Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos

Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

EXEMPLI GRATIA SAGALASSOS, MARC WAELKENS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY ARCHAEOLOGY Edited by Jeroen Poblome

LEUVEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

© 2013 by Leuven University Press / Presses Universitaires de Louvain / Universitaire Pers Leuven. Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium). All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated datafile or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers. ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 D / 2013 / 1869 / 59 NUR: 682 Lay-out and cover design: Frederik Danko (Vuurvlieg) Jacket photographs: Statue of Hadrian © Bruno Vandermeulen (KU Leuven) and Marc Waelkens © Yves Nevens (Belspo)

Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013 WAELKENS_BOEK_FINAL.indd 4

24/10/13 15:06

Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos Ebru Torun and Semih Ercan

The Sagalassos Project: a place of interdisciplinary research and anastylosis The last two decades saw the start and growth of the ‘Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project’, one of the first interdisciplinary classical excavations in Turkey. The Sagalassos Project emerged as a spin-off of the Pisidia Survey in 1990, and was conceived from the start to evaluate all feasible data that can be gathered through survey and excavations, in collaboration with other related disciplines1. The site and the territory of ancient Sagalassos became the focus of intensive research, and at present the monumental centre of the town is for the large part unearthed, while four anastylosis projects and a shelter structure are completed. Architectural recording, research and conservation have always been part of the excavation programme since the initial years of excavations at Sagalassos and gradually became the project’s crucial components. Conservation of the exposed archaeological remains has been considered an ethical responsibility by the excavation director Professor Marc Waelkens and the team, in accordance with the contemporary international debate and the ICOMOS charter of the period on this matter2. In the 1990’s, this was an outstanding and pioneering attitude towards conservation, within the discipline of archaeology. Alongside the demonstrated potential of the results obtained through collaboration of varied fields of research, the conservation and anastylosis projects conducted on the site became ‘trademarks’ of the Sagalassos Project in archaeology. The anastylosis of the Late Hellenistic Fountain House (1994-1997) and the shelter built for the Neon Library (19951997) were followed by the anastylosis projects of the Northwest Heroon (1998-2009), the Antonine Nymphaeum (1998-2010)3 and the Arch of Claudius (2010-2013)4. The anastylosis of the monuments on the northern half of the Upper Agora are going on since 2011. The Northeast and Northwest Honorific Columns at the two corners of the agora as well as the Exedera of the East Portico have already been completed, and the anastylosis of the

1 Waelkens et al. 2011. 2 ICOMOS 1990. 3 Waelkens et al. 2006. 4 Torun, in press.

27 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Ebru Torun and Semih Ercan Northeast Gate marking the entrance to the agora is scheduled to be finished in 20145 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The silhouette of the monumental centre of Sagalassos. Doric Temple (1), Northwest Heroon (2), Antonine Nymphaeum (3), Arch of Claudius (4).

At sites analogous to Sagalassos where excavated ashlar monuments are often found in good state of preservation and with high rates of original material available, anastylosis may seem at first the evident, if not desirable path to take. However, the decision to rebuild a collapsed ancient structure at an archaeological site should be a process that depends on a wide range of criteria, with practical prerequisites like an appropriate method of excavation and documentation as well as techniques specifically devised for the purpose. Furthermore, anastylosis decisions should be taken and principles must be set in such a way that, in each project to be carried out across the site, it remains possible to consistently abide by the contemporary principles of conservation as well as specific anastylosis techniques. The final decision regarding the execution of an anastylosis project, however, should be the result of an assessment process that takes all values of the monument into account. And more importantly the decision-making process should consider the project’s effect on the values of the site in general6, or rather the ‘landscape’ it belongs to. Anastylosis projects in that sense should be part of a conservation programme which in its turn must be bound to the management of the site as a cultural resource. As such, scientifically well-based, justified and accurate anastylosis projects that ultimately serve the sustainable management of an archaeological site are not easy to establish and accomplish. Nonetheless, in recent years anastylosis started to be a common practice in Turkish archaeology with the support and demands of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism7. This rapid spread and execution of anastylosis in archaeological sites across 5 Ercan, in press. 6 Mason and Avrami 2000. 7 TCKTB 2013.

28 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos Turkey and the persistence of the Ministry for further restorations, especially of the ancient theatres, calls for a closer look to what constitutes “justified anastylosis practice”. This article suggests some fundamental criteria to be employed in the decision-making process regarding execution of anastylosis at archaeological sites, as well as the basic principles and techniques, based on the experience accumulated at Sagalassos during the last two decades.

Suggested criteria for anastylosis It is widely accepted, following the 1964 Venice Charter, that reconstruction should be totally avoided in ancient sites while only anastylosis can be permitted. The definition of anastylosis, which literally means to re-erect a column, is concise and clear in the Venice Charter: ‘Reassembling a monument using its existing but dismembered parts’8. Anastylosis also strictly requires that when reinstated, each building member is used in its original position and structural function9. An accurate anastylosis in that sense is an effective method of conservation, as rebuilding a collapsed ancient structure means individually repairing and reassembling the scattered ancient building stones. It is known that the original blocks reinstated to their original position are better preserved than when they would be left on the ground unprotected against the deterioration factors and even prone to getting lost. When anastylosis is a product of meticulous research, architectural study and documentation, it is also a learning process in a variety of disciplines such as archaeology, history, architecture, structural engineering and material sciences. As powerful visual media, rebuilt monuments contribute to the intelligibility of an archaeological site which in some cases simultaneously support the image and identity making of a country, as well as functioning as generators of tourism income10. These are generic arguments of justification for anastylosis projects. However, these generally rather legitimate incentives should not be allowed to overshadow that a correct anastylosis is bound to some strict criteria.

