Accelerat ing t he world's research.

2002. E. Guidoboni, A. Muggia, C.

Marconi, and E. Boschi. “A Case Study
in Archaeoseismology: The Collapses
of t...
Clemente Marconi

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92: 2961-2982

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Archaeological evidence for dest ruct ive eart hquakes in Sicily bet ween 400 B.C. and A.D. 600
Carla Bot t ari

Temple "B" at Selinus: Render Charact erizat ion and Archaeological Int erpret at ion
Benjamin Sabat ini

Mazza, A. 2016, Reconst ruct ing t he coast al landscape of Selinus (Sicily, It aly) and Lipari Sot t o Monast …
Alba Mazza
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 92. No. 8, pp. 296 1- 2982, December 2002

A Case Study in Archaeoseismology.

The Collapses of the Selinunte Temples (Southwestern Sicily):
Two Earthquakes Identified
by Emanuela Guidoboni, Anna Muggia, Clemente Marconi,*
and Enzo Boschi

Abstract This article presents the results of research aimed at enhancing our
knowledge of the active faults in southwestern Sicily, which is considered a low
seismic hazard zone. The Selinunte archaeological park, the largest in the Mediter-
ranean, with its great temples and evidence of spectacular collapses, is an information
source that can be analyzed using the methodological approach of archaeoseismol-
ogy. Having assessed the situation concerning the interpretation of the collapse in
the literature (seismic and nonseismic events), we have proceeded to identify the
seismic indicators at Selinunte, which has required a detailed analysis of both old
and new archaeological evidence. We have reconstructed the history of the archae-
ological deposits, spoliation, and excavations. These data have been reevaluated in
the light of the most recent research and of methodological criteria already success-
fully used in previous works on archaeoseismology. By means of a detailed and
systematic critical analysis of the archaeological data, we have formulated a hypoth-
esis arguing that two seismic events had actually struck Selinunte, leading to the
collapse of the temples. One of the methods for this analysis is to visualize the
direction of the temples' collapse, pinpointing congruent chronological phases. The
results have allowed us to date the two earthquakes to a period between the fourth
and third centuries B.C. for the first, and for the second between the sixth and thir-
teenth century A.D. This work has provided new information for the archaeological
identification of seismic events in the total absence of written information.

Introduction: The Seismic Riddle

of Southwestern Sicily
Southwestern Sicily is considered to be an area of in-
frequent seismic activity. Only one earthquake of M > 5.5 is
known to have occurred in historic times in this part of the
island. It struck the Belice va\ley on 13 January 1968 (10 =
X Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg [MCSj, M 6.5) (see Boschi el
ai. , 2000). No other reference to a strong earthquake in this
region has been found in the earlier earthquake catalogs.
Research in historical seismology carried out in recent years
has not yet come up with any new information for the south-
western part of the island (Guidoboni el ai. , 1994; Guidoboni
and Traina, 1997) (particularly dealing with Sicily).
The tectonic evolution of the region around Selinunte
is controlled by south- and southeastern-verging thrusts and
a north-south trending right-lateral strike-slip fault. Al-
though some of these features are reported to be active by
*Present address: Department of Ans Hislory and Archaeology, Colum-
bia Uni versity. New York. New York: cm583@columbia.edu.
some investigators, very little evidence exists to date for the
location, geometry, and kinematics of the main seismogenic
sources of the region (Bigi el al. , 1989; Amadori el aI. , 1992;
Balia, 1992). The hypotheses on the seismogenic sources
have been elaborated by Valensise and Pantosti (20(lI) and
are portrayed here in Figure Ia. Noteworthy is the lack of
historical seismicity in western Sicily and particularly
around Selinunte.
In regard to the geology of the area being examined,
according to the Carla Geologica d 'llalia (Servizio Geolo-
gico d'ltalia, 1971 ), most of the Selinunte archaeological
area is built on Middle Pleistocene littoral deposits with
sandy-clayey intercalations (Piro and Versino, 1995). The
age of these deposits is constrained by the presence of typical
cold-climate microfossils and macrofossils such as Cyprina
Islandica (Fig. I b)
When this study was begun in 1998, it was clear that
there was a need for a better understanding of this area' s
seismicity. To this end, it was decided that the archaeological

2961
2962 E. Guidoboni, A. Muggia, C. Marconi . and E. Boschi

Figure I. (a) Summary map of historical seismicity of Sicily (data from CPTI Working Group,
[1999]). The rectangular boxes represent hypothesized seismogenic source derived from historical
(see method of Gasperini et al. (1999]), geological, and instrumental data (from Valensise and
Pantosti, 200 I). Notice the lack of historical seismicity in western Sicily and particularly around
Selinunte. (b) Summary scheme of Sicily showing the main tecto nic and kinematic features of the
region (from Bigi el al. , 1989). The tectonic evolution of the region around Selinunte is controlled
by south- and southeast verging thrusts and northsouth trending right-lateral strike-slip faults.
Although some of these features are reported active by some investigators, very little evidence
exists to date for the location, geometry, and kinematics of the main seismogenic sources of the
region .

sources should be investigated in order to complete the miss-
ing infonnation and to fonnulate possible theories about the
seismic activity of southwestern Sicily. The Selinunte ar-
chaeological zone was examined to obtain seismic infor-
mation on the area. This complex project required two years'
work and the creation of numerous models. A complete
monograph on the study is being prepared; in the meantime,
this article presents a summary of the work and its results
from the seismological standpoint. A short glossary in the
Appendix explains the specialist tenns used here and per-
taining specifically to the archaeology and architecture of
ancient Greece.
A Case Study in Archaeoseismology. The Collapses of the Selillume Temples
A Description of Selinunte
The place name "Selinunte" today refers to the site of
the Greek colony of Selinus, situated in the far southwestern
part of the island of Sicily, in the council territory of Cas-
tel vetrano (Trapani). Since 1981 the area has been protected
by the creation of a state park. An area of 270 hectares, it is
the largest archaeological park in the Mediterranean area and
the first one created in Italy aiming to preserve the archae-
ological zone from being ravaged by land developers (Fig.
2). The ancient city was built on a series of low ridges,
Hanked on either side by the ri vers Cottone and Selino (today
known as the Modione), whose mouths formed natural ports.
Morphologically, the site consists of a limestone plateau,
extending seaward with an acropolis and inland with the
northern hill of Manuzza. To the east of the Cottone valley
the eastern hill consists of a smooth outcrop of arenaceous
limestone. The sandy hill of La Gaggera, dominating the
marshy area around the mouth of the river, lies about I km
to the west of the urban settlement, between the alluvial plain
of the Modione on one side and a ridge of wind-borne dunes
on the other. The boundaries of the fortified city (of an area
of some 135 hectares) are marked by a chain of temples and
sanctuaries, traditionally referred to by letters of the alphabet
or names of divinities. Temples E, F, and G stand on the
eastern hill, while the temples of Demeter Malophoros, Zeus
Meilichos, Temple M, and the temple at Triolo Nord are on
La Gaggera (Muggia, 1997).
Tradition provides two dates for the founding of Seli-
nunte by colonists from Megara Hyblaea (southeastern Sic-
ily). In Diodorus (author of first century B.C., XIII, 59,4)
we find 651 B.C., whereas Thucydides (VI 4,2) mentions
628 B.C. Until recently, the archaeological evidence had
Figure 2. Archaeological Park of Selinunte (southwestern Sicily): aerial photo from
the southwest (photo taken by Barbagallo).
2963
seemed to favor the former, but a systematic review of the
pottery finds would now appear to indicate the latter date as
being more convincing (Dehl-von Kaenel, 1995), (Meola
1996-1998). Selinunte's foreign policy seems to have pur-
sued a constant pro-Carthaginian line until the defeat of the
Athenian expedition to Sicily, when Segesta asked the Car-
thaginians to intervene against Selinunte (415 B.C.). The city
was besieged and defeated by the Carthaginians in 409 B.C.
(Diodorus, book Xlii, chapter 43 ff.). Hermocrates of Syr-
acuse took up a defensive position among its ruins. With the
end of Syracuse's initiative. Selinunte alternated between
periods of Punic domination and rule by Syracuse.
Selinunte's long history is marked by various periods
when the city was first inhabited and then abandoned. Fol-
lowing the Carthaginian occupation in 409 B.C., it was de-
finitively abandoned in 250 B.C. in the wake of the Roman
conquest (Martin et al. , 1980). Traces of occupation during
Roman times are as scanty as they are controversial (Bovio
Marconi, 1957; Gabrici, 1923; D'Andria and Campagna,
2002). There is evidence that the site was not occupied again
until late antiquity and may have continued to be so fairly
continuously through the Byzantine (535- 827 A.D.) and
early medieval periods (ninth to eleventh century) (Molinari ,
1995). The top stratum of the acropolis, associated with
roughly built walls of poor quality, appears to have been
connected with a medieval village: judging from the frag-
ments of majolica and coins found there, this can be dated
to the thirteenth century A.D. The Arab geographer al-Idrisi
notes in the twelfth century that the area was called "Village
of the Pillars" or "Village of the Idols" (Rahl-al-A snlim), a
name derived from the survival of columns in situ, an indi-
cation that in the medieval period, all connection with the
previous place name had been broken (Trasselli, 1972).
2964 E. Guidoboni , A. Muggia. C. Marconi. and E. Boschi

The Prior State-of-the-Art Concerning
the Collapse of the Temples
The well-preserved condition of the stones of the great
temples that had collapsed, and the legibility of their ground
arrangement initially aroused scholars' interest as to the
eause of the collapses. Almost three centuries of travelers'
accounts and archaeological documentation on the site bear
witness to the recurring yet puzzling notion of a possible
seismic event at Selinunte. It is worth noting that, from the
beginning of the nineteenth century, archaeologists desig-
nated the temples and buildings of Selinunte with letters of
the alphabet. The maps in Figure 3 and Table I clarify this
matter and show the position of the structures discussed here.
The first of the archaeological accounts is based on the
digs carried out in the last few decades of the nineteenth
century. At first these were only concerned with retrieving
objects of artistic value, but then the digs were addressed to
investigating the sacred buildings. Particularly important in
this period were the excavations carried out by F. S. Cav-
a1lari (Fiorelli, 1876, 1877a,b, 1878, 1882). Uncovering the
remains of Temple C on the acropolis, Cavallari observed
that the architectural elements had remained in situ after the
fall. He carefully recorded the position of the columns and
reconstructed the dynamics of the collap e of the building
on the basis of the position of the fragments in relation to
their original position in the various walls and the roof. How-
ever, he did not take the next step that might have linked the
collapse to a possible cause. This link was made quite soon
afterward by the architects Koldewey and Puchstein (1899)
in their fundamental study of the temples of Selinunte, on
the basis of the position in which the buildings had fallen,
and in par1icular Temples C and E (Koldewey and Puchstein,
1899).
In the early years of the twentieth century, we find a
similar absence of suggestions about possible seismic events
Table I
Selinunte: List of the Temples Analyzed
Temple A 00. 8, possibily dedicated to Poseidon or the Dioskouroi;
Temple C no. 1. dedicated to Apollo, and adjacent structures nos. 2
and 3;
Temple 0 no. 4 , dedicated to Athena. and adjacent structures nos. 5
and 6;
Temple of Demeter Malophoros no. 15;
Megaron at North Triolo Temple no. 13. possibly dedicated to Hera;
Temple of Zeus Meilichios no. 16;
Temple E no. 10. dedicated to Hera;
Temple F no. 11 , possibly dedicated to Dionysius or Herakles;
Temple G no. 12. dedicated to Zeus;
Temple M no. 14. possibly dedicated to HerakJes;
Temple 0 no. 9, possibly dedicated to Poseidon or the Dioskouroi.
In the archaeological literature the temples mentioned are identified by
a leiter of the alphabet. Here we also give the dedications traditionally
associated with them. The numbers refer to the Slnlctures and their position
on the map in Figure 3.

