Download Eric De Sena - Aracne editrice

A10
190
Eric De Sena
The Porolissum
Forum Project
2006 Handbook
Copyright © MMVI
ARACNE editrice S.r.l.
www.aracneeditrice.it
[email protected]
via Raffaele Garofalo, 133 A/B
00173 Roma
(06) 93781065
ISBN
88–548–0659–5
I diritti di traduzione, di memorizzazione elettronica,
di riproduzione e di adattamento anche parziale,
con qualsiasi mezzo, sono riservati per tutti i Paesi.
Non sono assolutamente consentite le fotocopie
senza il permesso scritto dell’Editore.
I edizione: giugno 2006
BUN VENIT!
The second season of the Porolissum Forum Project will be conducted June
30 to July 30, 2006 by an international team of researchers and students. The
primary objective of this joint Romanian-American campaign is to explore the
Forum of Porolissum, a Roman city located in northwestern Transylvania.This
is one of a growing number of archaeological projects in Eastern Europe involving team members from the host nation as well as the West.This a particularly important year, since 2006 marks the 1900th anniversary of Trajan’s victory in Dacia and the foundation of Porolissum.
This handbook provides an overview of the Porolissum Forum Project. The
first two sections address the history and archaeology of Dacia and, more
specifically, the city of Porolissum.This is followed by a description of our goals
and the results of the 2004 pilot season.The final section presents information
on archaeological methods, the analysis of architectural features and the study
of archaeological materials.Two appendices concern the Roman army and the
study of ancient ceramics.
The Project Leaders are extremely grateful to the following individuals for
their support and advice: Prof. Eric Apfelstadt (Director, Loyola University
Chicago’s John Felice Rome Center), Prof. Nicolae Gudea (University of ClujNapoca), Prof. Susan Kane (Oberlin College), Prof. Lester Little (former Director, American Academy in Rome), Dr. Archer Martin (Archaeology Supervisor, AAR), Fausta McDermott, Esq. (McDermott and McDermott
Attorneys at Law), Prof. Franco Pavoncello (Provost and Acting President, John
Cabot University), Prof. J.Theodore Peña (SUNY, University at Buffalo), Prof.
Portia Prebys (Director, Saint Mary’s College Rome Program), Prof. Patricia
Read-Hunter (Dean of Academic Affairs, JCU), Elena Musca (Director, Zalău
Museum of History and Art) and Mark S.Tauber (Cultural Affairs Officer, U.S.
Embassy to Romania).
COHORS II P·F·P
PROJECT DIRECTORS:
Dr. Alexandru V. Matei
Dr. Eric C. De Sena
Senior Archaeologist, Zalău Museum of Art and History
Adjunct Assistant Professor of Classical Studies
John Cabot University, Loyola University
Chicago, and Saint Mary’s College
G.I.S. CONSULTANT:
Dr. Robert V. Chavez
Tufts University
ARCHAEOLOGY ASSISTANTS:
Daniel Moore
Paul Pupeza
Gregory Tucker
Daniel Weiss
Robert Wanner
University of North Carolina
University of Cluj-Napoca “Babes-Bolyoi”
University of Florida
University of Virginia
Tufts University
FIELD SCHOOL PARTICIPANTS:
Rawdon Bergquist
Emanuela Bocancea
Xose Luis Hermoso Buxan
Diana Ciornei
Jaime da Costa
Geoffrey Haymes
Margaret Hunt
Catherine Jackson
Danielle Jahn
Sarah Johnson
Meghan McCandless
Chuck Norris
Lee Norris
Cathleen O’Very
Michael Wolff
Carleton College
University of Alberta
University of Birmingham
Vanderbilt University
Kennesaw State University
University of Colorado
University of Colorado
University of Montana
University of Florida
Smith College
Saint Mary’s College
Carnegie Institute of Technology; Peace Corps volunteer
University of Maine; Peace Corps volunteer
Loyola University Chicago
Loyola University Chicago
OUTLINE
I. A Brief History of Dacia
11
II. The History and Archaeology of Porolissum
17
III. The Objectives of the Porolissum Forum Project
21
The Forum
Porolissum in its natural and cultural context
Ethnoarchaeological research
East meets West
IV. Archaeological Field Methods
22
22
23
24
26
Excavation
Architectural remains
Written and graphic documentation
Artifacts and Ecofacts
27
31
36
39
V. Results of the 2004 Field Season
57
Appendix 1 – The Roman army
64
Appendix 2 – The study of Roman pottery
67
Bibliography
74
Please visit the Porolissum Forum Project website:
www.porolissum.org
9
I. A BRIEF HISTORY
OF
DACIA
Dacia can be defined geographically as the territory comprising
modern-day Romania. Human beings have populated the region of
Dacia for tens of thousands of years, although the first significant cultural remains date to ca. 3000 BC.The third and second millennia BC are
characterized by small settlements consisting of oblong huts or houses
constructed of perishable material (wood, thatch, clay).Most sites are
located along river valleys in southern and eastern Romania. Nearly all
artifacts are of a funerary or religious nature and include terracotta and
stone figurines, painted pottery and, later, metal objects — jewelry,
weapons, ingots.The best preserved Neolithic settlement is Hăbăşesti in
´
the region of Dobrigea (near the Black Sea).
Fig. 1. Map of Romania
11
Major socio-political changes occurred around 1200 BC. The ensuing period (ca. 1200-500 BC) is characterized by larger and wealthier
settlements, greater social stratification and the introduction of new
types of artifacts and artistic motifs.This phase is often referred to as the
Hallstatt period which designates a group of Celtic tribes whose influence spread over much of central Europe at this time.
The later Hallstatt period witnessed the arrival of Greek colonists
who established ports along the Black Sea, including Histria,Tomis and
Callatis. No foreign cultures extended inland until the late 6th century
when the Persian king Darius campaigned in the Danube River valley.
