A decade for centuries

10 years of unlocking the past by the Institute for Archaeological and

Monumental Heritage

edited by

Daniele Malitana

Foreword by

Luigi Nicolais

Catania 2014

© All right reserved. Except in those case expressly determined by law, no part of the publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated dataile or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior writen consent of the publisher and editor.

MONOGRAFIE DELL'ISTITUTO PER I BENI ARCHEOLOGICI E MONUMENTALI (IBAM), 6CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE

Diretore responsabile: Daniele Malfitana

A decade for centuries. 10 years of unlocking the past by the Institute for Archaeological and Monumental Heritage240 pp., 24x21 cm.ISBN (13): 978-88-89375-10-5

I. Malitana, Daniele <1967>II. Nicolais, Luigi <1942>

Progetazione graica ed impaginazione: Giovanni Fragalà, Maria Luisa ScrofaniGalleria fotograica a cura di Giovanni FragalàCopertina: Francesco GabelloneCoordinamento editoriale e curatela redazionale: Annarita Di Mauro, Maria Luisa ScrofaniRevisione testi in lingua inglese: Philip Kenrick

* Si ringraziano Claudia Pantellaro per la foto di p. 121 e Samuele Barone per la foto di p. 147.

Luigi NicolaisPresidente del CNR - President of the CNR

Riccardo PozzoDiretore del Dipartimento di Scienze Sociali e Umane - Patrimonio Culturale del CNRDirector of the Department of Social Science and Humanities - Cultural Heritage of the CNR

Daniele MalfitanaDiretore dell'IBAM-CNR - Director of the IBAM-CNR

L’Istituto e la sua storiaThe Institute and its history

Lo statutoThe statute

Il teamResearch staf

Le competenze disciplinariDisciplinary resources

Le commesse di ricerca Research projects

I laboratoriThe laboratories

Daniele MalfitanaIntroduzioneIntroduction

Table of contents

PremessaForeword

L'Istituto in breve General overview

14

18

20

2627

3435

3637

3839

4041

4445

Focus sulle principali atività di ricerca dell’IstitutoFocus on the main research activities of the Institute

4647

Giuseppe Scardozzi, Giacomo Di GiacomoRicerche di topograia antica e carte archeologiche digitaliAncient topography research and digital archaeological maps

Nicola Masini, Giuseppe Scardozzi Telerilevamento da piataforma aerea e satellitare per l’archeologiaAirborne and spaceborne remote sensing for archaeology

Patrizia Tartara, Fiorella De LucaSistema Informativo Territoriale per i Beni CulturaliGeographical Information System for Cultural Heritage

Maria Piera Caggia, Tommaso IsmaelliDallo scavo stratigraico allo studio dell’architetura anticaFrom stratigraphic excavation to the study of ancient architecture

Giacomo Biondi, Salvatore RizzaScavi, esplorazioni del territorio, studio dei monumentiArchaeological excavations, surveys, architectural studies

Dimitris Roubis, Canio A. Sabia, Maurizio LazzariApprocci integrati per lo studio del paesaggio naturale ed antropicoIntegrated approaches to the study of natural and anthropogenic landscape

Stefano Del Lungo(con il contributo di D. Artusi, M. Fatucci, A. Maggio, M. Martoccia, R. Montagneti, G. Pastura, A. Sannazzaro, A. Tolve)

Memorie nascoste e territori svelati nella ricerca topograica antica e medievale Hidden memories and territories revealed in ancient and medieval topographical research

Fabrizio Terenzio Gizzi, Maurizio Lazzari, Dario GioiaRischi geologici e geomorfologici e salvaguardia del Patrimonio CulturaleGeological and Geomorphological risks and Cultural Heritage protection

Insediamenti, territorio, paesaggi: strumenti, metodologie e tecnicheSetlements, territory, landscapes: tools, methodologies and techniques

5253

5657

6061

6465

6868

7071

7475

7879

Giovanni LeucciLa geoisica per l’archeologia Geophysics for archaeology

Antonio Monte, Giuseppe Scardozzi, Maurizio Delli Santi, Giacomo Di GiacomoConoscenza e valorizzazione del patrimonio industriale nel Mezzogiorno d’Italia: dai siti al WebGISUnderstanding and enhancement of value of the industrial heritage in South Italy: from the sites to the WebGIS

