Thanatos: Dead bodies – live data
A study of funerary material from the Hellenistic-RomanByzantine town Hierapolis in Phrygia, Turkey
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hierapolis is situated where the fertile valleys of the rivers Lykos and Meander meet, at
the western end of the Anatolian mountainous plateau. Pamukkale is the modern name of
the nearest village, which lies close to Denizli, some 200 km east of Izmir. Hierapolis
was founded in the 3rd c. BC, became part of the Roman province of Asia Minor few
generations later; it prospered in the Imperial and early Byzantine periods, but after a
severe earthquake in the 7th century AD it never recovered. The following centuries are
characterized by gradual decline, squatting, and periods of reoccupation. From the 13th
century it was under the control of Turkish Seldjuks and later the Emirate of Aydin.
Hierapolis covers an area roughly the size of Pompeii and Ostia (ca. 65 ha) and is
surrounded by large, well-preserved necropoleis on three sides, to the N, E and S. The
Greek name Hierapolis means “The holy city”, referring to an oracular shrine of Apollo
in the centre of the town. After emperor Theodosius’ ban on pagan cults in AD 391, in
the early 5th century to the E of the town was established a new pilgrimage centre by
monumentalizing the presumed tomb of the deacon Philip, who died in Hierapolis. A
large martyrion building, the Philippeion, was raised above the grave. The cult recipient
Philip was also fused with the apostle of the same name.
Since 2007, on the invitation of the director of the Italian Archaeological Mission at
Hierapolis, prof. Francesco D’Andria, the Department of Archaeology, Conservation, and
History (IAKH), University of Oslo (UiO), has participated in the excavations at
Hierapolis, which were started in 1957. At present 10 Italian and 4 international
universities and research institutions are involved in the excavations and collateral
research, each with their own defined project, each with their own funding (Appendix 1).
Hierapolis has since 1988 been included in UNESCO’s list of Mixed natural and
cultural world heritage sites. The Norwegian participation in the excavations is backed by
Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Turkish Embassy in Oslo as an important
element in establishing closer cultural and academic contacts between Norway and
Turkey.
The Hierapolis research project is divided into two parts:
1. The Norwegian excavation project which provides fresh research data – financed
by contributions from the University of Oslo, private funds, and Norwegian trades
and industries (Appendix 2). The project collaborates closely with the Norwegian
Institute in Rome, which provides bed and study facilities for the project
participants. The aim of the project, in addition to its scientific goals, is to
formalize the involvement of various research institutions in Norway in a
collaborative project, as IAKH, Institute of Biology (BI), UiO, Museum of
Cultural History (KHM) at UiO, Norwegian Institute for cultural heritage research
(NIKU), and the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO). At present all
institutions are represented in the excavation group. – A homepage for the
excavation project is soon available on the IAKH homepage.
2. The Thanatos research project, a cross-faculty, collaborative project between
IAKH and BI, both at UiO, for which finances are asked from the Norwegian
Research Council – in the present application.
1. The Norwegian excavation project
The Norwegian project is concentrated on the Hellenistic-Roman-Byzantine East
necropolis, which extends along the steep slope on the NE side of the city. The slope is
littered with more than 500 visible tombs and sarcophagi, the earliest being tumulus
tombs with vaulted chambers dating to the late 2nd or 1st century BC. The bulk of the
tombs, however, were built in the Roman imperial period, in the beginning, in the shape
of individual chamber tombs, spread quite loosely across the hillside, later in long rows
of uniform chamber tombs placed in more or less parallel terraces, one above the other –
all well visible from the town below, all offering spectacular views over the city and the
Lykos valley. Between the monuments sarcophagi are found almost everywhere, from the
city limits to the highest point of the hill. These were largely added to and/or reused in
the period from the 2nd to the at least 5th c. AD.
A GIS survey of all visible funerary remains in the shape of chamosoria, sarcophagi
and architectural monuments in the East necropolis was started in 2008 and will be
finished in the course of the 2009 season. The work is undertaken by David Hill, KHM,
UiO.
