Seriality and Individualization: Carving the Fluted Sarcophagi from Hierapolis of Phrygia

1 Introduction

The site of Hierapolis, on the western brink of the Anatolian Plateau, encompasses an area of some 65 hectares (for maps of the site and the spatial organization of its burial grounds, see Scardozzi, 2015). Relative to its size, Hierapolis boasts one of the largest concentrations of graves known in the Roman world. Hundreds of funerary monuments with a date range spanning from the second century BCE to Late Antiquity line the roads that led to the north towards the Meander River and the city of Tripolis, and to the south towards the Lykos Valley and the sites of Laodikeia and Colossae, in addition to clusters on the slopes to the north, east, and south of the city. Scattered among the monuments are thousands of travertine sarcophagi and a significant quantity of marble pieces (Anguissola & Costa, 2020; Anguissola, Bochicchio, Calabrò, & Costa, 2016, examine the layout and history of the burial grounds of Hierapolis).^[1] The large corpus of funerary inscriptions, most of which were written between the second and fourth centuries CE, reflects the social relevance of a well-appointed tomb and the intense competition for space and visibility that played out in Hierapolis’s burial grounds. The texts enumerate the tombs’ architectural elements and offer insights into the identities of their owners and of those entrusted with their maintenance. Occasionally, the inscriptions mention sarcophagi made of travertine (σορὸς πωρινός), pale travertine (λευκόπωρος), white marble (σορὸς λευκή or λευκόλιθος), marble from Dokimeion (σορὸς Δοκιμηνή), Thiounta (Θιουντηνή), or Tauriskon (Tαυρισκιανή).^[2] In rare instances, a sarcophagus is described as κατάγλυφος, “carved” (Anguissola et al., 2016, pp. 510–513), or ξυστρωτή, “fluted” (Scardozzi, 2016b, pp. 242 and 243, Figure 7). The term κατάγλυφος is applicable to several types of figured chest attested at Hierapolis – that is, those with friezes, garlands, or human figures on the backdrop of an imposing architectural façade (the so-called Säulensarkophage). Meanwhile, an object characterized as σορὸς ξυστρωτή must be one of the many chests with vertical grooves that can be found in the burial grounds of Hierapolis (Figure 1). Based on the results of a survey undertaken in the North Necropolis, this article examines the morphology, technology, and contexts of the fluted sarcophagi of Hierapolis, a class of artefacts that has been largely neglected in the scholarly literature despite its potential to offer a privileged perspective from which to observe the broader social and economic dynamics at play at this site.

Figure 1

Hierapolis, North Necropolis. Fluted marble chest of a sarcophagus on the roof of a building attached to Tomb 174, view from East inside the funerary enclosure (photo: A. Anguissola, 2022).

2 Method

Curved, S-shaped grooves adorned the chests of many so-called strigillated sarcophagi produced in Rome and the western provinces; straight, vertical fluting occurs on a limited number of chests from that part of the empire from the third century onwards, often in combination with other patterns (Huskinson, 2015, p. 1, n. 2). Fluted sarcophagi (known in the overwhelmingly German scholarly literature as Riefelsarkophage or kannelierte Sarkophage) also appear to have been rare in the Eastern Mediterranean and in ancient Phrygia, where their production began in the late first or early second century CE (Koch & Sichtermann, 1982, pp. 477, 534); it is only at Hierapolis that they constitute a sizeable portion of the entire corpus (Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens, 2002, p. 119). Scholars have focused on high-quality chests adorned with garlands, columns, and friezes, as well as on the monumental kline lids that have been attributed to sculptors from Dokimeion and Aphrodisias or to models designed in those prominent artistic centres, dismissing formulaic products, such as the fluted sarcophagi, as the simpler, more affordable output of local workshops.^[3] A holistic appreciation of these artefacts requires that we address them within the context of Hierapolis’s broader archaeological assemblage and as components in a cycle of production and consumption – from the sourcing of raw material to the vocabulary used in funerary inscriptions – against the social, economic, and artistic backdrop of Roman Hierapolis.