2 Remains of a building
3 Graves
4 Temple 0 dedicated to Athana
5 Deposit
ｾ＠ ='OfwaJls
8 TempieA
9 TempleO
Byzantine fortress
or Punic sanctuary
10 Temple E or of Hera
11 Temple F dedicated to ｦ＿ＡｯＢｙＧｬｩｳｪ｛［ ｾｹＭｉＺ＠
12 Temple G dedicated to
13 Megaron at North Triolo
14 Temple M dedicated to Heraldes
15 Temple of Demetor MaIophoros
16 Tomenos of Zeus Mell1c1*- •
Figure 3. Genera] map of the archaeological site of Selinunte, showing the 16 build-
ings analyzed here, situated in the three areas of the acropolis, East hill, and, to the
west, La Gaggera hill (baseline as calculated by Menens (1989b)). The dots indicate
the 34 other archaeological sites analyzed in the course of our research.
A Case Study in Archaeoseisnwlogy. The Collapses of the Selinunte Temples
in the work by Gabrici (1956), which attempted a diachronic
reconstruction of the topography of Selinunte. Although
guided by very precise strategies for the analysis of historical
problems, he was in general less sensitive than Cavallari to
the matter of position and the formation processes of the
archaeological deposits, particularly insofar as the great tem-
pies were concerned. In his 1956 contribution, Gabrici ex-
plicitly declares his methodology, confirming his deliberate
decision not to give a detailed description of the later re-
mains that, he argued, were insignificant (Gabrici, 1956).
The seismic interpretation had, however, already been
considered scientifically in the huge monograph by Hulot
and Fougeres (19 10), a work known to Gabrici (1956) and
quoted by him. The two French scholars dedicated a section
to analyzing the remains of temples C, D, and G, detailing
specific places, directions, dynamics of collapse, and for-
mulating theories about the chronology of the event. The
collapse of the great temples could have come about as the
result of a strong earthquake between the fifth and sixth cen-
turies A.D., and Hulot and Fougeres (1910) very cautiously
suggest a date of around the mid-sixth century, when the
temple of Olympia in Greece collapsed as the result of an
earthquake. They do not, however, add any explanation for
this curious correlation. Hulot and Fougeres ( 1910) took
their interpretation further by aski ng, on the basis of the
various positions in which the architectural fragments lay,
whether the collapses had occurred as the result of one or
more than one seismic event, and whether these were "un-
dulating" or "subsultory" in nature, terms that today have no
direct scientific meaning, but neverthe less indicate the hor-
izontal and vertical character, respectively, of seismic move-
ment.
It was onl y with the digs carried out by Cultrera in 1935
that the seismic hypothesis was adopted for the first time by
an Italian archaeologist (Cultrera, 1937). It was, however,
not much more that an uncritical restatement of the obser-
vations made by Hulot and Fougeres ( 1910).
In the second half of the twentieth century, archaeolog-
ical research concentrated mainly on Selinunte as an urban
center, that is, on the ancient periods of settlement (628-<:a.
475 B.C.), the architectural study of the temples, and the
problem of the city walls. Although sometimes mentioned
in general summaries (Santangelo, 1961; Di Vita, 1985), the
seismic interpretation is systematicall y avoided in that it is
a geophysical matter that cannot be approached by archae-
ology. In the survey of Temple E, Gullini identified a slight
dislocation affecting the rocky surface of the eastern hill; he
attributes this minor feature to an earthquake occurring pos-
sibly in the eighth century A.D., a chronological hypothesis
advanced with no form of explanation, whether archaeolog-
ical or historical (Gullini, 1985).
Attribution of Temple Collapse to Nonseismic Events
Since the end of the eighteenth century, and well into
the twentieth, the destruction of the temples of Selinus has
been occasionally attributed to the Carthaginians and to Han-
2965
nibal, on the occasion of the siege and sacking of Selinus in
409 B.C. (most recently by Sebilleau [1968]). This theory is
mainly based on the regularity of the collapses, which has
been explained by the use of siege machines and even ele-
phants. Given that this theory is mostly found in travel de-
scriptions, it would be tempting to speak of a literary topos.
However, the same theory is also occasionally found in
scholarly literature (e.g., Schubring, 1865).
This theory is, however, untenable. There are plenty of
literary sources concerning the siege and sack of Selinus by
the Carthaginians in 409 B.C. (Ziegler, 1923), the most rele-
vant and most diffuse being Diodorus (book XIII, chapters
54-59), who draws on earlier sources (Philistus, Ephorus, or
Timaeus). Diodorus specifies the damage inflicted to the city
during the siege as well as during and after the sack. First,
the walls were knocked down during the siege and system-
atically destroyed after the sack. After the sack, the houses
were partly burned and partly razed to the ground. As for
the temples and sanctu aries, however, Diodorus expressly
states that the Carthaginians did not bum them down, in
order to be able to make proceeds from the great wealth that
was stored up in them as dedications. This is confirmed by
the archaeological evidence, given that there is no level (or
even trace) of destruction or burning of the temples that can
be dated to the end of the fifth century, a circumstance that
is well documented, instead, in the case of Agrigento, which
was also sacked by the Carthagi nians a few years later (De
Waeie, 197 1).
Diodorus is also very specific in referring to the ships,
troops, siege engines, and missiles used by Hannibal in his
expedition against Selin us. As for the siege engines, he men-
tions six towers and six battering rams plated with iron.
There is no mention of elephants, which is hardly surprising
given that these animals were first used in warfare in the
Mediterranean onl y after the death of Alexander the Great
(Ducrey, 1985; Connolly, 1998). In the specific case of the
Carthaginians, elephants were first used in the siege of Agri-
gen to in 262 B.C., during the first war with Rome (Connoll y,
1998). Their use in the siege of Selinus in 409 B.C. can thus
be excluded.
As for the towers, which were introduced in ancient
warfare precisely on this occasion (Ducrey, 1985), we know
from Diodorus that they were used as a platform from which
to shoot at the defenders on the walls, taking advantage of
the fact that the towers themselves were higher than the
walls. The use of the towers as a platform for catapults is
not mentioned and should be excluded, given that the cata-
pult was first introduced in ancient warfare by Dionsysus I
in 398 (Ducrey, 1985).
As for the battering rams, we know fro m Diodorus that
they were used to break down the city walls. This is hardl y
a surprise given that this was their function in ancient war-
fare practice (Ducrey, 1985; Connoll y, 1998). There is no
evidence whatsoever for the use, in the ancient world, of
battering rams for attacki ng and breaking down buildings.
This is not by chance, given that fo r this purpose fire would
2966
have been much more practical, as well as effective. Need-
less to say, there are no signs left by such weapon on the
shafts of the many preserved columns of the temples.
Recent Archaeology at Selinunte
In the I980s, the launching of the Malophoros Mission,
directed by Vincenzo Tusa (Tusa el al., 1984, 1986), and
the discovery of the temple attributed to Hera at Triolo Nord,
has made evident the need to reconsider the seismic problem
in its entirety.
Recent excavations carried out by the Istituto Archeo-
logico Germanico of Rome, directed by D. Mertens (l989a;
unpublished lectures), have contributed to a reevaluation of
the seismic problem from the archaeological perspective.
Excavations have been carried out at the acropolis on Tem-
ples C, A, and 0 , the indispensable reference points for the
identification of the phases of postantiquity occupation and
the relationship between these phases and the seismic col-
lapses. In particular, the area of Temples A and 0 has pro-
vided evidence of two different collapses attributable to seis-
mic causes, occurring before and after the late-antique and
Byzantine occupation (fourth to seventh century A.D.).
Finally, a recent study (Pompeo, 1999) of Temple M
on the hill of Contrada Gaggera probably confirms the oc-
currence of more than one seismic event, at times roughly
coinciding with the dates suggested for Triolo and the
acropolis.
As important as these observations and suggestions un-
doubtedly are, archaeologists have not backed them up with
the kind of systematic investigation of the evidence of seis-
mic activity or critical review of these elements that are, by
contrast, the aim of OUf present study.
Analysis of the Temples and Sites
By collating all the available data, it has been possible
to discover numerous archaeological areas affected by seis-
mic activity, identifiable in three main zones of the ancient
city: (I) acropolis, (2) East hill, and (3) La Gaggera hill (Fig.
3). We will consider each area separately, in topographical
order. For each area, we will discuss the most important
elements that we have interpreted as seismic effects. Twelve
buildings are examined altogether, with their positions
marked on the map in Figure 3.
In the course of our research we have also systemati-
cally examined all the archaeological investigations in the
area, identifying another 34 sites of archaeological evidence.
Although it is possible to hypothesize that some of these are
indicative of seismic events, a description and discussion of
all of these features lie outside the scope of this article. In
the map in Figure 3, the position of the 50 archaeological
sites analyzed is shown by a black dot. The complete ar-
chaeological documentation relating to these sites (many
thousands of items) is currently recorded in a database (Sto-
ria Geofisica Ambiente [SGAj, 1999).
E. Guidoboni, A. Muggia, C. Marconi. and E. Boschi
Acropolis: Temple C, or of Apollo
Reliably believed to have been built in 550-530 B.C.,
the large Doric temple (no. I) was for Selinunte an important
focal point-political, religious, and, in the later period,
military-in all its phases of classical and postclassical oc-
cupation (sixth century B.C. to sixth century A.D.). Among
the markedly archaic architectural features of this temple, it
is worth mentioning the nine monolithic columns of the
southern side of the peristyle, differing from the others,
which are made up of the usual six or seven drums of stone:
this detail probably influenced the position of the remains
after the collapse. In the I940s the northern side of the build-
ing was reerected (see Fig. 4). Although this move may have
made the site more attractive to tourists, from our point of
view it was for the most part "destructive" and obliged us
to use documents and surveys dating from before that time
that showed the previous position of the columns.
Two main directions of collapse have been identified in
this building. First direction: the east side fell had already
been recorded by Harris and Angell in 1823 (Angell and
Evans, 1826), who discovered the regular sequence of met-
opes and trigliphs lying in front of the temple. From the
present state of preservation of the ruins it is also possible
to infer the position of the columns of the colonnade within
the peristyle, and in particular of columns I and 2 (corre-
sponding to columns 2 and 3 of the fa,ade) that fell in a
east-east-southeast direction. This position is evidence that
the direction of fall of the building was from west to east
(Marconi, 1995, pp. 42-46). The state of the western side,
severely affected by periods of postantique pillaging (fourth
century A.D. onward) do not allow us to draw the same con-
clusions for this part of the structure as can be deduced for
the east side. Second direction: a more obvious sequence of
collapse affected the northern side, where a clear south to
north direction of fall was noted by Cavallari (Fiorelli,
1877b, 1882). The same destructive event similarly affected
the south side (Fiorelli, 1876), although here the monolithic
columns reacted differently, falling into slightly divergent
positions. Variations can also be found at the comers, as in
the case of the temples on the eastern hill (see the following
section), that collapsed diagonally and with a movement of
torsion relative to the internal structure (Fiorelli, 1884; Mar-
coni 1995).
Although Cavallari identified the manner ofthe collapse
of Temple C, he did not provide any interpretation of the
evidence from a seismic perspective. This further step was
made by the aforementioned Hulot and Fougeres (1910),
who, noting the undamaged foundations and the position of
the north colonnade, explained the position of the fallen
blocks as being perhaps the result of the ground rising in an
undulating motion from south to northeast or possibly of a
sliding movement of the rock base from north to south,
which would have caused the building to rock and fall to-
ward the north.
The dating of the collapse of Temple C is greatly com-
A Case Study in Archaeoseismology. The Collapses oj the Selinunte Temples
a constructions." Particularly interesting was the discovery of
Ｐ ［Ｎ｟ Ｎ［ＱＰ ｾ ］ Ｒ［ Ｐ＠ m
c
Figure 4 . Selinun.e, acropolis, Temple C (no. I).
(a) The collapsed north perystile, photographed by
Hulot and Fougeres (19 10). Thi s document is particu-
larl y imponant because this side of the temple was
subsequentl y reerected . This architectural restoration
resulted in the destruction of our primary source of
information on the dynamics of the collapse (i .e .. vi-
sual analysis); (b) Pl an showing the di rectio n o f fall
of the columns; (c) aerial photo from the south (photo
.aken by Barbagallo).
plicated by the continuity of inhabitation of the area after
the Hellenistic period (323- 250 B.C.). Excavati ons in the
nineteenth century resulted in the almost total removal of
the deposits of earth covering the remains, destroying at the
same time any possibility of further investigations into the
stratigraphic relati onships of the strata before and after
the collapse. One fi xed point is prov ided by the presence of
numerous structures from the Punic period (409- 250 B.C.)
around Temple C. Here we find the remains of a building in
the southwest comer (no. 2), covered by fall en architectural
fragments and what appear to be walls built between the
existing columns in the post-Greek period (Fiorelli, I877a).
In March 1877 an important discovery was made in re-
lation to the seismic question: along the north side of the
temple (no. 3), a large number of graves covered by tufa
blocks were found, all empty of goods of an y sort and form-
2967
ing part of a necropoli s that "stood over other more ancient
two crosses that Cavallari describes as " Byzantine", made
out of fragments of the temple' s architrave "that had already
fallen here" (Fiorelli, 1877, p. 66). It should be stressed that
the descripti on "B yzantine" is very vague as an indication
of date, and the lac k of objects in the graves is similarly
uninformative . Funhermore, according to Hulot and Foug-
eres ( 19 10), the custom of placing a Byzantine cross on a
tomb continued into the Norman period (eleventh to twelfth
century A.D.). Upon excavating the eastern prospect with its
entrance to the cella, Cavallari (Fiorelli, 1878) observed the
existence of later walls discovered beneath the fallen col-
umns. Reoccupation in the late-antique period before the
collapse can be confirmed by the discovery, in the northern
peristyle, of an African lamp bearing the inscription Deo
Gratias, datable to some time between the fo urth and fifth
century A.D. (Fiorelli, 1882; D' Andria and Campagna,
2002).
In 192 1- 1922, Gabrici identified an occupation phase
that he describes as "late." It was characteri zed by buildings
of irregular plan constructed from recycl ed materials, asso-
ciated with deposits containing domestic pottery, tiles, rub-
ble, a few coins of the Roman Empire, and frag ments of
majolica that dated these structures to the late-antique period
(fourth to sixth century A.D.) up to the time of the Arab
invasion (ninth to tenth century A.D.). Between these late
walls and the archaeological deposits of the ciassical period
(fifth to fourth century B.C.) a th ick sterile layer was found
(I.5- m max imum thickness). This can be related to the 100
years when the site was abandoned before being reoccupied.
In the S section of the acropolis, at a depth of 0.8-1.0 m,
many graves were found containing skeletons all pointing
the same way and lying on their ri ght sides. These were
interpreted by Gabrici (1923, p. 106) as Arab graves (ninth
to tenth century A.D.).
Summarizing the data relating to Temple C, the follow-
ing observations can be made:
I . The terminus post quem for the great seismic collapse is
provided by the late occupati on of the area, generally
referred to by the archaeologists as "Byzantine." The
structures in sened into the temple' s peri style stand
roughly 0.60 m above the level of the platform. There is
no concrete evidence for the dating of the tombs. The
only find giving a date is the fo urth- to fi fth-century-A.D.
lamp that pre-dates the collapse.
2. The presence of the so-called " Byzantine" grave markers
made of reused architectural materi al (fragments of ar-
chitrave) beneath the collapsed stones is puzzling. It may
be that the dating of these fragments is incorrect (they
may be medi eval), or perhaps there was a partial collapse
of the entablature, occurring in the postciassical but pre-
Byzantine period (i.e., between 250 B.C. and sixth cen-
tury A.D.), and not necessaril y the result of a seismic
event but simply of structural weakness.
2%8
3. The late-antique and Byzantine period (fourth to eighth
century A.D.) may panIy coincide with the period that
Gabrici (1923, p. 105) extends to the Arab period (ninth
to tenth century A.D.), on the grounds of the discovery of
walls and fragments of majolica. The related structures
stand a maximum of 1.5 m above the archaeological (pre-
sumably Greek) level and are built over a deposit char-
acterized by signs of abandonment and pedogenesis. The
so-called Arab graves, discovered in the southern part of
the acropolis and therefore very likely to be near Temples
A and 0 , are at this same level and of this period.
From these observations, it can be shown that the ter-
