Structural analyses indicate that monumental articulated ancient Greek and Roman (MAGR) columns and temples have a very particular seismic response, differing from rigid structures (made with mortar); tall columns in particular, have an excellent seismic performance, favoring anthropogenic effects as causes of their destruction. Archeoseismological studies, on the other hand, provide evidence of seismic damage in MAGR structures. To investigate this apparent conflict, we analyzed the conditions and limitations of structural models, as well as historical and archeological evidence of response of such structures to natural and anthropogenic effects. In addition, we examined two groups of MAGR structures: first, structures damaged or destroyed by known causes, including earthquakes and wind; second, structures damaged by unknown causes, based on comparative damage analyses with emphasis on geotechnical (soil dynamics) effects. This analysis indicates that reports of deliberate destructions of MAGR structures are exaggerated, and in addition, (i) these structures seem safe against earthquakes only if structurally healthy, concerning both their superstructure and foundations; this condition is not always satisfied, and hence, no controversy exists between structural engineering and archeoseismological approaches; (ii) their seismic response is sensitive to small changes of the source- and site-specific parameters; and (iii) no deterministic evidence of absence or of occurrence of critical earthquakes can be derived from their survival or damage, because the latter reflects superimposition of natural and anthropogenic destructive effects, some with apparently similar outcomes, and rarely only single event destructions. These results are important for palaeoseismology (paleoseismology), seismic risk assessment, archaeology (archeology), and restoration of ancient monuments.

中文翻译：

---

纪念性的铰接式古希腊和罗马柱子，庙宇和地震：考古，历史和工程学方法

结构分析表明，纪念碑式的铰接式古希腊和罗马式（MAGR）柱子和庙宇具有非常特殊的地震响应，不同于刚性结构（用砂浆制成）。特别是高大的柱子，具有出色的抗震性能，有利于人为破坏。另一方面，考古学研究为MAGR结构的地震破坏提供了证据。为了调查这种明显的冲突，我们分析了结构模型的条件和局限性，以及此类结构对自然和人为影响做出反应的历史和考古证据。此外，我们检查了两组MAGR结构：第一，由于已知原因（包括地震和风）而损坏或破坏的结构；其次，由于未知原因而损坏的结构 基于比较破坏分析，重点是岩土（土壤动力学）效应。该分析表明，故意毁坏MAGR结构的报道被夸大了。此外，（i）这些结构只有在结构健康的情况下，在其上部结构和地基上似乎对地震是安全的；这种条件并不总是能满足，因此在结构工程和考古学方法之间不存在争议。（ii）它们的地震反应对震源特定参数和现场特定参数的微小变化敏感；（iii）无法从其生存或破坏中得出没有或没有发生严重地震的确定性证据，因为后者反映出自然和人为破坏性作用的叠加，有些具有明显相似的结果，而且很少有单个事件被破坏。这些结果对于古地震学（古地震学），地震风险评估，考古学（考古学）和古代古迹的修复非常重要。