“Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological,...

42
1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November 2011 Conference Hall: Salle du Sénat, Halles universitaires, Place de l’Université 1, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve www.uclouvain.be/368586 CEMA wants to thank the following for support in organising this conference: INCAL – Institut des Civilisations, Arts et Lettres (UCL) Le Fonds National de Recherche Scientifique CIACO The Institute for Aegean Prehistory Wallonie-Bruxelles International The Research Group AEGIS-Aegean Interdisciplinary Studies a.s.b.l. Roma Projet Talos. PHC Tournesol (Louvain-la-Neuve/Paris IV)

Transcript of “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological,...

Page 1: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

1

“Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives”

Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November 2011

Conference Hall:

Salle du Sénat, Halles universitaires, Place de l’Université 1, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve

www.uclouvain.be/368586

CEMA wants to thank the following for support in organising this conference:

INCAL – Institut des Civilisations, Arts et Lettres (UCL) Le Fonds National de Recherche Scientifique CIACO The Institute for Aegean Prehistory Wallonie-Bruxelles International The Research Group AEGIS-Aegean Interdisciplinary Studies a.s.b.l. Roma Projet Talos. PHC Tournesol (Louvain-la-Neuve/Paris IV)

Page 2: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November
Page 3: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

3

Première Journée / First Day Thursday 24th of November 2011

9h-9h30 : Accueil et inscription / Registration

9h30-9h45 : Introduction par l’ancien président d’INCAL, R. Brulet, et le responsable de CEMA M. Cavalieri / Introductions by the previous head of the Research Institute INCAL R. Brulet and by M. Cavalieri, head of the Research centre CEMA

Morning session - Chairperson: Marco Cavalieri 9h45-10h15 : Jan DRIESSEN (UCL) : Time Capsules? Destructions as Archaeological Phenomena 10h15-10h45 : Laurent OLIVIER (Musée d’Archéologie nationale de Saint-Germain-en-Laye) : L’âge de

la Destruction

10h45-11h : Coffee break K

11h-11h30 : Alfredo GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL (Heritage Laboratory/National Research Council, Spain) : Destruction and memory

11h30-12h : Tim F. CUNNINGHAM (UCL) : Deconstructing Destruction: a contextualizing approach to methodology and meaning in Archaeology

12h-12h30 : Sharon ZUCKERMANN (Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem) : Understanding Destructions: On Crisis Architecture and Termination Rituals in the Ancient Near East and Beyond.

12h30-14h: Lunch break

Afternoon session - Chairperson: Laurent Olivier 14h-14h30 : Ruth TRINGHAM (Dept of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley) :

Destruction of Places by Fire: Domicide, or Domithanasia 14h30-15h : Christina TSORAKI (Univ. Sheffield/UCL) : Breaking ground (stone): acts of deliberate

destruction in Late Neolithic Makriyalos, Greece 15h-15h30h : Anna STROULIA (University of Southern Indiana) and Danai CHONDROU (Aristotle

University of Thessaloniki) : Destroying the Means of Production: The Case of Ground Stone Tools from Kremasti, Greece

15h30-16h : Coffee break K

16h-16h30 : Peter TOMKINS (KULeuven) : Making, mending and breaking. Contextualising and interpreting the intentional destruction (and curation) of houses at Neolithic Knossos, Crete.

16h30-17h : Simona TODARO (University of Catania) and Luca GIRELLA (UniNettuno University of Rome/UCL) : Living through destructions: deliberate vs. accidental manipulation of human remains and grave goods in Western Mediterranean rock cut-chamber tombs of the IV and III millennium BC

17h-17h30 : Dario PUGLISI (UCL) : The view from the day after: some observations on the Late Bronze Age I final destructions in Crete

17h30-18h : General discussion

18h-20h : Reception in the University Hall

Page 4: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

4

Deuxième Journée / Second Day Friday 25th of November 2011

8h45-9h : Accueil et inscription/Registration

Morning session - Chairperson: Ruth Tringham 9h-9h30 : Simon JUSSERET (FNRS, UCL), Charlotte LANGOHR (FNRS, UCL) and Manuel SINTUBIN

(KULeuven) : Archaeoseismology: a conceptual framework for assessing the seismic origin of archaeological destruction layers

9h30-10h : Louise HITCHCOCK (University of Melbourne) : Destruction and Identity: Trauma, Migration, and Performativity in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean

10h-10h30 : Arianna RIZIO (Università del Molise) : Evidence of destructions from the Peloponnese during the Late Helladic period: an archaeological domestic perspective

10h30-11h : Manolis MIKRAKIS (Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) : The destruction of the Mycenaean palaces and the construction of the epic world: Archaeological and philological perspectives

11h-11h15 : Coffee break K

11h15-11h45 : Mario DENTI (Université de Rennes 2) : La notion de «destruction» entre oblitération, conservation et pratiques rituelles. Le cas des opérations réalisées à Incoronata au VIIe siècle avant J.C.

11h45-12h15 : Alexandra ALEXANDRIDOU (Open University, Cyprus) : Destructions at the Grave. Ritual burning and breaking in 7th-century BC Attica

12h15-12h45 : Donald C. HAGGIS (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) : Destruction and the formation of static and dynamic settlement structures

12h45-14h15 : Lunch break

Afternoon session - Chairperson : Jan Driessen 14h15-14h45 : Florence GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN (Université de Paris IV) : Le meurtre de la cité : la

destruction par abandon forcé

14h45-15h15 : Athanasia KYRIAKOU and Alexandros TOURTAS (Univ. of Thessaloniki) : After destruction: Taking care of remains in the Sanctuary of Eukleia at Aegae (Vergina)

15h15-15h45 : Ryan BOEHM (Brown University) : Synoikism and Destruction in the Hellenistic World 15h45-16h : Coffee break K 16h-16h30 : Ludovic THÉLY (Université d'Angers) : Les séismes comme cause de destruction : étude

du vocabulaire des inscriptions aux époques hellénistique et romaine 16h30-17h : Stavros OIKONOMIDIS (Arcadia Center, Athens/College for Education Abroad,

Philadelphia) : Spolia and spoilage of the archaeological environment. Construction-destruction-reconstruction: the case of the historic center of Athens

17h-17h30 : Laure MEULEMANS et Sylvia PIERMARINI (UCL) : La destruction cyclique en contexte cultuel: « mort » et « renaissance » pour assurer le continuum ?

17h30-18h : General discussion

Page 5: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

5

Troisième Journée / Third Day Saturday 26th of November 2011

8h45-9h : Accueil et inscription/Registration

Morning session - Chairperson : Alain Meurant 9h-9h30 : Michele SCALICI (Università degli Studi della Basilicata) and Alessia MANCINI

(Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata) : Construction and Destruction: the case of Timmari (South Italy)

9h30-10h : Pierre ASSENMAKER (FNRS, UCL) : Des convergences et divergences entre les récits de destruction et les traces archéologiques : les sacs d’Athènes et d’Ilion durant la première guerre mithridatique

10h-10h30 : Matteo CADARIO (Università degli Studi di Milano) : La damnatio politique et religieuse des statues

10h30-11h : V. GASSNER, E. STEIGBERGER and B. TOBER (Vienna/Salzburg) : Destruction or Demolition? The Case study of the sanctuary of Iuppiter Heliopolitanus at Carnuntum.