The reconstruction of tasks, processes, and individual histories presented in this article can not only help account for material that has few parallels at other sites but also suggest new avenues for exploring the relationships between the main agents involved in sarcophagus production (Russell, 2021, provides an excellent introduction to the chaîne opératoire of Roman stone carvers, esp. pp. 72–75 for the production of sarcophagi; see also Russell & Wootton, 2017). These agents included the quarry-based craftsmen who supplied the stone and prepared the piece for detailed work, the sculptors who carved the chest and lid, and the customer who purchased the final product and possibly exercised some degree of control over its appearance. In principle, sarcophagi decorated with simple, repetitive patterns could easily be manufactured in bulk by workshops near the quarries to be purchased as almost or wholly complete pieces. Rationalized modes of production aimed at marketing larger quantities of relatively affordable marble artworks occupied a significant position in the empire’s economic landscape (Russell, 2011; Ward-Perkins, 1980a,b; Wilson 2008, pp. 402–405; a recent overview of the extensive literature on this point is Koortbojian, 2019). However, the evidence from Hierapolis, characterized by the co-existence of works in stone both from major manufacturing centres (such as Dokimeion) and from local sources, defies simplified models, pointing to a more articulate system of supply and negotiation, which could respond to specific needs relating to a given piece’s intended location and its position within a larger assemblage. To explore these dimensions, the discussion addresses the shape of the fluted sarcophagi from Hierapolis, the material and processes used to produce them, the actions and rituals that centred on them in the burial grounds, eventual changes in their ownership, and their reuse.

3 Materials

3.1 Shapes

Surveys in the North Necropolis at Hierapolis in 2022–2023 resulted in the identification of 41 fragments of fluted chests, 38 of which were made of marble and 3 of travertine.^[4] In addition to these, an inscribed fluted chest is today on display in the site’s museum. With few exceptions, the pieces’ fragmentary state impedes recognition of those that may have belonged to the same item.^[5] In the case of 15 fragments, at least one of the edges has been identified, displaying the termination of the flutes and the mouldings (Figure 2). Both the lower and upper edges are preserved only in four cases: a travertine chest near Tomb 120, the slab belonging to a child’s sarcophagus in front of Tomb 53, the chest still in situ on a building south of Tomb 174,^[6] and the sarcophagus in the site’s museum, which represents the sole instance of both the chest and a roof-shaped lid having been found together (Figure 3a–c). The chest bears an inscription that has been dated to the first half of the second century CE, mentioning the name of the deceased, a woman named Neratia Maximilla, and her husband Makrinos Philadelphos (Ritti, 2004, pp. 574–575, no. 9; 2006, pp. 152–154; Ronchetta, 2018, pp. 254–255).^[7]

Figure 2

Drawings of fragmentary fluted marble chests from Tombs 54 (above), 30 (centre), and 61 (below) in the North Necropolis at Hierapolis (drawings by A. Anguissola, digitalized by A. Monticolo, 2022).

Figure 3

(a–c) Hierapolis, Archaeological Museum, inv. E.5311 (chest), E.5312 (lid). Marble sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla, early second century CE, from the Tomb A28 of Flavius Zeuxis. Main long side and short sides (photos: A. Anguissola, 2022).

One isolated travertine chest and three marble items are equipped with lifting bosses on the short sides; in the case of a coffin on the roof of a tomb south of Tomb 174, the boss takes the shape of a satyr’s head.^[8] In most cases, the chests present simple, obliquely cut socles that project significantly from the chest’s surface (Figure 4), with the exception of Neratia Maximilla’s sarcophagus. Occasionally, a socle has been shaped out only on one or two sides of the coffin, likely owing to the limited visibility of the sarcophagus in its architectural context.^[9] Only on the socle of the chest in front of Tomb 61, a reversed-cyma frieze runs along its longer side facing the plateia and the short right-hand site (supra, Figure 2 and infra, Figure 6a, c, and d), presenting close stylistic analogies with the vegetal patterns on the lid of the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla and on a fragment of a chest from Tomb 30 (supra, Figure 2).^[10] A fragment found in the valley east of Tomb 95 includes the upper corner of a fluted chest with different mouldings on either side (infra, Figure 5).

Figure 4

Hierapolis, North Necropolis. Fragmentary fluted marble chests between Tombs 81 and 82 (photo: A. Anguissola, 2022).

