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 aer 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.