The field seasons of 2007 and 2008 were concentrated in two areas: The first area is
situated immediately to the W of and below the Philippeion, laid out as a burial ground in
the Middle Byzantine period (ca. 800-1204); 39 graves were identified, but only 5
excavated (nos. 8, 13, 21, 27, 29), all lying high in the ground probably due to erosion
(no grave objects, the skeletons badly preserved). Samples were taken for C14-dating and
DNA analysis (Appendix 3). – The second area, with Roman funerary monuments
disposed on terraces, lies just N of the Philippeion: the two funerary buildings C92 built
up against each other on the same terrace, surrounded by three sarcophagi were chosen
for investigation. The tomb appeared full with well-preserved skeletons lying helterskelter, among which were found a Byzantine cross in bronze and 5 pilgrim badges of
metal, badges identified with 4 European pilgrimage places (Cologne(?) in Germany,
Rocamadour and Noblat in France, and Rome). The date of the badges to the early 14th
century may demonstrate the longevity of the Philippeion as a cult and pilgrimage place,
even at a time when the area was under full control of the Emirate of Aydin. – Due to the
confused composition of the skeletons samples were taken from 8 skulls for C14-dating
and DNA analysis (Appendix 3).
2. The Thanatos research project
2.1. Background
Seen in relation to its size Hierapolis, with its three necropoleis, possess perhaps the
largest concentration of graves known in the Roman world. The necropoleis contain a
concentration of funerary data seldom available in ancient necropolis-excavations (cf.
Appendix 4).
Close collaboration has been established with the N and S necropolis excavations (run by
respectively Prof.. Donatella Ronchetta, Politecnico di Torino (N necropolis: completed)
and Prof. Salvatore Settis, Università di Pisa (S necropolis: started in 2008). For the
studies we shall have access to both the large corpus of monumental tombs and
sarcophagi in the N necropolis, in preparation by Prof. Ronchetta and her team, as well as
the large corpus of inscriptions, in print, prepared by Prof. Tullia Ritti and Dr. Francesco
Guizzi from Università degli studi “La Sapienza”, Rome. In addition the Norwegian
team, after the premature death of the English osteo-archaeologist Dr. Trevor Anderson,
responsible for the studies of bone material from the N necropolis, has been offered to
take over his work. An experienced osteo-archaeologist was added to the excavation team
in 2008 partly for this purpose and contacts established with the BI, UiO in order to
evaluate a collaborative research project.
2.2. Project objectives
Due to the remarkable presence of a wide spectre of funerary data, the necropoleis of
Hierapolis offer a unique possibility to investigate in a social setting an urban population
in detail over a long period of time (covering both the Roman, Byzantine, and early
Turkish periods of Asia Minor), including studies on funerary architecture and landscape
perception, funerary organization and entrepreneurship, funerary practices and rituals,
mortuary behaviour, genetic relationships and origins, paleodemography, health and
disease, behaviour, and diets and individual mobility patterns (cf. Buikstra & Lagia
2009). The project aims at a large scale investigation in depth making use of the latest
methods in GIS-surveying, ancient and mitochondrial DNA-analyses, isotope-analyses
and C14-datings.
As a by-product the project aims, in collaboration with institutions and individuals
working in the bone-analysis field, to create in Norway a more permanent structure for
this kind of studies, which in the future will be in increasing demand.
