000, pp. 799-817.
McAnany and Yoffee 2009 = P.A. McAnany, N. Yoffee, eds., Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience,
Ecological Vulnerability and the Aftermath of Empire, Cambridge, 2009.
Paulissen et al. 1993 = E. Paulissen, J. Poesen, G. Govers, J. De Ploey, The physical environment at Sagal-
assos (Western Taurus, Turkey). A reconnaissance survey, in M. Waelkens, J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos II,
Report on the Third Excavation Campaign of 1992, Leuven, 1993, pp. 229-247.
Poesen et al. 1995 = J. Poesen, G. Govers, E. Paulissen, K. Vandaele, A geomorphological evaluation
of erosion risk at Sagalassos, in M. Waelkens, J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos III, Report on the Fourth Exca-
vation Campaigns of 1993, Leuven, 1995, pp. 341-356.
Renfrew and Bahn 2004 = C. Renfrew, P. Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice,
London, 2004.
Six et al. 2008 = S. Six, E. Paulissen, T. Van Thuyne, J. Lambrechts, M. Vermoere, V. De Laet,
M. Waelkens, Late Holocene sediment characteristics and sediment accumulation in the marsh of Gravgaz:
evidence for abrupt environmental changes, in P. Degryse, M. Waelkens, eds., Sagalassos VI, Leuven,
2008, pp. 189-120.
Steegen et al. 2000 = A. Steegen, K. Cauwenberghs, G. Govers, M. Waelkens, E. Owens, P. Desmet,
The water supply to Sagalassos, in M. Waelkens, L. Loots, eds., Sagalassos V, Report on the Survey and
Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997, Leuven, 2000, pp. 635-649.
Van Rompaey and Depuydt 1997 = A. Van Rompaey, F. Depuydt, The large scale map of Sagalassos :
contents and precision, in M. Waelkens, J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos IV, Report on the Survey and Excava-
tion Campaigns of 1994 and 1995, Leuven, 1997, pp. 263-274.
Vermoere et al. 2000 = M. Vermoere, E. Smets, M. Waelkens, H. Vanhaverbeke, I. Librecht, E.
Paulissen, L. Vanhecke, Late Holocene environmental change and the record of human impact at Gravgaz
near Sagalassos, Southwest Turkey, “Journal of archaeological science”, 27/7, 2000, pp. 571-595.
Vermoere et al. 2002 = M. Vermoere, S. Bottema, L. Vanhecke, M. Waelkens, E. Paulissen, E. Smets,
Palynological evidence for late-Holocene human occupation recorded in two wetlands in SW Turkey,
“The Holocene”, 12/5, 2002, pp. 569-584.
Verstraeten et al. 2000 = G. Verstraeten, E. Paulissen, I. Librecht, M. Waelkens, Limestone platforms
around Sagalassos resulting from giant mass movements, in M. Waelkens, L. Loots, eds., Sagalassos V,
Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997, Leuven, 2000, pp. 783-798.
80
Money Makes
Pottery Go Round
Jeroen Poblome
I do not drink a lot of alcohol. A cool Efes at the end of a campaign working day or a bottle
of Côte de Beaune in the company of friends go a long way. The most savoured moments
are enlightened by a top-range single malt whisky, however, and there is a good reason
for that. Until I was 30 the most important decisions in life were taken over a glass or
two (or more) in the company of my late father, Noel Poblome. Things were no different
one spring evening in 1991. While doing my Belgian army service upon graduating from
university, Professor Marc Waelkens had approached me to initiate a Ph.D. in archae-
ology on what were then called the fine wares of Sagalassos, funded by the initial Inter-
university Poles of Attraction Programme newly granted to him. As I had in the meantime
submitted a Ph.D. proposal to the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research on the
Roman cemeteries in NW Gaul, promoted by Professor André Van Doorselaer, there
seemed to be reason enough to drink some glasses of whisky to ponder options. Of course,
I was attracted by the exotic aspects of starting to work in Turkey, but truth be told I knew
nothing of the country, as our family holidays were never spent in countries east of France
or Spain. Obviously, my father thought that starting a Ph.D. in archaeology was already
a sufficient adventure in itself, no matter in which country. Twenty-three campaigns in
Sagalassos later, the detail of our father-son discussion now escapes me but our late night
conclusion should be clear enough.
There is a lot I owe to Marc, but he knows me well enough to understand that I prefer
to express deep gratitude in simple terms. Indeed, the fact that I never regretted joining his
Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project for a single second since spring 1991 is what I
owe him most. The added value his archaeological brain-child continues to represent in my
life, as in the lives of everybody who has ever participated in the Sagalassos campaigns, is
incomparably more important than any academic freedom and support he has granted me.
Therefore it is my honour to present him this contribution on the very topic he offered
me in 1991: Sagalassos red slip ware (or SRSW), combining beloved aspects of interdisci-
plinary archaeology, albeit mostly within the humanities, with a bit of beloved Sagalassos.
My research question is simple: ever since the discovery of the so-called Potters’ Quarter
of Sagalassos in 19871, it has seemed obvious to Marc and his Sagalassos Project that the
produce of the local potters helped to oil the wheels of Sagalassos’ economy. But are there
ways to validate this implicit assumption, or at least circumscribe better how this would
1 Mitchell and Waelkens 1988, p. 60.

81
Jeroen Poblome
have worked in economic terms? As I recently revisited the production organisation of

the Sagalassos potters2, this contribution will deal with three related issues: can pottery
consumption rates be described, can the economic value of pottery be established, and
how did artisanal production form part of the structure of the ancient economy?
What pottery to expect?

Finding sherds of pottery is inevitable no matter which excavation or survey project at any
site or region within the extensive Roman Empire. Considering the durability of pottery
as a material category and the way that other material categories, such as glass or metals,
were recycled in antiquity or only survive in exceptional circumstances in the archaeo-
logical record, such as wood, leather or other organic matter, the quantities of registered
sherds actually represent a distorted truth as to how pottery functioned proportionally
compared to other objects in frequent use in past daily practices. Notwithstanding this
important observation, the total quantity of pottery consumed within the Roman Empire
must have been humongous.
J. Theodore Pe a3 introduced the concept of life-cycle into the field of Roman pottery
studies, in order to elucidate behavioural practices related to pottery manufacture, distri-
bution, prime use, re-use, maintenance, recycling, discard and reclamation, and how these
past practices contributed to determine which pottery eventually ended up in the archaeo-
logical record and how. In this context, his estimations of vessel use-life are of importance,
as defined for dolia, amphorae, oil lamps, cooking wares, utilitarian wares and tableware.
Ted Pe a acknowledges that his observations are ‘… only very general and, in many cases,
somewhat speculative comments regarding the probable use-lives of the six functional categories of
Roman pottery, basing these on logical considerations of the several factors likely to have affected
use-life and a limited amount of direct evidence’4. Even though every single Roman pottery
specialist no doubt has one or more remarks on the particularities of the estimations
of use-life or the methodological choices, I consider the research questions and general
framework introduced by Ted Pe a as a useful contribution to pulling Roman pottery
studies out of their traditional typo-chronological framework. There is nothing wrong
with classification, typology and chronology, but I, as Ted Pe a, consider it as part of my
academic brief to continue to play the devil’s advocate in line with recent initiatives5, in
order to enliven the debate of Roman pottery studies and mainly to increase its value for
the study of the Roman world in general.
For dolia a prime use-life of 20-30 years or longer was suggested and a mean use-life
of 25 years6, for amphorae 20 years or longer as use-life and 5 years as mean use-life7, for
oil lamps in general less than 1 year and a mean use-life of 0.5 year8, for cooking wares
2 Poblome, in press.

3 Pe a 2007.

4 Pe a 2007, p. 42.

5 Poblome et al. 2007; 2012b.

6 Pe a 2007, p. 46-47; 325-326.

7 Pe a 2007, p. 47-56; 325-327.

8 Pe a 2007, p. 56-57; 327-328; 330.

82
Money Makes Pottery Go Round
the same short time-span as with oil lamps and a mean use-life of 0.5 year9, for utilitarian
wares more variable amounts of time were suggested and a mean use-life of 3 years10 and
for tableware no more than 1 year with a mean use-life of 3 years11.
To be sure, pottery was used by people. This paper does not have the intention to enter
into the detail of the debate on demography in Roman Imperial times. Instead, I lean on
Walter Scheidel’s recent contribution on the matter12. By mid-second century AD, the size
of the population of the Roman Empire is estimated at between 60 to 70 million, with 20%
of the total residing in the Asian provinces. Considering that, in general, production of
tableware is an urban function, the level of urbanization is also important to consider. The
total number of cities in the Roman Empire probably approached 2,000 and the aggregate
urban population between 7 to 9 million. Typically, apart from a few major cities, most
urban communities were small, including fewer than 5,000 residents. Sagalassos was part
of this league of small towns, in a traditionally urbanized region of the empire.
The bulk of the population of these urban communities would have formed part of
households. These are essential building blocks in the reconstruction of past societies, in
representing measurable socio-economic units and functioning as basic units of produc-
tion and consumption, also of pottery. Once again I cannot enter into details in this
context. M.H. Hansen13 estimated the average urban household in antiquity to contain
five to seven members. Considering mortality rates, household fragmentation and recon-
stitution must have been typical processes. Notwithstanding these dynamics, a household
generation is considered to have lasted about 30 years, and an average urban community
to have contained between 300-700 households.
From the combination of pottery use-life estimates with demographic ones, it seems
to become possible to assume some theoretical pottery consumption rates for an average,
urban, Roman Imperial household:
• Medium to large storage vessels: 1 for each household and a second
one in every other household: 450-1050 vessels/30 years
• Amphorae: each year 1 wine and 1 olive oil amphora for each household:
600-1,400 vessels/year = 18,000-42,000 vessels/30 years
• Oil lamps: 5-10 in each household: 3,000-14,000 lamps/year =
90,000-420,000 lamps/30 years
• Cooking wares: 1 casserole, 1-2 frying pans, 3-6 cooking pots: 10-18 vessels/year/
household; 3,000-12,600 vessels/year = 90,000-378,000 vessels/30 years
• Utilitarian wares: 1 mortarium, 3-5 lekaneis, 3-5 jugs: 7-11 vessels/3 years/house-
hold; 2,100-7,700 vessels/3 years = 21,000-77,000 vessels/30 years
• Tableware: 3-5 cups, 0-2 plates/trays, 5-7 bowls, 7-10 dishes: 15-24 vessels/3
years/household; 4,500-16,800 vessels/3 years = 45,000-168,000 vessels/30 years
9 Pe a 2007, p. 57-58; 327-328; 330.

10 Pe a 2007, p. 58; 328-329; 331.

11 Pe a 2007, p. 58-60; 329-330; 331.

12 Scheidel 2007.

13 Hansen 2006.

83
Jeroen Poblome
Table 1 expresses these approximations in order of magnitude in consumption. It needs

to be stressed these are entirely personal assumptions, expressed as a working hypothesis,
based on an appreciation of Roman society as technologically complex with a fair degree
of specialization in object fabrication and usage, and most Roman Imperial households
hanging between poor and rich, allowing basic, yet differentiated and functionally specific
consumption patterns of material culture. Some of the same insights were also applied in
an earlier study on the estimation of sigillata and red slip ware tableware production in
the Roman East14.
Minimum Maximum %
Oil lamps 90,000 420,000 34-38%
Cooking wares 90,000 378,000 34-35%
Tableware 45,000 168,000 17-15%
Utilitarian wares 21,000 77,000 8-7%
Amphorae 18,000 42,000 7-4%
Dolia 450 1050 0.1-0.01%
Table 1. Estimated pottery consumption rates for 300-700 urban households/30 years, in the Roman Empire.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, however. In this respect, the proportions
of Table 1 are, for instance, difficult to compare to the end of sixth/seventh century AD
household(?) dump located in Room 2 of the so-called North-East Building, located at
its namesake’s corner of the Upper Agora at Sagalassos. Here, an original, early Roman
Imperial monumental structure, possibly incorporating a fountain, underwent many
modifications during the course of its use. By the late fifth/sixth century AD, the interior
space was subdivided by an arcade running through the length of the building, supporting
vaulted spaces in the back part of the building. By the time of the household(?) material
culture assemblage, both the spaces behind and in front of the arcade were divided into
smaller rooms forming part of a larger, not completely excavated, multi-room unit, which
was tentatively proposed to represent the remains of an early Byzantine house15. When
considering Rim-Base-Handle counts of the pottery included in the household(?) dump in
Room 2, SRSW dishes and bowls for food consumption account for 52.8% of the assem-
blage, followed by cooking vessels and lids in the local/regional fabric 4 for 20.1%, jugs
of various types for 14% (6.3% in SRSW fabric, 7.1% in fabric 4 and 0.6% imported jugs),
lekaneis/containers/basins mostly in SRSW fabric for 5.2%, oil lamps in SRSW fabric for
2.5%, local dolia for 2.4%, local/regional fabric 4 amphorae for the same percentage and
cups in SRSW fabric for 1.4%. These are clearly different proportions when compared to
the ‘logical’ assumptions of Table 1.
14 Willet and Poblome 2011.

15 Poblome et al. 2010.

84
The picture becomes more complex when we compare these data with quantified func-
tional proportions of material collected at the surface by the Leiden University ‘Ancient
Boeotia Cities Survey Project’ directed by John Bintliff, where I happily function as ceramic
advisor for the late Hellenistic to early Byzantine periods. Fig. 1 presents totals of pottery for
these periods from survey grids within the ancient towns of Koroneia and Tanagra that were
considered from geophysical analysis and/or topographical, architectural and find assemblage
observations to represent domestic zones. Not only are the attested proportions different
between both Boeotian towns16, these are also not in line with the already mentioned totals.
Fig. 1. Surface pottery from supposed domestic zones.
Finally, when compared to a contemporary (partial) inventory of household objects

found in the kitchen of the Praetorium at Vindolanda (Tabula Vindolandensis 194, dated
to 97-102/3 AD) yet another picture emerges. The kitchen attendants could dispose of 2
scutulas or shallow dishes, 5 paropsides or side dishes, 3 acetabula or vinegar bowls, 3 ouaria
or egg cups, a lancem or platter, another scutulam or shallow dish, one lucernam aeneam or
bronze lamp, 2 calices or drinking cups and some Trullas [] theca or bowls in a box. Apart
from the other material category that is represented, the functional variation in mainly
tableware forms is interesting to note, apart from the absence of other functional catego-
ries from this admittedly partially preserved list.
So, although I am in favour of the recent trend towards accumulating ‘soft statistics’ on
various aspects of antiquity, the logical, hypothetical assumptions put forward in order to
circumscribe what amounts of pottery to expect in average Roman Imperial households
cannot be confirmed based on ‘real’ datasets. Based on the nature and quality of the data
available, generic modelling of Roman urban household ‘patterns of pottery expectancy’ is
not (yet) possible. This does not mean, however, that we should stop collecting data, whilst,
logically, patterns are expected to be different in function of time/space specific options of
16 See also Poblome et al. 2012a.

85
Jeroen Poblome
supply and demand of pottery. Realising how difficult it still is to answer even fairly basic
questions concerning aspects of daily life from a period that is generally considered to have
been well-studied, provokes inspiration to focus our archaeological attention in different
ways. For the time being, we are constricted to the semi-intellectual appreciation that the
total quantity of pottery consumed within the Roman Empire must have been … well …
humongous. The only way to somehow put a number on that is by looking back into the
registries I used for my Ph.D. on the typology and chronology of Sagalassos red slip ware17.
In those days, I used to process between 20 to 30 wooden crates of Sagalassos tableware
per day, each containing between 500 to 800 Rim/Base/Handle/Body-sherds of the local
tableware, with working weeks of 5.5 days during campaigns of eight or so weeks. These
practices are ongoing, but I especially should like to acknowledge the way Philip Bes and
Nalan Fırat have stepped in to take over this task. This results in a minimum amount of
processed Sagalassos red slip ware sherds of 440,000 and a maximum of 1,056,000 sherds
per campaign. Over 23 years of fieldwork this rate of artefact processing implies that the
Sagalassos project has classified, counted and weighed anything between 10,120,000 to
24,288,000 sherds of Sagalassos red slip ware. And that’s only tableware.
What was the economic value of pottery?

The fact that Sagalassos was a production centre of tableware (as a matter of fact, most other
wares found on site were also made in the immediate vicinity) surely helps to boost such
totals. But when considering the economic value of the enterprise, Sagalassos surely pales
into insignificance when compared to the production centre(s) of Eastern Sigillata A18, for
instance, even though those have not been located yet. As this consideration of the economic
importance of SRSW to Eastern Sigillata A is based on an implicit appreciation of the litera-
ture on the relevant exchange patterns, it is perhaps better, however, as a next step, to try
and circumscribe the issue at hand from approaching the value and pricing of pottery vessels.
Generally, ancient pottery is considered to have been fairly cheap and good quality sigillata
tableware perhaps a little less so19. In what follows I provide some snapshots of pottery prices.
For instance, the 154 wax tablet business receipts of L. Caecilius Iucundus, which
were discovered at Pompeii, list a pottery caliculum or small bowl bought for 2 asses
and a pultarius or vase and patella or dish for 1 as each. These prices can be compared to
a silver trulla or scoop valued at 90 denarii, equalling to 1,440 patellae20. Tabula Vindo-
landensis 588 (97-102/3 AD) reveals that that a set of cooking vessels was “ordered and
brought through Adiutor from London” at a price of more than 10 denarii and that this
price was considered to be relatively costly. Tabula Vindolandensis 596 dating to the same
period lists “trullas, number 4, 5 denarii 1 as each – trullas, number 4, 3 and 7/8 denarii and
1 as each – trullas, number 4, 2 and 5/8 denarii and 1 as each”, whereas P.Ox.36.4B.99/J(6),
P.Ox.L3596 and P.Ox.L3597, all datable to the mid-third century AD, mention 32-36
17 Published as Poblome 1999.

18 Lund 2005.

19 Pe a 2007, p. 27-31.

20 Andreau 1974.

86
drachmas for 100 newly produced amphorae, equal to about 110-120 asses for 100 amphorae
or 1.1-1.2 as for one new amphora. The Edictum Diocletiani de pretiis of 301 AD provides
a unique price overview for different functional categories of pottery: a dolium with a
capacity of 1000 Italian sextarii (547 l) was priced at 1,000 denarii and was expensive, a
vessel with a capacity of 2 Italian sextarii (1.1 l) was very cheap at only 2 denarii, a lot
of 10 ceramic lamps cost 4 denarii and a lagona with a capacity of 24 Italian sextarii was
listed at 12 denarii, whereas amphorae were priced according to capacity, amounting to
between 0.5 – 6.25% of the value of the content. The Diocletian prices for pottery vessels
can be compared to listed values for vessels in other material categories, such as glass,
with Alexandrian (colourless) glass cups and smooth vessels priced at 30 denarii to the
pound and Judaean (blue-green) glass cups and smooth vessels at 20 denarii to the pound.
With an average glass vessel weighing about 100-150 gm, two or three vessels could be
made from a Roman pound of glass, equalling to 7 to 15 denarii per glass vessel, which is
clearly more expensive than their ceramic counterparts. Glass bottles with a capacity of
two sextarii weigh about 1-2 Roman pounds, making these glass items at least 10 times
more expensive compared to pottery bottles. Finally, the papyrus archive of Theophanes,
datable to around 320 AD, preserves a wealth of detail about the nobleman travelling from
his native Hermopolis to Syrian Antioch and back. In general, it is interesting to note that
the price inflation rate can be set at about five times the rates set out in the Price Edict of
Diocletian, only a couple of decades earlier. Amongst the many purchases made during
the journey and stay at Antioch, Theophanes and his company bought wooden bowls for
400 drachmas, a plate and a jar for 300 drachmas, equalling to 75 denarii or 6 nummi for
each vessel, a Selinus wine jar at Tyre for 1,600 drachmas, or 400 denarii or 32 nummi,
and he had his crockery repaired at Antioch for 100-200 drachmas or 25-50 denarii or 2-4
nummi. These prices can be compared to the total expenditure for the one month’s stay of
Theophanes at Antioch amounting to 112,400 drachmas or 5 aurei21.
When this range of pottery prices is projected against typical wage levels of the period,
it becomes clear that, in general, this was a standard, affordable commodity, especially
as vessels did not have to be bought every other day. Within the senatorial census of 1
million sestertii and the eques census of 400,000 sestertii, these members of elite could
afford as much pottery as they could dream of, as it were. But also considering the lower
ranking wages of legionaries at 1,200 - 2,000 sestertii/year or 300-500 denarii/year, and
documented wages of adult free males at 500 – 1,000 sestertii/year or 125-250 denarii/
year, it becomes clear that wages were generally above minimum subsistence for an adult
male, and even for a family, particularly if the wife and grown children also contributed
to the household income22. The Edict of Diocletian also pronounces the value of unskilled
labour at 25 denarii/day, plus a meal, and that of skilled labour at 50-60 denarii/day, plus
a meal, which gives a good indication that pottery vessels were affordable next to a range
of other goods, no doubt first catering for subsistence.
The attested levels of taxation will also not have prevented the inhabitants of the
Roman Empire from purchasing daily commodities, such as pottery. The adjustable
21 Matthews 2006.

22 Jongman 2007.

87
Jeroen Poblome
Imperial system of taxation is generally considered to have been beneficial and seems to
have amounted to no more than 1% of the capital value of the land and certainly no more
than 10% of annual revenue23.
From this concise overview it has become clear that pottery had a price in antiquity, but
that it was generally affordable as well as available. In other words, considering the presumed
amounts required for consumption, it should be clear that there was money to be earned in
the artisanal production sector, and that this was not only restricted to sigillata or red slip ware
tableware production. On the other hand, we should avoid recreating the economic value
of pottery production from a naive understanding of the independent role of the market,
based on distribution patterns and the (un)conscious application of Neoclassical economic
theory. The impact of the craft sector should be measured in function of total production
output, which, unfortunately but importantly, is difficult to calculate and not comparable to
the representation of the different artisanal material categories in the archaeological record.
Moreover, the impact of the craft sector will have been variable and a function of regional
demographic patterns and space/time specific patterns of supply and demand.
Finding a place in the ancient economy24

The way in which individual potters or a collection of craftsmen linked to a workshop
would have made a living was dependent on contemporary modes of production organi-
sation. In a recent contribution on the production organisation involving the potters
of SRSW25, I argued for less dependency on direct involvement/investment by upper
classes in raw material management and production infrastructure, but rather a crucial
role for the elite in creating favourable conditions in the urban economy allowing arti-
sanal production to nestle. Instead, tenancy arrangements focussed on small-scale work-
shops functioning within the familia as typical operational matrix could have repre-
sented the hallmarks of artisanal production and ways of making a living in Roman
antiquity. Successful types of tableware did not generate economies of scale or manufac-
tories; rather the basic and economically independent production unit of the workshop
was multiplied. When opportunity arose, loosely integrated networks of artisans and
workshops were created based on subcontracting arrangements, possibly formulated
in terms of locatio-conductio26. Third parties, such as members of the social elite, could
also issue contracts in these terms, possibly in conjunction with providing access for
tenants to raw materials and workshop infrastructure. In case sufficient critical mass
in craft production was reached, collegia could be founded. These voluntary associa-
tions of professionals traditionally offered opportunities for sociability and conviviality,
communal religious celebrations, a degree of social competition and visibility in the local
community, as well as a trusted network of members to go about their business27.
23 Lo Cascio 2007.

24 This part drew inspiration from Berlage and Decoster 2005; Temin 2013; Persson 2010.


26 Drexhage et al. 2002, pp. 107-112; Wieling 2000.

27 van Nijf 1997; Zimmermann 2002.

88
The archaeology of Sagalassos proves sufficiently how this model can be successful at
the regional scale. The question remains, however, how to define in economic terms the
artisanal contribution to the ancient economy?
Basically, the discipline of economics studies how humanity evolved from answering
to primary subsistence needs, to creating better welfare conditions. Achieving this aim
is always dependent on limited means. Therefore, choices have to be made. The general
capacity to cater for needs can be measured by determining the GDP of an economy, or
its yearly rate of production of goods and services. GDP can also be used as an indicator to
determine growth patterns, of which Marc and his Sagalassos project believe the produc-
tion of SRSW to be a prime regional example. The downside of choosing which needs to
satisfy and how, is that the employed means can no longer be used for other purposes or
needs. The value of the best possible other - but not chosen – employment of those means
is defined as opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are an abstract concept, translating
the shortage of means and the restrictions binding each economic agent. Each economy,
including that of ancient Sagalassos, is confronted with shortage of means, the need to
make choices and the opportunity costs resulting from those choices. In this respect,
the sky is not the limit. The curve on Fig. 2 represents the limits of possible production
output of a given economy, say the one of Roman Imperial Sagalassos. In the case that all
production means (land, labour, capital) are geared towards the production of subsist-
ence goods, agricultural production capacity and output will reach its maximum (on the
Y-axis). In the case that all production means are geared towards artisanal production,
material culture output will reach its maximum (on the X-axis). Any other combination
of production output, involving other types of goods as well, is of course also possible
and depends on choices in economic behaviour. It is important to consider that the curve
declines between the Y and X-axis. This implies that every other piece of pottery made in
Sagalassos represents an opportunity cost and therefore less output of subsistence goods.
If artisanal production is small-scale (0-A on the X-axis), say geared towards the needs
of the own polis and hinterland, as was the case with the Hellenistic potters’ quarter of
Sagalassos28, the opportunity cost for subsistence goods is limited (A on the Y-axis). In
an ancient economic context, heavily geared towards and dependent on agriculture in its
widest sense, the limited production costs represented by small-scale artisanal produc-
tion actually creates opportunities for diversification in economic activity, as is widely
attested by the plethora of local/regional lines of pottery production throughout the
Roman Empire. The reason why initial opportunity costs are limited follows from the
fact that first the production means that are not optimally geared towards the production
of subsistence goods are shifted towards the artisanate, keeping subsistence production
output high. If, however, artisanal production output proportionally increases (between
B and C on the X-axis), say with the initiation of mass production of Sagalassos red slip
ware in early Roman Imperial times, the opportunity costs will disproportionally rise with
a greater loss of output of subsistence goods as a result (between B and C on the Y-axis).
In an ancient context there are therefore limits to the growth of the artisanal sector and
these are determined by the need for subsistence goods production of the urban and rural
28 Poblome et al., in press.

89
Jeroen Poblome
communities of Roman Imperial Sagalassos. So, even though there was a margin of growth
in pottery production, comparing the impact of the local Hellenistic production of table-
wares with its Roman Imperial counterpart, there was a ‘pottery ceiling’ that could not be
breached. As a result, even if the producers would have wanted to, SRSW could simply
never have played in the league of Eastern Sigillata A or other regional conglomerates of
artisanal production, linked to towns and regions with a more extensive possible produc-
tion output curve. The only way to exceed the margin of growth vis à vis the production
of subsistence goods is by increasing the production efficiency of the potters. The fact
that the fabric and slip of SRSW were made from one high quality clay raw material each,
compared to multiple potential sources of the local Hellenistic tablewares, possibly reflects
measures of increasing production efficiency29. The introduction of moulding techniques
for the late Roman coroplast wares (oinophoroi, figurines, oil lamps) in the local Potters’
Quarter is possibly another such example at attempted increased efficiency30.
Fig. 2. Production Possibilities Curve applied to ancient Sagalassos
The fact that, to the best of my knowledge, no other Roman Imperial pottery produc-
tion centre was active at the scale of the Potters’ Quarter of Sagalassos in the wider region
of SW Anatolia, and that the regional lines of pottery production that have been archae-
ologically attested31 possibly represent more limited opportunity costs less affecting the
production of subsistence goods, makes Sagalassos and its Sagalassos red slip ware excep-

30 Murphy and Poblome 2012.

31 On these, see Armstrong 2012.

90
tional, at least within its own region. Considering that traditional productivity patterns in
antiquity were mainly focused on subsistence goods, while always leaving a limited margin
for some other type of productivity, implies that the community of Sagalassos made other
choices and behaved somewhat differently in economic terms. As far as pottery produc-
tion is concerned it is striking that, although local/regional production is no doubt more
the norm throughout the Empire than even Roman ceramologists acknowledge today,
only a few production centres (or regions of production if the actual place of manufacture
is still unknown) made comparable choices to engage in comparably large-scale artisanal
production, transgressing a certain level of opportunity costs. Even if only a few centres
of production did this, it implies that Sagalassos was not a lone experiment in economics.
Moreover, similar patterns seem to be in place for other types of craft production, such
as textiles or glass32. I consider the replication of the pattern of production in other crafts
to imply that both the local/regional level of craft production, as well as the somewhat
higher scale of specialised artisanal output, such as attested with SRSW, should both be
considered as structural features of the ancient economy and that the difference between
these levels of production is related to choice in the face of opportunity costs.
In economic terms, I actually only see one way to explain the allowance of higher oppor-
tunity costs from specialisation in artisanal production affecting the output of subsistence
goods: the functioning of the market economy in antiquity. The evidence on the value
and price levels of pottery presented above sufficiently indicates that, in generic economic
terms and apart from specific actions on behalf of central authorities, most transactions in
Roman Imperial times took place between a supplier and a customer, on a voluntary basis.
The actual transaction was confirmed by a price, with both parties guarding their inter-
ests. Prices were adjustable to circumstances, such as the late Roman patterns of inflation.
By definition, these ground rules qualify the ancient economy as a free market economy.
I repeat, however, that I do not advocate a naive understanding of the independent role of
the Roman Imperial market. An instructive example that the market does not rule every-
thing can actually also be provided by SRSW. Indeed, in the course of the second/early
third century AD, all other major producers of quality pottery tableware in the Roman
East saw a considerable reduction of their output, if not an interruption of activities. In
a naive understanding of the functioning of markets, this condition would have created
a proverbial black hole in the (red) tableware market, providing a unique opportunity
for the producers of SRSW to start trading their wares in every corner of the Roman
eastern Mediterranean. This did not happen, however. Otherwise the pattern of distribu-
tion of SRSW would be much better documented for this period. In other words, either
the stimuli of the market were not perceived by the producers of SRSW or they may have
judged against expanding their production in the light of increasing opportunity costs.
In other words, it is of importance to consider which type of market economy is
valid for Marc’s Roman Imperial Sagalassos. Put simply, the specific nature of market
economies is determined by the amount of suppliers and the amount of customers, the
level of information these parties dispose of, the degree of product differentiation and
the accessibility of the market. Table 2 presents a commonly used typology of markets,
32 Poblome 2004; Nenna 2000.

91
Jeroen Poblome
based on the amount of suppliers versus the amount of customers. The more there are of
each party the more competition can act in favour of all and the less one or other party
can control the market and price settings. In the case of the Roman Imperial tableware
market, which SRSW joined, it is fair to say that few communities engaged in large-
scale production and that they did this with many customers in mind. In other words,
the market economy SRSW targeted can be defined as an oligopoly.
Customers
One Few Many
One Bilateral monopoly Monopoly
Suppliers Few Oligopoly
Many Monopsony Oligopsony Competition
Table 2. Typology of market economies.
Within an oligopoly, the customers are many, preventing them from influencing
pricing or the market individually or as a group. The suppliers are few, however,
making strategic market behaviour possible, with suppliers needing to take each other’s
strategic decisions into account. In this case, the policies and products of each supplier
are influenced by those of the other suppliers in the same market. As the amount of
suppliers is few, in some cases even mutual agreements become optional. Also the level
and quality of information available to economic agents is important to consider in
this context: the absence of global competition following from too limited information
available to suppliers and customers implies that the ancient economy did not equal
the capitalist market economy33. In this respect, the degree of competitiveness of oligo-
political markets can be situated between so-called perfect global competitive markets
and monopolies. By definition, the ancient oligopolitical market strove towards stable
conditions, which I should like to describe as a zero-risk economy with guaranteed sales
for the few suppliers in the immediate, known environment and satisfied customers
with a product of a constant quality level.
The distribution patterns of the protagonist types of tableware in the Roman Imperial
eastern Mediterranean make sufficiently clear that all of these wares targeted first and
foremost their regional markets. I suspect that in most cases the quantities consumed
in the home market were sufficient for the artisanal enterprise to be successful. Further
validation is required to test this hypothesis, but I find it an attractive thought to consider
the home market as the most important one for oligopolitical artisanal producers and
shift away from our modern archaeological appreciation of the importance of wares
based on their distribution patterns. We should not throw away the latter, but such
exercises should be better based on comparing production output balances and incor-
porating the widely understudied regional wares.
33 Bang 2008.

92
The customers also seemed to have fared well under oligopolitical circumstances.
When operational in stable conditions, such markets guaranteed good quality products
that would evolve in style in correspondence between the few suppliers. In another,
more socio-culturally oriented paper, I have proposed the concept of koinè to explain
how and why Roman tableware reflects an interesting tension between stylistic similar-
ities and differences, and applied the concept to re-introduce the old flag of Late Roman
D wares incorporating SRSW, Cypriot Red Slip Ware as well as other SW Anatolian
lines of tableware production34. Strikingly, more or less the same geographical zone of
tableware koinè seems to have already been morphologically inspirational for the mid
to late Hellenistic tablewares of Sagalassos35. As a result, it seems to me that defining the
Roman Imperial tableware market as an oligopoly, provides the reverse, economic side
to the originally socio-culturally defined coin/koinè, providing important keys to start
understanding in detail why, how and when material culture production was set up,
why, how and when the resulting morphologies can be intriguingly similar or not, and
in which ways these processes created socio-cultural as well as economic opportunities
for past communities, such as the one of Roman Imperial Sagalassos. Yes, somewhere
in all of that, grand processes such as Hellenisation, Romanisation or Christianisation
could have played a role, but the advantage of approaching economies such as the one
of Roman Imperial Sagalassos from an oligopolitical angle and coupling these insights
with looking for seemingly compatible socio-cultural matrices or koinè for the morpho-
logical inspiration of locally produced material culture, is that the full weight of local
communities can be brought to bear, in all of its particularities and nuances.
Particularly the capacity to create the archaeological balance between contributing to
the generic, oftentimes methodological debate and approaching the detailed behaviour
of one specific past community, is what makes Marc’s Sagalassos project so exciting and
valuable to the wider scientific community. This paper hopes to have offered a snapshot
of that potential. Secondly, the result is perhaps best described as an example of ‘soft
interdisciplinarity’ situated within the humanities. But then again, as Marc demonstrated
over and over again in exemplary ways, there should be no boundaries or presumptions
when approaching the archaeology of Sagalassos or the interdisciplinary embeddedness
of our archaeological discipline. I am very grateful to have been one of the scholars to
have been affected by this unique interdisciplinary vision and I sincerely hope to have
understood a little something of the potential of Marc’s important project and legacy.
Acknowledgements
The research for this paper was supported by the CORES network of the Belgian
Programme on Interuniversity Poles of Attraction (http://iap-cores.be/), the Research
Fund of the University of Leuven (GOA 13/04), Project G.0562.11 of the Research Foun-
dation Flanders (FWO), and the Hercules Foundation (AKUL/09/16). J. Poblome was
appointed Francqui Research Professor for 2011-2014.
34 Poblome and Fırat 2011.

35 Van der Enden et al., in press.

93
Jeroen Poblome
References
Andreau 1974 = J. Andreau, Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus, (Collection de l’École Française
de Rome 19), Rome, 1974.
Armstrong 2012 = P. Armstrong, The survey pottery: Hellenistic and later, in J.J. Coulton, ed.,
The Balboura Survey and Settlement in Highland Southwest Anatolia, 2. The Balboura survey: detailed
studies and catalogues, (British Institute at Ankara Monograph 43), London, 2012, pp. 31-82.
Bang 2008 = P.F. Bang, The Roman Bazaar. A Comparative Study of Trade and Markets in a Tributary
Empire, Cambridge, 2008.
Berlage and Decoster 2005 = L. Berlage and A. Decoster, eds., Inleiding tot de economie, Leuven, 2005.
Drexhage et al. 2002 = H.-J. Drexhage, H. Konen and K. Ruffing, Die Wirtschaft des Römischen Reiches
(1.-3. Jahrhundert). Eine Einführung, Berlin, 2002.
Hansen 2006 = M.H. Hansen, The Shotgun Method: the Demography of the Ancient Greek City-state
Culture, Missouri, 2006.
Jongman 2007 = W.M. Jongman, The Early Roman Empire: Consumption, in W. Scheidel, I. Morris and
R.P. Saller, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, Cambridge, 2007,
pp. 592-618.
Lo Cascio 2007 = E. Lo Cascio, The Early Roman Empire: the state and the economy, in W. Scheidel,
I. Morris and R.P. Saller, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World,
Cambridge, 2007, pp. 619-647.
Lund 2005 = J. Lund, An economy of consumption: the Eastern Sigillata A industry in the late Hellenistic
period, in Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies and V. Gabrielsen, eds., Making, Moving and Managing. The
New World of Ancient Economies, 323-31 B.C., Oxford, 2005, pp. 233-254.
Matthews 2006 = J. Matthews, The Journey of Theophanes. Travel, Business and Daily Life in the Roman
East, Yale, 2006.
Mitchell and Waelkens 1988 = S. Mitchell and M. Waelkens, Cremna and Sagalassus 1987, “Anatolian
Studies”, 38, 2008, pp. 53-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3642841.
Nenna 2000 = M.-D. Nenna (ed.), La route du verre. Ateliers primaires et secondaires du second millénaire
av. J.-C. au Moyen Âge, (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen 33), Lyon, 2000.
Pe a 2007 = J.T. Pe a, Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record, Cambridge, 2007.
Murphy and Poblome 2012 = E. Murphy and J. Poblome, Technical and Social Considerations of Tools
from Roman-period Ceramic Workshops at Sagalassos (Southwest Turkey): Not Just Tools of the Trade?,
“Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology”, 25, pp. 69-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jma.v25i2.197.
Persson 2010 = K.G. Persson, An Economic History of Europe. Knowledge, Institutions and Growth,
600 to the present, Cambridge, 2010.
Poblome 1999 = J. Poblome, Sagalassos Red Slip Ware. Typology and Chronology, (Studies in Eastern
Mediterranean Archaeology 2), Turnhout, 1999.
Poblome 2004 = J. Poblome, Comparing Ordinary Craft Production: Textile and Pottery Production in
Roman Asia Minor, “Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient”, 47, 2012, pp. 491-506.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1568520042467163.
Poblome et al. 2007 = J. Poblome, D. Malfitana and J. Lund, Tempus fugit. “FACTA” manent. Editorial
statement, “FACTA. A Journal of Roman Material Culture Studies”, 1, 2007, pp. 13-20.
94
Poblome et al. 2010 = J. Poblome, P. Bes, B. De Cupere, V. Lauwers, K. Romanus, A.K. Vionis and
M. Waelkens, Sic transit gloria mundi. Does it really? Wasting seventh century AD Sagalassos (SW Turkey), in
S. Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinuci and G. Guiducci, eds., LRCW3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking
Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. Comparison between Western and
Eastern Mediterranean, (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2185), Oxford, 2010, pp. 791-801.
Poblome and Fırat 2011 = J. Poblome and N. Fırat, Late Roman D. A matter of open(ing) or closed
horizons?, in M.A. Cau, P. Reynolds and M. Bonifay, eds., LRFW1. Late Roman Fine Wares. Solving
Problems of Typology and Chronology. A review of the Evidence, Debate and New Contexts, (Roman and
Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 1), Oxford, 2011, pp. 49-55.
Poblome et al. 2012a = J. Poblome, P. Bes and R. Willet, Thoughts on the Archaeological residue of
Networks. A View from the East, in S. Keay, ed., Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean, (Archaeological
Monographs of the British School at Rome 21), London, 2012, pp. 393-401.
Poblome et al. 2012b = J. Poblome, D. Malfitana and J. Lund, Scherben bringen Glück. HEROM’s editorial
statement, “HEROM. Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture”, 1, 2012, pp. 7-22.
Poblome, in press = J. Poblome, The potters of Sagalassos revisited, in M. Flohr and A. Wilson, eds.,
Beyond Marginality. Craftsmen, Traders and the Socioeconomic History of Urban Communities in the
Roman World, Oxford, in press.
Poblome et al., in press = J. Poblome, D. Braekmans, B. Mušič, M. Van der Enden, B. Neyt, B. De
Graeve and P. Degryse, A pottery kiln underneath the Odeon of ancient Sagalassos, SW Turkey. The
excavation results, the table wares and their archaeometrical analysis, in N. Fenn and C. Römer-Strehl,
eds., Networks in the Hellenistic world According to the Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond,
(British Archaeological Reports International Series), Oxford, in press.
Scheidel 2007 = W. Scheidel, Demography, in W. Scheidel, I. Morris and R. Saller, eds., The Cambridge
Economic History of the Greco-Roman world, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 38-86.
Temin 2013 = P. Temin, The Roman Market Economy, Princeton, 2013.
Van der Enden et al., in press = M. Van der Enden, J. Poblome and P. Bes, From Hellenistic to Roman
Imperial in Pisidian Tableware: The Genesis of Sagalassos Red Slip Ware, in Third International Pottery
Workshop at Nieborów, in press.
van Nijf 1997 = O.M. van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East, (Dutch
Monographs on Ancient History and Archaeology 17), Amsterdam, 1997.
Wieling 2000 = H. Wieling, Vertragsgestaltung der römischen Keramikproduktion, in K. Strobel, ed.,
Forschungen zur römischen Keramikindustrie. Produktions-, Rechts- und Distributionsstrukturen, (Trierer
Historische Forschungen 42), Mainz, 2000, pp. 9-22.
Willet and Poblome 2011 = R. Willet and J. Poblome, The Pale Red Slipped Dot, “FACTA. A Journal of
Roman Material Culture Studies”, 5, 2011, pp. 101-110.
Zimmermann 2002 = C. Zimmermann, Handwerkvereine im griechischen Osten des Imperium Romanum,
(Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum. Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte Monographien
57), Mainz, 2002.
95
Sagalassos and the
Pisidia Survey Project:
In Search of Pisidia’s History
Sagalassos is a mountain city at the heart of a highland region, Pisidia (Fig. 1). Modern
understanding of the history, culture and environment of this region has been trans-
formed in the last thirty years, thanks to the Sagalassos excavations and to regional
survey work which began in the early 1980s.1 Marc Waelkens has been at the heart
of the Pisidian Survey project since its inception. When Stephen Mitchell submitted
an application to survey Pisidian Antioch in 1982, his was the first name on the team
list. Waelkens’ work on the two temples, the Hellenistic peristyle building dedicated to
Mên Askaênos on the mountain top at Karakuyu, and the Augustan podium temple at
the heart of the Roman colony, provided essential foundations for the publication of
the two seasons of fieldwork at Antioch.2 That work also opened the doorway to the
Pisidia Survey as a whole, by showing how much information could be gained from
detailed and attentive recording of the surviving and visible architectural remains of
one of the classical sites of south-west Turkey.
It was important that Mitchell and Waelkens came to Pisidia not from a background
of studying the classical sites of the Aegean or Mediterranean region, but from cen-
tral Anatolia, ancient Phrygia and Galatia, where structural remains of Graeco-Roman
antiquity only rarely survived in a recognisable form without excavation. In contrast,
Pisidia’s rich heritage of urban sites, with monumental civic architecture already present
in the Hellenistic period, made an immediate impression and proved an ideal labora-
tory for the application of three survey methods: topographical mapping, architectural
reconstruction, and epigraphic recording.3 In combination these techniques allowed for
1 S. Mitchell and L. Vandeput, together with V. Köse, have directed the most extensive and long-running

survey in classical (that is Hellenistic and Roman) Pisidia, but there have been many other important
contributions, notably the pioneering survey of Selge by A. Machatschek and M. Schwarz (1981), by M.
Özsait (Istanbul University) and his collaborators especially in northern Pisidia, by N. Çevik and colleagues
(Akdeniz University) in the mountains south of Termessos and west of Antalya, and by J. Nollé at Selge and
Etenna north of Side. Pride of place among studies of the region should go to the monumental publication
by J. Coulton of the survey of Balboura and its territory (Coulton 2012a-b). This city in the highland coun-
try north of Lycia, which was colonised by Pisidians in the early second century, has provided revealing
parallels and contrasts with developments in Pisidia itself.
2 Mitchell and Waelkens 1998.

3 Vandeput and Köse, in press.

97
Fig. 1. Map of Pisidia (after S. Mitchell (1993) opposite 78) indicating the cities surveyed by the Pisidia Sur-
vey Project (Antioch, Cremna, Sagalassos, Ariassos, Kaynar Kale, Panemoteichos, Sia, Melli and Pednelis-
sos). The regional surveys by the Pisidia Survey Project are shaded (larger lighter-shaded area = Korkuteli
region, smaller darker = countryside around Pednelissos).
a swift and cost-effective re-appraisal of Pisidian culture. Even in the early years of the
survey, the advanced civic structures of Pisidia could be appreciated on their own terms.
The larger settlements readily stood comparison with the better-known cities of the
coastal regions.4
Seven cities were surveyed in the initial phase of the project between 1982 and 1996
under Stephen Mitchell’s direction: Pisidian Antioch, Cremna, Sagalassos itself, Arias-
sos, Panemoteichos, Kaynar Kale (perhaps ancient Kodrula), and Sia, as well as the re-
4 Independently H. Brandt’s historical study of the relationship between Pisidia and Pamphylia pointed to

similar conclusions (Brandt 1992).
98
Sagalassos and the Pisidia Survey Project
markable Roman road station at the Döşeme Boğazı.5 Between 1998 and 2013 the Pisidia
survey has been directed by Lutgarde Vandeput, with Veli Köse as co-director. Two fur-
ther cities were added to the survey list, Melli (the ancient name is unknown) and Ped-
nelissos, but fieldwork since 2007 has followed a different pattern and focussed on study
of the rural territory of Pednelissos, rather than on another civic settlement (Fig. 1).6
Apart from detailed site reports, publication of the Pisidian survey has led to a number
of studies designed to show how the region of Pisidia developed chronologically. The
initial surveys of Antioch, Cremna, Sagalassos and Ariassos, taken with observations
from settlements across the entire region, led to a re-evaluation of the Hellenization of
Pisidia, especially during the second century BC.7 The history of the Pisidian cities in the
early Roman empire became more complex and diversified, but major changes in civic
architecture and culture can be observed in the Augustan and Antonine periods, and epi-
graphic evidence suggests a major phase of ‘Romanization’ under the Severan emperors
and in the middle of the third century AD.8 The techniques used in the early years of the
Pisidian survey were less effective for studying settlements in late antiquity because it
was rare to find chronological clues in the material record which could differentiate and
date structures between c. 300 and 600. Furthermore, virtually no substantial structures
at all could be identified belonging to the subsequent Byzantine period.9
The Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project grew organically from the Pisidia Sur-
vey project. The urban core of the site was already mapped when Waelkens identified
the ‘Potters’ Quarter’, an extensive area of ceramic manufacture on the high ground east
of the theatre. The exposed kiln dumps were the target of a rescue excavation in 1989. In
1990 attention turned to the city itself and by a happy coincidence the first monument
recorded by the survey team, the small late Hellenistic Doric nymphaeum west of the
theatre, was also selected as the first building to be uncovered and later restored during
the excavation.10
It hardly needs to be said that the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project has moved
far beyond its origins in the Pisidian survey, in scale, in methodology, in concept and in its
objectives. The impact of the Sagalassos project can well be described with the words once
used by Peter Brown to describe A.H.M. Jones’ famous work on The Later Roman Empire,
as ‘like the arrival of a steel-plant in a region that has, of late, been given over to light
industries’.11 In particular the Sagalassos team has pioneered new ground and achieved
remarkable results in using a growing repertoire of specialized scientific techniques to
probe both the material and environmental history of the site and its territory. However,
the study of ancient buildings, especially public architecture, has been common to both
survey and excavation, and the objective of this paper is to review the ways in which work
5 For an overview, see Mitchell 1998.

