This PDF file of your paper in Common Ground:Archaeology, Art, Science, and Humanities belongs tothe publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright.

As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprintsfrom it, but beyond that you may not publish it on theWorld Wide Web or in any other form.

ASSOCIAZIONEINTERNAZIONALE DI

ARCHEOLOGIACLASSICA

Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress

of Classical ArchaeologyBoston, August 23–26, 2003

Common Ground:Archaeology, Art, Science, and Humanities

CAROL C. MATTUSCHA.A. DONOHUE

AMY BRAUEReditors

Oxbow Books

Published byOxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OX1 1HN

© Oxbow Books and the authors, 2006.

ISBN 1 84217 183 6 978 1 842171 183 7

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

This book is available direct from

Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OX1 1HN(Phone: 01865-241249; Fax: 01865-794449)

and

The David Brown Books CompanyPO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA

(Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468)

or from our website

www.oxbowbooks.com

Printed in Great Britain atShort Run Press, Exeter

Contents

CONGRESS PROGRAM vii

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS xxi

Greetings to the Participants xxvPaolo Liverani

Introduction xxviCarol C. Mattusch, A.A. Donohue, and Amy Brauer

NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS xxvi

SESSION I Keynote Address: Art, Science, and Unifying Vision in Classical Archaeology 1 George L. Huxley

SESSION II–A History of Archaeology 7

SESSION II–B Recycling in Antiquity 18

SESSION II–C Magic and Religious Practices 40

SESSION II–D Cultural Interactions in the Classical World I 66

SESSION II–E New Discoveries: Greece, Balkans, and Turkey 79

SESSION II–F Allusions to Elsewhere: Copies, Fakes, and Souvenirs in the Roman World 102

SESSION III–A Museums and Collecting in the Past 111

SESSION III–B Crossing Boundaries 132

SESSION III–C Post-Antique 146

SESSION III–D Numismatics and Epigraphy 158

SESSION III–E Investigating Dionysiac Imagery 168

SESSION III–F Building the Image of the “Urbs” in Antiquity (Colloquium) 186

SESSION III–G Revealing the “Logos” of “Techné”: 208Ancient Technology through Modern Lenses (Colloquium)

SESSION III–H Testing Classical Boundaries: 218Promise and Problems in the Study of the “Periphery” (Colloquium)

SESSION III–P Poster Session 231

SESSION IV–A New Discoveries: Italy 233

SESSION IV–B Houses, Palaces, and Villas 234

SESSION IV–C Conservation and Restoration 249

SESSION IV–D New Discoveries: North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula 274

SESSION IV–E Methods and Meanings in Funerary Practices 288

SESSION IV–F Education: Grounding Our Knowledge 295

SESSION IV–G Roman Social History and Archaeology: 312New Models and Material Evidence (Colloquium)

SESSION V–A Ancient Society I 331

SESSION V–B Ancient Technologies I 352

SESSION V–C Elements of Architecture in the Ancient World 372

SESSION V–D Recording the Past 405

SESSION V–E Iconography in Sculpture 424

SESSION V–F Real-Time Reconstruction Models for Exhibition and Education: 451The Herodian Temple Mount Installation at the Davidson Center in Jerusalem(Colloquium)

SESSION V–G Children in Ancient Greece I (Colloquium) 464

SESSION VI–A Ancient Society II 488

SESSION VI–B Ancient Technologies II 509

SESSION VI–C Collecting in the Present 523

SESSION VI–D Landscapes 536

SESSION VI–E Iconography of Myth 570

SESSION VI–F Cultural Interactions in the Classical World II 597

SESSION VI–G Children in Ancient Greece II (Colloquium) 605

INDEX OF AUTHORS 629

xxvCongress Program

Greetings to the Participants

I would like to greet all of our colleagues gathered for thisextremely important event, thanking the organizers,especially Amy Brauer and David Mitten, as well as KarenManning, and all of Harvard University, for the enormouslabor that they have undertaken to welcome us. I need toapologize for my absence, and for my consequent inabilityto deliver this message in person – but I leave the task to thevice-president of AIAC, Elizabeth Fentress.

