Constanze Graml

available now: https://www.utzverlag.de/catalog/book/44813

In recent years, scholarly interest in Ancient Athens has been enlivened by spectacular archaeological discoveries. The new finds from the pre-Classical city called for a synoptic reassessment of the material remains, their interpretation and the previous methodological approaches, since the dense records of later historical phases had shaped the perception of Athens before the Persian Wars. Under theses premises, the International Workshop held at the Ludwig Maximilians-Universität München in February 2017 invited its participants to rethink early Athens. The papers assembled in this volume aim to question traditional perspectives and offer a multidisciplinary framework for the discussion of archaeological, literary and epigraphical testimonia.

This paper arises from a research-based teaching project (“Die Biographie eines Heiligtums. Computergestützte Visualisierung und Analyse mit georeferenzierten Datenmodellen”), held during the summer term 2019 at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Based on a case study focussing on the area of Sounion and the Laureotike, with the authors, aided by a group of students, developed a data structure concept for the critical analysis of ancient sanctuaries that takes into account their landscape setting, cults and worshipped deities, as well as ancient worshippers. In order to facilitate the evaluation of large amounts of data sets, a preliminary GIS-based graph database was established and first data sets were entered. The paper presented here outlines the data structure as well as the configuration of the provisional tool and aims to illustrate how our understanding Greek religion is improved by large and highly diverse data sets.

From a political point of view, 3rd century BCE Athens represents a shattered unity. Parts of the Athenian countryside and even the city itself were occupied by foreign troops. This loss of control affected the city’s political, economic, social, cultural, and religious life. Since Cleisthenic times, relations between political units and religious communities had become institutionalised through specific cults. Other cult places of relevance to the larger community and therefore with a catchment area that exceeded a deme, e.g. Eleusis, were also affected, as they lay within the occupied territories. This partial inaccessibility of the countryside risked the disruption of religious duties. The project “Cult and Crisis: The Sacred Landscape of Attica and its Correlation to Political Topography” aims to identify potentially affected cult places with no limitations regarding their possible catchment area by analysing their placement in relation to foreign military bases. Alterations in cult practice can plausibly be detected in changes ranging from cessation to the rerouting of ritual movement or the establishment of substitute cult places. As these “solutions” rarely feature in written sources, our GIS-based approach will focus on material remains from sanctuaries. Although an object’s use for ritual practice cannot be deduced with certainty, the distribution of finds certainly attests to human activity. This contribution presents a trial of this approach, taking the Sounion area as its case study.

We are writing to invite you to contribute to a book we are currently preparing, aiming to shed light upon ἐργαστήρια in the ancient world. Among the primary aspects to be investigated is the architectural form, layout and locality of workshops within the overall (urban, religious or other) site-plan, on the basis of their directly identifiable physical remains or indirectly (e.g. epigraphically) inferred existence. Even though nearly everyone is familiar with the renowned atelier of Phidias at Olympia, the same cannot be claimed for Skopas's workplace or the shelters of anonymous craftsmen. The so-called 'priests-house' at Delphi demonstrates how difficult it is to identify a workshop's function and how restricted our knowledge still is with regard to the whereabouts of production centres. The fact that such constructions, expected to be found near quarries and usually not far from temples, would be simple shacks made of perishable material and only temporarily used, confines even further the possibilities of recreating their appearance. Often the only traces left behind are stone flakes or abort products, but very seldom remnants of the building itself. The ephemeral nature of workplaces comes in sharp contrast to the sense of permanence, endurance or monumentality given out by the artefacts created inside them. Exceptional is the case of Paros, where boundary stones demarcated a cluster of workshops, an 'industrial zone', as it were, distinct from the settlement. Nevertheless, urbanistic development with spaces especially reserved for production did not manage to reverse the ephemeral nature of worksites; the actual craft, however, did. Related to an atelier's setting, and decisive as to whether this could be afforded within urban environs (intra urbem), are some inevitably disturbing side effects of the production process, such as the noise or the smell. The possibility to sell the end product should also be taken into account; workplaces sheltered within domestic quarters and functioning also as shops can be identified by their immediate outlet to a street. Apparently here the production process did not require much of a clutter. Characteristic is the case of the shoemaker's atelier and shop in the Athenian Agora, identified on archaeological and literary evidence. Most intriguing is a worksite in action and what the premises looked like during the process of construction. We wish to expand beyond ceramic workshops, kilns and foundries, to tanneries, lapidaries, dying installations etc., to pinpoint their localities with reference to the respective urban, cultic or quarrying/mining context, as well as to understand their form, spatial arrangement and lifespan. Evidence for the operation of a workshop, such as portable finds, may be referred to, only to help us embed the installation notionally and topographically in its proper setting. Architectural worksites disclose another facet, that is, of an edifice or an architectural complex in the making. In the case of public or religious building programs, monumentality is the common denominator. Undoubtedly, the production of large-scale monuments in architecture and sculpture entailed particular management, structure and organization. What were the spatial and technical prerequisites for carrying out such projects, and with what bearing upon the site? What was the backstage (practical issues, decision making etc) of the erection of a colossal temple or a gigantic sculpture? We concentrate on the process and preparation, rather than the final product and outcome, narrowing down to specific topics, roughly sketched/outlined (though not yet exhausted) below:

This open session invites papers tackling the potential of mental and physical spaces for establishing, maintaining and changing ancient religious practices and beliefs.

You can submit your abstract for our open session online in:
https://easr2019.org/call-­‐for-­‐individual-­‐papers/

The abstract submission deadline is December 15, 2018.
Review results will be announced on January 15, 2019.

Religious practices form spaces, inasmuch they take place in spaces; at the same time, space determines religious practices, as the practices often (usually) are performed in places specifically designed for cultic purpose. People perform rituals and thus partake in shared identities, be it as part of a group with unifying religious performances, be it as individuals who perform religious practices according to collectively acknowledged norms. Religious practices structure time and space, but they also transgress time and space; at the same time, these practices themselves are determined and influenced by time and space.
The panel starts from these intertwined, also paradoxical preconditions of religious practices and asks about the interrelations of these practices, spaces and identities.
• How are religious spaces constructed, what operations change them? What do sacralized and sacralizing objects do in and with built or open spaces? On the other hand, which sorts of sacral and sacralizing objects are attracted by specific spaces? Do the objects already present in a specific space determine the further accumulation of objects of the same category, creating thus, on the long run, traditions within (sacred) spaces?
• What do people with different background (cultural, religious, ethnic, gender, educational, social, else) do in religious spaces and how do they experience them? How can spaces and practices be re-shaped or be taken to form new or additional identities, either intentionally or involuntarily? Which parts of the religious self-conceptions are projected on the venerated deity or deities?
• How do sacred spaces, which are relying on the multifaceted cultural memory, use the perception of temporal aspects (past, present, and future)?
With its focus on formative capacities of religion and religious practices the panel invites contributions spanning the Ancient Mediterranean and Western Asia from Antiquity to the Middle Ages and asks to consider a variety of religious spaces and objects and their continued, discontinued and revived use in, with and for ritual practices and in spaces. Contributors should shed light on the possibilities, contingencies and limitations of the potential relationships of practitioners to the practice, the objects and the spaces and apply culturally comparative approaches, including periods widely separated in historical time.

The book we are preparing aims to shed light upon ἐργαστήρια in the ancient world, investigating the architectural form, layout and locality of workshops within the overall (urban, religious or other) site-plan, on the basis of physical remains or inferred (e.g. epigraphically) existence.  Often the only traces left behind are stone flakes or abort products, but very seldom remnants of the building itself. The ephemeral nature of workplaces comes in sharp contrast to the sense of permanence, endurance or monumentality given out by the artefacts created inside them. Workplaces sheltered within domestic quarters and functioning also as shops can be identified by their immediate outlet to a street. Most intriguing is a worksite in action and what the premises looked like during the process of construction. We wish to expand beyond ceramic workshops, kilns and foundries, to tanneries, lapidaries, dying installations etc, to pinpoint their localities with reference to the respective urban, cultic or quarrying/mining context, as well as to understand their form, spatial arrangement and lifespan. Evidence for the operation of a workshop, such as portable finds, may be referred to, only to help us embed the installation notionally and topographically in its proper setting. Architectural worksites disclose another facet, that is, of an edifice or an architectural complex in the making. In the case of public or religious building programs, monumentality is the common denominator. Undoubtedly, the production of large-scale monuments in architecture and sculpture entailed particular management, structure and organization. What were the spatial and technical prerequisites for carrying out such projects, and with what bearing upon the site? What was the backstage (practical issues, decision making etc) of the erection of a colossal temple or a gigantic sculpture? We concentrate on the process and preparation, rather than the final product and outcome.