6 Bibliography see Vandeput and Köse, in press.

7 Mitchell 1991b; 1992, providing much of the basis for Bracke 1993.

8 Mitchell and Waelkens 1998 for Pisidian Antioch under Augustus; Vandeput 2007 for the Augustan and

Antonine period; Mitchell 1999 for the third century.
9 Mitchell 2000.

10 Compare Mitchell 1986, pp. 8-10 with Waelkens et al. 1991, pp. 197-213.

11 Brown 1972, p. 49.

99
at Sagalassos has served to reinforce, refute or enlarge perspectives on Pisidian history

that have been generated by the regional survey. The results of excavation and restora-
tion at Sagalassos have combined to demonstrate how hints and hypotheses that were
generated during survey work can bear fruit not only in a comprehensive structural his-
tory but also in the dramatic reconstruction of a spectacular site.
Archaeological information about the development of Pisidian settlements and settle-
ment patterns before ca. 300 BC is still elusive.12 Until the discovery of a large fortified
site on the hilltop east of the small Hellenistic-Roman city of Panemoteichos in southern
Pisidia, the Pisidian survey project had drawn a blank in identifying evidence for settle-
ment in the region earlier than the Hellenistic period. However, an impressive circuit of
fortifications, dateable by ceramic finds to the 8th or 7th century BC, a small prostyle tem-
ple, and large rock-cut water-storage facilities, marked Panemoteichos I as a precursor
to the major Hellenistic regional settlements (Selge, Termessos, Sagalassos and others),
and indicated that the inhabitants of Pisidia were already capable of ‘urban’ organisa-
tion half a millennium before the emergence of recognisable Greek polis structures and
institutions.13 Panemoteichos I can be fitted into a typology of large Anatolian Iron Age
sites, which include the Phrygian capital at Midas Şehri, and even larger Cappadocian
fortified centres such as Kerkenes or the enigmatic mountain-top site on Göllü Dağ.14
In other words, behind the Greek influence that shaped the Hellenistic Pisidian com-
munities there lay tangible and important Anatolian traditions. Nevertheless, none of
the known Iron Age settlements in the region developed into a polis. The locations of
the early settlements shifted in every case, although not always by much. Hellenistic and
Roman imperial Panemoteichos II for instance, is located a considerable distance west of
the hilltop on top of which the remains of Panemoteichos I were found.
Recent results from the Sagalassos project have complicated, but not yet clarified the
question of the origins of organised large-scale settlement in Pisidia. The extensive site at
Düzen Tepe, close to Sagalassos, is so seriously eroded that despite careful excavation and
survey, large questions remain both about its date and about the nature of the settlement,
depending on whether the pottery should be dated between the 5th and 2nd centuries BC,
or between the 3rd and the 1st century BC. The former scenario would make Düzen Tepe
a precursor of Hellenistic Sagalassos, the latter an intriguing contemporary settlement,
apparently housing a population less exposed to or less receptive to Hellenization.15 Small
fortified Hellenistic or pre-Hellenistic sites have been identified during the exploration
of Sagalassian territory, but the extent to which these were politically dependent on Sa-
galassos remains unclear. Indication of sophisticated settlements on the northern edge of
12 For an overview of pre- and protohistoric sites in the highlands of Pisidia and their development see Van-

haverbeke and Waelkens 2003, pp. 89-105; 149-216; M. Özsait and his team have also been working on a
long-term survey project in the region, mainly focussing on pre- and protohistoric sites, but mentioning
more recent remains. The results of this survey are published annually in ‘Araştırma sonuçları toplantısı’.
For evidence of presence and habitation in prehistoric times along the southern border of the region,
below the mountains, see Vandeput 2012.
13 Aydal et al. 1997.

14 Schirmer 1993, pp. 121-31; Schirmer 1998, pp. 51–63.


100
Fig. 2. View of the N-Gate and the city wall at Pednelissos.
101
Pisidia originates from Ada Tepesi (near Duğer) and Yarımada (near Uylupınar). Remains
of representative architecture with polychrome and relief moulded architectural terracotta
in Phrygian and Lydian style was discovered at both sites, but the extent and nature of the
settlements is as yet unclear.16 Votives and coins from the temple at Arpalık Tepesi (Yu-
maklar) on the southernmost border of Pisidia indicate that this cave sanctuary functioned
without interruption from the beginning of the 6th century BC till the 4th century AD.17
The settlement which grew around the sanctuary, however, is later in time. In sum, both
the Pisidian survey and the Sagalassos excavation have revealed glimpses of pre-Hellenistic
Pisidia, but a clear picture of its society and development has yet to emerge.
The Pisidian survey and the Sagalassos excavation have thrown a good deal of light on
the way in which Pisidian cities acquired the distinctive architecture of a monumental-
ized civic culture in the Hellenistic period, but there is very little clear evidence relating
to the chronology of city fortifications. Although the outlying fortlets and a lengthy
barrier wall to the north of the site have received justified attention, most of the main
defensive circuit of Hellenistic Sagalassos was demolished or buried by the growing Ro-
man imperial city. The fortifications appear to have been rectilinear and simple in con-
ception, with small square towers placed in a straight curtain wall.18 Unfortunately, there
is no stratified dating evidence, and the chronology has to be based on comparisons with
other sites. The wall typology fits with the late Hellenistic city fortifications of southern
Asia Minor, including the city walls of Side, Perge and Pednelissos, discussed in most
detail by A.W. McNicoll.19 The Pisidian survey has documented several other important
Hellenistic wall circuits, notably at Pednelissos (Fig. 2), Melli, Ariassos, Cremna and Sia
(Fig. 3), but the overall dating of these city defences remains obscure.20 Multi-period
construction is evident at Pednelissos and Sia, and should probably be assumed else-
where. If wall building was usually a local civic initiative, it would be a mistake to look
for simultaneous development across the whole region.
The cities acquired agoras surrounded by monumental buildings during the Hellenis-
tic period. These accommodated the institutions necessary to sustain the political, eco-
nomic, and religious needs of the inhabitants of these independent city states. At the
beginning of our era, Pisidia was dotted with a network of fully developed cities.21 The
bouleuterion is a particularly notable feature of Hellenistic Sagalassos (Fig. 4), whose
design recalls the council chambers of Ionian cities such as Miletos and Priene. This, like
other Hellenistic structures, underwent radical architectural and functional changes in
later periods. Again, however, a more precise chronology for the evolution of Hellenistic
Sagalassos remains tantalisingly elusive.
16 Hülden in Corsten and Hülden 2012, p. 121, fig. 5; Kahya 2012; Cummer 1970, pp. 29-54.

17 Işın, in press; Vandeput 2012.

18 Loots et al. 2000, pp. 598-614.

19 McNicoll 1997, especially his chapter ‘the Attalids and southern Asia Minor’, pp.118-156.

20 Pednelissos: Laufer 2010; Sagalassos: Loots et al. 2000, pp. 598-614. The existence of pre-Hellenistic walls

is assumed upon the base of literary evidence, but no archaeological remains can be attributed with cer-
tainty, see Loots et al. 2000, p. 597; Sia: Aydal et al. 1998; Ariassos: Mitchell 1996; Panemoteichos: Aydal et
al. 1997, pp. 159-160; Cremna: Mitchell 1995, pp. 46-50.
21 Mitchell 1991; 1992; 1996, pp. 194-95; 1998, pp. 243-244; Vandeput 2007.

102
Fig. 3. Topographical map of Sia (measured and drawn by S. Aydal).
Non-archaeological evidence from coins, inscriptions and historical texts hint that Pi-
sidia’s communities already resembled Greek poleis in the third century, although there
is little trace of Hellenistic public architecture anywhere in the region before the second
century BC. None of the Hellenistic structures excavated at Sagalassos seems demonstra-
bly earlier than 200 BC. Distinct Macedonian traditions have been identified in the ma-
terial culture, in particular the depiction of Macedonian-style shields on buildings and
funerary ostothekai, but these do not necessarily reflect a Seleucid influence on Sagalas-
sos’ development.22 It remains an open question whether the early Hellenistic precursors
of the bouleuterion, the Doric temple and the heroa around the agora are simply hard to
find, or in fact absent from the archaeological record. In the 3rd century BC Sagalassos,
like the rest of Pisidia, remains an archaeological enigma.
22 Kosmetatou and Waelkens 1997, pp. 277-291; for the funerary context of most of these representations

see the full treatment by Köse 2005, pp. 49-77. None of the ostothekai can certainly be dated before the
beginning of the 2nd century BC
103
Fig. 4. View from the NE towards the bouleuterion at Sagalassos.
Most of the Pisidian cities expanded beyond their Hellenistic limits during the Roman im-
perial period. This is obvious at Sagalassos and at Pednelissos, for instance, but also at smaller
cities like Sia (Fig. 3) and Panemoteichos. 23 This development often caused the displacement
of civic centres, usually from the higher defended hill slopes to more exposed but convenient
locations. The remains at Ariassos, Pednelissos and Sia (Fig. 3) illustrate this development,
characteristic of the pax Romana.24 In this respect Sagalassos does not fit the pattern. Until
the end of the first century AD most of the main public buildings occupied exposed positions
on the high plateau between ‘Alexander’s Hill’ and the mountain barrier to the north, sited
around the two agorai, which both lay within the line of the former Hellenistic defences.
These limits were broken on all sides in the second century AD, when the theatre to the east,
the temple of Antoninus Pius to the south, and the stadion to the west, the later location of
Basilica E1, radically extended the boundaries of the city’s public area.
Typical Roman architectural forms, such as bathhouses or honorific arches, and buildings
with elaborately decorated facades, were added to the apparatus of public monumental ar-
chitecture in Pisidian cities during the first centuries of our era. Over time the large Roman
imperial monuments enveloped and sometimes completely obscured the smaller Hellenistic
buildings. Though often dwarfed, however, the Hellenistic public infrastructure remained in
use as did most of the original Hellenistic urban structure.
However, whereas city development in Pisidia throughout the Hellenistic times essentially
ran parallel, heterogeneous development can be traced in the major cities between the later
first century BC and ca. 150 AD.25 In Pisidian Antioch and Sagalassos, and to a lesser extent in
Selge and Termessos, a new wave of public building started from the beginning of the impe-
rial period under Augustus. Activity then rapidly slowed down, but not in Sagalassos. Apart
23 Sagalassos: Loots et al. 2000; Pednelissos: Vandeput and Köse 2003, pp. 318-19; Vandeput et al. 2005, p.

237; Laufer 2010; Sia: Aydal et al. 1998 Panemoteichos: Aydal et al., 1997, p. 141, 159.
24 Ariassos: Mitchell 1991a and Schulz 1992; Mitchell 1996, p. 199; Sia: Mitchell 1998, pp. 243-44; Aydal et al.

1998; Pednelissos: Vandeput and Köse 2004, pp. 348-49; Vandeput 2007, p. 137.
25 Vandeput 2007; Köse forthcoming.

104
from a dip towards the end of the first century AD, large-scale monumental construction as
well as the erection of honorific monuments in Sagalassos continued without interruption
till the beginning of the third century AD.26 Moreover, Sagalassos’ buildings and honorific
monuments were almost exclusively erected in an elaborately decorated ‘Roman imperial’
style, breaking with earlier traditions.
The continuous development of public architecture at Sagalassos is atypical for the region.
Monumental architectural building between the late first century BC and the mid second cen-
tury AD is hardly to be seen in most of the many middle-sized and small Pisidian cities. Either
public construction must have come to a halt during those years or, if it did continue, it was
in the plain fashion of the Hellenistic period. In the latter case, absence of inscriptions and/or
architectural decoration means that there are few possibilities of dating these buildings, and
they cannot be differentiated from their Hellenistic counterparts without excavations. There
is extensive construction activity at the Roman colony of Cremna in the Hadrianic period, but
monumental Roman imperial period buildings in Pisidia’s cities mostly date to the Antonine
period or later.27
Pednelissos, one of the middle-sized Pisidian cities, is one of the cities in which architectural
decoration as well as inscriptions are lacking for the pre-Antonine period.28 However, ceramics
retrieved during the survey from an illegally dug pit in the podium of the temple in the lower
city revealed that this monument was built in the second half of the first century BC or the first
half of the first century AD. This confirmed that construction had not been completely inter-
rupted, but that, unlike Sagalassos, Pednelissos did not see any need for adopting the new, deco-
rative ‘Roman imperial’ construction style. Nevertheless, high quality ceramic imports from this
period indicate that the city was thriving and located within a wide network of interregional
trade roads.29 The location of Pednelissos (Fig. 1) excludes the possibility that the inhabitants of
the city were not aware of new building types and styles. It rather appears that they were not
interested in adopting and adapting them, but rather held on to earlier traditions.
The pattern changed in the Antonine period. In the small city of Melli, a shrine and an hon-
orific monument were erected for Antoninus Pius, and the first elaborately decorated honorific
monument appeared in the Antonine period on the agora at Pednelissos (Fig. 5).30 From then
onwards, ever more cities adopted the ‘Roman imperial’ style public architecture. Monuments
and temples dedicated to the Severan emperors adorn almost every city in Pisidia.31 Moreover,
construction of monumental public architecture continued in many Pisidian cities at least until
the middle years of the third century AD and reflected a thorough Romanization of the local
elite.32 This is illustrated in grand style by the third century AD monumental honorific arch
erected at Ariassos, which commemorated Severus Alexander’s victories against the Persians
in the early 230’s.33
26 Vandeput 1997, pp. 41-119.

27 Mitchell 1999, p. 422; Köse forthcoming.

28 Behrwald 2003.

29 Zelle 2007, p. 196.

30 Vandeput and Köse 2001, p. 136, figs 4-7; Vandeput 2007, fig. 8.

31 Vandeput and Büyükkolancı 1999, pp. 246-248; Mitchell 1999, pp. 425-426; Köse forthcoming.

32 Mitchell 1999, pp. 425-433.

33 Horsley and Mitchell 2000, nos. 112-114.

105
Fig. 5. Architrave of an Antonine honorific monument, re-used in the early Christian Basilica on the agora
of Pednelissos.
The reasons behind the abrupt stylistic change in urban architecture after the middle
of the second century AD, not only at Pednelissos, but also elsewhere in Pisidia, are not
entirely transparent. The ‘building boom’ of the Trajanic and especially Hadrianic peri-
ods, well documented elsewhere in Asia Minor,34 appears to have been delayed in the
smaller Pisidian cities, but there is considerable evidence for construction activity under
Antoninus Pius. In Pednelissos, the oldest building inscription which can be attributed
to a specific monument dates from the reign of Antoninus Pius. In other Pisidian cities,
the adaptation to elaborate Roman decoration dates from the same period. Furthermore
the earliest buildings that receive this treatment appear to be connected to the imperial
cult. The change in local attitudes towards the style of public construction may be linked
with the large sums of money donated by the emperor Antoninus Pius for rebuilding cit-
ies including Termessos and Side after the great earthquake of ca. 140 AD, which caused
enormous devastation in SW Asia Minor.35 It is then that previously ‘indifferent’ Pisidian
cities began to show through the adoption of a new architectural and decorative style that
they belonged to the Roman empire. This attitude became even more obvious under the
Severans, and the thorough Romanization of the Pisidian elites continued throughout the
third century AD.36 By contrast Sagalassos, as well as the leading Roman colony at Pisidian
Antioch, had adopted a conspicuously ‘Roman imperial’ architectural style from the early
imperial period onwards. Antioch’s adoption of Roman, indeed western Roman archi-
tectural features, was to be expected in a colony of Roman citizens which benefitted from
34 Boatwright 2002.

35 The impact of the earthquake and subsequent reconstruction projects are most fully documented in Lycia.

They provided the occasion for much of the euergetism of Opramoas of Rhodiapolis; see Kokkinia 2000.
36 Mitchell 1999, pp. 425-433; Vandeput 1999; Köse forthcoming.

106
explicit imperial patronage from Augustus and members of his family. But Sagalassos also
had established itself as a centre of Roman power and influence in an area which had been
pacified with some difficulty in the first century BC. Economically it had supported Rome
through grain deliveries, and the ceramic trade becomes economically significant from this
time onwards.37 The city looked out to the wider empire and its architecture was a cultural
signifier of the important role that it now played.
The most spectacular and newsworthy discoveries of the Sagalassos project have come
from the excavation of Roman public buildings, and the impact of these finds has been
heightened by the restoration programme which has restored many of them to some-
thing close to their original appearance. The sculptural finds have not been as numerous
as at Aphrodisias, Ephesos or Perge, but have compensated by their significance: the
dancing girl frieze from the Northwest Heroon, the colossal imperial heads of Hadrian,
Marcus Aurelius and the elder Faustina from the bath building, and the great Dionysus
and Asclepius compositions from the nymphaeum on the upper agora.38
The Sagalassos excavations have unquestionably enlarged our knowledge of the devel-
opment of Roman cities in Pisidia, in particular by showing how high the aspirations of
the region’s metropolis could be. In quality and scale Sagalassos’ buildings match those
of the major cities of Asia Minor. They are certainly not unparalleled, even at a regional
level, but the chronological evidence shows that Sagalassos was blazing a trail for the
other cities of the region and was not merely conforming to a general regional pattern.
The study of building types, architectural decoration and monumental epigraphic evi-
dence, the core methodologies of the Pisidian survey, had already shown that cities of
Roman Pisidia were well endowed with public buildings, and their dating provides us
with a framework for understanding the development of civic culture. Sagalassos now
takes its place as the most lavish and closely documented case-study in the region.
The transition to late antiquity is marked by the appearance of churches within the
city fabric. In each of the surveyed sites, several early Christian basilicas are preserved,
testifying to a profound Christianisation of the region.39 Even modest city sites such
as Ariassos, Sia (Fig. 3) and Melli boast several early Christian basilicas and chapels.40
Most churches and chapels were constructed within the cities, but extramural churches
regularly appear. The best-preserved example is the large three-aisled basilica, with ad-
joining baptistery, located in the main cemetery outside Sia, which perhaps should be
interpreted as a martyrion.41
Many churches were converted older public monuments. Church A in the middle of
the site at Cremna, for instance, was an adaptation of the Hadrianic civic basilica flank-
ing the north side of the forum.42 Some churches deliberately replaced or effaced earlier
37 Köse, forthcoming; Mitchell 1999, p. 427; Poblome et al. 2007, p. 228 (ceramics); Vandeput 2007, p. 136;

Waelkens 2002, p. 337.
38 For the contemporary impact of the Dionysus sculptures see Mitchell 2008.

39 Cremna: Mitchell 1995, pp. 219-232.

40 Ariassos: Mitchell 1996, p. 200; Melli: Vandeput and Köse 2002, pp. 148-150, figs. 6-9; Sia: Aydal et al.

1998, pp. 281-282, figs. 5-6.
41 Aydal et al. 1998, pp. 281-282, fig. 5.

42 Mitchell 1995, pp. 220-222, fig. 57.

107
pagan temples. The façade of a chapel along the street towards the agora in Pednelissos
was entirely constructed of spolia from a temple for the Severan emperors. The re-use
of material in this way certainly indicates that the temple had been completely demol-
ished.43 Temples suffered the same fate in other cities in Pisidia and are often found in
worse condition than other monumental remains in the cities. At Sagalassos, for in-
stance, the imperial temple of Antoninus Pius as well as a nearby Trajanic temple were
demolished systematically in order to provide building material for Basilica E1, which
was located in the city stadion.44
But for all this evidence, the picture of Christianization from the Pisidan survey re-
mains one-dimensional, not least because it has proved far harder to reconstruct a con-
vincing chronology for the buildings of late antiquity than for those of the early empire.
Only one church is epigraphically dated, the large basilica in Pisidian Antioch (the so-
called church of Paul), thanks to an inscription referring to Bishop Optimus (who was
in office in AD 380), which was set in the well-preserved mosaic floor, associated with
the original layout of the church. The building was subsequently enlarged in the fifth
and sixth centuries.45 Generally the ground plans of Pisidian churches adhered to the
traditional form of the three-aisled basilica unchanged over centuries, and there is little
distinctive architectural decoration. Mosaics and wall paintings were certainly present,
but have been destroyed or buried.
Early Christian basilicas were the only new form of large-scale public monumental
construction within the cities in late antiquity 46 and their distribution within the urban
fabric attest the continuous large-scale occupation of the cities. Other transformations
in the urban fabric illustrate continuing civic vitality as well as social developments. The
remains of domestic quarters in Pednelissos, Melli, Ariassos, Sia (Fig. 3) and Cremna are
evidence that the cities had large populations in late antiquity.47 Pisidian cities flourished
in the fourth and fifth centuries.48
This result is consistent with information from excavations in Sagalassos and with
developments elsewhere in Asia Minor.49 However, the results from surveys in Pisidia
and elsewhere cannot begin to match the quality of information provided by the Sagalassos
excavation. One might single out the conclusions that the Sagalassos team has been able
to draw from evidence of earthquakes around 500 and in the first quarter of the seventh
century AD. It is not so much the accurate dating of these episodes, as the response of the
city’s inhabitants, which can be documented in detail, that illuminates the later history of
the site. It is evident that in the early sixth century Sagalassos’ inhabitants were fully capa-
ble of rebuilding their former lives and activities, while a century later they were unable to
recover from the disaster and the ancient city came to an end. The Sagalassos work has not
43 Karas and Ristow 2003, p. 141, fig. 3 (Kirche 2); Vandeput 2009, p. 26, fig. 1, C-D.

44 Mitchell 1995, pp. 229-230; Sagalassos Basilica E1: Vandeput 1997, pp. 202-204, 207-208.

45 Mitchell and Waelkens 1998, pp. 210-217.

46 Mitchell 1996, pp. 196-197.

47 Pednelissos: Vandeput and Köse 2006, p. 353, figs. 4-6; Melli: Vandeput and Köse 2002, pp. 150-151, figs.

10-13; Cremna: Mitchell 1995, pp. 158-175; Ariassos: Mitchell 1996, pp. 197-200, figs. 3, 6.
48 Mitchell 2000, pp. 141-142; Waelkens et al. 2006, pp. 217-227.

49 Mitchell 1995, pp. 219-232; Waelkens et al 2006, pp. 217-231; see now Jacobs 2012.

108
only laid bare the impact of these natural disasters on the ancient city, but has exposed the
fullest and most intelligible history of any Asia Minor city in late antiquity.50
It is all the more remarkable that the story of late Sagalassos can be expounded in
such detail without the supporting testimony of a single scrap of written evidence, a
true triumph for archaeological science. The excavations have revolutionized our un-
derstanding of the city in late antiquity. As is the case with most ancient classical cities
the later periods have provided richer material documentation than the earlier phases
simply by virtue of the fact that they are less disturbed by subsequent levels. However,
unlike most classical excavations, late Sagalassos has received the full attention of its
excavators and their work has led to huge gains not simply for the history of the city
until its abandonment in the early seventh century, but for our understanding of the
history of Asia Minor in late antiquity as a whole. The main churches can all be dated to
the fifth century, and it is evident that Christianity in its monumental public form was a
relatively late phenomenon. The church in the courtyard of the bouleuterion was built
at the beginning of the century.
The Temple of Apollo Klarios, prominently located above the Lower Agora, was con-
verted into a three-aisled basilica.51 Basilica E1 at the west side of the site was also built
in this period. Thus the major church building of the age of Theodosius II, as at Carian
Aphrodisias, went hand-in-hand with the complete reconfiguration or demolition of
the major pagan temples.52
Another major result of the excavation is the dating of the late Roman city walls to
the early fifth century, at a period of serious unrest caused by the Isaurians.53 The walls
partly followed the line of the earlier Hellenistic fortifications, but were extended to
include the temenos area of the Antonine imperial temple. They also incorporated the
Doric temple and Northwest Heroon to the west of the upper agora as towers set on ei-
ther side of a new city gate. The aesthetic qualities of these buildings, respectively of late
Hellenistic and Augustan date, were clearly sacrificed to practical needs. Most cities of
Asia Minor acquired fortifications in late antiquity, and this activity should generally be
correlated with periods of specific political unrest and insecurity. Some are clearly date-
able to the middle of the third century, when southern Asia Minor was invaded from
the east by Sassanian armies. Relations between the Roman empire and Sassanian Persia
were generally harmonious during the fifth century, but the Isaurians proved a constant
menace from around 350 until the 490s. Much work needs to be done in assessing the re-
sponses of the otherwise peaceful cities of Asia Minor to this threat to their security, and
work on the late fortifications at Sagalassos has pioneered the way for further research
by providing an invaluable fixed point.
However, most important of all has been the detailed examination of the relationship
between Christianity and pagan culture at Sagalassos, conducted by a minute examina-
tion of the material record. This for the first time offers researchers the opportunity to
50 Waelkens 2011a, pp. 153-158 for a summary. In more detail, Waelkens et al. 2006; Vionis et al. 2009, pp.

148-149, 162.
51 Courtyard bouleuterion: Waelkens 2001, pp. 163-166; Apollo Klarios: Talloen 2007, pp. 327-330.

52 Jacobs forthcoming; Jacobs 2012, pp. 113-164.

53 Loots et al. (2000), pp. 614-632.

109
escape the bias of the mostly Christian literary evidence and thirteenth century to view
religious life and experience at ground level. It is safe to say that the current intensive
study of late Sagalassos by Peter Talloen, Ine Jacobs, Luke Lavan and others will trans-
form our understanding of the relationship between Christianity and paganism as well
as many other aspects of the culture of late antiquity in Asia Minor.54 It would be inap-
propriate and premature to attempt to summarise these researches. It is clear already,
however, that survey in Pisidia has come nowhere close to the excavation project in
throwing light on this period.
Inland Anatolia from the seventh to the ninth centuries is notoriously a dark age.
Ceramic finds, or rather the lack of ceramic finds, from the territory of Pednelissos in
southern Pisidia indicate that the settlements in that region, bordering Pamphylia, were
at least partially abandoned in the seventh and eighth centuries, although some evidence
points to continuing occupation albeit by greatly reduced populations.55 This confirms
the results of the Sagalassos excavations, which have revealed very limited occupation
at the site through to the thirteenth century AD, but no indication that the earlier civic
culture survived the break which changed Sagalassos’ character for ever in the first half
of the seventh century.56
Elsewhere in Pisidia, alterations to some churches may date to later than the seventh
and eighth centuries. At least three churches in Pednelissos provide evidence for the
construction of small chapels within the larger original buildings, a phenomenon which
can be observed in several churches in the cities of western Asia Minor, and may indi-
cate continuity or revival of Christian worship in the later Byzantine period. Karas and
Ristow refer to a parallel in Side, dated to the 8th-9th century AD57. But it is completely
unclear when these transformations took place at Pednelissos. Overall, evidence is scant
and chronologically vague.58 Taken as a whole the survey evidence indicates that the
classical Pisidian cities were not occupied after the mid seventh century, a conclusion
that is fully in line with the Sagalassos evidence.
One of the major achievements of the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project is the
survey of the territory of Sagalassos, carried out since the early 1990s. The results of
this research have also provided an extremely important body of material for compari-
son with the survey which has more recently been carried out in the rural area around
Pednelissos (2007-2012). Both surveys collected information using a mixture of non-
intensive and intensive survey methods.59 The long-term setup of the survey in the terri-
54 For an outline, see Waelkens 2011b, pp. 133-151, and Jacobs 2010, pp. 74-80. Peter Talloen is prepar-

ing the publication of a radical new study of the Christianization of Sagalassos based on his Leuven PhD
thesis, and Luke Lavan is working on the urban fabric of the city at this period.
55 Compare also the very detailed and careful discussions of this period in the Balboura region and northern

Lycia, by Coulton and Armstrong: Coulton 2012a, pp. 163-184; Armstrong in Coulton 2012b, pp. 65-71.
56 Vionis et al. 2009.

57 Karas and Ristow 2003, p. 155.

58 Mitchell 2000.

59 Sagalassos: Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003; Pednelissos: Vandeput 2009; Vandeput and Köse 2013,

with further bibliography.
110
Fig. 6. Map indicating the regional survey area around Pednelissos with spatial analysis of farmsteads
and settlements as well as olive oil production facilities (Vandeput and Köse, in press).
Fig. 7. View of the remains of the Hellenistic farm with tower in Çetince.
111
tory of Sagalassos allowed the team to conduct intensive survey over several larger areas
employing specialists from a wide range of disciplines,60 which has produced a wealth
of detailed information.61 Together, the two surveys provide for the first time detailed
insight in the habitation of the countryside in the region and in its development.
Results from both surveys revealed densely inhabited rural areas with settlement pat-
terns that essentially duplicate one another. A mixture of isolated facilities, mainly farm-
steads, and settlements of varying sizes occupied the territory of the poleis (Fig. 6). There
were also differences. Whereas farms with towers (Turmgehöfte) (Fig. 7) formed an es-
sential element of the Hellenistic habitation pattern in the rural area around Pednelissos,
and in other regions in SW Asia Minor, notably the region around Kyaneai surveyed
over many years by Frank Kolb’s teams, they seem not to have been part of the settle-
ment typology in the territory of Sagalassos. Hellenistic occupation of the countryside
here appears to have largely consisted of fortified settlements.62
Remains of many settlements of varying size were also recorded in the territory of
Pednelissos. The larger ones are mostly fortified and many seem to have existed from
the Hellenistic period through to late antiquity. Preserved remains from the Hellenistic
period, both isolated facilities and settlements, generally have defensive features, indi-
cating that the environment was insecure. 63
This changed in the Roman imperial period when the rural territories of both Sa-
galassos and Pednelissos thrived under the pax Romana. Large farmsteads, built for a
wealthy segment of the population, evidently the landowning elite, became common.
The architectural remains and especially the quality of the funerary monuments found
in the territory of Sagalassos testify to a higher degree of prosperity. Funerary sculpture,
for instance, was not discovered around Pednelissos. The inhabitants of the rural area
were engaged in a fully market-oriented economy. Archaeological remains such as press
installations and remains of mills and pollen analyses from Sagalassos and its territory
revealed production of cash crops (vines, olives, grain) as well as vegetables for the city.64
From the fourth century onwards, the development of the areas diverged. In the ter-
ritory of Sagalassos, the highest number of sites existed during the late Imperial period
(4th-mid 5th centuries AD).65 A certain degree of insecurity seems to have been perceived,
as a number of newly established or reoccupied sites in less accessible locations indicate.
Changes in the territory of Sagalassos seem to have become obvious from the mid fifth
century AD onwards. The residential suburban area was now more intensively culti-
60 Vanhaverbeke et al. 2004, 2007, 2011.

61 The results of the surveys in the Yavu Mountains in Lycia (Kolb 2008) and in the territory of Balboura

(Coulton 2012a and b) are of major importance for information on neighbouring regions.
62 Pednelissos: Vandeput and Köse 2009; Vandeput and Köse 2010; Vandeput et al. 2011; Vandeput et al.

2012, Vandeput 2012; Lycia: Coulton 2012a, p. 90, figs 4.17-18; Kolb 2008, pp. 213-227, figs 281-296.
Sagalassos: Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003, p. 218, 223; Vanhaverbeke et al. 2011.
63 Vandeput and Köse, in press; Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003, p. 218, 223; Vanhaverbeke et al. 2011.

64 Sagalassos: Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003, pp. 245-246. Vanhaverbeke in Waelkens et al. 2006, pp.

215-216; Vanhaverbeke et al. 2007, pp. 621-623, fig. 7; Pednelissos: Vandeput and Köse 2013 in press, fig.
10.
65 Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003, pp. 242-251; Vanhaverbeke et al. 2004, pp. 254-268; Vanhaverbeke et

al. 2007, pp. 621-623; Waelkens et al. 2006, pp. 237-241.
112
vated, indicating that the elite had moved to the city itself. This points to perception of
increased insecurity and reflects effects of brigandage as well as threats from external
intruders. Similar pressures and conditions may have led to the observed change in land
use in the high Bereket valley towards the south border of Sagalassos’ territory, where
intensive agriculture seems to have been superseded by pastoralism by the middle of the
fourth century AD.66
The overall number of sites in the territory was reduced, as the number of farmsteads
went down dramatically, while the importance of strategically located living facilities
increased. Meanwhile, churches were built in or close to the large villages, which now
formed the main loci of habitation for the rural population. These rural sites also seem
to have taken on roles that had been typical for Sagalassos in earlier periods. They were
involved in ceramic production and metallurgical activities, for instance. This seems to
reflect the emergence of a more self-sufficient economy within the villages in the early
Byzantine period, as a result of regional instability and a return to a village-dominated
settlement pattern.67
The development of a settlement pattern that reflects security-related concerns in
Pednelissos or its territory cannot yet be pinned down more precisely than to the broad
time-frame of late antiquity (300-600 AD). In spite of this, all results indicate that this
was the most populous period in the countryside. The area also seems to have prospered
during these centuries, and the production of Late Roman D ware must have been an
important additional element in the economy. Several production sites of this ware,
which was intensively traded throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, were discovered
during the survey in the countryside around Pednelissos.68 Despite the clear break in
the urban occupation of Sagalassos in the early seventh century, it has been proposed
that life outside the city area continued without much change into the middle Byzantine
period. By contrast, the evidence for continuing occupation in the countryside around
Pednelissos is extremely thin.69
The Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project, by the systematic introduction of in-

terdisciplinary scientific techniques allied to archaeology, has dramatically enlarged our
knowledge and understanding of many aspects of the ancient world. It has broken the
boundaries of a regional study, by raising issues and producing results that are relevant
to the study of antiquity anywhere. As for our understanding of regional history, it is
important to observe that the largest advances have come in the later periods. The excava-
tions have made possible a radical new appreciation of the city in late antiquity. They have
provided a nuanced and detailed grasp of the evolution of the urban environment in the
Roman imperial period, which allows Sagalassos to be seen uniquely for itself, not merely
as another example of Roman urban development. Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic Sagalas-
sos, however, still pose many unanswered questions, and the results of the excavation still
66 Kaptijn et al. 2013.

67 Vanhaverbeke et al. 2004, pp. 250-251; Vanhaverbeke et al. 2007; Waelkens et al. 2006, pp. 227-245.

68 Jackson et al. 2012.


113
appear to make best sense within the framework for the historical evolution of Pisidia
that has resulted from wider survey work in Pisidia. It is true of almost all major sites
that have been continuously occupied over a very long period – certainly a thousand
years in the case of Sagalassos – that earlier remains yield up their secrets more reluc-
tantly than better preserved later levels.
The territorial survey has become a progressively more significant part of the project
as a whole. This is not simply the consequence of more work being conducted out-
side the city, enhancing and correcting the results of the initial reconnaissance. Rather,
the multifarious indications of the nature of rural settlement and economic activities
outside Sagalassos, obtained by pollen analysis, geological and hydrological prospecting,
intensive sherding and other forms of research, can now be set alongside and compared
with those from other major projects, including Kyaneai, Balboura and now Pednelis-
sos. Each of these provides evidence and observations which amplify the others. A sin-
gle regional survey, however rigorous or ingenious its methodologies, leaves too many
detailed questions unanswered, to stand on its own as a definitive source of rural ar-
chaeological data. Integrating Sagalassos within the wider perspective of the regional
settlement of SW Asia Minor promises to be a rewarding and illuminating task for the
next generation of archaeologists in Turkey.
References
Aydal et al. 1997 = S. Aydal, S. Mitchell, T. Robinson and L. Vandeput, The Pisidian Survey 1995:
Panemoteichos and Ören Tepe, “Anatolian Studies”, 47, 1997, pp. 141-172.
Aydal et al. 1998 = S. Aydal, S. Mitchell and L. Vandeput, 1996 Yılı Pisidia Yüzey Araştırması, in XV
Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, 1998, pp. 275-294.
Boatwright 2002 = M. T. Boatwright, Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire, Princeton, 2002.
Bracke 1993 = H. Bracke, Pisidia in Hellenistic Times (334-25 BC), in M. Waelkens, ed., Sagalassos I.
First General Report of the Survey (1986-89) and Excavations (1990-1991), Leuven, 1993, pp. 15-35.
Brandt 1992 = H. Brandt, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft Pamphyliens und Pisidiens im Altertum, (Asia Minor
Studien 7), Bonn, 1992.
Brown 1972 = P. Brown, Religion and Society in the Age of St Augustine, London, 1972.
Corsten and Hülden 2012 = T. Corsten and O. Hülden, Forschungen in der Kibyratis im Jahre 2010,
in 29. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 1, Ankara, 2012, pp. 117-128.
Coulton 2012a = J. J. Coulton J. J. et al., The Balboura Survey and Settlement in Southwest Anatolia,
1. Balboura and the History of Highland Settlement, (BIAA Monographs 43), London, 2012.
Coulton 2012b = J. J. Coulton et al., The Balboura Survey and Settlement in Southwest Anatolia, 2. The
Balboura Survey: Detailed Studies and Catalogues, (BIAA Monograph 43), London, 2012.
Cummer 1970 = W. W. Cummer, Phrygian roof tiles in the Burdur Museum, “Anadolu\Anatolia”, 14,
1970, pp. 29-54.
Horsley and Mitchell 2000 = G. H. R. Horsley and S. Mitchell, The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia (IGSK
56), Bonn, 2000.
Işın (in press) = G. Işın, Terracotta Figurines from Arpalık Tepe in Pisidia: Apollo and the Great Mother
Goddess in a Cave Sanctuary, in E. Laflı and A. Muller, eds., Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée
orientale grecque et romaine. Production et diffusion, iconographie et fonction. Colloque international, 2–6
114
Juin 2007/İzmir, Turquie, (Suppléments du BCH) Paris (in press).

