Marbles from the theatre of Colonia Caesar Augusta (Provincia Hispania Citerior)

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient StoneASMOSIA X

Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of ASMOSIAAssociation for the Study of Marble & Other Stones in Antiquity

Rome, 21-26 May 2012

P. PENSABENE, E. GASPARINI (eds.)

Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

I VOLUME

1. APPLICATION TO SPECIFIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS - USE OF MARBLE

Architecture with concave and convex rhythms and its decoration in Hadrian age: the Ma-ritime Theatre and the Southern pavilion of Piazza d’Oro in Hadrian’s Villa, B. Adembri,S. Di Tondo, F. Fantini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Imported marbles found in three Roman cities of the territory of “Cinco Villas”(Zaragoza), north of Hispania Citerior, J. Andreu Pintado, H. Royo Plumed, P. Lapuente, M.Brilli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Pentelic marble in the Severan Complex in Leptis Magna (Tripolitania, Libya),F. Bianchi, M. Bruno, S. Pike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The limestone quarries of Wadi Gadatza in the territory of Leptis Magna, M. Bruno,F. Bianchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Provenance and distribution of white marbles in the arches of Titus and Septimius Severusin Rome, M. Bruno, C. Gorgoni, P. Pallante . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

The imitation of coloured marbles in a first style wall painting from the Etruscan-Romantown of Populonia (LI – Italy), F. Cavari, F. Droghini, M. Giamello, C. Mascione, A. Scala . 55

Small Euboean quarries. The local community markets, M. Chidiroglou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Lumachella at Cosa: late Republican?, J. Collins-Clinton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Ancientmarbles.org: an open community for sharing knowledge about ancient marblefrom different approaches, S. Costa, F. Marri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

The use of marble in Lusitania between Rome and Islam, M. Cruz Villalón . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

“Marmora Ostiensa”. New results from the Ostia Marina Project, M. David, S. Succi, M. Turci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

A column shaft in ‘verde rana ondato’ from the archaeological excavations in Palazzo Al-temps, M. De Angelis d’Ossat, S. Violante, M. Gomez Serito . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

The exploitation of coralline breccia of the Gargano in the Roman and late antique pe-riods, A. De Stefano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Ships lapidariae and the wreck, with marmor numidicum, discovered in Camarina: hypo-thesis of route, G. Di Stefano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

V

INDEX

The use of marble in the roman architecture of Lugdunum (Lyon, France), D. Fellague,H. Savay-Guerraz, F. Masino, G. Sobrà . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Marmora and other stones in the architectural decoration of early imperial Barcino(Barcelona, Spain), A. Garrido, A. Àlvarez, A. Doménech, A. Gutiérrez Garcia-M., I. Rodà,H. Royo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Provenance of the Roman marble sarcophagi of the San Pietro in Bevagna Wreck, M. T. Giannotta, G. Quarta, A. Alessio, A. Pennetta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Thasian Exports Of Prefabricated Statuettes, J. J. Herrmann, Jr., D. Attanasio, A. van denHoek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Multimethod marble identification for figural sculpture in Hippo Regius (Annaba, Algeria),J. J. Herrmann, Jr., R. H. Tykot, A. van den Hoek, P. Blanc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Awaiting identity: Copenhagen’s “diskophoros” and its auxiliary support, M. B. Hollinshead 171

Provenance, distribution and trade of the local building materials in the Sarno river plain(Campania) from the 6th century BC to AD 79, P. Kastenmeier, G. Balassone, M. Boni, G. di Maio, M. Joachimski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

White and coloured marble on Pantelleria, T. Lappi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Local stones and marbles found in the territory of “Alto Aragon” (Hispania), in Romantimes, P. Lapuente, H. Royo, J.A. Cuchi, J. Justes, M. Preite-Martinez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

The Marmor Lesbium reconsidered and other stones of Lesbos, E. Leka, G. Zachos . . . . . 201

The marbles from the Villa of Trajan at Arcinazzo Romano (Roma), Z. Mari . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

The introduction of marble in the cavea of the Theatre of Hierapolis: building process andpatronage, F. Masino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Shipwrecks with sarcophagi in the Eastern Adriatic, I. Mihajlovic, I. Miholjek . . . . . . . . . . 233

The marble decoration of the peristyle building in the SW quarter of Palmyra (Pal.M.A.I.S.Mission), S. Nava . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Stone materials in Lusitania reflecting the process of romanization, T. Nogales-Basarrate, P.Lapuente, H. Royo, M. Preite-Martinez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

A uotorum nuncupatio from Colonia Augusta Firma. An analytical approach, S. Ordóñez,R. Taylor, O. Rodríguez, E. Ontiveros, S. García-Dils, J. Beltrán, J. C. Saquete . . . . . . . . . . . 263

The Muses in the Prado Museum and the pentelic marble of the Odeon in Hadrian’s villa:workshops and statuary programmes. Preliminary report, A. Ottati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Local workshops of the Roman imperial age. A contribution to the study of the produc-tion of Campanian Sarcophagi, A. Palmentieri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Ceraunia and lapis obsianus in Pliny, L. Pedroni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Marbles from the Domus of ‘Bestie ferite’ and from the Domus of ‘Tito Macro’ in Aquileia (UD), Italy, C. Previato, N. Mareso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Production and distribution of Troad granite, both public and private, P. Pensabene,I. Rodà, J. Domingo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

The use of Almadén de la Plata marble in the public programs of Colonia Augusta Firma –Astigi (Écija, Seville, Spain), O. Rodríguez, R. Taylor, J. Beltrán, S. García-Dils, E. On-tiveros, S. Ordóñez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

INDEX

VI

Architectural elements of the Peristyle Building of the SW quarter of Palmyra (PAL.M.A.I.S.(PAL.M.A.I.S. Mission), G. Rossi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Casa del Rilievo di Telefo and opus sectile at Herculaneum, A. Savalli, P. Pesaresi, L. Lazzarini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

The use of marble in Roman Pula, A. Starac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

Architectural decoration of the episcopal church of Rhodiapolis in Lycia, A. Tiryaki . . . . . 377

Byzantine carved marble slabs from Çanakkale Archaeology Museum, A. Turker . . . . . . . . 385