Fabio FortinguerraEsperienze e strumenti normativi per l’archeologia preventivaPractical and legal issues in Preventive Archaeology

Massimo CultraroLe molteplici direzioni della Preistoria del Mediterraneo: voci e immagini dell’ultimo decennioThe many directions of Mediterranean Prehistory: voices and visions of the last ten years

Antonella Pautasso, Rossella Gigli PatanèBiograie di oggeti. Studi sulla cultura materiale d’età grecaBiographies of objects. Studies on Greek material culture

Fabio CarusoProblemi di iconograia del mondo classicoIconographic problems of the Classical world

Daniele Malfitana, Giuseppe Cacciaguerra(con il contributo di G. Amara, P. Amato, S. Barone, A. Branca, A. Cannata, P. Cannia, L. Carilli, A. Costa, A. Di Mauro, V. Guarnera, V. Gullota, L. Idà, M. Indelicato, P. Magrì, M. Musco, M.E. Musumeci, C. Pantellaro, L. Patanè, V. Reina, C. Rizza, M.L. Scrofani, V. Smiriglio)Archeologia romana e cultura materiale: indirizzi e prospetiveRoman archaeology and material culture: directions and prospects

Maria Teresa GiannottaRituali e corredi funerari nello studio delle società anticheStudying ancient societies through rituals and grave goods

Cultura materiale e società: processi di conoscenza, analisi ed intepretazioneMaterial culture and society: processes of recognition, analysis and interpretation

8283

8687

9091

9293

9696

9899

102103

110111

Lighea Pappalardo, Francesco Paolo RomanoArcheometria dei materialiArchaeometry of materials

Angela Calia, Mariateresa Lettieri, Maurizio Masieri, Giovanni Quarta, Nadia Bianco, Donato Colangiuli, Loredana Matera, Davide Melica, Maria Sileo, Emilia Vasanelli Diagnosi, prodoti e procedure per la conservazione del patrimonio costruitoDiagnosis, products and procedures for the conservation of built heritage

Angela Calia, Maria Teresa Giannotta, Mariateresa Lettieri, Maurizio Masieri, Giovanni Quarta, Davide Melica, Maria SileoConoscenza materica di manufati del patrimonio storico-architetonico ed archeologicoUnderstanding of materials used in historical, architectural and archaeological artefacts

Edoardo Geraldi, Giovanni Leucci, Nicola Masini, Raffaele PersicoDiagnostica non invasiva in situ e monitoraggio per la conoscenza, la conservazione ed il restauro di monumenti ed ediici storiciOn-site non invasive diagnostics and monitoring for the study, conservation and restoration of historical built heritage

Edoardo GeraldiEnergia, ambiente naturale e ambiente costruito: il patrimonio architetonico tra passato e side energetiche del presente e futuroEnergy, natural and built environment: the architectural heritage between past and present and future energy challenges

Antonio Cavallaro, Fabrizio Terenzio Gizzi, Salvatore Grasso, Maria Rosaria Potenza, Cinzia ZottaSismicità storica ed efeti, indagini geologico-geotecniche e mitigazione del rischio nei centri storiciHistorical seismicity and damage, geological-geotechnical surveys and seismic risk mitigation in historic centres

Raffaele Persico, Marilisa Biscione, Loredana Matera, Nicola Masini Innovazione tecnologica per la conservazione e la sicurezza del patrimonio culturaleTechnological innovation for the conservation and security of Cultural Heritage

Tecnologie e strumenti per la diagnostica e la conservazione del patrimonio culturaleTechnologies and tools for the diagnosis and conservation of Cultural Heritage

114115

118119

122123

126127

130131

134134

136137

Francesco GabelloneScenari virtuali e metafore cognitive per il turismo culturale e la comunicazione scientiicaVirtual scenarios and cognitive metaphors for cultural tourism and scientiic communication

Giovanni FragalàLa fotograia, l'inchiostro e l'archeologia Photography, ink and archaeology

