ROMAN ORNAMENTAL STONES IN NORTH-WESTERN EUROPE Catherine Coquelet, Guido Creemers, Roland Dreesen & Éric Goemaere Études et Documents Archéologie Agence wallonne du Patrimoine 38 Études et Documents Archéologie 38 La série ARCHÉOLOGIE de la collection ÉTUDES ET DOCUMENTS est une publication de l'AGENCE WALLONNE DU PATRIMOINE Service public de Wallonie Direction générale opérationnelle de l'aménagement du territoire, du logement, du patrimoine et de l'énergie Agence wallonne du Patrimoine Rue des Brigades d'Irlande, 1 B-5100 Jambes DIFFUSION ET VENTE Service publications Résidence du Grand Cortil, Place des Célestines, 21 (derrière l'hôtel Ibis) B-5000 Namur Tél. : +32 (0)81.230.703 ou +32 (0)81.654.154 Fax : +32 (0)81.231.890 publication@awap.be www.awap.be www.patrimoine-publications.be no vert de la Wallonie : 1718 www.wallonie.be En cas de litige, Médiateur de Wallonie : Marc Bertrand Tél. : 0800.19.199 — le-mediateur.be Le texte engage la seule responsabilité des auteurs. L'éditeur s'est efforcé de régler les droits relatifs aux illustrations conformément aux prescriptions légales. Les détenteurs de droits qui, malgré ses recherches, n'auraient pu être retrouvés sont priés de se faire connaître à l'éditeur. ÉDITEUR RESPONSABLE Jean Plumier, Inspecteur général-expert COORDINATION ÉDITORIALE Liliane Henderickx et Julien Maquet CONCEPTION GRAPHIQUE DE LA COLLECTION Ken Dethier MISE EN PAGE & COORDINATION GRAPHIQUE Jean-François Lemaire IMPRIMERIE Snel, Vottem COUVERTURE Detail of the mosaic floor discovered during excavations in the Hondsstraat, Tongeren (photo: A. Vanderhoeven & G. Vynckier, © Flemish Heritage Institute, Brussels) RÉFÉRENCE BIBLIOGRAPHIQUE Coquelet C., Creemers G., Dreesen R. & Goemare é. (ed.), 2018. Roman Ornamental Stones in North-Western Europe. Natural Resources, Manufacturing, Supply, Life & After-Life, Namur (études et Documents, Archéologie, 38), 377 p. Avertissement Tous droits réservés pour tous pays Dépôt légal : D/2018/14.407/08 ISBN : 978-2-39038-005-4 Depuis le 1er janvier 2018, le Département du Patrimoine de la direction générale opérationnelle de l'aménagement du territoire, du logement, du patrimoine et de l'énergie du Service public de Wallonie, et l'Institut du Patrimoine wallon sont réunis au sein de la nouvelle Agence wallonne du Patrimoine (AWaP). ROMAN ORNAMENTAL STONES IN NORTH-WESTERN EUROPE NATURAL RESOURCES, MANUFACTURING, SUPPLY, LIFE & AFTER-LIFE Edited by Catherine Coquelet, Guido Creemers, Roland Dreesen and Éric Goemaere ÉTUDES ET DOCUMENTS Archéologie, 38 Namur, 2018 Service public de Wallonie Direction générale opérationnelle de l'Aménagement du territoire, du Logement, du Patrimoine et de l'énergie Agence wallonne du Patrimoine Proceedings of the International conference ‘Roman ornamental stones in north-western Europe. Natural resources, manufacturing, supply, life & after-life’, Gallo-Roman Museum of Tongeren (Belgium), 20-22 April 2016 TAble of conTenTs InTroDucTIon 13 Catherine Coquelet, Guido Creemers, roland dreesen & ÉriC Goemaere pArT 1 orIGIn AnD proVenAnce of THe rAW MATerIAls An InTroDucTIon To THe MosT IMporTAnT DecorATIVe sTones of AncIenT Greece: use, DIsTrIbuTIon, quArrIes, cHArAcTerIzATIon AnD ArcHAeoMeTrIc probleMs 19 lorenzo lazzarini on THe roMAn use of ‘belGIAn MArbles’ In THe CIVITAS TUNGRORUM AnD beyonD 25 roland dreesen, marleen de Ceukelaire & Vilma ruppienÉ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2. The ‘Belgian marbles’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3. Occurrences and uses of ‘Belgian marbles’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 GRANITO VERDE A ERBETTA froM THe ruWer-VAlley neAr TrIer: prelIMInAry resulTs froM peTroGrApHy AnD MAjor eleMenT coMposITIons 51 Vilma ruppienÉ & tatjana mirjam Gluhak 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2. Geology of the region and sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 An oVerVIeW of roMAn DIMensIon sTones In THe neTHerlAnDs 63 timo G. nijland, C. Wim dubelaar & jan dröGe 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 2. Imported dimension stones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3. Local dimension stones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Études et Documents Archéologie 38 5 ROMAN ORNAMENTAL STONES IN NORTH-WESTERN EUROPE ornAMenTAl sTones useD In THe VIllA AT DAMblAIn (VosGes, frAnce) 79 jean-miChel meChlinG, karine boulanGer & VinCent barbin 1. Location and presentation of the archaeological site of Damblain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2. Macroscopic description of the decorative and building stones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3. Characterization of the stones and origins of their deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4. An optimization of the stones provenance/cost? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 THe GeoloGIcAl source of THe eArlIesT ToMbsTones AnD ArcHITecTurAl frAGMenTs froM souTHern brITAnnIA: A peTroloGIcAl AnD GeocHeMIcAl InVesTIGATIon of sTone froM pre-flAVIAn colcHesTer 93 keVin m.j. hayWard 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 2. Methodology and archaeological dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3. Results: the lithotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4. Case study Claudio-Neronian Colchester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 poDpeč lIMesTone for COLONIA IULIA EMONA (REGIO X, VeneTIA AnD HIsTrIA) 107 bojan djurić, luka Gale & snježana miletić 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 2. Localisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 3. Use of black limestone in Emona: previous research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4. New research: methods and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 5. Discussion and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 proVenAnce AnAlysIs of roMAn lIMesTone froM THe Moselle VAlley VIA neuTron AcTIVATIon: reseArcH of THe joHAnnes GuTenberG-unIVersITÄT MAInz (GerMAny) 113 Christian stieGhorst, hans-peter kuhnen, jan patriCk neumann & Christian plonka 6 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 2. State of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 3. Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 4. Provenance analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5. Results of the elemental distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 6. Results of the multivariate data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 7. Conclusion and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 pArT 2 socIo-econoMIcs of sTone eXTrAcTIon AnD DIsTrIbuTIon ‘DIffIculT AnD cosTly’: sTone TrAnsporT, ITs consTrAInTs, AnD ITs IMpAcT 131 ben russell 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 2. The maritime dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 3. Overland and up-river . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 4. The impact of transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5. Stone and other commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 sTone objecTs froM VInDobonA (AusTrIA): proVenAnce of locAl sTone In A HIsTorIco-econoMIcAl seTTInG 151 sophie insulander, miChaela kronberGer, beatrix moshammer & martin mosser 1. Introduction, questions and methodological approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 2. Quarrying regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 3. Case examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 4. Analysis by linking various data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 5. Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 use AnD TrADe of ornAMenTAl rocks In THe MID-ebro VAlley (spAIn) In THe roMAn erA 163 miGuel Cisneros 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 2. Marbleisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 3. Distribution and supply of marble: access routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 4. Final considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 rupTure or conTInuITy In sTone supply beTWeen THe roMAn AnD eArly MeDIeVAl TIMes (lATe 6TH–7TH cenTury AD)? orIGIn AnD DIsTrIbuTIon of lIMesTone sArcopHAGI In norTHern GAul AnD re-use of roMAn ornAMenTAl sTones 175 laure-anne Finoulst 1. Provenance and use of stones in Northern Gaul during the Roman period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 2. Provenance and use of ornamental stones in the Early Middle Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 3. Sarcophagi in the Early Middle Ages: reused Roman ornamental stones and new sculptures . . 177 4. From the Roman period through the Early Middle Ages: a same trade? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Études et Documents Archéologie 38 7 ROMAN ORNAMENTAL STONES IN NORTH-WESTERN EUROPE pArT 3 cArVInG THe sTone AnTIque DecorATIVe sTone cuTTInG: resulTs AnD reseArcH perspecTIVes 183 Les taiLLes décoratives antiques : résuLtats et perspectives de recherches jean-Claude bessaC 1. L'esthétique antique des pierres et sa perception actuelle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 2. Une approche fondée sur la pratique traditionnelle du métier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 3. Les bossages brochés au pic sur pierre tendre et ferme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 4. Les bossages naturels ou éclatés sur les roches les plus résistantes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 5. Les bossages rustiques sont-ils fonctionnels ou décoratifs ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 6. Du bossage fonctionnel aux versions décoratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 7. Les tailles réalisées au pic et à la broche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 8. Aperçu sur quelques autres tailles décoratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 9. Les résultats et les perspectives de recherches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 sTone operATIonAl cHAIn AnD WorksHops WITHIn THe CIVITAS AEDUORUM beTWeen THe 1sT AnD THe 4TH cenTurIes AD 199 pierre-antoine lamy 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 2. Operational chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 3. Identifying specific sculptors and workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 4. Datings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 THe sTone WorksHops In THe sAncTuAry of ponT-sAInTe-MAXence (oIse, pIcArDy, frAnce): nATurAl resources AnD sTylIsTIc coMpArIsons 211 VÉronique brunet-Gaston, Christophe Gaston, annie blanC & philippe blanC 8 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 2. Natural resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 3. Sculpture workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 pArT 4 lIfe of ornAMenTAl sTones lIfe AnD AfTer-lIfe of roMAn ornAMenTAl sTones WITHIn THe CIVITAS TUNGRORUM (GERMANIA INFERIOR) 225 Catherine Coquelet, Guido Creemers, roland dreesen & ÉriC Goemaere 1. The civitas Tungrorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 2. Distribution of ornamental stones within the civitas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 3. Natural resources: a large lithological spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 4. Use of ornamental stones within the civitas Tungrorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 5. Re-use of the ornamental stones within the civitas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 sculpTeD AnD ArcHITecTonIc sTone frAGMenTs of THe GAllo-roMAn ‘HAuTe ÉloGe’ VIllA In bruyelle/AnToInG (proVInce of HAInAuT, belGIuM) 253 CÉCile ansieau 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 2. Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 3. Traces of tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 THe ornAMenTAl sTones of THe ‘cHAMp De sAInT-ÉloI’ VIllA In Merbes-le-cHâTeAu (proVInce of HAInAuT, belGIuM) 261 Gaëlle dumont, niColas authom & niColas paridaens 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 2. Provenance of the raw material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 3. Wall decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 4. Flooring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 5. Architectural features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 funerAry MonuMenTs froM WesTern CIVITAS TREVERORUM In An InTerreGIonAl conTeXT 269 Gabrielle kremer Études et Documents Archéologie 38 9 ROMAN ORNAMENTAL STONES IN NORTH-WESTERN EUROPE pIcTure AnD ornAMenT – funerAry MonuMenTs froM TrIer seen As MeDIA enseMbles 275 karl-uWe mahler, anja klöCkner & miChaela stark 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 2. Monuments and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 3. State of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 4. Methods and aims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 5. Use and re-use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 roMAn sTone oInTMenT pAleTTes In THe norTHern pArT of GALLIA BELGICA AnD GERMANIA INFERIOR: proVenAnce, TrADe AnD use 285 sibreCht reniere, deVi taelman, roland dreesen, ÉriC Goemaere & Wim de ClerCq 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 2. Studied material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 3. Material identification and provenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 4. Discussion and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 5. Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 roofInG slATes DurInG roMAn TIMes: prelIMInAry obserVATIons bAseD on recenT fInDInGs MADe In THe ArDennes DepArTMenT (frAnce) 301 Gaël Cartron 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 2. Characteristics of the materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 3. Roofing slates of Roman sites in the Ardennes department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 4. The buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 5. Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 pArT 5 AfTer-lIfe of ornAMenTAl sTones use AnD reuse of DecorATIVe sTones In THe roMAn AnD MeDIeVAl ToWn of TonGeren 309 alain VanderhoeVen 10 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 2. The site of the church of Our Lady . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 3. The Hondsstraat site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 re-use of roMAn sTone In lonDon cITy WAlls 327 simon barker, penny Coombe & simona perna 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 2. History of Roman London and its walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 3. The Riverside Wall in London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 4. The External Projecting Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 5. Selection and treatment of stones for re-use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 6. London city walls in their British and Continental contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 conTeXT AnD InTerpreTATIon of re-useD roMAn sTones In THe oDenWAlD AnD ITs surrounDInGs 349 alexander reis 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 2. Interpretations of re-use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 3. List of re-used Roman stones in the Odenwald and its surroundings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 use AnD re-use of roMAn sTone MonuMenTs In cArnunTuM AnD ITs surrounDInG AreA 361 Gabrielle kremer & isabella kitz 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 2. Different ‘types’ of re-use in Carnuntum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 3. Large-scale recycling in Carnuntum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 4. Re-use of Roman ornamental stones in the hinterland of Carnuntum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 AuTHors' ADDresses 373 Études et Documents Archéologie 38 11 poDpeč lIMesTone for COLONIA IULIA EMONA (REGIO X, VeneTIA AnD HIsTrIA) bojan djurić1, luka Gale2 & snježana miletić3 ABSTRACT The main decorative stone used in colonia Ivlia Emona (present-day Ljubljana) is a black-to-grey Lower Jurassic limestone with occasional high concentrations of white bivalve fossils. The closest outcrop of such limestone is in the village of Podpeč, 14 km southwest of Ljubljana, where any possible traces of Roman quarrying are believed to have been destroyed by later exploitation. We have performed analyses and investigations aimed at confirming a decorative use of this stone in the Roman period. Comparing the colour, texture and composition of the limestone in the pilot sample of 54 pieces of columns found in Emona with the beds outcropping at Podpeč revealed a corresponding lithology, confirming Podpeč as the site of the Roman quarry. In addition, in 2016 we excavated two trenches at the site that allowed us to identify the possible source beds of the main decorative variety, i.e. the dark grey and black limestone with an abundance of white megalodontid bivalves used for slabs and columns. Keywords: Lumachella limestone, Lower Jurassic, megalodontid bivalves, Podpeč, Ljubljana, Emona, architectural elements 1. INTRODUCTION Austria Hun gary Colonia Iulia Emona Slovenia Italy Ljubljana Croatia 0 50 km Quarry Podpec › Podpeč is a small village below the hill of Sv. Ana (482 m) located at the southern edge of the Ljubljansko Barje (Ljubljana Moor), on the right bank of the Ljubljanica river and some 14 km southwest of Ljubljana (fig. 1). The name of the village is Slavic in origin and means a settlement below a rock face, suggesting that a quarry face was visible there at the time of the first Slavic settlement. The site was presumably first quarried by the Romans in the early 1st century AD (Djurić & Rižnar, 2017) and the good quality (Lower Jurassic) black-to-grey limestone (Gale, 2014; 2015) became a source of dimension and decorative stone for colonia Ivlia Emona (present-day Ljubljana) from its construction onwards. In the 20th century the quarry was the source of the regionally popular ‘lumachella’ (lithiotid and small megalodontid bivalves) type of decorative stone that the Slovene architect Jožef Plečnik Nauportus 0 5 km Fig. 1 location of the podpeč quarry and the Roman colony of Emona on the ljubljanica river. lidar generated image: D. Mlekuž 1 professor at the university of ljubljana (slovenia). 