minus post quem is very likely to be post-Byzantine (sixth
to eighth century A.D.) and possibly also post-Arab (ninth
to tenth century A.D.).
Acropolis: Temple D or of Athena
Temple D (no. 4) was built in the third quarter of the
sixth century B.C. Alterations to the structure coincide with
the periods of ancient occupation: Hellenistic-Punic period
(323-250 B.C.), Byzantine to early medieval (535 A.D.-
eleventh century) and modem interventions (archaeological
excavations, nineteenth to twentieth century), as we have
already seen with Temple C.
However, an analysis of the remains of Temple D re-
veals a general state of preservation that is less legible and
less coherent than that of Temple C, as if the structure had
not fallen in one precise direction with a single movement.
It is worth noting that, while the position of the fallen blocks
of Temple C was such as to immediately suggest the way in
which the building had fallen, thus leading to the hypothesis
of a seismic event, the same was not the case for Temple D.
Analyzing the state of the ruins, it can be seen that the
dynamics of the collapse have a northerly direction, chiefly
affecting the northern side (where the directions found are
northeast and northwest) and the southern side (prevailing
direction northeast). The situation is not so clear in the col-
onnades of the short sides, where the columns had fallen in
many different directions: the western side has collapse di-
rections to the northeast, southeast and southwest; on the
eastern side the columns have fallen to the northeast, north-
west, south, and east. On the eastern side, stones from the
central columns of the proruJos can be seen lying to the
northeast and to east-northeast.
The collapse of Temple D can barely be made out, and
this has influenced the quality of the documentation arising
from excavations. The building ruins were cleared by Sali-
nas (1898), the area to the east of the temple was dug up by
Gabrici in the 1920s (Gabrici, 1929), while the northern area
was investigated by Cultrera in 1935 (Cultrera, 1937). Both
areas show evidence of buildings of the Hellenistic period
(ca. third century B.C.) that provide a tenninus post quem.
Between this Hellenistic phase and the later period of oc-
cupation that Gabrici-following tradition, but mistak-
enly---calls "Roman," though which should more correctly
E. Guidoboni, A. Muggia, C. Marconi, and E. Boschi
be seen as late-antique or early medieval, there is a deposit
between I m and 1.5 m deep (nos. 5 and 6).
The presence of postclassical buildings (fourth to sixth
century A.D., maybe later) in the peristyle of Temple D,
perhaps military or defensive in function, is referred to in
the twentieth century (Trasselli, 1972). However, neither Sa-
linas nor Gabrici paid any attention to the relationship in
time (later, earlier) among these structures and the ruins of
the temple, nor to the possible concomitance of the late
structures in the different areas. In 1868, graves were dis-
covered containing skeletons in a good state of preservation,
covered with slabs of tufa and containing pieces of domestic
pottery (Trasselli, 1972) (see also the earlier Cavallari
[ 1868]).
A nearby site that shows recognizable traces of seismic
activity is the Cultrera excavation in 1935 (no. 7), lying
alongside the street that runs east-west to the north of Tem-
ple D. The diggers found that the stenopos was blocked, over
a distance of more than 6 m, by large parallelepiped blocks
that intruded into the path of the street from south to north,
lying in almost concentric curvilinear rows. These were in-
terpreted as being part of collapsed walls (Cultrera, 1937,
p. 156).
To sum up the data relating to Temple D:
(I) the area shows evidence of occupation wholly simi-
lar to that at Temple C, and the dating of the seismic event
is therefore arrived at in a broadly similar way; (2) if Cul-
teera's excavations are taken to be reliable, the terminus post
quem of the collapse can be set at some point in the post-
Byzantine period, 535-827 A.D.; however, it is also quite
likely that later medieval phases (twelfth to thirteenth cen-
tury) dating from before or after the collapse, may not have
been identified; and (3) the presence of a necropolis on the
southern side, perhaps of the same period as the one to the
north of Temple C, presents evidence of a problematic nature
because its chronological relationship with the collapse is
unclear.
Acropolis: Temples A and 0 and The Building
Constructed on Their Remains (or Ruins)
The archaeological sequence of Temples A (no. 8) and
o (no. 9), described as twin temples, has proved to be of
great importance in unraveling the problem of the seismic
events at Selinunte. The state of preservation of the ruins,
badly affected by postantiquity pillaging, together with a
number of intractable problems relating to the research,
make this an ambiguous area, not only concerning the nature
of the later periods of occupation, but also as to what the
area looked like in the classical period (fifth to fourth cen-
turies B.C.).
Temple A (no. 8) is a Doric peripteral of 6 X 14 col-
umns, oriented east-west, and built on a three-step platfonn.
An architectural oddity is the presence of spiral staircases
built within the thickness of the wall dividing the pranaos
from the cella. It dates from approximately the mid-fifth
century B.C. (Gullini, 1985, p. 470). According to Gullini,
A Case Study in Archaeoseismology. The Collapses of the Selinunte Temples
Temple A was demolished during the Carthaginian sacking
in 409 s.c.: the proMos was subsequently closed, and the
building was reused as a place of worship (Mertens, 1997)
(Fig. 5).
A reconstruction of the plan of Temple 0 (no. 9}--<>f
which little more than the three-stepped platform has been
found-indicates that it must have been identical to Temple
A: peripteral having 6 X 14 columns, a proMos and opis-
thodomus having columns in antis, a cella and adyton, and
spiral stairs. The date of Temple 0 was determined by Gul-
lini ( 1985, p. 470) as 425-409 B.C., ending with the definite
destruction of the building in 409 and later insertion of Punic
buildings into the platform. However, studies carried out by
Mertens (l989a) emphasize that the platform of Temple 0
reveals no holes or traces of imposts, whether actual or
planned, for the raising of further architectural elements. As
it has not been possible to work out with any certainly which
piece belongs to which structure from among the countless
architectural fragments in the area, it may be that the con-
struction of the temple remained unfinished from the fifth
century B.C. The reconstruction of the postclassical phases
(fourth century A.D. onward) relies entirely on the data pub-
lished in Mertens (l989a) and on information given to us
during the course of this study by D. Mertens himself and by
A. Molinari (personal comm., December 1999) relating to an
excavation carried out in 1996 on the eastern side of Temple
A, at the only spot where the stratification was undamaged.
Deposits from the classical and Punic periods (fifth to
mid-third century B.C.) appear to be covered by sandy layers
and by a collapse that damaged the south and east colonnade
of Temple A. The remains from this first collapse relating
to the south colonnade were removed and reused in the con-
struction of a new building; the structures of the east col-
onnade are still in situ and show a direction of fall toward
the east-southeast.
According to Mertens' interpretation ( 1989a), during
the sixth to seventh century A.D., a defensive structure was
built using material taken from the collapsed southern peri-
style of Temple A. It stood on the remains of Temple A and
on the platform of Temple 0 according to an interpretation
that had already been formulated by Naselli (1972, p. 21).
The construction was made by walling up the spaces be-
tween the columns of the western, northern, and eastern peri-
style of Temple A, connecting the platforms of the two tem-
ples, and adding square buttresses to the comer angles and
along the sides. The result was a robust construction, form-
ing a square with sides 42 X 45 m in le ngth. It had square
towers at the comers and along the eastern, western, and
southern sides, a central courtyard, and living quarters and
store houses on the southern and eastern sides. An important
feature of this construction was the reuse of the northern
peristyle of Temple A that had remained in situ (Mertens,
I 989a, pp. 395-396). The ground-level dating from the time
of the fortress is about 2 m above the earlier floor of the
temple.
Two interpretative criteria should help to date this build-
2969
ing. The fi rst is typological and relates the building at Seli-
nunte to sixth century Justinian (527- 565 A.D.) fortifications
in North Africa, in both urban (Naselli, 1972) and nonurban
(Mertens, 1989a) contexts. However, D' Andri a and Cam-
pagna (2002) pointed out that Byzantine fortresses are con-
siderably wider in size than the presumed fortress in Seli-
nunte. The second criterion is the comparative dating within
Selinunte itself. Buildings and archaeological finds show
that Selinunte was reoccupied in the fifth or sixth century
A.D. Furthermore, work carried out in the postclassical pe-
riod to refortify the walls around the acropolis has been doc-
umented (Mertens, 1989a, b). This work included an area
where the principal finds relating to the Byzantine period
(535-827 A.D.) have been discovered. The absence of dat-
able material in the postantique layers, together with the ru-
inous state of the medieval structures, make precise dating
rather difficult.
After the Byzantine reoccupation of the site in the Byz-
antine period (sixth to ninth centuries), there is evide nce of
occupation during the Arab period, documented by the oc-
casional find of Islamic pottery dating from the tenth and
eleventh centuries. In the 1996 excavation, a low, roughly
built wall was discovered against the tower on the eastern
side; its foundation trench was found to contain fragments
of tenth-century pottery. Thus the tenth century is the latest
point in time discovered by excavation. These excavations
carried out in the tower on the southern side have found
perishable structures (postholes) associated with artifacts
from the Swabian period (twelfth to thirteenth century)
(Molinari, 1996).
Finally, cutting through al l the preceding structures, al-
though not correlated to the original deposits, is a later cir-
cular lime kiln in the southwestern comer of the platform of
Temple 0 , outside the perimeter of the fortress but still
nearby (Naselli, 1972, pp. 22, 26). Merte ns (l989a, p. 396)
mentions the remai ns of medi eval buildings, preserved be-
neath the architrave of the eastern wall of the castle that
collapsed as a result of an earthquake. Pottery from perhaps
the thirteenth century has been found immediately to the
west of these buildings and represents the last archaeological
traces of Selinunte.
A very recent hypothesis provides a totally different in-
terpretation of the same evidence. Based on a meticulous
survey of building techniques, D' Andria and Campagna
(2002) recognized in Temples A and 0 a Punic sanctuary
dedicated to Tanit. According to the authors, this sanctuary
is similar in size and plan to the Punic Cappidazzu sanctuary
in Mozia (northwestern Sicily). It consists of a building for
worshipping, processions and sacrifices built inside Temple
A, and an open courtyard with southern accessory rooms,
corresponding to the platform of Temple O. The whole com-
plex is enclosed by a wall, which overlaps the perimeter of
Temples A and 0 and incorporates the northern colonnade
of Temple A. This sanctuary probably ceased being fre-
quented in 250 B.C. On the eastern side, the enclosure has
been proven to have collapsed sometime between the late
2970
first century B.C. and the first century A.D. (D' Andria and
Campagna, 2002). The latter interpretation emphasizes the
presence of archaeological features whose re ligious impli-
cations had been overlooked until now. By contrast, it calls
into question hoth the presence and the supporting effec-
tiveness of postclassical structures in the area.
It should be stressed that, unlike what we have found
for the other buildings of Selinunte, Temple A shows signs
of two distinct seismic collapses. For this reason, it is im-
portant to emphasize that the few pieces of data avai lable,
albeit separated into two different events, appear to confirm
what has already been concluded for Temples C and 0 ahout
the direction of fall . As regards the chronology, benchmarks
change in relation to the hypothesis that we accept ahout the
functions of the post-Greek structure built on Temples A and
O. The first collapse involved the eastern and southern sides
of Temple A sealing in the deposits fro m the Punic period,
thus establishing a fi rst tenninus post quem, which can be
set in the fourth to third century s.c. The terminus ante quem
is provided by the construction of the Byzantine fortress in
the sixth to seventh century A. D., according to Mertens
( 1989a) or by the building of the Punic sanctuary, that is the
same fourth to third century B.C., if we accept the hypothesis
of 0 ' Andria and Campagna (2002). The lauer interpretati on
could be very helpful because it agrees with the evidence in
Triolo Temple at La Gaggera (see following secti on). The
first collapse shows that the east colonnade fell toward the
east-southeast, whereas the southern side was removed in
antiquity and its position is not known.
The situation with regard to the second collapse is more
complicated. The tenninus post quem is provided by the for-
tress itself, in the one case, or by the Punic sanctuary, in the
other, that we know was still standing in the first century
B.c. In hoth cases, the northern peristyle fell toward the
north, covering up other constructions. It has been observed
that this second collapse toward the north assumes a consid-
erable rise in the ground level ahove the walls of the Punic
peri od. On the eastern side, a fragment of architrave fell onto
remains of the medieval buildings, (eleventh to thirteenth
century A.D.) (Mertens, 1989a). Postantique pillaging (250
B.C. onward) has made any interpretation of the southern
and western sides impossible. Here attempts to set a terminus
ante flounder. It has been shown how excavati ons provide
evidence fo r two later periods of occupation, one datable to
the Arab peri od (tenth to eleventh century) and the other to
the Swabian period (thirteenth century). The most prec ise
and useful piece of info rmation would seem to be provided
by the low wall on the eastern side, with its fo undation
trench reveali ng tenth century material, were it not for the
fac t that the wall has no connection and no physical rela-
tionship the second collapse. The second chronological ter-
minus seems to be even more uncertain: the medieval re-
mai ns below the collapse, mentioned by Mertens ( 1989a),
are close to structures that have yielded the Swabian pottery
(thirteenth century) but are not the same. In terms of strati-
graphic seque nce, "near" is not the same as "below."
E. Guidoboni , A. Muggia, C. Marconi , and E. Boschi
We can sum up by saying that two seismic collapses
have been clearly established, al though chronological evi-
dence whereby the date of the events might be set is weak.
The possibility of narrowing down the dating is greatly ham-
pered by pillaging of the area in the past. Following the
stratigraphic sequence, the fi rst event can be placed in the
Punic period, that is, the fo urth to third century B.c., whereas
the second collapse must have taken place sometime be-
tween the late first century B.C. or sixth century A.D. and the
tenth to thirteenth centuries.
East Hill : Temple E or of Hera
This large temple (no. 10), started around 460-450 B.C.,
was reerected in the mid-twentieth century. From an analysis
of the remains, weB documented from models, drawings and
surveys carried out before the ir reerecti on, it is possible to
deduce the dynamics of the building collapse, which fell
towards the north and the east, reacting to a thrust fro m the
south and west-southwest. The building behavior was simi-
lar so far as the peristyle and cella were concerned, but ex-
ceptions are the comer columns and columns 2-5 of the
south side, which fell diagonally outward.
In earlier archaeological literature, these collapse pat-
terns (long sides towards the north and short sides to the
east) are reported by almost all scholars, although with vary-
ing degrees of emphasis (Cavallari and Holm, 187 1; Kol-
dewey and Puchstein, 1899; Hulot and Fougeres, 19 10).
Three different stances have been taken regarding the inter-
pretation of this type of fall : the hypothesis of a manmade
cause, connected with the destruction of the city by the Car-
thaginians in 409 B.C., dominates the travel literature and
represents a ki nd of literary topos. In the second half of the
nineteenth century (begi nning with Hittorff and Zanth
[1 8701) the seismic interpretation takes root, as scientific lit-
erature begins to take over fro m that of the traveller, until it
too becomes a topos. Koldewey and Puchstein (1899) com-
pared the directions of fall with those of Temple C, deducing
that a single event caused the collapses. Hulot and Fougeres
( 19 10) are the keenest supporters of the seismic interpreta-
tion but also the most confused in their descripti on of the
state of the ruins and the position of the fallen stones, despite
their appare ntly scientific methods. In addition to a consid-
erable number of mistakes in the ir architec tural descri ptions,
they show substantial misunderstandings ahout the collapse
of the building, almost as if their ingenious ideas ahout the
supposedl y subsultory nature of the shock had been fo rmu-
lated far from the site of the ru ins.
Gullini ( 1977) attributed the slight incline of the lime-
stone surface of the eastern hi ll , which has slipped in a south-
eastward direction, to an earthquake, an event that caused
the collapse of the temples, perhaps in the eighth century
A.D. As mentioned previously, the author does not offer any
evidence supporting this date (Gullini , 1985).
The theory of Bovio Marconi (1957, 1967) can be added
to the two theories, namely, the one of destructi on through
war and the other fro m a seismic event. She refutes the hy-
A Case Study in Archaeoseismology, The Collapses oj the Selinunte Temples 2971