Angelo Nicolosi, Stefania SantangeloMONETA, un database di numismatica anticaMONETA, a new information system to manage numismatic data

Giuseppe Chiurazzi, Marcello Corrado, Nicola RuggieriPer un approccio integrato al patrimonio culturaleTowards an integrated approach to Cultural Heritage

Orazio PulvirentiDalla matita al mouse: sperimentazioni per il disegno archeologico di manufatiFrom the pencil to mouse: trials for the design of archaeological artefacts

Maria DaneseAnalisi spaziali e modelli di archeologia preventivaSpatial analysis and models for preventive archaeology

Andrea SciannaModelli 2D e 3D per l’archeologia preventiva e la fruizione virtuale2D and 3D models for preventive archaeology and virtual fruition

Daniele MalfitanaLe missioni archeologiche dell’Istituto The archaeological missions of the Institute

Tecnologie e strumenti per la conoscenza, la documentazione e la comunicazione del patrimonio culturale

Technologies and tools for the understanding, documentation and communication of Cultural Heritage

140141

144145

148149

152153

156157

160161

164165

Le missioni archeologiche e le sinergie con l’UniversitàThe archaeological missions and collaborations with the University sector

168169

Daniele MalfitanaLe sinergie con l’UniversitàCollaborations with the University sector

Daniele Malfitana, Fabrizio Terenzio Gizzi, Angela CaliaL’IBAM ed il contesto territoriale: i rapporti con le Regioni Sicilia, Puglia e BasilicataIBAM in its context: relations with the regional Institutions of Sicily, Apulia and Basilicata

Antonino Torrisi, Gabriella Leanza, Marilena De Marco, Annamaria BriuoloI progeti di ricerca inanziati negli ultimi dieci anniThe research projects funded in the last ten years

Antonino TorrisiIl ruolo dei fondi e degli sviluppi negli ultimi dieci anniThe role of funding in the developments of the last ten years

Stefania Santangelo, Gaetana MarchesiniLa produzione scientiica negli ultimi dieci anniThe scientiic output of the last ten years

Stefania Santangelo, Gaetana MarchesiniLibri, saggi, articoli, monograie pubblicati negli ultimi dieci anniBooks, papers, articles edited volumes in the last ten years

Stefania SantangeloConferenze, workshops, summer schools negli ultimi dieci anniConferences, workshops, summer schools in the last ten years

Le atività scientiiche, i prodoti della ricerca ed il processo di internazionalizzazioneScientiic activities, research outcomes and internationalization

L’IBAM ed il contesto territoriale: i rapporti con le Regioni Sicilia, Puglia e BasilicataIBAM in its context: relations with the regional Institutions of Sicily, Apulia and Basilicata

Le risorse inanziarie e le performancesFunding and outcomes

172173

178

179

182183

186186

188188

190190

174175

Annarita Di Mauro, Maria Luisa ScrofaniStage e tirocini: nuovi percorsi di formazioneInternships and traineeships: new modes of training

Licia CutroniL’IBAM nel contesto internazionale e gli accordi di collaborazioneIBAM in the international context and the collaborative agreements

Licia Cutroni, Silvia IachelloLa progetazione comunitaria, nuovo driven della ricerca IBAMEU design, the new driven of IBAM research

Daniele MalfitanaConclusioniConclusions

IBAM Staf(a cura di Silvia Iachello)

Appendix

192192

ConclusioniConclusions

194195

198199

204205

207

102

Cu

ltu

ra m

ater

iale

e s

oci

età:

pro

cess

i di c

on

osc

enza

, an

alis

i ed

inte

pre

tazi

on

e

Archeologia romana e cultura materiale: indirizzi e prospetive

Daniele Malfitana, Giuseppe Cacciaguerra

(con il contributo di G. Amara, P. Amato, S. Barone, A. Branca, A. Cannata, P. Cannia, L. Carilli, A. Costa, A. Di Mauro, V. Guarnera, V. Gullota, L. Idà, M. Indelicato, P. Magrì, M. Musco, M.E. Musumeci, C. Pantellaro, L. Patanè, V. Reina, C. Rizza, M.L. Scrofani, V. Smiriglio)

Gli studi di archeologia romana oggi, nell’ampio contesto internazionale della ricerca, riletono esigenze che appaiono stretamente dipendenti dal dato archeologico indagato, sia esso una speciica classe di manufati, un territorio, una realtà urbana o rurale, o ancora, manifestazioni poli-tiche, sociali, ideologiche trasmesse e veicolate da esperienze concrete delle società oggeto d’indagine.