Prerequisites: is it practically possible? To determine whether rebuilding a certain structure is possible at all in practical terms, while being in strict accordance with conservation principles, should remain the initial concern of anastylosis projects. Elaborated through time and experience at Sagalassos, the following checklist sums up seven practical points that must be met before an attempt to re-erect a structure of any scale on an archaeological site is considered: Well-documented and complete excavation The first prerequisite for an anastylosis project is definitely a well-documented excavation. Ideally, archaeologists and architects should be working in tandem from the start 8 ICOMOS 1964, 1965, art. 15. 9 Mertens 1995, p. 121.; Hueber 2002, p. 77. 10 Demas 1997; Hueber 2002, p. 79; Mertens 1995; Schmidt 1997; Hamilakis 2007.

29 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Ebru Torun and Semih Ercan during the excavation process especially where further conservation and/or anastylosis works will be conducted. Geo-referenced documentation of collapsed and dispersed building members in relation to the stratigraphy, the in situ parts of the structure and to each other is of utmost importance for obtaining an accurate restitution in the next stage of the project. It is also crucial that the surroundings of the structure in question where building members may still be buried are also excavated to make sure all preserved pieces are discovered. The excavation of the surroundings is also necessary to interpret and present the monument in its urban and topographical context which will most likely demonstrate different phases of use and alterations. Available original material The existence of a high number of original building material obtained as a result of excavations is one of the most important criteria for an anastylosis project. This is often expressed as a percentage that is expected to be as high as 80-90% for justified anastylosis works11. However, such a ratio can be somewhat speculative. For certain monuments, not the ‘number’ of available original blocks but the proportion of the ‘visible surface area’ of the original to that of the supplementary pieces needed may be a more representative ratio. For instance, when the available original stones often miss the front sides, the new supplemental pieces may end up dominating the façades. Similarly, complete lack of a certain type of building member, commonly columns, can be a more critical factor than the total number of other available pieces. Missing information on certain physical aspects of the building in question, such as the total height and/or proportions inevitably leads to hypothetical restitution solutions. As conjecture must be totally ruled out in restoration12, in such cases availability of the rest of the building blocks cannot justify a complete rebuilding of the edifice. In such cases, partial anastylosis can be used to display the available pieces on the ground, in relation to the in situ parts of the structure. However, for these compositions to make sense to the visitor they must always be accompanied with visual information given in different media such as site panels, brochures, or more recently, web information that can be downloaded on the site13. Reliable and accurate restitution While a high number of available original material is an important point of departure, a reliable restitution is a must for any anastylosis project. An accurate restitution can only be achieved through a meticulous architectural study of the building. This field study should always be combined with comparative and historic/archaeological research which is needed to interpret certain features and the spatio-historical context of the structure in question. During the excavation phase, once the collapse is well-documented, the labelled architectural blocks will have to be organised on a flat and clear area nearby (i.e. ‘stone platform’), according to the preliminary identification of their typology. The organisation of the stone platform, must be mapped where the new position of the architectural 11 Waelkens et al. 2006; Rizzi 2007. 12 ICOMOS 1964, 1965, art. 9. 13 Torun et al., in press.