The mission of Classical Archaeology today is thenecessary unity of research and of conservation of ourclassical heritage. These are two faces of the same coin.Today we are called upon to renew our approach with anever-closer dialogue with the methodologies developed forother scientific disciplines, mathematics, the physical andbiological sciences. The theme of this conference is thusentirely apposite.

However, we cannot forget that the interface betweencultural heritage and modernity does not take place inlaboratories and lecture halls alone, but also, and oftenwith far greater conflict, in the field. The need to protectour monumental heritage and our landscapes, whoseimportance is incalculable, has daily to deal with theheadlong development needs of Western society, and tofind ways to collaborate with those needs. At the sametime we are threatened by the encroachments of legitimatedevelopment, and we have also to cope with the looterswho, as we speak, are working in all Mediterraneancountries, and whose products end up on the antiquitiesmarkets. Here, while the supply-side must be dealt with bylocal police, we as archaeologists must work to control thedemand, by persuading our friends and institutions to stay

away from the purchase of unprovenanced antiquities.Although we all know how difficult this is, a powerfulinstrument for persuading institutions will be illustratedby Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, in the roundtable on theU.S./Italy Long-Term Loan Program. I hope that AIAC inthe future will serve as a site for discussion, for thecomparison of individual experiences in ClassicalArchaeology and historic preservation, and for therefinement of institutional sensibilities. Knowledge andpreservation are two different names for the same reality.These are the motivations for two of our current initiatives.The first of these is the project Fasti on-line. This importantnew undertaking, sponsored by the Packard Foundation,is about to begin, and we would be grateful for input fromall of you as to the form it should take. Our second newinitiative is the new, on-line version of AIAC News, whichI invite you all to read and respond to – we will be happyto publish your contributions to this and other debates.AIAC should do as much as possible to express the needsof its members, and in turn needs its members to survive.I hope that all of you who are not yet members willconsider joining the association.

I would like to finish with a final thought. At Amsterdamwe were able to announce Harvard’s generous offer to hostthe next quinquennial meeting. This year no such announce-ment is possible, although discussions are underway. Thusany institution that is interested in hosting the 2008 meetingshould not hesitate to get in touch with us. Candidates willbe discussed at the next meeting of the AIAC council, andwe welcome your offers.

I wish you a happy and fruitful conference.

Paolo LiveraniMusei Vaticani, Associazione Internazionale di Archeologia Classica, President 2003–2006

Introduction

The XVIth International Congress of ClassicalArchaeology was heralded by a stunning thunderstorm,and lightning struck the hotel, knocking out electricity asparticipants arrived for the conference (August 23–26,2003). Common Ground: Archaeology, Art, Science, andHumanities attracted an enthusiastic group of over 400scholars – archaeologists, art historians, and conservationscientists from twenty-five countries. One hundred fortypapers, twenty-one posters, eight colloquia and tworoundtable sessions presented new research and discoverieson topics including Classical Archaeology, museum studies,site preservation, historiography, and computer technology.

Opening remarks by Paolo Liverani, President of AIAC,were read by the Vice President, Elizabeth Fentress. In hiskeynote address, Art, Science, and Unifying Vision inClassical Archaeology, Professor George L. Huxley ofTrinity College, Dublin, discussed the important connectionsbetween present and past, and stressed the need for a“unifying vision” in our studies of archaeology, literature,epigraphy, geography, prehistory and history, art, andtechnology. The collegial atmosphere of the sessionsstimulated discussions of topics ranging from epigraphy toiconography, from ancient funerary practices to currentdirections in conservation, from buildings to cities tolandscapes, and beyond. J. Rasmus Brandt, Past Presidentof AIAC, delivered the closing remarks for the congress.

As the editors and organizers of the congress, we arevery grateful for the help we have received from the membersof the Program Committee and the Planning Committee,and particularly from the Harvard University Art MuseumsLocal Committee whose tireless efforts before, during, andafter the Congress ensured its success.