L’artigianato ceramico, nel caso nostro, rappresenta un punto di osservazione privilegiato proprio per la signiicativa concentrazione di infor-mazioni che aiutano a far comprendere quanto sia ormai necessario prevedere l’avvio di un innovativo dialogo tra archeologia, storia, geograia, ecologia, economia, etnograia, etc. lungo un percorso ed un approccio di indagine necessariamente multidisciplinare.

Lo studio di modelli di sviluppo regionale e sociale nelle società del mondo antico ha confermato la necessità di programmare un’archeologia sempre più interdisciplinare. L’archeologia è per riconosciuta ammissione e, direi, per sua stessa natura una disciplina caraterizzata da una spic-cata capacità di fare continui “zoom in and out” su un preciso tema. E tuto ciò può chiaramente emergere quando ogni esperienza di studio, come nel caso delle produzioni artigianali, viene indagata con l’apporto di diferenti ambiti disciplinari e con una diversiicazione di vedute, come sembra si stia oggi facendo in alcuni progeti di ricerca internazionali che integrano artigianato ceramico, produzioni, territori, paesaggi, economie ed in cui l’elemento uniicante che serve ad unire i diversi iloni sembra essere quello rappresentato dalla componente sociale, dall’uomo in particolare.

Lo studio della ceramica romana oggi, si può articolare, essenzialmente, su tre grandi cluster, ulteriormente struturati al loro interno. Il primo cluster riguarda l’approccio al manufato e la sua decodiicazione. Quest’operazione si esplica, essenzialmente, atraverso tre azioni

chiave che includono:1. Analisi tipo-cronologiche: l’approccio utilizzato nei lavori su produzioni diverse del Mediterraneo, occidentale ed orientale, ino ai più

recenti contributi sulle oficine africane, appare strategico per la costruzione di una griglia tipo-cronologica cui fare sempre riferimento. 2. Analisi dei modelli di distribuzione e commercializzazione inquadrati in streta relazione col tessuto economico del singolo contesto

archeologico e del più ampio contesto mediterraneo. La necessità di andare oltre il puro dato tipologico ha permesso, nel corso di quest’ultimo decennio, di allargare il campo di azione e di integrare dati tipo-cronologici con sistemi di produzione e di commercializzazione in cui storia, archeologia, economia e società dialogano vivacemente.

3. Analisi contestuali e funzionali. Un approccio d’indagine che partendo dal rapporto forma→funzione→destinazione d’uso→contesto di utilizzo→contesto di rinvenimento è oggi dirimente per ricostruire modi di vivere, costumi, usanze, tradizioni delle società del passato.

Il secondo cluster comprende, invece, l’indagine sul sistema di produzione. Anche in questo caso, è possibile individuare almeno tre azioni chiave che mirano ad indagare:

1. Le infrastruture produtive. Conoscere ed indagare il contesto produtivo in sé è il punto di partenza per ogni processo di analisi per comprendere il sistema infrastruturale da cui il vasellame è uscito fuori; per arrivare, inine, anche alle indagini fate su importanti contesti pro-dutivi di area centro-italica.

103

Material cu

lture an

d society: p

rocesses of recognition

, analysis an

d in

terpretation

Roman archaeology and material culture: directions and prospects

Daniele Malfitana, Giuseppe Cacciaguerra

(with contributions by G. Amara, P. Amato, S. Barone, A. Branca, A. Cannata, P. Cannia, L. Carilli, A. Costa, A. Di Mauro, V. Guarnera, V. Gullota, L. Idà, M. Indelicato, P. Magrì, M. Musco, M.E. Musumeci, C. Pantellaro, L. Patanè, V. Reina, C. Rizza, M.L. Scrofani, V. Smiriglio)

The study of Roman archaeology today, in the international research context, relects demands which appear strictly related to the aspect of archaeology under investigation, whether it is a speciic class of artefacts, a region, an urban or rural environment, or even political, social and ideological movements which ind their concrete expression in the material traces of the society being examined.