____ first earthquake Figure 5. Selinunte. acropolis: Temple A:

._---- ------ - - - - -
ｾ＠ second earth uake -- - . plan with survey of the collapse on east side
and northwest angle and indications of the di-
. -

· m
rections of fall of the peristyle (graphic elab-
oration from the plan of Mertens [J 997J and
drawing by A. La Porta).
ｾ＠
t
- --
'
•

t
Ｇ ｬＧ

•
ｾ＠
,I
- - - - - - - _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "t.,. • , ' ,. '- " ］ ｾ ｲＬ＠

｛ｊＱｾ｟＠ _---,1§1
------ -
. I

. I

o 5 10 m

pothesis of a seismic collapse on the basis of the lack of 6 X 14 columns, linked by low stone walls, with a row of
historical documentation, structural observations (absence of columns in front of a pronaos with a solid wall.
damage signs in the foundations), and of chronological con- In the archaeological literature, the only specific refer-
siderations relating to the building collapse in around ence to the causes of the temple' s collapse is made by Gullini
250 B.C. She attributes the cause of the collapse to the aban- ( 1985), who identified it with an earthquake that occurred in
donment of the city in 250 B.c. The terminus post quem for the eighth century, but without having offered any expla-
the collapse of Temple E is supplied by the reoccupation of nation for this date. In detailed studies of the temples on the
the building in Punic times, with the continuation of worship eastern hill, it is almost always taken for granted that Temple
in the cella and adyton (Marconi, 1994). At the time when F collapsed as the result of an earthquake. However, the less
the columns were being reerected, it was found that the impressive appearance of these ruins, and their relatively
southwest corner of the peristyle had been reused to form a poor state of preservation compared to those of Temples E
house, created out of the walled-up columns and covered by and G, have meant that no detailed studies have been de-
a roof supported by beams inserted into the cella wall. A voted specifically to Temple F. Nevertheless, the available
hearth was discovered in situ against this wall, and on top evidence does provide some valuable clues.
of it, crushed by architectural fragments, a Carthaginian pot, I! is clear that the collapse of this temple was the result
datable to sometime between the end of the fourth and be- of a strong thrust toward the north (north and south sides)
ginning of the third century B.C. (Bovio Marconi, 1957). The and toward east-southeast (eastern internal colonnade. west-
data collected by Bovio Marconi (1957) would appear to ern side), which is particularly pronounced on the long sides
disprove the interpretation of the simultaneous collapse of of the peristyle and in the columns standing before the pron-
all the Selinunte temples in late antiquity. In view of the aos (Fig. 6). There are exceptions to this overall picture, as
presence of pottery in situ, the collapse of Temple E does in the comer columns (or at least that in the southwest cor-
not seem to have occurred much before the time when the ner) or on the long sides (column 10 of the northern peri-
building was abandoned and may be connected with the de- style). I! seems reasonable to assu me that the temple was
struction in 250 B.C. Of course it may be that the crushed struck by an event similar to the one affecting Temple E and,
hearth was the result of a partial collapse of the temple, at least in part, Temple G. To compensate for the absence
rather than its complete collapse. of data for the eastern facade, it should be said that the
The absence of traces of postantique (250 B.C. onward) carved metopes and the triglyphs from the frieze of the peri-
occupation around Temple E, such as were found on the style on this side were discovered in 1823 on the eastern
acropolis, makes it impossible to accurately establish the col- steps. The excavation report indicates that the frieze was not
lapse date, although it seems to have been sometime in the rearranged in its fall, retaining the arrangement of alternating
post-Punic period. At some unspecified time after the col- metope and triglyph (Marconi, 1995). Furthermore, there is
lapse, the site was used as a quarry. a convincing relationship between the way in which the tem-
ple fell and its architectural structure. I! is not accidental that
East Hill: Temple F or of Dionysius a large number of the lower drums of the columns have
Temple F (no. II), begun around 520 B.C., presents remained in situ, not having fallen with the rest of the shaft.
particular architectural features that need to be taken into I! seems to have been the result of a combination of two
account when analyzing events there. I! has a peristyle of factors that interacted with the collapse mechanism: the dif-
2972
Figure 6 . Selinunte, East hill , Temples E (no. 10), F (no. II ), and G (no. 12): aerial photo
(photo taken by Barbagallo). The Temple E was re-erected in the mid-twentieth century .
ference in height between the first stone drum and those
above it and the existence of walled sections between the
axial spans (Sinopoli, 1989).
Data relating to the occupation of Temple F are scarce.
In the fourth and third centuries B.C., the building was af-
fected by the growing settlement on the eastern hill, when
houses were built up against it in order to support the franne-
work of their panelled masonry. This has been interpreted
as showing that the building had lost its religious function
(Zoppi, I996a). The Punic period thus represents the ter-
minus post quem for the collapse of the structure. A s with
Temple E, there is no evidence of periods of postelassical
occupation. Similarly, periods of early reuse or pillaging in
the postcollapse period have not been documented, at least
not until well into the eighteenth century, when it was used
as a stone quarry (Gurrello, 1756; Zoppi, I 996b).
East Hill : Temple G or of Zeus
A quick look at the architectural structure is necessary
before analyzing the ruins of Temple G (no. 12). It is a huge
pseudodipteral structure of 8 X 7 columns with a naos with
three naves, the central nave concluding in a adyton (or,
according to other interpretations. a sekos with two rows of
columns leading up to the entrance to a naiskos).
The facade was followed by a deep prostyle pronaos
with columns aligned with the antae, while at the back there
was a opisthodomos in antis. The columns on average con-
sist of seven stone drums producing a height of over 16 m.
The entablature had a height of - 6.56 m. Scholars disagree
as to how the building was covered: according to some the
E. Guidoboni , A. Muggia. C. Marconi, and E. Boschi
temple had the standard roof style, with beams supported by
a second (or third) order of columns within the cella (Kol-
dewey and Puchstein, 1899; Dinsmoor, 1975; Gruben,
1986). Others believe that the temple was hypaetbral, or un-
roofed with an open central nave and cella, and perhaps also
adyton and pronaos (or perhaps at least one of these)(Angell
and Evans, 1826; Hittorff and Zanth, 1870; Mertens, 1984;
Gullini, 1985; Ttille-Kastenbein, 1994).
The building of the temple started in around 530-520
B.C. Work must still have been in progress in 409 B.C., the
date of the destruction by the Carthaginians. After the col-
lapse of the temple, its ruins were left almost untouched, the
huge size of the blocks making it difficult to transport or
even move them . It comes as no surprise to learn that the
remains lying scattered about the eastern hill and other parts
of the site are known as the "Pillars of the Giants."
Scholars agree that the temple fell down as the result of
an earthquake (Koldewey and Puchstein, 1899; Hulot and
ｆｯｵ ｧｾ ｲ･ ｳＬ＠ 1910; Dinsmoor, 1975; Fasolo, 1977; Gullini,
1977, 1985). Only a few of them, however, have used the
ruins as a basis for the interpretation of the way in which
the building actually fell: for Koldewey and Puchstein
(1899), the majority of the columns must have fallen toward
the east, with those on the north side veering slightly to the
south, and those on the southern side veering slightly to the
north, so that the majority of the stone blocks making up
the temple accumulated inside it, almost completely cover-
ing its ground area.
As far as dating is concerned, scholars see the collapse
as occurring at the same time as that of Temple C, in view
A Case Study in Archaeoseism%gy. The Col/apses of the Selinunte Temples
of the presence of similar traces of postantique reuse. For
Hulot and Fougeres (1910), the building collapsed in on it-
self as a resu lt of a shock that they described as "subsultory"
(according to the terminology of the time, in order to indicate
the prevalence of the vertical movement), determining the
inward collapse of the columns. Fasolo (1977) interpreted
the collapse differently, noting (I) an oblique dislocation of
the comer columns, which fell diagonally; (2) the fall of the
columns of the long sides inward, at various angles; (3) the
collapse of the walls of the cella into the space of the naos
and peristyle; (4) the collision of the columns of the E facade
with the inner columns of the pronaos.
An examination of the ruins reveals the general ten-
dency of the columns of the peristyle to fall inward, with
the exception of the first comer columns. It should also be
added that, in falling inward, the columns undoubtedly
veered toward the east, something that is particularly appar-
ent to the south in the columns of the prollaos and Opislho-
domos, and in the structure of the adyton. The walls did not
move in the same way, and their collapse seems for the most
part to have been toward the interior of the peristyle
(Fig. 7).
Thus, in interpreting the collapse, it is necessary to see
as decisive factors the stress on the structures following from
a strong east-west thrust and a varying reaction to this stress
by the different architectural components as a result of the
type of roof covering (or lack of it). The present, essentially
unchanged, state of the ruins offers a number of opportuni-
ties for an in-depth investigation of the dynamics of the col-
lapse from an engineering view point and of the causes that
determined it. This second aspect of our current research will
be dealt with this year.
For an understanding of the periods of later occupation,
which might indicate a date for a tenninus post quem, we
need to refer to Koldewey and Puchstein ( 1899). They de-
scribed the frequent filling of the rows of columns with
roughly built walls; similar in-filling was also identified in-
side the cella. They see the building technique of these walls
as being similar to that of the small Christian houses around
Temple C. It is difficult to accurately set a lerminus anle
quem in view of the absence of datable traces of occupation
after the collapse. It is possible that, after the collapse, parts
of the epistyle were reused, and there are numerous indica-
tions in the first half of the nineteenth century, attested to by
archival sources, that this may be the case (Marconi, 1995).
La Gaggera Hill: Temple of Hera at North Triolo
Discovered in 1982 during the excavations carried out
by the Missione Malophoros (see Tusa el al., 1984, 1986),
this little temple (no. 13) was built in 600-575 B.C. During
the Punic period (409-250 B.C.) the east front was reinforced
and consolidated; it should be emphasized that the hill of La
Gaggera has always been morphologically unstable on ac-
count of the occurrence of seismic events and the effects of
rain and wind (Tosa el al. , 1986). Shortly after the rebuild-
ing, a seismic event destroyed the building, causing the inner
2973
walls and roof to fall in a single thrust from south to north.
The use of the temple as a place of worship continued in the
cleared back part of the cella, creating a short-lived structure
that was presumably roofless and with access through gaps
in the outer walls. There is evidence that this was followed
by the gradual burying by sand of the structure, which was
abandoned during the third century B.c. (Tusa el al., 1984).
The seismic evidence can be seen on the long sides of
the building: outside the north wall, preserved up to a height
of eight courses, eight blocks from the collapsed wall lie
parallel to, and to the north of, the wall itself. This wall
collapsed onto a thick sandy layer (Tusa el. al., 1986). In
the south wall, still standing to a height of three courses, a
block near the southeast corner seems to incline inward ; in-
side the temple, that is, still toward the north, fallen blocks
can be seen near the southeast corner, coming from the
southern wall. Ground levels relating to the stone building
are sealed by a yellowish sandy deposit, which is covered
by a layer of humus (Parisi Presicce, 1984; Fanara, 1986).
The date of this event can be set at the middle of the fourth
century B.C.
The archaeological evidence has posed many problems
of interpretation to the excavators: this building is, in fact,
the only case for which other theories, besides that of an
earthquake, have been put forward (Parisi Presicce, 1986).
The cause of the collapse has been sought in three possible
events: (I) a strong earthquake that devastated the whole
city; (2) a tsunami that swept the city; (3) a violent wind
storm that was able to build up such a large mass of sand
against the walls that "it created a strong one-sided pressure
on them," (Parisi Presicce, 1986, p. 50).
Supporting the first hypothesis is the uniformity of the
directions of fall of the other temple buildings on the acrop-
olis. The second hypothesis explain' s the slight southeasterly
lean found in all the walls of the building as being due to
the effect of the withdrawing of the flood water after a tsu-
nami. The third hypothesis explains why the north inner wall
fell onto a sandy deposit that rose to a notably higher level
than the ground level inside the building, onto which the
south inner wall collapsed. However, it should be observed
that in this region, the wind piles up deposits so rapidly and
consistently that there is no need to resort to a interpretation
of this sort.
La Gaggera Hill: Temple M
It is only in recent years that an analytical survey of the
remains still in situ and an examination of the excavation
records from the 1950s have made it possible to obtain a
complete picture of the architecture of Temple M (no. 14),
identifying the likely function of its various elements and
reconstructing the phases of activity (Pompeo, 1999). Pre-
viously interpreted as a monumental fountain (Massena
1978- 1979), this large site appears now to have been made
up of a temple, maybe dedicated to Herakles, a staircase, a
terrace, and a monumental altar, all positioned in a magnifi-
cent setting. Together with the sanctuary of Demeter Mal-
2974 E. Guidoboni, A. Muggia, C. Marconi, and E. Boschi