2 assistant professor at the university of ljubljana (slovenia). 3 Researcher at the geological survey of slovenia. Études et Documents Archéologie 38 107 Roman oRnamental stones in noRth-westeRn euRope Fig. 2 the podpeč quarry and extraction areas on the slopes of sv. ana. lidar generated image: D. Mlekuž, interpretation: B. Djurić used in many of his buildings (Krečič, 1993). At present the quarry is owned by the Mineral Company, but is not active; extraction stopped in 1973. In 1991 the quarry was declared a natural monument, in 2004 it was declared a geological monument of national importance and in 2014 the Podpeč lithiotid limestone was proposed to be designated as a Global Heritage Stone Resource (Kramar et al., 2015). 2. LOCALISATION Despite the widespread opinion of Roman quarrying at Podpeč (Ramovš, 2000), we have no direct evidence supporting it. All our hypotheses are thus based exclusively on the rock used for architectural members and sepulchral monuments at colonia Ivlia Emona sharing the same set of specific characteristics (colour, presence of fossils — especially bivalves from the group of megalodontids and lithiotids — etc.) with the rock at Podpeč. It is also true that there are 4 108 no other significant outcrops of such limestone known in the area. It has been widely assumed that later quarrying at Podpeč destroyed any possible traces of Roman activities (fig. 2), but up to 2016 no archaeological investigation has been conducted at the quarry to either prove or refute this assumption. In spite of the presumably erased traces of Roman quarrying, we believe it is possible to prove that the Romans quarried their decorative stone here and also to identify the location of the Roman quarry. Two indications are important in this respect. The first is the topography of the Podpeč village4. The houses of the village are mainly built parallel to the foot of the hill with the exception of two early houses in the northern part (Artač at no. 46 Podpeč and Svete at no. 44 Podpeč), which are perpendicular to this line and thereby indicate the existence of a large cut in the north slope at the time of their construction. We believe this to be the most probable area inside the modern quarry where to look for see franciscan cadastral maps for the cadastral municipalities of presser and seedorf. podpeč limestone for COLONIA IULIA EMONA (REGIO X, Venetia and histria) Roman quarrying traces. The second indication is the rock itself. A comparison of the limestone used in Emona with that naturally outcropping at Podpeč may reveal that they are of the same type of limestone, confirming Podpeč as a site of the Roman quarry and enabling us to pinpoint its microlocation; the comparison may also reveal a mismatch, in which case we can dismiss Podpeč as a potential site of the Roman quarry. 3. USE OF BLACk LIMESTONE IN EMONA: PREvIOUS RESEARCH It has been shown that already the earliest defensive walls of Emona included small chips of limestone, presumably derived from the Podpeč quarry (Rižnar, 2010). They have also been detected in the wall’s foundations and at the bottom of the foundation trenches, showing that limestone blocks from the quarry were used from the beginning of the construction of the colony in the early 1st century AD (Šašel-Kos, 2012). Artefacts manufactured from this type of limestone in Emona span from the 1st to the 3rd century AD (Šašel-Kos, 1997), while the date of the abandonment of the quarry is not precisely known. The post-Roman extraction in the quarry started in the 16th century if not earlier5, with an increased production noted in the Baroque period when ‘black marbles’ were in vogue (Valvasor, 1689, p. 434). In Ljubljana, many architectural elements in the houses of the civil and church dignitaries as well as merchants of the day were made using this stone. Podpeč limestone