30 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos elements are recorded. Such a platform is also needed for further architectural study of the blocks and field mock-ups. Measured drawings of the in situ parts and the detailed documentation of individual blocks should record and study the type, connection holes, surface treatments, masons’ marks and other attributes of the architectural elements that give clues about their position in the building, and accordingly assist the restitution on paper. The architectural study also often leads to further discovery of possible building phases, alterations or the construction technique and/or sequence of the structure in question. The reliability and accuracy of the resulting restitution must certainly be double-checked with test constructions by field mock-ups on the ground and/or the building itself. Structural condition of the in situ parts In many cases, certain parts of the monument in question are found in situ during the excavations. These often load-bearing sections such as terrace walls, podiums or pillars, to name but a few, should be well-documented and examined before any attempt for further rebuilding is made. The unearthed in situ parts usually show different degrees of structural problems such as cracks, differential settlement, displacement, leaning, buckling or instability. It should be thoroughly examined whether the observed structural issues can be tolerated or rectified without an intrusive intervention. The degree of structural intervention deemed necessary for the in situ parts can be a crucial factor in the decision whether or not an anastylosis project should be carried out, especially if the intervention calls for a major original part to be dismantled and rebuilt. It is highly possible that the in situ ashlars will be still tied together with ancient connections in iron and lead. In such cases, dismantling needs to be strictly avoided as that would involve the breaking of original dowels and clamps. Dismantling in such instances involves risk of damaging the original material while inevitably enlarging the scope of the anastylosis project, thus the timing and budget. State of preservation of the material and the deterioration process The architectural study and documentation should include the identification of the different types of materials used in the original structure (typically natural stone for anastylosis projects) as well as their characteristics and current state of preservation. Collaboration with archaeometrists is required at this stage to determine especially the scale of material deterioration. Furthermore, the deterioration process that will be active on the original building materials during and in the aftermath of excavations, and following an eventual anastylosis must also be defined. Both the condition of the material and the actual weathering factors on the site help determine in the first place whether the original building members are suitable to be reused, if that is the case, define what sort and scale of conservation and consolidation interventions these members require. Original building blocks that have seen fire or have been exposed to the elements for several centuries on the surface may show a too advanced degree of disintegration and/or material loss to be remedied and re-used. Secondly, such basic archaeometric information can be critical in the choice of the material to be used for completing the missing parts. At Sagalassos, severe weathering 31 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Ebru Torun and Semih Ercan conditions played an important role in the choice of using appropriate natural stone for supplementary pieces instead of any mortar mix. The high number of freeze-thaw cycles recorded on the site, located between 1450-1600 m altitude, proved to be the main cause of rapid deterioration of all exposed materials but especially of the ancient and modern mortars on the site14. The risk of observing rapid and differential deterioration on the supplemental parts of the re-erected structure was one of the reasons why artificial mixes were not preferred at Sagalassos. Expertise and craftsmanship As can be deduced from the phases of research and documentation mentioned above, anastylosis projects require close collaboration of different disciplines; mainly amongst archaeologists, architects specialised in conservation, engineers, and archaeometrists. The scientific team should be equipped with the necessary technical knowledge particular to the field of anastylosis. There should be a clear and consistent set of conservation principles established and techniques developed specific to the site that can be applied consistently on different anastylosis projects across the site15. The research and field work of the experts should overlap and they must remain in contact throughout different stages of preparation, planning and eventual execution of an anastylosis project. The craftsmen are equally important team members as the scientists of the anastylosis project. It should in particular be the type, material and the finishing of the supplementary pieces and the modern conservation solutions to be employed that determines the kind of skilled workforce to be sought. For instance, decision to use the pantograph to produce supplementary fitting pieces from new stone blocks requires contracting stone carvers who know how to produce the gypsum cast of the missing part accurately as well as how to use the pantograph itself. The type of surface finish and decorative features to be carved also calls for skilled and experienced stone carvers. Anastylosis should not be attempted unless the right team can be formed beforehand, as repair and rebuilding stages of work involve a considerable handling of invaluable ancient material. When carried out unprofessionally relatively straightforward conservation interventions such as reassembling of fitting broken pieces, stitching of cracks or even cleaning may cause irreversible damage. Schedule and budget The schedule and budget of a certain anastylosis work can be estimated on the basis of the restitution. More specifically, based on the restitution of the monument, the amount of required supplementary pieces, as well as the modern conservation solutions devised for repair and consolidation of the original material and for the structural interventions can be determined. The future maintenance of the restored monument, and accessibility, presentation and dissemination of information must also be budgeted and scheduled. The number of team members, workmen, safety requirements, insurance and transport costs also take up a considerable sum in the budget and play a role in the estimated time span of 14 Degryse et al. 2001 and 2002. 15 see Waelkens et al. 2011; Ercan et al. 1997.

32 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos the project. Weather conditions of the site are certainly another critical factor that has to be considered in the planning. However, notwithstanding the crucial role of pre-planning in any conservation project, anastylosis cannot be seen as an ordinary, pre-planned construction work. The main material of the building activity is the ancient original architectural blocks that are often somewhat deteriorated. Even though the restitution on paper will be a good basis for the rebuilding stage of the project, it is the field trials that determine the final position of each piece. These mock-up trials on the ground and/or on the building itself may need to be repeated many times, until the exact position of each stone is determined and the necessary levelling and aligning adjustments are made. It is only after being sure about its position and level that a certain part of the monument can be permanently reinstated. This is a process that will be full of unexpected discoveries concerning the original construction, and may require the restitution to be revised and the trial constructions to be dismantled and rebuilt. Therefore, budget and scheduling of anastylosis projects should be flexible enough to deal with such uncertainties and should not force the project leader to skip trial constructions, make rapid decisions, or, worse, make alterations on the original blocks such as physical interventions to their size or surface finishes to make them ‘fit’. Ideally, anastylosis projects should be an undertaking of the scientific institution running the excavations, where the team comprise scientific collaborators, rather than being conducted by external contractors who naturally have to work under tight schedules determined by ‘lowest offer’ budget. It is also crucial in terms of research that the scientific team runs the anastylosis project from the beginning to the end, as it is during the documentation and trial construction phases that the most important observations and discoveries can be made about the ancient structure16.