o 10 20 m

Figure 7. (a) Selinunte. East hill. Temple G (no. 12): aerial photo from the west
(from Gullini. 1985); (b) Plan showing direction of fall of the columns. This great
temple collapsed in upon itself in an overall twisting movement that brought it down
in a single phase.

ophoros and the building of Triolo. the Temple M complex
was part of a sacred area dedicated to cults associated with
the gods of the underworld.
Supported by artifacts found in the excavations. the ar-
chitectural characteristics of the temple date its building to
570-560 B.C. (Pompeo. 1999). It was used for only a rela-
tively short period. Although there is no firm chronological
evidence, the temple seems to have been abandoned at some-
time between the end of the fifth and the beginning of the
fourth century B.C .• at about the time of the Carthaginian
destruction. It is possible, however. that the building may
already have been damaged by earthquakes. On unstable ter-
rain. such as that of La Gaggera, such events can be par-
ticularly damaging. After the temple had been abandoned. it
incurred further damage. caused by lack of maintenance,
ground subsidence. and probably by seismic events that fur-
ther undermined the solidity of the buildings leaving in situ
only the western inner wall of the temple. This collapsed at
a later date onto a refuse tip, sometime after the fourth or
third century B.C. In the following centuries. the complex
was used as a source of building material (Pompeo. 1999).
The presence of pottery and the reuse of some of the
blocks to the east of the terrace provide evidence of a fairly
long period of reoccupation, albeit quite modest in character.
in the late-antique and Byzantine periods. The remains of
the temple seem to have been greatly affected by the effects
of the earthquake that devaslated Selinunte at a later period.
An investigation of the arrangement in plan of the surviving
structures and of the foundations produces a picture defi-
nitely indicative of seismic events. Similarly. the deforma-
tions discovered could not have happened in the presence of
solid wall s in situ on iheir foundations. We can conclude,
then, that this seismic event, probably datable, for Temple
M. to the post-Byzantine period, resulted in the following:
A Case Study ;11 Archaeoseismology. The Collapses oj the Selinullre Temples
(I) the dislocation of the eastern foundations downhill;
(2) the sinusoidal line of the surface of the courses of the
northern foundations; and (3) the undulating hori zontal line
of the blocks of the northern part of the terrace (Pompeo,
1999).
La Gaggera Hill : Sanctuary of Demeter Malophoros
and the Temenos of Zeus Meilichios
In the Temple of Demeter Malophoros (no. 15), there
is evidence that the inner wall of the adyton has been rein-
forced. Gabrici (1 920) attributed this work to the late-
antique or Byzantine period (fifth to seventh centuries) on
the basis of the ev idence of renewed occupation discovered
in the temenos from about the fourth century A. D. Gabrici
also notes a collapse of the roof and the back inner wall of
the building, later partially repai red. Gabrici's account is
suggesti ve of the li ke lihood of a seismic event; un fo rtu-
nately, neither the chronological relationship between the
reinforcing of the wall of the adyton and the collapse (pos-
sibly later?) nor that between the collapse and the restoration
of the area are clear.
In the lemenos of Zeus Meilichios (no. 16), remai ns of
structures relating to two different periods have been dis-
covered. The fi rst is characterized by paneled masonry build-
in gs in whic h there is some reuse of arc hitectural fragments
(belonging, therefore, to the Hellenistic-Punic period, 323-
250 B.C.); the other has irregular walls made entirely of re-
used material, defined as extremely decadent and built up
against the sacred buildings. A house built within the walls
of the temenos belongs to thi s second phase: the lemenos
had partly collapsed, but the linle temple was still standing
because fragments from it were discovered on the ground
and we re not reused in the house. The temple and the house
collapsed at the same time (Gabrici, 1927).
It is therefore possible that we are dealing with two
collapses: one earlier, partial collapse, occurring someti me
between the Punic and the late-antique period and before the
building of the house in the lemenos and a second that can
be dated to the late-antique or earl y medieval period (i.e.,
betwee n 250 B.C. and fourth century A.D. for the fi rst
collapse; and between the fourth to sixth and eleventh
century A. D. fo r the second collapse) when both the
house and the temple collapsed simultaneously. Gabrici
( 1927) never mentioned an earthquake, and there is nothing
in ge neral that should lead us to conclude that these were
seism ic events, and particularly not the first. Neverthe less.
the similarities with what has been discovered at Temples A
and E are stri king.
The Role of Seismic Indicators
In the course of our research we have reviewed the pre-
viously fonnulated critical instruments for two reasons. One
is in order to test the validity of the in struments that had
actuall y evolved for other contexts; the other is to approach
the mass of avai lable data from a different and more rigorous
2975
perspective, and one less determined by the specific example
of Selinunte. In partic ular, we decided to reexamine the use
of seismic indicators, that is, the measurable microscopic
and macroscopic features that can be diagnostic of a seismic
event, as a methodological tool. When correctl y calibrated,
such indications can someti mes lead to a picture of the event
in stratigraphic and/or de finite c hronological terms (Guido-
boni, 2000; Guidoboni el al., 2(00). Such indicators are ( I)
surface faults; (2) structural slipping, cracks in floors and
walls; (3) collapses of major and extensive parts of a build-
ing; (4) distorti on, breakage, and scattering of archaeological
materi al; (5) ancient restoration; (6) silting up and anoma-
lous rise in ground levels; and (7) absence of arc haeological
data for parti cular chronological phases.
The case of Selinunte has proved to be challenging fro m
th is point of view, given the lack of evidence from literary
and epigraphic sources that might have influenced an inter-
pretation of the data. Thus. in thi s case, the interpreter is
protected from the interference of the often unhelpful com-
bined method, where the date provided by arc haeological
ev idence is made absolute by reference to the written
sources. Taking the seismic indicators th at we have discov-
e red for Selinunte, there is no ev idence of surface faults,
prev iously adopted as the modern standard seismic indicator,
in accordance with process theories. The more traditional
ind icator, structural slipping, is onl y found in Te mple M, in
a phase when the monument was clearl y in a poor state of
repair. It should be noted that there are no signs of slipping
or breaks at the level of the foundati ons of the larger temples
affected by a seismic event , something th at scholars have
frequentl y commented upon wi th surprise. In fact, it can be
reasonably explained by either the use of isodomic masonry,
or the fac t that, at the time of the collapse, the temple struc-
tu res were still in a good slate of preservation (see Pompeo,
1999).
The large quantity of data falls into two categori es of
archaeo logical evidence: co llapses and anc ient restorati on.
The tenn "collapses" is used here in the more macroscopic
and visible sense of the word because all the scientific Iit-
eralure is focused on the positi on in which the architec tonic
remains are lying; the second is that of restorati ons in earl y
times (i ndicator 5), including not so much or onl y work of
thorough renovati on (north Triolo), but also peri ods when
the fallen remains were pillaged and phases of reoccupati on
after a peri od when the site had been abandoned.
Also partl y connected with the dynamics of reoccupa-
tion of the site is the absence of any archaeological infor-
mation for certain archaeological phases (indi cator 7). The
history of Selinunte, characteri zed by significa nt gaps in the
peri ods of occupation, might not seem suited to th is sort of
approac h. On the contrary, it appears to us-i nstructed as
we are by the events of postclassical occupation- that, the-
oreticall y at least, thi s aspect deserves greater anention. The
pauci ty of the docume ntati on that has so dramalically con-
ditioned our understanding of thi s undoubtedl y selecti ve oc-
cupation, was both a real scarcity, given the modest nature
2976
of some of the constructions, and a scarcity induced by the
selecti ve approach of the earl y archaeologists.
In short, we wish to argue that this study case has led
to a broadening of the seismic ind icators establi shed in pre-
vious works and-bearing in mind the specific context- it
has demonstrated the possibility for the retrieving of his-
torical and archaeological information offered by such a
study. This is particularly true in relation to two aspects that
we believe to be central: (I) the presence and absence of
phases. and thus the problem of continuity of occupation
from one phase to the nex t, or of the reocc upati on of the site
after periods of abandonment; and (2) the problem of exter-
nal factors confounding the arc haeolog ical records, that is,
the extent and impact of plundering, pillaging, and of early
and recent excavation, all of which need to be borne in mind
in an analys is of the archaeological ev idence.
The Earthquakes of Selinunte : Results, Hypotheses,
and Unsolved Problems
Thus it can be seen that an analytical examination of
the seismic evidence at SeHnunte is not easy, and it has taken
a considerable amount of endeavor to discover, through the
dated excavation ev idence, such features of the history o f
the archaeolog ical depos its that in o ur opinion represe nt an
essential element o f archaeoseismo logy, and that, untH very
recently, have been neglected by archaeologists.
When in vesti gating a time before the idea o f ex.cava-
ti ons ai med at di scovering antiqui ties , we need to postul ate
the ex. istence of actio ns that can be said to disturb or break
down the archaeological deposi ts and structures. Such ac-
tions particularl y imply the regular recycling of ancient ar-
chitectural materi al and the moving o f the fallen remains. It
is likely that this phase began quite early on, in the peri od
of postantique reoccupatio n of the site, between the Byz-
antine and the medieval period (i.e., sixth through thirteenth
century A.D.) It is reasonable to assume that such pillaging
happened in places where reoccupati on in volved resettle-
ment, that is to say on the whole of the acropolis. The east
hill and the hills of Manuzza and La Gaggera appear to have
been less damaged in this way. Similar disturbance can be
attributed to the long peri ods of culti vation of the area: ag-
ri cultural activiti es have obvio usly had littl e impact on the
position of the fallen architectural remains but have had a
bearing on the soil deposits. These have become confused,
making it diffic ult to interpret and date the differe nt layers,
particularly for the more recent peri ods. A third type of in-
terventio n docume nted at Se linunte is the use of the ruins as
a source of bu ilding sto ne (sure evidence for wh ich is doc-
umented fo r Temples E, F, and M).
Finally, the acti vities of excavati on, di scovery, archae-
o logical in vesti gati on, architectural and topographical map-
ping, as well as the reerection of the temples, all played a
sig ni ficant role in influenci ng the position of the g igantic
architectural remain s, not o nl y leading to their relocati on,
E. Guidoboni. A. Muggia. C. Marconi , and E. Boschi
but also to the removal of the soil deposits around them. As
a result, according to the rules of modem archaeology, the
who le site of Selinunte should be understood as a strati -
graphic continuum , subject to the interacti on of phe nomena
such as decay and growth and removal and change in the
archaeolog ical record. The old excavati ons, precise ly be-
cause they were carried out at a period before the fo rmali -
zati on of strati graphic excavation methods, present a number
of pro blems: scant attention to later periods; pre fere nce for
the classical period and for structures of greater arti stic
merit ; problems in identi fication of relationships between
earli er and later structures and fl oor levels; the consequent
di ffic ul ty in recognizi ng the phases between structures an d
deposits; di ffic ulty in the elass ification of building tech-
niques; and problems in the defi nition of an absolute chro-
nology. From the documentary evidence analyzed, we th ink
that other more general considerati ons abo ut the visibility of
traces of strong earthquakes can be deduced, even in com-
plex examples like that of Selinunte. Hence, such traces can
be detec ted even in the presence of large monumental struc-
tures in situ, whether in use, or totall y or partially aban-
doned; in those urban zones (Acropolis, Temple G, Malo-
phoros) affected by postelass ical occupation (250 B.C.-535
A. D.); and whe n seismic events occur in a peri od of recession
or more general urban crisis.
Observations relating to the topography, dynamics, and
chronology of the seismic events at Selinunte can be added
to the aforementioned considerations. The se ismic evidence
di scovered relates to a number of the mai n sectors of the
city, namely the sacred area of the acropo lis with Temples
C, D, A, and 0, the east hill with Temples E, F, and G, the
La Gaggera hill with Temple M, and the Heraion at north
Trio lo. The absence of ev idence from the Manu zza plateau
can be explained by the following factors: ( I) the area was
largely abandoned after the destruction of 409 B.C. and cer-
tainly by 370 B.C. when the area became the site of a ne-
cropolis; (2) the area was a residential area and therefore
built on a more modest scale, thus suffe ring less fro m the
impact of disasters; (3) later occupation of the ruined dis-
tri cts led to a long and syste matic process of removal of the
ruin s.
Ge neral Dynamics and C hrono logy of the Great
Collapses: Our Hypothesis Regarding the T wo
Identified Earthquakes
The detailed analysis of the collapses has made it pos-
sible to identi fy in the various buildings a number of rec ur-
ring patterns in the fallen position of the architectural ele-
ments-and in particular of the colonnades of the peristyles
(see Table 2). The position of the ru ins prese nts occasional
variations that can be attributed to the type of roof involved
(for example, in the direction o f fall of the comer column s,
or the "torsion" of the great Temple G) and the general struc-
ture o f the te f'!'lpl es. This analys is opens up a new directio n
A Case Study in Archaeoseismology. The Col/apses of the Selinunte Temples 2977