11h-11h15 : Coffee break K

11h15-11h45 : Sébastien POLET (UCL) : Destruction et conservation des monuments libyco-romains de Tripolitaine : perspectives de recherches

11h45-12h15 : Marco CAVALIERI (UCL) : Destruction, transformation et refonctionalisation : le passage de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge en Toscane entre IVe et VIIe s. ap. J.-C.

12h15-12h45 : Aude BUSINE (FNRS, ULB) : Les récits de destruction de temples et l’identité civique chrétienne

12h45-14h15 : Lunch break

Afternoon session - Chairperson : Françoise Van Haeperen 14h15-14h45 : Rocco PALERMO (Università di Napoli Federico II / Universitè de Paris I) : Evidence of

destruction in a residential area at Tell Barri (II-X AD)

14h45-15h15 : Ine JACOBS (KULeuven) : Forging a community of true believers. Violence and Identity in Early Christianity

15h15-15h30 : Coffee break K

15h30-16h : Final discussion: chairperson: Robert Laffineur

16h : Closure: J. Driessen

Page 6: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November
Page 7: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

Abstracts / Résumés

Page 8: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November
Page 9: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

9

Destructions at the Grave. Ritual burning and breaking in 7th century BC Attica

ALEXANDRA ALEXANDRIDOU (OPEN UNIVERSITY, CYPRUS)

Seventh century B.C. Attica witnessed a series of dramatic changes in mortuary practices,

including the re-introduction of primary cremation for adults and the replacement of offerings within

the grave by their deposition in offering trenches outside the tomb. Intentional burning and breaking

of elaborate vessels over these offering trenches forms one of the main characteristics of these

mortuary rites and the simultaneous burning of corpse and vases seems especially meaningful. In the

Attic countryside, elaborate vases are comparably treated over trenches, but the destruction is

limited to these offerings, while the burials associated with them contain inhumed deceased and not

cremations.

Although some have associated these abrupt changes with the rise of a strong, conservative elite

and a tendency towards “masculinisation” of death and burial, the question concerning the choice of

intentional destruction of the corpse and of the specially commissioned offerings still remains. What

has led to this choice which was not attested in Early Iron Age Athens? Why destruction is conceived

differently in wider Attica?

Focusing on the destructive aspect, the present paper will attempt to discuss the possible

meaning of these actions, the causes of their sudden appearance at the time, their importance and

possible social implications.

Page 10: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

10

Des convergences et divergences entre les récits de destruction et les traces archéologiques : les sacs d’Athènes et d’Ilion durant la première

guerre mithridatique PIERRE ASSENMAKER (FNRS, UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN)

Le sac d'Athènes par Sylla en 86 av. J.-C. est bien documenté dans les sources littéraires, et de

nombreuses traces archéologiques de destruction ont été mises en rapport avec le siège syllanien.

L'année suivante, en 85 av. J.-C., C. Flavius Fimbria met à sac la ville d'Ilion - l'ancienne Troie -, un

épisode qui trouva un écho important chez les historiens antiques. Cependant, les recherches

archéologiques récentes ont remis en question ces récits, notamment en ce qui concerne l'ampleur

des destructions. Notre communication sera donc l'occasion de s'interroger sur le poids symbolique

de la destruction de cités prestigieuses et sur l'éventuelle falsification ou exagération des faits réels

dans une perspective de propagande.

Page 11: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

11

Synoikism and Destruction in the Hellenistic World RYAN BOEHM (BROWN UNIVERSITY)

The numerous large-scale city foundations carried out by the Hellenistic kings (e.g. Thessalonikeia,

Alexandreia Troas, Demetrias, Arsinoe Ephesos) drastically reshaped the pattern of settlement

through northern Greece and Asia Minor. Almost all of these foundations were not ex-novo

creations, but rather the result of synoikismos, the merging of multiple poleis and komai into a single

city. The literary sources almost unanimously present this process as violent and destructive: the

agents and armies of the kings forced the inhabitants of these ancient poleis from their ancestral

homes and their cities were razed to the ground to prevent the possibility of return. This paper

examines the evidence for destruction in several key case studies and, through a careful reading of

the archaeological and epigraphic evidence, makes a case for a more nuanced picture of the

synoikism process. There is remarkably little evidence for widespread city destruction in preparation

for new city foundations in this period, and the process was more protracted and consensual than

usually assumed. The topos of city destruction is thus vastly overplayed in our literary sources. In

addition I point to instances of settlement continuity and the reemergence of polis centers and the

greater role of symbolic elements such as sanctuaries in moving, focalizing, and uniting population

groups. This paper is drawn from a broader study of the economic, cultic, and political implications

of Hellenistic synoikismos, which is currently in preparation.

Page 12: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

12

Les récits de destruction de temples et l’identité civique chrétienne AUDE BUSINE (FNRS, UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES)

Alors que les études historiques et archéologiques de destructions des temples païens par les

Chrétiens ont généré une abondante bibliographie, peu d’attention a jusqu’ici été accordée à la

fonction des récits de destruction au sein des discours chrétiens, et encore moins à ce que révèle

cette « rhétorique de la destruction » de l’avènement de la société tardo-antique.

Dans cette communication, je me propose de reprendre l’analyse de récits chrétiens de

destruction de temples, avec un intérêt tout particulier pour celui que livra Marc le diacre sur la

destruction du grand temple de Zeus Marnas à Gaza. L’épisode de la destruction du Marneion en 402

par l’évêque local Porphyre est abondamment cité par les historiens de l’Antiquité tardive, que ce

soit dans des études sur le paganisme tardif, sur la politique impériale à l’égard des bâtiments

religieux païens, sur le rôle de l’évêque dans les cités de l’Orient romain ou encore, de façon plus

générale, sur le processus de christianisation du monde antique.

Dans un premier temps, je tenterai de montrer les limites de l’utilisation de ce témoignage à des

fins documentaires et dans un second, je m’attacherai à étudier la fonction de ce récit de destruction

dans l’élaboration de la vie du héros local. Il s’avère en effet que, à l’instar d’autres discours sur

l’action destructrice des évêques, l’épisode de la chute du Marneion s’inscrit dans une tentative des

autorités chrétiennes d’élaborer des mythes étiologiques visant à expliquer des éléments

urbanistiques de leur cité. Dans ce cadre, la destruction spectaculaire du grand temple poliade

constitue un acte fondateur dans la constitution d’une nouvelle culture civique chrétienne.

Page 13: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

13

La damnatio politique et religieuse des statues MATTEO CADARIO (UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO)

La communication mettra l'accent sur la destruction délibérée et violente des statues dans le

monde romain, en tenant compte tant de l'aspect politique, lié à la destruction des images des

empereurs, que de l’aspect religieux, inhérent à la destruction des idoles païennes. La

communication exposera en détail l’impact de ces destructions en examinant la signification officielle

donnée à la damnatio memoriae par le fait que souvent, ces statues et monuments ne sont pas

complètement supprimés, mais restent au contraire exposés, tout en devenant généralement

porteurs de nouvelles identités. Il est intéressant de réfléchir à cette preservation / mémoire de la

destruction, également perceptible dans les rasurae de certaines épigraphes, et de comparer cette

situation avec la destruction publique des statues païennes

Page 14: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

14

Destruction, transformation et refonctionalisation : le passage de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge en Toscane entre IVe et VIIe s. ap. J.-C.