First preliminary results on the marmora of the late roman villa of Noheda (Cuenca,Spain), M. A. Valero Tévar, A. Gutiérrez García-M., I. Rodà de Llanza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Parian lychnites and the Badminton Sarcophagus in New York, F. Van Keuren, J. E. Cox,D. Attanasio, W. Prochaska, J. J. Herrmann, Jr., D. H. Abramitis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

The use of Estremoz marble in Late Antique Sculpture of Hispania: new data from the pe-trographic and cathodoluminescence analyses, S. Vidal, V. Garcia-Entero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413

Montegrotto Terme (Padova) – Marble and other stone used in architectonic decoration of the Roman villa, P. Zanovello, C. Destro, M. Bressan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

2. PROVENANCE IDENTIFICATION I: MARBLE

The monument landscape and associated geology at the sanctuary of Zeus on mt.Lykaion, I. Bald Romano, G. H. Davis, D. G. Romano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429

Marbles of the Aracena Massif (Ossa-Morena zone, Spain): aspects of their exploitationand use in roman times, J. Beltrán Fortes, M. L. Loza Azuaga, E. Ontiveros Ortega, J. A.Pérez Macías, O. Rodríguez Gutiérrez, R. Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

Isotopic analysis of marble from the Stoa of Attalos in the Athenian Agora and the Hel-lenistic quarries of Mount Pentelikon, S. Bernard, S. Pike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451

An update on the use and distribution of white and black Göktepe marbles from the firstcentury AD to Late Antiquity, M. Bruno, D. Attanasio, W. Prochaska, A.B. Yavuz . . . . . . . . 461

The use of coloured marbles in the neapolitan Baroque: the work of Cosimo Fanzago(1591-1678), R. Bugini, L. Cinquegrana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469

The imitation of coloured marbles in the Venetian Renaissance painting, R. Bugini, L. Folli 475

Stones and ancient marbles of the ‘Francesco Belli’ Collection: archaeological, art-histori-cal, antiquarian, geological - technical and petrographical aspects, R. Conte, A. D’Elia, E.Delluniversità, G. Fioretti, E. Florio, M. C. Navarra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485

Provenance investigation of a marble sculptures from Lyon Museum, M.P. Darblade-Au-doin, D. Tambakopoulos, Y. Maniatis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503

The limestone quarries of the Karaburum peninsula (southern Albania), A. De Stefano . . . 513

The main quarries of the central part of Dardania (present Kosova) during the Roman pe-riod: their usage in funerary and cult monuments, E. Dobruna-Salihu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519

The use of marble in Hispanic Visigothic architectural decoration, J.A. Domingo Magaña . 527

Preliminary study of Los Bermejales, a new roman quarry discovered in the province ofCádiz, Southwestern Spain, S. Domínguez-Bella, M. Montañés, A. Ocaña, J. M. Carrascal,J. Martínez, A. Durante, J. Rendón Aragón, J. Rios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537

INDEX

VII

Marble pavements from the house of Jason Magnus in Cyrene, E. Gasparini, E. Gallocchio 545

The Portoro of Portovenere: notes about a limestone, S. Gazzoli, G. Tedeschi Grisanti . . . . 555

Saw cuts on marble sarcophagi: New York and Ostia, J. J. Herrmann, Jr., M. Bruno, A. vanden Hoek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559

The basalt of the sacred caves at Ajanta (India): characterization and conservation, F. Ma-riottini, M. Mariottini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

Marble and stones used in the central eastern Alpine area and in the northern area of Bena-cus: topographical reconstruction of trade routes and aspects of use in the Roman Era,A. Mosca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575

Life of Nora (Province of Cagliari - South Sardinia). Roman quarries and their organizationin the rural landscape, C. Nervi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585

Naxian or parian? Preliminary examination of the Sounion and Dipylon kouroi marble,O. Palagia, Y. Maniatis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593

Analysis of the stony materials in the Arucci city, E. Pascual, J. Bermejo, J. M. Campos . . . . 601

Blocks and quarry marks in the Museum of Aquileia, P. Pensabene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611

Archaeology and archaeometry of the marble sculptures found in the “Villa di Poppea” atOplontis (Torre Annunziata, Naples), P. Pensabene, F. Antonelli, S. Cancelliere, L. Laz-zarini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615

“Marmo di Cottanello” (Sabina, Italy): quarry survey and data on its distribution, P. Pensa-bene, E. Gasparini, E. Gallocchio, M. Brilli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629

A quantitative and qualitative study on marble revetments of service area in the Villa delCasale at Piazza Armerina, P. Pensabene, L. Gonzalez De Andrés, J. Atienza Fuente . . . . . . 641

Quarry-marks or masonry-marks at Palmyra: some comparisons with the Phoenician-Punic documentation, D. Piacentini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 651

Fine-grained dolomitic marble of high sculptural quality used in antiquity, W. Prochaska . . 661

Discriminating criteria of Pyrenean Arties marble (Aran Valley, Catalonia) from Saint-Béatmarbles: evidence of Roman use, H. Royo, P. Lapuente, E. Ros, M. Preite-Martinez,J. A. Cuchí . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671

II VOLUME

3. PROVENANCE IDENTIFICATION II: OTHER STONES

The stone architecture of Palmyra (Syria): from the quarry to the building, R. Bugini, L. Folli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683

Quarries in rural landscapes of North Africa, M. De Vos Raaijmakers, R. Attoui . . . . . . . . . 689

Local and imported lithotypes in Roman times in the Southern part of the X Regio Au-gustea Venetia et Histria, L. Lazzarini, M. Van Molle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699

Preliminary study of the stone tesserae of Albanian mosaics. Materials identification, E. Omari . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713

4. ADVANCES IN PROVENANCE TECHNIQUES METHODOLOGIES AND DATABASES

Provenance investigation of some funeral marble sculptures from ancient Vienna (France), V. Gaggadis-Robin, J.-L. Prisset, D. Tambakopoulos, Y. Maniatis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725

INDEX

VIII

Isotopic testing of marble for figural sculpture at Guelma, Algeria, J. J. Herrmann, Jr., R.H. Tykot, D. Attanasio, P. Blanc, A. van den Hoek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739