Around 500 BC another significant shift in socio-political organization occurred. The La Tène period (ca. 500 BC-AD 101/06) is named
after a more evolved stage of Celtic culture.
Fig. 2. Map of Romania Dacia (Source: P. MacKendrick 1975: 106, fig. 5.1)
12
While the reasons for this change are still subject to scholarly debate,
the reality involved independent tribes, which formed political-military
alliances when foreign cultures attempted to encroach into Geto-Dacian
territory.
Each tribe was based in a particular settlement and controlled the
small surrounding territory. It appears that Sarmizegethusa, in western
Romania near Deva and Alba Iulia, served as the principal political-religious center where tribal leaders met on occasion.
Fig. 3. Column of Traian
13
This form of political organization, which might be likened to that
of contemporary Italic cultures (e.g. Etruscans, Samnites), was successful
throughout the Hellenistic period. The Geto-Dacians were even victorious over Alexander the Great, who crossed the Danube but was soon
forced back to the southern bank of the river.
In the mid 1st century BC, Geto-Dacian tribes were united under a
single leader, Burebista. Burebista conquered some of Dacia’s neighbors
and was viewed as a threat to Rome, whose territory at this time
extended to Macedonia and Asia Minor (Asia, Bithynia and Pontus).
Julius Caesar planned to march on Dacia, but both he and Burebista
were assassinated in 44 BC. Augustus believed that the Dacians would
pose no threat to the Roman Empire.
This emperor was mistaken and was forced to send Roman troops to
the Black Sea region under the generals C. Cornelius Lentulus and S.
Aelius Catus. In the course of the 1st century AD, independent Dacian
Fig. 4. Map of the Roman Empire in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD
14
tribes, whose union had dissolved with the death of Burebista, raided
areas of Roman-controlled Moesia and Thrace.
The Dacians were united once again around AD 87 by a great military leader, Decebalus, who consolidated Dacian territory and continued
to attack areas to the south of the Danube.
Decebalus was at first successful against the Romans, defeating the
military forces of the emperor Domitian. In the early 2nd century, however, Decebalus met his match. Between AD 101 and 106,Trajan led two
victorious military campaigns with as many as 100,000 soldiers. Colonia
Ulpia Traiana (formerly Sarmizegethusa) was named the capital city of
Roman Dacia, while other major cities/military centers were Drobeta,
Tibiscum, Apulum, Napoca and Porolissum.With the reorganization of
the Roman provinces in AD 124 under Hadrian, Dacia was divided into
three provinces: Dacia Inferior, Dacia Superior and Dacia Porolissensis.
An area to the north and west that the Romans did not annex was
known as “Free Dacia”.
The degree of Romanization was extensive and began with the settling of Roman soldiers, merchants, miners, craftsmen and farmers
throughout Dacia. Initially, many Dacians were forced into slavery or
brutalized by the Romans; some Dacians fled into “Free Dacia” or
committed suicide. But many Dacians eventually adopted Roman ways.
When not engaged in military skirmishes or policing, Roman soldiers
constructed roads, bridges and aqueducts, as well as public buildings,
such as temples. After a generation or two Romans and native Dacians
enjoyed a relatively peaceful coexistence.
What had been established as Roman military outposts developed
into towns and cities. In addition to private activities, such as farming
or trade, Dacians were soon allowed to hold important military and
administrative posts. In AD 212 the emperor Caracalla extended citizenship to all free-born people living within the Roman Empire.
As a result of increasing threats of nomadic tribes from the northeast,
the emperor Aurelian decided to withdraw Roman administration from
Dacia in AD 271.
Many deep-rooted Romans chose to remain in Dacia and there is
strong archaeological evidence that the inhabitants of the former
Roman pry these invasions were the southern and coastal areas of Dacia,
15
while the territory of modern day Transylvania, protected by the
Carpathian Mountains, was largely untouched.
* See P. MacKendrick’s book (1975) for a detailed discussion of
ancient Dacia
16
II. THE HISTORY
AND
ARCHAEOLOGY
OF
POROLISSUM
Porolissum is one of the largest and best-preserved archaeological
sites in all of Romania. Located in modern-day Salăj̧ County, this border limes military center was established 1900 years ago, in AD 106, by
the Roman emperor Trajan to defend the main passageway through the
Meses (Carpathian) Mountains into the province of Dacia Porolissensis.
After just a few decades, Porolissum evolved into an important commercial center that facilitated trade between the Romans and “barbarian”
peoples. The city continued to thrive for nearly a millennium after the
Roman withdrawal from Dacia in AD 271.
Indigenous Dacian settlements existed in the area, most notably on
the nearby Magura and Citera Hills (Pop 1997).There is no evidence for
a native Dacian settlement on Pomet Hill where Porolissum is set.
Fig. 5. View of Magura Hill from Porolissum
17
The original Roman military center consisted of 5000 auxiliary soldiers based on Pomet Hill (Porolissum) and the adjacent Citera Hill
(Gudea and Tamba 2001). Soldiers were a multi-ethnic group, having
been enlisted from the Roman provinces — Britain, Gaul, Germany,
Spain,Thrace and Syria.
During the earliest phase of occupation, the administrative headquarters, military barracks and storage facilities on were constructed in timber with stone foundations.
The massive defensive system surrounding the city in a series of concentric rings consisted of earthen mounds, ditches and wooden palisades
(Matei and Bajusz 1997). Within half a century the military center on
Pomet Hill increased in size and was reconstructed in stone architecture
— possibly during the reign of Antoninus Pius.
Around the same time a sizable civilian district developed to the east
and south of the military center. Roman soldiers clearly relied upon the
local population for their dietary and material supplies since Porolissum
was so far removed from the Mediterranean supply system centered at
Rome.
Dacians and Romans established a close rapport judging from the
homogeneity of the architecture within the military camp and in the
civilian district as well as from inscriptions that mention government
officials with Romano-Dacian names (Gudea and Tamba 2001).