The flutes vary in width and depth as well as in the curves at their upper and lower extremities. Notwithstanding their similarity in size, the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla and the chest above Tomb 174 show striking disparities in the number of flutes on each. On the former, 29 flutes had been carved on the main long side with 12 on each short side; the angular flutes and fillets on the short sides are larger. Meanwhile, as many as 46 flutes run along the latter’s long side, while the short sides, which face the plateia and the space inside the funerary enclosure, respectively, are decorated with 21 flutes. In both cases, the flutes on the long side number slightly more than twice as many as those on the short sides. The fragmentary long side of the chest from a child’s sarcophagus in front of Tomb 54 is embellished with 14 flutes. In other instances wherein a chest’s shorter side is preserved, the number of flutes ranges from approximately 14 in the case of the piece on the roof of Tomb 177 to at least 18 on the chest in front of Tomb 61.^[11] On most pieces (e.g., on the chest above Tomb 174 and on those near Tombs 30 and 61, see supra, Figures 1 and 2), a narrow, flat raised moulding runs between each pair of flutes; elsewhere, a double fillet with either flat or sharp edges encloses and separates the flutes (e.g., on the pieces in front of Tomb 54 and between Tombs 81 and 82, illustrated supra, Figures 2 and 4). The sculptor who carved the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla produced unique decorative effects by treating the parting fillet as a straight incised line with a dovetail-shaped lower end. The flutes at the extremes of each side appear to have received particular attention, sometimes substituted by an empty space or infilled with either a flat or a protruding curved surface.^[12]

Only the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla was equipped with two tabulae ansatae, only one of which was used in the early second century CE for an epigram that described the coffin as the “ancestral monument” (τούτῳ τῷ πατρῴῳ μνήματι) in which a man named Makrinos Philadelphos had interred his deceased wife.^[13] A tabula surrounded by raised edges may also have featured on the fluted travertine chest near Tomb 120, although the piece’s poor state of preservation prohibits any more detailed description of its features. It is possible that, on at least some of these coffins, polychromy may have been employed to create lively, brightly coloured surfaces (Huskinson, 2015, pp. 51–53), although the inscriptions point towards a close connection between the fluted sarcophagi and the whiteness of their marble.^[14] The corpus overall gives an impression of striking variability, whereby despite the repetitive, standardized pattern, each item appears to have been highly individualized with respect to the morphology of its mouldings and flutes, surface treatment, and decorative details.

3.2 Sources

Scholars have identified workshops producing fluted sarcophagi in limited quantities in the region’s main high-quality sculptural production centres during the Roman imperial period – Dokimeion (Waelkens, 1982, pp. 39–41) and Aphrodisias (Koch & Sichtermann, 1982, p. 530; see also the pieces published in de Chaisemartin, 1993, pp. 239–245, no. 94, Pls. 22–23 and Öğüş, 2018, pp. 82–83, no. 228). In these cases, fluting is either limited to certain sections or extended to the entire chest. On a child’s sarcophagus found at Iconium (Konya) and dated to the second or third century CE, the fluted motif is developed on both the chest and the roof-shaped lid (Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, no. 509 T). The fluted sarcophagi from Hierapolis were formerly considered to have been either imported from Dokimeion (Waelkens, 1982, pp. 39–41) – and of limited value compared with the more elaborate columnar coffins – or the idiosyncratic expression of local workshops (Koch, 1993, p. 180). The disagreement reflects the challenges posed by materials that appear to be highly standardized but that have never been the object of extensive surveys. Recent petrographic and isotope analyses, conducted within a broader investigation of the use of marble in Hierapolis (Ismaelli & Scardozzi, 2016), paint a more nuanced picture. These analyses revealed that three fluted slabs reused in the Church of St. Philip are made of marble from Dokimeion (Ahrens et al., 2016, pp. 265–266, nos. 5, 11, 12, Figures 7–9). The examination of five pieces found in the North Necropolis indicated sources of stone that were significantly closer – the local quarries at Gök Dere and Marmar Tepe and, perhaps, in the case of fragments near Tomb 30 and 144, those of Thiounta, located some 20 km north of Hierapolis (Scardozzi, 2016b, p. 255).^[15]