MARCO CAVALIERI (UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN)

Le besoin d’une classification herméneutique à outrance et une pratique taxonomique parfois

mathématique ont amené l’archéologie de tous les temps à créer des schémas interprétatifs de

l’action humaine souvent trop rigides voir théoriques. Cette affirmation se peut bien référer à la

difficulté substantielle de codifier un phénomène aussi vaste et varié que le passage entre le monde

antique et le monde médiéval en termes de rupture ou de continuité : une approche simpliste voir

trompeuse. Donc un tel phénomène ne peut être analysé et peut-être aussi compris à la lumière

d’une mise en contexte historique, économique, sociale et culturelle qui ne se base pas sur des

schémas interprétatifs pré-construits, qu’ils soient spatiaux ou temporels, mais sur des modalités

diverses avec quelques expressions générales en commun. En milieu rural toscan ces expressions

communes relèvent de la destruction du monde et du paysage de villas de l’Antiquité romaine : une

destruction, néanmoins, qui est d’abord en rapport à la fonction du site, et pas à sa fréquentation

humaine ; une destruction pour laquelle on dégrade et déqualifie de nombreux espaces résidentiels,

souvent contrebalancés par une montée en puissance ou une installation d’activités productives et

artisanales qui transforment les fonctions de la structure préexistante, s’en servent soit comme abri,

soit comme source de matières premières jusqu’à son abandon définitif (aux VIe-VIIe siècles, voir

même plus tard). C’est également la présence de sépultures plus ou moins vastes, qui occupent les

espaces d’habitation des structures précédentes, qui montre l’existence d’une forme précaire

d’occupation de villas désormais en ruine. Une continuité dans la diversité qui échappe tout type de

classification trop schématique et qui fait de la destruction l’outil principal d’une transformation non

évolutive du paysage rural toscan.

Page 15: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

15

Deconstructing Destruction: a contextualizing approach to methodology and meaning in Archaeology

TIM F. CUNNINGHAM (UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN)

Archaeology is often said to be about destructions, insofar as various kinds of destructions have

produced the bulk of the artifactual record and form the backbone of most chronologies. Some of

the most expressive material remains, such as inscribed clay tablets and sealings, or various eco- or

bio- facts, such as wood and seeds are only preserved in some parts of the world if they have been

“destroyed” by fire. Paradoxically, these destruction deposits in fact preserve their contents and it is

rather the times and places that avoided destruction that are gone without a trace. The more

accurate way to understand these events is de-contextualization – objects, for example are moved

out of some contextual categories – whole, useful, active, stored, and into others – broken, buried,

forgotten. Such a shift in understanding places emphasis on the continuum of constant re-

contextualization that things undergo – what some have called object biographies, as well as on the

temporal continuum through which they and we move so that rather than seeing a particular

destruction deposit as a static collection of objects frozen in time and space our awareness is

naturally drawn to the before and after, up to and beyond our own intervention as archaeologists.

Indeed, the practice of Archaeology itself is commonly understood as destructive to the very

materials it aims to reveal and explain. This is most often and clearly expressed with regards to

excavation, which we may understand as the structured disassembly of a preexisting but hitherto

unknown (indeed generally buried) relational configuration of various forms of material evidence

within certain fixed spatial and temporal coordinates. Obviously, much of the material evidence itself

is preserved but the information encoded by its deposition and (hopefully) decoded by careful

excavation is thereafter “gone”, available only via the recording made by the excavators. However, as

Gavin Lucas has pointed out (Lucas, 2001), this conception of excavation as destruction is

problematic on many levels. In the first place, by and large it is simply inaccurate, since very little of

the material remains are truly destroyed in the process. Furthermore, it creates unhelpful

dichotomies between various stages of archaeological research; between excavation and recording;

recovery and conservation; fieldwork in general and site or heritage management. By thinking

instead of excavation as a form of displacement rather than destruction, we find ourselves back in

the continuum of contextualization linked both to the ‘past’ as represented by the artifactual record

and to the future as that record is reconfigured and projected to its various audiences. Creation, use,

deposition, post-deposition, excavation, recording, analysis, conservation, archival, storage,

publication, education, touristic development – all are simply aspects of a constant process of de-and

re- contextualization.

Page 16: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

16

La notion de « destruction » entre oblitération, conservation et pratiques rituelles.

Le cas des opérations réalisées à Incoronata au VIIe siècle avant J.-C. MARIO DENTI (UNIVERSITÉ DE RENNES 2)

La communication porte sur les résultats des dernières campagnes de fouille à Incoronata, site

gréco-indigène sur la côte ionienne de l'Italie du sud qui a été occupé au VIIIe et VIIe siècle avant J.-C.

Sa phase finale (deuxième moitié du VIIe siècle) a été caractérisée par la réalisation d'une

imposante opération de destruction et d'oblitération, comprenant :

• la mise en place de grandes strates de terre et de cailloux qui ont recouvert toute structure

précédente, soigneusement aménagées avec une évidente intention de "conservation" ;

• le comblement d’une série d’éléments appartenant à un espace artisanal destiné à la fabrication

de la céramique (bassins pour la décantation de l’argile, fours, une grande carrière pour

l’exploitation de l’argile) ; ces comblements avaient parfois été marqués par des actions

rituelles ;

• la réalisation d’un important nombre de grands dépôts de pierres mélangées à une

impressionnante quantité de céramique (pour la plupart grecque, de production locale et

d’importation, très souvent figurée), enfuie dans la terre et intentionnellement réduite en

fragments sur place. La déposition des vases et des pierres avait répondu à une logique bien

détectable dans les opérations de fouille, lesquelles ont permis de reconnaître l’existence d’une

série de pratiques rituelles ayant accompagné ces dépositions. Un exemple efficace d’une

véritable « construction d’une destruction ».

Notre réflexion, sur le plan archéologique et historique, relève de la nature de ces grandes

opérations de destruction, inscrites dans un double volet heuristique : celui de l’étude des relations

entre Grecs et non Grecs à la frontière de l’Occident, et celui de l’approfondissement des

mécanismes des pratiques et des gestes rituels. Dans ce contexte, la notion de

« destruction » - relevant probablement du moment de l'abandon du site - se relève cruciale pour la

compréhension de ces phénomènes.

Page 17: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

17

Time Capsules? Destructions as Archaeological Phenomena JAN DRIESSEN (UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN)

Societies change all the time. These changes may take place at different paces and have different

impacts. Events, critical junctures that transform structures, occur only exceptionally. Destructions –

repair exceeding actions – can be seen as such transformative events, turning points or trigger

moments and this at all levels and scales of analysis. In all its aspects, a destruction is a termination

event, a moment of no return, and a change from one type of state to another. This is the case for an

object, a building, a city or a civilisation. As such destructions are dead ends but not necessarily

freeze-frames. Since the reasons for destroying something can either be creative or deconstructive,

its outcome may likewise be considered positive or negative by participants and/or observers.