Fig. 6. View toward military base
Fig. 7. Amphitheater in Porolissum
18
The later 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD witnessed further demographic and urban development (Gudea 1998).
The emperor Septimius Severus granted Porolissum the status of
municipium (i.e. self-governance), allowing city leaders and merchants to
act independently. It was also around this time that the stone amphitheater and a pair of temples were renovated (Gudea and Tamba 2001). In
AD 214, when Caracalla visited the site, the combined military and
civilian population was more than 15,000.
The Romans officially withdrew from Dacia in AD 271 because of
the excessive costs involved in maintaining troops so far from Rome.
The post-Roman period of Porolissum is poorly understood,
although life in this city continued until the 10th century (Matei 1979).
The inhabitants maintained commercial relations with the Romans
until the early 5th century, attested by Roman coins at Porolissum.
Many of the existing structures were still utilized, but not always
according to their original function. For example, a Roman temple on
the “sanctuary terrace” was converted into a Christian church in the
4th or 5th century.
Since the 1970’s, Romanian archaeologists have assembled a large
body of knowledge about Porolissum.
The military camp has been thoroughly explored. It consists of a
walled area of about 2 hectares with 4 imposing gates and a pair of roads
that intersect directly in front of the administrative headquarters.
Barracks, storage facilities and a large cistern filled the remaining space.
The main access road from the west, leading up the Pomet Hill, was
lined with a customs house (the only known example in the entire
Roman Empire) and two temples – one dedicated to Liber Pater and
another dedicated to Bel or Jupiter Dolichenus (Gudea and Tamba 2001).
To the south of the military complex, a 5000-seat amphitheater has
been fully excavated.
Civilian houses and sections of the urban road network have been
excavated to the east of the military complex. In addition, many segments of the fortification system have been documented – the most
extensive of which has a perimeter of about 12 km (Matei 1997).
Finally, the foundations of an aqueduct are visible 3 km to the southwest, along the slope of a hill where a natural spring still exists.
19
In 1996, Dr.A.V. Matei, together with the late Prof. J.K. Haalebos, identified the location of Porolissum’s forum (Roman civic center) through a
program of magnetometry.According to the results of the geophysical survey, the forum extends over an area of about 2.5 hectares (Fig. 10) with
what appears to be a basilica (legal/political tribunal) on the north side of
a large central courtyard and porticoes, tabernae (shops) and other public
buildings along the west, south and east sides. The south side may have
hosted a temple or Augusteum (temple dedicated to the emperor cult).The
concept of the Porolissum Forum Project developed in 2003.
Fig. 8. View of the aqueduct outside
Fig. 9. PFP members walk along a
section of the outermost vallum
of Porolissum
20
III. OBJECTIVES
OF THE
POROLISSUM FORUM PROJECT
The Porolissum Forum Project is planned as a 5-year mission (20062010) following a pilot study in 2004. The city of Porolissum is of significant historical interest, but the fact that this city is situated on the
northern-most border of the Roman Empire is highly symbolic. This
was the Roman frontier and it is now an archaeological frontier.To date,
very little work has been carried out in what was the province of Dacia
by non-Romanian archaeologists.Apart from Paul MacKendrick’s milestone book, The Dacian Stones Speak, and the very recent volume on
Roman Dacia by Hansen and Haynes, there is very little English literature on the subject of ancient Dacia. In 2006, there is only one other
project involving Americans or western Europeans.
Fig. 10. View of area where Porolissum’s Forum is set
21
The FORUM
The most immediate intention of the Porolissum Forum Project is
to investigate the construction history and use of the Forum in the
Roman and post-Roman periods as well as any pre-Roman features
that may underlie it. It is likely that the forum was developed in an ad
hoc fashion at first, with a campaign to regularize it at a later moment.
This is a common trend in many Roman cities, including Ostia
(Pavolini 1983: 99-105), Pompeii (Dobbins et al. 1998) and Cosa
(Brown 1980 and Brown et al. 1993). In the case of Porolissum, we suspect the forum may have been formalized during the reign of Septimius
Severus when the city was granted municipium. Excavation of trenches
in key areas, based upon the magnetometry results, will help us to clarify the plan of the Forum, its development over time and the specific
functions of the structures. Moreover, the study of archaeological materials recovered through the excavations will allow us to address broader citywide questions, such as the changing patterns of nutritional and
material supplies over time and the character of the city during the long
post-Roman period.
Porolissum in its natural and cultural context
2
Through surface reconnaissance over an area of about 150 km
around Porolissum, the study of maps and a review of the archaeological literature, we also plan to study the city of Porolissum in the light of
geographic features, natural resources and settlements in the surrounding region (Bell et al. 2003).Why did the Romans choose this particular location for a major military outpost, which ultimately became the
capital of a Roman province? What was the nature of water resources
and the drainage system? Where were natural resources, including building stone and clay, located? What was the layout of the road system?
What was the relationship between Porolissum and neighboring
fortresses and towns? And, what was the relationship between the people living on either side of the Roman border? By now, we are aware
that the relationship between Romans and non-Romans was not always
22
hostile and, in fact, there was a fair degree of exchange across the border of the Empire (Millett 1990: 127-180;Wells 1999: 224-258).
One reason that Porolissum was so important in antiquity, and is
of considerable interest today, is its location on the northwestern passage
into the Carpathian Mountains.
Dacia was rich in mineral resources (gold, silver, iron, copper,
salt) and the broad, fertile river valleys are conducive for raising many
kinds of vegetables and fruits during the climatically favorable months.
On the other side of the Roman limes, the broad area of modern-day
Slovakia, Ukraine and Poland were important sources of livestock, slaves,
grain, amber and other commodities that the Romans frequently
imported (Wells 1999: 228-229).Thus, we are seeking evidence for the
flow of people and goods across the border of the Empire, a relationship
that warranted the presence of one of the few known customs houses in
the Roman world (Gudea 1996). With the use of G.I.S. we plan to
merge topographic, environmental and archaeological information in
order to create models of political, social and economic systems in this
region.