The category of potery represents a particular case in point, inasmuch as the signiicant amount of information that can be obtained from it and which can contribute to an innovative dialogue between archaeologists, historians, geographers, ecologists, economists, ethnographers etc. depends on an approach and a mode of study which is necessarily multidisciplinary.

The study of regional and social development models amongst societies of the ancient world has emphasised the necessity to embrace an ever more broadly based archaeology. Archaeology is admited to be - and is, I would say, by its very nature - a discipline characterised by a distinct capacity continuously to ‘zoom in and zoom out’ with regard to any theme. And all of this can become very clear when any line of study, as in the case of crat products, is pursued with the aid of diferent disciplines and a range of perspectives. This is happening now in certain international research projects which bring together potery, production centres, territories, landscapes and economies and in which the unifying element which brings all these diverse threads together seems to be that represented by the social aspect, and by Man in particular.

The study of Roman potery today can be divided essentially into three major clusters, each of which has further subdivisions.The irst cluster concerns the approach to the object and its decoding. This operation is efected essentially by means of three key activities,

which include:1. Typo-chronological analysis. The approach which has been used in studies of various eastern and western Mediterranean productions,

down to the most recent contributions on the African workshops, is fundamental in the construction of a typo-chronological grid as a constant base of reference.

2. Analysis of models of marketing and distribution developed strictly in relation to the economic networks of both the individual site and the whole Mediterranean. The necessity to go beyond the simple typological data has enabled us, in the last ten years, to broaden the ield of study and to integrate typo-chronological data with systems of production and distribution in which history, archaeology, economics and society all interact with vigour.

3. Functional and contextual analysis. This is a line of study which, starting from the relationship form→function→purpose→context of use→context of discovery, is decisive in reconstructing ways of living, customs, habits and traditions of past societies.

The second cluster concerns, by contrast, the study of the system of production. In this case too, it is possible to identify at least three key activities which set out to investigate:

1. The infrastructure of production. To understand and to investigate the context of production on its own account is the starting-point for any process of analysis of the environment within which the vessel has been created; leading, therefore, to the investigations which have been carried out on the important production centres of central Italy.

104

Cu

ltu

ra m

ater

iale

e s

oci

età:

pro

cess

i di c

on

osc

enza

, an

alis

i ed

inte

pre

tazi

on

e

2. Analisi sui prodoti initi. Lavori d’insieme in cui aspeti diversi vengono presi in esame e relazionati tra loro per costruire una visione integrata comune e completa del prodoto manifaturato esaminato.

3. Analisi dei processi di produzione e loro proiezione nel contesto sociale dell’epoca.

Il terzo cluster vede, inine, come naturale conclusione, il tema delle analisi archeometriche dove l’applicazione di indagini chimico-isiche o la letura petrograica dei componenti sono diventati passaggi obbligati ora non più eludibili né procrastinabili.

Tre sono, anche in questo caso, le azioni chiave del cluster. 1. Tipologie di analisi. È necessario individuare il più correto e rispondente sistema di analisi archeometriche da applicare al manufato

ceramico in un percorso dove la valutazione di molteplici aspeti (contesto, composizione, area geologica, etc.) gioca un ruolo dirimente.2. Laboratori specializzati. Nulla di più sbagliato è afidare analisi archeometriche, qualunque esse siano, a laboratori non specializzati o

parzialmente specializzati.3. Aspeto procedurale. Qui, le parole di S. Zabehlicky inquadrano chiaramente cosa si intende con questa azione che investe, come credo,

l’aspeto più propriamente deontologico-procedurale del cluster “analisi archeometriche”: “We cannot demand from archaeometry the solution of every archaeological problem, but in good collaboration - and asking the right persons the right questions - it should be possible to get somehow nearer to the truth and to improve our knowledge about provenance, production technique and distribution of our beloved sherds… choose the righ samples for the right means of analyses and the right question to connect with it”.