A simple flat band separates the flutes on one of the slabs of marble from Dokimeion that had been reused in the Church of St. Philip; on the other two, the flutes are encased into double fillets. All three items, however, share complex mouldings on the lower and upper edges. Unfortunately, none of the pieces from the North Necropolis with profiles similar to the slabs in the Church of St. Philip and to other chests attributed to craftsmen working in Dokimeion has been included in the sample for analysis (Scardozzi, 2016b, p. 255, Table 5). The more elaborate (i.e., with concave and convex projections) socles of the chests located north of Tomb 69 and between Tombs 81 and 82 are comparable to pieces produced in Dokimeion soon after the mid-second century CE (Waelkens, 1982, pp. 2–3). The poorly preserved chest on the roof of Tomb 177 exhibits the remnants of relatively elaborate mouldings, with a rounded profile on at least one short side.^[16] A fragment found in the valley east of Tomb 95, which preserves the upper corner of a fluted chest (Figure 5), also presents close analogies to items from Dokimeion (Waelkens, 1982, p. 4).

Figure 5

Drawing of the fragment of the upper edge of a fluted marble chest found east of Tomb 95 in the North Necropolis at Hierapolis (drawing by A. Tortorella, digitalized by A. Monticolo, 2022).

The evidence indicates that although workshops based in Dokimeion and Hierapolis were able to supply similar fluted chests, the former exhibited a characteristic penchant for imposing architectural frames and elaborate mouldings. Based on the results of archaeometric analyses of a small sample and stylistic comparison with other fragments scattered throughout the burial grounds at Hierapolis, it appears that only a minority of the fluted chests had been supplied from Dokimeion.

4 Processes

The identification of marks resulting from stone removal provides a valuable insight into the production process and carving technique employed in the creation of stone objects. After extracting the blocks of marble intended for sarcophagi, quarrymen likely hollowed and roughed them out in the quarries using a pickaxe and the chisel point to form the regular shape of a hollow box and prepare it for transportation and more detailed carving (Frate, 2006, Figure 2). Unfinished pieces recovered from shipwrecks or left behind at the quarries, most likely due to flaws in the stone, suggest that blocks were hollowed out near the site of extraction to reduce their weight. Sometimes, these blocks were also equipped with partially carved socles and profiles (Russell, 2021, pp. 73, 75).

The chest in which Neratia Maximilla was interred and the chest still located above Tomb 174 (the only two pieces to preserve all three dimensions) suggest that a length of approximately 235 cm, a width of 120–125 cm, and a height of circa 90–100 cm (i.e., around 8 × 4 × 3 feet) may have been standard for these sarcophagi.^[17] However, narrower chests are also attested, as well as the isolated larger piece in front of Tomb 61, which has a 257 cm long side facing the main street.^[18] Significantly, the three more imposing chests coincide with the rare instances in which decorative motifs (e.g., a floral or kyma frieze, a figural head) are paired with a fluted pattern. All three chests were placed in highly prominent locations: within the enclosure of a tomb close to the Frontinus Gate (the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla, found in Tomb A28 of Flavius Zeuxis), along the plateia (the chest in front of Tomb 61), and on the roof of the first large complex (Tomb 174) at the opposite end of the burial ground. Large, elegantly decorated sarcophagi with fluted chests would have been among the first and last valuable objects visible to those arriving at and leaving the city. The chests from the North Necropolis also differ with respect to the thickness of their sides, which ranges from 10 to 18 cm (in the case of the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla), with most items being around 14 cm thick.^[19]

The chest along the plateia before Tomb 61 has a socle (composed of a flat line and a kyma frieze, which is 17 cm high overall) that is considerably lower than the actual base of the sarcophagus, which is around 30 cm thick (Figure 6a and b). As the traces on the inner surface indicate, the piece was shaped using a pickaxe and a chisel point held at an angle of between 70 and 90 degrees to the surface – the most effective position from which to cut into the stone rapidly, allowing the removal of large lumps of marble with each stroke. The craftsman appears to have worked at a shallower angle on the walls, without lifting the chisel between the strokes and leaving diagonal, parallel marks on the surface.

Figure 6

(a–d) Hierapolis, North Necropolis. Fragment of a fluted marble chest along the plateia in front of Tomb 61. Views of the main long side, the interior, and both short sides (photos: A. Anguissola, 2022).