5. QUARRIES AND GEOLOGY

Analysis and discrimination of Phrygian and other Pavonazzetto-like marbles, D. Atta-nasio, M. Bruno, W. Prochaska, A. B. Yavuz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753

Roman stone-carvers and re-carving: ingenuity in recycling, S. J. Barker, C. A. Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765

Can a fire broaden our understanding of a Roman quarry? The case of el Mèdol (Tarragona, Spain), A. Gutiérrez Garcia-M., S. Huelin, J. López Vilar, I. Rodà De Llanza . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779

The Roman marble quarries of Aliko Bay and of the islets of Rinia and Koulouri (Skyros,Greece), M. Karambinis, Lorenzo Lazzarini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791

The splendor of Andesite. quarrying and constructing in Larisa (Buruncuk) Aeolis, T. Sa-ner, U. Almaç . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805

Carving a corinthian capital. New technical aspects regarding the carving process, N. Toma . 811

New evidence on ancient quarrying activity at the Mani Peninsula, M.P. Tsouli . . . . . . . . . . 823

Ancient lithic naval cargos around Sicily, S. Tusa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831

An unusual Roman stone cinerary urn from London, D.F. Williams, R. Hobbs . . . . . . . . . . 843

Presenting and interpreting the processes of stone carving: The Art Of Making In Anti-quity Project, W. Wooton, B. Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851

The Roman Mio-Pliocene underground quarries at Ksour Essaf (Tunisia), A. Younès, M.Gaied, W. Gallala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861

6. STONES PROPERTIES, WEATHERING EFFECTS AND RESTORATION

A strigilated sarcophagus in providence: ancient, modern or both?, G. E. Borromeo, M. B. Hollinshead, S.Pike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871

Art historical and scientific perspectives on the nature of the orange-red patina of theParthenon, O. Palagia, S. Pike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881

7. PIGMENTS AND PAINTINGS ON MARBLE

The polychromy of Roman polished marble portraits, A. Skovmøller, R. H. Therkildsen . . 891

Some observations on the use of color on ancient sculpture, contemporary scientific explo-ration, and exhibition displays, J. Pollini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901

The Ulpia Domnina’s sarcophagus: preliminary report about the use of digital 3d model forthe study and reconstruction of the polychromy, E.Siotto, M. Callieri, M. Dellepiane, R.Scopigno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911

8. SPECIAL THEME SESSION: ORDERS, REPERTOIRES AND MEANING OF MARBLE WITHINTHE PUBLIC AND THE DOMESTIC CIRCLE FROM ANTIQUITY TILL POST-ANTIQUE TIME

Marbles from the theatre of Colonia Caesar Augusta (provincia Hispania Citerior),M. Beltrán, M. Cisneros, J. Á. Paz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923

INDEX

IX

Calculating the cost of columns: the case of the Temple of Apollo at Didyma, P. Barresi . . . 933

The decorative stoneworks in the east and center of Roman Gaul: recent data of the ar-chaeological operations, V. Brunet-Gaston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 941

Colored columns and cult of the emperors in Rome, B. Burrell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947

Roman sculpture in Pannonia between imports and local production, M. Buzov . . . . . . . . . 955

A New Julio-Claudian Statuary cycle from Copia Thurii. Brief remarks on quality andmethods of extraction and processing of marble used for the sculptures, A. D’Alessio . . . . 969

Stone in the decorative programs of Villa A (So-Called Villa Of Poppaea) at Oplontis, J. C. Fant, S. J. Barker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977

Stable isotope analysis of Torano valley, Carrara, marble used in 18th-century frenchsculpture, K. Holbrow, C. Hayward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987

Cassiodorus on marble, Y.A. Marano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 997

Colored marbles of Diocletian’s Palace in Split, K. Marasovic, D. Matetic Poljak, Ð. Gobic Bravar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003

Fabri Luxuriae. Production and consumption of coloured stone vases in the Roman Period,S. Perna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021

Porphyry bathtubs in the sacred space, O. Senior-Niv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031

Mythological sculptures in late antique domus and villas: some examples from Italy,C. Sfameni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1039

Architectural language and diffusion of decorative models: a group of unpublished figuredcapitals from Hierapolis in Phrygia, G. Sobrà . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1049

INDEX

X

* [email protected], Museum of Zaragoza, Spain.** [email protected], University of Cantabria, Spain.*** [email protected], Museum of Zaragoza, Spain.

AbstractWe present here a study of the marbles found in the exca-vations carried out in certain parts of the stands, balteusand orchestra by a team from the Museum of Zaragozabetween the mid-1980’s and early-1990’s. The aim is notonly to identify the marbles used and their stratigraphiccontext, but also to contribute new data regarding theirdecorative programme. We had to revise the excavationspreviously mentioned and the sculptural fragments foundwithin them. Layers in which marbles were found cover awide chronological period, from the period of Claudius tothe late Middle Ages. These contexts not only refer to themarble used throughout the different lives of the building,but also to a small lapidary located in the Roman city, cov-ering both imperial marble and some of the best knownSpanish stones, as well as others of the most common va-rieties found in the Mediterranean area.

KeywordsTrade, chronology, use

Historical introduction. City planning and edilicia

The Colonia Caesar Augusta was founded in the year14/13 BC and maintained a prominent role right up un-til the fifth century AD. Located at a crossroads on theriver Ebro and strategically placed in the communica-tion network between the north-east and the rest of His-pania, Gaul and Italy, this settlement is crucial in under-standing commercial, economic, ideological, social andpolitical trends (BELTRÁN (ED.) 2007).

The theatre occupies four blocks in the city centre(BELTRÁN 1993), in the regio antica dextrata (fig. 1.1). Itis fully integrated within the road network, with its dia-metrical axis (2.5 actus of 120 feet) pointing towardsthe decumani. Work started during the reign ofClaudius and the level plans were created following aring system, marking out two praecintiones and radialwalls to buttress the cavea, for whose location a natural-ly shaped terrain was found. The structure was made of

opus caementicium and the outer façade (with two por-ticoes of superimposed arches plus a third portico insumma), 25/30 m in height from the orchestra dressedin alabaster as were the main body of the scaena and theinternal walls of the aditus.