Beyond the practical: is anastylosis a must? The above mentioned practical points are fundamental in deciding whether or not anastylosis of a certain ancient structure is possible and justified. Indeed, it is the conviction of the authors that no anastylosis project can be attempted unless those criteria are met in the first place. On the other hand, it should also be made clear that ticking all the boxes of the above discussed checklist does not necessarily make carrying out an anastylosis a fashionable must. Anastylosis and restoration at archaeological sites in general, should be discussed not only on the basis of practical/material possibilities. And certainly, the ‘desire’ to conduct anastylosis projects in favour of visibility and tourism generated income should not replace the scientific concerns and questions that should remain to be the motive behind archaeological excavations. A scientifically justifiable way of approaching anastylosis is actually to realise that it is one of the methods of conservation at archaeological sites17. This way it can be ensured not only that implementations abide by the universal conservation principles, but also that any 16 Hueber 2002, p. 80; see also Korres 1994; Nohlen 1999, p. 94. 17 Hueber 2002, p. 77-78.

33 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Ebru Torun and Semih Ercan anastylosis decision is -ideally- a function of a wider conservation programme, linked to the ‘sustainable management’ of the site. The field of conservation has been expanding ever since its recognition as an independent field of study, together with the definition of its subject matter, ‘the monument’. Throughout the 20th century, the scope of ‘what needs to be conserved’ moved away from the singular and static definition of monument, and has evolved to encompass a much larger scale and diverse phenomena under the paradigm of ‘cultural heritage’18. Cultural heritage, recognized as a ‘non-renewable resource’ that requires sustainable management, has come closer to conceptualisation of ‘nature’, more than ever. Today, conservation of archaeological sites has evolved beyond the physical preservation of the remains towards management. Subsequently, the concern of heritage management expanded to the scale and towards the notion of landscape19; a transformation best signified by the Florence (Landscape) and Faro Conventions20. Conservation and therefore anastylosis should be approached from the perspective of values–based heritage management practices. Any rebuilding activity on a site should, on the one hand, take into account the results of an analysis of the ‘values’ the structure in question bears21, and, on the other, the specific characteristics and the significance of the site and landscape it belongs to22. At both scales, these values should take into account the viewpoints and expectations of diverse stakeholders. Subsequently, the inevitable impact of anastylosis should be pre-analysed in search of a sustainable balance between the benefits and costs it may bring in the long run both for the monument and for the future of the archaeological site23. Experience at Sagalassos has shown that the decision-making process must examine the following aspects of individual anastylosis projects. Significance of the monument: is it ‘worth’ rebuilding? The historical value of any unearthed ancient structure as a testimony of the time passed is self-evident. On the other hand, some monuments do have unique characteristics that render them ‘special’ in many ways and thus may justify their rebuilding. These can be architectural attributes, such as the size, the composition, the construction technique of the monument and/or a specific style or type decoration it bears. There can also be other important attributes that make the rebuilding worthwhile such as the original utilitarian (e.g. a fountain) and symbolic value of the building in its ancient urban and landscape context. Some of these specific characteristics enhance the historic or art historical value as well as the didactic potential of anastylosis when it is seen as a ‘documentation and learning process’. Such an evaluation was made for each rebuilt monument at Sagalassos before its anastylosis, for which the Northwest Heroon presents a good example. This 15-meter-high 18 Erder 1986; Ahunbay 1996; Jokilehto 2007. 19 Fairclough et al. 2010. 20 Council of Europe 2004 and 2009. 21 Mason and Avrami 2000; Vacharopoulou 2005; Fielden 2003, pp. 268-272. 22 Fielden 2003, pp. 271-272; Antrop 2012. 23 Torun, in press; Vacharopoulou 2005.

34 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos monument dedicated to a prominent citizen is dated to the mid-Augustan period. It has an exceptional architectural composition in three distinct parts. An almost life-size frieze of dancing girls surrounds the monument on three sides in the middle, elevated on a high platform; over the frieze section, a temple-like structure crowns the composition on top. The Heroon also bears architectural decoration that refers to the architectural trends of the time, observed in the more central parts of the empire, rather than in Asia Minor. These architectural qualities reflect the values of the progressive and ambitious elite of Sagalassos and in that sense link with the debate of Romanisation in the region. It is located near the acropolis of the city, nearby the oldest temple, at the end of a street that was possibly adorned with similar structures. This tower-like monument must have been a landmark that dominated the ancient city for centuries. Excavations and further research also showed that it was incorporated into the 5th century AD city walls reflecting another episode in the history of urban transformation at Sagalassos24. The Northwest Heroon also had a very specific, consistent and masterfully applied original construction technique that helped to locate the position of the architectural blocks as well as the original sequence of construction at every row of the masonry. These were the unique characteristics of the monument that enhanced the argument for its anastylosis. Adequate assessment of such special scientific values of a monument can only be made by experts of the related fields working as a team, namely the archaeologists, architectural historians, architects and engineers. However, opinion and expectations of stakeholders other than the scientists (e.g. the government, local community…) and the contemporary symbolic, cultural, political and economic values that may be attributed to the anastylosis of the monument in question today, cannot be ignored in the process. Moreover, these may play a more pressing role, such as the persistence of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism about restorations, going so far to bind the issuing of the yearly excavation permits to the progress of the restorations conducted on the site. The main difficulty in this decision-making process will be to find a balance that will not tip towards the contemporary demands but give priority to the well-being of the ancient city and its monuments in the long run. The physical impact of anastylosis on the site Rebuilding activity of any scale, be it a single column or an entire nymphaeum, affects several aspects of the site. When anastylosis is an eventuality of excavations, its physical impact should be assessed in comparison to the condition of both the monument and the site in the aftermath of the excavations. The activity that primarily changes the physiognomy, fabric and the specific ‘sense of place’ of a site is often the excavations in the first place25. Anastylosis in many ways ‘tidies up’ the excavated area bringing together the scattered building members and clearing large stone platforms. It is also fair to say that anasylosis contributes to the intelligibility of the monument as well as of the history, scale and grandiose nature of the site. On the other hand, experience at sites like Ephessos and Sagalassos has shown that anastylosis potentially creates a sharp point of attraction and physically dominates the 24 Waelkens et al. 2000 and Waelkens 2002. 25 Ashurst and Shalom, 2007.

