Deep-mapping the Asklepieion of Pergamon

Deep-mapping the Asklepieion of Pergamon is part of a project aimed at understanding the complex entanglements of networks and experiences through time at sanctuaries in the ancient Greek world. This story map explains the context, aims, methodologies, and some preliminary results. Work-in-progress!

Access this story map via the QR code, or the URL:  https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f57e64f85db744698d874fd9b8130813 

The project is part of  Deep-Mapping Sanctuaries - mapping experiences at festival hubs in the Hellenistic world , which is itself embedded within the larger program  Connecting the Greeks. Multi-scalar festival networks in the Ancient world . This program, co-directed by Christina Williamson and Onno van Nijf, is hosted at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and funded through an Open Competition Grant from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and OIKOS Anchoring Innovation.

The Deep-mapping Sanctuaries project looks at ancient festival spaces as hubs of network activity. People from near and far engaged with each other in ritual, social, economic, and political interactions, generating networks of exchange at different scales simultaneously. This project examines these relations using concepts of agency, place-making, spatial narratives, and deep mapping, discussed further below.

Within the larger project  Connecting the Greeks , I consider these spaces as hubs in festival networks, and the impact of their geo-politics at the micro-scale by examining the textual and material culture at sanctuaries for the stories that they can tell of the people who visited them, interacting and exchanging ideas at many different levels, and simultaneously. How were these places experienced, what flows of ideas passed between them? What stories would a magistrate from Kos tell of his local Asklepieion, and how might this differ from the memories of a delegate from Rhodes, or the perspective of an athlete from Pergamon, a local merchant, his wife, or her slave?

Most of our surviving evidence at sanctuaries stems from ‘official’ sources, like inscriptions, monumental buildings and statues, commissioned by polities and individuals that could afford them. But looking carefully, we can sometimes get a glimpse of the crowds that once gathered there, telling stories, scratching their names on the walls or under the statues, leaving private dedications (votives) to the gods, and sometimes just by the wear and tear of generations of hands and feet.

This project attempts to combine these different kinds of data into a composite ‘spatial narrative‘ of what these festival sites meant to different people at different times. The aim is to understand the dynamics of festival networks in place and at the crossroads of collective ideologies and individual agencies. The concept of ‘deep mapping' implies the long development of these narratives and how they constitute a sense of place. These narratives create multiple layers of meaning that accumulate across time. Assimilating these layers allows us to assess the long-term biography of a sacred place through the relationships that it fosters with people at the local, regional and ‘transnational’ levels. This process is a way of  'deep mapping'.

So what is a deep map? There is no strict definition of a deep map. But it has been called the "essential next step" following the spatial turn that reshaped the humanities by the turn of the century (Bodenhamer et al. 2015, 1). This can take a variety of forms – from literature, to podcasts, to multi-media installations and other art forms. Connected with this concept is that of ‘place-making’, used by social geographers to describe how people take ownership of a certain place, investing their identities through stories, rituals or other actions, monuments, and through what they leave behind. This concept is ideal for understanding the multi-vocality of a place (see also  deepmappingsanctuaries.org ).

A deep map approach can help towards a fuller understanding of sanctuaries as network hubs, by examining the impact of place on society and society on place through the many layers of interactions, overlapping across time.

The first project that I am trying this out on is the Asklepieion of Pergamon...

Sanctuaries in the ancient world were at the crossroads of diverse urban narratives. Social, economic, and (geo)political motives were intertwined with religious aspirations, creating a vibrant space of overlapping and sometimes contesting voices that channeled the dynamics of urban flows. The sanctuary of Asklepios near Pergamon was such a space. Developing from a natural shrine in a spring-fed basin to a cult of healing, the Asklepieion became a center of gravity, drawing travellers near and far, and attracting the attention of Hellenistic kings, the local elite, Roman emperors, as well as those seeking healing. By the imperial period, Asklepios had become Pergameus Deus, the principal god of the city.

Current fieldwork in Pergamon concentrates on the surroundings of the shrine, in order to better understand its economic and social embedding in the landscape of Pergamon, and its relationship with the city. This is directed by Felix Pirson, Güler Ateş and Ulrich Mania of the DAI Istanbul. Ulrich Mania also directed the 2019-2020 surveys around the Asklepieion. See also Pirson, F. et al. (2021). Pergamon – Das neue Forschungsprogramm und die Arbeiten in der Kampagne 2019. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 2020/2, 1-245. You can find out more about this project on the DAI TransPergMikro blogspace:  https://www.dainst.blog/transpergmikro .

According to  Pausanias (2.26.8-9 ), the cult of Asklepios was founded by a certain Archias, who injured himself while hunting in the mountains near Pergamon and went to Epidauros where he was healed. He subsequently brought the cult back to the area with him, presumably in the 4th c BC. A 2nd c BC inscription mentions an Archias as father of Asklepiades, whose descendants fulfilled the priesthood ( IvP II 251 ). Another Archias from Pergamon is mentioned in an early 2nd c BC inscription from Epidauros - this Archias was envoy (theorodokos) during the rule of Eumenes I ( IG IV² 1 60 ). In any event, these were a few of the prominent figures that played a role in promoting the cult and developing the sanctuary into a prominent sacred center.