Ethnoarchaeological research
An important component of our research program is to understand
the lifeways of Porolissum’s inhabitants during the Roman and postRoman period. The study of artifacts and ecofacts will certainly reveal
valuable information towards our investigation of problems such as the
sources of food and craft goods or the organization of local farms.
However, as many prehistorians have demonstrated, the integration of
ethnoarchaeological information may allow us to understand cultural
systems in greater detail.
As the country of Romania struggles to assert herself as a major player in Europe (in 2007 Romania will enter as a provisional member of
the European Community) after decades of repression, there are many
people who live a way of life that has been forgotten in America and
western Europe. More people living in the countryside rely upon horsedrawn carts than automobiles. The cellars of most local residents are
23
filled with the fruits and vegetables grown on their own farms as well as
preserves, such as jams, pickled vegetables and wine. In short, our campaigns to this part of the world allow us a unique opportunity to observe
how Romanian farmers subsist today, which is not so different from how
people subsisted in antiquity. We will document this way of life by
observing and interviewing the residents of the surrounding countryside.An important model for this component of our research is the work
conducted by Prof. G. Barker in the Biferno Valley in Molise, Italy
(Barker 1995).
East meets West – archaeological, historical, cultural exchange
The Porolissum Forum Project is currently one of just two archaeological missions in Romania with an American component. Because of
the socio-economic oppression of the dictatorship, which ended in De-
Fig. 11. Farmer in Moigrad
24
cember 1989, Romanian archaeologists lacked financial resources and
did not have access to western archaeological methods and theory.
Western researchers did not have easy access to the historical and archaeological record of ancient Dacia.The Porolissum Forum Project seeks to
promote exchange between East and West, beginning with the history
and archaeology of Dacia, but extending to the modern day. Many westerners do not realize the cultural, natural and economic potential of
Romania and this is an opportunity for Westerners to experience Romania first hand. Each year we will recruit 12-15 undergraduate and
graduate students to work with us on the project. In addition to a solid
archaeological training, we will lead students on field trips to archaeological and historical sites, museums and cities located in northwestern
Romania. In 2004, we visited the cities located in northwestern Romania. In 2004, we visited the cities and museums of Timişoara, Sighişoara,
Alba Iulia, Cluj–Napoca and Baia Mare as well as the pre–Roman and
Roman sities of Tigru Lapuş, Colonia Ulpia Traiana,Tibiscum, Potaissa,
Bucium and Romita.
25
IV. FIELD METHODS
OF THE
PFP
When non-archaeologists think of archaeology, three images often
come to mind: 1) crusty old men who painstakingly brush away grains
of earth from a pottery sherd or a bone over the course of hours or days
and then ponder over the significance of the find for an equally long
period of time; 2) large teams of workers picking and shoveling tons of
desert sand from a site to reveal an Egyptian tomb; 3) a hero wearing a
leather jacket and brown fedora intent upon recovering gold statutes and
the Ark of the Covenant.
The fact is there is no typical archaeological mission or standard set
of procedures.
Archaeology is conducted in a flexible manner depending upon
many variables, such as the geological and historical conditions of the
site, the questions asked by the project directors, the experience and
interests of directors and excavators, the amount of time and monetary
resources available, the size of the excavation team, etc.
Archaeological excavation is a destructive process and must only be
undertaken following the development of research questions and nondestructive field surveys. Until the 1960’s most archaeological sites such
as Pompeii or the Imperial Fora in Rome were excavated on a grand
scale by teams of unskilled workers under the supervision of a single
administrator. The object of these campaigns was to discover works of
art or to clear rubble away from architectural features (see Dyson 1998
and Parslow 1998). This wave of archaeological work, especially that
done throughout the Mediterranean basin between ca. 1930’s-60’s, was
very important because it allowed scholars and visitors to appreciate significant features of our past.
Statues and temples were not simply dug up. They were studied,
drawn, photographed and scrutinized in minute detail.The basic vocabulary of art historical and architectural analysis was developed at this
time.
A considerable amount of information was ignored and missed, however. For example, between the Middle Ages and the early modern period approximately 30-50 feet of earth and debris had accumulated in the
26
Roman Forum in Rome. During the 19th and early 20th century excavations, all of this material was simply carted away without considering
the fact that this “debris” actually represented a record of the re-use of
this area over the course of time. The study of this “debris” could have
allowed scholars to achieve a diachronic understanding of many trends
that occurred within popular culture.
Today, we (archaeologists, in general) are still interested in architectural features and works of art or epigraphy that may lie below the
ground, but an understanding of the processes of deposition is fundamental. In fact, some of the most interesting volumes published in recent
years have had little to do with monuments, but of the dirt, broken pottery, animal bone and rusty nails that were dumped into foundation
trenches and over the walls when the building went out of use.
Excavation
We have examined the physical layout of a given site, reviewed extant
literature and have developed a series of research questions. In order to
explore certain issues, a team of archaeologists has decided to excavate. As
alluded to above, there are many ways to excavate a site.The most common
way to excavate, and the strategy of the PFP team, is to dig trenches in key
areas of an archaeological site in order to verify hypotheses and/or to gain
unforeseen information.Trenches are excavated until sterile soil is reached
(i.e. soil that does not contain material altered or created by human beings)
or until it becomes unfeasible to excavate. Excavation is global on other
missions — i.e. entire sectors are excavated, rather than small trenches. In
either case, attention is paid to the stratigraphy.
Stratigraphy is one of the keys to archaeology. Archaeological sites
are formed over years, decades, centuries or millennia. Earth and humangenerated debris accumulate on different sites at different rates of time
due to local circumstances.Wooded areas develop natural soil faster than
broad open fields because leaves fall each year and decay into topsoil.
Valleys accumulate soil and other material through the forces of gravity.