was also used as building material. The importance of the stone for Ljubljana is illustrated by two wrecks from the Ljubljanica river recovered not far from Podpeč and related to the transport of the stone to the city. One is a log-boat from the 16th or the 17th century loaded with stone rubble and lime, and the other a cargo of stone rubble found scattered over the bottom of the riverbed (Gaspari & Erič, 2007). The most extensive use of the Podpeč limestone dates to the time of the construction of the Vienna–Trieste Railway (section Ljubljana–Trieste, 1850-1857) and the years following the devastating Ljubljana earthquake of 1895 (Ramovš, 2000). From the late 19th century onwards Podpeč limestone was in widespread use and enjoyed a pride of place in the work of the Slovene architect Jožef Plečnik; it was he who introduced the new fashion for Podpeč limestone as a superior decorative stone, mainly in Ljubljana but also elsewhere. Podpeč limestone ceased to be used as building material with the introduction of reinforced concrete after the First World War, but architects continued using it for different types of revetment and architectural members. The stone from Podpeč was transported to Ljubljana (and before that to Emona) via the Ljubljanica river, which was its main advantage over potential competition. The river transport lasted until 1953. As for the Roman stone transport to Emona, there is a widespread belief among archaeologists, first stated by Simon Rutar (1892) and later adopted by Walter Schmid (1913), that the Romans diverted part of the Ljubljanica riverbed nearer to the Podpeč quarry to facilitate the transport of heavy loads6. This hypothesis however raises serious doubts. For connecting the quarry with the Ljubljanica, it would be much easier to use the channel of the nearby stream (Podpeški potok)7 and adapt it for the flat bottom ships than to excavate an almost 6 km long channel for the main riverbed. If the Romans did indeed divert the river, it was done with some other goal in mind8 and stone transport was of secondary importance. 5 for the use of podpeč limestone for the constructions at ljubljanski grad (ljubljana castle) before 1562 see Vrhovec, 1895, p. 101. 6 for a summary and state of discussion see gaspari, 1998. 7 the Krainische Baugesellschaft adapted part of it for ship loading in the 19th century (Denkschrift, 1898, p. 80). 8 probably military. the river-to-road communication between Navportus and Siscia seems a good reason for such a great undertaking. Études et Documents Archéologie 38 109 Roman oRnamental stones in noRth-westeRn euRope 4. NEW RESEARCH: METHODS AND RESULTS Fig. 3 the podpeč quarry with marked locations of trench 1 (a), trench 2 (B) and the east quarry face (c), as well as of the beds of the limestone with sparse whitish clasts (1) and the light grey dense limestone without grains (2). lidar generated image: D. Mlekuž, photo and interpretation: l. gale In order to compare the rocks from the Podpeč quarry with the artefacts from Emona, we first examined and described the limestone beds in the quarry in detail, noting their lithology (type, amount, size and distribution of grains, type of bounding material, i.e. groundmass), colour and thickness. To avoid a subjective description of colour, we used the Munsell Rock Color Chart (2009). Limestone beds are partly accessible in the east quarry face, but the earliest, northernmost part of the quarry is already covered by rubble and built-up. Two long north-south trenches were therefore excavated in that area in 2016 with the aim of establishing the bottom of the quarry and documenting the hidden limestone beds. As for the archaeological artefacts, we focused our analyses on the columns held in the City Museum of Ljubljana and examined 54 of their pieces: 9 bases, 38 shafts and 7 capitals9. Several artefacts were also sampled for a more detailed comparison by carrying out a microscopic analysis. We investigated 75 successive limestone beds with a cumulative thickness of almost 50 m at the Podpeč quarry; there is a 14.5 m gap between the sampled beds that has yet to be investigated10. The limestone beds dip sub-vertically to the south (fig. 3). The succession of beds reveals in places repetitive lithological varieties of limestone differing in colour, grain quantity, grain type and type of groundmass. According to these criteria, 28 varieties of limestone could be distinguished. The analysis of the