Contacts, exchange and marble supply in Late Antique Ravenna and the port of Classe
Abstract
55
Full text
Contacts, exchange and marble supply in Late Antique Ravenna and the port of Classe Helena Tůmová– Enrico Cirelli ABSTRACT e article focuses on the commercial mechanism in Late Antiquity with special regard paid to the Late Antique sedes imperii, Ravenna, and its maritime port of Classe from the point of view of qualitative and quantitative analyses of marble and poery importation through long-distance trade within the Mediterranean. In the 5th and 6th centuries, Ravenna represented an important political, commercial, and cultural centre, involved in interregional sea trade through its port of Classe, and represented asignificant production and redistributive centre. e research is based on archaeological material evidence: the provenance and quantity of imported stone artefacts from the Late Antique complex of S. Severo in Classe, and the provenance of poery finds from the harbour area of Podere Chiavichea in Classe. e mechanism of commercial exchange of Late Antique Ravenna and Classe with various regions of the Mediterranean is based on the quantitative and qualitative comparison of imported marble and poery. e question of the statio marmorum in the port area of Classe is also discussed on the basis of both the archaeological evidence and acomparison with the stone supply from Rome. KEYWORDS Marble supply; poery; importation; commercial exchange; provenance; statio marmorum; Late Antiquity; early Middle Ages; Ravenna; Classe; Rome; Portus. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Interest in the history and historical monuments of Late Antique Ravenna (Fig. 1) remains alive and aracts many scholars as an irresistible and permanent challenge. Despite the centuries of research effort, there are still many unanswered questions and missing pieces in the ‘mosaic’ of this famous sedes imperii, which experienced the period of its greatest development in the age of the transition from Late Antiquity to the Middle Ages. 1 e Late Antique Ravenna art represents acomplex in which artistic streams of both the western and eastern parts of 1In 402, Ravenna became the sedes imperii of the West, the seat of the Emperor Honorius who transferred his court there from Mediolanum. e decision of Honorius was influenced by several factors, including the city’sstrategic position near the seaports and agood marine connection (Ward-Perkins even states as one of the reasons as to why the building activity in 5th century Ravenna was not as developed as in Constantinople that it was an ‘emergency residence’, see Ward-Perkins 2000, 75, note 17), the presence of amilitary port, and good accessibility along the Adriatic coastline through Adriatic seaports and to Constantinople, the crucial partner of the Ravennate trade and the seat of the Emperor per Orientem. However, his decision had also apolitical motive. Ravenna was acity far from the élites, senatorial and ruling class in Rome: it was a‘disembedded city’, as Deliyannis called it (Deliyannis 2010, 1–5, esp. 3, 49) and offered advantages of acertain political autonomy for the emperor. Ravenna thus followed the tradition of other temporary imperial residences, such as Trier, Milan, Nikomedeia, or essaloniki, although Rome had never ceased to be the real capital (caput orbis) of the empire (cf. Cirelli 2008, 29; Cristo 1975, 17; Deliyannis 2010, 1–5, 48–54; Humphries 2012, 162; see also Herrin 2020). STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2, 55–88
56 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 the Roman Empire joined and influenced each other.2 Ravenna maintained commercial relationships with distant regions such as North Africa (Tunisia, Egypt), Asia Minor, the Aegean islands, Palestine, Syria, and Constantinople,3 but also with nearby regions (southern Italy, Sicily, Istria, and Dalmatia), as we can trace through the archaeological evidence based on the importation of poery, glass artefacts,4 stone (marble, sandstone, and other lithotypes) material (architectonic elements and decoration), as well as sarcophagi (Fig. 2).5 e supply of ‘marbles’6 in Ravenna always depended on imports given the total lack of quarries in the vicinity. It is generally assumed that marble artefacts7 were imported from 2 Given the close relationships of Ravenna with Constantinople, the capital of the East, especially in the 5th and 6th centuries, the Ravennate art was also influenced by the Eastern koiné. As Ward- -Perkins affirms, ‘there is no doubt that by the later 5th century it was Constantinople, not any western centre, that was the style-leader’ (Ward-Perkins 2000, 73). It was F. W. Deichmann who supported the hypothesis of close artistic relationships between Ravenna and Constantinople when he found close analogies to the Ravennate columnar sarcophagi (sarcophagus of Liberius III and ‘anicchie’ sarcophagus), located in the S. Francesco basilica in Ravenna in afragmentary columnar sarcophagus in the Archaeological Museum in Istanbul. e Istanbul fragment (cat. no. 5639), found in 1959 in the Topkapi Saray, is dated to the 4 th century (Firatli 1990, 48) and bears the architectural decoration of apillar with the composite capital ‘alira’ and ashell niche similar to that of the sarcophagus of LiberiusIII. Deichmann presupposed the close collaboration of Eastern and Ravennate artists as early as at the end of the 4th century and especially in the first half of the 5th century (cf. Deichmann 1969; 1974; 1982a; 1982b; 1995). Close parallels between the Ravennate and Constantinopolitan sculptural art were demonstrated also by G. Bovini (Bovini 1968) or Martinelli (Martinelli 1992, 159–176). Deichmann’scontribution was really aturning point because until his discovery, the columnar sarcophagi were primarily considered to be aWestern (Ravennate) ‘specialty’ (cf. Farioli 1977a, 720, note 9). Some years later, M. Lawrence also presented the possibility of apossible microasiatic origin of columnar (niche) sarcophagi (Lawrence 1970). 3At the end of the 4 th century the relations between Constantinople, the eastern centres of Asia Minor and the island of Proconnesos were particularly revived (Kollwitz 1956a; Koch 1998, 439–478). Constantinople became afavourite destination for many artists from the East (Asia Minor), and its artistic production grew rapidly by exporting marble products and sarcophagi to the West, so Constantinople played the role of amediator of the Eastern art and is oÁen considered as acentre of its distribution in the western regions. Farioli considered the role of Costantinople as a‘filter’ of stylistic influences from Asia Minor to the West (Farioli 1983, 205–253). We can find many stylistic and iconographic analogies to Constantinopolitan art of the 5th and 6th centuries on typical relief slabs decorated with circle ornaments (e.g. atypical trinus group with two crosses on either side of around monogram, widespread mainly in the 6th century on plutei) or some types of capitals (e.g. ‘capitello imposta’) in Ravenna. 4 Cirelli 2008, 29–30; Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 49, 52–53. 5 Many lithotypes extracted during Late Antiquity in quite distant quarries in the Mediterranean basin (Asia Minor, Greece, North Africa), but also in smaller quantities in Spain and north Italy have been identified among stone artefacts from the ecclesiastical complex of San Severo in the vicinity of the port of Classe (Tůmová 2013, 256; Tůmová– Cirelli 2019, 57, fig. 2). AÁer all, the extensive radius of these commercial contacts correlates with what was claimed already in the 1980s by Ward-Perkins in relation to the Proconnesian sarcophagi: ‘the importing centre (which was also aworkshop) was not Aquileia, but Ravenna’ (Ward-Perkins 1980, 329). 6By the term ‘marbles’ we mean different types of stone used in Antiquity, as is customary in archae - ologically (not at all in geologically) oriented scientific literature. e term ‘marbles’ is intended, both in ancient sources and in archaeological terminology as well, to refer to all polishable, decorative stones. 7 Ravennate sarcophagi and architectonic elements in Ravennate basilicas such as columns, bases, capitals, ambo or relief slabs of the apse enclosures.
57HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI Fig. 1: Location map of the city of Ravenna (Emilia– Romagna, Italy); the red arrow indicates the position of Classe (ancient Civitas Classis); Map by Helena Tůmová. Fig. 2: Map of the provenance of marble and other stones from the basilica of the San Severo site in Classe. 1– Ravenna, Italy; 2– Monti Lessini, Verona, Italy; 3– St. Girons, France; 4– Chemtou, Tunisia; 5– Larissa, essaly, Greece; 6– Krokees (Levetsova), Sparta, Greece; 7– Eretria, Euboea, Greece; 8– Karystos, Euboea, Greece; 9– Marmara Adasi (Prokonnesos), Turkey; 10– Vezirhan, Turkey; 11– Iscehisar, Turkey; 12– Sigacik (Izmir), Turkey; 13– Güllük, Turkey; 14– Lombard Alps, Italy, 15– Gebel Dokhan, Eastern Desert, Egypt (a¢er Tůmová 2013, 233, fig. 258, basemap: Esri).
58 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 the East (esp. Asia Minor, Constantinople) in Late Antiquity. Particularly in the 6th century, during the reign of Justinian and especially before the Gothic War (AD 535–554), many eastern influences, workshops, and materials came to the territory of present-day Italy, starting from Rome to the north Adriatic cities of Ravenna, Grado, and Aquileia.8 ‘Marbles’ and their import to Ravenna in Antiquity is still alively topic.9 CraÁ influences must have reached Ravenna directly from quarry workshops, as their existence is aested in many ancient quarries, the Proconnesian marble (which is considered the most widespread white marble in the Ravenna region, as already mentioned) quarries not excluded. 10 In the Ravennate Christian basilicas, built in the period of the greatest construction development in the 5th and 6th centuries (as shown in Graph 1), many architectonic elements were identified that are supposed to be imported from the Proconnesian workshops.11 Some marble products, such as sarcophagi (Fig. 3),12 were imported to the Adriatic region as prefabricated (‘semi-worked’) artefacts, and then finalized in loco. e fact that the marble was worked– at least roughly– already in the quarry is nothing new, as we also see in many 8 Many architectural elements in Christian basilicas in the north Adriatic region are supposed to be from the Proconnesian marble (Pensabene– Barsanti 2008, 455–490; for Ravenna see Rizzardi 2016, 192, 196). As can also be seen from the study of the stone (marble) cargos of ancient shipwrecks in the Mediterranean, one of the peak periods of imports of goods from the East was during the 6th century (Russell 2013a, 348, fig. 5). e peak of imports of (presumably Proconnesian) marble also in Ravenna correlates with this tendency (Rizzardi 2016, 192, 196). For an approximate overview of the quantity of imported material (marble), especially on the basis of an estimation according to the preserved architectonic elements and decoration see Harper 1997, 131–148. 9 For an overview see: Baldini etal. 2019, 90–97; Porta– Degli Esposti 2019, 98–105. 10 ese workshops generally produced mainly prefabricated elements such as sarcophagi and architectonic elements destined for export, and probably also craÁsmen travelled together with their products to complete their work at the final destination (cf. Guidobaldi 2002, 1479–1524; Sodini 2002, 129–146; Pensabene– Barsanti 2008, 455–490). e Proconnesian workshops produced mainly architectonical elements such as capitals that were exported to many Mediterranean regions, also to northern Italy. e importance and long productive period of the Proconnesian workshops was conditioned by the lower cost of the Proconnesian marble, compared to other marbles, and by the interruption of the activity of the main quarries in Asia Minor (Aphrodisias, Ephesos) in that period (Kollwitz 1956a). 11 Regarding the provenance of white marbles preserved in the Ravennate basilicas of the 5th and 6th centuries (column shaÁs, capitals, bases, ambo, relief panels, sarcophagi, wall revetment), their provenance from Proconnesos is oÁen mentioned in the scientific literature or they are identified simply as a‘Greek marble’, based on macroscopic studies (cf. Farioli 1969; Martinelli 1968; Zucchini– Bucci 1968). Farioli indicates an aestation of marble importation in Ravenna which is the fragmented slab (pluteum) in the National Museum in Ravenna bearing asignature of aGreek, probably Proconnesian, workshop (Farioli 1983). e presence of Proconnesian marble in Ravenna is reported by aRavennate protohistorian of the first half of the 9th century, Andreas Agnellus, in his Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis. Agnellus mentions Proconnesian marble (marmor proconnisus) in his descriptions of Ravennate buildings. Agnellus mentions the marble walls from the Proconnesian marble in the monasterium, founded by the Bishop Petrus II during his episcopate in AD 494–520 (LPR L). In the Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis there are other notes relating to the Proconnesian marble, such as the marble columns in the St. Andrew basilica (LPRLXXVI), amarble sarcophagus in the St. James oratorium near the basilica Petriana (LPR XXVI). Cf. also Guidobaldi 2002, 1479–1524. 12 As we see on many unfinished sarcophagi in the north Adriatic, for example sarcophagi in the garden of the San Vitale basilica in Ravenna (Fig. 3); the sarcophagus of Vibius Protus from the second half of the 3rd century (Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 29); on numerous architectonic elements (column shaÁs, for example), leÁ at the quarries (Ward-Perkins 1980, 328), or on marble cargos
59HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI examples of abandoned, roughly worked marble elements directly in Mediterranean quarries.13 is practice presupposes the existence of both production and storage facilities. e importation of prefabricated, partially worked elements facilitated transport and reduced costs.14 e mobility of both craÁsmen and products15 encouraged local workshops to develop themselves as is apparent in the case of Ravenna where the local production, imitating foreign models, is aested in Late Antiquity.16 Cassiodorus informs us indirectly of the marble circulation, specifically of asupply of marble sarcophagi in Ravenna in his VariaeEpistulae (Leers) where he mentions aconcession of the right of furnishing ‘the marble chests’ in Ravenna (the question is, if this could also mean their import), granted by the Ostrogothic King eodoric to acertain Daniel, amarble worker responsible for ‘preparing and ornamenting marbles’.17 e minimization of transport, production, and purchase costs were undoubtedly one of the decisive factors also for the re-use of construction (stone) material and sarcophagi. 18 Much of the reused material could have been procured from abandoned buildings around Classe and Ravenna: this practice has accompanied the conurbation of Ravenna, Caesarea, and Classe (Fig. 4) throughout its whole existence.19 Many uninhabited, abandoned buildings remained from ancient shipwrecks (e.g. pre-fabricated sarcophagi from the San Pietro wreck, see Ward- -Perkins– Throckmorton 1965, 201–209). 13 Unfinished column shaÁs had been abandoned in situ, for example, in one of the quarries of cipollino Tenario in Mianes on the Mani peninsula (Bruno 2002, 22, figs. 6–8); prefabricated architectonic elements were found in many ancient quarries on the island of Proconnesos (Asgari 1978, 467–480; Asgari 1988, 115–125; Asgari 1992, 73–80). Toma considers the main commodity during the Imperial era, which belongs to the category of ‘semi-fabricated pieces’, to be column shaÁs (Toma 2018, 167; see also Maischberger 1999, 325–334). J.-P.Adam believes that marble processing and stoneworking took place both at the quarry workshops, at the deposits, and at the construction sites of the final destinations, given the finds of marble elements at various stages of processing, from the phase of rough stoneworking to the final finishing (cf. Adam 1999, 21–87). 14 See Ward-Perkins 1980, 328. e practice of semi-worked pieces was utilised at many quarries and workshops. Aic sarcophagi, for example, were imported as prefabricated and then finalised at the destination. e Proconnesian sarcophagi, were mainly finalised at the local workshop, so they were cost competitive (cf. Ferrari 1966). 15 e artist mobility allowed for the expansion of local artistic styles and also for the general artistic koiné. For an overview and discussion on the mobility of craÁsmen (‘construction companies’ versus ‘overseas agencies’ versus ‘workshops’) see Toma 2018, 182. 16 We can see this phenomenon on the production of Christian sarcophagi and architectural decoration. We can suppose that the local Ravennate production grew significantly from the beginning of the 5th century as aconsequence of the transfer of the imperial court in 402 (which also signified the arrival of Imperial and aristocratic investments in the city). It is obvious that also many artists of the imperial workshops came hand in hand with the imperial court (cf. Kollwitz 1956b, 55–59). As is well known from recent archaeological research, also some types of poery produced in local workshops were imitated on the basis of imported poery, mainly from the eastern regions (Microasiatic and the Aegean) or from North Africa (Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 47–54). See also Rizzardi 2016, 191 and Cosentino 2020. 17 Cassiodorus, Variae III,19. 18 As aresult of the general crisis of the empire in the 3rd century, the practice of reusing sarcophagi had spread from the middle of the 4th century (Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 29). 19 Cf. Augentietal. 2007b, 257–295; Cirelli 2011, 209–218; Fiorini 2007, 32–34; Tůmová 2013, 254–257. e presence of spolia in the Ravennate architecture represents atypical example of afairly widespread and characterizing phenomenon of the reuse of ancient material in the Late Antique and early Medieval building activity (for adetailed study of the Ravennate spolia see Tůmová– Cirelli 2019, 55–78, esp. 60–61, 73).