2.3. Funerary data (cf. also Appendix 4)
The funerary data are composed of various types of graves (some 600 monumental tombs
are registered, a majority excavated; Equini Schneider 1972; Ronchetta 2005, 2007;
Ronchetta & Mighetto 2007; Ronchetta et al., in preparation) and stratigraphical data for
their dating:
o Travertine and marble sarcophagi (in the N necropolis more than 1.800, adding up
the registered and non from the E and S necropoleis the number may reach 2.500)
(Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens 2002; Frate 2007)
o Simple Roman shaft graves and chamosoria (rock-cut shaft graves with stone lid,
at the moment only recorded in the N and E necropoleis: number not known)
o Hypogea (at the moment registered only in the North and East necropoleis)
o Hypersoria – or large pedestal buildings for containing burials inside and carrying
sarcophagi on top (registered in all necropoleis)
o House-shaped tombs of various shapes and sizes whether covered by saddle roofs
or barrel vaults (registered in all three necropoleis, though in the E necropolis they
are in the steep hillside arranged in terraces, more built as rows on the same
platform)
o Tumuli (registered in the N and the E necropoleis)
o Byzantine (and/or Turkish) shaft graves (ca. 300)
of various types of inscriptions (from all necropoleis, some 700 inscriptions, see Equini
Schneider 1970; Merkelbach 1997; Guzzi 2004; Ritti 1992-93, 2004; Ritti & Guzzi, in
print), giving information on issues as, for example:
o
o
o
o
o
the name of the first buried person and family connections
place of origin
occupation and career
administrative measures for the protection and maintenance of the tomb
magic and religious beliefs
of various types of grave goods, ritual objects, or other artefact items within the graves
(at the moment only from the N and E necropoleis)
personal belongings, most often as simple jewellery, and amulets
fragments of textiles from grave clothes
coins (for Charon)
in Christian burials: crosses and pilgrim badges (here for the first time found in
Asia
o Minor cf. point 1 above)
o vases, most often in the form of containers
o
o
o
o
of the dead bodies (at the moment only from the N (Anderson 2002, 2004, 2007) and E
necropoleis), appearing as single, multiple (in sarcophagi), and mass burials (in large,
monumental tombs) in the form of
o articulated skeletons
o semi-articulated skeletons
o dis-articulated bones
The Thanatos project will concentrate on studies of the large amount of bone material
excavated and under excavation from all necropoleis, integrating the bone data with the
funerary data on graves, grave contents, and inscriptions, much of which is already
published, in print, or in advanced preparation, but also on fresh material from the
Norwegian excavation project in the E necropolis.
2.4. Methodological basis
The project is composed of two interlocking parts, which form the basis for the further
studies on materiality and body theory seen in a social perspective from both a
synchronic (i.e. structural) and a diachronic (i.e. historical) point of view:
2.4.1. Study of the dead bodies – i.e. the collection of data with reference to the following
four study areas:
o Osteo-archaeology (recovering data on, for example, age, sex and gender, stature
estimations, pathology, injuries, behavioural wear and tear)
o Isotope analysis (recovering data from enamel and bone to determine individual
nutrition, origin, and mobility patterns: enamel forms during gestation and early
childhood, while the chemistry of bones is in constant change through life;
isotopes from enamel thus can give information on diet and geographic location
of a person’s early life, while isotopes in bones reflect the diet over the last 10-20
years of a person’s life and the location of the place of death)
o DNA analysis (revealing genetic relationships, as ethnic groups and origins, 1 but
also family connections, which in fortunate cases through inscriptions can be
given names and place of origin, in short: individual identities). – Cf. also
Appendix 3.
o C14-datings (due to long term use of many tombs, in cases also reuse,
eachidentified body has to be evaluated according to its date of death, for which
C14 datings (in large numbers), in lack of other dating methods, become very
important for the diachronic studies of the funerary data).
2.4.2. Study of the context of the dead bodies – i.e. the collection of funerary data as
presented in 2.3 above (graves, inscriptions, and grave objects) with reference to both the
Roman, Byzantine (i.e. Christian) and Turkish presence in the town
o the urban lay-out of the necropoleis (seen in relation to topographical conditions,
physical organizing principles, access and circulation, continuity and changes,
city border and liminality)
o the funerary buildings and sarcophagi (seen in relation to funerary architecture,
building technique, material, building procedures, internal relationships,
entrepeneurship, visibility, use and mechanisms of reuse (as possibly burials ad
sanctos in the E necropolis, near the Philippeion), abandonment processes and
disturbances)
1
Asia Minor was the cultural highway between East and West, and the population composed of a large
variation of ethnic and genetic groups. In a recent article it is, for example, postulated that similarity in
cranial discrete traits recorded in the Pissidian town of Sagalassos between its Byzantine population (11th13th c. AD) and Germans and Scandinavians “may have resulted from an early <Paleolithic or Neolithic>
shared common ancestor and may have been reinforced more recently <in the late Bronze Age> through
gene flow between these regions or populations” (Ricaut & Waelkens 2008).
o funerary inscriptions and contents (seen in relation to funerary rituals and belief
systems, social symbols, memory, identity, family and social organization,
political organization, gender distribution and sex roles; insiders and outsiders).