È ora chiaro che ognuno dei cluster sin qui individuati non è in grado di funzionare né di reggere la complessa macchina procedurale di appli-cazione e sperimentazione di metodologie e tecniche se non si ativa un percorso virtuoso che meta nelle condizioni di organizzare un sistema integrato di approcci alimentato da un unico ilo condutore. Ognuno dei cluster sopra elencati richiede, in questo modo, necessariamente mirata specializzazione e, sopratuto, forte integrazione tra specialisti diversi.

Il conceto di “chaîne opératoire” recentemente elaborato serve per struturare ed articolare i complessi dati archeologici che l’archeologo, e nel caso speciico il ceramologo, ha a disposizione, permetendo di sviluppare modelli operativi che aiutano ad afrontare studi ed indagini sul singolo manufato o su una classe speciica di manufati unendo agevolmente conoscenze tecnologiche e analisi del complesso sistema societario.

Lungo questo percorso, dunque, si colloca, all’interno delle atività IBAM sul tema, la nascita, nel 2007 della rivista Facta. A Journal of Roman material culture studies, oggi conluita nella nuova esperienza di HEROM. Journal on Hellenistic and Roman material culture che confermano come lo studio della cultura materiale non può più essere inteso seguendo un tradizionale approccio analitico-descritivo, ma deve essere piutosto costruito guardando ad aspeti legati ai processi di ideazione e produzione, alle competenze artigianali, alla conoscenza delle diverse maestranze coinvolte nel processo produtivo, alle trasformazioni culturali dell’oggeto in bene, etc.

Alcuni passaggi dell’editoriale in HEROM, 1, 2012 illustrano chiaramente obietivi e deiniscono strategie: “HEROM” acknowledges that the study of past material culture should contribute to our knowledge of this “complex structure of past life”. Complex maters are worse than com-plicated ones. Something complicated, like an engine, has lots of bits and parts that need to function together for it to work. An engine is thus supposed to perform within a relatively narrow and predictable range of behaviours. Archaeology and the study of ancient artefacts, by contrast, are complex maters, which display properties and behaviours that cannot be atributed to any particular part, but only to the system as a whole. As a mater of fact, archaeology harbours the fairly unique potential to explore societal development by combining the dimensions of materiality and cognition with time and space.

With its focus on the Hellenistic and Roman periods, including Late Antiquity, “HEROM” seeks to contribute to the wider ield of historical archaeology. Also this ield is complex. Where archaeology as a scientiic discipline, in general, approaches the analysis of social complexity and

105

Material cu

lture an

d society: p

rocesses of recognition

, analysis an

d in

terpretation

2. The study of the inished products. Works of synthesis in which various aspects are taken into account and set in relation to one another, in order to construct a uniied and comprehensive vision of the artefact under examination.

3. The study of the processes of production and their projection upon the social environment of the time.

The third cluster, inally, is concerned as a natural conclusion with the theme of archaeometric analysis, where the application of chemico-physical analyses or the petrographic description of the components of the clay have become obligatory stages in potery study, which cannot be omited or postponed. In this cluster, too, there are three key factors:

1. Choice of analytical technique. It is necessary always to identify the most appropriate and informative analytical technique to apply to the potsherd, in a procedure where the evaluation of multiple factors (context, composition, geological origin) plays a decisive role.

2. Access to specialised laboratories. There is no greater error than to entrust archaeometric analyses of any kind to laboratories which have litle or no experience of the work.

3. Procedural aspects. Here, the words of S. Zabehlicky encapsulate clearly the more speciically procedural signiicance of the ‘archaeomet-ric analysis’ cluster: “We cannot demand from archaeometry the solution of every archaeological problem, but in good collaboration - and asking the right persons the right questions - it should be possible to get somehow nearer to the truth and to improve our knowledge about provenance, production technique and distribution of our beloved sherds… choose the right samples for the right means of analyses and the right question to connect with it”.

It is now clear that none of the clusters deined above is capable of functioning or of governing the whole complex procedural business of ap-plying and testing methodologies and techniques, without the deinition of a rigorous path which provides for the organization of an integrated system of approaches, guided by a single objective. Each of the clusters listed here requires, in this respect, appropriate specialisations and, above all, close collaboration between diferent specialists.