60 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 in the area of Classe especially starting from the 8th and 9th centuries,20 when the city with its port area gradually lost its productive, commercial, and economic prosperity.21 It is clear that both economic power and demand consequently diminished and potential stocks of stored stone material (marble, prefabricated products) were most likely used. 20 Cf. Laszlovszky 2007, 14. 21 Augentietal. 2007a, 170; Cosentino 2016, 133–149. Graph 1: Abar chart of the Ravennate basilicas constructed from the 4th to the 7th century (according to Cirelli 2007, 314). Fig. 3: An unfinished, prefabricated sarcophagus destinated to be finalised in accordance to the specific demand of the client relating to the decoration of both sides flanking the central tabula ansata, inscriptions and side panels and the back of sarcophagus, now in the garden of the basilica of S. Vitale in Ravenna. Photo by H. Tůmová.
61HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI REASSESSMENT OF THE PORT AREA OF CLASSE AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE e city of Classe (civitas Classis) with its inner port was part of the Ravennate conurbation and served also as ahinterland of the Ravennate region and an important commercial and production centre, but was also adifferent city with its own population and identity.22 Ravenna with its city-port of Classis played an important role in the importation and storage of goods 22 Civitas Classis represented an important centre of local– regional and interregional– and long- -distance trade, distribution of goods and production until the 7th century (Cirelli 2008, 27–29; for an overview of its urban development see Augenti 2011, 20–42). In the northern part of the civitas, where the canal connecting the inner lagoon of the port with the sea flowed, the small island with the productive areas was located (cf. Augenti 2011, 23; Pensabene– Barsanti 2008, 455–490; Farioli 1977a, 717–739; Cirelli 2008, 27–28; for the imperial port of Classe see also Deliyannis 2010, 26–31; description of the port of Classe in Late Antiquity cf. Luciano 2019, 26, 50–52). Fig. 4: Topographic diagram of the conurbation of Ravenna, Caesarea, and Classe depicting the coastline in Late Antiquity. Map by Enrico Cirelli.
62 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 and their redistribution to the wider hinterland;23 and at the same time it made use of the supply capacities of several large rural estates, the so-called villae rusticae, such as villa rustica in Russi (Fig. 5), located about 20 km from Ravenna. is role of Ravenna was strengthened by an artificially constructed canal Fossa Augusta that connected the city with the River Po, which represented the connecting, crucial axis throughout the whole province of Aemilia.24 We can classify Classe among the most important ports, which participated in long distance trade in the late ancient Mediterranean, such as Caesarea, Carthage, Constantinople, Ostia and Portus,25 as well as Marseille.26 e importance of this city-port can be perceived from the Late Antique mosaic in the main nave of the basilica San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, founded by the Ostrogothic king eodoric and depicting on one side the palatium, and on the opposite wall the famous ships of Classe (Fig. 6). As we know from the testimonies of ancient authors and from the archaeological evidence as well, the seaport of Classe was not the only port in the Ravenna region. Andreas Agnellus informs us in his Liber pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis about several ports in the conurbation of Ravenna. However, it is not clear whether the author himself faithfully took the information from previous sources, or whether he described the sites as he could see them, even partially, 23 Cf. Guidobaldi 2002, 1479–1524. To understand the mechanisms of redistribution also in the Ravennate area, the hypothesis of S. Keay regarding the storage and redistribution capacities in Portus and Ostia is very interesting: ahuge storage capacity in Portus could serve both for supplying the population of Ostia, Rome, and of the hinterland, and for the re-distribution of goods in the hinterland and via shipping in other Mediterranean centres (Keay 2022, 108). 24 Besides this main channel, trade towards the hinterland was mostly done through river routes and canals which also crossed the city of Ravenna. 25 e ancient port of Portus, north of Ostia, has been the subject of archaeological research for many decades. Along-term research initiative ‘Portus Project’ of the Universtiy of Southampton is currently yielding significant results: for alist of relevant bibliography, see hps://www.portusproject.org/outputs/ [cit. 10.6.2022]. For studies relating Ostia and Portus see Descoeudres ed. 2001; Keay 2022, 92–113 (for Portus Project esp. 92, 98, 100); Kockel 2001, 1246–1253; Luciano 2019, 13–16; Pensabene 2001, 201–302. 26 Bonifay– Carre– Rigoir 1998; Bonifay 2004. For other Mediterranean ports cf. also Carre– Excoffon 2021. Fig. 5: Remains of the villa rustica in the archaeological site in Russi, Italy. Photo by H. Tůmová.
63HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI in the first half of the 9th century. Agnellus also mentions other ‘entrances’ and strategic port places located along the coast starting from the River Savio.27 However, we can assume that these were rather smaller ports, as we know them from Antiquity along the Adriatic coast of present-day Italy. Nevertheless, the important military port of Augustus was most likely located inside Ravenna.28 is port was established in the Julio–Claudian period as the seat of the imperial fleet (classis) and assumed its strategic role in the imperial administration and 27 For example, Agnellus describes the portus Lionis and locates it as ‘sixth mile from Ravenna’ (LPR XX,39: ‘…in Porte Lione, ubi postea palatium modicum haedificare iussit in insula, non longe alitore maris, ubi nunc monasterio sanctae Mariae esse videtur, infra balneum, non longe ab Ravenna miliario6.’). According to Fabbi and Novara is must have been located on via Popilia, to the north of Ravenna (Fabbi– Novara 2003, 623–630). 28 Its precise location, however, remains uncertain. It could probably have been located at ca. 5 km southeast of the ancient city. However, we must realize that Ravenna was right by the sea in Late Antiquity. Topographical and geomorphological circumstances changed during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages: subsidence, sediments (alluvial deposits) from rivers, flowing through this area from the Apennines, caused the gradual clogging of the ports and shiÁing of the coastline. e Late Antique landscape dissapeared (cf. Augenti– Boschi 2013, 4, fig. 3: Traces of the ancient coastal dunes in the modern landscape from aerial survey; see also Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 21). For the geomorphology of the region see Boschi 2011a, 65–74. Fig. 6: Mosaic in the main nave of the San Apollinare Nuovo basilica in Ravenna with arepresentation of the port of Classe. Photo by H. Tůmová.