Jackson et al. 2012 = M. Jackson, M. Zelle, L. Vandeput and V. Köse, Primary evidence for Late Roman
D Ware production in southern Asia Minor: a challenge to ‘Cypriot Red Slip ware’, “Anatolian Studies”, 62,
2012, pp. 89-114.
Jacobs 2010 = I. Jacobs, Eine späte Blüte. Aufschwung und Niedergang von Sagalassos in der Spätantike,
“Antike Welt”, 3/11, 2010, pp. 76-80.
Jacobs 2012 = I. Jacobs, The creation of the late antique city. Constantinople and Asia Minor during the
“Theodosian renaissance”, “Byzantion”, 82, 2012, pp. 113-164.
Jacobs forthcoming = I. Jacobs, Sagalassos in the Theodosian period, forthcoming.
Kahya 2012 = T. Kahya, The Rock-cut Tomb on the Düver Peninsula. An Early Example from Pisidia and
Remarks on Cultural Interactions, “Adalya”, 15, pp. 13-32.
Kaptijn et al. 2012 = E. Kaptijn, R. Vandam, J. Poblome, M. Waelkens, Inhabiting the Plain of Burdur:
2010 and 2011 Sagalassos Project Survey, “News of Archaeology from Anatolia’s Mediterranean Areas”, 10,
2012, pp. 142–147.
Kaptijn et al. 2013 = E. Kaptijn, J. Poblome, H. Vanhaverbaeke, J. Bakker and M. Waelkens, Societal
changes in the Hellenistic, Roman and early Byzantine periods. Results from the Sagalassos territorial ar-
chaeological survey 2008 (southwest Turkey), “Anatolian Studies”, 63, 2013, pp. 75-95.
Karas and Ristow 2003 = U. Karas and S. Ristow, Kirchenbauten in Pednelissos (Pisidien), “JAC”, 46,
2003, pp. 134-155.
Kokkinia 2000 = C. Kokkinia, Die Opramoas-Inschrift von Rhodiapolis. Euergetismus und Sociale Elite in
Lykien, Bonn, 2000.
Kolb 2008 = F. Kolb, Burg – Polis –Bischofsitz. Geschichte der Siedlungskammer von Kyaneai in der Süd-
westtürkei, Mainz, 2008.
Köse 2005 = V. Köse, Nekropolen und Grabdenkmäler von Sagalassos in Pisidien in hellenistischer und
römischer Zeit, Turnhout, 2005.
Köse forthcoming = V. Köse, Akkulturation in Pisidien, forthcoming.
Kosmetatou and Waelkens 1997 = E. Kosmetatou and M. Waelkens, The “Macedonian” shields of
Sagalassos, in M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos IV, Report on the Survey and Excavation
Campaigns of 1994 and 1995, Leuven, 1997, pp. 277-291.
Laufer 2010 = E. Laufer, Pednelissos, Sillyon, Adada: »Römische« Stadtmauern und kilikische Piraten?, in
J. Lorentzen, F. Pirson, P. I. Schneider and U. Wulf-Rheidt, eds., Aktuelle Forschungen zur Konstruk-
tion, Funktion und Semantik antiker Stadtbefestigungen, (Byzas 10), Istanbul, 2010, pp. 165-194.
Loots et al. 2000 = L. Loots, M. Waelkens and F. Depuydt, The city fortifications of Sagalassos from the Hellenistic
to the Late Roman period, in M. Waelkens and L. Loots, eds., Sagalassos V. Report of the Survey and Excavation
Campaigns of 1996 and 1997, Leuven, 2000, pp. 595-634.
Machatschek and Schwarz 1981 = A. Machatschek and M. Schwarz, Bauforschungen in Selge (Ergän-
zungsbände zu den Tituli Asiae Minoris 9), Vienna, 1981.
McNicoll 1997 = A.W. McNicoll, Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates (ed. by
N.P. Milner), Oxford, 1997.
Mitchell 1986 = S. Mitchell, Cremna and Sagalassus, “Anatolian Studies”, 36, 1986, pp. 8-10.
Mitchell 1991a = S. Mitchell, Ariassos 1990, “Anatolian Studies”, 41, 1991, pp. 159-172.
Mitchell 1991b = S. Mitchell, The Hellenization of Pisidia, “Mediterranean Archaeology”, 4, 1991, pp. 119-145.
Mitchell 1992 = S. Mitchell, Hellenismus in Pisidien, in E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen in Pisidien,
(Asia Minor Studien 6), Bonn, 1992, pp. 1-27.
115
Mitchell 1995 = S. Mitchell, Cremna in Pisidia. A Roman City in Peace and in War, Swansea, 1995.
Mitchell 1996 = S. Mitchell, The development of classical cities and settlements in Late Roman Anatolia,
in Housing and Settlement in Ancient Anatolia. A Historical Perspective, in Y. Sey, ed., Istanbul, 1996,
pp. 193-205.
Mitchell 1998 = S. Mitchell, The Pisidian Survey, in R. Matthews, ed., Ancient Anatolia. Oxford, 1998,
pp. 237-254.
Mitchell 1999 = S. Mitchell, Greek Epigraphy and Social Change. A Study of the Romanization of South-
West Asia Minor in the third Century A.D., in XI. Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina.
Roma, 18-24 Settembre 1997, 2, Rome, 1999, pp. 419-433.
Mitchell 2000 = S. Mitchell, The settlement of Pisidia in Late Antiquity and the Byzantine period: methodo-
logical problems, in K. Belke, F. Hild, J. Koder and P. Soustal, eds., Byzanz als Raum. Zu Methoden und
Inhalten der historischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission
für die Tabula Imperii Byzantini 7), Vienna, 2000, pp. 139-152.
Mitchell 2008 = S. Mitchell, Votive monuments from south-west Asia Minor, in H. Börm, N. Erhardt and
J. Wiesehöfer, eds., Monumentum, et instrumentum inscriptum. Beschriftete Objekte aus Kaiserzeit und
Spätantike als historische Zeugnisse. Festschrift für Peter Weiss zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 2008,
pp. 149-162.
Mitchell and Waelkens 1998 = S. Mitchell and M. Waelkens, Pisidian Antioch. The Site and its Monu-
ments, Swansea, 1998.
Poblome et al. 2007 = J. Poblome, Ph. Bes and V. Lauwers, Winning Hearts, Minds, and Stomachs? Arte-
factual and Artficial Evidence for Romanization, in M. Meyer, ed., Neue Zeiten – Neue Sitten. Zu Rezep-
tion und Integration italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, Vienna, 2007, pp. 221-232.
Schirmer 1993 = W. Schirmer, Die Bauanlagen auf dem Göllüdağ in Kappadokien, “Architectura”, 1993, pp. 9-26.
Schirmer 1998 = W. Schirmer, Göllüdağ 1995–96, in 26. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara 1998, pp. 51–63.
Schultz 1992 = A. Schultz, Ariassos – eine hellenistisch-römische Stadt in Pisidien, in E. Schwertheim, ed.,
Forschungen in Pisidien (Asia Minor Studien 6) Bonn, 1992, pp. 29-41.
Talloen 2007 = P. Talloen, Report on the 2005 excavation and restoration campaign at Sagalassos, 5. Test
soundings in the sanctuary of Apollo Klarios, in 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 2, Ankara, 2007, pp. 327-330.
Vandeput 1997 = L. Vandeput, The Architectural Decoration in Roman Asia Minor. Sagalassos : A Case
Study, (Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 1), Turnhout, 1997.
Vandeput 2007 = L. Vandeput, Kontinuität und Wandel in der urbanen Architektur Pisidiens in der
späthellenistischer Zeit und in der frühen Kaiserzeit, in M. Meyer, ed., Neue Zeiten – Neue Sitten. Zu
Rezeption und Integration italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, Vienna, 2007, pp. 133-142.
Vandeput 2009 = L. Vandeput, Late Antiquity in the Taurus Mountains: Remains in Pednelissos and its
Territory, “Colloquium Anatolicum” 8, pp. 23-44.
Vandeput 2012 = L. Vandeput, Pisidia Survey Project, “Heritage Turkey”, 2, 2012, pp. 28-29.
Vandeput and Büyükkolancı 1999 = L. Vandeput and M. Büyükkolancı, Das Große Propylon in Kremna
in Pisidien, “Istanbuler Mitteilungen”, 49, 1999, pp. 213-248.
Vandeput and Köse 2001 = L. Vandeput and V. Köse, The 1999 Pisidia Survey Project at Melli, “Anato-
lian Studies”, 51, pp. 133-146.
Vandeput and Köse 2002 = L. Vandeput and V. Köse, Pisidia Survey Project: Melli 2000, “Anatolian Stud-
ies”, 52, pp. 145-152.
Vandeput and Köse 2003 = L. Vandeput and V. Köse, Pisidien Survey Projekt: Erste Kampagne in Ped-
nelissos, in XX. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 27–31 Mayıs 2002, Ankara, 2003, pp. 315-328.
116
Vandeput and Köse 2004 = L. Vandeput and V. Köse, Pisidien Survey Projekt: Survey-Kampagne 2002 in
Pednelissos, in XXI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 26–30 Mayıs 2003, Ankara, 2004, pp. 345-360.
Vandeput and Köse 2006 = L. Vandeput and V. Köse, Pisidien Survey Projekt: Survey-Kampagne 2004 in
Pednelissos, in XXIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 30-05 – 3-6-2005, Antalya, Ankara, 2006, pp. 235-244.
Vandeput and Köse 2009 = L. Vandeput and V. Köse, Pisidia Survey Project 2007: remains in the terri-
tory of Pednelissos, in XXVI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 3, Ankara, 2009, pp. 45-58.
Vandeput and Köse 2010 = L. Vandeput and V. Köse, Pisidia Survey Project: survey in the territorium of
Pednelissos, in XXVII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 2, Ankara, 2010, pp. 179-194.
Vandeput and Köse 2013 = L. Vandeput and V. Köse, Survey in the Taurus Mountains: Methodologies
of the Pisidia Survey Project, in L. Lavan und M. Mulryan, eds., (Late Antique Archaeology 9) Leiden,
2013 (in press).
Vandeput et al. 2005 = L. Vandeput, V. Köse, M. Zelle and E. Laufer, Pisidien Survey Projekt: Survey-
Kampagne 2003 in Pednelissos, in XXII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, 24–28 Mayıs 2004, Konya, An-
kara, 2005 pp. 235-244.
Vandeput et al. 2011 = L. Vandeput, V. Köse and Jackson, Pisidia Survey Project 2009: research in the
territory of Pednelissos, in XXVIII. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 3, Ankara, 2011, pp. 75-90.
Vandeput et al. 2012 = L. Vandeput, V. Köse, M. Jackson, Results of the 2010 Pisidia Survey Project.
Fieldwork in the territory of Pednelissos, in XXIX. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 3, Ankara, 2012,
pp. 269–292.
Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003 = H. Vanhaverbeke and M. Waelkens, The Chora of Sagalassos.
The Evolution of the Settlement Pattern from Prehistoric until Recent Times (Studies in Eastern Mediterra-
nean Archaeology 5) Turnhout, 2003.
Vanhaverbeke et al. 2004 = H. Vanhaverbeke, F. Martens, M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, Late
Antiquity in the territory of Sagalassos, in W. Bowden, L. Lavan and C. Machado, eds., Recent
Research on the Late Antique Countryside (Late Antique Archaeology 2) Leiden, 2004, pp. 247-280.
Vanhaverbeke et al. 2007 = H. Vanhaverbeke, F. Martens and M. Waelkens, Another view on Late An-
tiquity. Sagalassos (SW Anatolia), its suburbium and its countryside in Late Antiquity, in A. Poulter, ed.,
The Transition to Late Antiquity, on the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 2007, pp. 611-648.
Vanhaverbeke et al. 2009 = H. Vanhaverbeke, A. K. Vionis, J. Poblome and M. Waelkens, What
Happened after the 7th century AD? A different Perspective on Post-Roman Rural Anatolia, in T. Vorder-
strasse and J. J. Roodenberg, eds., Leiden, 2009, 177-190.
Vanhaverbeke et al. 2010 = H. Vanhaverbeke, M. Waelkens, K. Vyncke, V. De Laet, S. Aydal, B.
Mušič, B. De Cupere, J. Poblome, D. Braekmans, P. Degryse, E. Marinova, G. Verstraeten, W. Van
Neer, B. Šlapšak, I. Medarič, H. A. Ekinci and M. O. Erbay, Pisidian culture? The Classical-Hellenistic
site at Düzen Tepe near Sagalassus (southwest Turkey), “Anatolian Studies”, 60, 2010, pp. 105-129.
Vanhaverbeke et al. 2011 = H. Vanhaverbeke, M. Waelkens, I. Jacobs, M. Lefere, E. Kaptijn and
J. Poblome, The 2008 and 2009 survey season in the territory of Sagalassos, in 28. Araştırma Sonuçları
Toplantısı 3, Ankara, 2011, pp. 139-153.
Vionis et al. 2009 = A. K. Vionis, J. Poblome and M. Waelkens, The hidden material culture of the Dark
Ages. Early Medieval ceramics at Sagalassos (Turkey): new evidence (ca. AD 650-800), “Anatolian Studies”,
59, 2009, pp. 147-166.
Waelkens 2001 = M. Waelkens, The 1998-99 excavation and restoration season at Sagalassos, in 22. Kazı
Sonuçları Toplantısı 2, Ankara, 2001, pp. 159-180.
Waelkens 2002 = M. Waelkens, Romanization in the East. A Case Study: Sagalassos and Pisidia (SW Tur-
key), “Istanbuler Mitteilungen”, 52, 2002, pp. 311–368.
117
Waelkens 2011a = M. Waelkens, An end in phases. The sixth century and beyond, in M. Waelkens,
J. Poblome and P. De Rynck, eds., Sagalassos. City of Dreams (exhib. cat.), Tongeren, 2011, pp. 153-158.
Waelkens 2011b = M. Waelkens, A new culture: Sagalassos becomes Christian, in M. Waelkens, J. Poblome
and P. De Rynck (eds), Sagalassos. City of dreams (exhib. cat.), Tongeren, 2011, pp. 133-151.
Waelkens et al. 1991 = M. Waelkens et al., The excavations at Sagalassos 1990, “Anatolian Studies”, 41,
1991, pp. 197-214.
Waelkens et al. 2006 = M. Waelkens, H. Vanhaverbeke, F. Martens, P. Talloen, J. Poblome, N. Kel-
lens, T. Putzeys, P. Degryse, T. Van Thuyne and W. Van Neer, The late antique to Early Byzantine
City in southwest Anatolia. Sagalassos and its territory: a case study, in J.-U. Krause and C. Witschel,
eds., Die Stadt in der Spätantike: Niedergang oder Wandel?, (Historia Einzelschriften 190), Stuttgart,
2006, pp. 199-255.
Zelle 2007 = M. Zelle, Spaethellenistische und frühkaiserzeitliche Keramik in Pednelissos und ihre Aus-
sagekraft zu kulturellem Wandel, in M. Meyer, ed., Neue Zeiten – Neue Sitten. Zu Rezeption und Integra-
tion italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, Vienna, 2007, pp. 195-202.
118
Interdisciplinarity in
Archaeology and the
Impact of Sagalassos on the
Komana Research Project
Deniz Burcu Erciyas
When I went to Sagalassos for the first time in 1991, I was only seventeen and it was the
second year of the excavations. I spent eight excavation seasons at Sagalassos, wrote a
Master’s thesis on the Northwest Heroon there and gained experience not only in archae-
ology but also in life.1 The time I had at Sagalassos has been precious and I owe a lot
to Professsor Marc Waelkens for qualities I acquired which would have been impos-
sible elsewhere. I consider Professor Waelkens my mentor and, therefore, decided to
compose a more personal piece in which I wish to take the reader on a journey through
the process of setting up an archaeological dig and Professor Waelkens’ impact on just
one of the many archaeologists who have worked at Sagalassos.
I completed my PhD degree at the Department of Classics of University of Cincinnati
in 2001. The dissertation was a discussion of the archaeology of the Black Sea region in
Turkey during the Hellenistic period.2 The Black Sea region was, and to a certain degree
still is, an untouched area in terms of archaeological investigations, therefore the study
was mainly a compilation of the available sources. Historical documents, published data
from a few archaeological surveys, the few still standing monuments, published epi-
graphical documents and the accounts of ancient authors made up the data. A careful
study of the Hellenistic coins at the museums of Çorum, Samsun and Tokat was included
in order to interpret the economy of the Mithradatic Kingdom, a kingdom that reigned
in the Black Sea region for around 200 years. The zenith of the kingdom was surely the
reign of Mithradates VI Eupator, the last of the dynasty and who troubled Rome for a
considerable period.
The appeal of this topic to me was first of all the lack of archaeological material repre-
senting this very peculiar period in the history of the Black Sea region. Secondly, I was
fascinated by the strength of a local kingdom, amongst kingdoms with wider regional
control, and the determination of a king, Mithradates VI, to force the Romans out of
1 Erciyas 1997.

2 The thesis can be reached at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_

NUM:ucin997452720.
119
Deniz Burcu Erciyas
Asia Minor. Throughout my studies the Roman Empire was portrayed from Rome. This
kind of an approach seemed insufficient to understand the local dynamics in the provinces
and I soon realized that the Mithradatic Kingdom was worth a look at, not from Rome but
from Pontus. The petty kingdom which slowed down the expansion of Rome in Asia for
a short while, as described in main sources of Roman history, turned out to be an impres-
sive sovereignty with a powerful and charming, almost Alexander-like, king. Many details
about his life and deeds are better known today thanks to several books on him.3
In 1999, I went on a survey at Sinop with Owen Doonan, which also marked my de-
parture from Sagalassos in order to physically come close to the area of my dissertation
topic. Amongst the places I investigated in my dissertation, Comana and Zela had always
intrigued me. They were two so-called temple-states in Pontus with semi-autonomous
status. Zela was dedicated to an Iranian goddess, Anaitis, together with Anadatus and
Omanus. In Anatolia, Anaitis has been associated with Cybele, Ma and Mithra4 and of
course Artemis.5 The sanctuary at Komana was dedicated to a local Anatolian deity,
Ma, often associated with Enyo and Bellona. Both of these sanctuaries controlled their
own territories, cultivated the land themselves and collected the revenue at the temple.
Amongst the two, Komana was not immediately affected by the Roman rule introduced
to the region in 1st century BC. The land that belonged to the temple domain expanded
throughout its history and the area finally became an imperial domain during the reign
of Maurice Tiberius (A.D. 582-602).
Such a socio-economic and political organization is not very well understood dur-
ing the Hellenistic and Roman periods in Anatolia, and the sanctuary must surely have
had a different character compared to Greek parallels. At least, these sanctuaries were
dedicated to foreign or local cults and thus appealed to the local populations inhabiting
Pontus and maybe the surrounding kingdoms. Ma was of special interest to me because,
in addition to the intriguing social and political structure of the sanctuary, the goddess
was not very well known and studied. Ma as a word meant mother but her attributes
identified her as a warrior type goddess. One of her epithets was aniketos/invincible,
another he nikephoros/the bringer of victory.6 She was identified with Enyo by Strabo,
and with Semele and Athena by Plutarch.7 Her cult has been associated with the transi-
tion to adulthood by both genders, especially with the sacred prostitution performed
during the festivals held biennially.
In 2003, I applied for a survey permit to begin the archaeological explorations at Ko-
mana. The same year, for the first time, I had a chance to briefly visit the site twice;
once with Dr Geoffrey Summers and once with geologists Professor Vedat Toprak and
Professor Lütfi Süzen. The site struck me as very poor in visibility which immediately
signalled the need for geologists and geographers in order to be able to understand and
interpret the geomorphological processes that hid the site.
3 Duggan 1958; McGing 1986; Pastor 1996; Ford 2004; Arslan 2007; Mayor 2009; Ribó 2010.

4 Cumont 1929, p.45 and p.224 n.23; Teixidor, LIMC I,1,754.

5 Diodorus 5,77,8; Plutarch Luc. 24,4.

6 Brill’s New Pauly Vol.8, 49.

7 Plutarch Sulla 9,7,457c.

120
Sagalassos and the Komana Research Project
Except for the surveys of Professor Mehmet Özsait, who focused on locating prehis-
toric sites, Tokat province had not been properly surveyed.8 Therefore, it was manda-
tory to first carry out extensive surveys for the reconnaissance of the region. The survey
lasted for five years and during that period almost all of Tokat’s Merkez province was
surveyed, though only extensively.9
The survey team had always been very small. The participants were for the most part
graduate students from the Graduate Program in Settlement Archaeology at the Middle
East Technical University, where I have been teaching since 2001. During many of the
seasons, I was the only archaeologist. The team members included historians, architects,
geographers, geologists, city planners and even one statistics graduate. Following my
exposure to interdisciplinarity at Sagalassos, I was very lucky to find a position at the
Settlement Archaeology program, because the objective of the graduate program is to
provide students with a solid academic background in archaeological theory, research
techniques and modern interpretative methods with particular emphasis on settlement
and environmental archaeology. The multi-disciplinary character of the program is
clearly explained on the departmental web-site:
“Settlement archaeological research is by definition a multidisciplinary enterprise re-
quiring expertise from the disciplines of the natural and social sciences, architecture
and city planning, as well as specialized techniques related to the retrieval, recording,
analysis and data bank management of archaeological data (GIS), site conservation and
cultural resource management.”10
I had met architects, engineers, geologists, topographers, anthropologists, archaeozo-
ologists and geomorphologists at Sagalassos and felt extremely enlightened by the kinds
of studies they conducted at the site. I was fascinated by their methods and what they had
to tell the archaeologists about the material culture, architecture and ecofacts. I followed
their work through the years and dreamed of setting up a team like that of Sagalassos.
At METU, I had the chance to meet experts in different departments and had the op-
portunity to collaborate with some of them. The diversity of students and their varying
interests led me to advise theses of very different characters, even those out of my area
of expertise. Though it may have been somewhat challenging at times, I was grateful for
the chance to read about and learn approaches, techniques and methods applied by other
disciplines.
The Settlement Archaeology graduate program is unique in Turkey in this way. Edu-
cation in archaeology in Turkey is still mainstream and there is a great deal of conserva-
tism both in the way it is taught and practiced. Not only the education and practice but
the process of evaluation through promotion is also still very conservative. For those of
us who did not study Classical archaeology purely based on description, cataloguing and
stylistic analysis of archaeological material, the route has been bumpy. But we are invest-
ing in an interdisciplinary education at METU so that this conservatism is overcome in
the future.
8 Özsait 1999.

9 Erciyas 2012; Erciyas and Sökmen 2010.

10 http://www.sa.metu.edu.tr

121
Deniz Burcu Erciyas
My dedication to multi-disciplinarity is twofold. First of all, I am a strong believer

in the contribution of different fields to archaeological research so I believe a team is
complete only with the addition of those experts. Secondly, I believe that people from
different areas of study can and should be included in archaeological education, they
should be encouraged to carry out research in archaeology, write theses and create a
common language amongst the related disciplines. This is bound to improve communi-
cation between different experts and enhance the kind of knowledge archaeology gener-
ates. The team at Komana was, from the very beginning, composed of archaeologists,
ancient historians, geologists, geomorphologists, geophysicists, material scientists and
environmental archaeologists with these ideals,.
Thus, the primary aim of the Komana project, which was to reveal the character of the
temple-state at Komana during the Hellenistic period, evolved to become an exemplary
project where any available data, at this time mostly of the Middle Byzantine period,
is handled in an interdisciplinary way in order to generate the maximum knowledge
possible. Today, our medieval layers, representing the final occupation at the site, are
studied with great care by archaeologists, archaeozoologists, botanists, anthropologists,
geologists, historians, and art historians and the site is utilized in order to develop new
methods of approach. Only because of such an interdisciplinary study, in the four years
of excavation we have come to know that the Middle Byzantine population inhabiting
the hill by the Yeşilırmak river, Hamamtepe, was a poor population mostly involved
in agricultural activities, had harsh working and living conditions, ate mostly carbohy-
drates and chicken, used the readily available resources in construction as well as daily
objects, and were involved in small-scale production enclosed in a strong fortification.11
The site itself was rural in character with a humble citadel in which especially produc-
tion and storage took place.
In addition to archaeological explorations we have invested in raising public aware-
ness in the villages within the borders of the ancient site. Komana’s urban territory in-
cludes at least four villages. The workmen have come from only two villages. Not only
the residents of the other two villages, but also the children and women from all villages
remained oblivious with regards to the archaeological work conducted in their backyard.
So starting from the village in which the dig-house is situated (Bula), we held workshops
with children and women.
In the beginning, we designed PowerPoint presentations on various topics for the
children. Archaeology and art history were the two main foci of the exercises. Instead
of designing the presentation as lectures, we focused on stimulating their thinking pro-
cesses by introducing individual archaeological situations, objects or art styles and asked
them to reflect on them by using creative ability. In the following years, we took them to
the site, explained the finds, and asked them to write a play in which they performed. In
2013, we expanded our workshops to children from the other three villages. We took all
the children to the site and asked them to take photographs of things, people, buildings,
situations that attracted their interest the most. At the end of the excavation season an
exhibit of their photographs is planned to take place in Tokat Öğretmen Evi. The results
11 Erciyas 2013.

122
have been fantastic so far. In the beginning, the children were very shy but in the recent
years the shyness is replaced by a growing interest in who we are and what we do.
We have been working with the women since 2012. Last year, we gave them a tour at
the site with a focus on the many ovens/hearths we have been finding in the 11th century
structures. We also prepared a slide show to show the sorts of fire installations from the
site. The aim was to get their opinion on the possible functions of these features and to
gain some ethnographic insight. The exercise proved to be very useful since we learned
that similar ovens were in use until recently for mostly domestic purposes. The villages
mentioned by the women will soon be visited.
In 2013, we acquired three sewing machines for the women in Bula village. A research
assistant from the department of Industrial Design, Anıl Ilgaz, together with Coşku
Kocabıyık, a City and Regional Planner working in building a participatory action plan in
Tokat for preservation of cultural heritage through raising awareness, picked and adapted
motifs from archaeological objects. The selected motifs were stylised and applied to vari-
ous handmade objects including bags, shirts, aprons, etc. using different methods such as
printing, cross-stitching, knitting and the like. These will also be exhibited with the pho-
tographs taken by the children. In the future, we hope to create a sustainable domestic
production line for women in the villages, who spend most of the winter indoors.
A more advanced outreach project has also been designed for Komana by Coşku
Kocabıyık. The main goal of the project is to develop a sustainable path for archaeo-
logical heritage to be integrated in the personal and collective identity of the local com-
munities, together with ties to the cultural and natural landscape and to foster deeper
commitment at the governmental level to create initiatives for archaeological heritage in
Tokat and surrounding region. The project involves the local governmental bodies and
other civil actors (academics, NGOs, archaeological team members), and aims at influ-
encing decision-making at a higher level, e.g. to obtain official support, raise funding for
village-based initiatives, extend the number of endangered sites, and promote strategic
initiatives targeting the cultural heritage in the region.
I, and as a result, the archaeological research project at Komana have inherited a lot
from Sagalassos. Archaeological ethics and work discipline are the foremost. Interdisci-
plinary approach in archaeological study has become a norm for Komana and I cannot
imagine an archaeological excavation without the support of other disciplines. Public
outreach is also an inseparable part of our project and one of the best examples, the Sa-
galasun project (www.sagalasun.com) should inspire any dig in Turkey and elsewhere.
If one day the Komana Archaeological Project achieves what the Sagalassos excavations
have achieved in the last 20 years, I will retire as a happy archaeologist.
This piece began as a narrative of my personal journey in archaeology under the in-
fluence of the Sagalassos project and Professor Waelkens who made the project pos-
sible. I would like to end it with a personal anecdote concerning myself and Professor
Waelkens, which shaped my attitude towards life on a personal as well as professional
level. A piece of advice that I cherish every day, carry with me at all times and share with
my own students.
One evening at Sagalassos in 1993, I received a phone call from Dr Marie Henriette
Gates of Bilkent University, where I was earning my degree in archaeology. She in-
123
Deniz Burcu Erciyas
formed me that there was a position at the Çatalhöyük excavations and that she would
like to send me. I was going to be at Sagalassos for nine weeks and immediately transfer
to Çatalhöyük to spend another month there. When I broke the news to Murat, my
husband now, and my boyfriend at the time, he did not seem to take the news too well
since it meant we would not be able to see each other for over three months. I was upset
that he was upset but was also kind of angry that I was put in a position to have to choose
between my personal and professional life. I did not show up for dinner that evening and
lay in my bed trying to make a decision. Professor Waelkens knocked at my door and
asked whether I would like to talk to him about whatever was bothering me. I was both
surprised and a bit embarrassed but followed him to the staircase by the kitchen, which
was only used by Mustafa and Kamile. We sat there for about half-an-hour while I ex-
plained the situation. He surprised me that night with advice that I have never forgotten.
He told me that he considered Sagalassos as the love of his life, his mate, and the moun-
tains which we could see from where we sat, the village and the villagers as his children
and that he could not give up any of these. However, he also told me that he would have
liked to share this love with a significant other, have children and grandchildren to cher-
ish that if he could. So he said, life was made up of balances and that if I believed, which
he did, Murat was that person for me, I should hear his call and choose to spend rest of
the summer with him. He also told me that such opportunities would arise many times
throughout my life. I was very surprised by this advice because, having seen how ambi-
tious he was about the project, I expected him to advise me to sort out my profession first
and then to consider my private affairs. This has been the best advice I ever received and
I followed it to create a balance between the things I love, personally and professionally.
I must have achieved it since I consider myself a happy person. This happiness I owe to
Marc Waelkens. I am grateful to him for planting the seeds of interdisciplinarity but
also for sharing his most personal feelings at a time when most needed. That is why I
consider Marc Waelkens a mentor to me and I will cherish my memories at Sagalassos
for as long as I live. Thank you Marc.
References
Arslan 2007 = M. Arslan, Mithridates VI Eupator: Roma’nın Büyük Düşmanı, İstanbul, 2007.
Pastor 1996 = L. Ballesteros Pastor, Mitrídates Eupátor, rey del Ponto, Granada, 1996.
Cumont 1929 = F. Cumont, Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, Paris, 1929.
Duggan 1958 = A. Duggan, He Died Old: Mithradates Eupator, King of Pontus, London, 1958.
Erciyas 1997 = D.B. Erciyas, The Heroon at Sagalassos, Master’s Thesis University of Cincinnati, 1997.
Erciyas 2012 = D.B. Erciyas, Komana ve Çevresinde Çağlar Boyu Yerleşim in A.A. Akyol, K. Özdemir,
eds., Türkiye’de Arkeometrinin Ulu Çınarları. Prof. Dr. Ay Melek Özer ve Prof. Dr. Şahinde Demirci’ye
Armağan, Istanbul, 2012, pp. 163-171.
Erciyas 2013 = D.B. Erciyas, Komana’da bir Ortaçağ İşliği: Bizans’dan Danişmendliler’e Tokat’ın Değişen
Çehresi, in S. Dönmez, ed., Lux ex Ponto Euxino. Studies Presented in Honour of Sümer Atasoy, Ankara,
2013, pp. 133-150.
124
Erciyas and Sökmen 2010 = D.B. Erciyas, E. Sökmen, An Overview of Byzantine Period Settlements
around Comana Pontica in North-Central Turkey, “Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies”, 34 (2), 2010,
pp. 119-141.
Ford 2004 = M.C. Ford, The Last King: Rome’s Greatest Enemy, New York, 2004.
Mayor 2009 = A. Mayor, The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates, Rome’s Deadliest Enemy,
Princeton, 2009.
McGing 1986 = B.C. McGing, The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, (Mnemosyne
Supplements 89), Leiden, 1986.
Özsait 1999 = M. Özsait, Tokat ve Çevresi Yüzey Araştırmaları, in XVI. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı II,
Ankara, 1999, pp. 89-108.
Ribó 2010 = I. Ribó, Mitrídates ha muerto, Madrid, 2010.
125
The Contribution of Regional
Surface Survey to Byzantine
Landscape History in Greece
John Bintliff
Marc’s achievement in Classical Archaeology in general and in Pisidia in particular has

been immense, a commitment of energy and vision that very few of his contemporaries,
maybe none, has equalled. The flow of papers by himself and with his colleagues and
students has appeared to be a never-ending stream of new information on a wide range
of fields, from environmental archaeology, materials science, through ceramics and
settlement analysis into his own original field of urban architecture.
This paper will only deal with one small and recent field in his lifetime interests, that
of regional surface survey, and I want to focus on a hitherto neglected era for landscape
archaeology, that which is broadly called ‘Byzantine’, but for us archaeologists we prefer
to subdivide into Late Roman, Early, Middle and Late Byzantine phases. I shall also de-
vote myself here to outlining how far this relatively new field of surface survey has been
able to contribute to Byzantine history within Greece.
The Late Roman Era (4th-6th centuries AD)

There occurs a dramatic Late Roman boom in the Eastern Empire compared to the West.
Survey bears witness to a general rise in site numbers, typically villas of a wealthier class,
and their contents are typified by transport amphorae and widely traded finewares. Ce-
ramic-specialist Abadie-Reynal’s thesis1 is that the Aegean world shifts from being a rela-
tive commercial backwater to an economic motorway to support the needs of the new
expanding imperial capital at Constantinople and the Danube limes armies. These are a
major stimulus for the rise and enlargement of villas over these centuries in particular.
Greek cities show variable effects from, and involvement in, this development. A re-
cent study of the imports of Tunisian African Red Slip tablewares to the towns of Boeo-
tia for example2 demonstrates this well from the surface finds of urban surveys. Thus
the town of Hyettos has limited ARS and this dies away in the final Late Roman period,
while imports only reach rural sites close to the city. In contrast the contemporary town
of Tanagra has constantly high level of ARS into the late 6th century, and such mate-
1 Abadie-Reynal 1989.

2 Peeters 2012.

127
John Bintliff
rial also penetrates deeply to sites far into its rural hinterland. This suits well with the
ceramic profile of Tanagra’s late antique surface finds, which show extraordinary levels
of Late Roman amphorae (chiefly LR2, locally manufactured), indicating a city highly-
integrated into an interregional commercial economy.3
On the other hand, in recent years doubts have arisen as to the reality of such a Late
Roman explosion of population and human activity in general. David Pettegrew has
argued4 that the exceptionally high diagnosticity of the period’s ceramics, taken with
the high fragmentation of its type-fossil large transport amphorae, artificially inflate the
era’s presence in ceramic assemblages. In Boeotia at least we have also provided good
reason from rural survey to suggest that many of the large villas might be empty rural
estate centres, with skeletal staff and a larger workforce residing in shrunken local towns
and villages.5 Certainly a high percentage of dependent cultivators has been argued for in
late antiquity in general, on textual sources. On a survey in the Peloponnese, the Berbati
Valley, the local settlement pattern for this era has been interpreted as that of one great
estate centre with tenant satellite sites.6 Not too far away, the Methana Survey team has
documented many small upland sites with presses, and believes these were tenants on
larger estates.7 In the hinterland of Athens, the Atene Survey has identified a shift from
Classical Greek farms to pastoral enclosures for late antiquity, once more suggesting
these are part of large economic entreprises.8
As for towns themselves, most Greek surveys have observed the shrinkage and even
disappearance of provincial towns in the Late Roman era. Even prosperous Tanagra
shrinks, but here as everywhere there are new basilicas being constructed within the
shrunken new walled town.9 It is becoming possible to postulate then a second illu-
sion after that of the ceramic evidence, and this undermines the concept of an urban
florescence purely based on the proliferation of new churches.10 This holds true even for
major cities like Thessaloniki.11
Nonetheless things clearly get far worse in the mid 6th into early 7th crisis century. The
failure of Justinian’s expensive Western reconquest campaigns, the success of the ‘Arab
storm’, the great plague, and a severe climatic deterioriation (drought) are only made that
much more catastrophic by the 7th century Slav penetration and colonisation of the North
and South Balkans. And yet it is generally believed that the Aegean coasts and islands and
key larger cities in Greece survived under imperial control, abandoning the rural areas on
the Mainland to partial or total Slav domination for one or more centuries.
In the face of relentless and often unstoppable Barbarian incursions, the empire had
already adopted the strategy of permeable frontiers, relying more on in-depth defence
3 Poblome et al. 2008; Bes et al. 2011.

4 Pettegrew 2010.

5 Bintliff et al. 2007.

6 Wells and Runnels 1996.

7 Mee and Forbes 1997.

8 Lohmann 1993.

9 Bintliff and Slapsak 2007.

10 Bintliff 2012a.

11 Velenis 1990-1995.

128
Byzantine Landscape History in Greece
and internal forts set up by or with the active support of the state, in which rewalling of
towns also played a major role.12
What was the visible impact on the ground of all these cumulative disasters? City
excavations in Greece argue for a defining change with the end of the typical Classical
town form, and its transformation into villages, kastra (small walled nucleations) and
rare large heavily-walled cities. Even in the larger towns like Thessaloniki internal de-
population is clear along with the loss of large areas of civic buildings, while Corinth in
this phase becomes merely one-third the size of its Early Imperial predecessor. Athens
and Argos witness the contraction in occupied area and in many towns public spaces are
abandoned to be put to low status use.
As for urban surveys, apart from the typical contraction of the towns of Boeotia, on
the island of Kea the surveyed town of Koressia is abandoned while just one of the
island’s earlier four towns still survives.13 In the Argolid peninsula, the former city of
Halieis has become a villa, and Hermione has shrunk.14 On the Methana peninsula, two
of the three older nucleated settlements have disappeared, and surviving Methana city is
merely one-third of its Classical Greek size.15
As for the creation of new fortress-settlements or kastra, one early and excellently-
published example is the Hexamilion fortress associated with the eponymous late an-
tique wall spanning the Isthmus of Corinth. Gregory and Kardulias16 consider it was oc-
cupied by soldier farmers, but supported by internal industrial production and food sup-
port from a network of local villas. They see the community as more than just a fort, but
rather a new kind of town anticipating the medieval pattern and leaving urban models.
It is likely that such places were curious mixtures of architectural pretension and low-
ly buildings, reflecting the considerable gulf in wealth and status within contemporary
populations. At the Boeotian city of Koroneia, the acropolis contains extensive traces of
‘scruffy houses’ using spolia within its rewalled enceinte, as well as a giant olive press,
but on its highpoint rose a large, probably, 6th century building, either the residence of
the bishop or the governor.17
The Transitional Era /Early Byzantine/ Dark Ages

(later 7th-9th centuries AD)
There is reason to think that this period represents a demographic and economic nadir
for Mainland Greece, less so in the Aegean islands and Crete. We might recall that John
Haldon has calculated that by the mid 7th century the Byzantine empire had only one-
quarter of its mid 6th century income.18 In Mainland Greece this large-scale loss of tax
and surplus can readily be linked to depopulation and the very limited sphere of imperial
12 Heather 2006; Liebeschuetz 2007.

13 Cherry et al. 1991.

14 Jameson et al. 1994.

15 Mee and Forbes 1997.

16 Gregory 1993; Kardulias 2005.

17 Bintliff et al., in press.

18 Haldon 2000, p.57.

129
John Bintliff
control, and also the disappearance of most towns between the 7th and 9th centuries if not
even earlier. This can also be surely associated with the fact that villas disappear by the 7th
century on surface finds from surveys, such as on Methana, in Boeotia, and in the Argolid.
The effects of the Justinianic Plague of the mid 6th do not end there, but recurrent
outbreaks into the 8th century continued to debilitate population recovery. As for the
historically-attested Slav colonisation, it seems that this had least effect on the coastlands,
the major towns and islands and some well-connected kastra, where the Byzantine fleet
could maintain control. But Malingoudis19 has argued well that these Slavic incomers, at
least regionally, must be numerous, and there is also no reason not to envisage them as
excellent farmers. As befits current rethinking of Barbarian settlement into the Western
Roman empire and Britannia, we should consider groups of new settlers infilling the many
empty locations amidst fertile land rather than forceful dispossession of local peasantries.
A similar scenario can be demonstrated with more clarity for the Albanian resettlement of
Central and Southern Mainland Greece after the 14th century Black Death.20
Then there are ceramic issues which affect our ability to follow events over this era.
One controversial class is that of ‘Slav Ware’ and another the related ‘handmade ware’:
the best example of a clearly incursive community is the Slav Ware found in non-local
grave forms at the former sanctuary of Olympia cemetery21 (most recently a second cem-
etery of identical type has been found in rescue excavations in the same province of
Elis). There is a 7th-10th range for such ware, which begins mostly as handmade but later
is predominantly wheel-made, and shows stylistic evolution over time. Some of this
seems genuinely to be exotic in origin but much also, together with the other hand-
made wares, appears to be local products marking the decline of some classes of formerly
traded plain- and cookwares and their necessary replacement by local production from
indigenous communities. In any case till recently such wares were rare; on the Boeotia
Project between 1978 and 2000, typical Slav Ware finds amounted to a single piece from
the city of Hyettos. But since then a range of related domestic and cookwares has been
identified at various excavation sites and on surveys around the East Mediterranean, so
that Early Byzantine activity is suddenly becoming apparent on a notable geographical
scale including in our own province.22
To these wares can now be added other wares still in a firmly Late Roman tradition,
but which had usually been considered, for purely historical reasons, to have ceased pro-
duction during the early 7th century. These include amphorae and red slip tablewares,
both continuing in circulation up till ca 800 AD.23 One such had long ago been recog-
nized as persisting this late, and that was Cypriot Red Slip: all this indicates that although
there was a clear decline of traded goods, they certainly were far from disappearing. New
wares in this era include local wares such as Cretan painted for the 7th-8th centuries, and
some of these regional styles can go on to the start of the 9th century. Alongside these
19 Malingoudis 1991.

20 Bintliff 2003.

21 Vida and Völling 2000.


23 Armstrong 2009a.

130
Early Byzantine wares we can note other, significant, widely-traded, ceramics datable
to this era: from the 7th century onwards rare exports of Constantinople Glazed White
Ware reach many areas of the Eastern Mediterranean if in small quantities, accompa-
nied by amphorae such as Sarachane 35, and the distinctive (South Italian) Otranto am-
phorae which go on to the 8th century.
As noted earlier, Constantinople throughout this period seems usually to have been
able to keep control over key cities and their near hinterlands, coastal zones and major
fortresses within reach of the Byzantine fleet. Thus survey has demonstrated low level
continuity across the Corinthian countryside.24 For the Cyclades, it seems the degree
of abandonment has been seriously exaggerated, as recent survey on Naxos has made
clear25, maybe assisted by deals struck between local communities and with Arab raid-
ers, as well as due to the pervasive presence of the imperial fleet. On Crete, remaining
in Byzantine control till the 9th century Arab conquest, the Western Messara Survey and
Italian excavations have shown that even if Gortyn the island’s capital now broke up into
villages in the 7th century, its kastron-acropolis was receiving 8th imports, even though
former coastal harbour sites and most rural sites have gone.26
What of Mainland inland zones under partial or total Slav control, till the rolling
Byzantine reconquest moves in the 7th century into Macedonia and then into Central
Greece by the 8th century? Officially ca 695 AD, the Theme of Hellas in Central Greece
was created but perhaps this was initially confined to coastal control. We would suggest
that there were two modes of Early Byzantine settlement:
a/ Fortified kastra often hilltops, locations maybe not used since the Iron Age, and
these can be hard to find by survey. One example from our Boeotia Survey is that of
Kastri-Aghios Konstantinos, a Late Roman fortified refuge village whose finds include
some Early Byzantine handmade finds.27
b/ Or, more interestingly, in situ continuity of open landscape sites.28 One example is
our Boeotian site of Askra, which probably lasts from late antiquity till it transforms into
a significant Middle Byzantine village: intriguingly, it reappears in the latter period with a
Slav rename of Zaratova, indicating the arrival of new settlers. By the 12th century this has
become large enough to be awarded a suffragan bishop, but in the subsequent Late Byzan-
tine era it is re-Hellenised with a new name of Panagia. Another likely in situ site survival
but with Slav settlement is the ancient Boeotian town of Haliartos, a town destroyed by
the Roman army in the 2nd century BC, revived as a small Late Roman kastron, then trans-
formed into a village called Charmaina, which is an early Slav name for ‘church’.
Another case-study from the Boeotia Project for this important period is that of the
district of ancient Hyettos city. The last dated finds from the city itself are early 7th cen-
tury, but in the close vicinity arise several early medieval hamlets, including finds of the
Early Byzantine era. One of these sites grows by the Middle Byzantine era into a substan-
24 Pettegrew 2010.

25 Crow et al. 2011.

26 Watrous et al. 2004.


28 Bintliff 2000.

131
John Bintliff
tial village of several hundred people. The ancient Boeotian town of Thespiae with its
Late Roman kastron and extramural settlement also appears to survive as a much smaller
community into this new period. Finds probably of this phase have been noted in the
urban survey from both localities, while architectural traces of a likely cathedral from the
forum area within the kastron are followed by a piece of 8th century church architecture
there, pointing to church renewal in our period under study. By the Middle Byzantine
period there is clear settlement growth into two large settlements on the eastern edge
of the former city. Finally, one very unusual survey site which emerged from a Central
Boeotian lake, Lake Hylike, when the water level declined in the last generation, Klim-
mataria, shows evidence for this period. A Late Roman cemetery perhaps attached to a
rural estate or hamlet includes finds that run on into the 7th century, while the occur-
rence of Otranto amphorae elsewhere on this site takes this further into the 8th century.
On final piece of material culture sheds light on the political arrangement of this era
in Mainland Greece. There are a number of lead seals in various collections belonging to
Byzantine or Byzantine-sponsored officials datable to Early Byzantine times, and some
are identified as those of ‘Archons of Hellas’, which is the Byzantine province of Boeotia,
Attica and Thessaly to either side. One example is that of the Slav leader Dargaskavos
from the 8th century. Curta29 has argued convincingly that the Byzantine state success-
fully neutralised the potent threat of the Slav colonists by awarding titles to some of their
leaders, thus being doubtless able to claim some sort of pseudo-suzereinty over parts of
the newly-settled zones. This is shown also by the fact that during one major siege of the
empire’s second city Thessaloniki by a local Slav tribe in the late 7th century, the city was
supported by food supplies from allied Slav groups in Thessaly.
The Middle Byzantine period (9th-12th century AD)

The burgeoning of material culture evidence for this era has led to a questioning by
experts such as Guy Sanders30 as to whether this is a genuine revival or a mirage due
to more easily recognisable ceramics and the return of widely-circulating coinage. De-
spite poor evidence still for finds for the preceding period, a situation which is being
transformed rapidly actually, there are nonetheless reasons to think that the revival of
the 9th-12th centuries is real. On the one hand, we have archival sources on estates and
the recolonisation of the Greek landscape for this era31 and secondly there are survey
sites without previous trace of Early Byzantine sherds, and perhaps more convincing,
of early Middle Byzantine ceramics. In any case our work is made much easier by the
wide diffusion of distinctive late Middle Byzantine wares.32 But ceramic problem do not
quite disappear, as Sanders33 has shown from the otherwise flourishing town of Corinth:
excavated deposits contain just 1% of such readily-identifiable glazed wares still in the
29 Curta 2004.

30 Sanders 2000.

31 Harvey 1990.

32 Vionis 2005; Bintliff 2012b, p. 398.

33 Sanders 2000.

132
10th-11th centuries, and it is only in the subsequent Frankish-Crusader phase of the site,
in the 13th century that they rise to 20%.
The revival of the Mainland is clear from various urban excavations, and we can see
that centres such as Sparta, Athens and Argos re-expand from the 9th century. Their influ-
ence naturally spreads out into their surrounding countryside, where market items can be
observed from rural survey, as in Laconia.34 In purely rural areas such as parts of Naxos
island, a stronger human presence has been documented by recent survey35 and the same is
seen in the Corinthia after very thin finds for the preceding period.36 In the Strymon Val-
ley of coastal Macedonia, extensive and intensive survey has documented the plantation
of new kastra by the Byzantine state, following the region’s reconquest via Thrace, such as
the site of Chrysopoulis. In this region we see a kastron planting in the 9th century which is
followed by real urbanisation in the 10th. 37 The Western Messara Survey on Crete38 dem-
onstrates that after unclear evidence for the 9th-10th Arab occupation phase, there occurs a
late 10th revival after the Byzantine reconquest, which grows into an even more extensive
village pattern established in 13th Venetian times and lasting into the 19th century.
The traditional focus of Byzantine archaeology on churches can play a significant role
in such landscape histories too. Dated monuments also affirm a Middle Byzantine re-
vival in church foundations, such as in the province of Messenia.39 In our own province
of Boeotia in Central Greece, open country monastic churches such as that at 9th century
Skripou are followed by grand establishments such as the monastery of Holy Luke in
the 11th century. But there appears to be a visible gap between the oldest such founda-
tions and the explosion of open-country rural settlements. It seems likely that plague
and occasional destructive warfare held back rural expansion in our province till the 10th
- 11th centuries. This emerges clearly from our intensive survey around ancient Tanagra,
where we observe at this latter time the abandonment of the nearby Kastri-Aghios Kon-
stantinos hill-fort for a dense network of new hamlets.40
Survey’s spotlight on the rural Byzantine village is a fortunate aspect of its insights,
since historians have argued that the centre of most lives had now become the village
rather than the earlier Roman city or Greek polis. It had thus become the key fiscal unit
of the revived Byzantine Empire, and larger villages such as the well-archived commu-
nity of Radolibos could include a significant artisan population.41 Ducellier’s model of
the use of the land around Byzantine villages and their satellite farms and hamlets based
on historical sources42, indicates an intensively-cultivated infield and more extensively-
worked outfield, which is remarkably similar to the archaeological survey data we have
recovered for the offsite scatters of Middle and Late Byzantine ceramics around the two
34 Armstrong 2002; 2009b.

35 Crow et al. 2011.

36 Pettegrew 2010.

37 Dunn 1999; 2009.


39 Sigalos 2004, Fig. 187.

40 Bintliff et al. 2008; Vionis 2008.

41 Laiou-Thomadakis 1977; Haldon 2000, pp. 97-99.

42 Ducellier 1986, p.188.

133
John Bintliff
villages at Thespiae, evidence we interpret as reflecting infield manuring.43 Perhaps

though, as has recently been argued for early Medieval Italy, one negative product of
the 10th-11th century Imperial revival was increasing pressure on rural societies. It might
well be that outside the incursions of foreign armies, peasant life had been better till then
than it was to become by the end of the Middle Byzantine era, with lower population
density, less tax and the still rare presence of great landlords.44 In Italy a similar conclu-
sion has been supported by palaeo-pathological data indicating better health and lifestyle
for Early Medieval rural populations.45
The Late Byzantine-Frankish Era (13th-14th centuries AD)

If one studies Ducellier’s map of the Aegean during this period46, the situation looks very
chaotic, with numerous powers occupying territories of varying scale in a constantly-
changing mosaic of Byzantine, Frankish and expanding Turkish power-blocs. In addi-
tion to the regular warfare between and even within these states and statelets, there is
also the supposedly oppressive effect of the widespread introduction of Western feudal-
ism to those large regions under the control of the barons and knights who conquered
much of Greece during the Fourth Crusade.
In reality surface survey and other forms of evidence such as estate records and the
construction of major monuments offer a different story, and one which does not agree
with the official political narratives for this period. In general they suggest that the 13th
and early 14th centuries were an era of relative prosperity, perhaps even one of increasing
population.47 On Crete, the Western Mesara Survey and contemporary detailed archives48
indicate that the island entered a new florescence from the 12th century onwards, espe-
cially under the incoming Venetian occupation which began at the start of the 13th century.
Likewise in Aetolia, North-West Mainland Greece, the Dutch Survey of the province49 has
shown a clear increase in settlement under both Byzantine and Frankish rulers.
On the Aegean islands, mostly under feudal satellites of the Venetian state, there is
clear upward development in both urban and rural populations.50 Island towns are re-
modelled to receive Italian colonists and their feudal lords.51 A detailed urban survey of
the deserted castle-town of Kephalos on Paros has used surface ceramics and standing
architecture to distinguish the alien elite in the Upper Town and indigenous populations
in the Lower Town, while a rural survey of the surrounding area has revealed a series of
rural sites which provided food support for the town.52
43 Bintliff 2012c.

44 Gregory 2006, pp.18-181.

45 Barbiera and Dalla-Zuanna 2009.

46 Ducellier 1986, p.8.

47 Gregory 2006.


49 Bommeljé 2009.

50 Vionis 2012.

51 Sanders 1996; Vionis 2001.

52 Vionis 2006.

134
On the Greek Mainland, those areas under Frankish control might be dominated by
major baronial castles or a series of towers occupied by knights or even stewards. In
Central Greece our survey has made a special study of the latter rural towers and their
associated indigenous villages.53 As also shown by survey in the North-East Pelopon-
nese54, so in the Valley of Muses in Boeotia, the incoming Frankish lord who gained pos-
session of the Zaratova-Panagia Greek village mentioned earlier moved this community
to a nearby hilltop below his newly-constructed feudal tower, which we found during
our complete survey of the Valley.55 In the case of the nearby former ancient city of Ko-
roneia, whose surface we completely surveyed between 2006-2011, there is a suspected
refuge settlement on the acropolis behind a late antique wall during Early Byzantine
times. Subsequently, in agreement with the wider picture, the Middle Byzantine succes-
sor village lies down in the open plain at the foot of the city hill. The incoming Frankish
lord built his feudal tower on a low eminence above this indigenous village.56 At the
ancient city of Thespiae, the Middle Byzantine double-village in the eastern edges of the
former city is given to an Italian Catholic monastic order as a consequence of the Frank-
ish conquest. These monks constructed a feudal tower above a former Early Christian
church and adjacent to one of the village’s contemporary churches.57 It is likely that the
latter church was converted to Catholic use by the Franks, a situation also demonstrated
at the same era for a village near ancient Tanagra.58 Finally, some years ago a low level
of Lake Hylike in Central Boeotia allowed us to rediscover a drowned Frankish feudal
tower, at the locality of Klimmataria, which was revealed to have been the centre of an
estate centre with buildings clustered around an inner courtyard and on one side of an
outer courtyard.59
The later Frankish period, the 14th century, sees renewed crisis in the Greek country-
side. Constant warfare, the Black Death and possibly climatic deterioration led to drastic
depopulation, shown in many surveys as well as in contemporary estate records.60 On the
ground, regional survey can reveal the actual extent of this collapse through the decline
of Late Frankish findspots and the eventual abandonment of most villages. The efforts
of the final Frankish lords and the conquering Ottoman rulers who succeeded them, to
repopulate the countryside through invited recolonisation by Albanian clans, proved re-
markably successful. Helpfully for archaeologists, with few exceptions, the new Albanian
communities created villages close to but not over previous Greek settlements, whilst
surviving Greek villages (mostly in remoter defensible locations) remained in place.61
For the first time, accurate detailed censuses of local populations and their economies
become available through the availability of the Early Ottoman imperial archives, the
53 Lock and Sanders 1996; Bintliff 2012b, pp. 419-422.