Fragmentation theory as well as attention to the social dynamics behind destructive processes has

helped to balance interpretations away from more processual explanations including catastrophe

theory. In this paper I return to the “Pompeii premise”, the possibility that an archaeological

assemblage represents a direct reflection of the original assemblage as frozen in time.

Page 18: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

18

Le meurtre de la cité : la destruction par abandon forcé F. GAIGNEROT-DRIESSEN (UNIVERSITÉ DE PARIS IV-SORBONNE)

Faire céder les portes de la ville, raser ses édifices, piller ses richesses, asservir ou décimer sa

population sont des actions qui ne suffisent pas à détruire définitivement une cité. Son existence et

son identité sont attachés à un lieu, qu’il s’agisse d’un site ou d’un territoire. La destruction d’une

cité est donc liée à la négation d’un lieu qui en constitue le monument naturel et passe par son

abandon définitif. Mettre fin à l’existence d’une cité implique ainsi d’en chasser ses forces vives, les

citoyens, et de faire en sorte que personne n’y revienne jamais. Une mesure comparable à la

damnatio memoriae que le Sénat romain réserva à certains personnages politiques écartés du

pouvoir semble ainsi également pouvoir s’appliquer à un lieu pour garantir son oubli et signifier la

véritable mise à mort de la cité. Cette réflexion se nourrira de l’exemple de Dréros (Crète), souvent

évoquée au moment d’illustrer l’idée de naissance de la cité à la période géométrique et qui fut

abandonnée à l’époque hellénistique après sa prise par les ennemis voisins de Lyttos. Les sources

littéraires, épigraphiques et archéologiques seront combinées pour reconstituer le meurtre de cette

cité, sa destruction par abandon forcé.

Page 19: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

19

Destruction or Demolition? The case study of the sanctuary of Iuppiter Heliopolitanus at Carnuntum

VERENA GASSNER (UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA), EVA STEIGBERGER (AUSTRIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES), BARBARA

TOBER (UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG)

The sanctuary of Iuppiter Heliopolitanus in the eastern area of the Carnuntine canabae (Austria) is

the only known sanctuary of the Syrian Deities in the western provinces. We owe its exploration to

rescue excavations from 1978 to 1991 which present all the difficulties connected with excavations

conducted with the methodology of that period. Its research was recently resumed as part of a

programme of the Institute for Studies of Ancient Culture of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. The

life span of the sanctuary covered at least three phases from the early 2nd to the late 3rd or the first

half of the 4th c. AD. In our contribution we would like to present contexts connected with an

extensive reorganization of the sanctuary in phase 3, discussing in particular the problematic nature

of this reorganization.

The strata connected with the end of phase 2 are generally manifested in a massive layer of

rubbish, reaching from the north of temple A to the area of the later thermae, which contained a

large amount of stone fragments from architecture and from cult installations of phase 2. At the

current stage of research, the nature of this destruction still presents considerable difficulties as the

strata show evidences of violent destruction only in a very limited area, while most of the rubbish

could be connected with activities of intentional (?) demolition of the prior cult buildings and the

preparations for a new building space. In particular the fragments from the temple’s architectural

decoration and those of the porticoes of phase 2 are evidently the remains left when re-working

parts of the architecture for re-use in the next phase. Also, the careful knocking off of the wall-

paintings, which have been disposed off in various pits, can be interpreted as preparation of the

stones for re-use. On the other hand some fragments, mostly from altars or votive statues, show

evident traces of destruction though normally cult statues or votive offerings should have been

removed without demolition and relocated afterwards. Also we recently found some large pits

identified as ritual depositions, which are in some way connected with these rubbish pits.

Our paper will try to resolve if these contexts are evidence for a violent destruction with following

activities of reorganization or if the demolition of the sanctuary was intentional and connected with

the wish of renovation. Additionally, this discussion has to consider the date of the reorganization

that ranges from 170/180 to 210/220 AD due to the still existing difficulties in dating terra sigillata

from Rheinzabern and the assumed fact of a lack of small coins at Carnuntum in the first half of the

3rd c. AD.

Page 20: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

20

Destruction and memory ALFREDO GONZÁLEZ-RUIBAL (HERITAGE LABORATORY/NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL)

Destruction is not just a physical act. It is a complex phenomenon with relevant social and

psychological implications. This is particularly obvious in the case of collective memory. Making

things and bodies disappear by smashing, killing, burying or dismembering and scattering them leads

to particular forms of oblivion—but also remembrance. In this talk, I will explore the relationship

between material destruction and forgetting from the point of view of the archaeology of the recent

past. I will also argue that by understanding the connections between destruction and memory

practices in the present, we may achieve a better understanding of similar processes in the past.

Page 21: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

21

Destruction and the formation of static and dynamic settlement structures

DONALD C. HAGGIS (UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL)

Human destruction is a site-formation process that informs and challenges our interpretation of

archaeological context, and ultimately determines our interpretation of site-level and regional

chronologies and histories. Our picture of settlement structure and diachronic spatial analyses of

intrasite organization are affected by our understanding of material patterns resulting from active

human engagement with the site over time. These activities inevitably involve the destructive

transformation of the built environment; they are not always either preserved or readily

comprehensible in the archaeological record, but constitute variables that we need to grapple with in

order to model settlement structure. Where indications of such activities or actions are clear,

especially on multi-period sites, they provide evidence for human behavior as cultural production.

This paper looks at evidence for destruction of buildings and installations as active and deliberate

processes of constructing and reshaping settlements and the physical and social relationships

between people and places.

Using the Bronze Age and Iron Age Aegean as a material focus, this paper models landscapes and

settlements in terms of dynamic and static structures, demonstrating polar extremes as well as

degrees of destruction as predictive results of social strategies. Both dynamic and static conditions

involve physical changes to settlements and cemeteries over time. In one extreme, static structures

show change that is temporally gradual, actively integrative, and visually constant, striving either to

conceal evidence for collateral or deliberate destruction, or to conserve physical forms of buildings,

burials, and settlements. Dynamic structures on the other hand show change that is abrupt, actively

dissociating, visibly and purposively destructive and visually disintegrative. The different groups

constructing dynamic and static structures may be actively engaged in creating intergenerational

continuity, integrative social systems, or coherent mechanisms of social reproduction, but the

different strategies they employ predict different motives, outcomes, and different forms of society.

It is argued that the recovery of patterns of destruction, as distinctive indicators of static and

dynamic structures, can help us to characterize cultural conditions and change.

Page 22: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

22

Destruction and Identity: Trauma, Migration, and Performativity in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean

LOUISE HITCHCOCK (UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE)

While we tend to think practically of distance as something that can be measured in time and

space, distance can also be conceptual in terms of the time and obstacles actually encountered in

transcending it, and it can be cultural through the confrontation with “Otherness.” My contribution

will examine how identity was acted out through performativity, as well as how identity was affected

by violence, migration, and diaspora. Although the Late Bronze Age is frequently treated as a

seamless progression, it was punctuated by moments of violence and destruction, both natural and

cultural. Little work has been done on the human toll taken by these events, which are frequently

treated as stylistic categories of art that signal the passage of time. Thus, such events have not been

adequately explored as moments or sites of human trauma and identity formation. As a preliminary

exploration of these issues, I will consider destructions caused by the volcanic eruption of Thera (ca.