Large cities generate and dump larger quantities of garbage than a town
27
of a few hundred inhabitants. Pits were dug and filled in. Walls were
built, modified, torn down and other walls built.
Each natural surface, pit, backfill, wall, garbage dump, etc. represents
an event in time and archaeologists are generally able to determine the
sequence of these events by observing the physical relationships between
layers/strata and features.
Strata assume many different forms and are distinguished by their
unique characteristics (e.g. color and consistency; the range and abundance of artifacts, if any). A layer that overlies another layer has to represent a more recent event. A ditch cut through layers of humus and clay
had to have been dug after the clay and humus were deposited.
Much of this is quite logical/simple and in many cases the relationships between layers is clear; other times, the processes of site formation
can be very complex and subject to different interpretations (Schiffer
1987). In some cases, when it is difficult to distiguish the natural and cultural levels or when the levels are very deep, archaeologists will excavate
artificial strata. Artificial strata are uniformly excavated levels of 10-15
cm that are dug in sequence until actual deposits can be identified.
In any event, it is imperative to excavate one stratum at a time and to
keep careful written and graphic records of each stratum. Each stratum
is assigned a unique numerical label for the purpose of reference.
Features, such as walls, floors and pits are also considered to be strata and
are always numbered according to the same sequence; hence, if we find
a wall covered over by a layer of dirt, these might be labeled SU2 and
SU1. These “strata” are described verbally, while drawings and photographs are also made. Moreover, we draw schematic diagrams of the relationships between the strata in a given trench — these are called Harris
matrices, akin to flow charts.
Harris matrices allow us to simplify the relationships between the strata in a trench and to establish a relative chronology. No matter how complex the formation of a site is, Harris matrices must be drawn up at the
moment of excavation and should be continuously revised as excavation
progresses. It is extremely difficult to read written records a month, a year
or years later and try to piece together the relationships between strata.
Picks, shovels, trowels and brushes are all used in excavation — the
choice of the tool depends upon the layer. No matter which tool is used,
28
it is important to work systematically — usually from one part of a
trench to the other, clearing earth/archaeological material toward you.
We try to peel away the layers in the reverse order in which they were
created.The walls of trenches should be vertical and not sloped inward.
Roots of trees and plants should be cut rather than ripped out in order
to avoid disturbing unexcavated areas.This is especially important in the
walls of trenches, because they represent another way of viewing stratigraphic relationships and will also be documented verbally and graphically. While highly tempting, artifacts situated in trench walls should be
left in place.The trench supervisor will determine whether it should be
removed and, if so, how it should be removed.
Picks, shovels, trowels and brushes are all used in excavation — the
choice of the tool depends upon the layer. No matter which tool is used,
it is important to work systematically — usually from one part of a
trench to the other, clearing earth/archaeological material toward you.
We try to peel away the layers in the reverse order in which they were
created.The walls of trenches should be vertical and not sloped inward.
Roots of trees and plants should be cut rather than ripped out in order
to avoid disturbing unexcavated areas.This is especially important in the
Fig. 12. Example of a Harris Matrix (Source: Greene 2002, fig. 3.10)
29
walls of trenches, because they represent another way of viewing stratigraphic relationships and will also be documented verbally and graphically. While highly tempting, artifacts situated in trench walls should be
left in place.The trench supervisor will determine whether it should be
removed and, if so, how it should be removed.
The context and position of finds and features are other important
keys to archaeological research. That a ceramic pot was found in stratigraphic unit 13 of trench 3 is interesting.That the ceramic pot was discovered in SU 13 located within SU 14 (a feature identified as a hearth)
is more interesting. Scholars working at prehistoric sites throughout the
world have worked out many useful patterns by observing the context
of finds and features (such as the fact that stone tools were often knapped
while villagers sat around an outdoor fire). Observing the scatter of stone
chips may even help determine whether a person knapping a stone tool
was right- or left-handed! Sometimes a layer can be excavated quite rapidly without noting the exact mm2 where a pot sherd was found, especially when a stratum contains thousands of pot sherds.
Once again, the speed at which artifacts and features are collected and
the extent to which they are documented will depend upon the nature
of the trench or stratum being excavated. Nevertheless, we will collect
all artifacts and ecofacts (see below).
Collecting finds is done is two ways — either directly from a trench or
by screening. Many finds are large and can be readily identified. Other
finds are often quite small and it can be too tedious or time-consuming to
recover them one-by-one. Sometimes the conditions of the earth can hide
finds — it is difficult to break up clay and even a small wad of clay can
hide a coin, a glass bead or a fish vertebra. A rudimentary way of helping
to collect nearly 100% of all finds is through screening — literally sifting
excavated material through a screen — which helps to separate earth and
pebbles from small artifacts and ecofacts. In all cases, the items must be
placed into properly labeled containers — usually plastic bags.
All containers must be labeled with the Trench number, SU
number and the date of collection.This is crucial information that
has to do with the concept of “Context”.We need to know where that
rim sherd of an African red-slip C, form Hayes 50 was found and all the
other artifacts/ecofacts that were found with it.
30
By following these guidelines, we can (to the best of our ability)
interpret this portion of the site, to assign absolute dates to the sequence
(i.e. not just that SU34 is earlier than SU23, but that SU34 dates to
AD80 and SU23 to AD 100) and to develop a greater understanding of
city-wide trends, like how many liters of wine were transported to
Porolissum from the Aegean each year or what were the preferred meats
of residents (chicken, beef, pork or mutton?).
Architectural remains
Reading architectural features is very similar to reading stratigraphy.