2.5 Theoretical frameworks
The Hellenistic-Roman-Byzantine society at Hierapolis, as all societies, was a manyfacetted living organism, as expressed through its many preserved monuments, artefacts,
and inscriptions. The tombs add literally a human factor to the urban organism: in the
interplay between dead bodies and their material contexts we possess an important tool to
study social meanings and relationships, not only as singular, synchronic, but also as
constantly changing events in which the meanings are continuously defined and
redefined. The aim of the project is to unveil the complexity of the ancient society, not its
uniformity. The wide variety of analytical data presented above thus requires, within a
social setting, theoretical approaches that are both polysemic and diverse. The studies, as
implied by the title of the project, will take its point of departure from body theory and
materiality.
Body theory purports the study of both the body as material (i.e. the dead bodies as
preserved skeletons, as presented in 2.4.1) and the body and material (i.e. the dead bodies
in context, as presented in 2.4.2) (Sofaer 2006). Materiality concerns archaeological
material in its widest sense, i.e. all kinds of material found in archaeological excavations,
including dead bodies. It is not a theory in itself, but an umbrella concept for a wide
range of theories placing the archaeological material in a social context (Glørstad &
Hedeager 2008, 27-28). Body theory and materiality are thus two approaches of study
which have much in common.
The present project aims at pulling together data from three different fields of study,
genetic, osteo-archaeological, and archaeological studies, and will need to access the data
achieved from different theoretical standpoints. We feel that this is not the place to go
into detailed theoretical issues, rather to present a generic theoretical overview.
Departing from the body the project will be working with theoretical issues which can be
summarized in three distinctive concepts, corporeal knowing, sensing, and being. These
three concepts are keywords in theories concerned respectively with social constructions,
phenomenology, and structure and agency. While social constructionist theories (as
introduced by Foucault 1970) account for body governmentality, the body being a social
construction of “a historically dominant episteme that strongly governs individual lives”,
phenomenology (developed by Merleau-Ponty 1962) accounts for ‘lived experience’, or
the practical engagements the body has with its surroundings, the two sets of theories
standing in opposition to each other. Structure and agency theories (presented by
Bourdieu 1990 and Giddens 1984, 1991) function as a kind of ‘middle way’ between the
ordered and lived bodies of the other two sets of theories, order and living giving rise to
action as structuring principle, claiming “that the body was simultaneously a recipient of
social practices and an active creator of its milieu” (see Borić & Robb 2008, 2-4; Shilling
2008a, 147-150).
Within the framework of these generic theories referring to epistemological,
phenomenological and ontological questions, the funerary data, seen both as bodies as
material and as bodies and material, will be discussed a wide range of approaches as
funerary architecture and landscape perception, funerary organization and
entrepreneurship, funerary practices and rituals, mortuary behaviour, genetic
relationships and origins, paleodemography, health and disease, behaviour, and diets and
individual mobility patterns – as listed in 2.2 – and in which discussions will be included
questions on issues like, for example, social organization, liminality, memory, identity,
gender and sex roles, ethnicity, quality of life, etc.
However, many of these approaches are synchronic in nature and thus make it difficult
to examine the interaction of the “embodied subject, society, experience, identity and
action… over time or the possibilities of social change that follow from this interaction.”
(Shilling 2008a, 150). There is a recent awareness around the diachronic shortcoming of
many body theoretical approaches (see, for example, Levine 2007; Shilling 2008b).