1614 BCE), and the violent destructions of the Minoan (ca. 1470/1450 BCE. Crete) and the

Mycenaean civilisations (ca. 1180 BCE, Greece). In this pilot study, I will engage with modern

ethnohistory and ethnography as an analog for raising questions about how ancient events affected

individuals who can only speak to us through the material and spatial residues of their culture.

Page 23: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

23

After destruction: Taking care of remains in the Sanctuary of Eukleia at Aegae (Vergina)

ATHANASIA KYRIAKOU & ALEXANDROS TOURTAS (ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI)

The Sanctuary of Eukleia at Aegae, modern Vergina, is part of the agora of the ancient city, first

capital of the Macedonians. The main terrace comprises a Doric temple, a stoa, an altar and marble

bases of dedications, all constructions of the 4th c. BC. A second temple was added in the 3rd c. BC,

whereas transformations in the planning and possibly the function of the complex took place in the

2nd c. BC and mainly in the 1st c. BC-1st c. AD.

In this sacred area, where inscriptions mention Eurydice, mother of Philip II, as dedicator to

goddess Eukleia, the remains of destruction, physical or human caused, had to be carefully treated.

The stratigraphy on the terrace clearly demonstrates a continuous use of the area. Destruction layers

in the buildings are testimonies of decisive moments in their life histories that indicate either a

turning point or the end. It is really challenging to investigate the array of deposit pits around and

inside the Doric temple which beyond doubt constitutes the nucleus of the complex. Fragments of

building material, half of a colossal marble snake and fragmented pottery and a female over-life-size

statue with its head and right arm, two marble heads along with big quantities of potsherds

constitute the content of three depositories closely related to the temple. The first two are dated in

the mid 2nd c. BC, whereas the last one in the end of the 1st c. BC – beginning of the 1st c. AD.

Regarding these three case studies questions can be addressed about the choice of the pieces

that ended up in the pits, the way they were thrown or put or deposed inside -in some cases recalling

burial practices-, their spatial relationship to the building, the number and identity of people involved

in their creation, the feelings and thoughts underlying these actions and also the pattern detected

despite the elapsed time between them. Would these practices resonate to a well established notion

of sanctity and veneration traced also in the cemetery of the ancient city? Could any conclusions be

extracted about the society that was the agent of these actions? Would the investigation of the

historical framework furnish complementary data to illuminate them?

Page 24: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

24

Forging a community of true believers. Violence and Identity in Early Christianity

INE JACOBS (KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN)

Is there evidence of a relationship between the construction of a Christian identity and the

encouragement of violence and destruction by Christian instigators? Recent literature does recognize

the importance of anti-Christian violence, but overall considers destruction of traditional

monuments, iconography and traditions as a result rather than as a means. This paper intends to

investigate violence and accompanying destruction as an instrument in the heightening of religious

conflicts in the Late Roman world. The staging of violence for this purpose became essential by the

end of the 4th century AD. Legal pressure for conformity to Christianity had ascertained the outcome

of the pagan-Christian conflict, but the strong attachment of catechumens to long-lived classical

traditions and social norms continued to impediment the creation of a pure community of believers.

Without further official back-up to establish the Christian ideal, ascetic factions resorted to methods

such as threatening, intimidation and outright violence to sharpen the boundaries between faithful

and faithless, eventually forcing all Christians to take a stand.

Page 25: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

25

Archaeoseismology: a conceptual framework for assessing the seismic origin of archaeological destruction layers

SIMON JUSSERET (FNRS UCL/KULEUVEN), CHARLOTTE LANGOHR (FNRS, UCL), MANUEL SINTUBIN

(KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN)

In archaeological research, earthquakes are commonly invoked as processes responsible for the

deposition of so-called destruction layers. However, this attribution is more often than not grounded

in circumstantial observations taking little account of the wider seismological context of the region

under study. During the last decades, much effort has been made to identify reliable criteria for the

detection of seismic damage from archaeological remains. This traditional approach to the study of

past earthquakes is mainly based on the definition of damage typologies from monumental

architectural evidence. These criteria are, however, largely inapplicable to archaeological contexts

characterised by rubble or earthen architecture and where evidence for destruction is largely

confined to stratigraphy. In such cases, we contend that an evaluation of the processes having led to

the formation of destruction layers (collapse, abandonment, clearance, fire, etc.) is necessary. This

evaluation should moreover be grounded in a rigorous, standardised procedure taking into account

uncertainties related to the tectonic setting, archaeological site environment, archaeological

evidence at hand, chronology, and regional correlation of the damage. This procedure has been

translated into a logic-tree formalism inspired by palaeoseismological research. The benefits of this

“archaeoseismological” approach to assessing the seismic origin of destruction layers is illustrated by

a case study of destruction taken from Late Minoan IIIB (ca. 1300-1200 BC) Crete.

Page 26: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

26

La destruction cyclique en contexte cultuel : « mort » et « renaissance » pour assurer le continuum ?

LAURE MEULEMANS & SYLVIA PIERMARINI (UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN)

L'étude des sites cultuels proto-urbains d’Étrurie méridionale et du Latium vetus a révélé une

pratique rituelle tout à fait singulière : la destruction cyclique de certains aménagements cultuels en

vue de leur reconstruction. Ce procédé semble consister en une démolition d'un édifice lié au culte,

répétée dans le temps et selon des modalités rituelles précises dans le but de procéder à sa

réédification (en y incluant éventuellement une évolution structurelle). La théorisation de cette

pratique s'avère problématique : si, dans certains cas, la destruction volontaire est clairement

documentée archéologiquement, d'autres situations au contexte plus flou ne permettent pas

d'établir une réelle distinction entre entreprise humaine intentionnelle, dépérissement matériel et

désastre naturel / accidentel. Reconnaître dans cet acte un dessein délibéré pose une série de

questions d'ordre conceptuel, à la fois ontologique et cosmologique. En effet, bien qu'impliquant la

notion de « rupture », la destruction d'une structure cultuelle et sa réédification semblent s’inscrire

dans une dynamique de continuité illustrée par le cycle de la vie. Dans une telle conjoncture,

l'anthropologie nous offre une clé de lecture pour sonder les idéologies communautaires et

comprendre les fondements d'une telle conception.

Par conséquent, notre communication abordera le sujet de la destruction cyclique dans un

environnement cultuel sous deux angles : premièrement, à travers l'examen des traces

archéologiques qui ont permis de mettre en évidence l’existence de cette pratique en territoire

étrusco-latial ; deuxièmement, au moyen de considérations anthropologiques comparatives. Bien

que controversées, les théories de Mircea Eliade sur la conception cyclique du monde, illustrées dans

Le sacré et le profane, ainsi que dans Le mythe de l'éternel retour, peuvent être prises en

considération dans l’approche de ce phénomène, tout comme certaines conceptions orientales des

pratiques rituelles. Le but de cet exposé est de théoriser ce phénomène de destruction répétitive et

de proposer, à partir d’exemples archéologiques concrets et de pratiques attestées dans le domaine

anthropologique, des raisons ayant pu motiver ces destructions volontaires et cycliques.