54 Gregory 1996.

55 Bintliff 1996.

56 Bintliff et al. 2012; Bintliff et al., in press.

57 Slapsak in Bintliff and Slapsak 2012, and in Bintliff et al., in press.

58 Vionis in Bintliff et al. 2008.

59 Bintliff 2012b, p. 421 and Plate 19.1.

60 Bintliff 2012b, pp. 429-432.

61 Bintliff 1995.

135
John Bintliff
first of which for Central Greece already belong to the mid 15th century. At this point
invaluable comparisons can be made between survey finds and these tax records, which
find remarkable agreement.62
Conclusions
Regional surface survey has proved to be a highly-effective tool for evaluating largescale
change over long periods for both nucleated and dispersed settlements in the Byzantine
millennium. It complements excavation and archival evidence, and its potential contin-
ues to expand; there are many hundreds of deserted villages for this era which offer rich
data for future surface study, in every district of Greece and indeed of the whole former
Byzantine empire. It is absolutely necessary to note, however, that only through the use
of state-of-the art survey methods can reliable information be obtained: this requires large
contiguous areas to be covered at close fieldwalker intervals, for offsite finds to be counted
and sampled, and for sites to be gridded and collected from in significant quantities.
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared on research in Greece and elsewhere conducted with the fi-
nancial assistance of Belspo (the Inter-University Poles of Attraction Programme of the
Belgian Science Policy Office), as part of several programmes I have been a partner in,
thanks to an invitation by Marc Waelkens twelve years ago.
References
Abadie-Reynal 1989 = C. Abadie-Reynal, Céramique et commerce dans le bassin égéen du IVe au VIIe
siècle, in C. Morrisson and J. Lefort, eds., Hommes et Richesses dans l’Empire Byzantine, IVe-VIIe Siècle,
Paris, 1989, pp. 143-159.
Armstrong 2002 = P. Armstrong, The survey area in the Byzantine and Ottoman periods, in W. Cava-
nagh et al., eds., Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape. The Laconia Survey, Volume 1,
London, 2002, pp. 330-402.
Armstrong 2009a = P. Armstrong, Trade in the east Mediterranean in the 8th century, in M.M. Mango,
ed., Byzantine Trade, 4th-12th Centuries, Farnham, 2009, pp. 157-178.
Armstrong 2009b = P. Armstrong, Merchants of Venice at Sparta in the 12th century, in W. G. Cavanagh, C. Gal-
lou and M. Georgiadis, eds., Sparta and Laconia. From Prehistory to Pre-Modern, London, 2009, pp. 313-321.
Barbiera and Dalla-Zuanna 2009 = I. Barbiera, G. Dalla-Zuanna, Population dynamics in Italy in the Middle
Ages: New insights from archaeological findings, “Population and Development Review”, 35, 2009, pp. 367-389.
Bes et al. 2011 = P. Bes, P.M.-J. Poblome-D. Malfitana-J.L. Bintliff, Late Roman tablewares from the survey
at ancient Tanagra. Finding the Wider Perspective, in R. Attoui, ed., When did Antiquity End?, Archaeo-
logical Case Studies in Three Continents. The Proceedings of an International Seminar held at the University
of Trento on April 29-30, 2005 on Late Antique Societies, Religion, Pottery and Trade in Germania, Northern
Africa, Greece, and Asia Minor, (BAR International Series 2268), Oxford, 2011, pp. 129-136.
62 Bintliff 1995, Kiel 1997.

136
Bintliff 1995 = J.L. Bintliff, The Two Transitions: Current Research on the Origins of the Traditional Village in
Central Greece, in J. L. Bintliff and H. Hamerow, eds., Europe Between Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Recent Archaeological and Historical Research in Western and Southern Europe, Oxford, 1995, pp. 111-130.
Bintliff 1996 = J.L. Bintliff, The archaeological survey of the Valley of the Muses and its significance for Boeo-
tian History, in A. Hurst and A. Schachter, eds., La Montagne des Muses, Geneva, 1996, pp. 193-224.
Bintliff 2000 = J.L. Bintliff. Deconstructing ‘The Sense of Place’? Settlement systems, field survey, and the historic
record: A case-study from Central Greece, “Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society”, 66, 2000, pp. 123-149.
Bintliff 2003 = J.L. Bintliff, The ethnoarchaeology of a ‘passive’ ethnicity: The Arvanites of Central Greece, in K. S.
Brown and Y. Hamilakis, eds., The Usable Past. Greek Metahistories, Lanham-Boulder, 2003, pp. 129-144.
Bintliff 2012a = J.L. Bintliff, The paradoxes of Late Antiquity: A thermodynamic solution, “Antiquité Tar-
dive”, 20, 2012, pp. 69-73.
Bintliff 2012b = J.L. Bintliff, The Complete Archaeology of Greece, from Hunter-Gatherers to the Twentieth
Century AD, Oxford-New York, 2012.
Bintliff 2012c = J.L. Bintliff, Contemporary issues in surveying complex urban sites in the Mediterranean re-
gion: the example of the city of Thespiai (Boeotia, Central Greece), in F. Vermeulen, G.-J. Burgers, S. Keay
and C. Corsi, eds., Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2012, pp. 44-52.
Bintliff et al. 2008 = J.L. Bintliff et al., The Tanagra project: investigations at an ancient city and its country-
side (2000-2002),“Bulletin de Correspondence Hellènique”, 12, 2008, pp. 541-606.
Bintliff et al. 2007 = J.L. Bintliff et al., eds., Testing the hinterland: The work of the Boeotia Survey (1989-
1991) in the southern approaches to the city of Thespiai, Cambridge, 2007.
Bintliff et al. 2012 = J.L. Bintliff et al., The Leiden-Ljubljana Ancient Cities of Boeotia Project 2009 seasons,
“Pharos”, 17, 2012, pp. 1-58.
Bintliff et al. 2013, in press = J.L. Bintliff et al., The Leiden-Ljubljana Ancient Cities of Boeotia Project,
2010-2012 seasons, “Pharos”, 18, 2013, in press.
Bintliff and Slapsak 2007 = J.L. Bintliff, B. Slapsak, Tanagra: la ville et la campagne environnante à la
lumière des nouvelles méthodes de prospection, par les universités de Leyde et de Ljubljana, in V. Jeammet,
ed., Tanagras. De l’objet de collection à l’objet archéologique, Paris, 2007, pp. 101-115.
Bommeljé 2009 = L.S. Bommeljé, Three forts in a sea of mountains, in J.L. Bintliff, H. Stoeger, eds.,
Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece. The Corfu Papers, Oxford, 2009, pp. 1-13.
Cherry et al. 1991 = J.F. Cherry et al., eds., Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History, Los Angeles, 1991.
Crow et al. 2011 = J. Crow et al., Characterizing the historic landscapes of Naxos, “Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology”, 24, 2011, pp. 111-137.
Curta 2004 = F. Curta, L’Administration byzantine dans les Balkans pendant la “grande breche”: le témoi-
gnage des sceaux, “Bizantinistica, Rivista di Studi Byzantini e Slavi” 6, 2004, pp. 155-190.
Ducellier 1986 = A. Ducellier, ed., Byzance et le monde orthodoxe, Paris, 1986.
Dunn 1999 = A. Dunn, From polis to kastron in southern Macedonia: Amphipolis, Khrysoupolis, and the
Strymon Delta, in A. Bazzana, ed., Castrum 5. Archéologie des espaces agraires méditerranéens au Moyen
Âge. Actes du colloque de Murcie (8-12 mai 1992), Rome, 1999, pp. 399-413.
Dunn 2009 = A. Dunn, Byzantine and Ottoman maritime traffic in the estuary of the Strymon, in J. Bintliff,
H. Stoger, eds., Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece. The Corfu Papers, Oxford, 2009, pp. 15-31.
Gregory 1993 = T.E. Gregory, Isthmia IV: The Hexamilion and the Fortress, Princeton, 1993.
Gregory 1996 = T.E. Gregory, The medieval site on Mt Tsalika near Sophiko, in P. Lock, G.D.R. Sanders,
eds., The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford, 1996, pp. 61-76.
Gregory 2006 = T.E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, Oxford, 2006.
137
John Bintliff
Haldon 2000 = J.F. Haldon, Byzantium. A History, Stroud, 2000.

Harvey 1990 = A. Harvey, Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900–1200, Cambridge, 1990.
Heather 2006 = P. Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians,
London, 2006.
Jameson et al. 1994 = M.H. Jameson et al., eds., A Greek Countryside. The Southern Argolid from Prehis-
tory to the Present Day, Stanford, 1994.
Kardulias 2005 = P.N. Kardulias, From Classical to Byzantine: Social evolution in Late Antiquity and the
fortress at Isthmia, Greece, Oxford, 2005.
Kiel 1997 = Kiel, M., The rise and decline of Turkish Boeotia, 15th-19th century, in J.L.Bintliff, ed., Recent
Developments in the History and Archaeology of Central Greece, Oxford, 1997, pp. 315-358.
Laiou-Thomadakis 1977 = A.E. Laiou-Thomadakis, Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire:
A Social and Demographic Study, Princeton, 1977.
Liebeschuetz 2007 = J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, The Lower Danube region under pressure: from Valens to
Heraclius, in A. Poulter, ed., The Transition to Late Antiquity on the Danube and Beyond, Oxford, 2007,
pp. 101-134.
Lock and Sanders 1996 = P. Lock and G. D. R. Sanders, eds., The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Ox-
ford, 1996, pp. 147-177.
Lohmann 1993 = H. Lohmann, Atene. Forschungen zu Siedlungs- und Wirtschaftsstruktur des klassischen
Attika, Köln, 1993.
Malingoudis 1991 = P. Malingoudis, Slavi sti meseoniki Ellada, Thessaloniki, 1991.
Mee and Forbes 1997 = C. Mee, H. Forbes, eds., A Rough and Rocky Place. The Landscape and Settlement
History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece, Liverpool, 1997.
Peeters 2012 = D. Peeters, African Red Slip Ware. Indicator of Economic Activity and Distribution in Boeo-
tia, Leiden, 2012.
Pettegrew 2010 = D.K. Pettegrew, Regional survey and the boom-and-bust countryside, “International
Journal of Historical Archaeology”, 14, 2010, pp. 215-229.
Poblome, Ceulemans et al. 2008 = J. Poblome, A. Ceulemans, et al., The Late Hellenistic to Late Roman
ceramic spectrum of Tanagra, “Bulletin de Correspondence Hellènique”, 132, 2008, pp. 561-569.
Sanders 1996 = G.D.R. Sanders, Two kastra on Melos and their relations in the Archipelago, in P. Lock
and G. D. R. Sanders, eds., The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford, 1996, pp. 147-177.
Sanders 2000 = G.D.R. Sanders, New relative and absolute chronologies for 9th to 13th century glazed wares
at Corinth: Methodology and social conclusions, in K. Belke, J. Koder and P. Soustal, eds., Byzanz als
Raum, Wien, 2000, pp. 153-173.
Sigalos 2004 = E. Sigalos, Housing in Medieval and Post-Medieval Greece, Oxford, 2004.
Velenis 1990-1995 = G. Velenis, The Ancient Agora of Thessaloniki, “Athens Annals in Art and Archaeol-
ogy”, 23-28, 1990-1995, pp. 129-142.
Vida and Völling 2000 = T. Vida, T. Völling, Das Slawische Brandgräberfeld von Olympia, Rahden, 2000.
Vionis 2001 = A.K. Vionis, The meaning of domestic cubic forms: interpreting Cycladic housing and settle-
ments of the period of foreign domination (ca. 1207-1821 AD), “Pharos”, 9, 2001, pp. 111-131.
Vionis 2005 = A.K. Vionis, Domestic material culture and Post-Medieval archaeology in Greece: A case-study
of the Cyclades Islands, “Journal of the Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology”, 39, 2005, pp. 172-185.
Vionis 2006 = A.K. Vionis, The Thirteenth-Sixteenth century Kastro of Kephalos: a contribution to the
archaeological study of Medieval Paros and the Cyclades, “The Annual of the British School at Athens,” 101,
2006, pp. 459-492.
138
Vionis 2008 = A.K. Vionis, Current archaeological research on settlement and provincial life in the Byzan-
tine and Ottoman Aegean, “Medieval Settlement Research”, 23, 2008, pp. 28-41.
Vionis 2012 = A.K. Vionis, A Crusader, Ottoman, and Early Modern Aegean Archaeology. Built Environ-
ment and Domestic Material Culture in the Medieval and Post-Medieval Cyclades, Greece (13th-20th Cen-
tury AD), Leiden, 2012.
Vionis et al. 2009 = A.K. Vionis et al., The hidden material culture of the Dark Ages. Early medieval ceram-
ics at Sagalassos (Turkey): new evidence (ca AD 650-800), “Anatolian Studies”, 59, 2009, pp. 147-165.
Watrous et al. 2004 = L.V. Watrous et al., The Plain of Phaistos. Cycles of Social Complexity in the Mesara
Region of Crete, Los Angeles, 2004.
Wells and Runnels 1996 = B. Wells, C. Runnels, eds., The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988-
1990, Jonsered, 1996.
139
A First Characterization of a New
Bigio Antico Marble from a Hitherto
Unknown Ancient Quarry at Aghios
Petros (Tripolis-Peloponnesus)
Lorenzo Lazzarini
Introduction
The archaeological and archaeometric studies of the marbles and stones used in antiq-
uity as building and/or decorative materials have only in very recent decades reached
the level of quality and quantity this subject deserves1. Indeed, our knowledge of sev-
eral lithotypes, such as alabasters, rare breccias and magmatites/metamorphites, is still
very limited. This is also true for some relatively more common materials such as the
so-called neri antichi (antique blacks), a general denomination including grey-black
(metamorphic) marbles that are more specifically identified as bigi antichi (literally an-
tique grays), and similarly coloured (sedimentary) limestones, called bigi morati (literally
stones with the colour of a negro’s skin)2. They were all generally identified as marmora
1 The progress of such studies is largely due to the specialist conferences (ten, so far) organized by ASMOSIA (The

Association for the Study of Marbles and Stones in Antiquity) and journals like Archaeometry, Marmora, Journal of
Archaeological Science, although many other meetings and journals have featured papers related to various aspects of
ancient marbles. Professor Marc Waelkens contributed with fundamental studies and the organization of the ASMOSIA
II meeting to the advancement of our understanding of such aspects, mainly of quarrying techniques and description of
new marble sources, especially during the 1990s, as well as in later occasional papers. Appreciating the major and specific
importance of his work and having collaborated with him in joint research on Phrygian marbles, I have always admired
his deep knowledge of the marble “phenomenon” in antiquity: I am very glad and honoured to dedicate this paper to him.
2 This terminology was first introduced by Corsi 1845, p. 106, who also called them “batti” after Biagio Cariofilo, a contem-

porary writer, and used since with a certain ambiguity, that continued for a century and in Gnoli’s treatise (Gnoli 1988,
pp. 179-180). Pensabene and Lazzarini in 1998, p. 142, proposed the above definitions, which have been largely accepted
by scholars, with the recent exception of Attanasio et al. 2009, p. 213, who propose to use nero antico and bigio morato for
limestones, later (Yavuz et al. 2012 p. 255, note 1) specifying that “Nero antico and bigio morato are rather similar stones.
The black hue of bigio morato, however, is somewhat less pronounced [sic !] and Corsi states that: “it resembles a black
stone slightly covered with dust”. Evidently Corsi did not consider the oxidation-patina that often covers bigi antichi and
bigi morati that have been exposed to the atmosphere for long periods. Such a proposal is not acceptable given the com-
mon genesis of black limestones and their very similar macroscopic aspect. Given the difficulty (for non-specialists) of
differentiating bigi antichi and bigi morati, especially for patinated artifacts, it is better to use neri antichi as a comprehensive
term. The real difference is between bigi antichi and bigi morati and it is not only genetic but also technical: the workability
shown by marbles and limestones, namely their carving quality, is very good for the former, quite problematic for the
latter, that tend to split irregularly: it is in fact no coincidence that marbles have been much more used for statuary, and
limestones for architectural elements. On this subject, and the related controversy see Lazzarini 2011, pp. 169-171; At-
tanasio et al. 2012, pp. 119-122; Lazzarini 2012, pp. 123-124.
141
Lorenzo Lazzarini
nigra or lapides nigri by Latin authors: Pliny twice mentions a black stone from Cape
Tainaron (at the very tip of the Mani peninsula, Peloponnesus-Greece) both as marmor
and lapis: in his Naturalis Historia 36, 29 “Sunt et nigri, quorum auctoritas venit in Marmora,
sicut Taenarius”, and ibid., 43 “Taenarius lapidem…; ex alio Taenario, qui niger est”. On the
basis of various considerations3, but mainly on the fact that ancient quarries of gray-
black marbles have been identified at Cape Tainaron, it is fairly certain that Pliny was
referring to a bigio antico, evidently more important in his eyes than the well-known
rosso antico, also quarried in the area.
Of the neri antichi, the bigi antichi are undoubtedly more important than the bigi mora-
ti for their relatively higher rarity in nature and much better workability: they have a
granular saccharoid texture, rarely brecciated (for example the bigio antico brecciato, called
“kaplan postu” by modern Turkish stonecutters, one of the varieties of marmor phrygium
used in antiquity and still quarried at İscehisar, in the province of Afyon) and have a
shining aspect which is visible to the naked eye in a fresh fracture. Moreover, they show
the very good carving quality of true, crystalline marbles, being equally homogeneous
and isotropic (e.g. lacking the usual bedding and stylolithic planes of limestones), and
are more easily polishable than the bigi morati. Finally, their colour is generally more
resistant to oxidation, the black pigment usually showing larger particles than in the bigi
morati. All these desirable properties are reflected in the common use of bigi antichi for
statuary of gods, often acrolithic (with heads, hands and feet of white marbles) and fu-
nerary artifacts since Hellenistic times4, sometimes for the busts of official Roman impe-
rial portraits, while bigi morati were more rarely carved for statues and reliefs, and were
mostly used for architectural elements (columns and capitals, bases, facing slabs, mosaic
tesserae, etc.), the most important example of the latter being the lapis niger over the
tomb of Romulus in the Forum Romanum5. It should be added that the architectural use
of bigi antichi seems already to have started in the Archaic period (the best examples are
the column bases of the Heraion of Samos manufactured from the marble of Zoodochos
Pighy6), while bigi morati appear in the Classical period (see the socle of the Propilaea of
the Athenian Acropolis made of Elefsinian black limestone).
The important bigi antichi of Classical Antiquity

In most cases bigi antichi are from light grey-to black, sometimes bluish, calcitic marbles (of-
ten slightly dolomitic) that owe their colour to the presence of carbonaceous matter/graphite
connected to the more or less partial metamorphic burning of the organic matter originally
present in the pre-metamorphic carbonaceous/bituminous/organogenic limestones (proto-
liths) deposited in euxinic (e.g. oxygen-poor) environments (closed marine lagoons, lakes,
etc.). The burning depends very much on the conditions (environment and temperature)
of metamorphism; temperature also fixes the metamorphic grade directly influencing the
3 Lazzarini 2007, p. 97.

4 Gregarek 2002, pp. 206-207.

5 Fornaseri et al. 1995, pp. 239.

6 Matarangas et al. 2009, pp. 36-42.

142
A First Characterization of a New Bigio Antico Marble
grain size of the marble7: low temperature values may preserve larger amounts of carbona-
ceous matter and often part of the original limestone fabric: this also depends considerably
on the type and maximum value reached by the metamorphic pressure, and on the duration
of metamorphism. Relatively high temperature values may lead to higher degrees of burning
and sometimes to the crystallisation of carbonaceous matter with the formation of graphite
accompanied by a coarser grain size of the carbonatic minerals. The overall colour of bigi
antichi depends on the amount, size and distribution of carbonaceous matter/graphite-parti-
cles: these components, which may be considered as marble pigments, can easily oxidize8
on the exposed surfaces of artifacts producing a colour change, for example from black
to grey, which should be considered a true patina, often misleading non-specialists as re-
gards the macroscopic positive identification of the lithotype. Bigi antichi are frequently
connected to white marbles in the same geological formation, corresponding to their C-
impure facies: this is the case for example of Aphrodisian, Phrygian, Hymettan, Pentelic,
and Lunense marbles. Some of these, those presenting only a dark-grey/black facies that
have been exported from their source-country, are listed below (from east-to-west) with
brief comments on their macroscopic aspect, quarry-location, typology and period of
use, and archaeometric features.
Lartian marble from Rhodes

This is a dark-grey, bluish marble, often with light-grey patches, quarried in small pits
on the slopes of Mount Lartos near the ancient town of Lindos on the island of Rhodes.
The marble was widely used on that island from Greek Classical to Roman times as epi-
graphic support, bases of statues, small statuary, etc. Recent archaeometric studies have
proved that it was exported to the island of Samothrace for the base and prow of the
famous Nike now in the Louvre Museum9. In thin section this marble shows a hetero-
blastic, lineated fabric10 formed by small often iso-oriented calcite crystals with straight-
to-sutured boundaries, sometimes showing intergranular fine-grained calcite crystals
and areas with decussate fabric or with larger and much strained grains with deformed
polysynthetic twin sand kinking. MGS varies from 1.70 to 2.60; the only accessory min-
erals are abundant graphite, often concentrated inside calcite crystals, and much more
rarely limonite. Its stable isotopic values for δ18O (PDB) vary from – 3.89 to – 3.03, and
δ13C (PDB) values from + 1.33 to + 2.18.
The Aphrodisian and Göktepe marble

Aphrodisian marble outcrops quite extensively on five gently sloping hills very close to
the town of Aphrodisias in Caria. The most commonly found marble is a white fine-to-
7 Bigi antichi are currently considered medium-to-coarse grained marbles, but they should include all grey-

black marbles, also those showing a fine grain size.
8 Such oxidation occurs rather quickly for artifacts exposed to rain water.

9 Palagia 2010, pp. 156-157; Maniatis et al. 2012, p. 271.

10 I have not found published petrographic descriptions of this marble; the following one is based on the

personal study of only five quarry samples.
143
Lorenzo Lazzarini
medium-grained high quality marble, but grey-bluish varieties also occur in consider-
able amounts. The minero-petrographic analysis of the latter shows typical heteroblastic
mosaic fabric with curved-embayed calcite crystal boundaries and the occasional pres-
ence of small amounts of dolomite. MGS varies from 0.64 to 4.04 mm, and the main
accessory mineral is graphite, with smaller amounts of quartz, K-mica, and opaque min-
erals including Fe-oxides. Isotopic analysis of a representative quarry-sampling yielded
δ18O (PDB) values of from – 2.42 to – 4.23, and δ13C (PDB) values of from – 0.89 to +
2.1611. All Aphrodisian marbles appear to have been used locally from the Early Hel-
lenistic to the Late Roman periods. Connected to these marbles are those of the nearby
(some 40 km SW) quarries of Göktepe recently discovered and supposed to have been
under control of Aphrodisias and worked by the same sculptors/stonemasons. The
Göktepe quarries were exploited mostly (more than half the total volume of extracted
stone) for a very fine-grained, good quality statuary marble12, and two neri antichi, very
probably including13 a bigio antico, a gray facies corresponding to the white marble out-
cropping in the northern area of the site, and a more widely occurring bigio morato, a
very fine-grained black limestone. The bigio antico sometimes features relics of Rudists
of centimetric dimension, somewhat deformed by metamorphism, but easily identified
macroscopically14. There is still no adequate petrographic description of this marble: one
sample of the fossiliferous facies that the present author had the chance to examine in
thin section showed a strongly lineated and strained mosaic fabric formed by calcite
crystals showing sutured boundaries with bent polysynthetic twinning, and an MGS of
1.84. These crystals often include powdery carbonaceous matter/graphite, also concen-
trated in veins, small aggregates and short levels. The only accessory minerals identified
are a few small quartz crystals and K-mica needles. As may be deduced from published
data the stable isotopic values of the Göktepe bigio antico marble seem to vary from – 0.5
to – 7.5 for δ18O (PDB) values, and from +1.8 to + 3.8 for δ13C (PDB) values15.
Lesbian marble
Lesbian marble was quarried at Moria, a place by the sea a few kilometers NW of the
town of Mytilene, the capital of the island of Lesbos16. This is a middle grey-to black
11 Lazzarini et al. 2002, pp. 163-168.

12 This marble is quite distinctive petrographically, showing a mosaic fabric formed by small calcite crystals

with curved boundaries and abundant very fine intergranular calcite crystals; MGS is around 0.30 mm,
and its purity is remarkable, showing only traces of quartz and hematite: these features (pointing to a
low-metamorphic grade) and their isotopic ratio coinciding with that of Carrara marble (with which it is
also easily mistaken macroscopically) are distinct from other fine-grained marbles used in antiquity, and
make the statistical elaboration of data currently used for its differentiation as in Attanasio et al. 2009 quite
unnecessary.
13 This is what may be deduced from the rather confused description of the lithotypes quarried at Göktepe

contained in Attanasio et al. 2009.
14 This information is not contained in Attanasio et al. 2009, but was added later in Attanasio et al. 2012, p.

122 after the present author’s review of their 2009 paper.
15 Yavuz et al. 2012.

16 Pensabene 1998, pp. 175-206.

144
marble, often mottled and with thin red veins, seldom of uniform colour, often showing
relics of macrofossils. These may be easily identified as Megalodon sp. (5-12 cm in diam-
eter), Crinoidea and corals, though they are sometimes much deformed by metamorphic
pressure, and help to date the marble to the Triassic. The presence of these fossils is
characteristic of the variety called bigio lumachellato (from the Italian word lumachelle =
snails). Lesbian marble is mentioned as marmor lesbium in Diocletian’s edict on maxi-
mum prices (dated 301) where it appears as one of the cheapest stones (40 denarii per
cubic foot)17. This factor was a very influential reason for its massive exploitation and
wide distribution: in fact this marble was probably the most used, quantitatively speak-
ing, of all the bigi antichi, especially for architectural elements (columns, capitals, facing
slabs, etc.), but also for epigraphic support and more rarely for sculptures: an example
is the statue of the “Black Serapis” of Leptis Magna18. Its use started locally in the Greek
Classical period, and continued increasingly in the Hellenistic period when it was also
exported to Asia Minor, namely to Pergamum (temple of Athena Polias), and during
the entire Roman empire when this marble was used in Crete (Gortyn) and other Greek
localities, and reached Rome and Italy as well as various places in North Africa. Petro-
graphically it is quite distinctive showing a heteroblastic highly strained and often lin-
eated fabric formed by closely interlocked calcite crystals with sutured boundaries often
showing deformation in the polysynthetic twinnings. Its MGS varies from 2.5 to 8 mm,
averaging around 4 mm. Rare relics of the pre-metamorphic biomicrite and styloliths
indicate a low metamorphic grade in the greenschist facies with post-crystalline defor-
mation connected to late tectonic events responsible for the frequent elongation of the
macrofossils. The stable isotopic analysis gave δ18O (PDB) values of from – 2.0 to – 4.7,
and δ13C (PDB) values of from – 0.3 to + 2.719.
Iznik marble
This bigio antico has been very recently discovered20 close to the ancient town of Nicaea,
modern Iznik, in NW Turkey, where it is widely used. The quarries are very large ones
with extensive signs of ancient exploitation: their size seems very much to exceed just
a local use, so that it has been correctly assumed that this marble was exported as archi-
tectural elements, shaped sarcophagi and statuary. The marble is calcitic, with a strongly
heteroblastic fabric observed in thin section under the microscope; its MGS varies from
0.5 to 8 mm (mean value, 3.2 mm); accessory minerals are euhedral quartz and albitic
plagioclase, the latter twinned, with abundant opaque minerals, presumably consisting
of carbonaceous matter/graphite. The stable isotopic analysis gave δ18O (PDB) values of
from – 5.0 to – 7.9, and δ13C (PDB) values of from – 2.0 to + 3.8.
17 Lazzarini 2010, pp. 485-490.

18 Lazzarini and Turi 2003, pp. 286-292.

19 Lazzarini et al. 1999, p. 128.

20 Yavuz et al. 2012, pp. 255-262.

145
Lorenzo Lazzarini
Hymettan and Pentelic marbles

These two very important marbles belong to S-tectonites, of the same Cretacic geologi-
cal formation21, and are thus “varieties” of the same marble. Both are fine-grained and
have a white variety which is much more important than the gray-bluish one. Hymettan
white normally shows a distinct foliation characterized by long parallel grey veins; Pen-
telic may be purely and homogeneously white, but very often exhibits a more or less pro-
nounced foliation with fine micaceous/micaceous chloritic parallel levels distinguishable
with the naked eye for their silver or silver-greenish colours. These two varieties were
used for statuary from the second half of the 6th century BC, the Hymettan for a century
or so, the Pentelic throughout antiquity; the use of the former was superseded by the
better quality of the second, which was also widely employed for architectural elements,
sarcophagi, etc. Both have dark gray varieties, rarely uniform in colour, often show-
ing white veins, patches, stains, etc., always fine-grained: the Hymettan was quarried
near the monasteries of Kaisariani and Kareas, the Pentelic, in the area of Kokkinaràs22.
They were both used in the Hellenistic-Roman times for architectural elements. Being
isotopically and petrographically undistinguishable (both show an heteroblastic lineated
fabric with MGS below 1 mm, an average grain size slightly higher for Pentelic, and
same accessory minerals: K-mica, apatite, quartz, chlorite), they are well separated by
Mn2 concentrations determined by EPR, or with other quantitative chemical methods.
Taenarian marble
As mentioned above, this bigio antico must have been quite well known if specifically men-
tioned by Pliny, and indirectly by Pausanias and Strabo, its importance being probably con-
nected to funerary use and to the vicinity of its quarries to the famous temple of Taenarian
Poseidon situated close to one of the entrances to the other world. Two of such quarries are
visible by the sea to the N and NW of Cape Tainaron; they are rather small, and could only
have yielded small blocks. Another quarry, much larger, is at Langada, a few km to the N
of the cape. The marble outcropping there belongs to the same geological formation and is
much more homogeneous and thicker: one cannot exclude an ancient exploitation the traces
of which could have been destroyed by a modern quarry. Other small extraction sites are
present in the Dimaristica area: the marble there is more grayish than black and includes thin
(10-20 m thick) strata of rosso antico. The bigio antico tenario examined in thin section under
the polarizing microscope shows a homeoblastic/slightly heteroblastic mosaic fabric, some-
times weakly strained and lineated. It is formed by interlocking calcite crystals with sutured
boundaries and an MGS varying from 0.74 to 2.24 mm (with a mean value of 1.13mm). The
accessory minerals are rare although quite characteristic since they contain chert as well as
the very common quartz (also polycrystalline), albitic plagioclase, apatite and abundant car-
bonaceous matter/graphite, also included in the calcite grains. The stable isotopic analysis for
δ18O (PDB) values varies from – 0.3 to – 2.8, and for δ13C (PDB) values from + 0.3 to + 3.223.
21 Marinos 1948, p. 387.

22 Goette et al. 1999, pp. 83-90.

23 Lazzarini 2007, pp. 101-104.

146
Lunense “Bardiglio”
This is the average-to-dark-grey uniform/mottled variety of marmor lunense quarried
in various localities of the Apuan Alps, but especially along the valley of Colonnata (NE
of Carrara), where one can still see a few well preserved Roman cuts at Fossa Cava24.
Bardiglio was very commonly used for floor and wall facing from the second half of the
1st century BC to the end of the 2nd century AD; it was sometimes carved for architec-
tural elements (columns and capitals), more rarely for small reliefs and other artifacts.
It has the same petrographic and geochemical characteristics as white Carrara marble
(homeo-to-slightly heteroblastic fabric, often polygonal with triple points formed by
calcite grains with a fine grain size rarely exceeding an average value of 0.6 mm with
MGS of around 1mm, showing straight-to-curved boundaries, sometimes with small
amounts of dolomite and accessory minerals consisting of apatite, quartz, albitic plagio-
clase, K-mica, pyrite) from which it can be distinguished by its abundant graphite. The
stable isotopic analysis of lunense for δ18O (PDB) values varies from –0. 5 to –3.5, and for
δ13C (PDB) values from +0.2 to +3.0.
A new bigio antico from Aghios Petros (Tripolis, Peloponnesus):

quarries and characterisation
During research into modern dimension stones of central Peloponnesus, it was found
that a quarry producing a black marble had recently opened on the slopes of Mount
Parnonas very close to the village of Aghios Petros in the province of Tripolis25. The
site also showed clear traces of an ancient exploitation activity, with what remains of the
ancient quarry now visible on the left side of the modern one. It shows two exploitation
areas, a lower one which is decently preserved (Fig. 1, exhibiting ancient stepped cuts
and with squared blocks partly isolated from the marble outcrop, and a higher one where
ancient cutting marks are mixed with modern ones, and are flanked by accumulated
debris (Figs. 2-4). The cutting marks are badly preserved, but are more suggestive of Ro-
man than Greek exploitation. The marble is fine-grained with a saccharoid aspect and of
a very intense and uniform black colour (value 8.5 of the Munsell Neutral Color Scale).
Taking advantage of the possibility of having small cubes (sides of 7.1 cm) prepared
from this black marble in a local workshop, we carried out a minero-petrographic and
isotopic investigation, coupled to a physico-mechanical characterization. The first was
made according to the standard procedures26, the second included the determination of
bulk density, total porosity and pore size distribution by mercury intrusion (according
to the Italian standard Normal 4.80), water imbibition capacity by total immersion (ac-
cording to the European standard EN 13755: 2002) and uniaxial compressive strength
(according to the European standard EN 1926: 2000) on 9 cubic samples. The study of
several samples by X-Ray diffraction showed that the main mineral component of this
24 Dolci 1980, pp. 64-106.

25 I am much indebted for this information to Arch. Gherardo degli Azzoni Avogadro Malvasia, whom I

wish to take this opportunity to thank most warmly.
26 They are described in Lazzarini 2004, p. 114-115.

147
Lorenzo Lazzarini
Fig. 1. Remains of the main ancient quarry locus Fig. 2. Ancient cuts on the left part of the ancient
with abandoned and new marble blocks. quarry with ancient accumulated debris at the base.
Fig. 3. Detail of Fig. 2 showing the upper part of the Fig. 4. The ancient debris at the base of the quarry
marble outcrop and quarry cuts. with traces of the old road.
148
marble is a slightly magnesian calcite, accompanied by traces of quartz. The microscopic

study of a thin section revealed the following petrographic features:
- a crystalloblastic-heteroblastic mosaic fabric, often lineated and with relics of stylo-
liths showing cumulated graphite (Fig. 5), small quartz and albitic twinned plagio-
clase crystals
- tightly interlocked calcite crystals showing sutured boundaries (Fig. 6) and frequent
polysynthetic twinnings
- MGS varying from 1.60 to 1.92 mm
- graphite which is present in very fine particles or aggregates either contained inside
calcite, or dispersed in the intergranular space, or concentrated in small masses, in
styloliths (often parallel, even in a micro-scale)(Fig.) and veins
- accessory minerals of euhedral quartz and albitic plagioclase, often twinned, and
more rarely apatite, K-mica and epidote.
Fig. 5. Photomicrograph of a thin section of the Fig. 6. As for Fig. 5 at higher magnification to give
Aghios Petros marble showing a heteroblastic fabric a clearer view of the sutured boundaries of calcite
formed by a mosaic of interlocked calcite crystals crystals. N+, long side = 1.03 mm.
with included graphite particles and relics of stylo-
liths. N+, long side = 2.55 mm.
Its composition and characteristics classify the black rock of Aghios Petros as a true
graphite-marble formed from an original black carbonaceous limestone subjected to a
low-medium grade metamorphism in the “green-schist facies”.
The stable isotopic analysis for δ18O (PDB) values varies from – 0.83 to – 0.93, and for
δ13C (PDB) values from + 1.32 to + 1.49.
The physical-mechanical properties measured on 3 samples gave the following aver-
age results:
Bulk Density. 2.702 g/cm3; Total Open Porosity = 0.25 %; Imbibition Capacity = 0.155;
Uniaxial Compressive Strength = 49.15 N/mm2.
These data of the black marble of Aghios Petros constitute quite a good justification
for its modern re-exploitation since they enable it to be defined as a very compact, good
quality marble usable for both sculpture and architectural elements.
149
Lorenzo Lazzarini
The laboratory provenancing of bigi antichi

Bigi antichi are not authoptically identifiable, with the exception of the two types containing
macrofossils, the bigio lumachellato of Lesbos and of that of Göktepe, the former with the pres-
ence of Megalodonts, Crinoids and Corals, the second of Rudists. One may also distinguish
between two groups, fine grained marbles (Lartian, Göktepe, Hymettan, Pentelic, Bardiglio,
Aghios Petros), and medium-to-coarse grained ones (Aphrodisian, Lesbian, Nicaean), for the
moment without a clear possibility of internal distinction. In fact, for a positive identification
laboratory analyses are strictly necessary: the recommended ones are minero-petrographic
(XRD, OM on thin sections) and isotopic (SIRA). As regards the former group, fabric is
sometimes helpful: that of Lartian and Göktepe marbles seems to be quite distinct from the
others of fine-grained marbles since both show strong lineation and strain, but internal dif-
ferentiation may be possible only when decussate fabric is shown in Lartian marble; Hymet-
tan marble is somewhat difficult to separate from the Pentelic, although its fabric is character-
ized by small intergranular crystals, missing in the latter, that often show higher characteristic
amounts of phyllosilicates; Bardiglio is also quite characteristic for its homeoblastesis, and for
the fact that it frequently features a polygonal fabric with triple points. The bigio antico of
Aghios Petros is somewhat difficult to distinguish from that of Göktepe and Mount Lartos,
although it lacks the lineation and strain, and it shows abundant styloliths with cumulated
graphite. Petrography seems not to be so effective in differentiating Lesbian from Nicaean
bigi, while Aphrodisian showing a typical mosaic equilibrium-fabric is easily distinguished
from both. In general, finally, many more isotopic analyses are needed for several of the bigi
antichi considered here in order to establish how they can be separated isotopically27.
QUARRY LOCALITY δ18O δ13C

Mount Lartos, Isl. of Rhodes (Greece) – 3.03 to – 3.89 +1.33 to + 2.18
Aphrodisias (Geyre, Turkey) – 2.42 to – 7.72 – 1.45 to + 1.11
Göktepe (Muğla, Turkey) – 0.50 to – 7.50 +1.80 to + 3.80
Moria, Isl. of Lesbos (Greece) – 2.00 to – 4.70 – 0.30 to + 2.70
Nicaea (Iznik, Turkey) – 5.00 to – 7.90 – 2.00 to + 3.80
Mount Hymettos (Athens, Greece) – 1.20 to – 4.30 + 0.10 to + 3.00
Mount Penteli (Athens, Greece) – 3.80 to – 9.80 + 1.60 to + 5.15
Cape Tainaron (Mani, Greece) – 0.30 to – 2.80 + 0.30 to + 3.20
Luna (Carrara, Italy) – 0.50 to – 3.50 + 0.20 to + 3.00
Aghios Petros (Tripolis, Greece) – 0.83 to – 1.95 + 1.32 to + 2.49
Table 1: range (min.-max.) of the isotopic values of the bigi antichi considered here.
27 A tentative graphic plot of all the isotopic fields of the two groups of mar bles (fine-grained and medium-

coarse-grained) showed considerable overlapping.
150
Conclusions
Our knowledge of the bigi antichi used in antiquity is still very imperfect, although im-
proved and closer than before to that of the white marbles. What is known of the most
important species of the former has been critically summarized here with the addition
of a new fine-grained black marble from the hitherto unknown quarries of Aghios Pet-
ros in central Peloponnesus. The archaeometric characteristics useful for the positive
identification of all the bigi antichi considered here have been discussed and some pos-
sibility of distinction pointed out. An overall conclusion is, however, that the solution
of archaeological problems connected to artifacts of bigi antichi will require much more
field and laboratory work.
References
Attanasio et al. 2009 = D. Attanasio, M. Bruno, A.B. Yavuz, Quarries in the region of Aphrodisias: the
black and white marbles of Göktepe (Muĝla), “Journal of Roman Archaeology”, 22, 2009, pp. 212-348.
Attanasio et al. 2012 = D. Attanasio, M. Bruno, A.B. Yavuz, La realtà del marmo afrodisiense di Gőktepe:
replica a una recensione, “Marmora”, 7, 2012, pp. 119-122.
Corsi 1845 = F. Corsi, Delle pietre antiche, 3rd edition, Rome 1845.
Dolci 1980 = E. Dolci, Carrara, cave antiche, Carrara, 1980.
Fornaseri et al. 1995 = M. Fornaseri, L. Lazzarini, P. Pensabene, M. Preite Martinez, B. Turi, “Lapis
Niger” and other black limestones used in antiquity, in Y. Maniatis, N. Herz, Y. Bassiakos, eds., Transac-
tions of the 3rd Int. Symp. of ASMOSIA, Athens May 17-19 1993, London, 1995, pp. 235-240.
Gnoli 1988 = R. Gnoli, Marmora Romana, 2nd edition, Roma, 1988.
Goette et al. 1999 = H.R. Goette, K. Polikreti, T. Vacoulis, Y. Maniatis, Investigation of the Greysh-blue
marble of Pentelikon and Hymettus, in M. Schvoerer, ed., Archéomatériaux, marbres et autres roches. Actes
de la IVe Conférence Internationale ASMOSIA, Bordeaux 9-13 Octobre 1995, Bordeaux, 1999, pp. 83-90.
Gregarek 2002 = H. Gregarek, Roman imperial sculpture of colored marbles, in J. J. Herrmann, N. Herz, R.
Newman, eds., ASMOSIA 5. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, Boston June 11-15, 1998, London,
2002, pp. 206-214.
Lazzarini 2004 = L. Lazzarini, Archaeometric aspects of white and coloured marbles used in antiquity, the
state of the art, in G.M. Bargossi, M. Franzini, B. Messiga, eds., A Showcase of the Italian Research in
Applied Petrology, Special Issue 3, “Periodico di Mineralogia”, 73, 2004, pp. 113-125.
Lazzarini 2007 = L. Lazzarini, Poikiloi lithoi, versiculores maculae, I marmi colorati della Grecia antica,
Pisa-Rome, 2007.
Lazzarini 2010 = L. Lazzarini, Considerazioni sul prezzo dei marmi bianchi e colorati in età imperiale, in S.
Camporeale, H. Dessales, A. Pizzo, eds., Arqueologia de la construccion II. Los procesos constructivos en
el mundo romano: Italia y provincias orientales, Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), 13-15 nov. 2008, Madrid-
Merida 2010, pp. 485-490.
Lazzarini et al. 2010 = L. Lazzarini, D. Attanasio, M. Bruno, A.B. Yavuz, Quarries in the region of
Aphrodisias: the black and white marbles of Göktepe (Muĝla), “Journal of Roman Archaeology”, 22, 2010,
pp. 313-348.
Lazzarini 2012 = L. Lazzarini, Controreplica alla replica della mia recensione a “La realtà del marmo afrodi-
siense di Gőktepe”, “Marmora”, 7, 2012, 123-124.
151
Lorenzo Lazzarini
Lazzarini et al. 1999 = L. Lazzarini, P. Pensabene, B. Turi, Isotopic and petrographic characterization of
marmor Lesbium, Island of Lesbos, Greece, in M. Schvoerer, ed., Archéomatériaux, marbres et autres
roches. Actes de la IVe Conférence Internationale ASMOSIA, Bordeaux 9-13 Octobre 1995, Bordeaux, 1999,
pp. 125-129.
Lazzarini et al. 2002 = L. Lazzarini, G. Ponti, M. Preite Martinez, P. Rockwell, B. Turi, Historical, tech-
nical, petrographic and isotopic features of Aphrodisian marble, in J. J. Herrmann, N. Herz, R. Newman,
eds., ASMOSIA 5. Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, Boston June 11-15. 1998, London, 2002,
pp. 163-168.
Lazzarini and Turi 2003 = L. Lazzarini, B. Turi, I marmi e le pietre, in A. De Vita, G. Pugliese Carratelli,
G. Di Vita Evrard, L. Lazzarini, B. Turi, Il Serapeo di Leptis Magna: il tempio, le iscrizioni, i marmi,
“Quaderni di Archeologia della Libia”, 18, 2003, pp. 286-292.
Maniatis et al. 2012 = Y. Maniatis, D. Tambakopoulos, E. Dotsika, B.D. Westcoat, D. Matsas, The
sanctuary of the great gods on Samothrace, Greece: an extended marble provenance study, in A. Gutierrez
Garcia, M.P. Lapuente, I. Roda, eds., Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone. Proceedings of the IX
ASMOSIA Conference, Tarragona 2009, Tarragona, 2012, pp. 263-278.
Marinos 1948 = G.P. Marinos, Notes on the structure of Greek marbles, “American Journal of Science”, 246,
1948, pp. 386-389.
Matarangas et al. 2009 = M. Varti Matarangas, D. Matarangas, L. Lazzarini, The marbles of Ikaria and
Samos (Greece): quarries and characterisation, in Ph. Jockey, ed., LEYKOS LITHOS. Marbres et autres
roches de la Méditerranée antique: études interdisciplinaires, Aix-en-Provence, 2009, pp. 31-48.
Palagia 2010 = O. Palagia, The victory of Samothrace and the aftermath of the battle of Pydna, in O. Palagia,
B.D. Westcoat, eds., Samothracian Connections. Essays in Honor of James R. McCredie, Oxford, 2010, pp.
154-164.
Pensabene 1998 = P. Pensabene, Contributo allo studio delle cave di Lesbo, in P. Pensabene, ed., Marmi antichi
II: cave e tecnica di lavorazione, provenienze e distribuzione, “Studi Miscellanei”, 31, 1998, pp. 175-206.
Pensabene and Lazzarini 1998 = P. Pensabene, L. Lazzarini, Il problema del bigio antico e del bigio morato:
contributo allo studio delle cave di Teos e di Chios, in P. Pensabene, ed., “Marmi antichi II: cave e tecnica di
lavorazione, provenienze e distribuzione”, “Studi Miscellanei”, 31, pp. 142-173.
Yavuz et al. 2012 = A.B. Yavuz, M. Bruno, D. Attanasio, A new source of bigio antico marble: the ancient
quarries of Iznik (Turkey), in A. Gutierrez Garcia. M.P. Lapuente, I. Roda, eds., Interdisciplinary Stud-
ies on Ancient Stone. Proceedings of the IX ASMOSIA Conference, Tarragona 2009, Tarragona, 2012, pp.
255-262.
152
Segmented Mills
in Classical Antiquity
David Peacock
I first encountered Marc Waelkens a quarter of a century ago when he was involved in
organising a NATO sponsored conference on marble in ancient Greece and Rome, held
at Il Ciocco, near Lucca, Italy, in 1988. Despite his being unable to attend in person, this
meeting, like so many of Marc’s ventures, proved to be a catalyst and from it arose the
thriving Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity (ASMOSIA)
which continues and expands through its biennial international conferences. At the time
Marc was planning a new enterprise – the excavation of Sagalassos, a Roman town in
the Pisidian highlands, then little known. Few of us could have guessed that this was to
become one of the great excavations of all time, training generations of students in best
practice over more than two decades and developing a multidisciplinary approach which
remains today one of the most comprehensive examples of how archaeology should
be pursued. But Marc Waelkens is a man of many parts and one of his lesser known,
but equally important, achievements is a study of the watermills in the Sagalassos area
conducted with Leuven colleagues Kristien Donners and Jozef Deckers1. Together
they conducted an ethnoarchaeological study of 15 watermills, recording for posterity
an aspect of ancient technology that was and is fast disappearing. It seems appropriate
therefore to offer this modest contribution, on an aspect of Classical molinology, to a
remarkable man whose interests include milling, ethnography and the Classical world.
Introduction
Segmented or composite mills are not uncommon, but they are essentially a phenom-
enon of the post-Medieval period. For example, they are known from Mow Cop in Der-
byshire or Kaim Hill in Scotland, while in the Mediterranean, the segmented mills of the
Aegean island of Melos are the best known and the most widely distributed2. However,
the most renowned of all were those of La Ferté-sous-Jouarre to the east of Paris, a town
which can claim to be the world capital of millstone making with, in its heyday, exports
to Europe, the Americas and even Australia3. The reason for segmentation is always the
same: a superior milling rock – which would be hard with an uneven texture, remaining
1 Donners et al. 2002.