Program Committee Planning CommitteeAmy Brauer Beryl Barr-SharrarRichard D. De Puma Amy BrauerA.A. Donohue Elizabeth FentressKenneth D.S. Lapatin Carol C. MattuschCarol C. Mattusch Andrew Oliver, Jr.David G. Mitten Nancy H. RamageJohn Oakley Katherine A. Schwab

Rabun Taylor

Harvard University Art Museums Local CommitteeAmy Brauer

Shelley GriffinKaren ManningAlexis Tumolo

Generous financial assistance from the following sourcesmade possible the XVIth International Congress of ClassicalArchaeology: Jerome M. Eisenberg, Minerva magazine, SolRabin, and Jonathan Rosen.

The publication of these Proceedings has been madepossible by major contributions from The Jerome LevyFoundation, from James Ottaway, Jr., Peter Aldrich, HarvardUniversity Art Museums, and from the College of Arts andSciences at George Mason University.

To all of the above individuals and institutions, we aregrateful, and we are pleased to present Common Ground:Archaeology, Art, Science, and Humanities.

Carol C. Mattusch, George Mason UniversityA.A. Donohue, Bryn Mawr College

Amy Brauer, Harvard University Art Museums

Note on Abbreviations Used

Abbreviations of modern journals and books follow the guidelines of the American Journal of Archaeology 104 (2000) 10–24. Ancientauthors and works are cited according to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (third ed.; Oxford and New York, 1996) xxix–liv.

The Parliament Building of Patara 93

The Parliament Building of Patara

Taner Korkut

Patara, a west Lycian city, became the capital of the LycianLeague1 after the Roman Senate declared its independencein 168/67 B.C.2 This political change was comprehensivelydescribed in the ancient sources and has also been treated inthe secondary literature.3 Owing to the modern interest inLycia, many visitors came to the Turkish Riviera;4 their travelreports chiefly concentrated on Lycian history andarchitecture. While the visitors studied the political structureof the Lycian League, they also wrote much on themonumental buildings in the cities, many of which can todaybe reconstructed only through the interpretation of thesereports. The studies of the political structure were concernedmostly with the boule and the ekklesia in the Roman period,which originated from the Hellenistic federal constitutions.Moreover, the meeting dates for the boule and the ekklesiacan be understood from the well-preserved inscriptions.5

Astonishingly, there has yet been no uniform theory aboutPatara as the capital of the Lycian League in the Hellenisticperiod. It is likely that historians and archaeologists havefocused their interest exclusively on the inscriptions of theRoman period. It is still unclear today where the centraladministration of the Lycian League was established,although most scholars believe that during the Roman periodthe provincial administration of Lycia was based in Patara.6

I think that because of the lack of a description of theHellenistic bouleuterion in Patara, scholars have beensceptical of the notion that Patara was the residential seat ofthe Lyciarch.

Shortly after the beginning of the excavation in Patara,Fahri Işık, the excavation director, reported that a monu-mental building in front of the theater in the city center wasregarded as the parliament building of the Lycian League(Fig. 1), as well as of the Roman province Lycia etPamphylia.7 The academic investigation of the bouleuterionwas begun six years after F. Işık’s report. In the firstcampaign, bushes and shrubs outside the building wereremoved, and some of the blocks were transported from theground to a storage deposit field for blocks.8

Most of the sand outside the wall was removed duringthe following three years (1997–1999). Meanwhile, thephotogrammetric and survey work was accomplished. Nineof the transported blocks carry inscriptions on their surfaces.They are undoubtedly the bases for honorary statues fromthe bouleuterion, since most of them are approximatelycubical, with a vertical measurement greater than the width.The inscriptions indicate that the Assembly of the LycianLeague took place within this building.9 The ground betweenthe bouleuterion and the theater, especially at the south-western corner of the bouleuterion, was freed in 1998 fromthe sand covering it. At the same time, the Justinianic citywall was uncovered, which extends from the corner andforms the south wall of the bouleuterion. The foundations ofthe building, which belong to the original construction,were found through deep sondages at the southwesterncorner during the excavation of 1998, and in front of theeastern wall during excavations in 2000.10 The stonecuttingtechniques employed in these foundations are identical, but,at the same time, a difference in the base levels between

Session II–E: New Discoveries: Greece, Balkans, and Turkey

Fig. 1. Patara, bouleuterion seen from theater (archive ofPatara excavation)

Session II–E: New Discoveries: Greece, Balkans, and Turkey94

either side was recognized. The level of the foundations onthe western side is 17 cm higher than that on the other side.