The recently elaborated concept of a chaîne opératoire serves to articulate and to give structure to the complex archaeological data which the archaeologist - here, speciically, the ceramologist - has available to him or her, allowing the development of working models which help to address studies and investigations on single artefacts or classes of artefacts, combining efectively technological knowledge with study of the complex social system to which they belong.

A signiicant point on this path was marked, in 2007, by the launch in the context of the activities of IBAM of the journal Facta. A Journal of Roman material culture studies, which has now been succeeded by HEROM. Journal on Hellenistic and Roman material culture. These publica-tions underline how the study of material culture can no longer be understood by following a traditional analytical-descriptive approach. It must instead be constructed through due atention to the processes of invention and production, to the skills of the cratsmen, to recognition of the varied workforce involved in the production process, to the cultural transformation of the object into an asset and so on.

Certain passages in the editorial introduction to HEROM 1 (2012) set out its clear objectives and strategic aims: “HEROM” acknowledges that the study of past material culture should contribute to our knowledge of this “complex structure of past life”. Complex maters are worse than complicated ones. Something complicated, like an engine, has lots of bits and parts that need to function together for it to work. An engine is thus supposed to perform within a relatively narrow and predictable range of behaviours. Archaeology and the study of ancient artefacts, by contrast, are complex maters, which display properties and behaviours that cannot be atributed to any particular part, but only to the system as a whole. As a mater of fact, archaeology harbours the fairly unique potential to explore societal development by combining the dimensions of materiality and cognition with time and space.

With its focus on the Hellenistic and Roman periods, including Late Antiquity, “HEROM” seeks to contribute to the wider ield of historical archaeology. Also this ield is complex. Where archaeology as a scientiic discipline, in general, approaches the analysis of social complexity and

106

Cu

ltu

ra m

ater

iale

e s

oci

età:

pro

cess

i di c

on

osc

enza

, an

alis

i ed

inte

pre

tazi

on

e

its evolution in the long-term, historical archaeology is mostly concerned with periods and regions where the functioning of society in itself has become quite complex. In consideration of this, we have to consciously avoid not to present our assemblages of material culture as the result of a homogeneous, evolutionary process of social and regional development (such as from chiefdom to polis to state), but to make the particulari-ties and inconsistencies of that part of the archaeological record we study contribute to debates in social, economic and regional archaeology. “HEROM” consciously opts to move away from cultural and social evolutionism, which still characterizes much research, particularly in classical archaeology (e.g. the debate on r/Romanization or imperialism). The concept of social evolution (the ‘logical’ evolution from hunter/gatherers to complex civilizations) has placed an intellectual straightjacket on the archaeological discipline, representing “one of the most persistent meta-narratives in western thought”. Alternatively, “HEROM” aims to move towards an understanding of social complexity rather than evolution. While, through time, society has become more complex, “complexity should not be conceived as the ultimate goal of social evolution”. Diferent communities within the Hellenistic kingdoms and Roman Empire were able to evolve in diferent yet complex ways based on how inequalities were established and contested. Social complexity and its development existed on many levels and scales, and in many contexts”.

I cluster sopra menzionati funzionano perché ad essi si vanno agganciando ulteriori iloni di ricerca innovativa che hanno come punto centrale il manufato e le sue “storie”.

1. Cultura materiale come strumento di comunicazione;2. Biograia di un manufato;3. Costruzione e decostruzione di un contesto;4. Vita di un manufato dalla produzione, distribuzione, primo uso, mantenimento, riuso, riciclo, ino alla sua riparazione e al suo riutilizzo.

Archeologia della produzione, archeologia dei consumi, archeologia cognitiva rappresentano, dunque, quel sistema di “networks” di saperi atorno a cui è articolato oggi lo studio della cultura materiale.

Tuto ciò implica necessariamente la costruzione di un articolato processo di analisi in cui la nozione di “cultural bricolage” coniata in tempi re-centi serve per riconoscere quelle interazioni sociali e tecnologiche di emulazioni tra produzioni artigianali diverse dove pesi e ruoli sono costituiti da “hybrid identities, human agency and the concept of cultural relativism”.