35 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Ebru Torun and Semih Ercan site overshadowing other remains. This depends on the location and the visibility of the structure, and on the topographical characteristics of the site together with the still standing building remains. Sagalassos presents a special case in this sense, worth taking a closer look. The monumental remains of Sagalassos are spread over terraces and hills, with the mountain chain to the north forming a visual boundary and providing a background to the city. The two naiskos walls of the so-called Doric Temple on the acropolis and many more parts of different monuments are still standing in the city centre. These topographical assets and the physical context provide a relatively favourable setting for anastylosis projects at Sagalassos. Rebuilding a monument such as the Arch of Claudius or a high one like the Northwest Heroon could have much more dramatic effects at a site with a flat topography and little amount of standing remains, whereas today these monuments complement and blend into the silhouette of Sagalassos (cf. Fig. 1). As for creating focal points, the attraction that the Northwest Heroon creates is towards the Upper Agora which used to be the important political and social heart of the city where the entire history of Sagalassos can be told. The other two rebuilt monuments, namely the Late Hellenistic Fountain House and the Antonine Nymphaeum, are both not visible upon entrance to the site, despite the grandiosity of the latter. These fountains are structures that are embedded into the topography and physical fabric of the city and as such contribute to the feeling of ‘discovery’ Sagalassos still offers to the visitor. As much as the visual impacts, any rebuilt structure in a site effects the unique ‘sense of place’ the site conveys26. An ‘untouched’ site with remains partially visible on the surface, where no excavation has taken place, holds a unique ‘sense of place’ and value as a ‘ruin’ linked to its incompleteness, desertedness and organic bond with the landscape it forms part of. The intensity of joy and excitement discovering such a place gives to the explorer27 can be followed in the testimonies of early visitors to Sagalassos, as well as that of Professor Marc Waelkens himself28. Although the fragile ‘ruin value’ of the site and the ‘sense of place’ are intangible values easy to harm as a result of excavations, partial or complete anastylosis projects conducted non-selectively may have an even more radical effect on the site. Multiple partial anastylosis projects that simply rise up from each trench may end up hindering the legibility of the urban scale and fabric of the ancient city instead of contributing to it. Each contemporary intrusion to the site for that matter plays a role in this process. This includes a wide range of interventions inside the archaeological site that may seem innocent and small, but tend to accumulate to have a large impact, such as (digital) ticket offices, flags on high poles at the entrance, the material used on the pathways as well as the type of signage and panels used all over the site. These combined with a non-selective anastylosis approach, can cause the site to lose all characteristics that used to render it special, turning into a recreation area with an urban language. Therefore, any intervention on an archaeological site from the initial excavations to 26 cf. Feld et al. 1996. 27 see also Tilley 1994. 28 Waelkens et al. 2011; see also Philippot 1996.

36 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos anastylosis, presentation and use, should actually be the result of an integrated, valuebased approach to the site and a function of a common vision established among all stakeholders concerning the safeguarding of the landscape the site belongs to.

Principles As mentioned above, anastylosis should be considered as a method of conservation. Therefore, contemporary conservation principles are valid for any anastylosis project, the most important of which can be cited as minimum and distinguishable intervention, faithfulness to original structural properties and behaviour, respect to all phases and later alterations, material and aesthetic compatibility of supplementary material. More specifically, the following principles were applied to the anastylosis projects conducted at Sagalassos: The purpose of anastylosis is not to reconstruct the monument entirely, but to reinstate, as much as possible, the available original building members back into their exact position. It is also not the intention to present the ‘original’ phase of the monument but to respect and keep all alterations or changes that took place on it or its surrounding until the time of its collapse. Missing parts are only completed when sufficient information is available and with the sole purpose of making the reinstatement of original elements structurally possible. None of the missing parts of the monument is reconstructed for aesthetic or didactic reasons based on assumptions. The original structural system of the monument is also considered a characteristic that should be conserved and therefore the structural interventions, materials and techniques are chosen in a way not to change the original load distribution and the behaviour of parts, allowing them to work as individual members. The structural restoration aims at improving to a certain extent the structural behaviour of the building, but not to protect it forever against potential misfortunes such as a severe earthquake, as this would require important interventions and put the original material at risk. Therefore, each structural element of the building is strengthened in a way that it becomes only as strong as it was originally, when it was still a monolith. While reassembling the building, the connections inserted between reinstated elements should not be too strong, the criterion being the limited strength of the stone proper. In this way, the original material is protected during an earthquake, as its impact on the building will be reduced to breaking connections and moving blocks, instead of crushing the original stone as the result of too rigid connections. In the worst case, the blocks would fall one by one, causing a new situation, whereby restored blocks should break by preference at the places where they have been repaired. This approach will not only assure minimal damage to the original material, but it can also allow another repair of the fallen blocks, should the case ever arise29.