The first excavation inside the bouleuterion began in2001, in order to ascertain new and important informationconcerning the interior of the structure (Fig. 2). First of all,most of the sand covering the interior of the building wasremoved, and the blocks lying on the surface of the sandwere transported to the storage deposit field. Thirteen blockstransported from the northeastern corner carry inscriptions.These blocks can be understood as the podia for honorarystatutes, like the nine blocks found outside the building.Cuttings for dowels by which these statues were fixed to thepodia, are visible on top of these blocks.

In 2002 we made quite important finds as a result of thelast campaign in the bouleuterion. When the rest of thesand deposited inside was completely removed, it becamepossible for us to draw the ground plan of the walls, whichhad fallen down inside (Fig. 3). The result of the sondagebetween blocks indicates that large amounts of soil andceramics, which have been dated to between the secondcentury B.C. and the twelfth century A.D., had been carriedby wind and rain from the western side of the building intoits interior. The depth of the deposit of ceramics and soilranges from 1 to 2 m. Under this material, we found the

cavea, which is preserved up to vault level on the northernside. None of the rows of seats has been found in front of thevault on the southern side, however, and it is likely that theywere removed during the construction of Justinian’s wall.Some of the seats were recycled in this construction workand are visible in the late wall to the south of the building.Many fallen seats that were once reused as material inJustinian’s wall on the southwestern corner were uncoveredwhen the sand was removed and were transported to thestorage deposit field. Amazingly, a seat of honor wasuncovered at the axis of the cavea (Fig. 4). This seat,semicircular in form, is distinguished by its side steps. Sincethe level of the seat of honor is very high in comparisonwith the other seats in this row and the flanking stairs,further rows of seats can be expected behind this honoraryseat.

The entrances that led from the auditorium to the officeroom, and also the doors between the offices, were closedoff by the expansion of Justinian’s city wall. The new wallwas extended in the north-to-south direction, between thetwo large vaults of the building. Large numbers of fragmentsof architecture and sculpture were reused in this wall, anda mass of various ceramic fragments was found in frontof it.

Fig. 2. Patara, hypothetical reconstruction of bouleuterion (archive of Patara excavation)

The Parliament Building of Patara 95

Fig. 3. Patara, aerial view of bouleuterion (archive of Pataraexcavation)

Fig. 4. Patara, bouleuterion, seat of honor (archive ofPatara excavation)

Although the previous excavations had not given usenough information to reconstruct the bouleuterion com-pletely, a general idea of its ancient appearance can be hadfrom the relatively well-preserved building, combined withthe results of the provisional study. The building stands ona layer of limestone. The blocks used as building materialwere of local limestone. The discrepancy in the depth of thefootings of the foundation level, a difference of c. 17 cmbetween the east side and the west, was corrected by theelevation of the foundations. The building took the form ofa rectangle, 42.80 m on the long side (north-south) and30.60 m from the front to the axis of the semicircle at the

back (east-west). The northwestern corner is the bestpreserved part of the bouleuterion; there the height of thesurviving wall is c. 17 m, which is likely to be the originalheight of the building, that is, the measurement from thefoundations to the roof.