The preserved parts of the building reveal one cen-tral aditus, from the exterior to the orchestra, and twoside aditus; proedria with two tiers of grey limestoneand a lower maenianum with eight tiers and six cunei.The foundation of the frons pulpiti is also preserved,behind which are nine pits for the curtains, the hy-poscaenium and aulaeum. The acting space, with agallery of imperial statues (as the portrait of a Julio-Claudian princess and Dea Roma indicate), consists ofa rectangular base of opus caementicum. It must havebeen decorated with at least two overlaying orders(Corinthian + Ionic order), forming a façade of an un-known type: rectilinear (?) (Baelo, Segobriga) or oftriple exedra (?) (Tarraco, Bilbilis). It had a capacity of4,500 people approximately. On the north side of thetheatre a postscaenium portico was erected with 9.5 mhigh galleries and a double bay.

Typology and evolution: 1) Axial access, as in thetheatres of Ostia, Libarna, Turin, Minturno, etc. 2) Pre-Flavian refurbishment of the orchestra (and of thestage?). 3) A renovation of the floor of the orchestra inthe Trajan period also extending to the podium over theproedria, which may have held cult elements. 4) Thetransformation of the orchestra into an earthen floor be-tween 370-390 (up to the second tier of the ima cavea).5) The final refurbishment of this same area (up to thefifth row) between 480 – 490 approximately. 6) The fi-nal abandonment of the area from 550-600.

Chronology of construction levels, use andabandonment of the floor of the orchestra andmarbles found

The following are the levels where marbles revealingthe decorative agenda of the building were found (Figs.1.2 and 2):

MARBLES FROM THE THEATRE OF COLONIA CAESAR AUGUSTA(PROVINCIA HISPANIA CITERIOR)

M. Beltrán*, M. Cisneros**, J. Á. Paz***

924

MARBLES FROM THE THEATRE OF COLONIA CAESAR AUGUSTA

Fig. 1.1. Plan of the roman city, adapted from Escudero, Galve 2011. 1.2 Orchestra – Ima cavea stratigraphy (according to M. Bel-trán, J. Á. Paz).1.2. Orchestra – Ima cavea stratigraphy (according to M. Beltrán, J. Á. Paz).

Early Empire. First century AD

• Level “i” (41-45 AD.): Corresponds to a backfill andterrace made in spaces 1, 2, 3, 5 and 13 of ring II af-ter completing the foundation (opus caementicium)of the radial rib walls which support the tiers ofseats. It was, therefore, below the foundation line(buttress of the walls) (BELTRÁN, PAZ, LASHERAS

1985, 104-108, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, FIG. 5.2 AND FIG. 6). Acurrent revision of the ceramic dates it to the earlystages of Claudius’ reign (41-45 AD) (Fig. 2).In this level of backfilled foundation only three frag-

ments of floor plaques were found (two of marmorLunense and one of Luculleum) and a fragment of deco-rated plaque plus a fragment of a revetment panel ofmarmor Numidicum. All of these constitute the oldestmarble remains documented in the building, whosechronology ante quem is determined by the chronologyof the level. • Level “h” (65/68 - 70 AD.): An alteration has been

noticed in the zone of the balteus, a very small partof which was investigated (around 2m2) (BELTRÁN,PAZ, LASHERAS 1985, 103-104, FIG. 5.2). The con-struction, or partial renovation, of the orchestra mustbe dated to a similar time to that of the dissemina-tion of Spanish Terra Sigillata from La Rioja work-shops in the central Ebro valley, from stratigraphiesfrom the Colonia Celsa: post quem to years 65-68 un-

til year 70 AD (level 7.3) (BELTRÁN 1998, 85FF) (Fig.2). In our excavations, we documented 38 fragments of

the opus sectile of the orchestra, which correspond to tendifferent varieties. It is certainly true that only one frag-ment has been identified for each of them (marmoraCarystium, Parium, Proconnesium, Thessalicum and Lu-culleum, “breccia corallina” and marbles from the dis-trict of Saint-Béat (Château, Rapp and Pouy de Géry),except for the marmora Numidicum (22 fragments),Chium (3) and Phrygium (2). This figure is consistentwith data provided by the latest excavations of the the-atre, which have attributed to this floor 15 differenttypes of stones: marbles from Afyon, Saint-Béat, Pro-coneso, Carrara, “cipollino”; marble breccias fromSaint-Béat, “pavonazzetto”, “africano”, “giallo antico”,“portasanta” and “verde antico”; marble limestonefrom “broccatello”, “buixcarró” and “santa tecla” andbreccia limestone from Tortosa (ESCUDERO, GALVE

2003, 81; 2007, 63-70). If we put all these data togetherand simplify the names of marbles, grouping theirprovenances by districts or quarry zones, we find 15 dif-ferent types of stones (marmora Carystium, Parium, Pro-connesium, Thessalicum, Luculleum, Numidicum, Chi-um, Phrygium y Lunense, marbles from the district ofSaint-Béat, “breccia corallina”, “broccatello”, “buixcar-ró” and “santa tecla”). It could also be added, besidesthis multiplicity, that the current distribution of panels

925

M. BELTRÁN, M. CISNEROS, J. Á. PAZ

Fig. 2. Table stating materials used for the dating of levels and marbles found in them (Authors).

and colours does not follow a pattern and no decorationscheme may be described (figs. 3.1 and 3.2). We there-fore believe that this floor, which may have survived upuntil the second half of the fourth century, must haveendured decay over the three long centuries of thebuilding’s life. Certain slabs were replaced at some pointwith existing (similar or different) materials or withreused plaques, as demonstrated by the fact that deco-rated plaques have been found in an inverted position(ESCUDERO, GALVE 2007, 63).• Level “h1” (late first century – early second century).

This is due to a renovation and is located below thelevel of the floor of the orchestra, covering an area of5m2 (fig. 2). 252 of the 362 material fragments foundin the excavation of this level correspond to marbleshards, which clearly differ from the rest of the stonefinds at other levels. This makes us imagine a clearpurpose: the preparation of a renovation in part ofthe opus sectile of the orchestra. The identified fragments (carving waste or remains)

come from marmora Luculleum, Phrygium, Numidicum,Parium, Chium, Thessalicum, Carystium, Proconnesiumand Lunense, marbles from the district of Saint-Béat(Château, Rapp, Boutx, Pouy de Géry and Arguenos),as well as “santa tecla” and “greco scritto”.