29 see also Nohlen 1999, p. 99.

37 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Ebru Torun and Semih Ercan

The choice of conservation materials and techniques Joining of the fitting pieces and connections between stone blocks The materials and techniques to be used in anastylosis should be mechanically and aesthetically compatible with the original, have no adverse effect and furthermore fulfil the requirements of the structural approach explained above. The scientific research carried out between 1994-96 at the Reyntjens Laboratory of the Civil Engineering Department of the University of Leuven has established stone conservation techniques based on the use of epoxy based adhesives and mortars combined with fibreglass reinforcing rods30. A proper design and use of epoxy adhesives with fibreglass rods as reinforcement enables to join fitting pieces and complete stone blocks so that they are as strong as the monolithic stone of origin. Precise dimensioning of the fibreglass rods and limiting the adhesion area are effective to provide a join less strong than the original material. Fibreglass and epoxy adhesives are also appropriate materials to connect stone blocks – horizontally or vertically – in such a way that the connection will be slightly less strong than the stone itself. These techniques developed through laboratory tests and called ‘the fibreglass-epoxy system’, have already been successfully applied since 1994 in different anastylosis projects at Sagalassos without any sign of failure or adverse effect. Since 2008 ‘carbon fibre’ rods were employed for the vertical connections between the repaired blocks, replacing the fibreglass rods, because of their higher shear resistance. To reduce the earthquake effect on the re-erected buildings, ‘neoprene’ earthquake isolation panels were employed since 2008. This earthquake isolation system, generally used on the building bases, separates the building or a part of it from the moving lower surface, thus reduces the earthquake effects in the upper parts. This system also allows a limited movement for the upper part of the neoprene level, capable of partially absorbing earthquake effects. Supplementary parts Supplementary pieces are only incorporated, when it is inevitable to complete a missing part of the monument in order to reinstate one or more original stones into their place; i.e. when it is structurally necessary. The material of the supplementary parts must be a site specific solution. At Sagalassos, for this purpose, natural stone compatible not only aesthetically, but also in its mechanical properties to the original stone is chosen as the most suitable material. In the anastylosis of the Antonine Nymphaeum, where seven different types of natural stone were used originally, the project manager visited all active stone quarries in the region to detect the most suitable stone type to carve supplementary pieces. The same surface finish is given to the supplementary parts as that of the original stones. These new pieces, which anyhow lack the patina and worn surface texture of the original blocks, are easy to distinguish, as well as documented in many ways. The structurally needed missing part of an original block is carved in natural stone using a pantograph. The use of the pantograph as a tool to copy statues dates back to antiquity. In anastylosis projects it serves to carve on a new stone block the negative of the broken surface of an original building member. In this way, a new piece, which is actually a copy 30 Ercan et al. 1997.

38 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos of the missing original part that can closely fit to the broken block, is reproduced. Since 2012, CNC copying machines are employed for the preparation of the supplementary pieces, replacing the pantograph system gradually, because of the excellence in copying and the quick production advantage they provide. This way, overall, the only additions made to the monument are the sections that need to be completed in order to reassemble the original building blocks, whereas natural stone remains the main building material.

Conclusion Under the directorship of Professor Dr Marc Waelkens covering twenty four excavation seasons, the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project has gradually become a platform where considerable experience on anastylosis was generated and accumulated. This was fundamentally due to Marc Waelkens’ immense knowledge and interest in ancient architecture and techniques as well as the scientific research atmosphere that he created for the collaborators of his team. The authors are truly grateful for the continuous support, trust and liberty that he endowed upon them from the very start of their careers at Sagalassos. Looking back, we are amazed with his sincere faith in these two enthusiastic young Turkish specialists in their late twenties, about their ability to carry the responsibility of such anastylosis projects in the calibre of the Antonine Nymphaeum and the Northwest Heroon. The accomplished anastylosis projects in the last twenty years at Sagalassos instigated others at classical sites in Turkey. The same two decades have also been a remarkable period for the disciplines of archaeology and conservation, bringing about fundamental changes both in theory and practice, paving the way towards integrated heritage management for archaeology projects. The Sagalassos Project should maintain its exemplary role in the field and promote accurate and justifiable anastylosis achieved within a heritage management framework.