Page 27: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

27

The Destruction of the Mycenaean Palaces and the Construction of the Epic World: Archaeological and Philological Perspectives

MANOLIS MIKRAKIS (CYPRUS DEPARTMENT OF ANTIQUITIES)

The paper’s aim is to explore a possible correlation between the dramatic destructions at the

LH IIIB2/IIIC Early transition and the early development of oral heroic song in Greece. To this end, a

non-linguistic, contextual perspective on the Greek epic as a set of performative practices is

advanced. In contrast to older and more recent philological assumptions, which at present seem to

be regaining ground among archaeologists, new arguments are presented that show how little in

common the literary world of the Iliad and the Odyssey has with Mycenaean palatial culture, as

suggested by M. Finley in 1954. The currently available archaeological, archaeozoological, visual and

epigraphic evidence for cult, feasting, sung performance, lyre-playing and related practices largely

contradicts the notion of Homeric-style bardic performances for the wanakes. Instead, the recently

established picture of LH IIIC (Middle) as the period of relative prosperity rather supports a

suggestion made by G. Kirk (1962) that the period after the destructions could have been the setting

from which the oral epic tradition arose. Thus, an important creative aspect is added to our

understanding of the destruction phenomenon, one that couples with what has recently emerged as

the survival or revival of maritime contacts, political structures, figural art and craft production in

parts of the Greek world during the twelfth century BC.

Page 28: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

28

Spolia and Spoilage of the Archaeological Environment. Construction-Destruction-Reconstruction: the case of the Historic Center of Athens

STAVROS OIKONOMIDIS (ARCADIA CENTER, ATHENS/COLLEGE FOR EDUCATION ABROAD, PHILADELPHIA)

This is the study of the second hand architectural material used and reused along the centuries,

from the archaic times down to the first half of the 20th century, in the historic center of Athens and

the nearby suburbs. In this paper we will show the way spolia have been utilized throughout

different epochs, we will focus on the methodology and the mentality that govern the idea of the

construction through destruction and we will analyze in historical and archaeological terms the

phenomenon of the process of the architectural spoilage.

Particular emphasis will be given to “minor” monuments of the city of Athens, collecting spolia

material from residencies, rabble walls, abandoned buildings, industrial areas and neighborhoods.

The second hand architectural material presented here is the synthesis of a metamorphosis of the

urban landscape and of the continuous alteration of a city center that never stops.

Page 29: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

29

L’âge de la Destruction LAURENT OLIVIER (MUSÉE D’ARCHÉOLOGIE NATIONALE DE SAINT-GERMAIN-EN-LAYE)

Depuis ces dernières années, les phénomènes de destruction archéologique ont fait l’objet d’une

série d’analyses, qui portent essentiellement sur l’étude des processus ou des actes de dégradation

infligés aux vestiges dans le passé des sociétés qui les ont produits. Néanmoins, la plupart de ces

approches reposent sur un présupposé qui voudrait que la destruction serait – en quelque sorte par

définition – l’exception et non la norme dans tous systèmes de production de vestiges

archéologiques. Ne serait-ce pas précisément l’inverse ? Et ne serait-ce pas particulièrement le cas de

notre époque – comme culture, ou période archéologique – qui pousserait les processus de

destruction à une échelle jusqu’alors inconnue dans l’histoire des sociétés humaines ? L’époque post-

industrielle dans laquelle nous sommes désormais engagés ne serait-elle pas un nouvel âge de la

Destruction, qui en serait la manifestation archéologique distinctive ?

Page 30: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

30

Evidence of destruction in a residential area at Tell Barri (II-X AD) ROCCO PALERMO (UNIVERSITÀ DI NAPOLI FEDERICO II/UNIVERSITÈ DE PARIS I PANTHÉON-SORBONNE)

The evidence regarding the destruction of an archaeological context is quite easily recognizable,

but the nature of the destruction itself appears always hard to understand.

At Tell Barri (North-Eastern Syria) excavations carried out on the western slope of the tell, since

2005, have revealed an impressive sequence of residential complexes and small houses from the

mid-Parthian period up to the VII century AD. Domestic evidence shows a series of destruction and

abandonments in different phases in a relative brief span of time (this evidence concerns both the

deliberate destruction and changes caused by natural phenomena). The evidence testifies the precise

will of the inhabitants to destroy some areas and rebuild them, in most cases, with different features.

The presence of many pits filled with pottery thrown away (the paper will focus also on the kind of

pottery materials trashed) together with deliberate destructions of previous structures, in different

layers, are surely clue for social changes that certainly occurred in different times. The presence of

some artifacts, such as the features of some structures, and of course the absence of both, are very

important for understanding, at least partially, the social categories that went over at Tell Barri in this

given period.

Page 31: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

31

Destruction et conservation des monuments libyco-romains de Tripolitaine : perspectives de recherches

SÉBASTIEN POLET (UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN)

La nécropole et les fermes de Ghirza étaient situées sur le Limes africain. Redécouvert en 1798-

99, le site de Ghirza permit de s’intéresser aux « réussites » et aux « échecs » de la romanisation des

habitants de la Tripolitaine. Les monuments funéraires préservés présentent un caractère libyque et

diffèrent de ceux de Lepcis Magna ou Sabratha tant au niveau architectural qu’iconographique. La

présence d’éléments sémitiques non phénico-puniques permirent, entre-autre, une étude poussée

du site en 1984. L’objet principal de cette communication sera l’étude des monuments qui furent

détruits et parfois reconstruits (type de destruction, liens éventuels avec les guerres du début de la

période byzantine…). Certains d’entre eux furent reconstitués sur place par les archéologues ou

envoyés au musée archéologique de Tripoli.

Page 32: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

32

The view from the day after: some observations on the Late Bronze Age I final destructions in Crete

DARIO PUGLISI (UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN)

Each destruction is also an end. As all temporal events, both if it happens instantaneously or

develops through a process of time, each destruction inevitably imply a definitive character. But

when can be a destruction defined “final” in archaeological and historical terms? And why a

destruction becomes definitive? Answering to these questions could require historiographical and

philosophical reflections that are not the aim of this paper. These questions are here useful only for

focusing our attention on a problem which is typical of the archaeologist dealing with a destruction,

especially if he works on a prehistoric context or without the support of written sources. In this case,

the final character of a destruction in historical terms depends most of all on the archaeological

perception of what happened after the destruction. In other words, the view from the day after is

one of the basic ways by which the archaeologists value, inescapably and almost mechanically, the

historical significance of a destruction. But what is the degree of awareness by which we

archaeologists effectively are applying this perspective? And how the view of the day after is

conditioning for the elaboration of the view of the destruction of the day before? Here I don’t want

dealing systematically on the problem or proposing a survey of the possible cases. Rather, I would

focus on a single case, which is more familiar to me, and which is in my mind exemplificative of how

an inverted perspective, which goes from the view of the destruction to the view of the day after and

not vice versa, could be dangerous for an effective comprehension of the nature and historical

significance of a destruction.