Late Empire. Fourth century - 472

Excavations have also yielded levels dated to betweenthe second and fourth centuries though for the purposesof this paper we shall be exclusively concerned with thoselocated above the floor of the orchestra. These levels havealso yielded marbles which do not necessarily belong tothe building since they may have come from pillaging orreutilization from other public or private buildings in thecity. Amongst these levels we should mention:• Levels “d”, “e” and “f” (370 – circa 380/390) (BEL-

TRÁN, PAZ, LASHERAS 1985, 101-102. PAZ 1991, 22-24). Level “f”, whose height ranges from 20 to 25cm, is situated directly above the floor. It is made up

of compacted earth, which makes us presume thatinstead of refurbishing the floor with new marbleplaques the option of forming a terrace was pre-ferred. Before the end of the fourth century, two other ter-

races were made (levels “d” and “e”). These two levelscovered the zone of the balteus up to the second tier ofthe ima cavea. The ceramics show the same chronologyand even some fragments of one vessel have been foundin level “f”. Differences between these three levels canonly be established based on the types of earth.

The dating of level ‘f’ coincides chronologically withabandonments detected in the city in various domus andin the silting of the sewers (PAZ 2003, 31 AND 66) (figs.1. 1 and 2).• 133 fragments, mostly plaques, come from level “f”.

Some of them may have been part of the opus sectileof the orchestra at some point. These are marmoraLuculleum, Proconnesium, Numidicum, Carystium,Chium, Chalcidicum, Scycrium, Parium and Lunense,“breccia corallina”, “greco scritto”,”santa tecla”, Es-pejón and marbles from the district of Saint-Béat(Château, Boutx, Arguenos and a small fragment of arobed statue of marble from Rapp, which undoubt-edly was part of the sculpture decoration of thebuilding, though little more may be said about it). Furthermore, another 70 marble fragments are clear-

ly attributable to an opus sectile given the form of someof them. They are linked to levels “d” and “e”, over thezone of the balteus and first tiers of seats. The identifiedrocks are marmora Luculleum (one of the fragmentsfound has a rounded shape), Proconnesium, Phrygium,Numidicum (two of the fragments have one semi-circu-lar side), Scyrium, Lunense and Carystium, marbles fromSaint-Béat (Rapp —one of the fragments has one semi-circular side—, Château and Arguenos) and “santatecla”. It seems evident that these remains were part ofan opus sectile from a (public or private) building in thecity which at that time (second half of the fourth centu-ry) had already fallen into disuse; it was hence plun-dered and its material used for the terrace or levellingcarried out in the theatre.

Spanish-Visigoth period (472-714)

• Level “c1” (480 – circa 490) (PAZ 2003, 32-40, FIGS.3, 4 AND 5. PAZ 2006, 75). The earthen floor fromthe second half of the fourth century was in use upuntil the date indicated. At that time a new terracewas made, up to 1.20 m, which filled the ground upto the fifth tier. A thin layer of compacted lightbrown earth, on its upper part, reveals that it wasused as floor. This terrace was made a few years after472, when Tarraconensis, along with CaesarAugusta, joined the Visigoth kingdom of Tolosa (PAZ

2003, 62) (Figs. 1. 1 and 2).In this level, a total of 293 marble fragments were

found in the following varieties: marmora Carystium,

926


Fig. 3.1. Detail of the orchestra now (Photo: Museum ofZaragoza. J. Garrido). 3.2. Detail of the orchestra during theexcavation (Photo: Museum of Zaragoza).

Phrygium, Scyrium, Lunense, Luculleum, Parium, Chium,Numidicum, Thessalicum, Proconnesium, Taenarium andChalcidicum, lapides Porphyrites and Lacedaemonius,“breccia corallina”, “broccatello”, “greco scritto”, “san-ta tecla”, “cipollino mandolato”, black limestone fromCalatorao and marbles from the district of Saint-Béat(Château, Rapp, Pouy de Géry and Arguenos).• Level “b1” (circa 550 – circa 600) (PAZ 2003, 45-46,

fig. 10). This was in direct contact with “c1” floor. Itcovers up to the seventh tier (figs. 1. 1 and 2).In this level, 80 fragments of the following varieties

were found: marmora Chalcidicum, Chium, Scyrium,Taenarium, Carystium, Phrygium, Numidicum, Thes-salicum, Luculleum, Sagarium, Lunense y Proconnesium,“breccia corallina”, “greco scritto”, “broccatello”, “san-ta tecla” and marbles from the district of Saint-Béat(Château, Rapp and Pouy de Géry).

Spanish-Muslim period (714-1118)

Level “b2” (820/840 – 950/1000). This perforatesall the previous levels above the orchestra. Prior to820/840, a large part of the floor of the orchestra and allthe marbles from the stage were pillaged. This amplepresence of material is due to the removal of earth (lev-els “c1” to “f”), which could explain the large amountof marble remains (fig. 2).

As a matter of fact, 374 fragments of 30 varieties ofmarbles were found at this level, which represent practi-cally all the identified types: marmora Carystium, Phry-gium, Chalcidicum, Taenarium, Thessalicum, Proconne-sium, Luculleum, Chium, Numidicum, Parium (one of theelements corresponds to a fragment of an inscriptionreused as a weight, 77.9 g, approximately one quarter ofa pound), Sagarium, Lunense, Scyrium and possiblyCelticum, lapides Porphyrites, Lacedaemonius and Onyx,“santa tecla”, “buixcarró”, “broccatello”, “breccia coral-lina”, “greco scritto”, “lumachella carnina”, marblesfrom the district of Saint-Béat (Pène Saint-Martin,Château, Rapp, Boutx, Pouy de Géry and Arguenos)and black limestone from Calatorao (Zaragoza).