The subsequent stages of the process were likely entrusted to a proficient sculptor who finished the sarcophagus at its final destination or worked in accordance with precise instructions from the client. The rear of the chest, positioned against the podium of Tomb 61, was left rough. The fluting and the kyma frieze, carefully finished with precision tools and abrasives, cover the main long side that faces the street and the right-hand short side, which remained in full view of those who walked along the plateia from the city (Figure 6c). The left-hand short side was mostly hidden by a large travertine sarcophagus, the lower part of which remains in situ north of the marble chest. Owing to the piece’s limited visibility, the flutes interrupt soon after the angle and the space of the frieze is left flat (Figure 6d). The entire surface on the left-hand short side was treated with a fine-pointed tooth chisel, producing a coarse texture of shallow parallel cuts.

In other instances, such as that of the chest near Tomb 144, the carver did not smooth out the flutes and fillets but rather treated the former only with the point and tooth chisels, while rendering the surface of the latter more regular using a coarse rasp (Figure 7). The significant variation in the width of both the flutes (between 2.5 and 3.5 cm) and the fillets (between 2.5 and 3 cm), which is characteristic of most pieces from the North Necropolis, suggests that these are the result of a freehand approach and that the carver did not use a strict template to plot the pattern before executing it (Huskinson, 2015, pp. 47–49).^[20] This must have been the case for the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla, equipped with two tabulae ansatae of different sizes, placed at a regular distance from either edge of the fluting and between one another and aligned with the dividing cuts in the fillets (Figure 8 and supra, Figure 3a). The final touches made to the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla included the careful definition of all profiles – the lines and curved edges of the flutes, the dividing line in the fillets, and the opposite ends of the chest (Figure 9).

Figure 7

Hierapolis, North Necropolis. Fragments of a fluted marble chest on Tomb 144 (photo: A. Anguissola, 2022).

Figure 8

Marble sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla (Figure 3a–c), detail of the chest with the funerary inscription (photo: A. Anguissola, 2022).

Figure 9

Marble sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla (Figure 3a–c), detail of the left-hand short side of the chest and lid (photo: A. Anguissola, 2022).

Several unfinished strigillated coffins from Rome indicate that craftsmen completed the fluted panels before carving any figural decoration and, in general, allowed the possibility of later personalization according to the needs and wishes of their customers (Russell, 2011, pp. 138–139; 2013, pp. 296–297; 2021, p. 97). The final stages in the carving of a fluted sarcophagus are depicted on a late third- or fourth-century CE funerary panel found on the Via Labicana in Rome, now in Urbino (Huskinson, 2015, pp. 46–47; Jockey, 1998, pp. 638–639; Russell, 2020, pp. 243–244). The relief represents two men (whom scholars have variously identified as the individuals mentioned in the inscription – the deceased Eutropos and his son – or either of them and an assistant) carving the final details of a strigillated lenos (or tub-shaped) chest, a widespread sarcophagus type at Rome during that period. Using a drill, the craftsmen create the grooves in the mane of a lion whose head emerges from the finished flutes. It is likely that the lifting boss in the shape of a satyr’s head on the sarcophagus placed above Tomb 174 (supra, Figure 1), paired with a pendant on the now-lost opposite side, was executed after the fluted pattern by shaping a rough mass of stone into a protome (19 cm high, 15.5 cm wide, and projecting ca. 9 cm from the panel).^[21] Certainly, any texts providing information on the owner of the sarcophagus, the deceased for whom it was destined, and the tomb to which it belonged, as well as the terms for its maintenance, were inscribed immediately before or after the burial had taken place. However, only the larger upper tabula ansata on the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla presents a smooth surface and was inscribed with elegant Greek letters. The fact that the surface of the lower tablet appears to have been significantly lowered and encased in a frame suggests the possibility that an earlier inscription had been erased and the entire layer of marble carefully removed when the sarcophagus was used for Neratia Maximilla.

The evidence from the fluted chests at Hierapolis provides valuable insights into the actions and tools employed by their carvers. However, it is crucial to avoid overemphasizing its significance within the context of broader models. While it is possible to observe the stages of work on a sarcophagus chest and imagine the sequence in which they were carried out, it is important to note that there is no distinct boundary marking the completion of each step and the beginning of the next. The manufacturing process of a sarcophagus is far from a linear sequence of discrete activities. The duration of each stage and the level of attention dedicated to it can vary, as well as the work location and the individual carrying out the task. These variations depend on factors such as the size of the workshop, its proximity to quarries and customers, and the specific project requirements. Furthermore, carvers may utilize identical tools in different ways or employ different tools for the same purpose. Taking into account this variability and fluidity, Tim Ingold describes the work of a craftsman as “something more like an unbroken, contrapuntal coupling of a gestural dance with a modulation of the material” (Ingold, 2013, p. 26).

