The Grave Goods of Roman Hierapolis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE GRAVE GOODS OF ROMAN HIERAPOLIS AN ANALYSIS OF THE FINDS FROM FOUR MULTIPLE BURIAL TOMBS Hallvard Indgjerd Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History University of Oslo This thesis is submitted for the degree of Master of Arts June 2014 The Grave Goods of Roman Hierapolis ABSTRACT The Hellenistic and Roman city of Hierapolis in Phrygia, South-Western Asia Minor, boasts one of the largest necropoleis known from the Roman world. While the grave monuments have seen long-lasting interest, few funerary contexts have been subject to excavation and publication. The present study analyses the artefact finds from four tombs, investigating the context of grave gifts and funerary practices with focus on the Roman imperial period. It considers to what extent the finds influence and reflect varying identities of Hierapolitan individuals over time. Combined, the tombs use cover more than 1500 years, paralleling the life-span of the city itself. Although the material is far too small to give a conclusive view of funerary assem- blages in Hierapolis, the attempted close study and contextual integration of the objects does yield some results with implications for further studies of funerary contexts on the site and in the wider region. The use of standard grave goods items, such as unguentaria, lamps and coins, is found to peak in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Clay unguentaria were used alongside glass ones more than a century longer than what is usually seen outside of Asia Minor, and this period saw the development of new forms, partially resembling Hellenistic types. Some burials did not include any grave gifts, and none were extraordinarily rich, pointing towards a standardised, minimalistic set of funerary objects. Evidence of Pagan, Jewish and Christian burials is found not to be visible in the grave gifts of the Roman period. Also aspects of social status, and local or ethnic identity are only scarcely attested. Individual and group identities seem to be manifest in tomb monuments and inscriptions, rather than in objects involved in funerary rites. The consequence of this is a material that is largely "Roman". The Grave Goods of Roman Hierapolis TÜRK ÖZET Güney-Batı Anadolu'da bulunan Helenistik ve Roma Şehri Frigya, Roma dünyasında, bilinen en büyük Nekropollerden birisidir. Mezar anıtları, uzun süreli ilgi gördüğü için, birkaç mezar içerikleri kazı ve yayınlara konu olmuştur. Bu çalışma Roma İmparatorluk dönemine odaklanarak, dört mezarda bulunan eserleri, mezar hediyelerini ve Cenaze Töreni uygulamalari. Bu bulguların Hieropolitan bireylerin degişen kişiliklerini nasıl yansıttıklarını ve ne şekilde onları etkilediklerini dikkate alır. Aynı zamanda mezar kullanımi ve bununla birlikte şehrin ömrü 1500 yıldan fazla bir süreyi kapsar. Elimizde bulunan malzemenin Hieropolis mezar toplulukları hakkında kesin bir görünüm vermesi için çok az olmasına rağmen,bu çalışma ve nesnelerin bağlamsal entegrasyonu, araştırma bölgesi ve daha geniş bölgelerde ileri mezar çalışmaları için getiri sağlayacaktır. Unguentarium, lamba ve sikke gibi standart esyaların mezarlarda kullanılması özellikle MS 1. ve 2. yüzyıllarda daha çok popüler olmuştur. Kil ve cam unguentariumlar Güney-Batı Anadolu dışında görülen örneklerin aksine yüzyilı aşkın bir süre kullanılmıştır. Bu süreç içerisinde bazıları Helenistik türleri andıran yeni formlar da ortaya çıkmıştır. Bazı mezarlarda, herhangi bir mezar hediyesi bulunmamıştır, ve oldukça zengin olmamakla birlikte standart, minimalist mezar nesneleri içermektedirler. Pagan, Yahudi ve Hıristiyan mezarlarının örnekleri Roma dönemine ait mezar hediyeleri arasinda bulunmamıştır. Ayrıca sosyal statü, yerel veya etnik kimliğin etkileri oldukça az görülmüştür. Bireysel ve grup kimlikleri, mezar içerisinde bulunan objeler yerine mezar anıtları ve yazıtları üzerinde konu edilmiştir. Bunun sonucu eserlerin büyük ölçüde "Romalılara" ait olmasıdır. The Grave Goods of Roman Hierapolis ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the two field seasons I spent in Hierapo- lis, and the help and cooperation the team has always offered. I am looking forward to returning to Pamukkale and the Missione in a few weeks. A particular thanks to Caroline Laforest, Erika Capelletto, Camilla Cecilie Wenn and Sven Ahrens for sharing and discuss- ing their material. All of those having taken turns supervising me deserve my thanks: Karin Hägg Niklasson, for seeing me off to a good start - and showing me the adventurous world of Cypriot archaeology; Sven Ahrens, for always being eager to share of his extraordinary knowledge - and for taking me on journeys of discovery to the remotest of sites in Lydia, Caria, Lykia and Phrygia; Matthew McCallum for being patient, helpful - and for encouraging me to get my hands on Greek pottery in Athens and Knossos. Remarkable helpfulness and patience have I also found in Helena Neumann, thanks to whom I have been allowed to complete this thesis while simultaneously experiencing the academic life in England and Germany. I am in debt to Laura Führer for invaluable help and support and proofreading in the last phase of the work. Many thanks also to Sema Karakurt for help translating to and from Turkish. The Grave Goods of Roman Hierapolis CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2 METHODOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................ 3 2.1 WHOSE AGENCY ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 WHICH IDENTITIES........................................................................................................................................ 5 2.3 SUMMING UP ................................................................................................................................................... 5 3 CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 7 3.1 HIERAPOLIS AND HER SURROUNDINGS ...................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Topography ................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1.2 Pre-Roman settlement ........................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 The Roman City ......................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.4 Hierapolis in Late Antiquity and the Byzantine periods ..................................................... 10 3.2 RESEARCH AND EXCAVATIONS ................................................................................................................. 12 3.2.1 Western rediscovery and early investigations ......................................................................... 12 3.2.2 The Italian excavations 1957 – Present ...................................................................................... 12 3.2.3 Other excavations .................................................................................................................................. 13 3.3 THE NECROPOLEIS OF HIERAPOLIS ......................................................................................................... 14 3.4 HNE .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.4.1 Surveying the East Necropolis ......................................................................................................... 15 3.4.2 Excavations .............................................................................................................................................. 17 4 THE TOMBS ........................................................................................................................ 20 4.1 159D – THE TUMULUS ............................................................................................................................. 22 4.2 163D – THE HEROON ................................................................................................................................ 24 4.3 C92/42 – THE TOMB OF EUTYCHES AND THE SARCOPHAGI .............................................................. 27 4.3.1 Stratigraphy ............................................................................................................................................ 28 4.3.2 The Sarcophagi ...................................................................................................................................... 30 4.3.3 Inscriptions ............................................................................................................................................... 30 The Grave Goods of Roman Hierapolis 4.4 C91/51 – ATTALOS' TOMB ...................................................................................................................... 31 4.4.1 Stratigraphy ............................................................................................................................................. 32 4.5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 32 5 THE OBJECT ASSEMBLAGES