Page 33: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

33

Construction and Destruction: the case of Timmari (South Italy) MICHELE SCALICI (UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DELLA BASILICATA), ALESSIA MANCINI (SOPRINTENDENZA

ARCHEOLOGICA DELLA BASILICATA)

The site of Timmari, a few km NE from the modern city of Matera (Basilicata, South Italy),

represents one of the most interesting sites of the ancient Apulian and Lucanian territory. Its position

along the middle valley of Bradano has always been a link between the Apulian area and the Adriatic

Sea, the Ionian coast - dominated by Greek colonies of Taranto and Metaponto - and the inner

territory of ancient Lucania.

One of the most significant stages in the history of the site is the “Lucanian age”, between the

fourth and the third centuries BC: the remains of a settlement, several graves and a well-known

votive deposit belong to this period.

In this paper we will focus on the ways and features through which main changes occurred in the

structure and organization of the settlement, between the 4th and the 3rd cent. BC, during the crucial

moment of cultural and territorial definition of the Lucanian ethnos. To this end we will consider, in

particular, ruptures and discontinuities in the use and allocation of spaces - compared to previous

archaeological phases - highlighting ways and significance of the “destruction” of buildings and

structures, as recently revealed by archaeological investigations.

Some very recent excavations (2009, still unpublished), have made it possible to discover new

structures and to better define the archaeological phases of the 4th-3rd cent. BC settlement that

replaced - after a hiatus of over a century - a village of the Archaic period. Barely a century later, the

site was abandoned, and its destruction was “sacralized” with a small ritual action: a little hole was

realized onto the top of a partially demolished wall and filled with the remains of a sacrificial ritual (in

particular some black-glaze cup fragments, and a small, thin plate of lead).

Page 34: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

34

Evidence of destructions from the Peloponnese during the Late Helladic period: an archaeological domestic perspective

ARIANNA RIZIO (UNIVERSITÀ DEL MOLISE)

This paper focus on the evidence that domestic architecture provides for destruction during the

Late Helladic IIIB. I examine a number of indicia of human skeletons found in different regions of the

Peloponnese in domestic contexts. What does it signify?

During their excavations archaeologists often encountered inside habitations human remains that

were not considered in a perspective of widespread destructions.

The paper will draw out a small number of case studies from different regions of the Peloponnese

in different habitation contexts, attempting to explain “human histories” in an horizon of

destructions.

Page 35: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

35

Destroying the Means of Production: The Case of Ground Stone Tools from Kremasti, Greece

ANNA STROULIA (UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA) & DANAI CHONDROU (ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF

THESSALONIKI)

Prehistoric ground stone tools have often been treated as straightforward, mundane, utilitarian

objects, yet growing evidence of deliberate destruction suggests other dimensions as well. The

evidence we present in this paper derives from the Late Neolithic site of Kremasti, northern Greece.

Extensive salvage excavations uncovered a large number of subsurface features: 462 pits containing

pottery, portions of burnt structures, tools, animal and human bones, figurines, etc.; 5 ditches

arranged in a T-shape and containing material from disturbed pits; and 23 cremation burials. The

excavated area seems to have served extra-utilitarian purposes and was located outside a

settlement’s residential area. The latter is believed to be found in an adjacent unexcavated tell.

• The Kremasti ground stone tool assemblage includes a number of specimens exhibiting signs of

deliberate fragmentation. Some of these fragments consist of large flakes or contain large flake

scars, whereas others have characteristics indicating planned multi-staged breakage. The broken

pieces originate from a variety of tools (e.g., celts and grinding implements) that seem to have

been perfectly usable when destroyed.

• The systemic context of the intentional breakage of ground stone tools at Kremasti remains, for

the moment, obscure. The on-going refitting project, however, has revealed that the resulting

fragments were placed in pits without conjoint parts. Even the few identified conjoined pieces

come from different pits. These patterns suggest that deliberate fragmentation took place

outside the pits and was followed by separation and dispersal of the resulting fragments. Since

only a small number of conjoined pieces of deliberately broken tools have been located in the

excavated area, it is likely that the missing fragments were deposited at the residential area of

the settlement in the nearby tell and/or exported to other settlements.

Page 36: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

36

Les séismes comme cause de destruction : étude du vocabulaire des inscriptions aux époques hellénistique et romaine

LUDOVIC THÉLY (UNIVERSITÉ D'ANGERS)

De toutes les catastrophes naturelles dont on a gardé trace aux époques historiques, les

tremblements de terre sont celles qui, indéniablement, ont le plus frappé les contemporains par la

violence et les dégâts qu'ils occasionnaient. De nombreuses sources littéraires se font l'écho de la

variété des impacts catastrophiques : certaines cités disparurent entièrement ; d'autres virent leurs

murailles s'effondrer ; quelques unes encore firent reconstruire les bâtiments civiques et les

habitations. Les innombrables exemples que nous ont livrés les Anciens offrent une importante

matière à partir de laquelle il est possible d'appréhender les phénomènes physiques de destruction

et les interprétations qu'ils ont suscitées.

La documentation épigraphique se compose d'une trentaine d'inscriptions relatives à des séismes

en Méditerranée à l'époque hellénistique et sous le Haut Empire romain. Ces documents renseignent

le plus souvent sur les modalités de reconstruction des édifices, mais également, par l'emploi d'un

vocabulaire précis, sur le phénomène de destruction lui-même. Il serait toutefois inexact de croire

que les verbes employés par les rédacteurs des décrets, comme d'ailleurs par les auteurs classiques,

sont spécifiques aux catastrophes naturelles. Leurs sens et la réalité qu'ils décrivent varient

essentiellement en fonction des préverbes ou des groupes nominaux qui en dépendent.

L'étude lexicologique du vocabulaire des destructions dans la documentation épigraphique doit

non seulement être complémentaire d'une recherche plus large qui inclurait les auteurs classique,

mais doit avant tout reposer sur des interrogations de nature historique : l'emploi d'un verbe plutôt

qu'un autre traduit-t-il la violence de la catastrophe ? Observe-t-on une utilisation graduée des

termes selon l'intensité du phenomena ? Certains mots sont-il utilisés uniquement dans un contexte

de catastrophe naturelle ?

Page 37: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

37

Living through destructions: deliberate vs. accidental manipulation of human remains and grave goods in Western Mediterranean rock cut-

chamber tombs of the IV and III millennium BC SIMONA TODARO (UNIVERSITY OF CATANIA) & LUCA GIRELLA (UNINETTUNO UNIVERSITY OF ROME/UNIVERSITÉ

CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN)

The deliberate manipulation of human remains is typical of a complex mortuary practice known as

secondary burial, and has been variously interpreted by scholars depending on (a) the variety of

forms that it assumed in different contexts and (b) on the theoretical approaches used. One of the

main interpretative approaches to secondary burials has been the relationship between the living

and their ancestors, and many scholars have noted that the destruction of the individual was a

necessary step for achieving the status of ancestor. For instance, in the case of communal secondary

burials, such as those detected in the EBA tholos tombs in Crete, the recurring handling of human

bones in specific ossuaries and areas near the circular chamber have been regarded as a way of

fragmenting individuals into the homogenized and de-individualised state of ancestor. Extreme cases

have been detected in the MN communal tombs of the Ambrona valley in Spain (La Peña de La

Abuela, La Sima) as well as those in France (La Hoguette, Fontenay-Le-Marnion, La Chaussé-

Tirancourt, Lacroix-Saint-Ouen) which were erected, used for several generations, and then closed by

burning down and melting the whole chamber, thus sealing the burial level with a quicklime mantle.