Diachronic analyses, as underlined above, will be imperative to the present project, which
aims at both providing new, complex, integrated research material, and to be an active
participant in the theoretical discussions on body and materiality.
Studies of the kind outlined here are not yet common for the antique and post-antique
populations of Asia Minor, but recent studies from Sagalassos demonstrate well the
potential for such and collateral bone studies (cf. footnote 1 and Appendix 3). The study
of the bone material from Hierapolis will add an enormous amount of fresh data to these
results and establish an important basis for similar future projects on other ancient, and
also not so ancient societies in Asia Minor and elsewhere.
2.6. Project organisation
2.6.1. Project leaders. – The project is a collaboration between prof. Erika Hagelberg
(evolutionary biologist), BI, UiO and the undersigned, prof. J. Rasmus Brandt (classical
archaeologist), IAKH, UiO. They are project leaders and their responsibilities are to
coordinate various professional initiatives, upheld contacts with the Italian
Archaeological Mission at Hierapolis, Turkish authorities and the advisory board, stay
up-dated on new scientific approaches and adjust the project if necessary, make sure that
ethical norms are followed, supervise the doctoral students, participate in the project with
their own research initiatives, and pulling the three research components together in a
joint, integrated publication. Their research areas, within the objectives of the project,
will be defined more precisely in concert with the three doctoral fellows, as soon as they
have been appointed.
For both project leaders is calculated a 6 months period of research leave paid by the
project, one period in the first year, one in the last year. Both project leaders will as part
of their scientific obligations towards UiO invest at least 30% of their yearly working
time in the project (as visualized in the project budget). The project is estimated for 4
years (2010-2013) in order that the project scholarships can be advertised and persons
hired within the first 6-7 months of the project, and the project be finished together with
the end of the scholarship-holders period of engagement (i.e. each for 3 years full time
research).
3. Works cited in the project description
o Anderson T. 2002: Tomb 163d: Hierapolis North Necropolis (Italian
Archaeological Mission: Archive Report)
o Anderson, T. 2004: Hierapolis North Necropolis (Italian Archaeological
Mission Archive Report)
o Anderson, T. 2007: Preliminary osteo-archaeological investigation in the North
necropolis, in: D’Andria, F. & P. Caggia (eds.), 473-492
o Borić, D. & J. Robb (eds.) 2008: Past bodies. Body-centered research in
archaeology, Oxbow Books, Oxford
o Borić, D. & J. Robb 2008: Body theory in archaeology, in: Borić, D. & J. Robb
(eds.), 1-7
o Bourdieu, P. 1990: The logic of practice, Polity Press, Cambridge
o Buikstra, J & A. Lagia 2009: Bioarchaeological approaches to Aegean
archaeology, in: L.A. Schepartz, S.C. Fox & C. Bourbou (eds.): New directions in
the skeletal biology of Greece (Hesperia Supplement 43), 7-29.
o D’Andria, F. & P. Caggia (eds.), Hierapolis di Frigia I. Le attività delle
campagne di scavo e restauro 2000-2003, Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul
o Equini Schneider, E. 1970: Note sulle iscrizioni funerarie di Hierapolis di
Frigia, Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali,
storiche e filologiche. Rendiconti, 25, 475-482.
o Equini Schneider, E. 1972: La necropolis di Hierapolis di Frigia. Contributi allo
studio dell’architettura funeraria di età romana in Asia Minor, Monumenti Antichi
48, 1971-73, 95-138.
o Foucault, M. 1970: The order of things. An archaeology of the human sciences,
Routledge, London.
o Frate, O. 2007: I sarcophagi in marmot della Necropoli Nord. Metodo della
ricerca e risultati preliminari, in: D’Andria, F. & P. Caggia (eds.), 457-472
o Giddens A.1984: The consequences of modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.
