Burying the Gods
Silviu Anghel
10/5/2006
Why does one bury a statue? Numerous answers can be provided, stemming from
different cultures and time frames. Even within the Classical Greco-Roman world,
answers can be very diverse. The habit of burying statues as substitutes for missing
persons is attested in Archaic and Classical Greece, and perhaps even later. At the other
end, statues can be buried for their valuable material, in particular metal statues. This
thesis deals with only those statues that are buried for themselves, not as a substitution
and not as ingots.
The act of burial implies a relationship between that statue and the one doing the burial.
That connection can be, as we will see, positive or negative. The positive connection
implies that the depositor is a protector of the statue, and, not able to see it left to ruin or
destroyed, decides to make it inaccessible. This is the type of thinking, for example
behind the burial of temple statuary inside the sanctuary precinct, or behind a private
owner forced to abandon his house. On the negative side, the depositor wants to remove
the presence of the statue from his immediate surroundings. It could also happen that the
burial could be the result of a sacred or oracular command, to rectify or remove an evil.
All these situations have one thing in common. The act of burial happens when one is
forbidden, unable or unwilling to destroy that statue. It makes the statue inaccessible, but
not lost. Although an act of separation, it is one of non-destruction. Burial of a statue
signifies, above all the preservation of a connection between the depositor and the object
buried. This connection is grounded in the power attached to that particular statue. His act
is one of selection, of one or a series of objects, which for him are very significant. As the
nature of the objects involved is very diverse, so is the type of significance, value and
power placed on them.
In terms of response to statuary, the act of burying a statue is an abnormal response. The
aim of the thesis is therefore to discuss variety and difference, and so emphasis is placed
on the individual artefacts the depositor chooses to bury.
Introduction
This section contains general remarks about the subject, a description of the terminology
used and about assumptions and methodological choices in the following pages.
Chapter 1. “Why bury a statue?”: Deposition as a phenomenon and the history of
deposition before Late Antiquity;
- archaeological signature of deposited statues
Deposition is viewed as an extraordinary event in the life of a statue. Most times, the
reasons that lead to the burial are unique and particular. A temple could be profanated,
and a major reconstruction would lead to a deposition of previously owned statues; it
could close down, and its statues be left behind under the temple floor; a statue could be
deposited after it accidentally fell off its base, or was hit by lightning. It could happen
that an impending danger led to the hiding of the statues.
The reasons for each deposition have to be analyzed in turn, based on a combined study
of the location of the deposition and its signature, the associative material and the
contents of the cache. The reasons for deposition vary from case to case. Most of them,
however, are extraordinary events in the life of a statue or its surroundings. The
destruction of the temples of Gebel Barkal or Kerma led to the fragmentation and
deposition of some of its statues. The threat of Persian invasion led to the hiding of
several kouroi in Attica. A statue of Hercules Mastai was buried after it was hit by
lightning. Only a few depositions are the result of an acquired tradition of clearance of
sacred precincts of old ex-votos, to make space for new ones. This is the case, for
example with the greatest deposition of statues in Antiquity, from the temple of Karnak.
Chapter 2. Statue deposition in LA
Statue depositions are presented grouped according to their location. This is based on the
assumption that depositions usually occur near to the lace where they had been
previously housed. A discussion of the diffenent discernable scenarios behind depositions
follows:
a. Burying statues in Late Antiquity: tradition and innovation
b. Cases that conform to earlier practice - case of Artemis of Ephesus, Walbrook
Mithraeum, Douch or Hama; Roma the Monte Martini mithraeum.
c. New cases: a different archaeological signature and it’s interpretation / the bulk of the
cases: Carthage, Sidi Bishir
d. Unclear cases
e. New reasons for burying statues [In addition to an understood continuation of the
previous practice of irreversible abandonment, there are cases in which this signature is
not present, yet care for protection is still taken.]
- abandonment. Statues continue to be abandoned as before, with the same
archaeological signature, but they are a lot more diverse. Many private statues are buried
(very little before), in particular statuary collections from private villas, with a composite
mixed, are abandoned.
- hiding statues from Christian fundamentalism– very clear only in the case of
evidence for impending destruction. Christian indirect influence may have existed in
other cases, but it is not discernable.
- storage. In the case of privately owned statuary buried in underground rooms, which
are then sealed up, care is taken to protect them, but there is no evidence that the statues
are intended not to be found again. There is no sign of irreversibility: Carthage, Sidi
Bishir, Sidon, Adam.
- magical (term used for lack of something better) reasons ? – literary evidence but very
hard to match archaeologically
Chapter 3. Christians and statue deposition
There has been a lot of recent literature on the Christian destruction of statues in LA.
Most sources for destruction are literary, and therefore late. There is evidence for a lot of
archeological destruction of statues, but it is hard to see behind it. Some was religiously
motivated, but even within this category, there is very little that can be dated to the early
centuries of Christian presence. In particular, there is almost no archeological evidence
for the destruction of an active pagan place. For example, the Serapeion in Alexandria
was destroyed by Christians. Archeologically we have evidence for a thorough
destruction of the site, but was it all, or part of, religiously motivated, and if so, when was
it done? Returning to deposition, which statues were in fact hidden in face of imminent
Christian intervention? No single statue can give a positive answer, but the overall
catalogue of statues is evidence for some changes, some of which could be attributed to
the rise of Christianity.
Chapter 4. “Why keep statues?”
By far the most substantive part of the thesis. The starting point (now) is the observation
that most (though not all) of the buried statues belonged to private parties (be them
religious or not). This highlights the value of the corpus in the non-public part of society
in LA. It provides a unique opportunity to contextualize the depositions. The aim is a
description of those who keep statues in LA. How does the habit of keeping statues
change? What people would persist in keeping statues throughout the Christian threat and
why? Where do they the statues – temples, former private collections, etc? What interests
do these statues show? Do they show a transition in religious ‘pagan’ habits?
The chapter fluctuates between change and persistence in LA. Ultimately it should lead to
a picture of who hid statues in LA, with issues of social, cultural and religious history.
Statues originating from sanctuaries are deposited in LA, but the vast majority of cases
connected with the closing of temples. Finally, a small number of statues previously
housed in public buildings, such as baths or theaters, are discussed.
Chapter 5. Catalog
Caches are presented in geographical order, to complement the thematic grouping of
chapter 2. A list, short description and bibliography are provided for each case, together
with a brief analysis of their archeological signature.