The excavators identified 18 different Bauphasen (construction phases) of the shrine, published in the first volume of the excavation reports (AvP XI). Luckily they also clustered these into five main phases, making it easier to follow the development of the shrine. The image below is based on Taf. 84 in AvP XI.1.

The Asklepieion appears in a number of ancient accounts (see  ToposText ) , including Polybios (32.15.3-4), Appian (Mithridatic Wars 4.23, 9.60), Pausanias (Travels in Greece 3.26.10, 5.13.3), Lucian (The Sky-Man 24), the Suda (2914), Tacitus (Annals 3.63), Philostratos (Life of Apollonios of Tyana), and Herodian (History of the Empire), but none are as extensive as the references in Aelius Aristides' Hieroi Logoi (Sacred Tales). In this work, the chronically ill orator recorded his dreams, encounters, and experiences during his stay at the Asklepieion of Pergamon in the 2nd AD. The Hieroi Logoi provide a rare insider's view of the healing as well as religious experience through the shrine and its monuments, its rituals, and the people that interacted there. As Petsalis-Diomidis observed, through this work we gain an understanding of how...

Because of the rich data, the Hieroi Logoi served as a prototype of a deep map, created with the assistance of the Geodienst in 2020, and Alexandra Katevaini.

See the story map  Aelius Aristides and the Asklepieion of Pergamon  (work-in-progress!)

Literary texts are only one of the sources that give insights into human interaction and the spatial situation of the Asklepieion. Inscriptions are another important source. At the Asklepieion, there is a wide range that includes dedications which can take a wide range of forms, from small individual private offerings out of gratitude for healing (many on tabula ansata), small altars, or entire monumental structures (as inscribed on their architraves). Dedications also indicate the presence of other divinities, such as Apollo, Hygieia, Telesphoros, and Artemis, but also the rulers. Honorific decrees for the elite are also prevalent, showing the sanctuary as a podium for the (mostly local) elite to be put on display. Coins are another important source, as another indicator of the network or ‘catchment area’ of the sanctuary, based on their origin, but also for iconography: Pergamene coinage from the imperial period shows how Asklepios as Pergameus Deus, the principal god. Coin hoards also point to times of crisis. An important material category includes ceramics, which may indicate rituals and their locations, as well as everyday practices in the sanctuary. Terracottas also give an idea as to votive and dedicatory practices, as well as localized religious imaginaries. Sculpture is well represented at the sanctuary, and particularly along the sacred way, which held numerous references to classical and philosophical figures, as well as rulers - this area also intersected with the funerary zone of Pergamon. Finally, the monumental architecture of the sanctuary, as briefly sketched above, informs us as to how this unique space was shaped and how rituals were shaped - implicit in this are the constantly shifting earthworks, the engineering and impact on the local hydrologies in this spring-fed basin.

Each of these data types has a story to tell, but it is especially the combination of these in place that can show patterns of collective and individual behavior, and inform on individual decisions against this expansive religious, social, economic, and political context.

This rich complexity of data type lends itself for comparative analyses and network analyses, in which different data types are analyzed together, both within the same chronological horizon but also across the temporal ranges, in a deep map.

In this project the deep map will represent the various narratives that are told through the data sources at the Asklepieion, as mentioned above, looking at how they reflect contemporary interactions, but also across and through various temporal horizons. How was memory engaged in this process? What areas were retained, which were eradicated? These can be highly significant in a place that survived destructions, genocide, regime changes over a period of some 700 years.

As stated, deep-mapping can take a variety of forms, but in order to apply spatial analyses then a geographic information system (GIS) is needed - despite the drawbacks, misleading representations, or even methodological hypocrisy of using a metrical tool to analyze phenomenological perceptions. Nonetheless, GIS has the capacity to act as a reservoir for a wide variety of data while providing a tool for methodological analysis.

In Deep-mapping the Asklepieion of Pergamon, the focus is on how narratives interact with space but also with each other, to produce several layers of meaning. This means collecting a wide variety of spatial data, starting with the topography of the site, but also the inscriptions in the Altertümer von Pergamon VIII. Teil 3 and the finds from the 1958-1969 excavations published in the Altertümer von Pergamon XI. Teil 1-5 (1968-2011). A first step was getting the main plans georeferenced in GIS.

The next step was to identify the chronology of the building with a greater resolution than the five main phases shown in the previous section. This process has greatly been accelerated with the use of the Pergamon Digital Map from the DAI. For the pre-imperial sanctuary, the first volume of Altertümer von Pergamon XI focuses on the southern half of the site. Here, 18 different construction phases (Bauphasen) were identified by the excavators, who then report the finds according to the strata and relevant architectural feature. A trip to Pergamon in September 2021 was devoted to identifying the various walls and their chronologies.