Level “a1” (Abandonment in 1118). This corre-sponds to the abandonment of a Muslim dwelling afterthe reconquest of the city by Alfonso I el Batallador (18December 1118). The presence of marbles is scarcer,121 fragments, but of a great diversity of types: marmoraPhrygium, Lunense, Numidicum, Parium, Carium, Chal-cidicum, Luculleum, Chium, Proconnesium, Thessalicum,Carystium and Scyrium, “santa tecla”, “cipollino man-dolato”, “greco scritto”, “buixcarró”, Espejón and mar-bles from the district of Saint-Béat (Château, Rapp, Ar-guenos and Pouy de Géry) (Fig. 2).

Other facts about the marbles in the theatre

We could add the use of Saint-Béat marble betweenthe second and third quarter of the first century AD in a

sculpture possibly depicting Dea Roma and the portraitof a Julio-Claudian princess from the Caligulan periodof Parian marble (KOPPEL, RODÀ 2007, 109-113), aswell as the use in some ornamental features of “buixcar-ró” (mouldings), “rosso antico” (mouldings and a smallfragment of a Corinthian capital from a pilaster), “porfi-do nero” (small pedestal), marble from Thasos (mould-ings, two possible inscribed fragments and one frag-ment of sculpture) marble from Saint-Béat (two frag-ments of acanthus leaves from a Corinthian capital froma pilaster, mouldings, three possible inscribed fragments—though the identification of two of them is uncertain,since one could be of Carrara marble and the other ofPentelic marble—, ten fragments of sculptures, includ-ing one of a robed statue, the provenance of four ofthem is dubious, possibly from Carrara), marble fromParos (one fragment of an sculpture) (LAPUENTE, TURI,BLANC 2009, 518-520).

Final considerations: meaning and reuses

We must first point out that the extensive stratigra-phy recovered is part of the few instances obtained (andpublished) in Spain (perhaps with the exception of thetheatre of Cartagena). Due to this, we can date the be-ginning of the construction of the theatre to the first halfof the Claudius period, as documented by level ‘i’ re-gardless of the fact that the area had been reserved fromthe time of the establishment of the Colonia.

The opus sectile of the orchestra was in use betweenthe Claudius period (41-54 AD) and between circa 370 –390 (levels ‘d’, ‘e’ and ‘f’), approximately for 340 years.Plausibly, innumerable repairs were carried out through-out its history. These are impossible to date because nostratigraphic traces can be found (except in levels ‘h’ and‘h1’) and the marbles do not provide relevant chronolog-ical data either. Nonetheless, its appearance matchesLate Antiquity floorings, especially from the fourth cen-tury, where typical characteristics consist of reusing ma-terials and the irregular layout (GUIDOBALDI, GUIDOBAL-DI 1983, 51-53) (Fig. 3).

We identified 30 types of marbles in our excavationsof the building. They can be grouped as follows (fig. 4):

1) Stones of imperial property: marmora Chium, Nu-midicum, Lunense, Luculleum, Phrygium, Carystium,Proconnesium, Parium, Thessalicum and lapides Onyx,Lacedaemonius and Porphyrites (CISNEROS 2003).

2) Stones of local provenance: alabaster from theEbro Valley (fundamental in the building of the colony)black limestone from Calatorao and other limestone ofvaried colour (at times non-ornamental in the strictsense), which at some stage may have occasionally beenused for flooring in combination with marbles.

3) French Pyrenean marbles: amongst this type, mar-ble from the district of Saint-Béat (both white andwhite-greyish and the breccia known as ‘Péne Saint-Martin’, as well as Château, Rapp, Boutx, Pouy de Géry

927


and Arguenos) (GISBERT, GASPAR 2002, 346-353), alongwith ‘cipollino mandolato’ from Campan.

4) Hispanian limestone from Espejón, ‘santa tecla’,‘buixcarró’ and ‘broccatello’.

5) Other imported stones: marmora Scyrium, Chal-cidicum, Sagarium, Carium, Taenarium, ‘breccia coralli-na’, ‘greco scritto’ and possibly ‘lumachella carnina’ andmarmor Celticum.

We must add to these the marble of Thasos and ‘por-fido nero’ identified, as we have pointed out, by otherresearchers in materials from more modern excavations.

The wide chronology of the building indicates thevicissitudes it underwent and its various reutilizations,whose extent is hard to establish in many cases, precise-ly due to its long and complex history and to the factthat most of the recovered marble elements are frag-ments of floor and wall coverings. The late contexts maybe a reflection of these processes of reuse in the build-ing itself or of bringing soil from nearby buildings in thecity for filling, levelling or building foundations, as weknow, for instance in the case of some of the marbleused in the forum which where found nearby under ar-chitectural structures from the fifth century.

The chronology of the marmora Luculleum, Lunenseand Numidicum can be taken back to the time of the first

work conducted on the building in the early Claudiusperiod, since the chronology of level ‘i’ sets an ante quemdate, as we have explained. This date coincides with atime when the use of imperial marble is widespread bothin the Ebro valley and in towns around Hispania.

Exactly the same applies to the stones documented inthe opus sectile, should all of them correspond to thetime of the renovation (a fact which we do not consider,as we have stated before, given its three-century longlifespan), because practically all the imperial marble andmarble from the French Pyrenees, those which havebeen fundamentally identified, had already been intro-duced in the Flavian period (CISNEROS 2003; RODÀ 2005)and the same could be said about the Hispanian lime-stone of ‘santa tecla’, ‘broccatello’ and ‘buixcarró’(ÁL-VAREZ ET AL. 2009; CEBRIÁN, ESCRIVÁ 2001, 99).

A similar comment could be made about the types ofmarble found in level ‘h1’, because they are all docu-mented as being from before the Trajan period in theEbro Valley and Hispania.

As for the rest of the marbles, their identification inlater levels only yields data regarding their use, thoughthese consist mostly of stones used in the Ebro valleyduring the first century AD, save for the marmor Chal-cidicum and Espejón identified for the first time in this

928


Fig. 4. Location of the city and the marble quarries, adapted from Pensabene, Bruno 1998 (J. M. García, University of Cantabria).