70 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Graph 6: Provenance of poÇery finds from the port area of Podere Chiavichea in Classe. Fig. 8: Comparison of the provenance of poÇery found at Podere Chiavichea in Classe (in black) and stone material from the basilica of San Severo site in Classe (in grey). Dimensions of coloured circles correspond to the quantity. A¢er Tůmová 2013, 235, fig. 260; Basemap: Esri. the 6th century ceramic imports prevailed from the production centres of North Africa, from the middle of the 6th century oriental imports prevailed.58 Based on what has been mentioned above we can assume that commercial contacts with many centres of the eastern and central Mediterranean, and North Africa have been maintained 58 Cf. Augenti 2010, 150; Augenti 2011, 26; Cirelli 2014, 541–552; Cirelli 2019, 14–15. Cf. Savini 2011b, esp. 246, graph 5.4.3.6.
71HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI through the seaport in Classe.59 It is highly probable that marbles and other stone artefacts were also transported through the same trade routes.60 As regards the provenance of marbles and other stone material found at the site of the basilica of San Severo in Classe, dated to the 6th century; an eastern provenance definitely prevails: Asia Minor (mainly the quarries on the western coast of present-day Turkey, and Proconnesos), in second place North Africa (present-day Tunisia and Egypt); followed by Greece, Italy, and southern France. However, no lithotype from the Syrian-Palestinian region was identified within the examined stone material. As we can see from the provenance comparison of poery finds and stone material, in most cases their origin, and thus also trade routes, almost crossed (Fig. 8). Acomparison of stone and ceramic artefacts in Classe shows and confirms the hypothesis that the commercial relations of Ravenna in Late Antiquity were focused mainly on the eastern and southern Mediterranean.61 MARBLE SUPPLY AND THE QUESTION OF DEPOSITIO MARMORUM IN THE PORT OF CLASSE As already mentioned, the Ravenna region experienced aperiod of great building activity from the beginning of the 5th century. It would be logical that the demand for marble in Ravenna in this period, both for construction projects in the city and for further trade in the hinterland, required the availability of marble deposits, whether temporary or permanent.62 e question we have to ask ourselves is the possible existence of astorage (‘yards’) system of stone (marble) in the Ravennate conurbation, similar to the existence of warehouses which is assumed or documented in other city-ports and in larger coastal cities, oÁen in the vicinity of their ports.63 Marble warehouses, oÁen aested in the Roman world, presupposed awell- -organized and developed system of interregional exchange. 64 ey, of course, existed also near the quarries, from where the marble products were further distributed– sometimes via other trans-shipment points– to the final destination.65 Large marble storage facilities had to 59 Cf. Tůmová 2013, 204–209. For the ceramics network between East and West see Vroom 2017, 285–310, esp. 295–296. 60 Cf. Zanini 1994, 132–134. 61 Tůmová 2013, 269. Cristo 1975, 17: ‘Ravenna in the fiÁh century was thus at once an emporium of Oriental trade like Marseilles in Gaul…’. 62 Apresumption of J. P.Sodini should be mentioned in this context, concerning the presumed use of marble for the furnishing of the basilica in Parenzo, ordered by the Bishop Euphrasius directly from the Ravenna or Classe marble deposits. Based on the opinions of E. Russo and A. Terry (Terry 1986, 147–164), Sodini assumes the existence of such deposits of marble (statio marmorum) as an ‘organized centre for the collection of imported marble’ also in Ravenna or Classe (Sodini 2002, 133–135, note 20, see also Pensabene– Barsanti 2008, 455–490). 63 As Aanasio admits, deposits were always in the capital but probably also in other large cities (Attanasio 2003, 21). 64 Marble deposits assembled marbles imported from quarries. ese warehouses oÁen belonged to the imperial fiscus, and they had been managed and directed by an imperial official (redemptor or dispensator) who directed the distribution of marbles (in rough blocks and/or semi-finished pieces), intended for imperial, public (ratio urbica) or private demand (Pensabene– Barsanti 2008, 455–490). Cf. also Karagiorgou 2001, 171–187; Ward-Perkins 1980, 325–338; for an overview of the marble supply and extraction in Late Antiquity see Tůmová 2013, 38–51. 65 In some cases the marble was sold locally and delivered directly to the final destination; in the case of more precious varieties, they were oÁen sent to Rome to be sold and then sent to the final
72 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 contain enormous quantities of the material.66 On the other hand, monumental (monolithic) architectonic elements (especially column shaÁs) e.g., for various Christian basilicas, had to be imported directly ‘on request’ from the quarry. In the case of Classe, recent archaeological excavations revealed structures of storage warehouses in its port area.67 Asystem of canals and waterways was identified thanks to recent geophysical and aerial surveys based also on acomparison with historical aerial photographs.68 Also, amain channel connecting the port basin with the Adriatic Sea was discovered by means of the geophysical and geomagnetic surveys as we can observe its visible traces near the port district of Podere Chiavichea, as aresult of geomagnetic and geophysical evidence.69 e recent discovery of archaeological remains in the area of Podere Chiavichea has shown aregular network of port warehouses and production facilities, mainly poery and glass production,70 situated along the canal, on its southern side.71 However, no traces of marble warehouses have been found in this area so far. If we assume the existence of awarehouse (or rather a‘marble yard’, as is oÁen mentioned in the scientific literature) for stone/marble products (whether imported or, for example, collected as material for re-use), 72 we should suppose its location to be in the port area of Classe, whereas the Fossa Augusta canal, which connected Ravenna with the Po, was already buried within the city by the 4th century, so that all production and storage facilities were concentrated at the port of Classe and along the canal connecting the port to the sea.73 destination (Attanasio 2003, 20–21). 66 Aanasio assumed that even aÁer the reopening of some marble quarries, e.g. that of Carrara at the end of the 12th or at the beginning of the 13th century, the marble deposit in Rome still represented arelevant competitor to the new production of marble (Attanasio 2003, 165–170). 67 Archaeological excavations at the site of the late ancient and Byzantine port area in Classe (modern Podere Chiavichea: ‘Quartiere A’) began in 1974, but it continued in the following decades, until recently (Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 40). For an overview of the archaeological activities in Classe see Augenti 2011, 15–20. e archaeological research of the port facilities and of the hinterland is unfortunately aggravated by geomorphological circumstances, such as subsidence; stratigraphy of Late Antique archaeological remains that lie at adepth of about 2.2 m; high groundwater level; unfavourable clay soil aggravating geophysical and magnetic prospection and large changes to the landscape: especially alarge diffusion of urbanized areas and intensive agriculture (cf. Augenti– Boschi 2013, 12). 68 Augenti– Boschi 2013, 1–16; Boschi 2012, 220–224. 69 Augenti– Boschi 2013, 12–13, fig. 12. Boschi supposes the channel was about 50 m wide in its widest part inside the port (Boschi 2012, 222, 229, for geomagnetic evidence of the channel see Boschi 2012, 251, tav. 2:29). e average channel width of ca. 50 m is– based on archaeological research– also mentioned in Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 37. 70 Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 44–46. 71 Due to asubsidence effect, many port warehouses had to be renovated as early as in Late Antiquity, around the middle of the 6th century (Augentietal. 2011, 108; Boschi 2012, 220). For those series of warehouses along the channel and arranged at least in two rows see also Augenti 2011, 26. 72 Archaeological evidence of ancient shipwrecks testifies to the transport of spolia– marbles destined for re-use– in Antiquity and also in the Middle Ages, as we see for example in the cargos from the Salakta shipwreck, where the material (white marble blocks, architectonic elements) dated to 195–220 was transported together with the material from alater period; in the cargo from the Kizilburun 2 shipwreck where marble dated to the 5th–6th centuries was transported together with amphorae dated to the 10th century; or in the cargo from the Şile shipwreck where architectonic elements ‘typically dated to the early 2 nd c. AD but the sarcophagus is later’. Asimilar situation occurs in the cargo from the shipwreck in Lixouri (Russell 2013a, 334, 338–339, 341). 73 Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 30.
73HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI Moreover, in the case of re-used stone artefacts (especially of white marble)74 from alater period, we cannot establish with certainty whether they have been reused as spolia75 coming from ancient abandoned buildings in the vicinity of Ravenna and Classe, or if the stone material (e.g., rough blocks, semi-finished artefacts of marble imported in Late Antiquity) could have been used from aport storehouse, whose hypothetical existence in Ravenna or Classe has not yet been archaeologically proven.76 In terms of re-use, especially in the 7th century, due to the progressive decline in overseas trade, it was acommon practice to use available material from abandoned buildings and structures in the area. It is therefore obvious that if the stone material (especially marble), stored hypothetically in the port warehouse, was still available at that time, it must certainly have been used as well, as also happened in the case of Rome, where the ancient deposits served as a‘quarry’ until the 19th century.77 Especially in the Christian Late Antique architecture (basilicae) we very oÁen encounter the use of spolia, whether for apurely pragmatic reason (as arough construction material) or implying an ideological message.78 In the Ravennate Late Antique architecture, we meet both forms of the common use of spolia and also the employment of marble à la demande. 79 As regards the import of marble à la demande, we have extraordinary examples from Ravenna and Classe (Fig. 9), particularly architectonic elements (columns, capitals), ornatus basilicae (altars, ambons, cancelli) or funerary sculpture (sarcophagi).80 Nevertheless, marble for the Ravennate architecture means asign of luxury, which suitably complements and at the same time contrasts with the brick buildings representing the intention of apowerful client: imperial or ecclesiastical fiscus.81 74 As shown by adetailed analysis of the stone artefacts in the basilica at San Severo, metamorphic rocks– marbles– prevail (63%), of which 96% are white marbles (Tůmová 2013, 96). 75 e largest use of white marble in the case of the San Severo complex was found in the 12th–14th centuries (Tůmová 2013, 64). 76 We should consider that the potential marble storage could take place under the open sky, i.e. it did not require acovered space. On the other hand, it had certainly greater space requirements than, e.g., apoery warehouse. 77 We would like to express our gratitude to prof.Patrizio Pensabene for much precious information regarding the transport of marble in Ostia, Portus, and Rome. 78 Tůmová– Cirelli 2019, 55–78. For various meanings of the employment of re-used materials in Rome see Pensabene 2017, 175–231, esp. 177–178, 189–191. 79 However, based on the importance of the port of Classe and on its indisputable commercial activity linked to marble, the importation of the entire ornatus basilicae, worked or partially-worked (prefabricated) marble artefacts such as sarcophagi, columns, bases, etc., its existence is the subject of lively discussion (Cf. Tůmová 2013, 215–235). 80 To name the most significant: huge monolithic column shaÁs of white-grey marble, ‘afarfalla’ (or ‘afoglie d’acanto mosse dal vento’) capitals and bases in the basilica of San Apollinare in Classe; columns, bases and capitals in the basilica of San Vitale, both basilicae dating back to the 6th century; homogeneous series of capitals (‘alira’) and pulvini in the San Giovanni Evangelista basilica, in the basilica Apostolorum, in the cappella palatina of eodoric, modern San Apollinare Nuovo; composite capitals ‘afoglie d’acanto mosse dal vento’ from the Ecclesia Gothorum (cf. Rizzardi 2016, 191–197; see also Greenhalgh 2009, 79). 81 In addition, we must distinguish between the mode of transport of ‘utility’ artefacts, i.e. awell distributed circulation of semiworked pieces, as we have already seen in the example of the Ravennate sarcophagi, and monumental and/or monolithic architectural elements, such as monolith column shaÁs, huge capitals, stone blocks, destinated for slab cuing and weighing several tonnes and ordered à la demande. However, in asimilar way, also semiworked smaller (but monolithic) column shaÁs or capitals were transported, as we can see from examples in the Museum of Marbles in Ostia or from the results of Asgari’smasterful research of semiworked architectonic pieces abandoned
74 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 One of the reasons why the existence of the port warehouse for stone artefacts has not yet been archaeologically proven, is the significant practice of re-use (spoliatio) of construction material in the Ravennate area, which occurred over many centuries (and to this must be added its logistical isolation in later periods). is makes it virtually impossible to expect (given the total estimated quantity of imported stone/marble artefacts) to find residual blocks of marble or prefabricated shaÁs, capitals, and bases, as– for example– in the case of Rome or Ostia and Portus. 82 We must also not forget the later interest of Charlemagne in the ancient monuments in Ravenna, especially marble artefacts, and his effort to take as many masterpieces to the centre of his empire of Regnum Francorum, Aachen, as possible.83 e hypothesis of the existence of astorehouse for marble blocks and stone artefacts in Ravenna or Classe seems to be supported by the toponym of the hypothetical basilica of S. Giovanni (Baista) in Marmorato near the Coriandro port in Ravenna, outside the Anastasia Gate84– where one of the warehouses for the storage of stone and marble similar to statio marmorum (Marmorata) and other marble yards in Rome could perhaps have been located. However, the question arises as to whether acomparison of the marble circulation mechanism in Ravenna as in the ancient quarries of Proconnesos (Asgari 1978, 467–480; Asgari 1988, 115–125; Asgari 1992, 73–80). Moreover, some reused artefacts were newly carved, as Pensabene points out in the example of capitals in Roman Christian basilicas, esp. those from the 5th century (Pensabene 2017, 190–191). For the issue of reused artefacts in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages in Rome and North Africa see Altekampetal. 2017. 82 Not even the funeral stelai of classiarii were spared secondary use, so for many of them we have no idea of their original location. Also, many structures in the port district of modern Podere Chiavichea, as evidenced by archaeological research, were demolished and dismantled to the foundations in the 7th and 8th centuries and the material was reused for other constructions (Maioli– Stoppioni 1987, 27, 35). 83 As it was granted to him by the Pope Hadrian Iin aleer dated to the year of his visit to Ravenna, 787 (Deliyannis 2003, 173). Agnellus, LPR XXXVI, CXIII cf. Tůmová 2013, 252–253. 84 Cirelli 2008, 103. Rizzardi mentions the location of the San Giovanni Baista basilica, consecrated by the Archbishop Maximianus from Pula in front of the Guarcinorum gate (modern Porta Serrata) near the San Vitale basilica and denominated ad Marmorata (Rizzardi 2016, 199). Fig. 9: Monolithic marble columns, bases, and capitals ‘afoglie d’acanto mosse dal vento’ in the basilica of San Apollinare in Classe (Ravenna). Photo by H. Tůmová.
75HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI sedes imperii with Rome, and its hinterland in Ostia and Portus is relevant.85 We can refer above all to the case of the ancient harbours of Ostia and especially Portus with its marble deposits86 from where the marbles were further transported along the Tiber to other marble yards in Rome, in the area called Marmorata under the Aventine hill (Fig. 10)87 which was used for the storage of an enormous quantity of marble:88 Marble (and other stone) reserves were still available here in the 19th century.89 Cases of reworking of semi-finished but damaged marble elements (e.g. damaged column shaÁs), destined for different purposes are also known from the statio marmorum, as can be seen in the open air Archaeological Museum of Ostia antica (Fig. 11).90 Adetailed overview of warehouses or ‘marble yards’ in Rome has recently been given by M. Maischberger, who considers various storage places in Rome: among the largest and most important from the early Imperial era was Emporium, southwest of the Aventine (where the greatest quantity of stone material was discovered and where statio marmorum was probably located), the zone on Campus Martius, where anumber of dispersed marbles was found, and the area of the maritime harbour of Portus, in the north of Ostia.91 When we consider whether and how the eventual storages for stone (marble) material in Classe and Ravenna could function, we should not neglect the diversity of examples in Rome itself and its surroundings (Portus, Ostia). Firstly, it should be noted that in Rome itself, marble reserves were not concentrated in asingle location, but their distribution depended on logistic demands and on the transport of huge marble elements through narrow streets to the construction sites. ey were scaered along the banks of the Tiber, with the fact that the largest trans-shipment points included the Emporium (Marmorata) and the zone at Campus Martius. Unlike Rome, the warehouse in Portus was located on the periphery (where the marble yards were situated in adensely urbanized area):92 Marble artefacts were found along the 85 We have to ask this question especially with regard to the latest knowledge about the actual (predicted) size of storage capacities in Ostia and Portus that in total encompassed almost 6 hectares (for exact dimensions see Keay 2022, 107). It is also necessary to point out that we are not comparing the conurbation of Ravenna with the city of Rome in quantitative or territorial terms: the Ravennate conurbation, in terms of its surface, should rather be compared with other important Late Antique cities such as Augusta Treverorum, Carthage or Mediolanum (cf. Augenti 2011, 24–25; Ward-Perkins 2000, 67, fig. 2), but in terms of the functioning of the transport system, redistribution, and marble supply. 86 As was mentioned– though rarely– on the ancient inscriptions (Maischberger 1999, 325). 87 Antique Marmorata should be located near the Tiber River, probably where the modern via Marmorata passes. Subsequently amarble deposit near the harbour of Portus developed (Attanasio 2003, 21). See also Ward-Perkins 1980, 327 who locates the Marmorata quarter between the Aventine and Monte Testaccio in Rome. 88 Asimilar system of storage, stockpiling, and transport from the ports to the marble workshops is generally assumed also in other large distribution and commercial cities and ports in the ancient Mediterranean: Alexandria, Antioch, Athens, Caesarea, Carthage, Ephesus, etc., where in most cases, however, we do not have direct evidence. e deposit similar to that of Marmorata in Rome, however, is not aested in the capital of Constantinople (Sodini 2002, 134–135). 89 As they had been studied by Luigi Maria Bruzza in the 19th century (Bruzza 1870; see Attanasio 2003, 21; Pensabene 2007, 389, 392; cf. Tůmová 2013, 58). Corsi described the traces of the ancient warehouse: ‘(…) presso l’estremità dell’Aventino nel luogo deo la marmorata vi sono ancora le rovine circolari de’ magazzini, e gli avanzi della vasta dogana’ (Corsi 1833, 30; see also Marchei– Pettinau 1998, 117–128). 90 Pensabene 1998, 333–390. 91 Maischberger 1999, 325, 328. For Ostia, Portus and its statio marmorum see Keay 2022, 92–113. 92 Cf. Maischberger 1999, 325–334, esp. 330 where he presents the logical reasons for the establisment of the marble yards in Portus, when the capacity of storages at the Emporium was probably insufficient due to the increasing marble demand under the reign of Domitian.
76 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Fig. 10: Marble column sha¢s and semi-worked marble blocks in the supposed statio marmorum, now in the open-air museum of Parco archeologico di Ostia antica. Photo by H. Tůmová. Fig. 11: Method of interventions and repairs of ancient stonemasons into the sha¢s of the columns le¢ in the statio marmorum from the Ostia/Portus area, now in the open-air museum of Parco archeologico di Ostia antica. Photo by H. Tůmová.
77HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI southern bank of the Fiumicino canal (the so-called Fossa Traiana), linking the Tiber with the Tyrrhenian Sea, in the north-east part (‘Capo due rami’) of the Isola sacra.93 In this respect, moreover, we must not forget that the way and topography of marble storages in Rome and its ‘economic background’ (Ostia, Portus) depended on the specific situation of marble supply in each period: in the time of the largest demande (early Imperial period, especially from the reign of Domitian on), the marble supply of Rome increased significantly, and it made sense to create an adequate storage capacity for marbles, quarried and traded under the state monopoly. 94 Also the marble yard is considered controlled and managed by the state administration. e quantity and quality of the preserved stone artefacts in the assumed marble yards and supposed workshops in Rome varies so much that it provokes lively debate about the existence itself of these warehouses and stationes. So, there are different views on the marble storage system, stockpiling, and ‘mass’ production in general.95 e views on the existence of marble yards, or more precisely of the production ‘to-stock’ (P.Pensabene, J. Ward Perkins)96 are amended by opinions of persisting quarrying to order also in Late Antiquity.97 e non-existence of marble yards (e.g. in Ostia or more specifically Portus) is justified as there are only afew marble remains (which are considered ‘scraps of damaged pieces’) of the volume that had to be imported to Rome. However, as is generally assumed– and as also follows logically– there must have been aplace (trans-shipment point) inside the port where the material was stored before it was further transported or trans-shipped to the city or to the hinterland. It is logical that astonemason’sworkshop had to operate there, which dealt with the repair of damaged pieces: and those that could no longer be repaired were leÁ in place. We should also assume that certain losses during transport were expected and the material was ordered with acertain margin or rather reserve. Some reasonable synthesis follows from Sahotsky’sdescription, where he believes smaller marble elements (‘finishing marbles’) employed for revetments or pavements in the construction of the Maxentius basilica in Rome could probably be used from adepositio of Emporium, from ‘the largest stockpile of marble in Rome’, while the eight huge monolith columns had to be delivered à la demande, in aspecific order.98 So it seems that– as usual– the truth will be ‘somewhere in between’. In the case of Ravenna, we should consider mostly the situation that occurred from the beginning of the 5th century onwards, when the city became the sedes imperii. As we have already seen, the city experienced increased construction activity for two centuries. It is not excluded that the mechanism for marble storage, aÁer it had been unloaded from the ship, was similar to what we encounter in the zone of Campus Martius and along the banks of the Tiber in Rome, namely the existence of individual partial places (or temporary warehouses) that best suited 93 Germoni etal. 2018, fig. 2, 6 [open access: hps://books.openedition.org/efr/3734, cit. 10.6.2022]. 94 For the situation in Rome and Portus see Maischberger 1999, 330, cit. 334: ‘…the phenomenon of stockpiling in Rome observed by Ward-Perkins seems to have peaked just afew decades from the end of the first to the middle of the 2nd century AD’. Pensabene considers an increasing demand for precious white marbles and coloured stones or marbles during the Domitian reign and generally in the 2 nd century as areason for the creation of enormous statio marmorum and for the establishment of astrict state control system over the marble importation (Pensabene 1998, 338). 95 For further discussion see Bernard 2010, 35–54, esp. 35, n. 1; Toma 2018, 161–191, esp. 161–162. 96 In general, Ward-Perkins assumes the existence of marble yards ‘either at the quarries or aÁer shipment’, and in this context he specifically mentions the example of Rome (Marmorata) and Ostia (Ward-Perkins 1980, 327). 97 Russell 2013b, 207–208. 98 He believes the usage of marbles from warehouses should be explained by the fact that the construction of the basilica had be realized in avery short period of time (Sahotsky 2016, 49).