References Ahunbay 1996 = Z. Ahunbay, Tarihi Çevre Koruma ve Restorasyon, Istanbul 1996, pp. 8-21. Antrop 2012 = M. Antrop, Intrinsic values of landscape, in T. Papayannis and P. Howard, eds., Reclaiming the Greek Landscape, Athens, 2012, pp. 31-42. Ashurst and Shalom, 2007 = J. Ashurst and A. Shalom, Short story: The demise, discovery, destruction and salvation of a ruin, in J. Ashurst, ed., Conservation of Ruins, Oxford, 2007, pp. xxxi-xlii. Council of Europe 2004 = European Landscape Convention, 2004. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/ en/Treaties/Html/176.htm Council of Europe 2009 = Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, 2009. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/199.htm Degryse et al., 2001 = P. Degryse, M. Van Geet, M. Waelkens, R. Swennen, M. Wevers and W. Viaene, Microfocus computer tomography as a qualitative approach to frost damage in modern restoration mortars, “International Journal for Restoration of Buildings and Monuments”, 7, 2001, pp. 47-62. Degryse et al., 2002 = P. Degryse, J. Elsen and M. Waelkens, Study of ancient mortars from Sagalassos (Turkey) in view of their conservation, “Cement and Concrete Research”, 32, 2002, pp. 1457-1463.

39 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Ebru Torun and Semih Ercan Demas 1997 = M. Demas, Ephesus, in M. de la Torre, ed., The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region An International Conference Organised by the Getty Conservation Institute and the J. Paul Getty Museum. May 1995, Los Angeles, 1997, pp. 127-149. Ercan et al., 1997 = S. Ercan, T.C. Patricio and K. Van Balen, The Structural restoration of the Late Hellenistic Nymphaeum: principles, laboratory tests and field applications, in M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos IV. Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1994 and 1995, Leuven, 1997, pp. 423-437. Ercan 2013 = S. Ercan, Yukarı Agora yapılarının restorasyonu, in M. Waelkens et al., Sagalassos’ta 2012 yılı kazı ve restorasyon çalışmaları, 35th International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys and Archaeometry, 27-31 May 2013, Muğla, in press. Erder 1986 = C. Erder, Our Architectural Heritage: from Consciousness to Conservation, Paris 1986. Fairclough et al., 2010 = G. Fairclough and H. van Londen, Changing landscapes of archaeology and heritage, in T. Bloemers, H. Kars, A. Van der Valk, M. Wijnen, eds., Protection and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-Historical Landscape and its Eurpoean Dimension, Amsterdam, 2010, pp. 653-669. Feld et al. 1996 = S. Feld and K.H. Basso, eds., Senses of Place, Santa Fe, 1996. Fielden 2003 = B.M. Fielden, Conservation of Historic Buildings, Oxford, 2003. Hamilakis 2007 = Y. Hamilakis, The Nation and Its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology an National Imagination in Greece, Oxford, 2007. Hueber 2002 = F. Hueber, Building Research and Anastylosis, in K. De Jonge and K. Van Baelen, eds., Preparatory Architectural Investigation in Restoration of Historic Buildings, Leuven, 2002, pp. 77-82. ICOMOS 1964, 1965 = International Charter for the Conservation and restoration of Monuments and Sites. Venice, 1964, 1965. http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf ICOMOS 1990 = Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage. Lausanne, 1990. http://www.icomos.org/charters/arch_e.pdf Jokilehto 2007 = J. Jokilehto, Conservation concepts, in J. Ashurst, ed., Conservation of Ruins, Oxford, 2007, pp. 3-9. Korres 1994 = M. Korres, Recent discoveries on the Acropolis, in R. Economakis, ed., Acropolis Restoration The CCAM Interventions, London, 1994, pp. 175-180. Mason and Avrami, 2002 = R. Mason and E. Avrami, Heritage values and challenges of conservation planning, in J. M. Teutonico and G. Palumbo, eds., Management Planning for Archaeological Sites, Los Angeles, 2002, pp. 13-26. Mertens 1995 = D. Mertens, Planning and executing anastylosis of stone buildings, in N. P. Stanley Price, ed., Conservation on Archaeological Excavations, Rome, 1995, pp. 113-134. Nohlen 1999 = K. Nohlen, The partial re-erection of the Temple of Trajan at Pergamon in Turkey. A German Archaeological Institute project, “Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites”, 3, 1999, pp. 91-102. Philippot 1996 = P. Philippot, Historic preservation: Philosophy, criteria, guidelines, II, in N. Stanley Price, M.K. Talley Jr., A.M. Vaccaro, eds., Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Los Angeles, 1996, pp. 358-363. Rizzi 2007 = G. Rizzi, Preface, in J. Ashurst, ed., Conservation of Ruins, Oxford, 2007, pp. xix-xiii. Schmidt 1997 = H. Schmidt, Reconstruction of ancient buildings, in M. de la Torre, ed., The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region An International Conference Organised by the Getty Conservation Institute and the J. Paul Getty Museum. May 1995, Los Angeles, 1997, pp. 41-50.