Architectural features must also be carefully studied and documented - both
in verbal and graphic fashion (Adam 1994; Giuliani 1990). Structures were
built, modified, enlarged, stripped down; windows and doors may have been
placed where there was once a solid wall; floors may have been re-paved;
drains can be installed or plugged up; extra stories can be added; the primary function of an architectural space can change through construction or
demolition. The possibilities are almost infinite. Archaeologists are able to
“read” the history of a building or complex by examining construction
techniques, the relationship between walls or components of walls and
through the observation of both positive and negative evidence. For example, the presence of a second floor may be suggested by a regular series of
holes in a pair of opposing walls where wooden beams were inserted. Some
scholars can determine the date of a structure based upon the dimensions
of bricks and the amount of concrete used between courses of brick.
We know a lot about Roman architecture through standing remains,
but we have also gained important information through art historical
sources (e.g. the Column of Trajan which depicts soldiers building timber
and stone forts in Dacia) and the ancient literary sources.Vitruvius was an
architect who lived at the time of the first emperor,Augustus, and wrote a
treatise composed of 10 books on architecture and construction. Other
writers, such as Columella offer further information regarding construction
techniques. During the Roman and post-Roman periods the primary
building materials were stone, brick/tile, wood and mortar; the resources
were locally/regionally available. Only the extremely wealthy could have
31
imported luxury materials such as marble, granite or Lebanese cypress. At
Porolissum, the walls of most structures were built of local stone that were
reinforced and covered by a system of wooden beams (e.g. frame of the
roof). Roofs were covered by fired ceramic tiles. Depending upon the type
of building and economic means of its patron/owner, interiors and exteriors would have been treated in different ways — sometimes faced in marble, sometimes stuccoed, sometimes left plain.Although the architecture at
Porolissum (and inland Dacia, in general) was not highly variegated —
stone and mortar — it is worth illustrating the primary building techniques
adopted during the Roman period.
WALLS
In the Roman period walls were composed of a variety of materials
depending upon the function of buildings, the location and the wealth
of the builder. Prior to about 200 BC public buildings and elite residences were constructed in wood and stone. Stone was laid in courses
without mortar. In the 2nd century BC the Romans developed concrete, which gradually replaced “dry masonry”. It is possibly to determine the date of buildings based upon their style of construction.
Fig. 13. Roman building techniques (Source: Adam 1994)
32
Opus quadratum – dry (ashlar) masonry, using squared blocks of stone
without any mortar; placed in rows; blocks may be of different sizes;
from ca. 5th BC.
Opus caementicium – general term for construction using concrete (lime,
sand and rubble); mortar was poured into a cavity between two facings or into or over a wooden framework; began ca. 200 BC in westcentral Italy.
Opus incertum – describes a facing using irregularly shaped stones that
are placed in an irregular manner; began in 2nd BC.
Opus quasi-reticulatum – use of wedge-shaped stones with a small square
face, placed in an irregular manner, but in nearly diagonal lines;
began in early 1st BC.
Opus reticulatum – use of wedge-shaped stones with a small square face,
placed in diagonal to form a net-shaped pattern; began in mid 1st
BC.
Opus testaceum – brickwork; began in early 1st AD, but was employed
more extensively by the mid 1st AD.
Opus mixtum – alternating courses or sections of brick and stone facing, such as opus reticulatum, which is thought to have been used to
strengthen certain weight-bearing parts of walls (esp. corners) and
reduce the weight of non-weight-bearing sections of walls; courses
of brick may have also impeded the formation of fissures.
Opus africanum – use of stone blocks in the vertical frame of walls,
whose orientation alternated between vertical and horizontal; the
remaining sections of the walls were composed of some form of opus
caementicium.
Opus vittatum – alternating courses of stone blocks and brick; brick piers
may have been constructed at corners and other strategic locations.
FLOORS
Floors consisted of a variety of materials, from packed earth to marble.The style of flooring depended upon the function of an architectural space and the resources available to the owner/patron.
In many instances floors were mortar-based.The most common types
were plain mortar, opus signinum, opus spiccatum and opus sectile. Opus sign-
33
inum (or cocciopesto) was a conglomeration of mortar and crushed tile
or pottery; opus spiccatum involved the use of small bricks aligned in a
herring-bone pattern; opus sectile made use of small pieces of marble or
other stone fashioned into various shapes and applied to create geometric patterns or figures.
Elite houses and public spaces were often paved with mosaics. Many
colorful mosaics have been discovered in the Roman world, but black
and white mosaics were far more common.
Mosaics are composed of tesserae (small stones or square beads of glass)
arranged in some kind of pattern. In simple cases, large fields of white
tesserae might be surrounded by a solid black or black and white patterned border.
In other cases the bordered space might consist of geometric patterns
or figures (scenes involving real and mythological aquatic animals are
often found in public baths, for example).
CEILINGS/ROOFS
During the Roman period ceilings and roofs may have consisted of
wood, thatch, stone or opus caementicium.
The most common system of ceilings and roofs in private and many
public buildings consisted of a wooden framework that was covered by
baked terracotta tiles.
In this case, large wooden beams served to support grids of smaller
beams upon which the tiles (or second floor of a house) were set.
Wooden roofs were formed using the principal of triangulation — triangles being the most robust geometric shape.The horizontal and sloping beams were united through a system of joints and a vertical beam
often united the horizontal beam and the sloped beams for additional
support.
An alternative to wood and tile was stone or concrete.The use of dry
stone masonry in roof systems has a long history, dating back to the 3rd
millennium BC. Courses of stone were laid in an increasingly converging manner until the upper courses covered the interior space.This technique is called corbelling and although vaulted spaces are formed, this is
not true arched vaulting.
34
The arch was innovated in the 4th or 3rd century BC in Italy and
consists of wedge-shaped stones that support each other through the
distribution of their own weight. The keystone (made famous recently
by Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code) is the uppermost stone that exerts
pressure upon the other wedged stones of the arch. Arches are able to
support greater weights than horizontal elements; thus, architects are
able to span greater distances with the arch than with a horizontal system.
With the advent of opus caementicium, ancient architects discovered
that they could achieve far loftier interiors through vaulting and domes.
The earliest concrete domes date to the mid 1st century AD and by the
second century, spans of 30 meters or more were commonplace.