78 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 the logistics of aparticular delivery.99 is assumption of several large or small marble deposits would correspond to the mention of the place of discovery of various ‘marbles’ that was made by the Ravennate scholar G. Fabri in his 17th century ‘guide’ to Ravenna: Fabri described asort of a‘quarry’ (it. cava) near the canal south of Ravenna, present-day Fiumi Uniti (Fig. 12), at the point where the canal bends towards the sea.100 Based on this, he located the port wharves in this area.101 If we take into account the archaeologically uncovered port structures, Fabri may not have been far from the truth… Should we aempt to reconstruct the mechanism of marble manipulation in the port, the most likely assumption seems to be the existence of several modest (temporary) deposits along the canals in Classe (like along the Tiber in Rome), connecting the port lagoon in Classe with the sea and with the city of Ravenna, next to which stone workshops could also have been located. e assumption of deposits or trans-shipment points being localised near waterways (ports, piers along canals) is based on an effort to minimize the handling of heavy cargos.102 Alively debate is currently taking place not only on the existence of warehouses or rather marble yards, but also on the state in which imported stone and marble material was trans99 Cf. Maischberger 1999, 331–334. 100 ‘(…) trouarete in distanza di vn quarto di miglio dalla Strada pubblica vna Caua, oue pochi anni sono fú scoperta vna quantità grandissima di Marmi.’ Fabri described red and ‘dust’ (cineritio) marbles that were used for revetments in the chapel of the Virgin in the Cathedral and for ‘Sponde del Ponte di Porta Adriana’; he also mentioned marbles, that remained ‘buried’ in this pit (Fabri 1678, 187–188). For the relevant bibliography see Augenti etal. 2011, 138. 101 However, he identified this port as Portus Cesaris or Condinianus/Candidius, so as the port of Augustus (Fabri 1678, 188–189). 102 Cf. Russell 2018, 237–263, esp. 241. We must also not forget that ship transportation (especially of such heavy cargos) was significantly cheaper than overland transportation. Fig. 12: Location of the so-called marble deposit near the Fiumi Uniti canal in via Argine Sinistro Fiumi Uniti, Classe. e arrow indicates the site of marble findings. A¢er Augenti etal. 2011, 138, tav. 2, basmap: google.com/maps.
79HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI ported (semi/partially-workedor prefabricated pieces versus finished artefacts). Not only the study of marble finds in situ in the yards, but also the archaeological evidence of stone cargos from shipwrecks in the Mediterranean basin contributes to understanding the system of marble circulation, although the shipwrecks with stone cargos are not particularly common compared to the total amount of ancient shipwrecks known to date.103 As can be seen from Russell’sevidence of stone cargos from various shipwrecks all around the Mediterranean basin, 104 both roughly worked blocks, semi-worked and finished stone (marble) artefacts were transported throughout the reference period, from the 2nd century BC to the 10th century AD, as shown in Graphs 7 and 8.105 All types of stone artefact processing (roughly worked blocks, semi-worked, and finished artefacts) are present in the entire monitored period (Graph 7) with the peak of incidence in the 1st–2nd centuries AD; and then in Late Antiquity, specifically in the 5th–7th centuries, when we can observe the peak of the construction and commercial activity also in the Ravenna conurbation.106 Roughly worked blocks of stone (marble) were transported the most (52%), then semi-worked artefacts, such as sarcophagi or column shaÁs (33%), and the least represented group (15%) are finished artefacts (Graph 8). e fact that marble was also worked in the ‘storages’, aÁer they were unloaded at the port, seems to be proven by numerous finds of marble and other stone residues aÁer working, as we can see from the huge quantity of debris found near the banks of the Tiber and in the area of modern Ponte Sublicio in Rome (where an undisturbed stratigraphy from the 2 nd century BC to the 4th century AD was identified), in the area near Porticus Aemilia, and in the capital’ssurroundings (modern Via Redipuglia in the north of the Isola Sacra in Portus).107 As aresult of the research of stone material from the San Severo complex in Classe, debris from cuing or– possibly– damaged slabs were mostly used for opera sectilia: the majority of worked artefacts are represented by revetment slabs and tiles, used for wall and floor opera sectilia (41% of worked artefacts).108 Also the existence of local stone workshops next to construction sites was therefore related to the system of final processing, finalization and installation of architectural elements.109 103 Especially A. J. Parker and B. Russell deal with the catalogization and research of ancient shipwrecks with stone (marble) cargos (Parker 1992; Russell 2013a, 331–361). Russell states only 3.5% of the shipwrecks with stone cargos of the total shipwrecks known up to 2013 (Russell 2013a, 331). For nautical archaeology and study of shipwrecks in Italy see Beltrame ed. 2000; esp. Beltrame 2000, 7–9; Beltrame– Antonelli 2022, 578–596; Gianfrotta– Maniscalco 2002; Medas 2000, 42–48; Pelagatti– Gianfrotta 1993; 1997; 2002. 104 Russell 2013a, 331–361. 105 However, it is always necessary to distinguish stone cargos of rough blocks, semior partially worked or finished elements from ballast which is highly fragmentary (Russell 2013a, 343). 106 Cf. Augenti 2011, 18. 107 Maischberger 1999, 325–328, 330. Arecent archaeological survey revealed structural remains ‘potentially associated with the Fossa Traiana and the Statio Marmorum,’ (Germonietal. 2018). For location of statio marmorum see Keay 2022, 100. 108 e majority of the material used for the San Severo revetment slabs and opera sectilia was identified as marble (85%), especially white marble (Tůmová 2013, 69). 109 Such as marble revetment slabs or tiles. As we know, the cuing of marble/stone revetment slabs was highly efficient with aminimization of scraps and residue. We know from arecent study of arevetment cladding from cipollino verde in aRoman town house in Ephesos in the 2nd century AD that there was aminimum of material loss when cuing the slabs and that mechanical saw cuing with awater mill was highly efficient (i.e. there was almost no damage to the slabs): ‘e sawing and polishing process was surprisingly efficient: only 5% of the slabs broke during the polishing process or in post-polishing transport, and none during sawing’, Passchier etal. 2021, 1–7, cit. 6.