929


zone in level “f” of the theatre. This level, though datingfrom the end of the fourth century, possibly holds mate-rials from earlier centuries. The marmor Chalcidicumhas been located in very early chronologies (last quarterof the first century BC), in private architecture ofCarthago Nova (SOLER 2003, 178) whereas the Espejónmarble goes back to the times of Augustus (ABASCAL,CEBRIÁN, TRUNK 2004, 249).

A more complex case is that of the marmora Sagari-um (identified in level “b1”, dated to the second half ofthe sixth century), Carium (identified in level “a1” as theabandonment of a Muslim dwelling in the twelfth centu-ry) and a possible Celticum and possible “lumachellacarnina” (both identified in level “b2”, which is placedbetween the first half of the ninth century and the sec-ond half of the tenth century), all of them identified forthe first time in the city and in the central Ebro valley.None of these stones are widely found throughout His-pania and their identification has been, always with someuncertainty, in the south in Corduba and Italica(MÁRQUEZ 1995, 92-94; PÉREZ OLMEDO 1996) and in theCatalan area in the case of marmor Celticum (ÁLVAREZ,MAYER 1992, 77).

The percentages of the identified stones can be seenin figure 5 (in the case of alabaster and local stones, thetable does not include large architectural elements suchas columns, capitals, friezes, etc.), which do not reflect afinal result though they can be considered as a represen-tative indication, because they are approximately half ofthe total fragments found in the old excavations. We cannotice, besides the prevalent use of alabaster and localstones, already mentioned, the significant use of whiteand white-greyish marble from the French Pyrenees (al-most 20% of the total) and of ‘santa tecla’, the mostwidely used limestone from Hispania. As for imperialmarmora (just over 41% of the total), it should be point-ed out that because of the presence in certain highlight-ed places in this table of Chium, Numidicum, Lunense,Luculleum, Phrygium and Carystium we are confrontedby stones used in theatre stages from the mid-Augustanperiod onwards —except for Phrygian marble, usedfrom the Julio-Claudian period— resulting in a charac-teristic pattern (SOLER 2005).

If we look into the stratigraphies (we initially take in-to consideration the marble found in level ‘i’, in the opussectile of the orchestra and in level ‘h1’), the percentagesof types of marble found (as is usually the case, thehighest percentages are considered to belong to thebuilding) and available data about the systematizationof ornamental stones in theatre buildings (SOLER 2005),the following stones may have been part of the decora-tion and architectural agenda up until the remodellingin the early second century (apart from the alabasterfrom the Ebro valley and local stones) (figs. 5 and 6):

Marble from the district of Saint-Béat: the mostprevalent, documented in the opus sectile of the orches-tra, in shards in level ‘h1’ and also in sculptures (the al-ready published Dea Roma should be recalled here) andfrom an early date in other buildings in the Colony.

Marmora Chium and Carystium: in the opus sectileof the orchestra and in shards in level ‘h1’, frequentlyused in theatre buildings from the mid-Augustan periodonwards.

Marmora Lunense, Luculleum and Numidicum: inlevel ‘i’, in the opus sectile of the orchestra and in shardsin level ‘h1’, also frequently used in theatre buildingsfrom the mid-Augustan period onwards.

Marmora Phrygium and Proconnesium: in the opussectile of the orchestra and in shards in level ‘h1’, fre-quently used in theatre buildings from the Julio-Claudi-an period onwards.

‘santa tecla’: in the opus sectile of the orchestra and inshards in level ‘h1’.

Marmor Parium: in the opus sectile of the orchestra,in shards in level ‘h1’ and in sculptures (the well knownportrait of a Julio-Claudian princess, as well as a frag-ment of a sculpture possibly depicting Diana, thehunter, and a fragment of a female sculpture).

A comment must be made about the ‘breccia coralli-na’, ‘buixcarró’ and ‘brocatello’ marble found in theopus sectile of the orchestra, which, as we have stated,must have undergone numerous repairs. It is thereforedifficult to establish when these types of marble mighthave been used. The first has occasionally been docu-mented in some theatres already in the Julio-Claudianperiod though none of these types of marble has beenidentified amongst those found in level ‘h1’. For variousreasons we could also include the “greco scritto” andmarmor Thessalicum, found in level “h1”, though bothstones are seldom used in theatre constructions, the for-mer from the Julio-Claudian period and the latter fromthe Flavio-Antonine period onwards, their percentage isa small amount of the total volume.

The rest of the stones must correspond to later re-modelling or may have been brought from other build-ings in the city, because their recurrence is not very sig-nificant and are found from level ‘f’ onwards, thoughthese stones were occasionally used in theatre buildingsfrom the Julio-Claudian period (figs. 5 and 6).

We could finally reflect on the fact that the marblematerial found corresponds to fragments of slabs, smallmouldings, sculptures or of instrumenta domestica. Wehave no knowledge of the presence in the city of largearchitectural elements made of marble. The raw materi-al used for the construction consisted of local stones,mainly alabaster. Should these large architectural ele-ments have existed, they would have very plausibly ap-peared in the excavations made so far or could havebeen reused at later times for other buildings but the ar-gument that they were turned into lime may not beused, especially in times of scarcity. This argument maypartially apply to some elements, especially those whichcould not be reused given that they could not serve thesame purpose they originally had or because of theirpoor condition. It does not affect, however, large archi-tectural elements, which retained value as raw materialsfor construction both as materials in themselves and be-cause of the function they served, as a vast and well

930


known bibliography indicates with examples from manycities and for all periods. This, in the context we aredealing with, can only mean either that large blockscould not reach the city, which would indicate a limiteduse of the river in favour of the road network overland,or else that though technically possible, they did not

reach the city. This last option involves analysing thelack of these blocks from the point of view of the possi-bilities of access to marble by the municipal elites.

All this range of marbles possibly used throughoutthe lifetime of the theatre, and without doubt in ColoniaCaesar Augusta, are in harmony with the significance of

Fig. 5. Number of fragments, volume and percentage of the various types of stones found (M. Cisneros).


931

Fig.

6. D

istr

ibut

ion

of m

arbl

es b

y le

vels

(M. C

isne

ros)

.

the city, a conventual capital and the only city boastingthe full name of its founder (BELTRÁN 2007).