2 Bonson 2001; Tucker 1984; Vretlou-Souli 2002.

3 Belmont 2006.

153
David Peacock
uneven as the stone wears – could only be obtained in small pieces. The normal practice,
exemplified by La Ferté, was to set these pieces in a base of concrete held together and
strengthened with an iron band. Segmented mills thus require a strong bonding mecha-
nism, which only became possible with the development high quality concrete and a
combination of the skills of millwright, builder and blacksmith.
Most classical mills are monolithic, with the exception of the mills of the Aegean is-
land of Delos, lying in the Cyclades close to Mykonos. Here volcanic stones were bound
together to make composite mills, which presumably, as in the post-medieval examples
cited above, indicates that the lava in the source area could not be obtained in large
enough blocks to make a monolithic stone. Such mills abound on Delos island but are
rare elsewhere. However, examples are known from the Nekuomanteion of Acheron
near Preveza in Western Greece, and in Egypt from the Fayoum city of Karanis, from
Clysma-Qolzoum (Suez) and from Badia in the Mons Porphyrites complex of the East-
ern Desert. The type may have been more common than the current distribution sug-
gests, as the elements of such mills, when disaggregated, are difficult to recognise. They
present a number of problems which will be addressed in this paper:
• Where did the rock originate and thus where did the innovation take place?
• How did they function? – most suggested reconstructions fail to explain how they
would have been fed with grain.
• How can we explain the wide disparity in dates in what appears to be a homogenous
type?
Typology
Delian segmented mills were first described by Deonna4, who illustrated two types. The
first comprised a ring of convex stones which would have been surrounded by a ring of
concave stones. This type was well represented near the Delos theatre where a more or
less complete mill could be reconstructed. The second type had an L-shaped profile as
shown in his Pl 397 (see Fig. 5), but it seems to be an isolated example.
Taking a wider perspective, it is possible to isolate three distinct but related types:
Type 1 is the form most frequently encountered on Delos and it comprises two elements
often found close to one another on site. The inner element comprises a tapered slab of lava
about 30 cm long and 20 cm wide at its broadest end tapering to 15 cm. The widest end is
usually squared off and both ends have round holes about 2.5 cm in diameter and 4 cm deep.
The ends are either triangular in cross-section or sometimes trapezoidal with a rough inner
surface (Fig. 1a-c). The profile is best described as an ogee curve (Fig. 8). The other outer
element is a curved block of stone about 35 cm long and up to 15 cm thick (Fig. 1d). In cross-
section it is triangular or trapezoidal. The inner stones would require 11 - 15 elements to
complete the circle, while about 6 - 7 would suffice in the case of the outer stones. The diam-
eter would have been about 60 cm. It is unclear how the stones were joined, but iron braces,
perhaps set in lead, seem to have been assumed. This is unproven and it is not impossible that
the holes accommodated wooden dowels and the binding structure was of wood.
4 Deonna 1938, Pl. 392-3 and 397.

154
Segmented Mills in Classical Antiquity
Fig. 1. Type 1 from Delos. a) two inner stones with an outer on top; b) a triangular inner stone showing
wear zone; c) trapezoidal inner stone showing fixing hole; d) typical outer stone (photos: author).
This form has also been found at Karanis and Clysma in Egypt5 (Figs. 2-3). Of these,
the Karanis example is particularly instructive as it is virtually complete with wooden
parts preserved. This mill appears to have comprised segments of lava set in what may
be a clay matrix. A wooden pole ran through the centre and two further pieces of wood,
which appear to be reused from some other application, are seen sticking out of one
end (Fig. 3). The notes of the excavator, Enoch Peterson, indicate that he, as well as his
Egyptian workmen, were mystified by the object, but eventually thought that it might
be some form of mill. Peterson suggests that it might have been turned in a stone jar, a
number of which were found on the site. He suggested that the rectangular hole in the
wooden bar might have been used to accommodate a turning handle.
5 Husselman 1979; Bruyère 1966.

155
David Peacock
Fig. 2. Stones from Clysma (Suez). From Bruyère (1966).
Type 2 comprises tapering blocks some of which are concave in the vertical plane and
convex in the horizontal and others vice versa, representing the inner and outer ele-
ments. The slabs of lava are typically 17 cm high and 10 - 15 cm tapering to 5 - 10 cm.
There are no holes as on Delos. About 10 stones would complete the circle, which would
have a diameter of about 55 cm. It is unclear how the stones would have held together,
but it is not impossible that they were un-cemented relying on the pressure of the struc-
ture as a whole, or that they were set around a clay core. (Fig. 4)
156
Fig. 3. The Karanis mill. Courtesy Kelsey Museum, Ann Arbor.
This form can be seen at Badia in Egypt and at the Nekuomanteion of Acheron in
Western Greece6.
Type 3 comprises an inner element with an L shaped profile and is represented solely
by Deonna’s pl. 397. It would require about 8 elements and would have had a diameter of
c. 70 cm. The bottom ledge of the ‘L’ seems to have been left rough demonstrating that
this was not the grinding surface (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4. Type 2 from the Nekuomanteion of Acheron (photo: author).
6 Peacock 2007; Dakaris 1960, Pl 90 β; Wiseman 1998.

157
David Peacock
Fig. 5. Type 3 from Delos. From Deonna 1938, enhanced by CM Green.
Functioning
The way in which mills of this type functioned has been a matter of some discussion. The
first to suggest a modus operandi were Storck and Teague7 who showed both the inner and
outer element fastened with rings of, presumably, metal bolted onto the upper surfaces
of the elements (Fig. 6). Here it is worth noting that fixing holes are only found on inner
stones, not on the outer as shown. The outer ring was turned manually by a rod attached to
a rope. As they say, there is no hopper, but a slight space at the top of the stone rings may
have served to feed the mill. The outer ring would be the one that moved while the inner
would be stationary. Brunet8 re-opened the question on the basis of an in situ find from the
Maison des sceaux, reported by Siebert9. Brunet suggested that the outer ring was stationary
Fig. 6. Reconstruction by Storck and Teague (1952).
7 Storck and Teague 1952, fig. 40.

8 Brunet 1997.

9 Siebert 1988.

158
and that the inner one rotated – effectively reversing Storck and Teague’s hypothesis and
turning the device upside down (Fig. 7). In both these reconstructions the lack of a hopper
is a serious problem and we must speculate that some form of wooden surround would
have encompassed the outer ring to hold a reserve of grain.
Fig. 7. Reconstruction by Brunet (1997).
However, careful examination shows that the wear on Delian mills invariably occurs
at two points. On the inner stones it is always just above the unworn part near the base
of the ogee and in the outer stone sit is always at the thinner end of the triangular cross
section – away from the flat surface (Fig. 8). This implies that these two parts were in
contact at these points and this is where the grinding would have taken place. Most mills
work by having a space though which the grain will travel prior to being ground just be-
fore it leaves the device. Thus, in a rotary quern, there is a space between the upper and
lower stones and the grinding takes place at the periphery. This being the case, Brunet’s
model would not function as there would be no feed gap – the grain could not enter the
device as the stones would be in contact at the point of entry.
159
David Peacock
Fig. 8. Outer and inner stone profiles at ap-

proximately the same scale, showing position of
wear. Upper edge of the outer stone 10 cm (photos:
author).
If this is accepted, it follows that the inner stone is the lower stationary one and that the
outer is the one that rotated on it as Storck and Teague originally proposed. While the ex-
ample from the Maison des sceaux may have been in its place of use, it seems to have been up-
ended. It is possible that this was done to remove the metal fittings – but equally their absence
might imply wooded fittings. This has interesting implications for the Karanis mill, because
the three projecting wooded bars would have been in the base, not the top of the mill and
they could not have served to turn the device. It seems that they were anchors to secure the
mill to the ground, and because of this humble role any available reused timber would suffice.
Date
The Maison des sceaux on Delos was apparently destroyed in 69 BC giving a firm terminus
ante quem10. The Nekuomanteion of Acheron is Hellenistic and should date from the late
third to the early second century BC. Runnels11, following Dakaris12, suggests 234-167
BC. If the site has been correctly identified it might go back to Homeric times, but while
late Bronze Age settlement has been identified in the area, the site in question is almost
entirely Hellenistic.
Many scholars have questioned Dakaris’ identification suggesting that the tunnels be-
neath the structure are the cellars of a Hellenistic farmhouse rather than the ‘halls of
Hades’. Certainly Baatz13 has shown that the cogs and flanged bronze rings found in the
excavations are part of a Hellenistic catapult, rather than a device used by priests to raise
10 Brunet 1997, p. 35.

11 Runnels 1981, p. 134.

12 Dakaris 1960, p. 119.

13 Baatz 1999; Baatz 1982.

160
and lower images of the dead as Dakaris postulated. It might also be assumed that mill-
stones are appropriate to a farm rather than a sanctuary, but the assemblage is atypical
and mills are often associated with cult14. There are five complete Olynthus mills, show-
ing minimal or no wear, and two segmented mills without outer stones. The segmented
mills are unusual, but so is the presence of unworn complete Olynthus mills, neither of
which are normally encountered so well preserved. No other farm, of this or any other
date, known to the writer, has produced an assemblage remotely similar and at best a
few worn fragments might be expected. While there is no doubt about the Hellenistic
date, or that the structure above served some other purpose, perhaps the underlying
labyrinthine cellars were originally the Nekuomanteion. Barley bread was consumed in
the rituals and the mills might be there to aid its preparation, if only in a symbolic way.
Geographically the Nekuomanteion is where it might be expected and the building of
an eighteenth century monastic church, that of St John the Baptist, in the ruins, might
result from the need to cleanse, what remained in folk memory as a pagan sanctuary.
Interestingly, several terracotta figurines of Persephone were found in the excavations15.
‘Dread Persephone’ as Homer (Odyssey 10, 11) calls her, would be much more appropri-
ate to a sanctuary rather than to a farm cellar. The finds from the structure do not date
its construction, but its latest refurbishment and adaptation. Interestingly, a dump of
seventh-fifth century BC Corinthian pottery together with Persephone terracottas was
found 100 m below the site and this might represent the clearing of an earlier phase16.
The jury is out, but a case can be made in support of Dakaris.
The Egyptian sites are even more problematic chronologically. That from Clysma
cannot be dated as it was poorly excavated in the 1930s and not published until three de-
cades later. The Karanis mill is better documented. The town was reputedly founded by
Ptolemy II Philadelphus who ruled Egypt 283-246 BC, giving a firm terminus post quem.
The site was divided by the excavators into a number of ‘levels’ which can be broadly
dated17. The mill was found in the third level (C) which represents the expansion of the
town between the mid first century AD and the first half of the second century18. The
date is completely out of line with the Greek finds which might suggest that the Karanis
mill was a survival from the Hellenistic era. This is extremely unlikely as the artefact
is so complex and delicate. The finds from Badia are even more difficult to understand.
The geological wealth of the Mons Porphyrites mountains was apparently discovered
by Gaius Comminius Leugas, the world’s first known field geologist, who erected a stele
to commemorate the event on 23rd July AD 1819. The earliest dating from Badia site is
Flavian but evidence is scarce. However, it flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries
AD and the mills are dated to that phase20. If they were residual, they are unlikely to date
before AD 69-96, but the chances are that they are of the late date.
14 Peacock 2013, chapter 9.

15 Wiseman 1998; Dakaris 1960.

16 Ogden 2001, p. 52, with further references.

17 Husselman 1979, chapter 1.

18 Husselman 1979, p. 9.

19 Maxfield and Peacock 2001.

20 Peacock 2007, p. 274.

161
David Peacock
Origin
Segmented mills are invariably of lava which does not outcrop on Delos. Thus the idea
may not be a Delian one and the mills may have been invented elsewhere. The Aegean
volcanic arc is the most probable source. It is likely that the rock would not permit the
production of monolithic millstones, which is why segmentation was invented. Basal-
tic rocks abound on the islands of Aegina, Poros, Thera and Nisyros. As Runnels21 has
shown, millstones were made until recently on both Aegina and Poros, but they are
monolithic, making segmentation redundant. These islands are thus unlikely. Of the
two remaining candidates, Nisyros was well known as a source of millstone according
to Strabo (Geog. 10.15.16), but Thera is nearer to Delos. The chemical analysis of lava
samples (from no specific type of mill) found at Badia and Mons Claudianus suggests an
origin on Thera or less probably, in a few cases, western Anatolia22. The evidence, such
as it is, thus points to a Theran origin.
Discussion and Conclusion

Segmented millstones are an interesting if seldom reported type. They may be more
common than the present sparse distribution suggests as it is not always clear that they
are pieces of a mill. Examination of wear patterns has made it clearer how the inner
and outer elements worked together, but the absence of a hopper or feed mechanism
remains a problem. It seems that the outer stones, which show no evidence of being
joined by metal fixtures, must have been encased in a wooden sleeve, which might have
projected upwards to create a grain reservoir or hopper.
The main problem is the wide disparity in dating. In Greece these mills seem to be
Hellenistic and in Egypt they are Roman, dating between the first and fourth centuries
AD. It might be assumed that they were being made in Egypt after their main period of
currency in Greece, but the chemical evidence available suggests strongly that the Egyp-
tian examples were exported from the Aegean.
Certainly, Egypt does seem to have adopted Greek technologies no longer practiced in
the homeland. Graeco-Roman Egypt seems to have been a conservative and traditional
province, if not backward. This is well exemplified by Olynthus mills, which were used
largely during the Hellenistic era in the homeland although a few examples such as those
from the Athenian Agora may date from the first or second centuries AD23. In Egypt
they seem to occur principally in the first two centuries AD. For example, they are found
in first century AD contexts at Quseir al-Qadim, as well as at Wadi Barud and Didymoi24.
They were clearly being made at Mons Porphryites in the Antonine period, as is demon-
strated by an example in local rock found in the fort in Wadi Abu Ma’amel25. Segmented
mills in Egypt seem to be part of the same intriguing pattern.
21 Runnels 1981.

22 Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993.

23 Runnels 1981, p. 127.

24 Meyer 1982, fig. 54g; Peacock 1997, fig. 8.5; Brun 2011, p. 245.

25 Peacock 2007.

162
This chronological pattern of development strikingly resembles the Brandon gun flint
industry of a more recent era in Britain. The industry was established in 1790 with an
order for 100,000 flints to service the flint-lock muskets used by the British army. The
Brandon knappers flourished until just before the battle of Waterloo in 1815, after which
demand fell off. However, the industry persisted until well after the First World War ex-
porting to African countries which still used flint-locks. In the Second World War there
were only about 5 knappers left and they continued until the 1960s when arms embargoes
ended their African trade26. Perhaps the makers of Aegean mills suffered a similar fate,
continuing long after the need for Olynthus and segmented mills had disappeared in the
homeland, but not losing their Egyptian market for archaic artefacts until Roman times.
If the site has been correctly identified, the use of segmented mills in the Nekuoman-
teion of Acheron begs the question whether they served some ritual purpose. Delos was,
of course, a sacred island, but it was also a commercial centre and a settlement, which
would require supplies of flour. It is nevertheless interesting that a special type of mill
was used, albeit alongside the Olynthus mill and other rotary types. However, they seem
to have been for domestic rather than ritual purposes and the Nekuomanteion remains
the only site where a ritual association is possible if not probable.
Acknowledgements
I thank Dr Terry Wilfong of the Kelsey Museum for kindly providing the picture used
as Fig. 3 and for providing extracts from Enoch Peterson’s notes. I am also grateful to
Ms Michelle Fontenot for assistance with reproduction permission. Chris Green kindly
enhanced and improved Deonna’s original image here used as Fig. 5.
References
Baatz 1982 = D. Baatz, Hellenistische Katapulte aus Ephyra (Epirus), “Mitteilungen des deutschen
archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung ”, 97, 1982, pp. 211-33.
Baatz 1999 = D. Baatz, Wehrhaftes Wohnen. Ein befestigter hellenistischer Adelssitz bei Ephyra
(Nordgriechenland), “Antike Welt”, 30 (2), 1979, pp. 151-55.
Belmont 2006 = A. Belmont, La Pierre à Pain, 2 vols., Grenoble, 2006.
Bonson 2001 = T. Bonson, Mow Cop millstones, in Proceedings of the 19th Mills Research Conference,
Manningtree, 2001, pp. 17-24.
Brun 2011 = J.-P. Brun, Les meules, in H. Cuvigny, ed., Didymoi. Une garnison romaine dans le
désert Orientale d’Égypte, Cairo, 2011, pp. 243-9.
Brunet 1997 = M. Brunet, Les meules rotatives en Grèce, l’exemple délien, in D. Garcia and D. Meeks,
eds., Techniques et économie antiques et médiévales. Le temps de l’innovation. Paris, 1997, pp. 29-38.
Bruyère 1966 = B. Bruyère, Fouilles de Clysma-Qolzoum (Suez) 1930-1932, Cairo, 1966.
Clarke 1935 = R. Clarke, The flint-knapping industry at Brandon, “Antiquity”, 33, 1935, pp. 38-56.
Dakaris 1960 = S. Dakaris, Anaskafi tou nekumantaiou tou Acherontos kai tholontou tafou pinsion tis
Pargas, “Praktika tes Akademias Athenôn”, 116, 1960, pp. 114-24.
26 Clarke 1935; Whittaker 2001.

163
David Peacock
Deonna 1938 = W. Deonna, Exploration archéologique de Délos. Le mobilier Délien, Paris, 1938.
Donners et al. = K. Donners, M. Waelkens, J. Deckers, Water mills in the area of Sagalassos:
A disappearing ancient technology, “Anatolian Studies”, 52, 2002, pp. 1-17.
Husselman 1979 = E.M. Husselman, Karanis Excavations of the University of Michigan in Egypt,
1928-1935. Topography and Architecture, Ann Arbor, 1979.
Maxfield and Peacock 2001 = V. Maxfield and D. Peacock, The Roman Imperial Quarries: Survey and
Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994–1998. Vol. 1. Topography and Quarries, London, 2001.
Meyer 1982 = C. Meyer, Large and small storerooms of the Roman villa, in D.S. Whitcomb and J.H.
Johnson, Quseir al-Qadim 1980. Preliminary Report, (American Research Centre in Egypt, 7), Malibu,
1982, pp. 201-13.
Ogden 2001 = D. Ogden, Greek and Roman Necromancy, Princeton, 2001.
Peacock 1997 = D.P.S. Peacock, Wadi Barud (Tiberiane), in D.P.S. Peacock and V.A. Maxfield, eds.,
Survey and Excavation at Mons Claudianus 1987-1993. Volume 1 Quarries and Topography. Cairo, 1997,
pp. 275-79.
Peacock 2007 = D. Peacock, Stone artefacts, in D. Peacock and V. Maxfield, eds., The Roman Imperial
Quarries. Survey and Excavation at Mons Porphyrites 1994-1998, Volume 2, London, 2007.
Peacock 2013 = D. Peacock, The Stone of Life. The Archaeology of Querns Mills and Flour Production in
Europe up to c. AD 500, Southampton, 2013.
Runnels, 1981 = C.N. Runnels, A diachronic study and economic analysis of millstones from the Argolid,
Greece. Ph D thesis Indiana University, 1981.
Siebert 1988 = G. Siebert, La maison des sceaux, “Bulletin Correspondance Hellénique”, 112, 1988,
pp. 757-61.
Storck and Teague 1952 = J. Storck and W.D. Teague, Flour for Man’s Bread, St Paul and London, 1952.
Tucker 1984 = D.G. Tucker, Millstone making in Scotland, “Proceedings Society Antiquaries of Scotland”,
114, 1984, pp. 539-56.
Vretlou-Souli 2002 = M. Vretlou-Souli, H Milópetra tis Mílou. Apo tin exorixi stin emporiki a diakinisi,
Melos, 2002.
Whittaker 2001 = J. Whittaker, ‘The oldest British Industry’: continuity and obsolescence in a flintknapper’s
sample set, “Antiquity”, 75, 2001, pp. 382-90.
Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993 = O. Williams-Thorpe and R.S. Thorpe, Geochemistry and Trade
of Eastern Mediterranean Millstones from the Neolithic to Roman Periods, “Journal of Archaeological Sci-
ence”, 20, 1993, pp. 263-320.
Wiseman 1998 = J. Wiseman, Rethinking the ‘Halls of Hades’, “Archaeology”, May/June, 1998, pp. 12-18.
164
Interdisciplinary Non-invasive
Survey Approaches to Ancient
Towns: Some Applications
and Visualisations from the
Roman West
Frank Vermeulen
Introduction
Non-invasive field survey has been making a major contribution to our understanding
of the rural landscapes of the Mediterranean for nearly forty years1. During that time
the techniques used to map ancient settlement patterns have grown in sophistication
from being a process of simply identifying sites in the landscape, to one which pro-
vided nuanced understandings of their layouts, chronologies and contexts. The 1980s
and 1990s witnessed a boom in the number of regional survey projects, which devel-
oped increasingly intensive and refined methodologies. The introduction of desktop
computers, GIS software and, more recently, mobile technologies (e.g. GPS receivers)
contributed to increasingly efficient field procedures, and to enhanced possibilities for
the storage and spatial analysis of large amounts of data concerning the rural landscape.
One consequence of this was the growing realization from the 1980s onwards that these
same techniques also held out the promise of making a major contribution to our un-
derstanding of ancient urban sites. Particularly the large towns, cities and ports of the
Classical Mediterranean are a category of huge and complex, diachronic sites which un-
til then were almost solely approached with archaeological excavations and traditional
topographic work, typically centred on the more monumental or visible structures. This
new interest for the category of urban sites, which today are often partly or even fully
abandoned, was spurred by seminal projects such as the study of Boeotian towns by
Bintliff and Snodgrass2, as well as by the refinement of geophysical techniques and aerial
photography that could be used for the fine-grained analysis required to bring out details
of urban layout3.
1 Keller and Rupp 1983; Macready and Thompson 1985; Francovich and Patterson 2000; Bintliff et al. 2000;

Alcock and Cherry 2004.
2 Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988.

3 Schmiedt and Castagnoli 1957; Scollar et al. 1990; Guaitoli 2003; Doneus 2004; Bourgeois and Meganck

2005; Barber 2011; Vermeulen et al. 2012b.
165
Frank Vermeulen
The consequence of all these developments, including the widespread use of GIS in
archaeology, has been an upsurge in the non-destructive survey of urban sites, in the
Mediterranean and beyond. Archaeologists of the classical periods have been quick to
realize the potential offered by this technique4. Large and complex urban sites which had
hitherto been studied in a piecemeal approach that was largely predicated upon the mon-
ument-based interests of earlier scholars are the past decade increasingly being “scanned”
with survey techniques to rapidly generate plans of partial, or in some cases, complete
townscapes. Parallel with some developments of large scale integrated town survey in
more northern regions of the Classical world, such as at the pilot-sites of Wroxeter5 and
Carnuntum6, these Mediterranean urban surveys were more and more dominating the
large scale survey efforts of whole teams of researchers, such as is well illustrated at the
classical urban sites of Falerii Novi7, Portus8, Potentia9, Italica10, Ephesos11 and Sagalassos12 to
name but a few. This has also led to a revolution in how archaeologists approach urban
sites, with survey techniques being used increasingly often to generate a plan of a town
site prior to excavation, as a way of ensuring that the excavation can be used to address
site-specific questions in a way that had not been possible before. Cultural heritage man-
agement authorities have also benefited from this approach, with urban surveys provid-
ing them with a very effective tool for gauging the degree of archaeological survival on
major urban sites in their care and choosing appropriate conservation strategies.
Most recently, research has begun to reveal the advantages of intensively integrating
a range of different non-destructive techniques on urban sites, choosing those suites
that are most appropriate for the nature of the town in question, such as is well demon-
strated at the ancient urban sites of Ammaia13 and Tanagra14. The variety of techniques
can be quite impressive, such as the application of different geophysical instruments (for
georadar, magnetometer or earth resistance survey, etc.), different aerial photography
approaches (such as flying with traditional airplanes, drones or balloons or using multi-
spectral techniques of photography), geomorphological and geomatic approaches (cor-
ing, erosion modelling, DTM production …), etc. Therefore, the concept of integrated,
non-invasive multi-method survey relates to a much wider range of techniques, and the
overall methodology envisages a reasoned deployment of them all, or of a choice of them
for systematic data acquisition at the site studied, by testing, sampling or total coverage15.
4 For recent overviews of some large on-going projects, see: Christie and Augenti 2012; Vermeulen et al.

2012a, Johnson and Millett 2012.
5 Gaffney and Gaffney 2000; White et al. 2013.

6 Doneus et al. 2001; Doneus and Neubauer 2005.

7 Keay et al. 2000; Patterson 2004.

8 Keay et al. 2005.

9 Vermeulen et al. 2006; Vermeulen 2012.

10 Keay 2010.

11 Groh 2012.

12 Martens et al. 2012.

13 Corsi et al. 2012

14 Slapšak 2012.

15 Slapšak 2012; Corsi et al. 2013.

166
Interdisciplinary Non-invasive Survey Approaches to Ancient Towns
Urban sites vary greatly between them in terms of applicability of non-invasive tech-
niques to be deployed, depending on geological setting, nature of building materials and
degree of preservation, and the whole site history, including duration and phasing, de-
gree of urban change, restructuring and recycling in the lifetime, and degradation after
abandonment of the site. Unlike regional surveys, urban prospections have no neutral
background against which anomalies appear. The picture tends to be complex, and the
tools to address this complexity are normally diverse, and adapted to each case under
study. The approaches depend on a variety of factors specific to the local area: the natural
setting and geomorphological changes through time, the scale of the site and its depth
of monumentality and stratigraphy, the post-urban population presences and needs, the
degree of medieval to modern efforts to rob or reclaim the terrain and its materials,
sometimes earlier archaeological intrusions, etc. Furthermore, some sites are far more
visible or more accessible than others, while some have landmarks which guide readings
as to what is missing and some have been more damaged than others16. So flexibility
rather than uniformity will be the rule, and that requires a thorough understanding of
the options at hand, and of the problems we can realistically explore by non-invasive
archaeology.
The large sites of these former towns are in a way to be seen as open-air archaeological
laboratories where a whole series of exciting advances in non-invasive archaeology are
starting to make a very important understanding to urbanism in general and the Roman
Empire in particular. In combination with astonishing new computer-based means of
data visualization, all of this work means that it is now possible to virtually reconstruct a
buried town within a relatively short space of time, as opposed to the old and destructive
excavation-centred approach that could take generations. It can certainly be argued that
a small number of sites, where exceptional preservation conditions allow excavations
to reveal and visualise the past exceptionally well, such as at ancient Sagalassos17, are still
better off with a large scale dig. Nevertheless, also here I would promote a combination
with well-integrated non-invasive approaches, to arrive at a spatially more complete and
in depth understanding of the ancient urban development. In this paper, I wish to briefly
reflect on some of the most important interdisciplinary non-invasive survey approaches
to study ancient towns. I will do so from my own experience as field director with sur-
veys on and some innovative visualisations of a number of Roman towns in the western
Mediterranean, in particular in Portugal, Italy and Corsica.
Aerial photography
Among the wide array of approaches at hand today, active aerial photography of the
sites and their surrounding landscape remains a very potent technique of recovery of the
buried evidence. When not applied, as so often in the past, in a minimalistic or simple
illustrative way, but in a well-considered, intensive, multi-method way, which allows
good integration with other techniques, aerial photography has a major role to play in
16 Christie 2012, p. 285.

17 Waelkens and Poblome 2011.

167
Frank Vermeulen
urban survey. The active aerial survey needs a symbiosis with the more “passive” use of
existing vertical photography taken for other purposes than archaeology, as the signifi-
cance of this readily available aerial imagery for the study of former urban contexts can
surely not be underestimated. This applies as well for certain historical photography,
such as the excellent second World War imagery taken in large parts of Europe by RAF
or Luftwaffe pilots, as for the now widely available and high resolution aerial views from
websites such as Google maps or Bing maps, which are particularly useful in regions
where aerial archaeology flights have never or seldom been achieved.
Specific to the study by way of active aerial photography of (partly or fully) abandoned
Roman urban sites is that parts of these ancient towns are often already discovered in the
past. The contribution of a systematic reconnaissance of these large sites lies, therefore, not
so much in their initial finding, but more in their full comprehension as an urban landscape,
including a first appreciation of their total size, their planned layout (wall circuits, street net-
work, …), their relation to the general landscape (roads, field systems,…), their suburban ar-
eas, etc. Also recurrent is the first discovery thanks to prolonged flying at different moments
of the year, under ever changing conditions of ground visibility, of monumental or other
architectural features that populate such rich urban contexts, including theatres, amphithe-
atres, aqueducts, forums, large houses, sanctuaries etc. (Fig. 1). The specificity of Roman
townscapes with their good architectural visibility, and often the homogeneity of the appli-
cation of certain architectural models and plans, is of course a great help in this. This applies
in particular to the phases of great expansion of the Roman world and of the heyday of its
urban civilization, from mid-Republican times to late antiquity (circa 4th century BC to to 5th
century AD), when townscapes were created with an incredible good archaeological visibil-
ity. The sheer size of the former population centres and of certain architectural creations, the
systematic choice of durable building materials and the sometimes quite impressive impact
on the local topography of a place, all contribute well to this present-day vision from the air,
even on the hundreds of Roman town sites that have today left no or very few traces above
ground. And even if the surface of such sites is still littered today with archaeological remains
that have been (partly) studied and recorded from the ground, by way of ground-based pho-
tography, drawings or even traditional excavation, the aerial survey view and active record-
ing from low or high altitude can often still add important information.
As the object of our active aerial photography over these ancient town sites is so large,
a specific strategy is needed, which differs considerably from the normal full landscape
aerial surveys. In particular when the urban sites are located in active agricultural land-
scapes it is seldom possible to photograph them totally and ideally during one flight only.
Whichever the specific climatic conditions or season, and whichever the type of crops
or vegetation covering the many different parts of the cityscape, regular and numerous
flying will be necessary. Each flight will probably deliver some fragmentary informa-
tion that was not picked up yet, even if many flights can be devoid of any new data, as
is usual for general aerial surveys over whole landscapes. A crucial part of the strategy is
that once a potential architectural structure or important new feature is spotted there is
a regular follow up of the area during different seasons and in different weather condi-
tions. Important also is the idea that the town area will be controlled several times a year,
168
Fig. 1. Rectified and enhanced oblique aerial photograph of crop marks in a field on the abandoned
Roman town site of Trea (Italy, 2009). The image shows quite clearly the eastern end of the forum
square with several streets, a temple and several other buildings (shops, domus, macellum…).
Photo by F. Vermeulen, elaboration by G. Verhoeven.
which makes it possible to organize a real follow up. We are convinced that this monitoring
of the urban sites is an important element in a full comprehension of the many archaeological
structures present in the soil, and the only possible approach to its full complexity. Indeed, one
encounters many examples of truly remarkable ‘evolutions’ of urban archaeological sites due
to totally different detection opportunities over different moments, seasons or years18. These
repetitive observations conducted over a period of several years draw new details again and
again from the soil. These can be joined, like pieces of a puzzle, into an extensive overall view
of the urban landscape at one time in its development. With luck also diachronic evolutions
of the town plan can be observed. The latter are particularly evident when features cross each
other with different orientations or when the pattern of detected wall structures in an area is
so dense that they can only be the result of regular rebuilding on the same spot.
My own experience from several urban surveys in Italy and southern France19, where
active aerial photography has been applied from a “classic” manned aircraft (mostly bi- to
four-sitters, but also ULM’s), learns that very useful imagery of complex urban sites can
also best be acquired from low-altitude unmanned platforms. Today all kinds of devices
(kites, balloons, drones, …) are being used to take still cameras aloft and remotely gather aeri-
al imagery20. Especially radio-controlled (multi-)copter platforms are at present popularizing
18 Doneus 2001.

19 See in particular: Vermeulen 2004; Vermeulen and Verhoeven 2004; Vermeulen et al. 2005; Vermeulen

2011; Vermeulen 2012; Vermeulen et al. 2013.
20 Schlitz 2004; Verhoeven et al. 2009a.

169
Frank Vermeulen
aerial photography over large and complex sites. Their remarkable speed and image quality
and their development into increasingly low-cost solutions make these platforms potent in-
struments for the aerial study and monitoring of (Roman) urban sites, wherever the national
legal context allows archaeologists to use them. In addition, they stimulate the further ex-
ploitation of new imaging techniques, such as close-range near-infrared photography21 and
near-ultraviolet imaging22. These techniques, involving a wider use of the spectrum, seem
particularly useful when surveying Roman urban landscapes, as the omnipresence of durable
building materials in the subsoil guarantees good results when the moment of photography is
well chosen. This is particularly well illustrated by a recent example from the Potenza Valley
Survey project in central-Adriatic Italy, where parts of the forum complex were much better
revealed in the late Spring grain using NIR digital cameras from a drone23.
Despite the current large variety of means to process and ortho-rectify the oblique
imagery24, their archaeological information will not be exploited efficiently as long as
the image is not thoroughly interpreted, meaning interpretatively mapped and integrat-
ed with other data sources25. A thorough understanding of ancient cityscapes is based
on combining the interpreted evidence from various prospection methods and the ap-
proach to the interpretation of aerial images must be comprehensive. As with all types
of aerial archaeology, reading aerial photographs from an ancient town-site does not
mean trying to identify only the elements that indicate past human activities related to
the urban phase in Antiquity, but involves using all present day landscape features as
elements of contrast that help to bring out the residual components of the ancient land-
scape. Furthermore, it is of great importance that the sometimes easily recognizable and
regular Roman features are not the only ones to be filtered out, but also old structures
and marks that might belong to other phases of the Past. These might be of important
interpretative value to the longue durée understanding of the site or help to explain the
deterioration of Roman elements in the soils and therefore, in surface visibility.
Full coverage geophysics

When the methodological framework of large scale and systematic survey on abandoned an-
cient urban sites was drafted, during the late 1980s 26, the systematic collection of artefacts at
the surface was still stressed as the main approach. Today it is beyond any doubt geophysical
prospection27. Geophysical prospection has long been applied for (better) locating and evalu-
ating parts of sites or buried structures rather than fully investigating them28. Most surveys
of non-threatened urban Roman sites are, however, carried out in the context of academic
research so they should be expected to do precisely the latter. These research-driven surveys
21 Verhoeven 2008 and 2011a.

22 Verhoeven and Schmitt 2010.

23 Vermeulen et al. 2012c.

24 Verhoeven 2011b; Verhoeven et al. 2012a and 2012b.

25 Doneus et al. 2007; Bewley and Raczkowski 2002.

26 Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988.

27 Vermeulen et al. 2012a; Johnson and Millett 2012.

28 Gaffney et al. 2002.

170
aim to clarify the town lay-out and increasingly map the ancient city as extensively as pos-
sible. This presents a logistical issue of balancing speed of survey with resolution of the data
collected in order to permit the observation of buried features. Therefore, a correct balance
has to be found between the selection of survey parameters to detect the expected archaeo-
logical structures, and to allow for the size of the survey area given the time and budget avail-
able29. The resulting data plots are then conceived as proxy maps of the subsurface rather
than merely visualisations of measurements with specific geophysical properties. Increased
sampling rates and a more precise location of the data result not only in better visualisations,
but also permit accurate data combination and modelling of the buried archaeological fea-
tures through their geophysical signature30.
As magnetic survey results generally detect most types of archaeological features with-
in Roman urban sites, other geophysical survey techniques were only seldom applied on
a large scale, mainly because they are more time consuming and hence expensive. How-
ever, feature detection through multiple parameters enhances interpretative validity31.
In addition, recent developments, such as DGPS equipped multi-instrument platforms
and towed arrays, allow relatively rapid collection of more extensive but also more in-
tensive geophysical datasets. It is clear that for the total survey of buried Roman towns
sites we need to apply or use as much as possible all relevant geophysical approaches: so
apart from geomagnetic survey, if available and possible, also earth resistance prospec-
tions and georadar, to name but the most effective today. Most researchers agree more
and more that applying different survey techniques on the same site increases substan-
tially the completeness of the picture that we can reconstruct. And as geophysical sur-
veys will in the future be more and more multi-method, we will have to integrate our
data as best and detailed as possible. And when we opt for integrating these datasets, to
achieve a real fusion of the raw data is probably even to be preferred to simple integra-
tion of the already interpreted data. This should be more objective and often allows for
new and more transparent approaches to the evidence. My experience from such work
in the abandoned Roman town of Trea32 (Fig. 2), in the Italian Potenza valley, where we
fused resistivity imagery with magnetic data from the forum area, helped considerably
in deciphering the structures of the monumental town centre. From several other ex-
amples, such as in the Roman town centres of Mariana in Corsica (Fig. 3)33 and Ammaia
in Portugal (Figs. 4 and 5)34, I understood that, sometimes, it is also imperative to go to
higher resolutions with certain surveys, as “less is more”. To appreciate the details of a
Roman house and not just understand the size and position of a housing block, means
that high resolution GPR and earth resistance need to join efforts in a well-chosen and
smaller survey area. Subsequently, this can produce interpretations with the power of
extrapolation to other areas of the site where only lower resolution was possible because
of time constraints.
29 Hesse 1999.

30 Bescoby et al. 2004; Hounslow and Chroston 2002.

31 Neubauer and Eder-Hinterleitner 1997; Neubauer et al. 2002.

32 Vermeulen et al. 2012c.

33 Verdonck 2012; Vermeulen et al. 2013.

34 Vermeulen et al. 2012b; Verdonck and Taelman 2013.

171
Frank Vermeulen
Fig. 2 Example of data fusion of magnetic survey and earth resistance survey on the monumental centre of
Trea showing different percentages of image transparency of both techniques. Elaboration by B. Musiç.
172
Fig. 3 Interpreted mapping of the magnetic and GPR survey results in a housing area of the abandioned
town site of Mariana (Northern Corsica). Elaboration by L. Verdonck.
Fig. 4 General interpretation map of the geophysics data obtained during a total survey of the abandoned
Roman townsite of Ammaia (Portugal) integrated with some excavation evidence from the forum area and
the southeastern intramural part of the city. Elaboration by C. Corsi, F. Vermeulen and E. Paliou.
173
Frank Vermeulen
Fig. 5 Interpretation of high-resolution GPR survey data in a housing sector of Ammaia allows the
distinction of different building phases of some domus. Elaboration by L. Verdonck.
In some cases, the rapidity of the process of acquisition and analysis of data, often
of unprecedented quality and unparalleled resolution, has brought researchers to au-
tomatic interpretation and maybe even to hasty reconstructions, without elaborating
a methodological framework or applying historical criticism. When applying intensive
geophysical survey should we just use “the technique of firstly mapping the geophysical
anomalies by physically tracing around them in a software package and then discuss-
ing their interpretation”?35 Don’t we lose in this way the data about the quality of the
35 Millett 2012, p. 29.

174
anomaly, keeping only the info about the shape? Here, the power of high resolution
georadar survey, and its capacity to understand depth and depth relations, has taken us
in several occasions beyond conventional boundaries. When soils, time and the land use
allow for the application of high resolution radar, this technique needs to get the priority
it rightfully deserves.
Geoarchaeological approaches
Among the sequence of field operations, which we judge to be crucial in almost all proj-
ects with large scale non-invasive field operations on essentially greenfield sites of Roman
towns, special attention must be given from the onset to achieving a series of geomatic sur-
veys. There is no need to underline anymore how essential is the production of a high-res-
olution Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of the investigated area. This is needed not only to
contextualize better the underground (and above ground) features detected with geophysi-
cal survey, but also to understand the “phenomenology” of complex sites and landscapes.
The DTM is needed not only to support the volumetric and 3D reconstructions, but also
to allow spatial analysis with a full understanding of post-depositional processes. DTMs
can also play a role when studying the effects of processes affecting the representativeness
and conservation of the archaeological record. They may also be very useful to assess the
reliability of the results of surface surveys and the preservation of archaeological deposits36.
Among the most common methods in use today to build a terrain model, archae-
ologists still predominantly use traditional topographic survey with total stations, or if
possible higher resolution differential global positioning systems (DGPS). When good
vertical, possible historical, aerial photography and know-how are available, the produc-
tion of photogrammetric DTM’s is evenly of high value. Experiments with low altitude
and very flexible relief data collection at high resolution, using (oblique) aerial photog-
raphy are, however, the future in archaeologically relevant photogrammetry, as some of
our teamwork in Portugal and Italy has proven37. Of course, the latest developments in
LiDAR technologies have brought new scenarios in the elaboration of a refined DTM,
but basic data obtained in total coverage with this technology is not yet available in many
European countries (especially in Southern Europe) and commercial high resolution Li-
DAR data collection is still a very costly enterprise38.
Of the same order of importance, but still somewhat undervalued in many field projects
is the insertion of a series of geoarchaeological field operations. Corings, landscape eval-
uation, erosion modelling of certain Roman urban sites and their landscape background,
etc., can all be of use and need most of all to be well inserted in the whole program and
strategy of field operations, enabling a constant dialogue between the geo-scientists and
archaeologists in the field. The need for geoarchaeological approaches is really relevant
if we want to deal with the sometimes very high stratigraphic complexity of the surveyed
urban sites and the very dynamic landscapes they are part of. In-site geoarchaeological
36 See most recently (with extensive bibliography): Martínez del Pozo and Mayoral Herrera 2013.

37 Verhoeven et al. 2009 and 2012b.

38 Doneus et al. 2007.

175
Frank Vermeulen
analysis first and foremost focuses on the genesis of the archaeological sites, that is the
formation processes on the scale of the sites themselves, and on the factors leading to the
fossilisation, preservation or reworking of the archaeological remains39. It is thus com-
plementary with the purely archaeological, traditional stratigraphic approach. It allows
to establish the origin of the archaeological sediment and their evolution by highlighting
what is linked with the anthropogenic, cultural and bio-pedological processes as well as
the geological depositional (sedimentary) and/or post-depositional factors, which are so
important in abandoned Roman towns sites40.
Finally, the integrated mapping of all town structures also needs often to be under-
taken at different levels, i.e. at different scales, ranges of precision and with variety in
the depiction of interpreted detail. It is clear that the use and wide availability of GIS,
another technique adopted from the geosciences, has much facilitated these operations.
High-precision mapping is particularly desirable when it is possible to link non-invasive
survey evidence, such as aerial archaeology or geophysical prospection data, with results
from excavations or legacy data from earlier observations.
Visualisation and virtual reconstruction of the urban setting

It is clear that intensive and integrated non-invasive survey of Roman town sites, often
a product of real interdisciplinary team work, has promoted Roman urbanism studies in
a dramatic way. This has been achieved not only by obtaining great quantities and quali-
ties of spatial data about Roman towns that were not yet available, but also by inserting
the wide variety of now almost fully mapped towns into the wider debate. This recent
evolution has made us think about new ways of representing and virtually reconstruct-
ing these Roman towns in view of further discussion among scholars, but most of all to
better inform and involve the wider public. It represents a shift from past research with a
significant impact on how the material culture relating to such cityscapes is documented
and understood. No more extrapolations based on too little information about one or
two windows looking into the site via (often old) excavations, but reconstructions based
on intensive, total site surveys integrated with all possible evidence from excavations,
geo-approaches, legacy finds and comparative research.
We realised that the time when we just look at nice, but very static artist impressions
of Roman towns without upgrading from what is known from old excavations to a more
holistic view of the ancient city with the option of analysing its space and the movement
of its inhabitants, should be over. Especially in the case study of the Romano-Lusitanian
town Ammaia, where I was able to co-direct the surveys during the past five years, tri-
als have been done to probe the limits of such VR work (Fig. 6). The results are quite
satisfying and high standards of data-based visualisations were reached41. However, even
if the preliminary results are well worth viewing and the obtained VR-reconstructions
of the Roman town during its Early Imperial heyday was the result of much interactive
39 Rapp and Hill 1998.