5 Uses

5.1 Display

Thanks to their geographical proximity to the city, the craftsmen who produced most of the fluted sarcophagi found at Hierapolis were able to incorporate specific requests from their customers and adapt each piece to its intended architectural setting. Sarcophagi were arranged along the street as isolated items or placed atop cube-shaped tombs or underground chambers, on a podium, or within a funerary enclosure, sometimes on a paved platform (ὁ πλάτος, τὸ βαθρικόν). The area between the plateia and Tomb 61 had been paved with large travertine slabs, and an incised line marked the precise location in which the sarcophagus was to be placed in line with the façade (supra, Figure 6b–d).^[22]

The burial itself represented the final moment in the sarcophagus’ arrangement. As the deceased’s remains were placed inside the coffin, the relationship between the chest and the lid became definitive – at least according to most owners’ intentions. A raised margin on the upper edge of the chest was often left in place to secure the lid and ensure that it would not shift over the course of time, particularly at sites of high seismic activity such as Hierapolis (Figure 10).^[23] The owners of the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla appear to have gone a step further, fastening the two pieces of stone with a large lead pin on each side. To facilitate this, two pairs of essentially square holes were made in the chest and lid with gouges carved between them (Figure 11).^[24] Funerary inscriptions from the second and third centuries CE mention the practice of using pins to close the coffin (the relevant verb is κορακόω) after all the persons destined to be buried in it had died (Ritti, 2016, pp. 454–456, no. 7, Figure 9). This device was likely also intended to prevent the unlawful occupation of tombs (τυμβωρυχία), which appears to have occurred in various modes in Roman Hierapolis: unauthorized burials, selling other people’s buildings, dividing their plots, moving sarcophagi, blocking their tombs’ visibility from the street, or impeding access to those tombs. Breaking the pins that fastened a sarcophagus (ἀποκορακόω) was strictly forbidden, and fines could be imposed on transgressors (Ritti, 2016, pp. 502–506, no. 25, Figures 26–27).

Figure 10

Hierapolis, North Necropolis. Fragments of a fluted marble chest found near Tomb 30, view of the upper edge (photo: A. Anguissola, 2022).

Figure 11

Marble sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla (Figure 3a–c), detail of the right-hand short side of the chest and lid (photo: A. Anguissola, 2022).

After a burial, the sarcophagus remained in use as an essential component in the funerary assemblage. At Hierapolis, affluent individuals and families made provisions for rituals such as the stephanoticon, which involved adorning the monument or the sarcophagus with wreaths, having set aside the financial resources thanks to a funerary foundation or as a bequest to surviving relatives or professional associations (Ritti, 1992–1993, 2004, 2016). A large fragment of a roof-shaped lid has been found near the fluted chest in front of Tomb 61, the frieze on which is stylistically similar to the kyma motif that runs along the bottom of the chest, indicating that the two pieces may have belonged to the same sarcophagus.^[25] The shallow, squarish holes cut into the lid, which have yielded no traces of lead or cement, may have served a function related to these rituals – perhaps to fix the wooden stakes from which the garlands were hung.

6 Conclusions

Close observation of the fluted sarcophagi from the North Necropolis, their technical and stylistic features, and their contexts and functions offers a fresh perspective from which to address the social, economic, and artistic history of Hierapolis. Notwithstanding these pieces’ relative simplicity, the work involved in shaping and carving a fluted chest was complex and time-consuming and was the preserve of skilled craftsmen. Purchasing a suitable plot of land; building a tomb, enclosure, or platform; buying a sarcophagus; establishing a foundation; making a will; and planning for continued maintenance and rituals were all part of a lengthy process of preparation that reveals the crucial role of funerary self-presentation and commemoration in the lives of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire. Each step in this process required some degree of negotiation between the individuals and their families (including the freedmen who were sometimes responsible for the tomb’s maintenance), the city’s administration (e.g., the archive in which the will would be deposited and the holy fiscus to which fines would be paid), professional associations, other fellow citizens who may have previously owned the plot, tomb, or coffin, and the stonemasons and craftsmen who would build the monument or carve the sarcophagus.