Bibliography

ABASCAL J. M., CEBRIÁN R., TRUNK M. 2004: “Epigrafía, ar-quitectura y decoración arquitectónica del foro de Segobri-ga”, in S. F. Ramallo (ed.), La decoración arquitectónica enlas ciudades romanas de Occidente, Universidad de Murcia,219-256.

ÁLVAREZ A., MAYER M. 1992: “El comerç del marbre”, in Ro-ma a Catalunya, Barcelona, 77-81.

Álvarez A. et al. 2009: El marmor de Tarraco. Explotació, uti-lizació i comercialització de la pedra de Santa Tecla en èpocaromana, Institut Català d’Arqueologia Classica, Tarragona.

BELTRÁN F. (ed.): 2007: Ciudades romanas de Hispania. Lascapitales provinciales. 4. Zaragoza. Colonia Caesar Augusta,L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma.

BELTRÁN M. 1993: “El teatro de Caesaraugusta. Estado actualdel conocimiento”, in S. Ramallo, F. Santiuste (eds.),Teatros romanos de Hispania, Cuadernos de Arquitectura,2, Murcia, 93-118.

BELTRÁN M. 1998: “Museo de Zaragoza. Colonia Celsa. Catál-ogo de la colección expuesta”, Museo de Zaragoza. Boletín14, Zaragoza, 5-172.

BELTRÁN M., PAZ J. Á., LASHERAS J. A. 1985: “El teatro deCaesaraugusta. Estado actual de las excavaciones”, Museode Zaragoza. Boletín 4, Zaragoza, 95-129.

CEBRIÁN R., ESCRIVÁ I. 2001: “La piedra de Buixcarró en lasobras públicas de Valentia”, Saguntum 33, Valencia, 97-110.

CISNEROS M. 2003: “El puerto de Caesaraugusta y la difusiónde los mármoles imperiales en el valle medio del Ebro”, inG. Pascual, J. Pérez Ballester (eds.), Puertos fluviales an-tiguos: ciudad, desarrollo e infraestructuras. IV Jornadas dearqueología subacuática, Valencia, 157-168.

ESCUDERO F. DE A., GALVE M. P. 2003: “El teatro de Caesarau-gusta”, in El teatro romano. La puesta en escena, Zaragoza,75-86.

ESCUDERO F. DE A., GALVE M. P. 2007: Edificios de espectácu-los”, in F. Beltrán (ed.), Ciudades romanas de Hispania. Lascapitales provinciales. 4. Zaragoza. Colonia Caesar Augusta,L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma, 57-70.

ESCUDERO F. DE A., GALVE M. P. 2011: “Caesaraugusta”, in J.A. Remolà, J. acero (eds.), La gestión de los residuos ur-banos en Hispania, Instituto de Arqueología de Mérida,Mérida, 255-280.

ETTLINGER E. et al. 1990: Conspectus formarum terra sigillataeitalico modo confectae, Römisch-germanische Kommisiondes deutschen archaölogischen Instituts zu Frankfurt A.M., Bonn.

GISBERT J., GASPAR S. 2002: “Geología y procedencia de losmarmora”, in M. Beltrán, J. Á. Paz (eds.), Las aguassagradas del Municipium Turiaso. Excavaciones en el patiodel colegio Joaquín Costa (antiguo Allué Salvador). Tara-zona (Zaragoza), Caesaraugusta 76, Institución Fernandoel Católico, Zaragoza, 345-360.

GUIDOBALDI F, GUIDOBALDI A. G. 1983: Pavimenti marmoreidi Roma del IV al IX secolo, Pontificio Istituto di Arche-ologia Cristiana, Città del Vaticano-Roma.

KOPPEL E. M., RODÀ I. 2007: “La escultura”, in F. Beltrán(ed.), Ciudades romanas de Hispania. Las capitales provin-ciales. 4. Zaragoza. Colonia Caesar Augusta, Roma, 109-122.

LAPUENTE P., TURI B., BLANC PH. 2009: “Marbles and colouredstones from the theatre of Caesaraugusta (Hispania): pre-liminary study”, in ASMOSIA VII, 509-522.

MÁRQUEZ C. 1995: “Corrientes y materiales en la arquitecturade la Córdoba romana”, Anales de Arqueología Cordobesa6, Córdoba, 79-111.

PAZ J. Á. 2003: “Difusión y cronología de la African red slipWare (fines del siglo IV al VII d. C.) en dos núcleos ur-banos del interior de España: Caesar Augusta (Zaragoza) yAsturica Augusta (Astorga, León)”, Museo de Zaragoza.Boletín 17, Zaragoza, 27-104.

PAZ J. Á. 2006: “Addenda a: Difusión y cronología de laafrican red slip Ware (fines del siglo IV al VII d. C.) en dosnúcleos urbanos del interior de España: Caesar Augusta(Zaragoza) y Asturica Augusta (Astorga, León)”, Museo deZaragoza. Boletín 18, Zaragoza, 67-78.

PENSABENE P., BRUNO M. (eds.) 1998: Il marmo e il colore.Guida fotografica. I marmi della collezione Podesti, L’Ermadi Bretschneider, Roma.

PÉREZ OLMEDO E. 1996: Revestimientos de Opus Sectile en laPenínsula Ibérica, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid.

RODÀ I. 2005: “La difusión de los mármoles pirenaicos en His-pania y la datación epigráfica de los inicios de la ex-plotación de sus canteras”, in L’Aquitaine et l’HispanieSeptentrionale à l’époque julio-claudienne. Organisation etexploitation des espaces provinciaux, Burdeos, 461-471.

SOLER B. 2003: “Algunas consideraciones sobre el empleo pri-vado del mármol en Carthago Nova”, Mastia 3, Cartagena,149-187.

SOLER B. 2005: Mármoles de importación, mármoles de sustitu-ción y materiales pétreos de procedencia local en la arquitec-tura teatral en Hispania. El teatro romano de Carthago No-va, Universidad de Murcia, doctoral thesis, unpublished.

932


Marbles from the theatre of Colonia Caesar Augusta (Provincia Hispania Citerior)

Documents

Transcript of Marbles from the theatre of Colonia Caesar Augusta (Provincia Hispania Citerior)