40 See for instance a series of case studies presented in: Vermeulen and De Dapper 2000.

41 Humer et al. 2011; Klein et al. 2012; Corsi and Vermeulen 2012.

176
work and discussion among team specialists of different fields, using a wide array of
local, regional and supra-regional data, we must be aware that the reconstructions are
tentative and experimental. It is evenly important to understand that the spatial percep-
tion and analysis of the new maps and reconstructed spaces and architectures requires
sufficient caution. Much of the data remains non-stratigraphic in nature and some of the
interpretations cannot disentangle the complexity of many centuries of settlement de-
velopment. We should also stress here that the mostly two-dimensional mapping output
from a GIS, based essentially on non-invasive survey data, is often not enough to rep-
resent landscape complexity and dynamics. The reconstruction of ancient cityscapes is
a challenging research activity implying the management of a high level of uncertainty.
Furthermore, as the archaeological landscape that we can observe today is the result
of a long process of transformation, it is very important to store diachronic relations
describing how the site and its environment changed over time and to propose a reli-
able interpretation of the whole ecological context. We should, therefore, design digital
models that convey uncertainty and propose different hypotheses of how buildings were
constructed, decorated or used. Since the level of uncertainty is a challenge, transparency
is essential to understand and build research hypotheses and conclusions, particularly in
areas where data is questionable, incomplete or conflicting42.
Fig. 6 Visualisation in 3D of the Roman town of Ammaia during its heyday in the second century AD as
interpreted from integrated survey and excavation evidence. Elaboration by M. Klein.
Conclusion
It is particularly clear from recent research in many parts of the Roman Mediterranean
world that non-invasive survey is crucial in the process of revealing and studying an-
cient urbanism. Especially when this type of archaeological detection can be continued
over a span of several years, making good use of the diversity of seasons and methods.
42 Cerato and Pescarin 2013.

177
Frank Vermeulen
Some high resolution and well integrated work proves that such surveys can also con-
tribute to the study of sub-periods in the life of a Roman town, but here the lack of real
stratigraphic data needs to be overcome by other approaches, in particular digging test-
pits or doing larger scale excavations. When all data are correctly fused and the chosen
survey methods are well adapted to the potential of the urban sites, the current upsurge
in innovative ways of approaching Roman towns can revolutionize our comprehension
of the occupation history of large parts of the Roman world.
Acknowledgements
The research results presented here have been partially achieved thanks to support from
the Belgian Science Policy Office (Interuniversity Attraction Poles, project in collabora-
tion with the team of Marc Waelkens, to whom this paper is dedicated), the Research
Foundation Flanders (FWO) and the EC funded project “Radiography of the Past” (Ma-
rie Curie action, Academia-Industry partnerships).
References
Alcock and Cherry 2004 = S. Alcock, J. Cherry, eds., Side by Side Survey. Comparative Regional Studies in
the Mediterranean World, Oxford, 2004.
Barber 2011 = M. Barber, A History of Aerial Photography and Archaeology. Mata Hari’s Glass Eye and
Other Stories, Swindon, 2011.
Bescoby et al. 2004 = D. J. Bescoby, G. C. Cawlay, P.N. Chroston, Enhanced Interpretation of Magnetic
Survey Data using Artificial Neural Networks: a Case Study from Butrint, Southern Albania, “Archaeologi-
cal Prospection”, 11, 2004, pp. 189-199.
Bewley and Raczkowski 2002 = R. Bewley, W. Raczkowski, eds., Aerial Archaeology: Developing Future
Practice, (NATO Science Series. Series I: Life and Behavioural Sciences 337), Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 1-8.
Bintliff et al. 2000 = J. Bintliff, M. Kuna, N. Venclová, eds., The future of Surface Artefact Survey in
Europe, Sheffield, 2000.
Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988 = J.L. Bintliff, A.M. Snodgrass, Mediterranean survey and the city,
“Antiquity”, 62, 1988, pp. 57-71.
Bourgeois and Meganck 2005 = J. Bourgeois, M. Meganck, eds., Aerial Photography and Archaeology
2003. A Century of Information, Gent, 2005.
Cerato and Pescarin 2013 = I. Cerato, S. Pescarin, Reconstructing past landscapes for virtual museums,
in C. Corsi, B. Slapšak, F. Vermeulen, eds., Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics. Non-invasive
Survey of Complex Archaeological Sites, New York, 2013.
Christie 2012 = N. Christie, Urban landscape surveys: a view from the end, in F. Vermeulen,
G.-J. Burgers, S. Keay, C. Corsi, eds., Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and the Mediterranean,
Oxford, 2012, pp. 285-289.
Christie and Augenti 2012 = N. Christie, A. Augenti, eds., Urbes Extinctae. Archaeologies of Abandoned
Classical Towns, Farnham, 2012.
Corsi et al. 2012 = C. Corsi, P.S. Johnson, F. Vermeulen, A Geomagnetic Survey of the Intra-Mural
Area of Ammaia and its Contribution to Understanding Roman Urbanism in Lusitania, “Journal of Roman
Archaeology”, 25, 2012, pp. 121-145.
178
Corsi and Vermeulen 2012 = C. Corsi, F. Vermeulen, eds., Ammaia I: The Survey. A Romano-Lusitanian
Townscape Revealed, Gent, 2012.
Corsi et al. 2013 = C. Corsi, B. Slapšak, F. Vermeulen, eds., Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics.
Non-invasive Survey of Complex Archaeological Sites, New York, 2013.
Doneus 2001 = M. Doneus, Precision mapping and interpretation of oblique aerial photographs, “Archaeo-
logical Prospection”, 8, 2001, pp. 13-27.
Doneus 2004 = M. Doneus, Aerial Archaeology in the Landscape of Carnuntum, “Archaeologia Aerea. Studi
di Aerotopografia Archaeologica”, 1, 2004, pp. 215-234.
Doneus et al. 2001 = M. Doneus, A. Eder-Hinterleitner, W. Neubauer, Roman Carnuntum: prospecting
the largest archaeological landscape in Austria, in M. Doneus, A. Eder-Hinterleitner, W. Neubauer,
eds., Archaeological Prospection: Fourth International Conference on Archaeological Prospection. Austrian
Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 19-23 September 2001, Vienna, 2001, pp. 47-59.
Doneus et al. 2007 = M. Doneus, C. Briese, M. Fera, U. Fornwagner, M. Griebl, M. Janner, M.-Ch. Zingerle,
Documentation and analysis of archaeological sites using aerial reconnaissance and airborne laser scanning, in
Proceedings of the XXI International CIPA Symposium, Athens, Greece. 01-06 October 2007, Athens, 2007.
Doneus and Neubauer 2005 = M. Doneus, W. Neubauer, Multiple survey techniques at Roman Carnuntum.
Integrated prospection of the largest archaeological landscape in Austria, in Ch. Musson, R. Palmer,
S. Campana, eds., In volo nel passato. Aerofotografia e cartografia archaeological, Siena, 2005, pp. 272-279.
Francovich and Patterson 2000 = R. Francovich, H. Patterson, eds., Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil
Assemblages, Oxford, 2000.
Gaffney and Gaffney 2000 = Ch. Gaffney, V. Gaffney, Non-invasive investigations at Wroxeter at the
end of the Twentieth Century, “Archaeological Prospection”, 7, 2000, pp. 63–146.
Gaffney et al. 2002 = C. Gaffney, J. Gater, S. Van Ovenden, The Use of Geophysical Techniques in
Archaeological Evaluations, (Institute of Field Archaeologists Technical Paper 6), Reading, 2002.
Groh 2012 = S. Groh, Strategies and results of the urban survey in the Upper City of Ephesus, in
F. Vermeulen, G.-J. Burgers, S. Keay, C. Corsi, eds., Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and
the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2012, pp. 85-96.
Guaitoli 2003 = M. Guaitoli, ed., Lo sguardo di Icaro. Le collezioni dell’Aerofototeca Nazionale per
la conoscenza del territorio, Rome, 2003.
Hesse 1999 = A. Hesse, Multi-parametric survey for archaeology: how and why, or how and why not?,
“Journal of Applied Geophysics”, 41(2-3), 1999, pp. 157-168.
Hounslow and Chroston 2002 = M.W. Hounslow, P.N. Chroston, Structural Layout of the Suburbs of
Roman Butrint, Southern Albania: Results from a Gradiometer and Resistivity Survey, “Archaeological
Prospection”, 9, 2002, pp. 229-242.
Humer et al. 2011 = F. Humer, C. Gugl, M. Pregesbauer, F. Vermeulen, C. Corsi, M. Klein,
Current Productions Carnuntum, German Limes and Radiopast, “Virtual Archaeology Review”, 4, 2011.
Johnson and Millett 2012 = P.S. Johnson, M. Millett, eds., Archaeological Survey and the City,
(University of Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology Monographs 2), Oxford, 2012.
Keay 2010 = S. Keay, El territorio de Italica, in A. Caballos, ed., Itálica-Santiponce. Municipium y
Colonia Aelia Augusta Italicensium, Rome, 2010.
Keay et al. 2000= S. Keay, M. Millett, S. Poppy, J. Robinson, J. Taylor, N. Terrenato, Falerii Novi:
A New Survey of the Walled Area, “Papers of the British School at Rome”, 68, 2000, pp. 1- 93.
Keay et al. 2005 = S. Keay, M. Millett, L. Paroli, K. Strutt, eds., Portus. An Archaeological Survey
of the Port of Imperial Rome (Archaeological Monograph 15), London, 2005.
179
Frank Vermeulen
Keller and Rupp 1983 = D. Keller, D. Rupp, Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area, Oxford, 1983.
Klein et al. 2012 = M. Klein, F. Vermeulen, C. Corsi, Radiography of the Past - Three dimensional, virtual
reconstruction of a Roman town in Lusitania, in M. Ioannides, ed., Euromed 2012. 4th International Con-
ference. Progress in Cultural Heritage Preservation, Short Papers, Brentwood, 2012, pp. 131-136.
Macready and Thompson 1985 = S. Macready, F. Thompson, Archaeological Field Survey in Britain and
Abroad, London, 1985.
Martens et al. 2012 = F. Martens, B. Mušič, J. Poblome, M. Waelkens, The integrated urban survey at
Sagalassos, in F. Vermeulen, G.-J. Burgers, S. Keay, C. Corsi, eds., Urban Landscape Survey in Italy
and the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2012, pp. 111-122.
Martínez del Pozo and Mayoral Herrera 2013 = J. A. Martínez del Pozo, V. Mayoral Herrera, Creating
and analysing digital terrain models for archaeological research, in C. Corsi, B. Slapšak, F. Vermeulen,
eds., Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics. Non-invasive Survey of Complex Archaeological Sites,
New York, 2013.
Millett 2012 = M. Millett, Understanding Roman Towns in Italy: Reflections on the role of Geophysical
Survey, in P.S. Johnson, M. Millett, eds., Archaeological Survey and the City. (University of Cambridge
Museum of Classical Archaeology Monographs 2), 2012, pp. 24-44.
Neubauer and Eder-Hinterleitner 1997 = W. Neubauer, A. Eder-Hinterleitner, Resistivity and
magnetics of the Roman town Carnuntum, Austria: an example of combined interpretation of prospection
data, “Archaeological Prospection”, 4, 1997, pp. 179-189.
Neubauer et al. 2002 = W. Neubauer, A. Eder-Hinterleitner, P. Melichar, Georadar in the Roman
civil town Carnuntum, Austria: an approach for archaeological interpretation of GPR data,
“Archaeological Prospection”, 9 (3), 2002, pp. 135-156.
Rapp and Hill 1998 = G. Rapp, C. Hill, Geoarchaeology: the Earth Science Approach to Archaeological
Interpretation, New Haven and London, 1998.
Schlitz 2004 = M. Schlitz, A Review of Low-Level Aerial Archaeology and its Application in Australia,
“Australian Archaeology”, 59, 2004, pp. 51–58.
Schmiedt and Castagnoli 1957 = G. Schmiedt, F. Castagnoli, L’antica città di Norba - documentazione
aerofotogrammetrica, “L’Universo”, 1957, pp. 128-148.
Scollar et al. 1990 = I. Scollar, A. Tabbagh, A. Hesse, I. Herzog, Archaeological Prospecting and Remote
Sensing, Cambridge, 1990.
Slapšak 2012 = B. Slapšak, Towards integrated non-invasive research on complex urban sites: Ljubljana
research in Tanagra and beyond, in F. Vermeulen, G.-J. Burgers, S. Keay, C. Corsi, eds.,
Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2012, pp. 53-61.
Verdonck 2012 = L. Verdonck, Fluxgate gradiometer and GPR survey to locate and characterize the
perimeter, Early Imperial centre and street network of the Roman town Mariana (Corsica), in
P.S. Johnson, M. Millett, eds., Archaeological Survey and the City, (University of Cambridge
Museum of Classical Archaeology Monographs 2), Oxford, 2012, pp. 241-260.
Verdonck and Taelman 2013 = L. Verdonck, D. Taelman, Ground-penetrating radar survey at Ammaia,
in: C. Corsi, F. Vermeulen, eds., Ammaia I: The Survey. A Romano-Lusitanian Townscape Revealed,
Gent, 2013.
Verhoeven 2008 = G. Verhoeven, Imaging the invisible using modified digital still cameras for straightfor-
ward and low-cost archaeological near-infrared photography, “Journal of Archaeological Science”, 35, 2008,
pp. 3087-3100.
180
Verhoeven 2011a = G. Verhoeven, Near-Infrared aerial crop mark archaeology: from its historical use to
current digital implementations, “Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory”, 19, 2012, pp. 132-160.
Verhoeven 2011b = G. Verhoeven, Taking computer vision aloft: archaeological three-dimensional recon-
structions from aerial photographs with PhotoScan, “Archaeological Prospection”, 18, 2011, pp. 67-73.
Verhoeven et al. 2009 = G. Verhoeven, J. Loenders, F. Vermeulen, R. Docter, Helikite aerial photog-
raphy - a versatile means of unmanned, radio controlled, low-altitude aerial archaeology, “Archaeological
Prospection”, 16, 2009, pp. 125–138.
Verhoeven et al. 2009 = G. Verhoeven, P. Smet, D. Poelman, F. Vermeulen, Spectral characterization of
a digital still cameras NIR modification to enhance archaeological observation, “IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sensing”, 47, 2009, pp. 3456-3468.
Verhoeven et al. 2012 = G. Verhoeven, D. Taelman, F. Vermeulen, Computer vision-based orthophoto
mapping of complex archaeological sites: the ancient quarry of Pitaranha (Portugal-Spain), “Archaeometry”,
54 (6), pp. 1114-1129.
Verhoeven et al. 2012a = G. Verhoeven, M. Doneus, Ch. Briese, F. Vermeulen, Mapping by matching:
A computer vision-based approach to fast and accurate georeferencing of archaeological aerial photographs,
“Journal of Archaeological Science”, 39, 2012, pp. 2060-2070.
Verhoeven and Schmitt 2010 = G. Verhoeven, K.D. Schmitt, An attempt to push back frontiers – digital
near-ultraviolet aerial archaeology, “Journal of Archaeological Science”, 37, 2010, pp. 833–845.
Vermeulen 2004 = F. Vermeulen, Fotografia aerea finalizzata nelle Marche Centrali: Un progetto inte-
grato, “Archeologia Aerea. Studi di Aerotopografia Archeologica”, 1, 2004, pp. 91-118.
Vermeulen 2011 = F. Vermeulen, Reviewing 10 years of aerial photography in the valley of the River
Potenza (Le Marche), “Archeologia Aerea. Studi di Aerotopografia Archeologica”, 4, 2011, pp. 259-264.
Vermeulen 2012 = F. Vermeulen, Potentia: a Lost New Town, in N. Christie, A. Augenti Andrea, eds.,
Urbes Extinctae. Archaeologies of Abandoned Classical Towns, Farnham, 2012, pp. 77-95.
Vermeulen and De Dapper 2000 = F. Vermeulen, M. De Dapper, eds., Geo-archaeology of the Land-
scapes of Classical Antiquity. International Colloquium Ghent 23-24 October 1998, (Babesch Supplement 5),
Leuven-Paris-Sterling, 2000.
Vermeulen and Verhoeven 2004 = F. Vermeulen, G. Verhoeven, The contribution of aerial photography
and field survey to the study of urbanization in the Potenza valley (Picenum), “Journal of Roman Archaeol-
ogy”, 17, 2004, pp. 57-82.
Vermeulen et al. 2005 = F. Vermeulen, G. Verhoeven, J. Semey, The Integration of Aerial Photography
and GIS in the Potenza Valley Survey, in J. Bourgeois, M. Meganck, eds., AP&A 2003. A Century of
Information, Gent, 2005, pp. 371-382.
Vermeulen et al. 2006 = F. Vermeulen, S. Hay, G. Verhoeven, Potentia: an Integrated Survey of a Roman
Colony on the Adriatic Coast, “Papers of the British School at Rome”, 74, 2006, pp. 203-236.
Vermeulen et al. 2012a = F. Vermeulen, G.-J. Burgers, S. Keay, C. Corsi, eds., Urban Landscape Survey
in Italy and the Mediterranean, Oxford, 2012.
Vermeulen et al. 2012b = F. Vermeulen, C. Corsi, M. De Dapper, Surveying the townscape of Roman
Ammaia (Alentejo, Portugal): a geoarchaeological approach of the forum area, “Geoarchaeology”, 27 (2),
2012, pp. 105-187.
Vermeulen et al. 2012c = F. Vermeulen, B. Slapšak, D. Mlekuž, Surveying the Townscape of Roman Trea
(Picenum), in P.S. Johnson, M. Millett, eds., Archaeological Survey and the City, (University of Cam-
bridge Museum of Classical Archaeology Monographs 2), Oxford, 2012, pp. 261-282.
181
Frank Vermeulen
Vermeulen et al. 2013 = F. Vermeulen, L. Verdonck, C. Corsi, L’apport des méthodes non-destructives à
l’étude de sites archéologiques complexes. Etude de cas MARIANA, in J. Rebière, ed., Conserver, Etudier,
Protéger, Valoriser le patrimoine en milieu isolé. Bastia-Lucciana 9-12 octobre 2008, 2013.
Waelkens and Poblome 2011 = M. Waelkens, J. Poblome, Sagalassos. Droomstad in de bergen, Tongeren,
2011.
White et al. 2013 = R.H. White, Ch. Gaffney, V. Gaffney, with A. Baker, Wroxeter, the Cornovii and the
Urban Process. Volume 2: Characterizing the City. Final Report of the Wroxeter Hinterland Project, 1994-
1997, Oxford, 2013.
182
Abstract in English
New Urban Identity in Fifth Century AD Northern Gaul
This contribution aims at investigating the emergence of new urban identities during the transition
from the 4th to the 5th centuries AD in Northern Gaul. It attempts to outline the various parameters
of change that may have affected late antique cities in this region, as well as the role of archaeology
in tracing these.
Firstly, a brief overview of the traditional historiography on this controversial topic is proposed,
whereby the long-lived pejorative views on processes of change occurring in late antiquity, consid-
ered as a period of crisis, decline or decadence, are underscored. Alternative opinions emphasizing
continuity and mutation are, however, increasingly taken into consideration in scientific debates.
In that respect, regional studies represent a valuable way to study these changes, especially where
they are more difficult to trace, for instance in the peripheral regions of the empire, as in Northern
Gaul. The main asset of regional studies is the ability to document significant local variations that
sometimes contrast with the dominant trends of wider frameworks.
Amongst the factors of change that can be analysed by means of historical analysis, different direc-
tions can be explored: the shifting position of cities in terms of administrative status and integration
within structures of power, the redefinition of urban ideology as illustrated through processes of urban
change, shifting patterns in investment by elites and euergestist practices, the role of rising Christianity
in the reshaping of urban centres, etc. Despite the relatively greater scarcity of material sources in the
period and region under scrutiny, archaeology can provide essential answers to these issues. Amongst
current fields of research, rescue archaeology has greatly improved our knowledge of the long-term
evolution of urban centres, particularly in Northern Gaul. The evolution of city walls, in particular, as
well as the maintenance or disappearance of public monuments, can contribute to the study of urban
status. The emergence of a new urban identity can also be studied through the topographic and archi-
tectural changes triggered by the rise of Christianity, or through the spatial distribution and technical
evolution of domestic architecture. Finally, the nature and localization of artisanal activities can be
considered as another essential field of investigation.
The evolution of urban identities in the late antique cities of Northern Gaul formed one of the
main aims of the Belgian science programme on Interuniversity Poles of Attraction, devoted to the
late antique city. The archaeological investigation of three civitates of Northern Gaul, the Menapii,
Nervii and Tungri, gave new insights into the divergences and similarities observable in the trajec-
tory followed by different cities within a larger regional framework. Concerning changes in the status
of cities and shifts in regional gravity, the loss of economic influence is one of the possible explanations
which has been put forward through archaeology. The maintenance and evolution of city walls, in
conjunction with a study of housing and artisanal activities in suburban areas, also prove crucial in
delineating the extent and spatial evolution of urban space. Within cities, excavations have allowed one
to document abandonment and encroachment dynamics in public spaces, which sometimes contrasted
with the spatial reorganizations caused by the construction of episcopal centres. Remains of domestic
architecture found inside urban centres present more difficulties, with evidence generally limited to
faint traces and little associated material. The 5th century AD, however, seems to have been character-
ized by the introduction of new building techniques. The contrasting patterns emerging from these
regional studies offer a much more nuanced view of urban mutation occurring from the 4th to the 5th
centuries AD in the study region of Northern Gaul.
La nouvelle identité
urbaine au Ve siècle
dans le Nord de la Gaule
Raymond Brulet
Par étapes successives, la ville de l’Antiquité tardive se forge une identité nouvelle au Ve
siècle après J.-C., après avoir connu un grand nombre de vicissitudes. D’une manière
générale, et en particulier pour l’Occident romain, l’historiographie montre qu’elles
sont parfois considérées sous un angle péjoratif (décadence1, crise2, déclin3, chute et fin4,
dissolution5, hiatus6) ou sous un point de vue évolutif qui ne nie naturellement pas le
déclin (changement et mutation7, renaissance8). On garde aussi à l’esprit le concept de
continuité9 et, d’ailleurs, les notions de transformation et de déclin ne sont pas incompa-
tibles comme l’a admis J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz10. Au total, beaucoup de termes employés
sont interchangeables et n’expriment que des points de vue partiels11. Et il y en a d’autres,
comme celui de devenir ou d’étiage pour s’appliquer à la fin du processus de mutation12.
Quels sont les paramètres du changement qui affectent les villes aux IVe et Ve siècles,
à l’aune de la conception ancienne que nous avons de la cité dans son âge classique ?
G. Sears en dresse une liste utile : la réduction de la zone habitée, la construction d’une
enceinte, le décroissement de la population, le déclin de l’évergétisme aristocratique et le
1 Le célèbre ouvrage de E. Gibbon, édité en 1776, fait une grande place à la notion de décadence qui fera école

sur la longue durée. Voir l’analyse de Rogers 2011, pp. 14-26; le terme de décadence urbaine est utilisé pour
Bavay (Loridant 2004).
2 Crise: Drinkwater et Elton 1992.

3 Déclin: Loseby 2000; Liebeschuetz 2001.

4 Chute et fin: Liebeschuetz 1992; Loseby 2000; Liebeschuetz 2001; Ward-Perkins 2005.

5 Dissolution: Bowersock 2000.

6 La théorie de l’hiatus pour la Gaule du Nord, bien que naturellement obsolète, avait jadis marqué les esprits

(Dhondt et al. 1948). Le terme est parfois appliqué à des domaines plus spécifiques, par exemple relativement aux
listes épiscopales qui montrent une rupture dans la succession (Terrien 2007, pp. 71-72). En milieu urbain, nous
avons cet exemple curieux de Metz dont G. Halsall fait grand cas pour proposer un modèle de ville fantôme au Ve
siècle (Halsall 1996a; Hallsall 1996b), heureusement contredit par S. Bachrach 2002.
7 Changement/mutation: Loseby 2006; Liebeschuetz 2006a.

8 Renaissance: Hodges et Hobley 1988.

9 Continuité: Lepelley 1996; Brühl 1988.

10 Liebeschuetz 2006b

11 Voir les discussions qui ressortent de ce colloque: Krause et Witschel 2006.

12 Guyon 2006, pp. 105-128.

185
Raymond Brulet
déplacement de l’élite vers leurs domaines ruraux, l’abandon ou la destruction de monu-

ments plus anciens, l’adaptation de quelques-uns de ces monuments et de la topographie
à un usage chrétien des lieux et la récession économique13.
Si ces considérations sont générales et pas nécessairement toutes adéquates, le devenir
de la ville au Ve siècle demeure encore assez mal connu14, surtout dans les zones péri-
phériques de l’Empire romain et la Gaule15. Bien entendu, ailleurs, il y a des évolutions
globalement similaires mais avec certaines divergences. Comme en Grande-Bretagne où
elle est plus rapide parce que confrontée à un abandon précoce du pouvoir central16, en
Italie où le changement est moins abrupt malgré la disparition de certaines villes17 et en
Afrique où la continuité s’étend sur une plus longue durée18.
Pour éviter tout amalgame ou généralisation abusive, il faut développer des études
régionales, car les variations peuvent être grandes et des cas se trouvent souvent en
contradiction avec le cadre régional prévalent19.
Les indicateurs de cette évolution peuvent être analysés selon une approche de type
historique. On peut s’interroger sur la mission défensive jouée par les villes dans la dé-
fense du territoire. L’armée y est souvent casernée dans la seconde moitié du IVe siècle et
au début du Ve siècle20. Mais au-delà, que se passe-t-il lorsque les villes sont occupées par
les groupes germaniques, notamment les francs de Clodion ?
Le rôle administratif et les structures du pouvoir de la cité sont en mutation21. Les
changements culturels qui marquent les entités urbaines tout au long du Ve siècle sont
actuellement plus délicats à enregistrer, et on ne peut oublier la responsabilité des popu-
lations immigrées dans le changement de la société en Gaule22. Quant à l’urbanisme, ne
peut-on estimer qu’il s’agit à proprement parler d’une redéfinition et d’une modification
idéologique des villes ?23 L’urbanisme nouveau ou plus exactement les mutations qui
accompagnent la ville se voient confrontés en ce qui regarde les monuments à un recul
de l’évergétisme ou à un changement de nature de celui-ci qui s’adapte aux besoins du
temps, comme par exemple le nécessaire entretien de l’enceinte urbaine ; mais on peut
aussi considérer que l’élite investira davantage ses moyens dans la construction de mai-
sons privées (domus), puis des monuments chrétiens. À côté de cela se pose, surtout avec
l’adoption de nouveaux matériaux de construction, le problème de la squattérisation
13 Sears 2007, p. 17.

14 Hodges et Hobley 1988; Rich 1992; Liebeschuetz 1992; Lepelley 1996; Burns et Eadie 2001.

15 Drinkwater et Elton 1992; Loseby 2000; Ferdière 2004; Coquelet 2011.

16 Rogers 2011. Il faut néanmoins se remémorer cette vue caricaturale de la ville fantôme (the Empty Shell)

de G. Halsall.
17 Potter 1995, pp. 90-98 (continuité ou ruralisation); Augenti 2006 (et une bibliographie énorme); en

Italie du Nord, et dans certaines zones, beaucoup de petites villes disparaissent selon Ward-Perkins 1988,
contra: Cantino-Wataghin et Micheletto 2004 (démontrant que le problème doit être perçu dans le pro-
cessus de la nouvelle structuration de la ville médiévale d’où certaines villes sont alors absentes).
18 Sears 2007.

19 Loseby 2006, p. 67. Voir les exemples d’Autun: Young 2001, et de Tours: Galinié 1999.

20 Elton 1992, pp. 167-176; Brulet 2004.

21 Brühl 1988; Liebeschuetz 2000.

22 Pohl 1997; Goffart 2006.

23 Rogers 2011, pp. 6-7.

186
La nouvelle identité urbaine au Ve siècle dans le Nord de la Gaule
ou plutôt de l’aménagement d’habitats de fortune ou d’occupation des anciens espaces

publics24.
En ce qui concerne le Christianisme c’est à ce moment qu’il enregistre une avancée
notoire, et sauf exception, il faut attendre le Ve siècle pour en percevoir les effets en
termes de réalisations architecturales, ce qui nous conduit vers un urbanisme partiel-
lement renouvelé, comme le démontre l’étude de la topographie chrétienne urbaine25.
Beaucoup de réponses sont attendues prioritairement de l’archéologie. Si on espère
combler les énormes lacunes textuelles, il faut bien constater que le Ve siècle demeure
une période où les témoignages matériels sont peu nombreux, difficiles à reconnaître et
à dater. C’est peut-être surtout pour les archéologues que cette notion de changement
offre un sens bien réel. Les horizons chronologiques sont pour une part attribuables à
des séquences de l’Antiquité et pour une autre, du Haut Moyen-Âge, avec un jargon et
des critères différents de classification et d’étude ; le repère numismatique disparaît, la
céramique relève d’une tradition puis d’une autre et les progrès se sont fait attendre26,
tandis que beaucoup d’autres objets familiers sont presque exclusivement révélés par les
assemblages funéraires27, à l’exception de certains artisanats, comme le bronze, l’artisanat
de l’os et du bois de cerf28.
Même si les fouilles urbaines n’ont pas toutes été publiées, elles ont connu un dé-
veloppement exponentiel récent avec l’apparition de l’archéologie préventive. Elles
renouvellent aujourd’hui considérablement notre connaissance sur les milieux urbains
en Gaule du Nord (Trèves, Metz, Strasbourg, Reims, Tours, Amiens, Arras, Cambrai,
Bavay, Famars, Tournai, Tongres et Maastricht, pour ne citer que quelques cas spéci-
fiques qui nous relient au sujet traité)29.
Les résultats de la démarche archéologique peuvent nous aider à examiner plusieurs
directions de recherche qui ont trait aux principales mutations ayant affecté la ville de
l’Antiquité tardive. Au nombre de celles-ci s’impose en premier lieu la qualité statutaire
de la ville dont la situation peut éventuellement évoluer à partir du début du IVe siècle.
La structure majeure de cette ville tardo-antique est l’enceinte urbaine qui participe à
un remodelage profond de l’espace urbain. On a montré déjà que les enceintes urbaines
n’ont pas toutes été dressées à la même époque et qu’elles n’ont pas été l’œuvre d’un
pouvoir unique30.
En second lieu, le maintien et la disparition des monuments publics constituent des
phénomènes qui n’appartiennent pas davantage à la même époque. Il faut s’interroger
24 Le fait commence à être bien reconnu au départ du dossier d’Arles: Sintès 1994. Pour l’Angleterre, le point

dans: Rogers 2011, pp. 149-154. Dans le Nord, voir les dossiers d’Amiens (Bayard et Piton 1979) et de
Reims (Neiss et Sindonino 2004).
25 Consulter les différents dossiers urbains de l’entreprise dédiée à la topographie chrétienne en Gaule: Gau-

thier et Picard 1986-2007 (15 tomes).
26 Pour la céramique, notamment: Brulet et al. 2010.

27 Voir l’outil de travail typochronologique de Legoux et al. 2004, qui débute en 440/450.

28 A titre exemplatif à Maastricht: Dijkman et Ervynck 1998 (os et bois de cervidés) ; Verslype 2012 (métal et

verre, avec bibliographie).
29 Se reporter en premier lieu aux notices de Gauthier et Picard 1986-2007.

30 Voir les cas de Tours, Auxerre, Grenoble, Dax et Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges qui ne font pas partie de

la première génération des enceintes gallo-romaines du Bas-Empire.
187
Raymond Brulet
sur les raisons qui ont vu la communauté urbaine conserver ou non une place publique et
certains grands monuments31. Il faut évaluer la forme qui est donnée aux infrastructures
économiques de la ville32. Le programme de construction des édifices chrétiens constitue,
en troisième lieu, une nouveauté qui entraîne un changement radical dans le paysage et
l’urbanisme de la cité33. Au Ve siècle, ce changement est bien perceptible, mais il ne s’agit
que d’un mouvement en marche, à l’exception des groupes épiscopaux qui marquent déjà
de leur empreinte architecturale la physionomie de beaucoup de villes34. Enfin, la nature
et le mode de construction de l’habitat constituent aujourd’hui un révélateur précieux
de l’évolution, d’autant que notre connaissance a progressé sur ce sujet35. On voit une
dérégulation des quartiers et l’emploi de nouveaux matériaux et de nouvelles techniques.
Le monde de l’artisanat, enfin, révèle sa vitalité36.
Le professeur Marc Waelkens a construit et piloté un projet de recherches à long
terme, sanctionné par le Ministère fédéral de la Recherche37 et a associé à celui-ci pen-
dant plus de vingt ans, une équipe de l’Université catholique de Louvain38. Le programme
qui a été accepté pour les années 2002 à 2006 portait précisément sur l’Antiquité tardive
et sur les mutations observées dans les milieux urbains et ruraux39. L’objectif de cette
recherche, sensiblement plus limité géographiquement que le titre du présent article ne
l’affiche, visait surtout les territoires de trois civitates septentrionales intégrées aux pro-
vinces de Belgique seconde et de Germanie seconde, à savoir les cités des Ménapiens, des
Nerviens et des Tongres. En rejoignant ainsi le souhait émis plus haut de voir se déve-
lopper des études à caractère régional, nous nous attachons ici à présenter l’éclairage qu’il
est possible de donner sur la mutation et le devenir des villes concernées par ces trois
entités administratives, à savoir Tournai, Cambrai, Tongres, Cassel, Bavay, Famars et
Maastricht (Fig. 1). Leur situation politique est donc très différente, sans compter qu’une
partie de ce territoire renferme des villes qui se trouvent désormais, depuis la conquête
franque dans la première moitié du Ve siècle, sous contrôle barbare40, alors même que le
reste du territoire est encore parsemé de cités romaines classiques (Trèves, Reims) ou
demeure plus tard, en partie seulement, sous l’obédience romaine (Aetius, Syagrius). S’il
y a des différences générées par cette bipartition dans la mutation urbaine et s’il y a des
points de convergence, la recherche doit aussi tenter de le démontrer.
31 Caillet 1996; Lavan 2001.

32 Lebecq 1996.

33 Beaujard 1996; Guyon 2006.

34 Lavan 2003. Le cas de Genève est emblématique: Bonnet 2006.

35 Bowes 2010 (pour les grandes demeures) ; Galinié 2007 (pour les exemples en matériaux légers). Voir

aussi la réappropriation des espaces publics (à Reims).
36 Notamment à l’intérieur d’un bâtiment du forum à Amiens (Bayard et Piton 1979) ou à proximité du

centre religieux comme à Tournai. Pour l’Angleterre, voir: Rogers 2011, pp. 130-148.
37 SPP Politique scientifique fédérale (Belspo).

38 Centre de Recherches d’Archéologie, UCL (CRAN).

39 Urban and Rural Transformation in the Eastern Roman Empire. Interdisciplinary Archaeology of Late

Antique and Early Medieval Times (PAI/IAP V/09).
40 Dierkens et Périn 2003.

188
Fig. 1. Le Nord-Ouest de la Gaule, avec localisation des villes et de leurs territoires au Bas-Empire (cliché
CSSA, Louvain-la-Neuve).
La première question est celle du devenir des villes en termes de statut, de développe-
ment ou d’abandon après leur fondation nouvelle qui est un héritage des périodes dioclé-
tienne et constantinienne. Comme on l’a fait remarquer pour le nord-ouest de la Gaule,
on se trouve en présence de trois modèles pour les capitales : celles qui on subsisté, celles
qui ont été déplacées en adoptant aussi le nom des nouveaux peuples d’après celui de la
ville principale (Tournai, Cambrai) et le cas plus atypique de Thérouanne/Boulogne,
une ancienne cité dédoublée, pour laquelle il a bien fallu trouver un subterfuge pour lui
appliquer des noms (Morini et Bononienses)41. À côté des capitales, subsistent désormais
des villes à l’avenir incertain, toutefois protégées par une enceinte très réduite, en fait des
anciens chefs-lieux (Cassel, Bavay) et d’autres petites villes appelées à un avenir certain
comme Famars et Maastricht, qui ont sans doute endossé un rôle militaire primordial,
avant qu’elles ne jouent un nouveau rôle à partir du Ve siècle.
Le déplacement du centre de gravité urbain s’explique par différentes raisons. Il y a
en premier lieu la perte d’influence économique ; Cassel en est un bon exemple. Pour
relocaliser les villes principales, la primauté du fleuve joue à plein, comme le démontrent
les options prises en faveur de Cambrai, Tournai et Maastricht. Toutefois, ce n’est pas
une opération obligatoirement concomitante. Si le déclin de Bavay et de Cassel, lié au
changement de statut, s’opère au début du Bas-Empire, pour Maastricht il faut attendre
plus longtemps. Cette entité doit son enceinte à une initiative militaire et son rôle urbain
devra attendre, avant de donner sa pleine mesure, le désintérêt pour Tongres qui se situe
dans le courant du Ve siècle. Il est vrai que l’érosion des sols à Tongres ne permet pas
d’instruire convenablement la date de son abandon ; on sait que la dernière sépulture
41 Delmaire 2004.

189
Raymond Brulet
reconnue remonte au milieu du Ve siècle et, d’autre part, en attendant de voir la ques-
tion du transfert du siège épiscopal réglée au profit de Maastricht, il y a tout de même à
Tongres une basilique paléochrétienne datée des Ve et VIe siècles42. Famars, fortification
au Bas-Empire, est bel et bien occupée au Haut Moyen-Âge et évolue comme une struc-
ture urbaine mineure.
Pour toutes ces villes, le cadre matériel reste celui du rempart toujours utilisé à ce
moment et le maintien ou la naissance de quartiers suburbains sont des questions qui ne
sont pas souvent documentées avant le Haut Moyen-Âge. On remarquera que les capi-
tales de Belgique seconde, dans l’Ouest, répondent à un standard topographique (forme
quadrangulaire de 13 à 15 ha, avec appui contre un cours d’eau), ce qui n’est pas le cas de
Tongres à la physionomie irrégulière, à l’instar de la situation du Haut-Empire. Maas-
tricht doit probablement sa forme régulière à son origine militaire. Ces structures forti-
fiées ne s’inscrivent pas dans un projet commun. L’emmuraillement des capitales de cités
ne devrait pas poser de problèmes en termes de chronologie en faveur d’une érection au
début du Bas-Empire (Tournai, Cambrai, Tongres). Le cas de Maastricht est bien daté
par la dendrochronologie (333)43; rappelons que cette initiative plus tardive est d’origine
militaire. Quant aux exemples de Bavay et de Famars, s’inscrivant dans la même région,
ils partagent un sort probablement commun montrant deux structures murales succes-
sives dont la datation est discutée44. Les nouveaux éléments enregistrés pour Famars,
qui visent à situer la construction de la seconde enceinte à après le milieu du IVe siècle,
pourraient bien nous entraîner à trancher le dilemme bavaisien de manière égale45.
Quelle utilisation de ces remparts est faite au Ve siècle ? Les textes nous documentent
mieux pour le siècle qui suit où il est question de multiples sièges subis par quelques-unes
de ces villes, comme Cambrai et Tournai46. Ils ne sont donc pas en désuétude au Ve siècle,
mais la véritable question est de savoir par qui ces murailles seront finalement défendues
après la catastrophe de 407 évoquée par les auteurs anciens, épisode qui marque la prise
de contrôle par les barbares –Alains et Vandales – des villes de Reims, Amiens, Arras,
Thérouanne (?) et Tournai47. On peut penser qu’une fois ces difficultés aplanies à partir
de 409, les Francs vaincus relèvent la tête et sont appelés à collaborer à la défense urbaine.
La question de la renaissance des quartiers périphériques n’est pas documentée pour
le Ve siècle ; Maastricht, mais c’est une petite ville à l’étroit dans ses murs, est embléma-
tique : le fossé défensif est comblé au milieu du Ve siècle, au moins au nord-ouest et, par
la suite, on observe une expansion continuelle hors les murs ; il s’agit d’habitat et d’acti-
vités artisanales48. Les fouilles de Metz, au pied de l’amphithéâtre, à l’extérieur du centre
ville, ont donné récemment les traces d’une importante occupation du Ve siècle avec un
mobilier de référence pour cette période49.
42 Vanderhoeven 2002; Raepsaet-Charlier et Vanderhoeven 2004; Vanderhoeven 2011.

43 Dijkman 1994; Dijkman 1998; Panhuysen 2004.

44 Thollard et Denimal 1998.

45 Clotuche 2013, p. 46.

46 Chilpéric I à Tournai, Childebert II à Cambrai, au VIe siècle.

47 Lebedynsky 2012.

48 Panhuysen et al. 2002.

49 Bet et al. 2001.

190
Fig. 2. Le plan des basiliques épiscopales de Tongres (Van Den Hove 2002) et de Tournai (Brulet 2012d),
aux Ve et VIe siècles.
Quelle est au Ve siècle l’organisation urbanistique de la ville et la situation de ses mo-

numents publics ? Pour le Bas-Empire, on dispose de deux modèles : celui de la cité
qui abrite encore dans ses murs un forum. C’est le cas d’Amiens. Mais ces ensembles
architecturaux sont délaissés ou non entretenus, voire même finalement occupés par
de l’habitat ou de l’artisanat. C’est effectivement le cas à Amiens et à Bavay. Le second
modèle est celui de la ville promue, comme Tournai ou Cambrai, qui ne disposaient
pas au préalable d’un forum et qui donc n’en disposeront jamais. D’autres équipements
publics comme les thermes connaissent des difficultés de fonctionnement bien avant le
Ve siècle. L’organisation générale de la trame urbaine ne se modifie sans doute pas au Ve
191
Raymond Brulet
siècle par rapport à l’urbanisme du siècle précédent. Les modifications principales vise-
ront les quartiers d’habitat dès lors que la nécessité se fera sentir de les reconstruire, avec
des techniques et des matériaux différents ; le changement le plus marquant sera celui de
l’introduction ou du développement d’un quartier épiscopal.
Les fouilles récentes de Tongres50 et de Tournai51 ont permis la mise au jour d’une ba-
silique paléochrétienne de proportions semblables, aménagées dans le cadre d’une domus
et datées de la même période, à savoir les Ve/VIe siècles (Fig. 2). La christianisation du
pays est naturellement plus ancienne et la présence d’un évêque peut être attestée préa-
lablement (saint Servais enterré à Maastricht)52, mais l’évergétisme religieux ne semble
pas s’être manifesté aussitôt. À Tournai, on a reconnu un état antérieur à la basilique, qui
consiste en une transformation de la domus en question, mais cela ne nous amène guère
à remonter très haut dans le Ve siècle. L’existence d’une autre basilique à Maastricht pose
quelques problèmes de reconnaissance.
La ville est très attentive aux questions d’approvisionnement, comme le montre la
présence de certains horrea, par exemple à Maastricht, Arras et Strasbourg53. Il y en a un à
Maastricht au IVe siècle, pour lequel il est question d’une restauration à la période méro-
vingienne. À Tournai, on a retrouvé un séchoir à grains qui accoste un bâtiment qui a
l’allure d’un grenier, même si les interprétations peuvent diverger, notamment en faveur
d’un édifice public de nature politique (Fig. 3) ; nous sommes là au milieu du Ve siècle.
À Tournai, le bâtiment évoqué a fourni quelques éléments intéressants appartenant
à cette nouvelle architecture, dite d’opus africanum, faisant appel à des aménagements
par réutilisation de blocs et de cailloux liés à l’argile. Des alignements de blocs suggèrent
aussi le recours à une architecture en bois, vers le milieu du Ve siècle (Fig. 4). Une situa-
tion tout à fait analogue a été observée à Cambrai, avec une date un peu antérieure
(début Ve siècle)54.
L’architecture domestique des villes du Ve siècle reste méconnue en raison d’une part
du contexte des découvertes, souvent nous avons affaire à des niveaux de destruction des
habitats, et d’autre part, de la nature de ces découvertes. En effet, à la différence des villes
du centre et du sud de la Gaule, qui se sont développées à l’écart des anciens quartiers
monumentaux du Haut-Empire, une grande partie des habitats des villes du nord repose
sur la reconversion des ruines des bâtiments publics du Haut-Empire qui déterminent
l’emprise des nouveaux centres fortifiés urbains. Il en résulte que l’occupation domes-
tique se manifeste davantage sous la forme d’aménagements légers (sols, rejets mobiliers,
…) que par des constructions neuves. Les informations recueillies semblent toutefois
démontrer qu’au Ve siècle, les techniques de construction prolongent les usages anté-
50 Van den Hove et al. 2002; Vanderhoeven 2002; Raepsaet-Charlier et Vanderhoeven 200; Vanderhoeven

2011.
51 Brulet 2006; Brulet 2012a. Le rapport exhaustif sur ces fouilles a été édité récemment: Brulet 2012b; Brulet

2012c; Brulet 2012d.
52 Dierkens 2000; Theuws 2001.