artefacts from Emona revealed 15 different lithological types. Comparing these with the varieties of the limestone in the Podpeč quarry, the material of as many as 43 of the 54 (80%) investigated artefacts could have originate from the quarry11. Of these, two lithological varieties dominate (25 9 c B A 0 of 43; 58%): very dark grey, almost black dense limestone with very rare fossils (18 samples) that passes into limestone with concentrations of white megalodontid bivalves (7 samples; fig. 4). The size and microfacial characteristics of the artefacts (i.e. orientation of compaction stylolites) indicate that the sampled column shafts were cut parallel to the bedding, while bases and capitals were cut perpendicular to it. They also indicate that the source bed/beds had to be at least 44 cm thick (the largest diameter of the shaft and the height of the capitals and bases). Several limestone beds of appropriate thickness and lithological characteristics have been on purpose, we limited our analysis to one category of products, characteristic for this production. 10 a third trench is planned for the summer of 2017. 11 other artefacts are made of the limestone from an unknown quarry. 110 100 m podpeč limestone for COLONIA IULIA EMONA (REGIO X, Venetia and histria) identified in the northernmost part of the quarry (in Trench B), but not in other parts of the quarry (fig. 3). Three of the artefacts were made of grey limestone with whitish mollusc fragments encrusted by microbial carbonate with the original bed/ beds measuring at least 40 cm in thickness. One suitable bed was identified in Trench B, while comparable limestone beds in the visible quarry face are much thicker (140 and 280 cm) and would probably be difficult to quarry (except if natural fissures made it easier). The material for 5 column shafts was extracted from an at least 30 cm thick, very light grey limestone bed. The same type of limestone was found in the Podpeč quarry in the exposed east 0 5 cm face, in 25-35 cm thick beds and in one massive (535 cm thick) bed, though the latter is a less probable source. Other possible connections with the Podpeč quarry include column shafts made of darker varieties of dense mudstone with or without small fossil bivalves, and limestone with packed ooids, but a lack of distinctive characteristics prevents us from identifying more precise potential matches in the Podpeč quarry. It is worth noting that the black micritic limestone with lithiotid bivalves, favoured by Jožef Plečnik and today considered as representative of the Podpeč decorative limestone, does not appear among the Roman decorative stones in Emona12. For now, it has been identified neither in any of the known architectural members nor in the revetment or pavement slabs from Emona. In the quarry in Podpeč, it is present in its east face, south of the posited location of the Roman quarry, in one 30 and one 80 cm thick bed, both friable due to claystone partings13. 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Our analyses and investigations have confirmed the Roman use of the Lower Jurassic limestone from Podpeč in Emona for different monuments, architectural members and revetment slabs. The examination of the column pieces from Emona has shown that, except for three lithological types (9 artefacts), all of the defined varieties belong to the Lower Jurassic limestone present at the Podpeč quarry. Especially convincing is the match with four beds of very dark grey limestone with occasional concentrations of megalodontid bivalves used not only for columns, but also for revetment slabs (fig. 4). Numerous Tuscan columns (bases, shafts, capitals) were made of this variety, as well as of the black and dense limestone without fossils. We have observed that the columns of pure black limestone were worked with a pointed chisel in Fig. 4 fragments of the pavement slabs from Emona made of podpeč limestone with a high incidence of megalodontid bivalves. Photo: B. Djurić 12 there exists a single artefact made of this stone, a 1st century aD altar from the village of ig, south of ljubljana and east of podpeč; cf. Šašel-Kos, 1997, no. 84, p. 271-272. 