for research for those who study historical seismicity,
whether from an architectural or a seismic point of view. It
has become increasingly clear, in fact, that the study of the
dynamics of collapse is closely related to building tech-
niques, the type of foundations involved, the nature of the
strata below the building, the height of the building, the
structure of the colonnades, and the volumes and weight of
the building, quite apart from the magnitude of the event and
the distance from its source (Ishiyama, 1982; Sinopoli, 1991 ,
1995; Augusti and Sinopoli, 1992).
It has been observed in a general way that the buildings
reacted-variously, accordi ng to the di ffe ren t ways in which
they were built- to thrusts that caused them to fall north-
ward and eastward. It is important to emphasize how such
patterns have been deduced from different seismic events (at
least two), occurring between the fourth century B.C. and the
early Middle Ages. It has proved very difficult to determi ne
the chronology of the eve nts. As has been seen, for each
individual structure. while an unequi vocal interpretation of
the data has not been reached, important indicati ons have
been discovered. The main cause of this uncertai nty lies in
the nature of the postclassical phases that have bee n found
to be topographically discontinuous, poor in materials, and
difficult to identify, correlate, and put into their proper con-
text.
The assembled data provide conflicting evidence as to
an event that could be called a first collapse. The onl y site
where two collapses unequivocall y due to a seismic event
have been identified is Temple A. Here, the first collapse
seems to cover the sandy strata re lated to the abandonment
of the site in the Punic period, traditionally dated to the mid-
third century B.C. The date coincides with the scenario of
the Zeus Meilichios complex, where evidence for a collapse
in the post-Punic period has been found. Gabrici (1956),
however, did not relate this to a seismic event. In both cases
we are dealing with a partial collapse of temple structures

Table 2
Selinunte: Summary of the Chronology and the Fall Direction of the Great Coll apses
That Identified Two Earthquakes .
.....
(Fig. 3) Building T".",imu post q .., ,,, Ttrmin..s unIt qutm Qu.I" Direclion