The Pantheon in Rome (ca. AD 125) hosts a dome whose diameter
and height are about 43 meters. Arched systems of ceilings and roofs
were constructed by first installing a wooden framework.
The stone or opus caementicium was set on top of the wooden frame,
which was subsequently removed, leaving the stone or concrete
arch/vault in place.
Fig. 14. Arch at Carsulae – Umbria, Italy
(Source: Lugli 1957)
Fig. 15. Elevation of the Pantheon, Rome
(Source: Adam 1994)
35
Written and graphic documentation
The physical act of digging is just one component of archaeological
investigations. Excavation and the study of features and materials would
be meaningless if we do not record in minute detail what has been excavated — strata, walls, inscriptions, animal bones, etc. Documentation of
features and finds is done verbally and graphically — too much information or repeated information is far better than poor documentation.
Documenting excavation as noted above, the process of archaeological excavation aims to understand the sequence of events and the
events themselves as they occurred at a given site. Events may have been
the digging of a pit, the construction of a wall or the burning/collapse
of a roof. In order to understand what happened at a site, attention must
be paid to each stratum that is excavated: consistency, content, dimensions, position, relation to other strata. Information regarding each strata is recorded in written and graphic form.Written records about each
stratum are kept on a standard form: SU Description Form.These sheets
must be completed prior to the excavation of the next SU. Notes
regarding trenches and SU’s should also be kept in a notebook.
Drawings should also be made of strata and trench walls. Plans (view
from the air) of trenches are drawn regularly, although the level of detail
Fig. 16. Plan of a trench (Source: Heinzelmann 2002)
36
depends upon the degree of importance. Once the layer of topsoil is
removed, an accurate plan of the trench should be made taking threedimensional measurements.Thereafter, drawings should be made after each
stratum is excavated.A standard method involves drawing only the stratum
in question that is about to be excavated, marking the depths along edges
and several other points. In the event that a significant feature emerges, a
full plan of the trench should be made. When the excavation of a trench
has been completed, we need to draw sections of the balks (trench walls).
This is accomplished by taking readings from a pair of measuring tapes —
one that is located at the top of the trench, running horizontally and another running vertically. Points are measured with the use of a plumb bob.
Photographs should also be taken prior to excavating each new
stratigraphic unit, in the event of important finds and features and at the
end of excavating a trench (trench walls). Light and shadows are important factors which make a tremendous difference in the quality and reading of photographs.The subjects of photographs should be as clear and
clutter-free as possible. Trenches should be troweled and brushed; all
equipment should be removed from within and around trenches. Make
sure that no shadows are cast by people (including the photographer)!
Fig. 17. Section of a trench (Source: Heinzelmann 2002)
37
The subject should be labeled using a small blackboard indicating the
trench number, SU, date and north arrow. A meter rod or centimeter
scale should also be included in the frame.The point of view is important — walk around the subject to assess the possibilities.
Documenting architecture. The documentation of architectural
features is similar to the process of recording stratigraphic information.
Architectural features were sometimes erected in a single phase with no
structural modifications over time. Frequently, however, features were
modified — e.g. existing windows filled in, drains installed, partition
walls added in a room, etc.All of these changes will leave traces and, thus,
reading architectural features can be as complicated as reading stratigraphy. Each phase of construction, remodeling or demolition is assigned a
stratigraphic unit number, part of the same sequence of numbers as the
entire trench being excavated.There are two forms to be filled in when
walls are analyzed (SU description form for walls;Wall analysis form).
Fig. 18. Plan of the navalia at Ostia (Source: Heinzelmann 2002)
38
Plans of architectural features are undertaken in a similar manner as
trench plans. Since a plan is two-dimensional, we have to choose the
most representative “slice” of the feature.That is to say, if a wall stands at
a height of 1.20 meters, we must take measurements at the same elevation, perhaps at 0.80 m. if there is a window that we want to indicate on
the plan. In certain situations where features are more complex, more
than one plan can be drawn. Elevations are drawn in a similar way as sections in trenches. We must first establish a horizontal base line from
which all measurements are taken. Since it would be too time consuming to measure the dimensions of all stones or bricks in a given wall,
conventions are employed whereby the corners of stones of measured
and the dots are connected using artistic license. In the case of, say, a large
opus reticulatum wall that might be composed of hundreds or thousands
of small stones, draftsmen often calculate the average size of the blocks
and the average thickness of mortar and, again, employ artistic license.
Documenting finds. Artifacts and ecofacts are treated on a class by
class basis, since more/less information can be obtained from each type
of find. In general, artifacts and ecofacts are also described verbally and
graphically. Initial finds processing involves separating classes of materials into general categories and recording the gross quantity of each class
of material. All preliminary recording will be entered in a Finds
Notebook, used mostly for administration and inventory. Each class of
material will be studied by a specialist who will thoroughly document
the group of artifacts/ecofacts. Only artifacts/ecofacts that are of particular significance will be drawn and photographed.
Artifacts and Ecofacts
Artifacts and ecofacts describe, respectively, all man-made or natural
finds that relate to the lifeways of the people who inhabited or made use
of a given site. Artifacts are all man-made objects – pottery, tile, glass,
metal, worked stone, worked bone, leather, etc. Ecofacts are all natural
items or by-products that were used, exploited or generated by people animal bones, plant remains, human waste. Most artifacts and ecofacts are
39
not terribly spectacular. On occasion, we might recover an intact oil
lamp, decorated pottery, a glass vessel or a bronze figurine. For the most
part, we will unearth broken bits of undecorated pottery, glass, rusty nails
and animal bones, in addition to architectural debris. Despite the aesthetically unappealing nature of most finds, artifacts and ecofacts generally reveal the most interesting information about the people who lived
at a given site.This is also our key dating information.
In order to gain knowledge from these finds, they must be studied in
increasingly deeper ways. At a minimum, we must identify what these
objects are.The methods of study followed by pottery specialists are best
developed: classification, chronology, quantification.