o Giddens A. 1991: Modernity and self-identity, Polity Press, Cambridge
o Glørstad & Hedeager (eds.) 2008: Materiality. Six essays on the materiality of
society and culture, Bricoleur Press, Lindome (Sweden)
o Guizzi, F. 2004: Iura sepulcrorum nel Museo di Denizli a Pamukkale
(Hierapolis di Frigia), in Libitina e dintorni, 635-652
o Levine, D. 2007: Somatic elements in social conflict, in: C. Shilling (ed.):
Embodying sociology. Retrospect, progress & prospects, Blackwell (The
sociological review. Monograph series), Oxford, 37-49.
o Merkelbach 1997
o Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962: The phenomenology of perception, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London
o Ricaut, F.X. & Waelkens, M. 2008: Cranial discrete traits in a Byzantine
population and Eastern Mediterranean population movements, Human Biology
80.5, 535-564
o Ritti, T. 1985: Hierapolis. Fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche. vol. 1, Roma, Giorgio
Bretschneider, 1985
o Ritti, T. 1992-93: Nuovi dati su una nota epigrafe sepolcrale con stefanotico da
Hierapolis di Frigia, Scienze dell'antichità. Storia, archeologia, antropologia, 4168.
o Ritti, T. 2004: Iura sepulcrorum a Hierapolis di Frigia. Nel quadro dell’epigrafia
sepolcrale microasiatica iscrizioni edite e inedite, in Libitina e dintorni, 455-634.
o Ritti, T. & Guizzi, F. in print: A corpus of all inscriptions from Hierapolis
o Ronchetta, D. 2005: L'architettura funeraria di Hierapolis. La continuità delle
indagini dall'impostazione scientifica di Paolo Verzone alle attuali problematiche,
in: Paolo Verzone (1902-1986). Tra storia dell'architettura restauro archeologia,
Celid, Turin, 168-184
o Ronchetta, D. & P. Mighetto 2007: La Necropoli Nord. Verso il progetto di
conoscenza: nuovi dati dalle campagne 2000-2003, in: F. D’Andria & M.P.
Caggia (eds.): Hierapolis di FrigiaI. Le attività di scavo e restauro 2000-2003,
Ege Yayinlari, Istanbul, 433-454
o Ronchetta et al., in preparation: A corpus of the funerary buildings in the north
necropolis at Hierapolis
o Shilling, C. 2008a: The challenge of embodying archaeology, in: Borić, D. & J.
Robb (eds.), 145-151.
o Shilling, C. 2008b: Changing bodies. Hybris, crisis and creativity, Sage,
London
o Sofaer, J.R. 2006: The body as material culture. A theoretical
osteoarchaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
o Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens 2002: The northwestern necropolis of Hierapolis
(Phrygia). The chronological and topographical distribution of the travertine
sarcophagi and their way of production, in: D. De Bernardi Ferrero (ed.):
Hieraplis IV. Scavi e ricerche. Saggi in onore di Paolo Verzone, Rome 119ff.
4. International advisory board
Representatives of the Hierapolis excavations
o Prof. Dr. Francesco D’Andria, Università di studi di Salento: director of the Hierapolis
excavations
o Prof. Dr. Donatella Ronchetta, Politecnico di Torino: project director of the North
necropolis excavations at Hierapolis
o Prof. Dr. Paul Arthur, Università di studi di Salento: specialist on medieval Hierapolis
and Turkey
Other representatives
o PD Dr. Christof Berns, Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Klassische Archäologie
o Ass.-Prof., Dr. Andrew Goldman, Classical Civilizations Department, History
Department, Gonzaga University
o Ass.-Prof. Dr. Karl Großschmidt, Department of Anthropology, Universität Wien
o Ass. prof. in genetics, Dr. Christine Keyser, Strasbourg University
o Prof. Dr. Guntram Koch, Fachgebiet Christliche Archäologie und Byzantinische
Kunstgeschichte, Philipps-Universität Marburg
o Prof. Dr. Taner Korkut, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Arkeoloji, Akdeniz Üniversitesi
(Antalya)
o Dr. Veli Köse, Edebiyat Fakültesi Arkeoloji, Hacettepe Üniversitesi (Ankara)