Fifth century A.D.; Postclassical

Temple C walls. late-antique lamp Maybe thirteenth century A.D. Second NE. N· NE
4 Sixth century A.D.; Postc lassical
Temple 0 occupalion Maybe 13th century A.D. Second NE
8 Temple A, east peristyle (Mertens Sixth century, A.D.. Byzantine
[1989a) interpretation) 250 B.C., Punic occupation occupation First E·SE
O' Andria and Campagna (2002) 409 B.C.. beginni ng Punic
interpretation occupation Punic occupation. 250 B.C. First E·SE
8+9 Byzantine fortress (Mertens' {1989a) Sixth century A.D.. Byzantine
interpretation) occupation Thirteenth century A.D. Second N
Punic Sanctuary (0' Andria and End of first century B.C., coll apse of
Campagna {2002 1 interpretation) enclosure Thirteenth century A.D. Second N
10 Temple E, southwest peristyle
Temple E 250. B.C.• Punic occupation Fourth century A.D. First? N
Thirteenth century A.D.. but no
Sixth century A.D., postantique traces of occupation after late-
rebuilding in the adyton antique period Second NE
II Thirteenth century A.D.. but no
traces of occupation after Punic
Temple F 250 B.C., Punic occupat ion period Second N-NE
12 Th irteenth century A.D.. but no
Late-antique occupation. sixth traces of occupation after late
Temple G cenlury A.D. antique period Second N-NE
13 Punic occupation mid-fourth century Revival of occupation up to third
M egaron North Triolo B.C. century B.C. First N
14 Temple M Waste materials of third century B.C. Fourth century A.D. First?
Thineenth century A.D., but no
traces of occupation after
end eighth and ninth century A.D. Byzantine period Second -
15 Thirteenth century A.D.. but no
Sixth century A.D.. Late·antique traces of occupation after
Temple Demeter Malophoros occupation Byzantine period Second
16 mid-third cenlury B.C.. Hellenistic Late-antique occupation. fourth
Temenos of Zeus Mei lichios occupation? century A.D. First
Thirteenth century A.D.• but no
traces of occupation after
Sixth century A.D. Byzantine period Second -
2978
datable to a period between the abandonment of the Punic
city (250 B.C.) and its reoccupation in the late-antique or
Byzantine period (fourth to ninth century A.D.). A useful
piece of evidence in narrowing down the problem is pro-
vided by Bavio Marconi's excavations near Temple E
(Bovio Marconi, 1957, p. 76, 1967, p. 88). Here, the standing
building suffered a partial collapse onto the remains of a
Punic senIement. The event can be dated to the mid-third
century B.C. thanks to the discovery in situ of Punic ponery.
The event identified near Temple E cannot, however, be au-
tomatically associated with the collapse of Temple A. Sim-
ilarl y, the opinion that the collapse of Temple A was due to
a seismic event cannot automatically be extended to Temple
E. If Temple E had a partial collapse, we have also to provide
a possible chronology for its total collapse, which could rea-
sonably have been contemporary with the collapse of Tem-
ples F and G.
Different indications come from the temple at North
Triolo, where the small building appears to have collapsed
completely in around the mid-fourth century B.C., followed
by the immediate revival of worship among the fallen ruins.
The moment when the site was abandoned fits in with this
and can be dated to the mid-third century B.C. Nevertheless,
the North Triolo seismic event perfectly fits the first collapse
of Temple A, if we accept D' Andria and Campagna's (2002)
hypothesis, which recognizes a Punic sanctuary in the struc-
ture built on Temples A and O. Finally, between the fourth
and the third century, there is evidence of structural damage
to Temple M generally attributable to a combination of fac-
tors, including seismic ones. To conclude, in OUf opinion,
the first earthquake occurred between the mid-fourth and the
third century B.C. Strong points of this chronological hy-
pothesis are the results of the excavations in the mega ron of
North Triolo and in the temenos of Zeus Melichios (nos. 13
and 16, respectively, in the map of Fig. 3). This date is com-
patible with the conventional chronology used by the ar-
chaeologists for dating the finds from the other temples, but
it is not compatible with the situation of Temple E (no. 10)
and Temple A, nor if we accept the interpretation of Mertens
(l989a), of Temple M (no. 14). In the latter two cases, this
is due to the chronological uncertainties deriving from typo-
logical dating of excavated finds. However, it cannot be ex-
cluded that new research in the area could provide even more
accurate dating elements.
Evidence can be found for the more recent seismic
event, which we have called the second collapse, near Tem-
ples C and D on the acropolis, near the post-Greek building
over the Temples A and 0 (and particularly the north side
of Temple A), near Temple G on the east hill, and near
Temple M on the La Gaggera hill. Possible evidence, al-
though it is difficult to evaluate, comes from the Temple of
Demeter and the (emenos of Zeus Meilichios within the
sanctuary of Demeter Malophoros. The dates are vague, but
the overall homogeneity of the phases of postclassical oc-
cupation (on which the scholars of the nineteenth and the
early twentieth century agree), as well as the uniformity of
E. Guidoboni, A. Muggia, C. Marconi , and E. Boschi
the patterns of collapse strongly indicate that this evidence
is the result of a single event.
A more precise timescale depends on the following
data: a general attribution of the remains lying beneath the
collapsed buildings as late antique or, more frequently Byz-
antine (in all the aforementioned sites). If we accept Mer-
tens' interpretation, the Byzantine fortress built on the Tem-
ples A and 0 is datable to the sixth or seventh century A.D.
On the other hand, there is no sure evidence on which to
base a tenninus anle quem, although the presence of a late
necropolis to the north of Temple C, where fragments of
collapsed architrave have been reused to mark the graves;
a wall to the east of the post-Greek building inside the
Temples A and 0, dating from the tenth century A.D. but
stratigraphically unrelated to the collapse; and, finally, the
presence, near the walls beneath the collapse, of thirteenth-
century pottery provide a number of clues.
Taken together, these elements would seem to indicate
a definite post-Byzantine date for the second collapse. It is
quite impossible to fix a certain terminus ante quem, since
it is not possible to date the period when the area around the
temples on the acropolis was abandoned, nor to correlate
stratigraphically the tenth- and the thirteenth-century depos-
its to the collapse. Taken as a whole, the data agree in vary-
ing degrees with the interpretations put forward by scholars
and di scussed previously. Hulot and Fougeres (1910) con-
cluded that there was an earthquake between the fifth and
eighth century A.D. (although they narrow this chronology
down to the sixth century by the use of the combinatory
method); Santangelo ( 1961) suggested a late Byzantine date
(seventh to eighth century A.D.); Gullini ( 1985) opted for
the eighth century A.D., without, as has been noted, provid-
ing any explanation for this chronology.
One last point should be made: just because two seismic
events have been identified, this does not necessarily imply
that they were similar from the seismic point of view. On
the contrary, observations made would suggest that the two
seismic events cannot be compared in sofar as their effects
are concerned: leaving aside its date and whether there were
one or two separate seismic events, the first earthquake
caused the collapse of the small temple at Triolo and the
south and east peristyles of Temple A and perhaps the dam-
age to Temples M and E. It is possible, according to the
interpretation advanced for the necropolis to the north of
Temple C, that it caused damage to Temple C, but did not
lead to the collapse of the large temple buildings on the
acropolis and the east hill. Above all, it was not so destruc-
tive as to bring about the complete abandonment of the sites
affected (north Triolo). The second earthquake, on the other
hand, had a devastating effect, causing temples of consid-
erable dimensions, height, and volume to fall toward the
north and east (Temples C, D, E, F; the building on Temples
A and 0, possible buildings, on Temple M). Temple G was
reduced to rubble (Fig. 8).
We think this second strong earthquake occurred be-
tween the sixth and the thirteenth centuries A.D. This dating
A Case Study in Archaeoseismology. The Col/apses of the Selinunte Temples
does not contradict the interpretation of D' Andria and Cam-
pagna (2002) and the analysis regarding Temple F. If we
take into account the analyses concerning Temple M, the
chronological range could be further limited to between the
ninth and thirteenth century A.D. In this case as well, prop-
erly targeted archaeological research could dissipate the
chronological ambiguities that we have found owing to the
lack of more rigorous indications.
General Conclusions
The long and painstaking analysis of almost two cen-
turies of archaeology at Selinunte undertaken in this study
has revealed numerous elements for the identification of evi-
dence of seismic activity and for the dating of such events.
These data were previously dispersed, confused, and very
often contradictory. To make them congruent from a seis-
mological point of view, it was necessary to deepen each
archaeological element available, particularly the deposi-
tional sequences, the direction of fall for each architectural
structure (and then to map this information diagrammati-
cally), and the chronology of finds in the layers sealing the
collapses and laxers that affect the chronological indications
of the two earthquakes. Because it has not always been pos-
sible to deduce the direction of collapse from the present
position of the ruins, the original appearance of the collapse
of some temples has had to be reconstructed from hand-
drawn surveys and archaeological descriptions. Plans were
drawn up to reerect some of the temples (carried out only
for Temples C and E, and most recently, for the temple at
north Triolo). In preparation for this work, important archi-
tectural elements were moved or rearranged from the origi-
nal position in which they fell.
The huge accumulation of data, which at times seemed
almost too time consuming and complex to deal with, and
the detailed analysis of the information have made it possible
to formulate a number of hypotheses of definite seismic sig-
nificance: two strong earthquakes, occurring many centuries
apart, struck tltis area. Granted the evident and subslantial
dating difficulties presented by the Selinunte site owing to
its history of abandonment, we have suggested a chronology
that is compatible with the current state of our archaeological
knowledge. Future archaeological analyses may well be able
to confirm or confute our hypotheses. The two earthquakes
had probably been originated by two different seismogenic
sources. The earlier event caused a jolting thrust toward the
north. The second earthquake has left impressive traces on
almost all the structures, their collapses seeming to have
been caused in a rather similar way by a jolt to the northeast.
These results open the way to new directions for research.
For the paleoseismology, the data will contribute to the iden-
tification of the active faults in the area-something that is
not known at present. Structural engineering analyses could
provide quantitative elements for an estimate of the accel-
eration and create connections with the active faults in this
area. However, with our current state of knowledge, we do
2979
"La Gaggera- hill : .O_ _ ＺＮｬＧＰ ｾ］ＲＰ＠ m ｾ＠
ｾ＠
:¥I.-
East hill
MEDfTERRANEAN ｓｅａｾ Ｚ［＠
.•...•• - first earthquake _ second 88I1hquake
(3th ..... th c. B.C.) (61t1·13th c. A.D.)
Figure 8. Selinunte: general interpretation of the
collapses showing the direction of fall of the buildings
analyzed here.
not think we can formulate reasonable hypotheses as to the
local intensity of these two events and their magnitude. The
peCUliarity of the architectural structures analyzed and the
complex mechanical dynamics of the seismic response of
the ancient temples (which the specialized literature has little
investigated), in our opinion, do not allow us to formulate
estimates of geophysical significance in the absence of a
quantitative simulation of the collapses. We nevertheless be-
lieve that it cannot be excluded, especially for the second
earthquake, that it is a maUer of an event having a high
degree of energy.
Acknowledgments
Our thanks to Dr. Dieler Mertens. Director of the Istituto Archeolo-
gico Germanico at Rome. and Prof. Alessandra Molinari of the University
of Siena for providing us with the excavation results that are still in progress
or as yet unpublished. Our thanks are also due to Prof. Francesco D' Andria
for letting us see the results of his analyses on Temples A and a when they
were still not available in press. Our thanks also go to Dr. Gianluca Val·
ensise of the INGV in Rome for helping us to describe the seismotectonic
context of the Selinunte area and Maria Giovanna Bianchi. who helped in
the preparation of maps and illustrations from the SGA electronic archives.
The authors dedicate this study 10 the memory of Prof. Giuseppe
Nenci. of the Scuola Nonnale Superiore of Pisa. with whom the general
outlines of this research were originall y discussed with the firsl author: we
will always remember his lively curiosity and outstanding erudition.
References
Amadori. M. L.. M. Feroci. and L. Versino (1992). Geological outli ne of
Selinunte Archaeological Park. Boll. Geojisica Teorica Applicota 34,
87-99.
Angell. S .. and Th. Evans ( 1826). Sculptured Metopes Discovered amongsl
2980
1M RuUu of 1M Temples of the Ancient City of SelinlLf in Sicily by
14'. Harris and S. Angell in 1M Year 1823, Priestley &. Weale, London .
Augusti. G .. and A. Sinopoli (1992). Modeling the dynamics of large blqck
structures, Meccanica 1:7t no. 3, 195-211 .
Dalia. R. (1992). Shallow reflection survey in the Selinunte National Ar-
chaeological Park (Sicily-llaly), Boll. Geojisica Teorica ApplicQIO 34,
12- 131 .
Bigi. G.• A. Castellario. R. Catalano, M. Coli. D. Cosentino. G. V. Dat Piaz,
F. Lentini, M. Parono, E. Patacca. A. Praturlon, F. Salvini, R. Sartori.