86 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Kollwitz, J.– Herdejürgen, H. 1979: Die Sarkophage der Westlichen Gebiete des Imperium Romanum 2. Die Ravennatischen Sarkophage. Berlin. Laszlovszky, J. 2007: Il complesso monastico. In: A. Augenti (ed.): La basilica e il monastero di San Severo aClasse. La storia, gli scavi, Ravenna, 14–16. Lawrence, M. 1970: e Sarcophagi of Ravenna. Roma. Lenzi, F. ed. 2003: L’archeologia dell’Adriatico dalla Preistoria al Medioevo. Ai del Convegno internazionale Ravenna, 7–9 giugno 2001. Firenze. Luciano, A. 2019: Porti e approdi fluviali in Italia peninsulare. Dall’età romana all’anno mille. Oxford. Maioli, M.G.– Stoppioni, M.L. 1987: Classe e Ravenna fra terra e mare. Cià– necropoli– monumenti. Un’avventura della archeologia. Gli scavi nella zona archeologica di Classe. Ravenna. Maischberger, M. 1999: Some remarks on the topography and history of imperial Rome’smarble imports. In: M. Schvoerer (ed.): ASMOSIAIV. Archéomatériaux. Marbres et autres roches. Actes de la IVème Conférence Internationale de l’Association pour l’Etude des Marbres et Autres Roches Utilisés dans le Passé, Bordeaux–Talence, 9–13 octobre 1995. Talence, 325–334. Marchei, M.C.– Pettinau, B. 1998: Bibliografia ragionata. Risultati e problemi degli studi sui marmi antichi. In: G. Borghini (ed.): Marmi antichi. Roma, 117–128. Martinelli, P.A. 1968: Altari, amboni, cibori, cornici, plutei con figure di animali e con intrecci, transenne e frammenti vari. In: G. Bovini (ed.): CorpusI. Corpus della scultura paleocristiana bizantina ed altomedievale di Ravenna. Roma, 1–85. Martinelli, A. 1992: La cultura artistica aRavenna. In: A. Carile (ed.): Ecclesiologia, cultura e arte. Ravenna– Venezia, 159–176. Mazzocchin, S. 2003: Commerci sull’Adriatico. Le derrate importate dall’Oriente. Il caso di Padova. In: Lenzi ed. 2003, 370–377. Mazzotti, M. 1953: Il sarcofago di S. Ecclesio nella basilica di S. Vitale. Felix Ravenna 62, 38–47. Medas, S. 2000: e Late-Roman ‘Pardo di Teodorico’ Wreck, Ravenna, Italy. Preliminary Remarks on the Hull and Shipbuilding. In: Beltrame ed. 2000, 42–48. Panella, C. 1989: Gli scambi nel mediterraneo occidentale dal IV al VII secolo dal punto di vista di alcune «merci». In: J.-Ch. Balty– R. Delmaire– C. Bémont– C. Lepelley– C. Abbadie-Reynal (eds.): Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin (Réalités byzantines), I. IVe–VIIe siècle. Paris, 129–141. Panella, C. 1993: Merci e scambi nel Mediterraneo tardoantico. In: A. Carandini– L. Cracco Ruggini– A. Giardina (eds.): Storia di Roma 3. L’età tardoantica II. Iluoghi e le culture. Torino, 613–697. Parker, A.J. 1992: Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces. British archaeological reports, International series 580. Oxford. Passchieretal. 2021 = Passchier, C.W.– Wex, S.– Ilhan, S.– de Kemp, E.– Sürmelihindi, G.– Güngör, T.: Analysis of Cipollino Verde marble wall decoration in Ephesos, Turkey, using geological reconstruction. Journal of Archaeological Science, Reports 37, 1–7. Pelagatti, P.– Gianfrotta, P.A. eds. 1993: Archeologia subacquea. Studi, ricerche e documenti 1. Roma. Pelagatti, P.– Gianfrotta, P.A. eds. 1997: Archeologia subacquea. Studi, ricerche e documenti 2. Roma. Pelagatti, P.– Gianfrotta, P.A. eds. 2002: Archeologia subacquea. Studi, ricerche e documenti 3. Roma. Pensabene, P.1998: Il fenomeno del marmo nella Roma tardo-repubblicana e imperiale. In: P.Pensabene (ed.): Marmi AntichiII. Cave e tecnica di lavorazione, provenienze e distribuzione. Studi Miscellanei 31. Roma, 333–390. Pensabene, P.2001: Ostie, la décoration sculpturale. In: Descoeudres ed. 2001, 201–302. Pensabene, P.2007:Ostiensium marmorum decus et décor. Studi architeonici, decorativi e archeometrici. Studi Miscellanei 33, Roma. Pensabene, P.2017: Architectural Spolia and Urban Transformation in Rome from the Fourth to the irteenth Century. In: Altekamp– Marcks-Jacobs– Seiler eds. 2017, 175–231.
87HELENA TŮMOVÁ– ENRICO CIRELLI Pensabene, P.– Barsanti, C. 2008: Reimpiego e importazione di marmi nell’Adriatico paleocristiano e bizantino. In: G. Cuscito ed.: La cristianizzazione dell’Adriatico. Antichità Altoadriatiche 66. Trieste, 455–490. Porta, P.– Degli Esposti, S. 2019: Aspei e ruoli della scultura altomedievale di Ravenna (secoli VIII–IX), un aggiornamento. In: Cirelli– Giorgi– Lepore eds. 2019, 98–105. Reynolds, P.1995: Trade in the Western Mediterranean, AD 400–700. e ceramic evidence. British Archaeological Reports, International series 604. Oxford. Rizzardi, C. 2016: Ravenna, il suo porto e isuoi orizzonti mediterranei. L’importazione di materiali marmorei fra dinamiche commerciali ed ideologiche (V–VI secolo). Hortus Artium Medievalium 22, 190–199. Russo, E. 1968: Nota su due sarcofagi del VI secolo inediti conservati nella chiesa di S. Agata di Ravenna. Studi Romagnoli 19, 321–330. Russell, B. 2013a: Roman and late-antique shipwrecks with stone cargoes. Journal of Roman Archaeology 26, 331–361. Russell, B. 2013b: e Economics of the Roman Stone Trade. Oxford. Russell, B. 2018: Stone Use and the Economy. Demand, Distribution, and the State. In: A. Wilson– A. Bowman (eds.): Trade, Commerce, and the State in the Roman World. Oxford, 237–263. Sahotsky, B.H. 2016: e Roman Construction Process. Building the Basilica of Maxentius.,Ph.D. esis, University of California. Los Angeles. Salvini, M.– Palermo, L. 2017: Le aività del porto romano di Ancona tra Ve VIII sec. d.C. In: Gelichi– Negrelli eds. 2017, 159–187. Savini, E. 2011a: Imateriali– una sintesi. In: Augenti ed. 2011, 167–180. Savini, E. 2011b: Imateriali. In: Augenti ed. 2011, 243–246. Sodini, J.P.2002: Marble and Stoneworking in Byzantium, Seventh– FiÁeenth Centuries. In: A.E. Laiou (ed.): e Economic History of Byzantium. From the Seventh through the Fieenth Century. Washington, 129–146. Terry, A. 1986: e ‘Opus Sectile’ in the Eufrasius Cathedral at Poreč. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 40, 147–164. Toma, N. 2018: Standardization and mass customization of architectural components. New perspectives on the Imperial marble construction industry. Journal of Roman Archaeology 31, 161–191. Tůmová (Sekavová), H. 2006: Ravennské figurální asymbolické sarkofágy 4.–6. st. po Kr. Ikonografie, typologie achronologie ravennských sarkofágů. Unpublished Master esis, Faculty of Arts, Charles University. Praha. Tůmová, H. 2013: Il commercio del marmo aRavenna nella Tarda Antichità. Imateriali del complesso di San Severo.Ph.D. esis, Faculty of Arts, Charles University– Università degli Studi di Bologna. Praha– Bologna. Tůmová, H.– Cirelli, E. 2019: Reimpiego e spolia nella tarda Antichità alla luce del materiale litico proveniente dal complesso archeologico di San Severo aClasse. Studia hercynia 23/1, 55–78. Vroom, J. 2017: e Byzantine Web. Poery and Connectivity Between the Southern Adriatic and the Eastern Mediterranean. In: Gelichi– Negrelli eds. 2017, 285–310. Ward-Perkins, B. 2000: Constantinople, Imperial Capital of the FiÁh and Sixth Centuries. In: G. Ripoll– J.M. Gurt (eds.): Sedes Regiae (ann. 400–800). Barcelona, 63–81. Ward-Perkins, J.B.– Throckmorton, P.1965: New light on the Roman marble trade– the San Pietro wreck. Archaeology 18/3, 201–209. Ward-Perkins, J. 1980: e Marble Trade and Its Organization. Evidence from Nicomedia. In: e Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome. Studies in Archaeology and History. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 36, 325–338. Zanini, E. 1994: Introduzione all’archeologia bizantina. Roma. Zanini, E. 1998: Le Italie bizantine. Territorio, insediamenti ed economia nella provincia bizantina d’Italia (VI–VIII sec.). Bari. Zucchini G.V.– Bucci, M. 1968: Isarcofagi afigure e acaraere simbolico. In: G. Bovini (ed.): CorpusII. Corpus della scultura paleocristiana bizantina ed altomedievale di Ravenna. Roma, 1–66.
88 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 ANCIENT SOURCES Andreas Agnellus Ravennatensis, Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis. In: G. Carducci– V. Fiorini 1917: Rerum Italicarum Scriptores. Raccolta degli storici italiani dal cinquecento al millecinquecento ordinata da L.A. Muratori. Tomo II, parte III. Bologna. Cassiodorus, Variae Epistolae, transl. . Hodgkin. Oxford, 1886. Jordanes, Getica, translation Doležal, S.: Gótské dějiny. Římské dějiny. Praha, 2012. Helena Tůmová Institute of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University Celetná 20, CZ-110 00 Prague 1 [email protected] Enrico Cirelli Dipartimento di Storia Culture Civiltà Alma Mater Studiorum– Università di Bologna Piazza S. Giovanni in Monte 2, 40124, Bologna, Italy [email protected]