13 it has not been detected in the recently excavated trenches north of it, which otherwise covered only part of the northern succession of beds. the lithiotid limestone used by Jožef plecnik is present in the southern part of the quarry, which has not been opened until the late 19th century. Études et Documents Archéologie 38 111 0 Fig. 5 column parts made of the decorative and monochromatic variants of podpeč limestone. Photo: B. Djurić 25 cm a manner that produced regular series of short white strokes on their surface (fig. 5), similar in appearance to the white bivalve fossils in other artefacts or column parts. We speculate that the Romans appreciated the decorative value of the white shells on an almost black background, similarly as the much later stonemasons appreciated the contrast between the white lithiotid bivalves and the black background colour of the limestone, and that this could be the reason for the ‘decorative’ chisel work on the monochromatic rock types. REFERENCES Denkschrift, 1898. Denkschrift über die Thätigkeit der Krainischen Baugesellschaft während des ersten Viertel-Jahrhundertes ihres Bestandes 1873-1898, Laibach. Djurić B. & Rižnar I., 2017. The rocks of Emona. In: Vičič B. & Županek B. (ed.), Emona 2000: Urbanizacija prostora – nastanek mesta (Urbanisation of Space – Beginning of a Town), Ljubljana, p. 123–145. Gale L., 2014. Lower Jurassic foraminiferal biostratigraphy of Podpeč Limestone (External Dinarides, Slovenia), Geologija, 57/2, p. 119–146. Gale L., 2015. Microfacies characteristics of the Lower Jurassic lithiotid limestone from northern Adriatic Carbonate Platform (central Slovenia), Geologija, 58/2, p. 121–138. Gaspari A., 1998. Ali je bila barjanska Ljubljanica v preteklosti regulirana?, Argo, 41, p. 30–38. Gaspari A. & Erič M., 2007. Arheološki podvodni pregled struge reke Ljubljanice ob ledini Široka pri Podpeči, Ljubljana. Kramar S., Bedjanič M., Mirtič B., Mladenović A., Rožič B., Skaberne D., Gutman M., Zupančič N. & Cooper B., 2015. Podpeč limestone: a heritage stone from Slovenia. In: Pereira D., Marker B.R., Kramar S., Cooper B.J. & Schouenborg B.E. (ed.), Global heritage stone: towards international recognition of building and ornamental stones, London (Special Publication of the Geological Society of London, 407), p. 219–231. Krečič P., 1993. Plečnik: The Complete Works, New York. Ramovš A., 2000. Podpeški in črni ter pisani lesnobrdski apnenec skozi čas. Mineral d.d., Ljubljana. Rižnar I., 2010. Geološka preiskava kamnitih zidov na območju arheološkega najdišča NUK II, Ljubljana. Rutar S., 1892. Zur Schiffahrt auf der Laibach, Mitteilungen des Musealvereins für Krain, 5, p. 65–82. Šašel Kos M., 1997. The Roman inscriptions of the National museum of Slovenia, Ljubljana. Šašel Kos M., 2012. Colonia Iulia Emona – the genesis of the Roman city, Arheološki vestnik, 63, p. 79–104. Schmid W., 1913. Emona, Jahrbuch für Altertumskunde, 7, p. 61–188. Valvasor J. W., 1689. Die Ehre dess Hertzogthums Crain, Laybach. Vrhovec I., 1895. Čolnarji in brodniki na Ljubljanici in Savi. In: Zabavna knjižnica. Slovenska Matica, IX, Ljubljana, p. 97–143. 112 ROMAN ORNAMENTAL STONES IN NORTHWESTERN EUROPE During Roman times, various rock types have been selected for the manufacturing of religious and funerary sculptures, others have been carefully chosen for particular architectural and ornamental pieces. e latter stones were restricted to public buildings or major private houses. is taste for ornamental stones, part of which were derived from the Mediterranean realm, has generated an important supply activity of products derived from provincial quarries. Where are these materials coming from? What is their geographical distribution? What kind of social and economic mechanisms are playing here? What kind of decorative elements have they been used for? What happened aer abandonment of the buildings? Were the quarries still active during post-Roman times? What is the importance of their recycling? Prix de vente : 40 € ISBN : 978-2-39038-005-4 In recent years, research into the origin and provenance of Roman ornamental stones in North-Western Europe, experienced a new impetus, generating the need for an International Conference. is conference was hosted in Belgium by the Gallo-Roman Museum of Tongeren, on April 20-22, 2016. is volume presents the full papers of the oral talks and posters given and shown at the meeting. e conference offered a true interdisciplinary and international exchange platform for archaeologists, geologists, (art) historians, heritage and restoration specialists and for all those interested in the provenance and distribution of ornamental stones, their extraction, processing and recycling in the Roman provinces of NorthWestern Europe.