The cavea is formed by semicircular tiers of seats, anddivided into sections by lines of stairs, of which only twosteps had been found in the middle of the area in previousexcavations. Investigation of the curve of the western wallshowed that the curve extends to the middle of the northernwall. The flat space in front of the rounded rear wall indicatesthat a landing was provided in the upper part of the cavea.In the course of further excavation, this presumption wasconfirmed by the uncovering of a vaulted stairway at thesouthwestern corner and the partial uncovering of a largevault in the northeastern corner. Another large vault can berecognized in the southeastern corner. These large vaultedgalleries are symmetrically identical in structure. Threedoorways have been identified in each vault. One door oneach side, larger than the two others and opening outward,is certainly the entrance to the bouleuterion. At the sametime, each vault widens towards the inside. While one ofthe two smaller doors on the eastern side could provideaccess to an office room, the third door provides an entranceinto the adjacent vault, which is located to the west and isrelatively smaller than the entrance vault. It is still uncertainwhether the second vault on each side opens inward andwas connected to the middle of the cavea. The second vaulton the south side is undoubtedly connected to the thirdvaulted room through a door. The complete arrangement ofthree vaulted rooms can only be recognized on the southside, because the north side was altered during the Romanperiod. In addition to its architectonic function, the thirdvaulted room provides a stairway that ends at the corner ofthe west wall, from which visitors could reach the upperlanding through the wide-open entrance gate. All of thevaults except the second northern vault were made ofrectangular blocks without mortar. The second one on thenorth side was built with small, irregularly cut stones andmortar. It is likely that the vault was rebuilt during analteration. The ceramic pieces embedded in the mortar couldprovide a terminus post quem.

Although a large number of roof-tile fragments has beenfound during excavation, not one single column has so farbeen found in this area. However, a well-known inscriptionindicates that the bouleuterion of Patara carried a mightyroof.11 Moreover, in his diploma thesis, Mathias Schmidtfrom the Fachhochschule Magdeburg-Stendal in Germanyhas worked out a possible design for the roof of thebouleuterion, which suggests that no supporting columnswere needed to support a roof over the building. Suchquestions and problems will gradually be solved throughthe further excavation of the interior of the building.

Systematic excavation has not yet begun on the outsideof the bouleuterion. The work has until now been only a

Session II–E: New Discoveries: Greece, Balkans, and Turkey96

provisional research study. By means of the provisionalexcavation, however, we established that the entire southwall standing on its original foundations was, during theperiod of Justinian, altered to form a double thickness byreusing materials that had originally belonged to thebouleuterion. In order to reinforce the south wall, the vaultedstairway and the middle vault were filled with stones andsoil. The north and east wall seem to preserve their originalconstruction. A pseudo-console on a profiled base can berecognized in the middle of the wall at the northwesterncorner. In addition, an opening for a window in the originalbuilding can be observed on the north wall. Furthermore,there are two more doors symmetrically positioned on boththe north and south walls. The doors, which are to be seento the east of both vaulted entrances, offer access to theoffice room from the outside. Although the lintels are 2.50m in depth, the door apertures are only 1.30 m wide. Thearchitectural style of the doors is identical with the Ionicorder, except that it lacks the side consoles. The opening ofeach door was filled in with small stone blocks during theperiod of Justinian. The alteration phase of the exterior wallcan also be ascertained through the investigation of theeastern side. The exterior was reinforced and, as aconsequence, the door openings were filled in. The twoarches are at the northeastern and the southeastern cornersand, to judge from the surviving part, they presumablypreserve their original width of c. 4 m. It is very probablethat a stoa was erected on the east side of the bouleuterionand that the blocks with inscriptions, as the bases of honorarystatues, belonged to this stoa. These statues were ordered bythe Lycian Koinon, the city of Patara, and the other cities ofthe Lycian League.12

The bouleuterion of Patara shows a specific form, theplan of which was presumably developed from the Hellenistictype of a city hall. It is a rectangular building that partiallycontains a semicircular cavea. Moreover, the back wall onthe west side of the building was constructed in anuncommon style, that is, in a convex form. No other exampleof this type of back wall has so far been observed in any ofthe previous studies of city halls or odea. Above all, thethrone is an extraordinary case by virtue of its placement inthe middle of the cavea.

There is not yet any certain evidence for the date of theconstruction of the bouluterion in Patara. Most of thepreserved inscriptions deal with the Roman period; onlyone can be dated to the Hellenistic period, on the basis of itscharacter. Formal differences from other Hellenisticbuildings are not to be understood as indicating that thebouleuterion in Patara was built in the Roman period. Itsconstruction can be placed in the Hellenistic period on thefollowing evidence: consideration of the historical situationof Lycia; the technique employed on the original wall on thenorth side; and details on the seats, e.g., a fairly fine profileand a lion’s paw.