The data is then collected in spreadsheets, which can be imported into GIS. We started with the inscriptions from the Asklepieion (compiled by Pim Schievink, from Altertümer von Pergamon VIII. Teil 3 (Habicht 1969)) also the relevant textual passages in Aelius Aristides' Hieroi Logoi. The third level is the material culture of pottery, coins, statues, etc., from the excavation reports.

These are then transformed to polygon shapefiles in a GIS environment - we use both QGIS and ESRI ArcGIS. The points from Aelius Aristides were converted by the Geodienst team, while Alexandra Katevaini connected the inscriptions and other finds (first from Volume I) to the architectural features from the Bauphasen shown as polygons on the map - and then she started experimenting!

Once the data is in a GIS, you can run comprehensive analyses, seeing the relationship between data and space. This gives a basis for looking into ways that stories are tied to places, and how they overlap and accumulate over time.

By running queries like these we may fully address questions such as who visited the shrine? What did they do there? Who did they interact with? How were (social) networks constructed in place? Whose memories are preserved? Which stories are retained over time, whose memories are forgotten? Ultimately, this should give insight into the many layers of meaning that accumulated at this place over time, but also the rich network of interactions and memories that together, as a whole, give meaning to sacred space.

This approach provides a wealth of data for comparative and network analysis, as well as for spatial analysis at the shrine, as we overlay the different data types epigraphic and architectural data (see previous). At present we are finishing the first volume of the Altertümer von Pergamon. Alexandra Katevaini has entered all of the finds in a GIS and has experimented with ways of visualizing them.

You can access this through the story map  Deep mapping different sources - a case study: the Asklepieion of Pergamon 

link:  https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/10fcb4652d274f64a7dae5cdc78f6458 

It might sound easy to simply georeference everything and plug it into a GIS for further analysis. But it is important to take into account the fundamental differences of what goes into the geodatabase as well as what stories may come out of it. The data varies widely not just in type but also in quality and resolution of chronology and interpretation. This needs to somehow be streamlined so that the data can be accessed and interpreted in ways that make sense while respecting the inherent nature of the data type. This requires several levels of revision which take time.

But the major result is a profoundly composite sense of human activity over time that may be accessed simply by exploring the data and looking for parallels across time and place, but also across types of sources. Networks are revealed through the origin of worshipers, or through coinage assemblages; inscriptions listing places of relevance created mental maps through the eyes of the readers; clusters of votive dedications show ritual hot spots in the shrine.

Put together, this can lead to a recreation of stories at several different scales that reveal the many temporal horizons at the sanctuary, bringing us deeper insights into the people that enabled them.

Suggestions or comments are welcome, please contact:

Christina Williamson - email: c.g.williamson@rug.nl |  deepmappingsanctuaries.org 

AvP XI.1 = Ziegenhaus, O. and G. de Luca (1968) Das Asklepieion. Teil 1. Der südliche Temenosbezirk in hellenistischer und frührömische, Altertümer von Pergamon XI. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

AvP XI.2 = Ziegenhaus, O. and G. de Luca (1975) Das Asklepieion. Teil 2. Der nördliche Temenosbezirk und angrenzende Anlagen in hellenistischer und frührömischer Zeit, Altertümer von Pergamon XI, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

AvP XI.3 =Ziegenhaus, O. (1981) Das Asklepieion. Teil 3. Die Kultbauten aus römischer Zeit an der Ostseite des Heiligen Bezirks, Altertümer von Pergamon XI, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

AvP XI.4 =De Luca, G. (1984) Das Asklepieion. Teil 4. Via Tecta und Hallenstraße. Die Funde, Altertümer von Pergamon XI, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

AvP XI.5 =Hoffmann, A. and G. De Luca (2011) Das Asklepieion. Teil 5. Die Platzhallen und die zugehörigen Annexbauten in römischer Zeit, Altertümer von Pergamon XI, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

IvP 3 = Habicht, C. (1969) Die Inschriften von Pergamon. Teil 3. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions, Altertümer von Pergamon VIII, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Bodenhamer, D. J., J. Corrigan and T. M. Harris (2010). The spatial humanities. GIS and the future of humanities scholarship. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Deubner, O. (1938) Das Asklepieion von Pergamon; kurze vorläufige Beschreibung, Berlin: Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft.

Meier, L. (2009) 'Inschriften aus dem Asklepieion von Pergamon', Chiron 39, 395-408.

Petsalis-Diomidis, A. (2010) Truly beyond wonders. Aelius Aristides and the cult of Asklepios. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Riethmüller, J.W. (2011) 'Das Asklepieion von Pergamon', in: R. Grüßinger, V. Kästner, A. Scholl, I. Geske and J. Laurentius eds, Pergamon. Panorama der antiken Metropole. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung, Petersberg, Berlin: Imhof, 228-234.

Strocka, V.M. (2012) 'Bauphasen des kaiserzeitlichen Asklepieions von Pergamon', Istanbuler Mitteilungen 62, 199-287.