40 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Two Decades of Anastylosis Experience at Sagalassos TCKTB 2013 = T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Kültür ve Tabiat Varlıklarıyla İlgili Yapılacak Yüzey Araştırması, Sondaj ve Kazı Çalışmalarının Yürütülmesi Hakkında Yönerge. http://teftis.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,50815/kultur-ve-tabiat-varliklariyla-ilgili-yapilacak-yuzey-a-.html Tilley 1994 = C. Tilley, A Phenomenology of Landscape. Places, Paths and Monuments, Oxford, 1994. Torun, in press = E. Torun, Yukarı Agora Claudius Kemeri anastilosis projesi, in M. Waelkens et al., Sagalassos’ta 2012 yılı kazı ve restorasyon çalışmaları, 35th International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys and Archaeometry, 27-31 May 2013, Muğla, in press. Torun et al., in press = E. Torun, S. Ceylan, D. Shoup, Sagalassos’ta arkeolojik miras yönetimi çalışmaları, 35th International Symposium of Excavations, Surveys and Archaeometry, 27-31 May 2013, Muğla, in press. Vacharopoulou 2005 = K. Vacharopoulou, Conservation and management of archaeological monuments and sites in Greece and Turkey: A value-based approach to anastylosis, “Papers from the Institute of Archaeology” 16, 2005, pp. 72-87. Waelkens et al., 2000 = M. Waelkens, L. Vandeput, C. Berns, B. Arıkan, J. Poblome and E. Torun, The Northwest Heroon at Sagalassos, in M. Waelkens and L. Loots, eds., Sagalassos V. Report on the Survey and Excavation Campaigns of 1996 and 1997, Leuven, 2000, pp. 553-593. Waelkens 2002 = M. Waelkens, Romanization in the East. A case study: Sagalassos and Pisidia (SW Turkey), “Istanbuler Mitteilungen”, 52, 2002, pp. 311-368. Waelkens et al., 2006 = M. Waelkens, S. Ercan, E. Torun, Principles of Archaeological Management at Sagalassos, in Z. Ahunbay and Ü. Izmirligil, Management and Preservation of Archaeological Sites. Proceedings of the 4th Bilateral Meeting of Icomos Turkey – Icomos Greece, 29 April - 02 May 2002, Side (Antalya-Turkey), Istanbul, 2005, pp.67-77. Waelkens et al., 2011 = M. Waelkens, J. Poblome, P. De Rynck, E. Torun, eds., Sagalassos. City of Dreams, Gent, 2011.

41 Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

Abstract in English The Dedication of the Temple of Apollo Klarios during the Governorship of Proculus, legatus Augusti pro praetore Lyciae-Pamphyliae during the Reign of Antoninus Pius Roman provinces were relatively stable structural elements of the Roman Empire, the extent of which often remained unchanged for centuries. Only occasionally were cities or administrative units removed from one province and attached to another. This process, however, has been claimed for Sagalassos. Originally a city of Pisidia, and as such belonging to the province of Galatia, it became part of a new double province early in the reign of Vespasian, when the region of Pamphylia (including Pisidia) was detached from Galatia and joined to the existing province of Lycia. Recently, a different opinion has been put forward, according to which Sagalassos remained part of Galatia under Vespasian as it was joined to Cappadocia. Shortly afterwards, between 75/78 and 86 AD, the city would have been removed from the double province and incorporated into the province of Asia. This has been argued on the basis of an honorific statue erected at Sagalassos for Sex. Iulius Frontinus as “governor” and “benefactor”. The assumption of such a transfer to Asia is thought to be confirmed by the dedicatory inscription of the temple of Apollo Klarios. This text mentions how the renovated sanctuary was dedicated under the governor Proculus. The latter has been identified with several senators but, based on the different building phases of the temple, C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modestus, the governor of Lycia-Pamphylia in 101102/3, and of Asia in 119/120, has been put forward as the most likely candidate. This identification would not only allow a more precise date for the renovation of the sanctuary but also prove that Sagalassos formed part of Asia, at least until early in the reign of Hadrian. Only later during his reign would the city become part of Lycia-Pamphylia. The decisive element in this reasoning, however, namely the identification of Proculus as a governor of Asia, does not apply. The title hegemon given to him in the dedicatory inscription of the temple was an unofficial but widely accepted title frequently used for governors in Lycia-Pamphylia, but never in Asia. As a result, that Proculus was a governor of Asia is disproved, and Sagalassos could not have belonged to that province in the early Hadrianic period. What is more, with this element out of the way, there is no further evidence to allocate Sagalassos to Asia at all, as the statue of Frontinus can easily be explained as the honouring of a governor of a neighbouring province. These clarifications raise the question of the identity of the governor mentioned in the dedicatory inscription. According to archaeological arguments, the renovation of the temple should be dated to the early Hadrianic period, which could still fit the governorship of C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modestus. That said, his main name is C. Mettius Modestus, which cannot be reconciled with the position of the cognomen Proculus in the inscription. The position of the cognomen does fit Cn. Arrius Cornelius Proculus, the governor of Lycia-Pamphylia during the early Antonine period, who was already identified as the Proculus of the inscription by Count K. Lanckoroński. All things considered, there is not a single indication that Sagalassos ever belonged to a different province from the rest of Pisidia between the reign of Augustus and that of Antoninus Pius.

Reprint from EXEMPLI GRATIA - ISBN 978 90 5867 979 6 - © Leuven University Press, 2013