53 Etude générale: Fernandez Ochoa et al. 2011; à Arras: Delmaire et Jacques 1994 (théodosien et abandonné

au deuxième quart du Ve siècle); à Strasbourg: Gissinger 2002.
54 Mais Aussi à Strasbourg et à Noyon. Pour Cambrai, voir: Barret et Routier 1999; Routier et Barret 2000;

Louis 2004, pp. 487-488.
192
Fig. 3. Tournai. Plan de l’édifice en opus africanum, avec séchoir à grains (milieu du Ve siècle), dans
l’environnement de la basilique paléochrétienne (Brulet 2012d).
193
Raymond Brulet
Fig. 4. Tournai. Vue sur l’alignement de blocs de récupération servant de fondement à une architecture de
bois au milieu du Ve siècle (Brulet 2012d).
194
rieurs, mais témoignent également de la généralisation de pratiques moins courantes

telles que la maçonnerie sèche.
Tout le contexte de l’occupation urbaine est réinterprété à la lumière de la succession
des édifices antiques et du Haut Moyen-Âge dans l’environnement des résidences et des
édifices publics du Bas-Empire et de leurs articulations avec les premières composantes
des groupes épiscopaux mérovingiens55. Le rythme de leur construction aux IVe et Ve
siècles, de leur apparente désaffection et du changement de nature des occupations à la
fin du Ve siècle et au VIe siècle (résidences, édifices balnéaires, horreum), et les vestiges
des premières basiliques matérialisent les rythmes des activités et de la nature d’un pay-
sage urbain en forte mutation, durant le siècle qui nous intéresse.
References
Augenti 2006 = A. Augenti, Le città italiane tra la tarda antichità e l’altro Medioevo. Atti del convegno,
Ravenna, 26-28 febbraio 2004, (Bibliotheca di Archeologia Medievale), Firenze, 2006.
Bachrach 2002 = B.S. Bachrach, Fifth Century Metz : Late Roman Christian Urbs or Ghost Town ?,
“Antiquité tardive”, 10, 2002, pp. 363-381.
Barret et Routier 1999 = M. Barret, J.-C. Routier, Cambrai. Lycée Fénelon, “Bilan scientifique du Service
archéologique du Nord, Pas-de-Calais”, 8, 1999, pp. 37-40.
Bayard et Piton 1979 = D. Bayard, D. Piton, Un bâtiment public du Bas-Empire à Amiens : 1973-1978, six
ans de recherches au Logis du Roy, “Cahiers archéologiques de Picardie”, 6, 1979, pp. 153-168.
Beaujard 1996 = B. Beaujard, L’évêque dans la cité en Gaule aux Ve et VIe siècles, in Lepelley 1996, p. 127-145.
Bet et al. 2001 = Ph. Bet, H. Cabart, R. Delage, M. Feller, F. Gamma, La céramique domestique et la ver-
rerie de l’Antiquité tardive issue de la fouille de la « ZAC de l’amphitâtre 2006-2008 » à Metz, in L’Antiquité
tardive dans l’Est de la Gaule, 1, (Supplément à la RAE 30), 2011, pp. 69-81.
Bonnet 2006 = C. Bonnet, Éléments de topographie chrétienne à Genève (Suisse), “Gallia”, 63, 2006, pp. 111-115.
Bowersock 2000 = G.W. Bowersock, The dissolution of the Roman Empire, in Selected Papers on Late
Antiquity, Bari, 2000, pp. 175-185.
Bowes 2010 = K. Bowes, Houses and Society in the Later Roman Empire, London, 2010.
Brühl 1988 = C.R. Brühl, Problems of continuity of Roman civitates in Gaul as illustrated by the
interrelation of cathedral and palatium, in Hodges et Hobley, 1988, pp. 43-46.
Brulet 2004 = R. Brulet, Casernements et casernes en Gaule, in Y. Le Bohec, C. Wolff, L’armée romaine de
Dioclétien à Valentinien Ier. Actes du Congrès de Lyon (12-14 septembre 2002), (Collection du Centre d’études
romaines et gallo-romaines N.s. 26), Lyon, 2004, pp. 191-199.
Brulet 2006 = R. Brulet, Tournai, in Topographie chrétienne des cités de la Gaule des origines au milieu du
VIIIe siècle, XIV Province ecclésiastique de Reims (Belgica Secunda), Paris, 2006, pp. 107-116.
Brulet et al. 2010 = R. Brulet, F. Vilvorder, R. Delage, dir., La céramique romaine en Gaule du Nord.
Dictionnaire des céramiques. La vaisselle à large diffusion, Turnhout, 2010.
Brulet 2012a = R. Brulet, Tournai, capitale du Bas-Empire et évolution au Haut Moyen-Âge, in the Very Begin-
ning of Europe? Early-Medieval Migration and Colonisation (5th-8th century). Archaeology in Contemporary
Europe, Conference Brussels, May 17-19 2011, (Relicta Monografieën 7), Brussels, 2012, pp. 125-134.
55 La ville de Aix-la-Chapelle, proche de la zone, montre enfin qu’il n’y a pas de discontinuité dans le site

appelé à un devenir important, notamment au plan religieux: Schaub 2008; Ristow 2011.
195
Raymond Brulet
Brulet 2012b = R. Brulet, dir., La cathédrale Notre-Dame de Tournai. L’archéologie du site et des monuments
anciens, vol. 1. Cadres généraux, structures et états, (Études et Documents. Archéologie 27), Namur, 2012.
Brulet 2012c = R. Brulet, dir., La cathédrale Notre-Dame de Tournai. L’archéologie du site et des monuments
anciens, vol. 2. Matériaux et céramiques, (Études et Documents. Archéologie 28), Namur, 2012.
Brulet 2012d = R. Brulet, dir., La cathédrale Notre-Dame de Tournai. L’archéologie du site et des monu-
ments anciens, vol. 3. Mobiliers, archéozoologie et anthropologie, sépultures épiscopales, (Études et Docu-
ments. Archéologie 29), Namur, 2012.
Burns and Eadie 2001 = T.S. Burns, J. Eadie, ed., Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Late Antiquity,
Michigan University Press, 2001.
Caillet 1996 = J.-P. Caillet, La transformation en église d’édifices publics et de temples à la fin de l’Antiquité,
in Lepelley 1996, pp. 191-211.
Cantino-Wataghin et Micheletto 2004 = G. Cantino-Wataghin, E. Micheletto, Les « villes éphémères »
de l’Italie du Nord, in Ferdière 2004, pp. 269-296.
Christie et Loseby 1996 = N. Christie, S.T. Loseby, eds., Towns in Transition : Urban Evolution in Late
Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Aldershot, 1996.
Clotuche 2013 = R. Clotuche, Abandon de la ville et installation du castrum, in R. Clotuche, La ville de
Famars, Valenciennes, 2013, pp. 37-47.
Coquelet 2011 = C. Coquelet, Les capitales de cités des provinces de Belgique et de Germanie : étude
urbanistique, (Publications d’Histoire de l’Art et d’Archéologie de l’Université catholique de Louvain CIII),
Louvain-la-Neuve, 2011.
Delmaire 2004 = R. Delmaire, Permanences et changements des chefs-lieux de cités au Bas-Empire :
l’exemple du nord-ouest de la Gaule Belgique, in Ferdière 2004, pp. 39-50.
Delmaire et Jacques 1994 = R. Delmaire, A. Jacques, Carte archéologique de la Gaule, 62. Pas-de-Calais,
1, Paris, 1994, pp. 112-113 et 117-159.
Dierkens 2000 = A. Dierkens, Réflexions sur l’histoire religieuse de Maastricht à l’époque mérovingienne, in
M. Polfer, ed., L’évangélisation des regions entre Meuse et Moselle et la foundation de l’abbaye d’Echternach
(Ve-IXe siècle). Actes des 10e Journées Lotharingiennes, 28-30 octobre 1998 Luxembourg, (Publications de la
Section historique de l’Institut Grand-Ducal de Luxembourg 117), Luxembourg, 2000, pp. 541-567.
Dierkens et Périn 2003 = A. Dierkens, P. Périn, The 5th century advance of the Franks in Belgica II :
history and archaeology, in E. Taayke, J.H. Looijenga et al., eds., Essays on the Early Franks, (Groningen
Archaeological Studies 1), Groningen, 2003, pp. 165-193.
Dhondt et al., 1948 = J. Dhondt, S.J. De Laet, P. Hombert, Quelques considérations sur la fin de la
domination romaine et les débuts de la colonisation franque en Belgique, “L’Antiquité Classique”, 17, 1948,
pp. 133-156.
Dijkman 1994 = W. Dijkman, Maastricht, lieu de défense et centre religieux, in P. Demolon, H. Galinié,
F. Verhaeghe, eds., Archéologie des villes dans le Nord-Ouest de l’Europe (VIIe-XIIIe siècle). Actes du IVe
Congrès International d’Archéologie médieval Douai 1991, Douai, 1994, pp. 35-39.
Dijkman 1998 = W. Dijkman, L’apport de l’archéologie à la connaissance des fortifications urbaines:
l’exemple de Maastricht, in Actes du 112e Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes Nice 1996, Section
d’Archéologie : Enceintes urbaines, Paris, 1998, pp. 101-115.
Dijkman et Ervynck 1998 = W. Dijkman, A. Ervynck, Antler, Bone, Horn, Ivory and Teeth. The Use of Animal
Skeletal Materials in Roman and Early Medieval Maastricht, (Archaeologia Mosana I), Maastricht, 1998.
Drinkwater et Elton 1992 = J. Drinkwater, H. Elton, eds., Fifth-Century Gaul : a Crisis of Identity ?,
Cambridge, 1992.
196
Elton 1992 = H. Elton, Defence in fifht-century Gaul, in Drinkwater et Elton 1992, pp. 167-176.
Ferdière 2004 = A. Ferdière, dir., Capitales éphémères : des capitales de cités perdent leur statut dans l’Antiquité
tardive. Actes du Colloque organisé par le Laboratoire archéologie et territoires (UMR Citères), Tours, 2003.
Atlas des capitales éphémères, (Supplément à la Revue archéologique du Centre de la France 25), Tours, 2004.
Fernandez Ochoa et al. 2011 = C. Fernandez Ochoa, A. Morillo, J. Salido Dominguez, Ciudades amu-
ralladas y annona militaris durante el Bajo Imperio en Hispania. Una cuestión a debate, in J. Arce,
B. Goffaux, dir., Horrea d’Hispanie et de la Méditerranée romaine, (Collection de la casa de Velázquez,
125), Madrid, 2011, pp. 265-285.
Galinié 1999 = H. Galinié, Tours from an Archaeological Standpoint, in C. Karkov, K. Whickham-
Crowley, B. Young, Spaces for the Living and the Dead : An Archaeological Dialogue, (American Early
Medieval Studies 3), Oxford, 1999, pp. 88-105.
Galinié 2007 = H. Galinié, Tours antique et médiéval. Lieux de vie. Temps de la ville. 40 ans d’archéologie
urbaine, (Supplément à la Revue archéologique du Centre de la France 30), Tours, 2007.
Gauthier et Picard 1986-2007 = N. Gauthier, J.-C. Picard, (puis N. Gauthier, B. Beaujard, Fr. Prévot)
éd., Topographie chrétienne des cités de la Gaule des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle, 15 tomes, Paris,
1986-2007.
Gibbon 1776 = E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1776.
Gissinger 2002 = B. Gissinger, Recherches sur le site fortifié de Strasbourg durant l’Antiquité tardive.
Le castrum d’Argentoratum, (BAR International Series 1024), Oxford, 2002.
Goffart 2006 = W. Goffart, Barbarian Tides. The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire, Philadelphia, 2006.
Guyon 2006 = J. Guyon, La topographie chrétienne des villes de la Gaule, in Krause et Witschel 2006,
pp. 105-128.
Halsall 1996a = G. Halsall, Settlement and Social Organization : the Merovingian Region of Metz,
Cambridge, 1996.
Halsall 1996b = G. Halsall, Towns, Societies and Ideas : The Not-so-strange Case of Late Roman and Early
Merovingian Metz, in Christie, Loseby 1996, pp. 235-261.
Hodges et Hobley 1988 = R. Hodges, B. Hobley, eds., The Rebirth of Towns in the West, (Council for
British Archaeology Research Report, 68), London, 1988, pp. 43-46.
Krause et Witschel 2006 = J.U. Krause, Ch. Witschel, Hrsg., Die Stadt in der Spätantike : Niedergang
oder Wandel ? Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums in München am 30 und 31 mai 2003, (Historia 190),
Stuttgart, 2006.
Lavan 2001 = L. Lavan, ed., Recent Research in Late Antique Urbanism, Portsmouth, 2001.
Lavan 2003 = L. Lavan, Christianity, the city and the end of antiquity, “Journal of Roman Archaeology”,
16, 2003, pp. 705-710.
Lebecq 1996 = S. Lebecq, Le devenir économique de la cité dans la Gaule des Ve-IXe siècles, in Lepelley
1996, pp. 287-309.
Lebedynsky 2012 = I. Lebedynsky, La grande invasion des Gaules 407-409, Clermont-Ferrand, 2012.
Legoux et al. 2004 = R. Legoux, P. Périn, F. Vallet, Chronologie normalisée du mobilier funéraire mérovin-
gien entre Manche et Lorraine, “Bulletin de Liaison de l’Association française d’Archéologie mérovingienne”,
n° hors série, Paris, 2004.
Lepelley 1996 = C. Lepelley, dir., La fin de la cité antique et le début de la cité médiévale de la fin du IIIe
siècle à l’avènement de Charlemagne, (Centre de recherche sur l’Antiquité tardive et le haut Moyen Âge),
Bari, 1996.
Liebeschuetz 1992 = J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, The end of the ancient city, in Rich 1992, pp. 1-49.
197
Raymond Brulet
Liebeschuetz 2000 = J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Administration and Politics in the Cities of the Fifth to the
mid Seventh Century : 425-640, in A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby, eds., The Cambridge
Ancient History, XIV, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 207-237.
Liebeschuetz 2001 = J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford, 2001.
Liebeschuetz 2006a = J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Decline and Change in Late Antiquity, (Variorum Collected
Studies Series), Ashgate, 2006.
Liebeschuetz 2006b = J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Transformation and Decline: Are the Two Really Incompat-
ible ?, in Krause et Witschel 2006, pp. 463-483.
Loridant 2004 = F. Loridant, Décadence urbaine et Antiquité tardive à Bagacum et dans la Civitas Camara-
censium, in Ferdière 2004, pp. 75-82.
Loseby 2000 = S.T. Loseby, Urban Failures in Late Antique Gaul, in T.R. Slater, ed., Towns in Decline AD
100-1600, Aldershot, 2000, pp. 72-95.
Loseby 2006 = S.T. Loseby, Decline and Change in the Cities of Late Antique Gaul, in Krause et Witschel
2006, pp. 67-105.
Louis 2004 = E. Louis, A De-Romanised Landscape in Northern Gaul: the Scarpe Valley from the 4th to the
9th Century A.D., in W. Bowden, L. Lavan, C. Machado, Recent Research on Late Antique Countryside,
(Late Antique Archaeology 2), Leiden/Boston, 2004, pp. 479-504.
Neiss et Sindonino 2004 = R. Neiss, S. Sindonino, Civitas Remi. Reims et son enceinte au IVe siècle, “Bulle-
tin de la Société archéologique champenoise”, 97/4 (Collection archéologie urbaine à Reims 6) Reims, 2004.
Panhuysen 2004 = T.A.S.M. Panhuysen, Maastricht, in M. Reddé, R. Brulet, R. Fellmann, J.K. Haalebos,
S. von Schnurbein, L’architecture de la Gaule romaine : les fortifications militaires, (Documents d’Archéo-
logie Française 100) (L’architecture de la Gaule romaine 1), Paris/Bordeaux, 2006, pp. 316-318.
Panhuysen et al. 2002 = T.A.S.M. Panhuysen, R. De La Haye, N. Gautier, Maastricht, in Topographie
chrétienne des cités de la Gaule des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle, XII Province ecclésiastique de Cologne
(Germania Secunda), Paris, 1986-2007, pp. 91-115.
Pohl 1997 = W. Pohl, ed., Kingdoms of the Empire. The Integration of Barbarians in Late Antiquity,
Leiden – New York – Köln, 1997.
Potter 1995 = T.W. Potter, Towns in Late Antiquity : Iol Caesarea and its Context, Exeter, 1995.
Raepsaet-Charlier et Vanderhoeven 2004 = M.-T. Raepsaet-Charlier, A. Vanderhoeven, Tongres au
Bas-Empire romain, in Ferdière 2004, pp. 51-73.
Rich 1992 = J. Rich, ed., The City in Late Antiquity, London, 1992.
Ristow 2011 = S. Ristow, Ältester frühchristlicher Fund aus Aachen, “Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum”,
54, 2011, pp. 142-145.
Rogers 2011 = A. Rogers, Late Roman Towns in Britain. Rethinking Change and Decline, Cambridge, 2011.
Routier et Barret 2000 = J.-C. Routier, M. Barret, Cambrai Lycée Fénelon, “Bilan scientifique SRA
Nord-Pas-de-Calais”, 1999 (2000), pp. 37-40.
Schaub 2008 = A. Schaub, Gedanken zur Siedlungskontinuität in Aachen zwischen römischer und karolin-
gischer Zeit, “Bonner Jahrbucher”, 208, 2008, pp. 161-172.
Sears 2007 = G. Sears, Late Roman African Urbanism. Continuity and transformation in the City, (BAR
International Series 1693), Oxford, 2007.
Sintès 1994 = C. Sintès, La reutilisation des espaces publics à Arles : un témoignage de la fin de l’Antiquité,
“Antiquité tardive”, 2, 1994, pp. 181-192.
Terrien 2007 = M.-P. Terrien, La Christianisation de la region rhénane du IVe au milieu du VIIIe siècle.
Synthèse, Université de Franche-Comté, 2007.
198
Theuws 2001 = F. Theuws, Maastricht as a centre of power in the early Middle Ages, in M. De Jong,
F. Theuws, C. Van Rhijn, eds., Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages, (The Transformation
of the Roman World 6), Leyde-Boston-Cologne, 2001, pp. 155-216.
Thollard et Denimal 1998 = P. Thollard, C. Denimal, Fouilles sur le forum de Bavay (1993-1998).
II: le Bas-Empire, “Archéologie de la Picardie et du Nord de la France”, 80, 328, 1998, pp. 153-221.
Van den Hove et al. 2002 = P. Van den Hove, A. Vanderhoeven, G. Vynckier, Het archeologisch onderzoek in
de O.L.V.-Basiliek van Tongeren. Fase 1: 1999-2001, “Monumenten en Landschappen”, 21-4, 2002, pp. 12-37.
Vanderhoeven 2002 = A. Vanderhoeven, Tongres, in Topographie chrétienne des cités de la Gaule des origines
au milieu du VIIIe siècle, XII Province ecclésiastique de Cologne (Germania Secunda), Paris, 2002, pp. 75-89.
Vanderhoeven 2011 = A. Vanderhoeven, The Late Roman and early medieval urban topography of Ton-
geren, in The Very Beginning of Europe? Early-Medieval Migration and Colonisation (5th-8th century).
Archaeology in Contemporary Europe, Conference Brussels, May 17-19 2011, (Relicta Monografieën 7),
Brussels, 2012, pp. 135-146.
Verslype 2012 = L. Verslype, Les artisanats du métal et du verre, in Brulet 2012d, pp. 102-127.
Ward-Perkins 1988 = B. Ward-Perkins, The Towns in Northern Italy : Rebirth or Renewal ?, in Hodges
et Hobley 1988, pp. 16-27.
Ward-Perkins 2005 = B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford, 2005.
Young 2001 = B.K. Young, Autun and the Civitas Aedorum : Maintaining and Transforming a Regional
Identity in Late Antiquity, in Burns et Eadie, 2001, pp. 25-46.
199
Postscript
Wolfgang Radt
Als Marc Waelkens in den späten 1980er Jahren anfing in Sagalassos zu arbeiten gab es
noch keine klassisch-archäologische Grabung in der Türkei, die auch nur entfernt dem
ähnelte, was Marc danach in Sagalassos geschaffen hat.
Viele Klassische Grabungen waren noch auf dem Stand, den die Tradition vorgab: man
grub aus, um ein Gebäude oder ein ganzes Stadtviertel freizulegen und um dort mög-
lichst schöne und interessante Funde zu machen. Die Tradition der Klassischen Archäo-
logie war, zumindest auf einigen deutschen Grabungen, immer noch geprägt von der
rein kunstgeschichtlichen Ausrichtung dieses Faches: Klassische Archäologie als Kunst-
geschichte der Antike. Außerdem waren die „Klassischen“ Grabungen, von heute aus
betrachtet, in der Regel grabungstechnisch etwas dilettantisch.
Einige Grabungen, wie z.B. Pergamon, bemühten sich allerdings schon seit Anfang
der 1970er Jahre, von den „alten Zöpfen“ loszukommen, neuere Methoden der Gra-
bungstechnik anzuwenden und neueren Anschauungen, vor allem aus der Siedlungsar-
chäologie zu folgen.
Immerhin gab es ja auch eine große Tradition in der deutschen Klassischen Archäologie,
gerade in Kleinasien, die sich sehen lassen konnte und an die es sich anzuknüpfen lohnte.
Das war die „Stadt-Archäologie“, d.h. die Erforschung ganzer antiker Städte als Gesam-
torganismen. Die Standards dafür hatten die großen Grabungen des späten 19. und frü-
hen 20. Jh. in Priene, Milet und Pergamon gesetzt. Ihre Leiter – Theodor Wiegand und
Alexander Conze – waren überzeugte Verfechter einer ganzheitlichen Methode in der
Stadtforschung. Sie legten Wert darauf, dass auch der kleinste Fund und das unschein-
barste Artefakt wichtig sein könnten zur Beurteilung des ausgegrabenen Platzes und zur
Lösung von Detailfragen. Zwar waren auch sie nicht zimperlich bei der Anwendung
„großzügiger“ Methoden, wenn es darum ging ein Areal schnell freizulegen um zügig
voran zu kommen, aber sie hatten doch immer das Ziel im Auge, nichts Wichtiges zu
übergehen um der Erkenntnis des Gesamtorganismus der ausgegrabenen Stadt näher zu
kommen. Aber auch damals schon beschränkte man sich nicht auf die Stadt als solche
bei der Erforschung sondern dehnte die Untersuchungen auf das Umland aus. Davon
zeugen bei der Miletgrabung und bei der Pergamongrabung die zahlreichen Bände der
Publikationen, die sich mit diesem Thema befassen. Für diese Umgebungs-Erforschung
brauchte man Kartographen um überhaupt eine verlässliche Grundlage für die Doku-
mentation des Bestandes an Siedlungen und anderen antiken Resten in der umgebenden
Landschaft zu schaffen. Auch einzelne Orte wurden in Plänen und in Detailzeichnun-
gen aufgenommen und publiziert. Die Zusammenarbeit von Klassischen Archäologen,
201
Wolfgang Radt
Architekten, Kartographen, Epigraphikern, Byzantinisten und gelegentlich auch weite-

ren Spezialisten, und damit das interdisziplinäre team-work, haben demnach eine lange
Tradition auch auf „klassischen“ Grabungen in Kleinasien. Allerdings beschränkte sich
das wissenschaftliche Personal bei den traditionellen Grabungen auf wenige Teilnehmer
und die Zahl der beteiligten Fachrichtungen war meist an den Fingern einer Hand abzu-
zählen. Die Naturwissenschaften waren überhaupt noch nicht beteiligt.
Ich will hier nicht in Einzelheiten gehen sondern erwähne diese Tatsachen nur um zu
zeigen, dass auch in der Klassischen Archäologie Kleinasiens schon sehr früh fortschritt-
liche Dinge getan wurden, die nicht erst in den 1980er Jahren aufkamen. Es ist hier
auch nicht beabsichtigt, aufzugliedern, welche Grabungen oder welche Nationen etwa
am frühesten in diesem speziellen Sinne „fortschrittliche“ Archäologie in Kleinasien be-
trieben haben. Denn natürlich haben auch die Franzosen, die Österreicher oder auch
andere Nationen in der Klassischen Archäologie in Kleinasien einiges aufzuweisen, was
sich nicht zu verstecken braucht. Alle versuchten auch, voneinander zu lernen, und Er-
fahrungen mussten jeweils neu und allmählich gemacht werden. So war zweifellos die
österreichische Ephesosgrabung in der Stadtforschung und im Wiederaufbau antiker
Gebäude und Monumente lange Zeit an der Spitze, wenn auch mit manchen Maßnah-
men nicht vorbildlich (z.B. Memmius-Monument), mit anderen aber sogar besonders
fortschrittlich (z.B. Celsus-Bibliothek). Zu erwähnen sind hier auch die Schutzbauten,
die an einigen Ruinenstätten entstanden sind. Sie haben sich aus provisorischen Maß-
nahmen, etwa vorübergehenden Wellblechdächern, immer weiter entwickelt. Diese
Entwicklung ließ sich am besten im Verlauf der Ephesosgrabung seit den 1970er Jahren
verfolgen, wo schließlich alles in einer monumentalen, transparenten, hoch technisier-
ten Dachlandschaft gipfelte, die im Jahre 2000 eingeweiht wurde.
Die Einführung der jährlichen archäologischen Symposien in der Türkei (seit 1978, vor
35 Jahren) wurde zwar hin und wieder als lästige Pflichtveranstaltung empfunden, hatte
aber doch den entscheidenden Vorteil, dass alle Grabungsleiter teilnehmen und über
die Arbeit an ihrem Ort berichten mussten. So entwickelte sich daraus eine Informa-
tionsveranstaltung von hohem Wert, die auch den Ehrgeiz aller einzelnen Teilnehmer
gewaltig anstachelte, denn niemand wollte negativ auffallen. Die türkischen Grabungen,
am Anfang noch etwas zurück, holten von Jahr zu Jahr in der Anwendung moderner
Methoden und in der Präsentation ihrer Ergebnisse merklich auf. Aber von Beginn der
Grabungen in Sagalassos an überstrahlte Marc Waelkens mit seinen Berichten auf den
Symposien alle anderen bei weitem. Was da an neuen Ergebnissen und an neuen Me-
thoden vor dem Auditorium ausgebreitet wurde, war mehr als eindrucksvoll und für
viele schier unfassbar. In meinem Tagebuch habe ich darüber sehr positive Einträge im
Mai 1992 und im Mai 1993 gefunden.
Es war ja nicht nur der Bericht als solcher, sondern man merkte: da steht einer mit voll-
stem Einsatz hinter seiner Sache, ja er ist geradezu besessen davon. Man fragte sich und
man sprach auch darüber: wie macht der das? Wie bekommt er das viele Geld zusam-
men, das eine so große Grabungsmannschaft oder so aufwendige Restaurierungs- und
202
Postscript
Anastylose-Arbeiten kosten? Woher hat er die Kraft und die Zeit, so viele Werbevorträ-
ge zu halten. Wie motiviert er die vielen Mitarbeiter, wie bringt er sie unter, wie hält er
sie friedlich und kollegial zusammen? Man war beeindruckt von der Fülle der Ergebnis-
se, nicht nur an den jährlich neu entdeckten Gebäuden im Stadtzentrum, sondern von
den kleinen und feinen Entdeckungen, wie z.B. der Erkenntnis, dass Fische aus dem Nil
als Speisefisch bis nach Sagalassos gelangt sind, was naturwissenschaftliche Spezialisten
auf der Grabung an den Überresten der Fisch-Gräten erkennen konnten. Das war neu
und das war sensationell!
Und bei alledem war Marc niemals überheblich und trug keinen übertriebenen Stolz
zur Schau. Ich bin mehrmals auf den Ankara-Symposien mit ihm zum Essen gegangen.
Er war ein bescheidener Zeitgenosse, etwas scheu sogar und ohne nach außen betontes
Selbstbewusstsein, obwohl er auf so Vieles stolz sein konnte.
Leider bin ich Marc viel zu selten begegnet, und doch darf ich ihn zu meinen Freunden
zählen. Soweit ich mich erinnere war die erste gemeinsame Unternehmung ein ganz-
tägiger Ausflug vom Grabungs-Symposion 1989 in Antalya nach der malerischen und
abgelegenen Ruinenstätte von Selge, zusammen mit wenigen anderen Kollegen. Wir
hatten uns von den Veranstaltungen im Vortragssaal abgesetzt. Auch weitere Begeg-
nungen beschränkten sich zunächst auf die Ausgrabungs-Symposien in der Türkei.
1994 und 1995 waren dann die Jahre unserer intensivsten Kontakte. Marc hatte mich
1994 um ein Gutachten zu der Dissertation seiner Doktorandin Lutgarde Vandeput über
römische Architekturornamentik von Sagalassos gebeten. Jeroen Poblome, damals As-
sistent von Marc, brachte mir das Manuskript nach Istanbul, wo ich am Deutschen Ar-
chäologischen Institut als Leiter der Pergamongrabung stationiert war. Ich nahm dann
auf Einladung von Marc an der Promotionszeremonie an der Universität von Leuven
teil und blieb mehrere Tage dort. Ich konnte mit dafür sorgen, dass die Kandidatin für
ihre sehr gute Leistung auch eine sehr gute Note bekam. Dabei bekam ich auch einen
Eindruck davon, dass Marc es in jenen frühen Jahren nicht leicht hatte mit Professo-
renkollegen, die ihm offenbar seine Erfolge neideten und ihn behindern wollten, auch
auf Kosten der Noten seiner Doktoranden. Jedenfalls hatten Marc und ich eine gute
Zeit und konnten unsere Freundschaft vertiefen. Beim Symposion in Ankara im selben
Jahr im Juni leiteten wir gemeinsam die Formalitäten bei den türkischen Zollbehör-
den ein, um den großen Autokran der Pergamongrabung nach Sagalassos abgeben zu
dürfen. Der Kran hatte jahrelang in Pergamon beim Wiederaufbau des Trajanstempels
gute Dienste getan und war nun frei für andere Arbeiten. Die Vorbereitungen zogen
sich über fast ein Jahr hin und endlich konnte ich gemeinsam mit Marc im Mai 1995 die
Umschreibung des Krans von „Pergamon“ auf „Sagalassos“ bei der Zollbehörde in Izmir
vornehmen. Er ist dann noch einige Zeit bei den Anastylose-Arbeiten in Sagalassos er-
folgreich im Einsatz gewesen.
Die 1994 geplante Europalia-Ausstellung von antiken Meisterwerken aus türkischen
Museen in Brüssel, im Musée du Cinquantenaire, kam leider nicht zu Stande. Es fanden
drei Vorbereitungstreffen in Ankara, in Istanbul und in Brüssel von Mai bis November
statt, an denen Marc und auch ich als Komitee-Mitglieder teilnahmen, zusammen mit
203
Wolfgang Radt
weiteren Kollegen aus Belgien und aus der Türkei. Alle Beteiligten waren kollegial um
Erfolg bemüht. Verhindert wurde die Ausstellung aus politischen Gründen.
Im April 1995 war Marc für zwei Preisverleihungen in Belgien vorgeschlagen: den
Solvay-Preis des belgischen Forschungsfonds und den Francqui-Preis. Ich konnte in
Brüssel als Jury-Mitglied beider Preise zwar für Marc kämpfen, aber es war deutlich,
dass mit dem einen Preis ein älterer Konkurrent belohnt werden sollte („die Jugend kann
noch warten“), bei dem anderen die stark vertretenen Wirtschaftswissenschaftler sich
durchsetzen sollten. Ich war mindestens so enttäuscht und traurig wie Marc nach diesem
Misserfolg!
1997 im September wurden das wieder aufgebaute hellenistische Brunnenhaus und
die restaurierte Neon-Bibliothek in Sagalassos eingeweiht. Eingeladen waren auch Ab-
ordnungen von befreundeten Grabungen aus der westlichen Türkei. Aus Pergamon
kam eine Delegation unter meiner Leitung. Wir freuten uns mit Marc und seinem Team
und mit der ganzen Bevölkerung von Ağlasun (abends Feuerwerk!) über diesen ein-
drucksvollen Aufbauerfolg.
Im Jahre 2001 war ich dann als Gutachter und Mitglied der Prüfungskommission zu
den Promotionsfeierlichkeiten von Veli Köse nach Leuven eingeladen. Dieser junge tür-
kische Archäologe hatte früher bei mir in Pergamon gearbeitet und dann ein Dissertati-
onsthema von Marc angenommen: Nekropolen und Grabdenkmäler in Sagalassos. Die
Promotion ging gut, aber ich hatte wieder den Eindruck, dass böswillige Professoren-
Kollegen versuchten, Marc bei dieser Gelegenheit „eins auszuwischen“.
Jahre vergingen in losem Kontakt mit Marc. Immer war ich in Sorge, dass er sich durch
Arbeitsüberlastung gesundheitlich ruinieren würde. Aber erstaunlicher Weise und
gottseidank hat er bis heute durchgehalten (wenn auch manchmal mehr als mühsam
und öfter schwer krank).
Als dann im Januar 2013 Jeroen Poblome, sein designierter Nachfolger, bei mir an-
fragte, ob ich evtl. bereit wäre, in der Festschrift für Marc ein „Akademisches Postscript“
zu schreiben und an verschiedenen Veranstaltungen zu Ehren von Marc teilzunehmen,
habe ich mich gefreut über diese Gelegenheit, auf die alte freundschaftliche Verbindung
zurückzukommen und habe zugesagt.
Aber nun zurück zur Entwicklung der Klassischen Archäologie in der Türkei. Ich kann
da am besten von meinem eigenen Beispiel ausgehen. Als ich 1972 in Pergamon für das
Deutsche Archäologische Institut mit neuen Ausgrabungen anfing (also rund 20 Jahre
vor Marc in Sagalassos), hatte ich, genau wie später Marc, schon eine Vergangenheit als
„survey-Spezialist“ hinter mir. Und zwar auf der Halbinsel von Halikarnassos im west-
lichen Kleinasien. Genau wie später bei Marc (im Pisidien-Survey) standen bei mir (in
den 1960er Jahren) im Mittelpunkt des Interesses noch aufrecht stehende Reste von an-
tiken Bauten, die zu entdecken, zu kartieren und in Plänen, Fotos und Beschreibungen
aufzunehmen waren (die sog. Lelegischen Compounds).
Im Gegensatz zu Marc stand mir kein team oder weiteres Personal bei dem survey zur
Verfügung, sondern ich musste mich als Einzelner mit einer gelegentlichen örtlichen
Hilfskraft begnügen. Es gab auch noch keine entwickelte und breit publizierte survey-
204
Postscript
Technik, die ich mir hätte zum Vorbild nehmen können. Meine Arbeiten waren in die-
ser Art damals in der Türkei noch ziemlich einzigartig und vielleicht hat Marc sie auch
in gewisser Weise als Vorbild gesehen.
Als mir 1972 in Pergamon die neuen Ausgrabungen übertragen wurden, die wir da-
mals „Wohnstadtgrabung“ genannt haben, war diese Bezeichnung durchaus Programm.
Denn ich wollte, mit Unterstützung des damaligen Präsidenten des Deutschen Archäo-
logischen Instituts, Werner Krämer, weg von der Ausgrabung glänzender Großbauten,
wie Tempeln, Hallen, Theatern usw., und zielgerichtet hin zur Freilegung von antiken
Wohnhäusern und Wohngebieten. Das fehlte in Pergamon weitgehend und war ein
echtes Desiderat. Die Fragestellung sollte sein: wie hat der antike Mensch in seiner Stadt
gewohnt und gelebt? Dieses Programm hat sich dann, wie so oft bei Ausgrabungen,
nicht so ganz glatt durchführen lassen, aber es konnte doch weitgehend erfüllt werden.
Was bei uns in Pergamon und auch anderswo weitgehend fehlte war der Einsatz der
modernen Naturwissenschaften, den Marc in Sagalassos in gänzlich neuer Weise zwan-
zig Jahre später massiv und immer stärker erweitert, angewendet hat. Zwar hatten auch
wir über einige Kampagnen eine kleine Gruppe von Paläozoologen zur Erforschung
von ausgegrabenen Tierknochen auf der Grabung, ebenso gelegentlich Paläoanthropo-
logen zur Analyse menschlicher Skelette aus Gräbern oder einmal einen Pollenanalyti-
ker, zwar war eine Gruppe von Wasserbauingenieuren über mehrere Kampagnen tätig,
um die Wasserversorgungseinrichtungen in der weiteren Umgebung von Pergamon zu
erforschen, zwar haben auch wir Keramikscherben naturwissenschaftlich untersuchen
lassen, um die Herkunftsorte des Töpfertons zu bestimmen, aber der systematische und
breit gefächerte Einsatz solcher Techniken war uns fremd. Auch auf anderen Grabun-
gen in Kleinasien hat die Integrierung der Naturwissenschaften nie auch nur entfernt
die Ausmaße angenommen wie in Sagalassos, selbst auf der damals sehr progressiven
prähistorischen Grabung von Manfred Korfmann in Troja nicht.
Wie in dem Beitrag von Patrick Degryse in diesem Band ausführlich dargelegt (S. 59)
hat sich die Beteiligung der Naturwissenschaften in Sagalassos in drei zeitlichen Stufen
gesteigert.
Die erste Stufe (1989-1992) konzentrierte sich auf Ton (Keramik) und Stein (Bauma-
terial) als lokale Rohmaterialien und auf die Erforschung von Umweltfaktoren (Hydro-
logie, Vegetation, Erosion, Flora und Fauna).
Die zweite Stufe (1993-1998) umfasste zusätzliche Forschungsthemen: Vorgeschichte,
Pollenanalyse, Geomorphologie mit Schwerpunkt auf Rekonstruktion von Umwelt und
Klima, Geologie mit voller Erfassung aller anorganischen Rohmaterialien. Weitere Um-
weltforschung zu antikem und modernem Landbau, Bewässerung und Forstwirtschaft.
Erfassung der heutigen Vegetation durch Biologen, DNA-Analysen von Skelettmaterial.
Auf Druck der türkischen Antikenverwaltung erfolgte eine Ausweitung ins Umland:
systematischer Survey im gesamten Territorium von Sagalassos mit Erstellung von to-
pographischen Karten, Epigraphik, Entdeckung und Aufnahme weiterer Siedlungsplät-
ze und Scherbenkonzentrationen. [Übrigens: so systematisch und mit so viel Aufwand
ernst genommen wurde diese Aufforderung an keinem anderen Grabungsplatz! Manche
205
Wolfgang Radt
andere (alte) Grabungen wie Pergamon und Milet konnten allerdings auch auf eine be-
stens publizierte gründliche topographische und architekturgeschichtliche Erforschung
ihres Territoriums bereits in früherer Zeit verweisen].
Die dritte Stufe in Sagalassos (1999-2003) brachte, bei Weiterbestehen aller vorher
angewandten Methoden, eine intensivierte Erforschung des Besiedlungsbildes in der
Umgebung und in der Stadt selbst. Modernste Survey-Techniken wurden neu angewen-
det. Die Geophysik wurde zum „Blick unter die Erde“ für die Entdeckung von Gebäu-
den, Strassenmustern u.a. in der Stadt und im Umland mehr und mehr eingesetzt. Erst
danach wurden Kontrollgrabungen unternommen, die die Ergebnisse der Geophysik
bestätigten und präzisierten. Die biomolekulare Forschung wurde ausgeweitet.
Die vierte Stufe (2004 bis heute) brachte neben dem Gebrauch von Satelliten-Bildern
aus dem Weltraum (Fernerkundung/remote sensing) den Einsatz ganz neuer naturwis-
senschaftlicher Techniken, die z.T. eigens für Sagalassos entwickelt wurden und von
denen ein traditioneller Archäologe bisher noch nie gehört hatte (s. in diesem Band,
Beitrag Degryse, S. 59). Um das zu verstehen muß man wirklich spezialisierter Natur-
wissenschaftler sein.
Das bringt mich auf die Frage: wie hat Marc das alles verstanden? Oder wie hat er verstan-
den, welche Fachrichtungen für das Sagalassos- Projekt zusätzlich noch wichtig sein könn-
ten. Vermutlich hat sich das alles über die Jahre allmählich entwickelt und er ist von Natur-
wissenschaftlern, die schon länger mitgearbeitet haben auf weitere Ideen gebracht worden.
Wenn man diese Entwicklung zu Ende denkt ergibt sich für die Archäologie ein ganz-
heitlicher (holistischer) Ansatz, der die Fächergrenzen verwischt und vielleicht eines
Tages gänzlich überflüssig macht. Von „Klassischer“ Archäologie wird dann keine Rede
mehr sein können. Wenn Archäologie an jedem Grabungsplatz alles betrachtet und alles
hinterfragt, von der antiken Marmorstatue und ihrer kunstgeschichtlichen Einordnung
bis zur chemischen Zusammensetzung ihres Marmors, von der Form und Oberfläche ei-
nes Keramikgefäßes bis zur Isotopenanalyse ihres Tonmaterials, vom Skelett aus einem
Grab bis zur Feststellung, was dieser Mensch einst gegessen hat und welche Krankhei-
ten er gehabt hat, von der heutigen Landwirtschaft der Gegend bis zur Rekonstruk-
tion der Landwirtschaft in der Antike (um nur bisher schon geläufige Anwendungen
der Naturwissenschaften in der Archäologie herauszugreifen). Und wenn dann noch
die neuesten und modernsten Verfeinerungen und Verästelungen der Forschung hin-
zukommen, dann muß man wohl von ganzheitlicher Archäologie oder Archäologie mit
umfassendem Ansatz sprechen. Fragt sich nur, bis zu welchem Punkt das durchzuhalten
oder sogar noch weiter zu treiben ist. Irgendwann muß der Punkt erreicht sein, wo
der Grabungsleiter diese verschiedenen Forschungspfade, die auf seinem Grabungsplatz
verfolgt werden, nicht mehr genügend im Auge behalten kann und wo ihm die Sache
über den Kopf wächst. Oder wo sich neue Zweige gänzlich abspalten weil sie ein zu
starkes Eigenleben entwickelt haben.
Daß sich solche Gefahren schon abzeichnen, lässt der Beitrag von P. Degryse in diesem
Band ahnen. Denn nicht nur legt er die Entwicklung des Einsatzes von Naturwissen-
schaften beim Sagalassos-Projekt dar, sondern er stellt auch die Frage, ob sich daraus
eine „holistische“, d.h. allumfassende Archäologie entwickeln wird.
206
Postscript
Schwierigkeiten liegen, nach Degryse, z.B. in den unterschiedliche Publikations-Stan-

dards und Publikationsorganen von Archäologen und Naturwissenschaftlern. Aus den
verschiedenen Publikations-Strategien ergibt sich auch Einfluss auf wissenschaftliche
Karrieren samt der zugehörigen Konkurrenz. Auch ums Geld (Fördermittel) gibt es
selbstverständlich Konkurrenz. Allerdings sind solche Probleme im speziellen Fall
von Sagalassos abgemildert durch die Gründung des CAS (Center for Archaeologi-
cal Sciences) an der Universität Leuven, das nicht nur für Sagalassos, sondern auch
für andere Projekte in aller Welt arbeitet. Auch an der Gründung von CAS im Jahre
2005 hatte Marc maßgeblichen Anteil und er wurde auch der erste Direktor dieser
Forschungsstelle.
Für die Zukunft von Archäologie im Sinne einer „holistischen“ Wissenschaft wird es
wichtig sein, dass sich die Archäologen und die Naturwissenschaftler noch mehr an-
nähern, vor allem in dem Sinne, dass sie wechselseitig so gut ausgebildet sind, dass sie
die Fragen der anderen Seite voll verstehen können. Auch braucht es eine gegenseitige
Hochachtung, die sicherstellt, dass sich die eine Seite nicht nur als Hilfswissenschaft der
anderen verstanden sieht. Die Lösung liegt wohl in der Erkenntnis, dass „Archaeological
Science“ (Anwendung von Naturwissenschaft in der Archäologie) kein eigenes Fach zu
werden braucht, aber volles Existenzrecht in einem Falle wie Leuven (CAS) hat.
Bei aller Hochachtung für das, was im speziellen Fall von Sagalassos/Leuven an inter-
disziplinärer Zusammenarbeit, gerade mit den Naturwissenschaften, aufgebaut wurde,
habe ich doch Bedenken, ob sich ein solches Beispiel in dieser Intensität für andere Plätze
wird durchsetzen lassen. Der Wille, nach diesem Muster zu arbeiten, wird unterschied-
lich sein. Viele Archäologen werden nicht von ihren eigenen alten Gewohnheiten ab-
weichen wollen. Viele Naturwissenschaftler werden die Chancen für sich und ihr Fach
in der Kombination mit der Archäologie als nicht gut genug ansehen. Was aber auf alle
Fälle bleiben wird ist das Zeichen, das durch Sagalassos gesetzt wurde. Schon jetzt ist der
Anstoß zu interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit überall auf archäologischen Ausgrabun-
gen zu spüren, ja es gilt inzwischen quasi als ehrenrührig, solche Forschungsmethoden
in der Klassischen Archäologie nicht anzuwenden. Bis zu welchem Grade das geschehen
soll, darüber gehen die Meinungen allerdings auseinander.
Wenden wir uns anderen Beiträgen in diesem Band zu und untersuchen sie darauf, wie
sie zur Interdisziplinarität stehen.
Da ist der Aufsatz von Gert Verstraeten (S. 71) über die Beziehungen zwischen Ar-
chäologie und Geographie. Der Autor kommt, wie der gerade besprochene P. Degry-
se, aus Leuven, und ist ebenfalls durch die Zusammenarbeit mit Marc geprägt. Dem-
nach ist auch sein theoretischer Ansatz ähnlich. Er verficht die Interdisziplinarität, in
diesem Falle die Zusammenarbeit seines Faches, der Geographie, mit der Archäologie.
Er betont, dass Marc immer offen war für die Voraussetzung, den Hilfs-Disziplinen
ihre eigenen Rechte zu belassen. Er bemerkt mit Bedauern, dass die Naturwissenschaf-
ten immer noch als Hilfswissenschaften der Archäologie gelten würden (obwohl das
207
Wolfgang Radt
langsam besser werde). Allerdings behauptet er auch, dass neuerdings die Archäolo-
gie zur Hilfswissenschaft der Geomorphologie geworden sei und zwar dadurch, dass
Kulturgeographen die Beziehungen zwischen Gesellschaft und Umwelt rekonstru-
ieren und ihre Ergebnisse auf Vorschläge für nachhaltige Entwicklung in heutiger
Umgebung anwenden würden, wodurch sie ins moderne Leben hineinwirkten. Sein
Schluß ist, dass die Komplexität der Beziehungen Mensch/Umwelt die Bemühungen
von zahlreichen Disziplinen erfordern würden und nicht von einer beherrschenden
Fachrichtung gelöst werden könnten. Trotzdem sollte die „Geoarchäologie“ als eine Art
virtueller Disziplin weiterentwickelt werden.
Der Beitrag von Wim van Neer und Bea de Cupere (S. 51) über die Analyse von Tier-
und Menschenknochen-Funden innerhalb von 20 Jahren in Sagalassos ist ein Arbeits-
bericht über die Mühen, mit den Massen von Knochenmaterial (über eine Million ana-
lysierte Stücke) überhaupt fertig zu werden und gibt eine Übersicht über das analysierte
Material und die Ergebnisse. Reflexionen über das Fach der Archäozoologie, über die
Zusammenarbeit mit der Archäologie und den Sinn der Interdisziplinarität enthält der
Beitrag nicht. Die in Sagalassos angewendete Methode des Siebens, um auch kleinste
Knochenstückchen von Vögeln und Fischgräten für die Untersuchungen zu erhalten,
wird auf anderen Grabungen kaum angetroffen. Darum ist auch Referenzmaterial von
anderen Grabungen praktisch nicht zu erhalten. Die oben schon erwähnten sensationel-
len Ergebnisse zu den Fischen aus dem Nil werden dieser Forschungsgruppe verdankt.
Alle auch für die Zukunft notwendigen Spezialisten (wie Archäozoologen, Anthropolo-
gen, Makrobotaniker, Paläogenetiker, Spezialisten für Isotopen-Analyse) gibt es, auch
dank Marc Waelkens, an dem Center for Archaeological Sciences in Leuven.
Damit ist die Reihe der rein naturwissenschaftlichen Beiträge erfasst.
Zwei weitere Beiträge tragen die Interdisziplinarität immerhin im Titel, und zwar die
von D. Burcu Erciyas und von Frank Vermeulen.
Der Aufsatz von Frau Burcu Erciyas (S. 119) hat die Interdisziplinarität in der Archäolo-
gie und den Einfluß von Sagalassos auf ihr eigenes Forschungsprojekt in Komana in der
Schwarzmeer-Region zum Thema. Sie ist u.a. Schülerin von Marc Waelkens und schon
als Studentin nach Sagalassos gekommen. Sie hebt den Einfluß von Marc auf ihre Ausbil-
dung und ihr Leben hervor. Eingebettet in ein Programm der METU (Middle East Tech-
nical University in Ankara), stellte sie ein Team von Forschern für einen fünfjährigen
Survey in der Provinz Tokat zusammen (Historiker, Architekten, Geographen, Geologen,
Stadtplaner, Statistiker, Archäologen). Vorbild für sie war das interdisziplinäre Team in
Sagalassos. In diesem Zusammenhang übt sie Kritik an der konservativen und einseitigen
Ausbildung der Archäologen in der Türkei. Ihre Arbeiten in Komana führt sie mit einem
ebenfalls interdisziplinär zusammengestellten Team durch. Sie bezieht die Bevölkerung
durch workshops für Frauen und Kinder und das Wecken von Interesse bei lokalen und
regionalen Behörden mit ein. Sie betont, dass all das durch Sagalassos inspiriert wurde und
schließt mit einer sehr persönlichen Hommage auf Marc Waelkens.
208
Postscript
Der Beitrag von Frank Vermeulen (S. 165) beschäftigt sich mit Beispielen aus seinem eige-
nen Arbeitsgebiet, dem römischen Westen. Er trägt den Titel „Interdisziplinäre, nicht in-
vasive Survey-Anwendungen bei antiken Städten“ Vermeulen wirbt in diesem Aufsatz für
die Aufnahme ganzer Stadtgebiete ohne sie auszugraben (nicht-invasiv), und zwar durch
die Anwendung von Luftfotografie, Photogrammetrie und Geophysik, mit Beispielen aus
Italien, Korsika, Portugal und mit der Vorstellung herkömmlicher und neuer Techniken.
Auch die Herstellung von digitalen Geländemodellen und die Visualisierung von Städten
durch virtuelle Rekonstruktion werden beschrieben und empfohlen. Eine nähere Bezie-
hung zu den Arbeiten in Sagalassos ist nicht gegeben, außer, dass auch dort die beschriebe-
nen Methoden schon länger mehr oder weniger stark angewendet werden.
Eine Arbeit, die in dieser Form aus einer anderen Grabung als Sagalassos nicht her-
vorgegangen sein könnte ist der Beitrag von Jeroen Poblome (S. 81) über ein wichtiges
Kapitel der antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte, nämlich die Herstellung, den Gebrauch und
den Handel von römischer Keramik aus Sagalassos.
Der Autor ist einer der frühesten Mitarbeiter von Marc in Sagalassos und wird seine
Nachfolge als Leiter dort antreten. Er war 1991 erstmalig auf der Grabung und hat 23
Kampagnen hinter sich. Das Thema seiner Doktorarbeit über die Feinkeramik von Sa-
galassos (Sagalassos Red Slip Ware) wurde ihm von Marc angeboten. In sehr herzlicher
Form wendet Poblome sich in der Einleitung an Marc und ein geistig-seelisches Vater-
Sohn-Verhältnis klingt an.
Nur Stichworte zum Inhalt seien hier genannt: Wirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Töpfe-
rei; Lebensdauer von Töpfereiprodukten; Bevölkerungszahlen im Römischen Reich und
in den Städten; Zahl der Haushalte, verschiedene Sorten von Gefäßen in einer Haushalt-
Generation (enorme Mengen!); Preise von Keramik (erschwinglich für Jedermann),
Keramikfabrikation: ein lohnender Geschäftszweig, ihr Platz in der antiken Wirtschaft;
Bildung von Genossenschaften; Steigerung der Produktivität durch Form-Techniken;
Sagalassos: Zentrum überregionaler Großproduktion; Oligopol der Produzenten/stabi-
ler Markt; Koiné und Zuverlässigkeit von Form und Qualität/zufriedene Kunden.
Unter dem Gesichtspunkt, dass auf Ausgrabungen und bei Surveys die wichtigste Fund-
gruppe, ja Fundmasse, Keramikscherben sind und dass außerdem in Sagalassos ein Töp-
ferviertel gefunden wurde ist klar, wie wichtig und zentral dieses Thema ist. Der Autor
möchte es als Beispiel einer ‚soft interdisciplinarity’ sehen, angesiedelt unter den Gei-
steswissenschaften.
Die Entwicklung der interdisziplinären Forschung in Sagalassos und seinem Umland ist
auch eine Art „Hintergrundsthema“ in dem großen Beitrag von Lutgarde Vandeput und
Stephen Mitchell (S. 97) über „Sagalassos und das Pisidien Survey Projekt“. Beide sind
eng mit der Forscherpersönlichkeit von Marc Waelkens verbunden, Mitchell als Weg-
gefährte der frühen Jahre in dem gemeinsamen Pisidien-Survey, der dem Sagalassos-
Projekt seit den 1980er Jahren voranging, und Vandeput als Schülerin von Marc und
Fortsetzerin der Pisidien-Surveys bis in die heutige Zeit.
Der Beitrag bietet nicht nur einen Überblick über die Grundzüge der Geschichte von
Sagalassos und von Pisidien von der Frühzeit bis ans Ende der byzantinischen Epoche,
209
Wolfgang Radt
sondern auch Einblick in die schrittweise Erforschung eben dieser Geschichtsentwicklung