P. Scandone. and G. B. Vai (Editors) (1989). Synlhetic Stn.lClUraJ-
kinematic map of Italy. in Structu.ral Model of Italy, Progt'tlo Fin-
aliWJto GeodiNJmica. Quademi de "La Ricerca Scientifica", CNR.
Rome, scale I :2,000,000, vol. 114.
Boschi. E.• E. Guidoboni. G. Ferrari, D. Mariotti, G. Valensise. and
P. Gasperini (2000). Cal8.1ogue of strong Italian eanhquakes from 461
BC to 1997: introductory texts and CD-ROM no. 3, Annali di Geo·
fisica 43, no. 4, 6()9.....868.
Sovio Marconi, J. (1951). lnconsistenza di una Selinunte romana, Kolwlos
3,7G-78.
Sovio Marconi, J. ( 1961). Problemi di restalUQ e anastylosis del tempio E
di Selinunte. Palladio 17. 85-96.
Cavallari, F. S. (1868). Scavi a Selinunte. BullertilW de/J'lnstiluto di cor·
riJpondenvJ ｡ｲ｣ｾｯｬｧｩ＠ ｾｲ＠ /'annQ 1868, 81--89.
Cavallari. F. S .. and A. Holm (1811). Tempio creduto di Giunone in Seli·
nunte, Bullenino della Commissione di Antichitd e Belle Arti ;n Sicilia
4,34-38.
Connolly. P. (1998). Greece and Rome at War. Greenhill Books, London .
CPTI Working Group ( 1999). Catalogo parametrico dei terremoti italiani.
GNOT-lNG-SGA-SSN (Editors), Bologna, lta1y (available also
from hIlP:llwww.ingv,it/).
Cultrera, O. (1931). Selinunte (acropoli), Campagna di scavi del 1935. No-
tizie degli scavi di antichitd. 153-119.
O'Andria, F., and L. Campagna (2002) L'area de; tempti A ed 0
neU'abitato punico di Selinunte, in Studi in memoria di Amonia
Ciasca. Rome.
Dehl·von Kaenel, Ch. (1995). Die ｡ｲ｣ｬｵｩｳｾ＠ Keramik aus dem Malopho·
ros-HeiliglNm in Selinunl, Die Museen, Berlin.
De Waele, J. A. (1911). Acrogas GrDLca, Straatsdrukkerij . S'Oravenhage.
Dinsmoor, W. B. (1915). The ArchiUcture of Ancient Greece.' An Account
of its Historic Development. Third Ed.• Batsford. New York.
OJ Vita, A. (1985). L ' urbanisaca, in Sikanie: Stana e civiltd della Sicilia
greco, G. Pugliese Carratelli (Editors),IVAG, Milan, 359-414
Ducrey, P. (1985). Guerre el Guerriers dans 10 Grice Antique, Office du
livre. Fribourg.
Fanara. G. (1986). Lo scavo, Sicilia Archeologica 19, 2S--4O.
Fasolo, F. (1971). Sui tempio G di Selinunte, in Alii del Congresso di storia
dell'architettura. 1969, Centro di studi per la storia deU'architettura.
Rome, 19-92.
Fiorelli. G. (1816). Selinunte. Nofizie degli scavi di antichitd. 103-109.
Fiorelli. G. (1811a). Selinunte. Notizie degli scavi di antichitd. 18-20.
Fiorelli. G. (1811b). Selinunte. Notizie degli scavi di ontichitd. 65- 72 .
Fiorelli. O. (1818). Selinunte, Notizie degli scovi di ontichild. 241-242 .
Fiorelli, G. (1882). Selinunte, Nofizie degli scavi di antichitd. 325-336.
Fiorelli, G. (1884). Selinunte. NOlizie degli scavi di ontichitd, 318-336.
Gabrici. E. (1920). Selinunte. Temenos di Demeter Malophoros alia Gag·
gera. Relazione preliminare degli scavi eseguia nel 1915. Notive de-
gli scov; di ontichild. 61-91 .
Gabrici. E. (1923). Selinunte. Ripresa degli scavi sull'Acropoli. Nolizie
degli scavi di anfichitd, 104--113.
Gabrici, E. (1921). U santuario della Malophoros a Selinunte. Monumenti
antichi pubblicati ｾｲ＠ cura della R. Accodemia Nazionale de; Uncei
32,4-406.
Gabrici. E. (1929). AcropoJi di Selinunte. Scavi e topografia, Monumel'lli
antfcrn pubblicoti ｾｲ＠ cura della R. Accodemia Nazionale dei Uncei
33,61-112.
Gabrici. E. (1956). Studi archeologici selinuntini. Monumel'lli anlichi pub·
E. Guidoboni, A. Muggia, C. Man:oni, and E. Boscbi
bUcati ｾｲ＠ cura della R. Accodtmia Noz.ionale de; Unce; 43, 204-
408.
Gasperini. P .• F. Bernardini. G. Valensise. and E. Boschi (1999). Defining
seismogenic sources from historical earthquake felt reports, Bull.
Seism. Soc. Am. 89,94-1 to.
Gruben, G. (1986). Die Te'"{H/ der Griechen. Hinner. Munich.
Guidoboni. E. (2000). Accheosismologia, in DiVonario di Arche%gia.
R. Francovich and D. Manacorda (Editors). Laterza., Rome· Bari, 29-
34.
Guidoboni. E.• and G. Traina (1991). Earthquakes in medieval Sicily: a
historical revision (1th- 13th century), Annali di Geofisica 39. no. 6.
1201- 1225.
Guidoboni. E.• A. Comastri. and G. Traina (1994). Catalogue of Ancienl
Earthquaus in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Cel'llury.lNG·
SGA. Bologna. Italy.
Guidoboni, E., A. Muggia. and G. Valensise (2000). Aims and methods in
territorial archaeology: possible clues to a strong fourth-cenrury A.D.
earthquake in the Straits of Messina (southern lta1y), in The Arche-
ology of Geological Catastrophes. W. G. McGuirt. D. R. Griffiths.
P. L. Hancock and I. S. Stewart (Editors). Geological Society (Lon-
don), Spec;a! Pub!. 171. London, 45--70.
Gullini. G. (1911). L'architettura templare in Sicilia daI primo arcaismo
alIa fine del V secolo. Cronache di arche%gio 16, 21-42.
Gumni. G. ( 1985). L'architettura, in Sikanie.· Storia e civilul della Sicilia
greco, G. Pugliese Carratelli (Editor). IVAG, Milan, Italy. 414-491.
GurreUo, V. (1156). Descrizione dell'anaca cittA di Selinunte. in Memorie
per servire alia Slorio letteraria di Sicilia, D. Schiavo and G. E. Oi
Blasi (Editors). Pietro Bentivegna. Palenno. Italy. Vol . 2, 215-282.
Hams, E. c. (1919). Principles of Arcluleological Stratigraphy, Second
Ed .• Academic Press, London .
Hittorff. J. I .• and L. Zanth (1810). Architecture al'llique de 10 Sicile, Recuei/
des monumel'lls de Sigeste et de Si linonte Donnaud, Paris.
Hulot, J.• and G. ｆｯｵｧｾｲ･ｳ＠ (1910). Silinol'lle.· UJ Ville, I'Acropo/e et les
Temples, Librarie generate de I'architecture et des arts decoratifs.
Paris.
lshiyarna, Y. (1982). Motion of rigid bodies and criteria for overturning by
earthquake excitations, EarthqUlJU Eng. Strucl. Dyn. 10,635--650.
Koldewey. R .• and O. Puchstein (1899). Die Gn'echischen Tempel in Un-
terilalien und Sicilien. A. Asher & Co.• Berlin.
Marconi. C. (1994). Selinunte: LL metope dell ·Heraion. Panini. Modena.
Marconi. C. (1995). Due studi sulle metope figurate dei tempti "C' e "P'
di Selinunte, Rivisto dell 'lSlituto NOl.ionaie di Archeologia e Slona
dell 'Ane 18 (Supplement 3), 5-61.
Martin, R. P. Pelagatti, G. Vallet, and G. Voza (1980). Le cittA greche. in
La Sicilia Antico. E. Gabba and G. Vallet (Editors). Ed. Storia di
Napoli e della Sicilia. Naples, Vol. I. no. 3. 483-105 .
Masseria. C. (1918-1919). lpotesi suI tempio M di Selinunte. Annali de/Ia
Faco/td di Lellere e Filosofia del/'Universitd di Perugia 16, 62-88.
Meola, E. (1996-1998). Necropoli di Selinunle. I. Buffa. 3 Vols., Palenno.
Italy.
Mertens. D. (1984). Der Tempel von Segesta und die don'sche Tempelbou-
kunst der griechischen Weslens in klassischer Zeit. Zabern. Mainz am
Rhein.
Mertens. D. (1989a). Castellum oder Ribat? Oas KUstenfext in Selinunt.
Istanbuler Mitteilungen. 39, 391-398.
Mertens. D. (l989b). Die Mauern von Selinunt. Vorbericht der Arbeiten
des deutschen Acchaeologischen Institut Rom 1911-1975 und 1985-
1981. Mitteilungen des Deulschen Archaeologischen Instituts: Roem-
ische Abteilung 96. 81- 154.
Mertens. O. (1991). Griechen und Punier: Selinunt nach 409 v. Chr.• Mit·
teilungen des Deutschen Archaeowgischen InstitulS: Roemische Ab-
lei/ung 104, 301 - 320.
Molinari. A. ( 1995). Le campagne siciHne tea it periodo bizantino e quello
arabo. in Acculturazione e mutamenti, ｐｲｯｳｾｴｩｶ･＠ nell'archeologia
medievale del Mediterraneo, E. Boldrini and R. Francovich (Editors).
All ' lnsegna del Giglio. Firtnze. lta1y. 223-239.
A Case Study in Archaeose;smology. The Col/apses of the Selinunte Temples
Molinari, A. (1996). Selinunte Fortezza bizantina. unpublished report at
Soprintendenza Archeoiogica di Trapani .
Muggia. A. (1997). L'an!a di rispetto neUe colonie magno-greche e ske-
/iote: Studio di antropologia della forma urbana. Sellerio. Palermo.
Italy.
Naselli. G. (1972). Selinunte medievale. II. La fortezza e la fornace. Sicilia
Archeologka S, no. 17. 21-26.
Parisi Presicce, C. (1984). La sltUttura. Sicilia Archeologica I', 34-38.
Parisi Presicce, C. (1986). La sltUttura. Sicilia Archeologica 19,40-53.
Piro. S., and L. Versino ( 1995). Geological survey in the archaeological
area of Selinunte, in "Earthquakes in the past," Annali di Geofisica
38, no. 5-6. 893-906.
Pompeo, L. (1999). II comp/esso architettonico del tempio M di Selinunte:
Analisi tecnica e storia del monumento, Le Lettere, Frrenze, Italy.
Salinas. A. (1898). Selinunte: Nuovi scavi presso i templi dell' acropoli ed
alia Gaggera, Notil,ie degli scavi di antichita , 258--260.
Santangelo, M. (1961). Selinunte, Abete, Rome.
Schubring, J. I. (1865). Die Topographie der Stadt SelinllS, in Nachrichten
der Jcjjniglichen AiuJdemie der Wissenschaften in Giittingen.
ｓｾ｢ｩＱｬ･｡ｵＬ＠ P. (1968). Sicily, Kaye & Ward, London.
Servizio Geologico d'Italia (1971). Geological Map of Italy, Mazara del
Vallo, sheet 265. scale l :IOO,(X)().
Storia Geofisica Ambiente (SGA) (1999). Archaeoseismology at Selinunte
(in Italian] , by E. Guidoboni. Technical Report at INGV, Rome.
Sinopoli, A. (1989). La scelta del modello e iI problema dell' urto
nell'analisi dinamica di suutture monumentali costituite da blocchi
lapidei, in I terremat; prima del Mille in Italia e nell'area mediter-
raMa: Storia, Archeologia e SismoJogia, E. Guidoboni (Editor), ING-
SGA. Bologna, Italy 244-256.
Sinopoli, A. (1991). Dynamic analysis of a stone column excited by a sine
wave ground motion, Appl. Mech. Rev. 44, no. \0, part 2, 246-255.
Sinopoli, A. (1995). Earthquakes and large block monumental structures,
in &nhquakLs in the Past, Annali di Geofisica 38, no. 5-6, 737-751.
TOlle-Kastenbein, R. (1994). Zur Genesis und Entwick.1ung des Dipteros,
Jahrbuch deutsche Institute 109,41-76.
Trasselli, C. (1972). Selinunte medievale, Sicilia Archeologica 5, 17,
45-54.
Tusa. V .• M. De Wailly. B. Gregori, C. Parisi Presicce, I. Valente. M. Pacci ,
M. Riotto, C. Dehl, R. Di Salvo, and P. Bellotti (1984). Selinunte-
MaJophoros: rapporto preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi.
1982. Sicilia ArcheoJogica 17, no. 54-55, 17-58.
Tusa. V .• L. Ferruzza, G. Fanara, C. Parisi Presicce. M. De Wailly, C. Dehl,
M. Pacci, M. RiOlto, and R. Di SaJvo ( 1986). Selinunte-Malophoros:
rapporto preliminare sulla D campagna di scavi, Sicilia Archeologica
19, no. 60-61, 13-88.
Valensise, G., and D. Pantosti (Editors) (200 1). Database of Potential
Sources for Earthquakes Larger than M 5.5 in Italy. Annali di Geo-
fisica 44, no. I (Suppl.), 180 pp., with database on CD-ROM.
Ziegler, K. (1923). Selinus. in Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen
AllenumswissenschDft, A. Druckenmuller, Stuttgart, Vol. D A, 2,
1266-1308.
Zoppi. C. ( 19900). Esecuzione delle scanalature e interpretazione di un
edificio: il tempio F di Selinunte, in Selinunle 3, Bulzoni , Rome, 117-
134.
Zoppi, C. (1996b). Note selinuntine, in Selinunte 3, Bulzoni, Rome, 135-
206.
Appendix
Glossary
Adyton. The inner and most holy room of a Greek temple.
Anla. Pilaster of slight projection terminating the end of the
lateral walls of a cella. The plural is antae.
Archaic period. The period of time that goes from the foun-
2981
dation of Selinus by the Greeks (ca. 628 B.C.), up to the
first quarter of fifth century B.C.
Classical period. Period of time from ca. 475 to 323 B.C.
Byzantine period. The period of time from the Byzantine
occupation of Sicily A.D. 535 to the Arab invasion in A.D.
827.
Cella. The enclosed chamber of a Greek temple.
Doric. The architectural order that evolved in the Dorian and
Western regions of Greece.
Hellenistic period. 323-31 B.C.
Hynaethral Temple with naas/cella totally or partially roof-
less.
In antis. In a profUlos or opishodomus, in antis refers to the
presence of columns between the antae.
In situ. When referring to archaeological items, a term used
to show the structures of finds have maintained their origi-
nal position.
Isodomic masonry. A building technique consisting of
quadrangular blocks disposed in very regular courses,
with aligned joints.
Late ancient period. The fourth through sixth century A.D.
Metope. Sculptured panels that together with triglyphs, form
the frieze and decorate the entablature of a Doric temple.
Naiskas. Small cella inside the nave of a temple.
Naos. See cella.
Nave. The central part of a Greek lemple, excluding the side
aisles.
Opisthodomos. The recessed porch in the rear of a Greek
temple.
Paneed masonry. Carthaginian building technique, consist-
ing of big quadrangular/rectangular blocks (often reused)
defining patches of wall formed with stones and fragments
of rock.
Pedogenesis. The process of deposition and growth of soils.
Perinteral. Temple with peristyle formed by a colonnade.
Peristyle. The covered colonnade that surrounds a Greek
temple.
Postclassical period. The period of time from the abandon-
ment of Selinus under the Carthaginian control to the be-
ginning of the Byzantine occupation of Sicily (250 B.C.-
A.D. 535).
Process theories in archaeology. Theories concerned with
the study of processes (natural, human, cultural. as well
as depositional) as factors of change.
Pseudodipteral. Peripteral temple having a second row of
columns on the front and on the rear, simulating a second
colonnade.
Pronaos. The porch in front of the naos or ceLLa.
Punic domination (or period). The period of time during
which Selinus was under the Carthaginian control (409-
250 B.C.).
Sekos. See Naas.
Stenopos. In a Greek city with an orthogonal plan, one of
the streets that intersects the main avenues (plateiai) at a
right angle.
2982 E. Guidoboni. A. Muggia. C. Marconi. and E. Boschi

Stratigraphic method. The actual method of archaeological Triglyph. A slightly projecting fluted block separating the
excavation, which was created by W. Harris in the 1970s me/opes in the frieze of a Doric temple.
(Harris, 1979). It is based on the removal of deposits
(stratigraphic units) in the reverse order of the deposi-
Sloria Geofisica Ambiente (SGA)
tional sequence.
via Bellombra 24n
Stratigraphic continuum. Uninterrupted stratigraphic se- 40136 Bologna, haly
quence, namely, the whole complex of depositional events ｧ ｵ ｪ､ｯ｢ｮｩ｀ｳｧ｡ＬｬｲｾＮ ［ｬ＠
concerning a site. annamugg@lin.jl
Stratigraphic sequence. Sequence of stratigraphic units/de- (E.G., A.M., C.M.)
posits.
Teme"os . The sacred enclosure in which one or more Greek Istituto Naziona1e di Geofisica e Vulcanologia
via di Vigna Murata 605
temples stand. 00 143 Rome, Italy
Term;"us a"le quem. Chronological date before which an presidenre@ingv.il
event may occur. (E.B.)
Term;"us posl quem. Chronological date after which an
event may occur. Manuscript received 15 November 2001.

,.