The fluted sarcophagi found in the North Necropolis occupy an intermediate position between the notions of “small-scale” and “large-scale” production (or, put otherwise, “production-to-order” and “production-to-stock”) that are thought to respond to radically different criteria in the management of supply and demand. As recent and more nuanced interpretations of the manufacture and trade of Roman sarcophagi have demonstrated, morphological standardization is not necessarily the result of mass production or distance. In long-distance trade, the sculptors’ workshops in which the sarcophagi were finished may have played a key connecting role between the quarry-based craftsmen and the consumer. Specialization and the distribution of tasks allowed large integrated systems to maintain a high productivity rate while accommodating a certain degree of individuality. It appears that quarrymen and carvers adopted a flexible approach when it came to dividing tasks and determining the location of each stage of the work, rather than following a consistent operational model across the industry. Based on stylistic comparisons with pieces that have been subjected to archaeometric analyses, most fluted sarcophagi found in Hierapolis appear to have been produced using marble extracted on the city’s outskirts. The quarrymen, the carvers, and the sculptors entrusted with executing the finishing touches formed a network that could easily respond to individual clients’ requirements. Recent research has demonstrated that workshops based in or around Hierapolis could produce a vast array of marble sarcophagi, ranging from plain coffins to chests and lids with elaborate figural decoration. Imports from Aphrodisias are virtually absent, whereas those from Dokimeion represent only a small portion of the analysed sample, limited to a few high-quality pieces – particularly columnar chests and kline-shaped lids (Scardozzi, 2016b). Standardized items, such as roughed-out garland chests and fluted pieces, were mostly supplied by local workshops that developed a stylistic language based on abstract motifs and repetition. Within the boundaries of typologies, traditions, and profit, these workshops created unique pieces that exhibited different morphologies and surface treatments. The sarcophagi produced at Dokimeion were primarily intended to appeal to the wide audience of the empire’s elite. In contrast, locally crafted pieces offer a more direct insight into the specific demands, preferences, and expectations of individual customers and communities. Local workshops at Hierapolis may have opted for vegetal friezes, as observed on the lid of the sarcophagus of Neratia Maximilla and the fragment from Tomb 30, and kyma motifs, as seen on the piece in front of Tomb 61, to distinguish their output from the products imported from Dokimeion. These imports were characterized by elaborate mouldings, and the use of distinct decorative motifs can be viewed as part of a competitive strategy, which has also been documented in the case of columnar sarcophagi at Aphrodisias (Öğüş, 2014).

The same sculptors may occasionally have worked with both marble and other locally sourced stones, as suggested by an isolated fluted chest made of travertine near Tomb 120 (Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens, 2002, p. 120, Figure 1, 122, type IV). The chest, of which two large pieces and a smaller fragment have been identified (Figure 12a and b), was bulkier than most marble items and, unlike most of them, was decorated on all four sides.^[27] It shares with its marble counterparts the shape of its flutes, which terminate with an upper curved profile. The presence of a central tabula encased by a frame is also in line with the arrangement of funerary inscriptions on marble items.

Figure 12

(a and b) Hierapolis, Nort Necropolis. Two of the three pieces of a fluted travertine chest found near Tomb 120 (photo: A. Anguissola, 2022).

In the corpus of the fluted sarcophagi from Hierapolis, however, exploration of trans-material designs appears to have operated in both directions. Fluted marble chests are occasionally equipped with large lifting bosses that had been left rough, thus appropriating a feature characteristic of the travertine sarcophagi of Hierapolis (Vanhaverbeke & Waelkens, 2002, p. 120, Figure 1). Clearly, workshops familiar with both types of stone followed the same criteria with respect to the pieces’ static infrastructure, layout, and design. It is likely that carvers were most comfortable working with stones they were familiar with. However, as it has been evidenced by the idiosyncratic use of Thasian marble in other regions of the empire (Russell, 2013, pp. 330–332 with bibliography), they may have been open to experimenting with different materials. In the context of Hierapolis, it is possible that most carvers initiated their apprenticeship by working on less complex and demanding objects crafted from travertine before progressing to marble blocks.

Although the extent and features of a shared repertoire of shapes and motifs between the marble and travertine sarcophagi at Hierapolis remain to be addressed by future research, it appears that local workshops’ versatility extended to the use of available materials, the selection of which may have depended on various factors relating to each individual project.