mittels archäologischer Methoden, vor allem Survey’s. Die meisten der in diesem Beitrag
berichteten Fakten wären nicht bekannt ohne diese Methoden. Begonnen haben die Ar-
beiten mit den drei traditionellen und unbedingt zusammengehörigen Survey-Techniken:
topographische Planaufnahme, Architektur-Rekonstruktion, epigraphische Aufnahme.
Durch den Survey wurde die historische Entwicklung Pisidiens erst geklärt: Hellenisierung
im 2. Jh.v.Chr., Romanisierung in augusteischer Zeit und in der antoninisch-severischen
Epoche. Das Sagalassos-Projekt entwickelte sich aus dem Pisidien-Survey und ging dann
natürlich seine eigenen Wege. Aber survey-Methoden wurden auch bei der Erforschung
von Sagalassos weiterhin angewandt. Besonders bei den Architekturstudien wird das deut-
lich. Der Pisidien-Survey und die Sagalassos-Grabung haben auch kleine Ausschnitte des
vorhellenistischen Pisidien gezeigt, aber ein klares Bild der Gesellschaft der Frühzeit und
ihrer Entwicklung hat sich nicht gewinnen lassen. In hellenistischer Zeit war Pisidiens
Landkarte gesprenkelt mit voll entwickelten, unabhängigen Stadtstaaten. Sie alle hatten
eine Agora und ein Bouleuterion. Eine neue Welle von römischen Bauten gab es in allen
größeren Städten von der Zeitenwende bis etwa 150 n. Chr., aber in Sagalassos ging diese
Entwicklung zügig weiter bis zum Beginn des 3.Jh. Die wichtigsten römischen Gebäude
und Skulpturen von Sagalassos werden in dem Beitrag der Reihe nach aufgeführt, denn
Sagalassos ist die am reichsten ausgestattete und am besten dokumentierte Stadt der Re-
gion, eine Fall-Studie par excellence. In der Spätantike blühten die pisidischen Städte. Die
Wohnquartiere waren dicht besiedelt. Kirchen wurden gebaut und dafür Tempel abgeris-
sen oder überbaut. Dreischiffige Basiliken waren nun die einzigen Monumentalbauten in
den alten Stadtgebieten. Diese Erkenntnisse wurden nur durch archäologische Evidenz ge-
wonnen, ohne Inschriften. Eine führende und beispielhafte Rolle spielten die Grabungen
in Sagalassos bei der Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Christentum und Heidentum
in der Spätantike. Die Surveys im Umland von Städten, besonders Sagalassos und Pedne-
lissos, brachten die Beteiligung von Spezialisten aus vielen Disziplinen und damit Massen
an Informationen. Erstmals boten diese beiden Surveys detaillierte Einsichten in die Be-
siedlung der Landschaft. Der Beitrag schließt mit der Feststellung, dass das Sagalassos-
Forschungsprojekt durch die Einführung interdisziplinärer und naturwissenschaftlicher
Methoden in die Archäologie unsere Kenntnis und unser Verständnis der antiken Welt
enorm gesteigert hat. Die Ergebnisse gehen über eine regionale Studie weit hinaus und
sind wichtig für die Erforschung der Antike generell.
Der letzte Beitrag der Festschrift, der sich direkt mit Sagalassos beschäftigt, ist der Auf-
satz von (Frau) Ebru Torun und (Herrn) Semih Ercan über „Zwei Jahrzehnte Anasty-
losis-Erfahrung in Sagalassos“ (S. 27). Der Aufsatz ist von einer Architektin und einem
Ingenieur aus der Türkei geschrieben, die ihr bisheriges Berufsleben ganz oder überwie-
gend dem Restaurierungsprojekt Sagalassos gewidmet haben. Die beiden haben enorme
Erfahrungen gesammelt und breiten einen umfassenden Katalog von Empfehlungen
dafür aus, in welcher Form und mit welchen Methoden an antiken Orten die Restaurie-
rung/Anastylosis von Gebäuden betrieben werden sollte.
Zweifellos steht Sagalassos, noch vor Ephesos, an der Spitze der Antikenstätten mit
besonders großer Restaurierungsaktivität in der Türkei. Die Erfolge dieser Tätigkeit
210
Postscript
stehen jedem Besucher in Sagalassos vor Augen. Was aber nicht jeder Besucher sehen
kann, ist mit welchem Aufwand an Planung und Vorbereitung, an technischer Kenntnis
und Sorgfalt dieses Ergebnis zu Stande kam.
Trotzdem sollte aber bei der Lektüre des Beitrages nicht vergessen werden, dass der
Stein der Weisen für diese Thematik nicht allein in Sagalassos gefunden wurde. Die
hier ausgebreiteten Kenntnisse und Erfahrungen sind zumindest teilweise schon Jahre
vor Sagalassos z.B. in Ephesos und in Pergamon angewendet worden, ja sie gehören
zum Standardrepertoire jeder lege artis durchgeführten Architektur-Anastylosis. Trotz-
dem kann es nicht schaden, sie in konzentrierter Form wie hier zusammenzufassen und
Kollegen an anderen Orten in der Türkei, wo z.T. weniger sorgfältig gearbeitet wird,
vor Augen zu führen. Der größte Feind einer sorgfältig und kunstgerecht durchgeführ-
ten Anastylosis ist, wie auch in dem Beitrag von Torun und Ercan betont, von außen
kommender Druck zu allzu schneller und damit unsorgfältiger und nicht fachgerechter
Arbeit. Meist steht hinter solchem Druck der Wille interessierter Kreise, eine möglichst
baldige Fertigstellung des Wiederaufbaus für touristische Zwecke zu erwirken. Diesem
Druck darf nicht nachgegeben werden.
Torun/Ercan schlagen fundamentale Kriterien für den Entscheidungsprozeß und
grundlegende Techniken vor, basierend auf den Erfahrungen in Sagalassos.
Dazu gehört zunächst, nach einer sorgfältig dokumentierten Ausgrabung, die Feststel-
lung der „Einmaligkeit“ des Monuments und die Beantwortung der Frage, ob es einen
Wiederaufbau überhaupt Wert ist. Bei dieser Evaluierung sollten Experten verschiede-
ner Fachrichtungen beteiligt werden. Die Prüfung sollte auch berücksichtigen, wie ein
Wiederaufbau sich ins Stadtbild einfügt und ob die Ruinenlandschaft nicht empfindlich
gestört wird. Die Entscheidung kann aber nicht nur nach ästhetischen Gesichtspunkten
erfolgen, sondern es muß festgestellt werden, wie viel geeignetes Steinmaterial über-
haupt für einen Wiederaufbau vorhanden ist. Die Frage der Eignung bezieht sich nicht
nur auf die Menge der vorhandenen Baublöcke (möglichst ca. 80%), sondern auch auf
deren Zustand und ihre Stabilität sowie darauf, ob später sichtbare Seiten der Steine
noch unversehrt erhalten sind. Dazu müssen die Einzelteile ausgelegt, gezeichnet und
fotografiert und Fragmente auf einer horizontalen Fläche zusammengefügt werden. Für
alle diese Arbeiten braucht man erfahrenes Personal, vor allem auch hochqualifizierte
Handwerker. Fachleute verschiedener Disziplinen müssen in ständigem Kontakt zu-
sammenarbeiten. Wie die Entwicklung auch an anderen Orten zeigt, wo viel und konti-
nuierlich Anastylose getrieben wird, z. B. in Pergamon und Ephesos, ergibt sich daraus
zwangläufig die Entstehung einer lokalen „Schule“ von Restaurierungsfachleuten, die zu
pflegen und zu erhalten ist. So wird auch jedes dieser Anastylose-Zentren seinen eige-
nen Stil und seine eigenen besonderen Techniken entwickeln, die jeweils den neuesten
Erkenntnissen und Möglichkeiten der Technik angepasst werden. So hat die „Schule“
von Sagalassos in letzter Zeit die Technik der Steindübelung von Glasfaser- auf Karbon-
faser-Dübel umgestellt, man wendet Neoprenplatten als Dämpfer gegen Erdbeben-Er-
schütterungen an und statt des Pantographen zur Formfindung für Ersatz-Steinblöcke
werden computergesteuerte Kopiermaschinen (CNC) eingesetzt. Andere Grabungen
werden sich eine solche technische Perfektion oft schon finanziell nicht leisten können.
Das Ausstrahlen der Anastylose-Erfahrungen von Sagalassos auch an andere Orte in der
211
Wolfgang Radt
Türkei steht aber schon seit langem fest. Was vielen anderen nicht gelungen ist, nämlich
die dauerhafte Finanzierung solcher Langzeitprogramme: für Sagalassos ist sie allein den
ständigen und erfolgreichen Bemühungen von Marc Walkens zu verdanken.
Mit John Bintliff, dem Autor des Aufsatzes „Der Beitrag des regionalen Oberflächensur-
veys zur byzantinischen Landschaftsgeschichte in Griechenland“ (S. 127) hat man den
wohl produktivsten und universalsten Vertreter der Methode des Landschafts-Surveys
überhaupt für die Festschrift gewonnen. Mit Marc verbinden ihn lange kollegiale Kon-
takte und gegenseitige Wertschätzung. Bintliffs methodische Ansätze haben zweifellos
auch die Surveys in Pisidien und im Umland von Sagalassos inspiriert, obwohl er dort
nie mitgearbeitet hat. Wie Marc ist er ursprünglich Klassischer Archäologe, hat sich
aber bald viel weiteren Interessenfeldern, von der Prähistorie bis zu nachmittelalterli-
chen Zeiten sowie der Landschaftsarchäologie zugewandt.
Sein Beitrag exemplifiziert, basierend auf regionalen Oberflächensurveys in Grie-
chenland, die Methode, die dann auch erfolgreich im Umland von Sagalassos angewandt
wurde und die Möglichkeiten dieser Methode für einen weitreichenden historischen
Erkenntnisgewinn. Der Fokus liegt auf der „byzantinischen“ Epoche, die hier aber auf-
geteilt wird in die spätrömische Zeit (4.-6. Jh), die Übergangszeit (7.-9. Jh.), die mittel-
byzantinische Epoche (9.-12. Jh.) und die spätbyzantinisch-fränkische Zeit (13.-14. Jh.).
Immer wieder auftauchende Stichworte sind:
Besiedlungsmuster; Import von Keramik; Rückschlüsse auf die Wirtschaftsform;
Kriege und Barbareneinfälle; Entvölkerung;Verarmung von Städten; Verschwinden
von Städten; Epidemien (Pest); Bevölkerungsrückgang und Eindringen von neuen Völ-
kern (Slawen); Rückeroberungen durch Byzanz; Erholung und revival von Städten und
Landschaften; Klimawandel usw.
Alle diese Phänomene wurden an verschiedenen Orten mit Mitteln des Surveys durch
die Epochen hindurch verfolgt und registriert. Alle sind mit Beispielen belegt. Erst für
die späteste Zeit (die frühosmanische Epoche des 14. Jh.) lassen sich die Ergebnisse der
surveys mit schriftlichen Quellen, den türkischen Steuerlisten, vergleichen. Und deren
Angaben stimmen tatsächlich mit den Surveyergebnissen überein. In seinen conclusions
betont Bintliff das hohe Potential von regionalem Oberflächen-Surveys und nennt die
notwendigen Surveytechniken.
Der Aufsatz von Raymond Brulet über die „Neue städtische Identität im 5. Jh. im Norden Gal-
liens“ (S. 185) stützt sich auf ein Langzeit-Forschungsprogramm, das von Marc Waelkens in-
itiiert wurde und an dem eine Forschungsgruppe seiner Univerität in Leuven für mehr als 25
Jahre beteiligt war und auch für die nächsten Jahre noch sein wird. Das erinnert mich etwas
daran, dass Alexander Conze, der spätere Langzeit-Direktor der Pergamongrabung, als er in
den 1870er Jahren als junger Professor nach Wien kam, die provinzialrömische Forschung in
den Teilen des damals zu Österreich gehörigen Balkans stark förderte. Etwa nach dem Motto:
auch im eigenen Staatsgebiet muß geforscht werden, nicht nur im fernen Mittelmeerraum.
Der Zustand der Städte in dem untersuchten Gebiet Nordgalliens ist im 5. Jh. durch
politische und administrative Unterschiede gekennzeichnet, was daher kommt, dass sich
manche Städte unter „barbarischer“ Kontrolle befanden, andere noch römisch- klassisch
212
Postscript
geprägt waren. Ein allgemeiner Niedergang ist bemerkbar. Es gab Siedlungen, die wei-
terhin bestanden, andere, die verlegt wurden und wieder andere, die eine Sonderrol-
le spielten. Die Gründe für den Wandel und den Bedeutungsverlust der Städte waren
meist ökonomischer Art. Neu war die Ummauerung seit dem Anfang des 4. Jh.- Große
Plätze verschwanden, die Thermen funktionierten nicht mehr, eine Deregulierung der
Wohnquartiere ist zu bemerken. Wohnhäuser wurden mit schlechteren Materialien
gebaut und nisteten sich in die Reste großer antiker Gebäude ein. Bischöfliche Bauten
bestimmten das Gesicht der Städte, die Form des Kirchenbaus war die Basilika. Versor-
gungseinrichtungen wie Getreidespeicher (horrea) waren verbreitet. Die Reste großer
antiker Bauten mischten sich mit Bauten merowingischer Bischöfe. Die Ergebnisse in
Städten Nordgalliens, etwa in Tournai, Cambrai, Tongres, Cassel, Bavay, Famars und
Maastricht wurden größtenteils durch Notgrabungen in den Stadtzentren in neuerer
Zeit gewonnen. Auch die Erforschung der Stadtmauern spielte eine Rolle. Gegenüber
einem früheren negativen Blick auf die Stadtentwicklung der Spätantike wird hier mehr
die Rolle von Kontinuität und Wandel positiv gesehen, was einer modernen Forschung-
stendenz entspricht. Betont wird auch, dass gerade regionale Studien einen viel verspre-
chenden Ansatz bieten, den Wandel in der spätantiken Stadtentwicklung zu erfassen.
Weder in der Forschungsmethode noch im Thema ist in diesem Beitrag eine Verbin-
dung zu den übrigen städtebaulichen Beiträgen des Bandes zu sehen, außer vielleicht,
dass die Erforschung der Spätantike auch in Sagalassos und seinem Umland eine große
Rolle spielt und dass sie auch das zentrale Thema des Beitrages von John Bintliff ist.
Der einzige Beitrag aus dem Fachgebiet der Alten Geschichte und Epigraphik (S. 43)
stammt von Werner Eck und behandelt die Dedikationsinschrift des Apollo-Klarios-
Tempels von Sagalassos. Eck ist seit 2004 mit der Bearbeitung der Inschriften von Sa-
galassos betraut.
Gegenüber abweichenden Meinungen weist Eck nach, dass es sich bei dem Stifter der
Tempelinschrift um Cornelius Proculus handeln muß, den römischen Statthalter der
Provinz Galatia zu Beginn der antoninischen Zeit. Es wird nachgewiesen, dass Sagalas-
sos von Augustus bis Antoninus Pius immer zur Provinz Galatia gehört hat. Lycia-Pam-
phylia war seit Beginn der vespasianischen Zeit an Galatia angeschlossen. Der Statthalter
dieser Doppelprovinz nahm auch die Dedikation des Tempels zu Beginn der Regierung
des Antoninus Pius vor. Wenn man genauer nachliest richtet sich diese Erkenntnis von
Eck auch gegen die Datierung des Tempels durch Marc Waelkens und Mitarbeiter ins
Jahr 119/120 (s. Anm. 16 und 17) und den damit verbundenen Schluß, dass Sagalassos
damals Teil der Provinz Asia gewesen sei (s. Anm. 18).
Damit ist der Aufsatz von Eck der einzige Beitrag mit einer wissenschaftlichen Kor-
rektur in der Festschrift für Marc Waelkens. Daß hier neuere Forschung und vielleicht
genaueres Hinsehen des Spezialisten zu einem anderen Ergebnis als dem früheren Er-
gebnis von Marc geführt haben, wird die wissenschaftliche Diskussion sicherlich anre-
gen und die fruchtbare Zusammenarbeit der beiden nicht stören.
Der weite Horizont der wissenschaftlichen Interessen von Marc umfasst auch die Eth-
noarchäolgie. So hat er, zusammen mit Kollegen aus Leuven, vor Jahren fünfzehn rezen-
213
Wolfgang Radt
te Wassermühlen im Gebiet von Sagalassos aufgesucht, aufgenommen und publiziert,

um diese Zeugnisse alter Technologie, die sich bis in die Neuzeit erhalten hatten, zu
dokumentieren und die Kenntnis für die Nachwelt zu erhalten.
Daran anknüpfend steuerte David Peacock seinen Beitrag über Segmented Mills in Clas-
sical Antiquity für die Festschrift bei (S. 153). Von solchen antiken Mühlen sind nur die
Mühlsteine oder Reste von ihnen erhalten geblieben, z.B. auf Delos oder im Nekyomantei-
on von Acheron (NW-Griechenland) oder auch in Ägypten. Die Mühlsteine waren immer
aus porösem, hartem Lavamaterial, das wohl aus Thera exportiert wurde. Der Grund für
die Wahl dieses Materials war, dass ein oberer Mühlstein benötigt wurde, dessen Ober-
fläche auch beim Abschleifen immer uneben und scharf blieb. Die Bezeichnung segmented
bezieht sich auf diese Mühlsteine und kommt daher, dass sie aus Einzelteilen bestanden, die
durch eine Ringkonstruktion zusammengehalten wurden, weil genügend große Stücke
für einen kompletten Stein nicht zu bekommen waren. Wie diese Konstruktion ausgese-
hen haben könnte, das wird am besten aus den Abbildungen des Beitrages klar. Die Ty-
pologie und die Funktionsweise der Mühlsteine werden von Peacock diskutiert, ebenso
ihre Datierung. Die griechischen Exemplare scheinen hellenistisch zu sein, die ägyptischen
römisch. Die Datierung ist aber sehr schwierig. Segmentierte oder komposite Mühlen
wurden auch in Mitteleuropa, in nachantiker Zeit noch hergestellt.
Der letzte der hier besprochenen Beiträge hat ebenso wenig wie der vorige direkt etwas
mit den Arbeiten von Marc in Sagalassos zu tun, wohl aber ebenfalls mit Marc’s weit
gespannten Interessen. Dazu gehört auch die Marmorforschung und die Suche nach den
Lagerstätten von antiken Marmoren. Aus diesem Interesse erwuchs auch die Gründung
des Forschungs-Verbundes ASMOSIA (Association for the Study of Marbles and Stone
in Antiquity), an der Marc entscheidend beteiligt war (1988).
Lorenzo Lazzarini (S. 141) trägt mit einer Spezialstudie zu diesem Wissensfeld bei,
einer “ersten Charakterisierung eines neu entdeckten bigio antico – Marmors aus einem
bisher unbekannten antiken Steinbruch bei Aghios Petros (Tripolis-Peloponnes)”. Auch
Lazzarini macht auf die Verdienste von Marc um die Marmorforschung aufmerksam.
Der bigio antico genannte Marmor ist von grauer bis schwarzer Farbe und wegen seiner
feinen kristallinen Struktur sehr gut zu bearbeiten. Er wurde in der Antike oft für (meist
acrolithe) Statuen und für Grabdenkmäler verwendet. Der Autor zählt die antiken
schwarzen Marmorsorten auf und beschreibt sie nach Herkunftsorten und Eigenschaf-
ten. Der hier besonders angesprochene, neu entdeckte antike Steinbruch von Agios Pe-
tros auf der Peloponnes liegt neben einem neu eröffneten modernen Steinbruch. Nach
den Bearbeitungsspuren ist der antike Steinbruch römisch zu datieren. Der Marmor ist
tiefschwarz. Auf Grund von naturwissenschaftlichen Detailuntersuchungen handelt es
sich um echten Graphit-Marmor. Der Beitrag schließt mit einer Aufzählung von Unter-
scheidungsmerkmalen vieler bighi antichi und mit dem Aufruf zu mehr Arbeit im Felde
und im Labor an diesen Marmorsorten, als Beitrag zur Lösung archäologischer Proble-
me an Kunstwerken aus diesem Material.
Wenn wir bedenken, dass hinter all den verschiedenen Bemühungen und Leistungen
der Festschrift-Beiträge der Einfluß und die Aura einer einzigen Persönlichkeit stehen,
214
Postscript
können wir für diese Persönlichkeit, nämlich den hier gefeierten Marc Waelkens, nur
unsere Bewunderung zum Ausdruck bringen.
Werfen wir einen Blick auf den wissenschaftlichen Lebensweg von Marc, so sehen wir,
dass er seine drei Studienabschlüsse von 1968 bis 1976 an der Universität von Gent mit
summa cum laude bestanden hat und dass dann eine folgerichtige Entwicklung zum
Professor in Leuven folgte. Auf diesem Wege gab es auch einige Stationen im Ausland,
die mit ehrenvollen Stipendien verbunden waren: 1976 Humboldt-Stipendiat am Ar-
chäologischen Institut der Universität Bonn, 1978 Junior Fellow am Center for Helle-
nic Studies in Washington, 1984 Visiting Member am Institute of Advanced Studies in
Princeton, 1986 Visiting Professor of the Archaeological Institute of America, mit Vor-
trägen an 30 Universitäten in den USA, 1989 Gastprofessor am Politecnico di Torino.
2004 Visiting Professor of the Australian Archaeological Institute.
Seit 1990 ist er Direktor der belgischen Ausgrabungen in Sagalassos. An der KU Leu-
ven lautete sein Professorentitel auf einem Stiftungslehrstuhl (1993-2002) „Professor of
Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology“, ein neues Fach, das ihm sozusagen auf den Leib
geschneidert war. Seit 1994 ist er Ordinarius im Fach Klassische Archäologie.
Auf diesem Wege hat es durchaus auch Verlockungen gegeben, die Universität zu wechseln
und in ein anderes Land zu gehen. Angebote aus den USA und Australien waren nicht nur
günstig sondern mit überwältigenden Gehaltserhöhungen verbunden.
Marc hat sie abgelehnt aus Treue zu seiner Universität, der KU Leuven, der er viel verdankt,
und aus Sorge um seine Doktoranden, die er weiter intensiv betreuen wollte. Das wirft ein
Licht auf seine Persönlichkeitsstruktur: bescheiden, zuverlässig, loyal und gewissenhaft.
Er ist Gründer bzw. Mitbegründer mehrerer wissenschaftlicher Initiativen und Institutionen:

1988: ASMOSIA (Association for the Study of Marble and other Stones used in An-
tiquity). – 1995: Master of Arts Programme ‘Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology’ (KU
Leuven). – 1996: ROCT (Roman Crafts and Trade). – 2005: CAS (Center for Archaeo-
logical Sciences; K.U. Leuven). – 2001-2003: 3D MURALE (3D Measurements and Vir-
tual Reconstruction of Ancient Lost Worlds of Europe).
Mehrere wissenschaftliche Akademien und Institute haben ihn zu ihrem Mitglied berufen:
Das Deutsche Archäologische Institut (1985), die Königliche Akademie für Altertums-
kunde und Kunstgeschichte von Belgien (1993), die Königliche Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, Literatur und Schönen Künste von Belgien (1998), das Österreichische Ar-
chäologische Institut (1998). Das Archäologische Institut von Amerika (2009).
Marc hat höchste Ehrungen und Preise erhalten:

Den E.J. Solvay-Preis für Geisteswissenschaften, die höchste Auszeichnung in Belgien
auf diesem Wissenschaftsgebiet (2000); zwei höchste Preise von der Republik Türkei im
Jahre 2002: die Altın Kazma („Goldene Spitzhacke“) für die Interdiziplinarität der Saga-
lassos-Grabung und die Üstün Hizmet Madalyası (Medaille für hervorragende Dienste),
den höchsten Orden der Türkei für Ausländer.
215
Wolfgang Radt
Vom belgischen König wurde er für seine Verdienste um die archäologische Forschung
in den Ritterstand erhoben (2009).
Seine Forschungschwerpunkte seien hier wenigstens überblicksweise aufgezählt:

Regionale Skulpturen-Werkstätten in Phrygien. Antiker Bergbau und Steinbruch-
Technologien. – Die Herkunft weißer Marmore in der Antike. – Architektur und Urba-
nistik im hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien.
Marc hat an verschiedenen archäologischen Grabungen und Forschungsvorhaben oft

viele Kampagnen lang teilgenommen. Grabungen: Pessinus (Türkei), Apamea (Syrien),
Thorikos und Provatsa (Griechenland), Aphrodisias (Türkei), Hierapolis (Türkei), Sa-
galassos (Türkei). Surveys zu antiken Steinbrüchen, in Italien, Türkei, Griechenland, Sy-
rien, Ägypten. Im Rahmen des Pisidien-Surveys (Türkei) Stadtforschung in Antiocheia,
Cremna und in Sagalassos (zusammen mit St. Mitchell). Alleinige Grabungsleitung in
Sagalassos seit 1990.
Kürzere Forschungsaufenthalte führten ihn an mehr als 10 Universitäten im Ausland

(außer den oben schon aufgeführten). Er hielt mehr als 500 öffentliche oder akademi-
sche Vorträge über Sagalassos in Belgien und im Ausland, meist verbunden mit Wer-
bung für die Grabung und direkten oder indirekten Spendenaufrufen. Es ist ihm ge-
lungen, große Mengen von Spendengeldern für Sagalassos zu mobilisieren. Sagalassos
war die erste ausländische Grabung in der Türkei, die Finanzierung aus der türkischen
Privatwirtschaft erhielt.
Marc hat zahlreiche Kongresse, Konferenzen, workshops und Ausstellungen organisiert

sowie unzählige Forschungsprojekte und Netzwerke wissenschaftlicher Zusammenar-
beit koordiniert, die von verschiedenen staatlichen, privaten, nationalen und interna-
tionalen Trägern finanziert wurden.
Die Publikationsliste von Marc ist unglaublich umfangreich. Vor soviel output von im-
mer bester Qualität kann der Berichterstatter nur in Bewunderung versinken.
Um eine Vorstellung von der Fülle der Titel zu geben seien sie hier auf Grund der aus-
führlichen Publikationsliste nur numerisch erfaßt und zusammengestellt:
158 Artikel in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften (1971-2012). Teils als Einzelautor, teils
zusammen mit anderen. Seit ungefähr dem Jahr 2000 nehmen die Beiträge in naturwis-
senschaftlichen Zeitschriften zu (immer zusammen mit anderen Autoren).
7 Bücher als Autor (seit 1982), davon 5 zusammen mit Co-Autoren.
12 Bücher als Co-Autor und Herausgeber (seit 1984).
6 Bände der Serie der Sagalassos-Reports (Sagalassos I-VIII, seit 1993), immer mit eige-
nen Beiträgen und als Herausgeber.
9 Bände der Serie der abgeschlossenen Forschungsberichte (Studies in Eastern Mediter-
ranean Archaeology, SEMA, seit 1997), als Herausgeber
159 Beiträge in Büchern (seit 1971). Meist in den Sagalassos- oder SEMA-Bänden oder
in Sagalassos-Jaarboek, oder in „Sagalassos, City of Dreams“.
216
Postscript
Hierzu bemerkt Marc: die meisten Ergebnisse der Arbeiten in Sagalassos sind nicht in
Zeitschriften, sondern in den Sagalassos-Bänden publiziert, um die Vorteile der inter-
disziplinäten Arbeit in einem einzigen Band zu präsentieren und um andere Klassische
Grabungen zu ähnlichem Vorgehen zu animieren.
11 Kapitel in weiteren Büchern.
136 Beiträge in voll publizierten Kongressberichten (seit 1971).
147 abstracts von internationalen meetings. Inhalt naturwissenschaftlich und meist mit
anderen Autoren (seit 2002).
3 Internet-Seiten.
Zum Abschluß dieses Überblicks sei noch darauf hingewiesen, dass Marc als Doktorva-
ter (promotor) bisher 29 erfolgreich promovierte Kandidaten betreut hat, dass weitere 3
Promotionen in Vorbereitung sind und dass er außerdem Co-Promotor in zahlreichen
weiteren Promotionsverfahren, vor allem auch mit naturwissenschaftlichen Arbeiten
ist, die sich mit Sagalassos befassen.
Es ist klar, dass hinter einer so unglaublichen Produktivität eine schonungslose Aus-
nutzung der eigenen Person steht. Marc hat auf sich selbst nie Rücksicht genommen,
sondern er hat seinen Körper und Geist so sehr in den „Dienst an der Sache“ gestellt, dass
dies einer Selbst-Ausbeutung gleichkam. Ich habe ihm gelegentlich deswegen ins Gewis-
sen geredet, aber ohne Erfolg. Er betonte immer wieder, dass Sagalassos sein Leben und
dass er mit Sagalassos sozusagen verheiratet sei. Trotz schwerster Krankheiten in den
letzten Jahren hat er sich nie davon abbringen lassen, selbst nach Sagalassos zu reisen
und jährlich die Kampagnen dort zu leiten. Ich rufe ihm deshalb zu: slow down, damit
Du noch lange etwas von Deinem Leben hast und damit Du allen, die Dich lieben und
schätzen, noch lange erhalten bleibst und sie an Deinem Wissen und Deiner Erfahrung
teilhaben lassen kannst.
217
Contributing authors
John Bintliff is a Professorial Fellow at Edinburgh University and Professor of Classical
and Mediterranean Archaeology at Leiden University. He has expertise in regional ar-
chaeological survey, historical geography and population studies of the ancient and me-
dieval world, and has published widely on European, circum-Mediterranean and Near
Eastern antiquity. He is internationally acknowledged for designing innovative regional
archaeological survey programmes, focusing on landscape history and long-term social
dynamics, from Iron Age through Graeco-Roman times to the medieval era, centred on
the established research programme in the region of ancient Boeotia, Central Greece.
Raymond Brulet est professeur émérite de la Faculté de Philosophie, Arts et Lettres de

l’Université catholique de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve), après avoir poursuivi une carrière
au Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique et prodigué des enseignements aux Uni-
versités de Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne) et de Liège. En qualité de Directeur du Centre de
Recherches en Archéologie Nationale de Louvain-la-Neuve et de président, puis membre
de la Commission royale des Monuments, Sites et Fouilles en Région wallonne, il a long-
temps été impliqué dans des programmes de recherches et dans des projets de valorisa-
tion du patrimoine archéologique en Belgique. Son enseignement a porté sur les périodes
gallo-romaines et médiévales et sur des questions d’archéométrie, de céramologie, de géo-
archéologie et sur les méthodes de prospections et de fouilles archéologiques.
Bea De Cupere is researcher at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and has been
doing archaeozoological work in Sagalassos since 1992. Her faunal studies at the site resulted
in numerous publications, including a monograph. After obtaining her Ph.D. in 1998, she
has also been active as an archaeozoologist at other sites in Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt.
Patrick Degryse is Professor of Archaeometry at the department of Earth and Environ-

mental Sciences and director of the Centre for Archaeological Sciences at the University
of Leuven. His main research efforts focus on the use of mineral raw materials in ancient
ceramic, glass, metal and building stone production, using petrographical, mineralogical
and isotope geochemical techniques. He teaches geology, geochemistry, archaeometry and
natural sciences in archaeology, and outside the lab he is active in several field projects in the
Eastern Mediterranean. He is author of over 150 scientific papers in international journals,
conference proceedings and books and is an A. von Humboldt Fellow and European Re-
search Council Grantee.
Werner Eck is professor emeritus for Ancient History in the University of Köln, where he
was teaching from 1979 till 2007. His research is concentrated on the history of the Roman
empire, especially the Roman provinces during the imperial period, foremost on the basis
of inscriptions. He is the director of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum on the Berlin-
Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin and also of the Prosopographia
Imperii Romani. He is editing together with several colleagues in Israel the multilingual Cor-
pus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae (CIIP) and one of the editors of the ZPE.
219
Semih Ercan is a civil engineer (Middle East Technical University, Ankara) with a
masters from the Raymond Lemaire Centre for Conservation at the University of Leu-
ven, specialized in stone conservation techniques. He works as an independent archi-
tectural conservation specialist and has participated in different conservation projects.
He is working for the Sagalassos project since 1993, as technical responsible and project
manager, and he participated in the conservation projects of the Late Hellenistic Nym-
phaeum and the Neon Library. He directed the conservation project of the Antonine
Nymphaeum between 1998-2010 and is still working for the conservation of the Upper
Agora monuments.
Deniz Burcu Erciyas is Associate Professor at the Middle East Technical University,
Graduate Program in Settlement Archaeology. Her topics of interest are the Hellenistic
period in Anatolia, Archaeology of the Black Sea, Archaeological Method and Theory,
Hellenistic period Numismatics and Public Archaeology.
Lorenzo Lazzarini is a full professor of Applied Petrography at the Università IUAV di

Venezia-Italy, and director of the LAMA (Laboratorio di Analisi dei Materiali Antichi),
belonging to the Sistema dei Laboratori of the same university. His fields of interest
span from ancient building materials to ancient paintings and pottery on which he has
published extensively. His main book on marbles is Poikiloi Lithoi, versiculores maculae. I
marmi colorati della Grecia antica, Pisa-Rome 2007.
Stephen Mitchell was Leverhulme Professor of Hellenistic Culture from 2002 in 2011
at the University of Exeter. As emeritus he enjoys an active retirement. He was made a
Fellow of the British Academy in 2002 and served on its Council, as well as Honorary
Secretary of the British Institute at Ankara. Most of his published work has been con-
cerned with Asia Minor in antiquity, explored through texts, inscriptions and archaeol-
ogy, with a particular emphasis on ancient Pisidia and, in recent years, on religious and
cultural history. The bench-mark publication of his earlier career was Anatolia. Land,
Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. He received an honorary doctorate in 2006 from the Theol-
ogy Department at the Humboldt University in Berlin.
David Peacock is Emeritus Professor of Archaeology at the University of Southampton

and a Fellow of the Societies of Antiquaries. He was awarded the Kenyon Medal of the
British Academy in 2011 and the Pommerance Medal of the Archaeological Institute of
America in 2012. He is best known for his work on pottery, but has had a lifelong inter-
est in querns and mills and his book The stone of life: querns, mills and flour production in
Europe up to c. AD500 will be published in 2013.
Jeroen Poblome is Professor of Archaeology at the University of Leuven, Belgium.

As Francqui Research Professor he coordinates research projects on the development,
sustainability and resilience of communities and regions, in the past and present, on the
phenomenon of suburbia in antiquity, on digital archaeological information systems and
on the Inventory of Crafts and Trade in the Roman East (ICRATES). He is involved in
220
fieldwork in Boeotia, Kinet Höyük as well as at ancient Sagalassos. He co-founded and
co-edits HEROM. Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture.
Wolfgang Radt is a classical archaeologist and worked as the director of the excavations
and the restoration programme of the German Archaeological Institute at Pergamon
(Turkey) between 1972 and 2005. His Ph.D. on the “Siedlungen und Bauten auf der Halbin-
sel von Halikarnassos” obtained an award from the University of Frankfurt/Main. With a
scholarship of the German Archaeological Institute he travelled widely for one year in all
Near Eastern countries. At Pergamon, he introduced up-to-date archaeological methods
which he had acquired in the prehistoric excavations of Manching (directed by Werner
Krämer) as well as at NorşunTepe (directed by Harald Hauptmann).
Ebru Torun is an architect, graduate of the Middle East Technical University in An-
kara. In 1995, she obtained her Master of Science degree from the Raymond Lemaire
International Centre for Conservation (RLICC) at the University of Leuven. She joined
the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project in 1998 where she currently is Deputy
Director and Site Manager. She completed the anastylosis of two monuments at Sagalas-
sos, namely the Northwest Heroon (2000-2009) and the Arch of Claudius (2011-2013).
Since 2005, she is also responsible for the architectural conservation and documentation
on the site. As the site manager since 2008, she works to transform the conservation
practice at Sagalassos into an archaeological heritage management process, in collabora-
tion with the authorities and a wide range of stakeholders. First community archaeology
project she developed for the site received the Development Market Place Award of
the World Bank, Turkey. She managed and completed a local development project at
Ağlasun-Sagalassos, funded by the West Mediterranean Development Agency of Tur-
key and the University of Leuven during 2011-2013.
Lutgarde Vandeput is the current director of the British Institute at Ankara (BIAA). She
studied archaeology and classical archaeology at the University of Leuven, where she also
completed her Ph.D. thesis on Roman architectural decoration and its development through
time, with Sagalassos as a case study. She worked as a postdoctoral Fellow of the Research
Foundation Flanders (FWO) and was granted an Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship in
1998 and again in 2013. From 2001 to 2006, she was Assistant Professor at the Archaeologi-
cal Institute of the University of Cologne. Her research and publications focus on the archi-
tecture, urbanism and settlement development in Asia Minor and Pisidia. She succeeded S.
Mitchell as director of the Pisidia Survey Project in 1998 and has, since then, led the project,
in collaboration with V. Köse. She is currently actively involved in the survey of the Aspen-
dos Archaeological Project (directed by V. Köse, Hacettepe University, Ankara).
Wim Van Neer undertakes archaeozoological research in Europe, the Near East and
North Africa. He is senior scientist at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences,
Brussels, where he is leading a team of bioarchaeologists. He is also part-time professor
at the University of Leuven where he teaches archaeozoology and he is a member of the
Center of Archaeological Sciences.
221
Gert Verstraeten is Professor of Geography at the department of Earth and Environ-

mental Sciences at the University of Leuven. His main research efforts focus on the study
of human-environment interactions at various spatial and temporal scales. He and his team
perform landscape reconstructions through a combination of quantitative field-based geo-
morphic and palynological approaches, but also through the application of spatially dis-
tributed numerical erosion and land use change models. He teaches physical geography,
environmental change, natural sciences and archaeology, tectonics and geomorphology,
science communication and leads international student field trips in physical geography.
He is also program director of the bachelor and master programmes in geography.
Frank Vermeulen is Full Professor in Roman archaeology and archaeological methodol-

ogy at Ghent University (Belgium) since 1998. From 2008 to 2011 he was also part-time
Research Professor at the University of Évora (Portugal). In his research two major themes
dominate: the archaeology of ancient Mediterranean landscapes and Roman rural and ur-
ban settlement history. He has a special interest in developing and using non-destructive
survey techniques, geo-archaeological survey and IT applications. Since 2000 he directed
large field projects in Italy, Corsica and Portugal. Recent co-authored and edited books in-
clude: Thinking about space. The potential of surface survey and contextual analysis in the defini-
tion of space in Roman times (2008), Ol’Man River. Geo-archaeological aspects of rivers and river
plains (2009), Changing Landscapes. The impact of Roman towns on the Landscape of the Western
Mediterranean (2010), Urban Landscape Survey in Italy and the Mediterranean (2012). He (co-)
authored some 150 scientific papers in international journals.
222

Exempli Gratia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exempli Gratia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXEMPLI GRATIA

SAGALASSOS, MARC WAELKENS

Edited by Jeroen Poblome

LEUVEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6

Lay-out and cover design: Frederik Danko (Vuurvlieg)

Within KU Leuven, professor Waelkens managed to establish a high quality research

Prof. dr. ir. André Oosterlinck

Part of my management task as vice-rector of the humanities and social sciences at KU

Prof. dr. Emma Vorlat

We wholeheartedly wish Marc many more wonderful years.

Carmen Willems Gilbert Van Baelen

Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos 27

Two Decennia of Faunal Analysis at Sagalassos 51

Holistic Archaeology and Archaeological Science at Sagalassos: 59

The Relation between Archaeology and Geography in Studying Past Human- 71

Money Makes Pottery Go Round 81

Sagalassos and the Pisidia Survey Project: In Search of Pisidia’s History 97

Interdisciplinarity in Archaeology and the Impact of Sagalassos 119

The Contribution of Regional Surface Survey to Byzantine Landscape 127

Segmented Mills in Classical Antiquity 153

La nouvelle identité urbaine au Ve siècle dans le Nord de la Gaule 185

Contributing authors 219

The Sagalassos Project:

1 Waelkens et al. 2011.

Suggested criteria for anastylosis

Prerequisites: is it practically possible?

Well-documented and complete excavation

8 ICOMOS 1964, 1965, art. 15.

Available original material

Reliable and accurate restitution

11 Waelkens et al. 2006; Rizzi 2007.

Structural condition of the in situ parts

State of preservation of the material and the deterioration process

Expertise and craftsmanship

Schedule and budget

14 Degryse et al. 2001 and 2002.

Beyond the practical: is anastylosis a must?

anastylosis decision is -ideally- a function of a wider conservation programme, linked to

Significance of the monument: is it ‘worth’ rebuilding?

18 Erder 1986; Ahunbay 1996; Jokilehto 2007.

monument dedicated to a prominent citizen is dated to the mid-Augustan period. It has

The physical impact of anastylosis on the site

24 Waelkens et al. 2000 and Waelkens 2002.

26 cf. Feld et al. 1996.

29 see also Nohlen 1999, p. 99.

The choice of conservation materials and techniques

30 Ercan et al. 1997.

1 Siehe dazu im Detail Waelkens 2002, pp. 311 ff.

21 Inschriften von Ephesus III 713; Eck 1999, pp. 67 ff.

24 Siehe PIR2 C 1422 und RMD IV 250.

General faunal studies and their archaeological integration

5 Bartosiewicz et al. 1997.

8 Van Neer et al. 2000; 2008.

The latest results and prospects for the future

20 Ottoni et al. 2011.

1 Renfrew and Bahn 2005, pp. 106-108.

History of the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project

3 Alcock 1994, p. 181.

Managing archaeological acience (and scientists)

8 Vanhaverbeke and Waelkens 2003.

9 Freestone et al. 2000; 2002.

The future of interdisciplinarity

Archaeological Research Project (SARP). Another contribution in this volume discusses