These cases, because they destroy and mix together human remains, grave goods and the physical

structure of the tombs into a formless mass, have been interpreted as a symbolic representation of

the group in the mythological territory of the ancestors. Generally speaking, a secondary burial can

be defined as a multi-stage treatment that involves the ‘destruction’ of the skeleton through

disarticulation and/or amputation of parts after the disappearance of the flesh, and the re-location

and definitive deposition of selected bones in different contexts. It was however considered to be

functional to the construction of social relationship or to the creation of intergenerational memory.

In other words it is a practice that, although often regarded by archaeologists as destructive in a

negative sense (due to its effects on the burial record), was apparently performed with a highly

positive and constructive intention. Identification of this particular burial treatment is not simple,

and the manipulation of human bones in tombs that were used for multiple burials over long periods

of time has generally been considered to be an unplanned action that was merely functional for

creating space for the newly deceased. However, new discoveries, aided by the application of new

methods of analysis, have provided the opportunity for a fresh perspective and raised the problems

of finding sound criteria to discriminate between planned and unplanned forms of manipulation of

human bodies and burial assemblages. This paper aims to further explore this issue by focusing on

Page 38: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

38

some new evidence uncovered in a few cemeteries of rock-cut chamber tombs from the Italian

peninsula, Sicily and Sardinia that were used for multiple burials between the IV and III millennium

BC. In particular, by comparing the treatment reserved for human remains and grave goods, it will be

argued (a) that the disconnected burials which have usually been interpreted by archaeologists as

the outcome of accidental post-deposition manipulation during the re-use of the funerary chambers

were part of a specific multi-stage mortuary treatment that involved the ‘destruction’-manipulation-

reintegration of body parts and worked as an intentional strategy through which new forms of

corporate identities were created; and (b) that the use of this particular burial practice, occurring at

the same time as the shift from individual to communal burials, have crucial implications for our

understanding of the way in which these communities were regulating/constructing their social

relationships.

Page 39: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

39

Making, mending and breaking. Contextualising and interpreting the intentional destruction (and curation) of houses at Neolithic Knossos,

Crete. PETER TOMKINS (KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN/UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD)

The intentional damaging or destruction of material things is by definition an unusual practice. By

choosing to term the activity “damage” or “destruction” it is clear that we believe that it deliberately

violates expected normal or everyday conditions and thus that we expect its incidence to be

restricted in timespace. This quality renders intentional fragmentation a particularly powerful

technique of ritualisation; where ritualisation is understood to refer those qualities of performance

employed to mark out an activity from the everyday and render it particularly special, conscious and

meaningful. More generally, intentional fragmentation and indeed ritualisation form part of an

embodied human engagement with the material world in which specific human-material interactions

may function as metaphors for the specific ways in which different people at different times and in

different places conceive of themselves and their worlds.

Understood in such terms intentional destruction represents a meaningful aspect of human

behaviour, but one whose significance is contingent upon a wider set of specific contextual

conditions. Consequently, the secure identification of instances of intentional fragmentation, while a

valid and methodologically important goal of enquiry, should not be treated as an end in itself.

Rather, the ultimate aim must be to find ways to contextualise instances of intentional fragmentation

and explore the specific, contingent understandings being articulated. These ideas will be explored

further in the context of examples of intentional house destruction and house curation from the

Cretan Neolithic site of Knossos.

Page 40: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

40

Destruction of Places by Fire: Domicide, or Domithanasia RUTH TRINGHAM (UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY)

In this paper I will explore the reason why fire is chosen as a means of destruction of places, be

they urban or rural, public monuments or intimate domestic places. And how can and do

archaeologists and historians act as arson investigators many centuries (and millennia) after the

event to determine whether the destruction is an act of domicide or of domithanasia (accidental or

intentional destruction). I will go beyond our own research in the burned houses of Neolithic

Southeast Europe to apply some of what we have learned and consider the significance of using fires

in other historic (and prehistoric) contexts.

Page 41: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

41

Breaking ground (stone): acts of deliberate destruction in Late Neolithic Makriyalos, Greece

CHRISTINA TSORAKI (UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD/UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN)

Acts of deliberate destruction of objects, buildings and humans have been discussed extensively

within prehistoric archaeology with John Chapman’s work (2000; Chapman and Gaydarska, 2007)

being the most influential to date. Chapman regards the deliberate fragmentation of objects as a

mechanism that enables the development and maintenance of social relations through the process

of enchainment. Moving on from these ideas, and following Brück (2006), I wish to address the issue

of destruction as a process of transformation and explore this in the context of the Greek Neolithic

and more specifically through the ground stone assemblage from the Late Neolithic flat-extended

settlement of Makriyalos, Northern Greece.

Detailed technological and contextual analysis of the Makriyalos assemblage has highlighted two

conditions that point towards acts of deliberate destruction: fragmentation and burning. More

importantly these two forms of destruction are associated with different object categories that

carried very distinct biographies: fragmentation with grinding tools and burning with stone axes and

adzes. The deliberate destruction of artefacts was therefore a practice that invoked different means

of destruction according to the activities these tools were used for, the meanings attached to their

use and the way(s) the tools were perceived by the inhabitants of Makriyalos. In the case of grinding

tools, the idea of fragmentation as a process of transformation is well linked with their everyday use,

as grinding tools represent an important technology with transformative properties (e.g., plant

products into food, stone into tools, Spondylus into ornaments). Thus, as I will argue in this paper,

the underlying principles of destruction can be highly varied and need to be understood in relation to

the particular contexts of practice (i.e. domestic vs. communal, daily vs. feasting events) different

objects were part of both during their use-life and ultimate destruction.

References Brück, J. 2006. Fragmentation, personhood and the social construction of technology in Middle and Late Bronze Age Britain. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16,3: 297-315.

Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe. London: Routledge.

Chapman, J. and B. Gaydarska 2007. Parts and Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context. Oxford: Oxbow.

Page 42: “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical ...1 “Destruction: Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives” Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 24-26 November

42

Understanding Destructions: Crisis Architecture and Termination Rituals in the Ancient Near East and Beyond

SHARON ZUCKERMAN (THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM)

Destruction levels, a recurring feature in ancient Near Eastern tell sites, are too often treated as

isolated events (especially when tied to specific historical sources). Recent scholarship on the

formation processes of the archaeological record stresses the need to understand site destructions

as part of long-term processes, rather than as isolated and unique events.

In this paper I will discuss several concepts which can serve as heuristic devices for the study of

destructions in the archaeological record. The identification of ‘crisis architecture’ and ‘termination

rituals’ can shed new light on the activities taking place at the site prior to its final destruction and

abandonment. Another phenomenon, that of “ruin cults,” is related to the activities taking place at

the ruins of the destroyed site, and thus creates a conceptual link between its pre- and post-

destruction inhabitants.

This model was applied to one case study: the destruction of Canaanite Hazor at the end of the

Late Bronze Age, and provided an alternative view of this event as resulting from of social, political,

cultural and ideological circumstances rather than as an isolated event. I will argue that applying

these concepts to other destruction contexts can illuminate the social processes and cultural

dynamics behind these events.