The various construction phases also suggest that the

original bouleuterion of Patara could date to the time of theestablishment of the Lycian League. The construction historyof the bouleuterion is divided into three periods. In the firstphase, the architecture was arranged symmetrically to northand south, on each side a series of vaulted rooms and theentrance of the office. In the second phase the cavea seemedto be expanded, and as a consequence, the landing becamesmaller. The middle vault on the north side was reconstructedwith mortar and irregularly cut stones during this period.At the same time, the vaulted stairway on this side wasdismantled; the semicircle of upper seat rows was expandedto the middle of the north wall. The dissimilarity instonecutting techniques between the upper and lower seatsis certainly related to this extension work. A trace of thestoneworking craft of this phase of building activity canalso be observed on the east wall of the bouleuterion. It isfairly likely that the east wall was reinforced with mortar atthe time when the stoa was built or rebuilt.

An earthquake hit Patara as well as the other Lyciancities c. A.D. 140–14313 After the disaster, the Hellenistictheater was restored and reopened in A.D. 147, emphasizedin a long inscription engraved on the east side of the stagebuilding. The severely damaged bouleuterion could alsohave been reconstructed at the same time. In the third phaseof construction, at the time of Justinian, the bouleuterionhad lost its original function and was used as a bastion inthe newly built city wall. The wall construction techniqueemployed in the newly built south wall and the reinforcementof the interior wall of the office room indicate the use of thebouleuterion as a bastion in its final phase.

BibliographyBehrwald, R. 2000: Der lykische Bund. Untersuchungen zu

Geschichte und Verfassung, Bonn.Işık, F. 1991: “Patara – Dünü, Bugünü ve Geleceği,” TürkArkDerg

29, 33–40.Işık, F. 1998: “Patara 1996,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 19, 53–60.Işık, F. 1999: “Patara 1997,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 20, 159–

178.Işık, F. 2000: Patara. The History and Ruins of the Capital City of

Lycian League. Antalya.Işık, F. 2002: “Patara 2000,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 23, 397–

412.Kalinka, E. (ed.) 1930: Tituli Asiae Minoris II.2.Marek, C. 1995: “Der lykische Bund, Rhodos, Kos und Mithra-

dates,” Lykia 2, 9–21.

Notes1. For caput gentis lyciae see Livy 37.15.2. Polyb. 30.5.8. It is still uncertain whether the Lycian League

was established at the same time Lycia won her autonomy;see Marek 1995, 9–19.

3. See Behrwald 2000 for the most recent discussion.4. For a list see Işık 2000, 155–156.

The Parliament Building of Patara 97

5. Behrwald 2000, 188–207.6. Behrwald 2000, 181–187.7. Işık 1991, 36–39.8. Işık 1998, 56–57, figs. 5–6.9. Işık 1999, 167, figs. 24–25.

10. Işık 2002, 404, fig. 12.11. It appears on the base for an honorary statue, dated to the

second century A.D., in the form of an approximate cube,whose vertical measurements are longer than the width andthe depth. The inscription refers to the fact that an architect,Dionysius from Lydia, Tmolos, built the roof for the odeion

Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü, 07058 Antalya, Turkeytkorkut@akdeniz.edu.tr

of Patara; see Kalinka 1930, 154, no. 417.12. E.g., The Lycian Koinon honors the city Patara...; The Lycian

Koinon honors Lyciarch Aurelius Dionysius...; The LycianKoinon honors Sextus Cl. Clementianus...; The LycianKoinon honors Nikostratos, the son of Xanthippos, a citizenof Kyaneai, with a statue...; The Lycian Koinon honorsPerikles, a citizen of Arykanda and Gagai...; The LycianKoinon honors Archepoilis, the son of Timarchos of Podaliaand Arneai...; Patara honors Iason, the son of DionysiusII.... The recently discovered inscription from the bouleuterionwill be published by H. Engelmann.

13. Işık 2000, 133.