Lo spirito, oggi, è quello di lavorare, specie nei grandi progeti di ricerca quali sono alcuni ativi presso l’IBAM e coordinati da chi scrive, per costruire “solid bridges between this traditional body of knowledge and the more conceptual agenda of the wider archaeological discipline”. In-novative insights in the functioning of Roman potery as proxy evidence for the functioning and potential trajectory of moderate growth of the ancient economy sustained by speciic technological developments, indicate the ground-breaking potential of combining tradition with the new disciplinary research agendas”.

107

Material cu

lture an

d society: p

rocesses of recognition

, analysis an

d in

terpretation

its evolution in the long term, historical archaeology is mostly concerned with periods and regions where the functioning of society in itself has become quite complex. In consideration of this, we have to consciously avoid not to present our assemblages of material culture as the result of a homogeneous, evolutionary process of social and regional development (such as from chiefdom to polis to state), but to make the particulari-ties and inconsistencies of that part of the archaeological record we study contribute to debates in social, economic and regional archaeology. “HEROM” consciously opts to move away from cultural and social evolutionism, which still characterizes much research, particularly in classical archaeology (e.g. the debate on r/Romanization or imperialism). The concept of social evolution (the ‘logical’ evolution from hunter/gatherers to complex civilizations) has placed an intellectual straightjacket on the archaeological discipline, representing “one of the most persistent meta-narratives in western thought”. Alternatively, “HEROM” aims to move towards an understanding of social complexity rather than evolution. While, through time, society has become more complex, “complexity should not be conceived as the ultimate goal of social evolution”. Diferent com-munities within the Hellenistic kingdoms and Roman Empire were able to evolve in diferent yet complex ways based on how inequalities were established and contested. Social complexity and its development existed on many levels and scales, and in many contexts”.

The clusters mentioned above work because they atract further innovative lines of research which have as their focal point the artefact and its ‘histories’.

1. Material culture as a means of communication;2. Biography of an artefact;3. Construction and deconstruction of a context;4. The life-cycle of an artefact, through production, distribution, primary use, maintenance, reuse, recycling and eventually repair and

restoration to use.

Thus the archaeology of production, the archaeology of consumption and cognitive archaeology represent that system of ‘networks of knowledge’ around which the study of material culture is now built. All of this predicates the construction of an articulated process of analysis in which the recently coined notion of cultural bricolage serves to recognise those social and technological interactions involved in the mutual emulation of diferent crat productions, where ranks and roles are composed of “hybrid identities, human agency and the concept of cultural relativism”.

The spirit in which we work today, especially in the major research projects being conducted by IBAM under the direction of the writer, is to build “solid bridges between this traditional body of knowledge and the more conceptual agenda of the wider archaeological discipline. Innovative insights in the functioning of Roman potery as proxy evidence for the functioning and potential trajectory of moderate growth of the ancient economy sustained by speciic technological developments, indicate the ground-breaking potential of combining tradition with the new disciplinary research agendas.”

References: D. Malfitana, J. Poblome, J. Lund, Tempus Fugit, «Facta» manent. Editorial statement, in Facta. A Journal of Roman material culture studies, 2007, pp. 13-20;

D. Malfitana, J. Poblome, J. Lund, Scherben bringen Glück. Herom’s editorial Statement, in Herom. Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture, 1, 2012, pp. 7-21; D.

Malfitana, «Where to go from there?». Una rete cluster per lo studio della ceramica romana nello spazio paneuropeo della ricerca, in Ceramica romana nella Puglia adriatica.

Indagini archeologiche a Egnazia. Dallo scavo alla valorizzazione, Bari, 2012, pp. 361-377.

108

Cu

ltu

ra m

ater

iale

e s

oci

età:

pro

cess

i di c

on

osc

enza

, an

alis

i ed

inte

pre

tazi

on

e

Piato con medaglione centrale che rafigura Dioniso ebbro, sorreto da un satiro, e Pan, da Sagalassos.

Serving tray with a central medallion depicting a drunk Dionysos, supported by a satir, and Pan from Sagalassos.