Classification. The development and refinement of classificatory
systems continue to be the foundation for the study of all archaeological materials, including pottery, but in many cases this is no longer an
end in and of itself.While a considerable amount of archaeological work
consists of creating typologies, in recent decades such efforts have been
considered to be a necessary step toward more ambitious goals, such as
elucidating the processes and scale of craft manufacture and trade.
Archaeological classification boils down to identifying the physical
attributes of individual objects and making distinctions and connections
between the objects with the intent to establish meaningful constructs
that allow us to discern cultural patterns among groups of individuals.
The same group of material can be classified in a variety of ways
depending upon our objectives and experience. Classification is hierarchical: at one end are unique individuals; at the other end all individuals
are united and defined collectively. Between the extremes are increasingly narrower or broader groupings (like species à kingdom, in biological
terms).The process is a scientific convenience to establish order in apparent chaos and while most scholars argue for the ‘best’ method, some
claim, rightly so, that the method should suit the purpose.
Chronology. It was noted that archaeologists are able to learn the relative sequence of events at archaeological sites through a reading of the
stratigraphic record.That is, we can discern which events happened earlier and which later.The question of when these events occurred is of pri-
40
mary importance, but gaining knowledge of specific dates can be difficult
to achieve. Our main sources of information are historical sources or
events, coins, dendrochronology, C14, pottery and other objects found in
trenches. Scientific techniques such as dendrochronology (examination of
tree rings) and Carbon 14 dating (proportion of carbon isotopes in an
organic sample) can be used, but are expensive and often unnecessary
when the visual inspection of artifacts can be done at low or no cost.
Because pottery is so ubiquitous at archaeological sites and has been studied so well, this is our key dating information. Through associations
between the archaeological record and specific ceramic classes and forms,
we are able to date Roman-period pottery with fairly good precision.
Unfortunately, not all pottery has been treated equally, so that while tight
chronologies have been developed for Italian sigillata (ca. 50 BC to AD
150) or African sigillata (ca. AD 70-600), other wares that either haven’t
been studied thoroughly or whose forms didn’t change very much over
time cannot offer precise information.The slipped tablewares tend to offer
the best dating evidence (often quarter-centuries), while common wares
and amphorae are generally only used for broader dates. Coins and other
pieces of information may help to refine pottery dates.
Quantification. Archaeological materials are frequently counted for
reasons of administration or history/science. One of the most important
choices that specialists have to make regards the method(s) of quantification used. If simple documentation of an assemblage is the goal, standard methods of counting and weighing are probably sufficient. An
increasing number of researchers rely upon the numerical information
gathered from the study of materials in order to discuss broader historical questions. In particular, aspects of trade and supply are of key interest and, thus, the proportions between groups of like and unlike objects
must be compared synchronically and diachronically in the most accurate manner possible. There are actually quite a number of methods of
quantification used by archaeologists, each of which has its benefits and
deficits. It has been suggested that a suite of counting methods should be
employed and presented together. This is especially important, since
there is considerable bias in counting techniques and reliance upon one
technique or another will yield significantly different results!
41
Raw counts: literally counting fragments of pottery, bone, glass, etc.;
weights: weighing groups of pottery, bone, glass, etc.; estimated number of individuals: assessment of how many pots as opposed to how
many pottery sherds or how many sheep as opposed to how many sheep
bones; estimated vessel equivalents: used for certain materials like
pottery and glass to establish the number of vessels.
Table 1. Comparison of quantification methods – ceramic cookwares from Ostia,AD 350-450(%)
Class
RN
RW
TN
TW
ENI
Min
ENI
Max
EVE
Avg.
Regional Ckw
25.8
34.5
27.8
28.1
32.8
28.2
25.8
29.0
African Ckw
61.8
52.4
55.1
53.4
61.0
64.7
64.3
59.0
Aegean Ckw
Hand-built Ckw
Total
1.1
0.3
0.7
0.2
1.5
1.2
1.1
0.9
11.3
12.8
16.4
18.3
4.7
5.9
8.8
11.1
n. 64
n. 85
n. 7.02
–
n. 89
2044 g. n. 291
4858 g.
Class es of Artifacts
TILE AND BRICK
The use of tile in systems of roofing and for the embellishment of architectural structures has a long history that extends back to the archaic periods in Greece and Italy (7th-6th centuries BC).The use of brick in walls
was only adopted in the early 1st century AD. By the late 1st century AD,
the tile and brick industry was tremendous and represented a major source
of income for aristocrats, including the imperial family. Pan and cover tiles
were used for roofs. Flat tiles, bessales, sesquipedales and bipedales, which measured 0.67, 1.5 and 2 feet, were often used whole in walls — especially in
arches — but were more often cut into triangular sections to form bricks.
The same factories manufactured tubes with round or rectangular profiles
for various functions, including drainage and heating conduits.
TERRACOTTA ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENTATION
Some buildings were decorated with terracotta features, including
antefixes, cornices and acroteria.The most common types of decorative
terracotta were antefixes and drainage spouts — elements placed along
42
roofs. Both of these could have assumed many forms — floral, theatrical
masks, animals.Terracotta cornices were fairly common on public buildings, such as temples, but terracotta was largely replaced by marble/stone
in the Imperial period.Acroteria — statues placed on roofs — were only
components of public buildings, especially temples.These elements were
manufactured by pressing tempered clay into molds that bore negative
Figs. 19–20. Brick types and brick/tile stamps (Source: Adam 1994)
43
features of the desired product. Molds were crafted by skilled artisans,
while the terracotta pieces could have been mass-produced by unskilled
laborers.
POTTERY
After architectural material, pottery is the most abundant class of artifact at Roman-period sites in Europe and the Mediterranean. Pottery
was utilized for a broad variety of purposes: storage, preparation and
service of alimentary goods, transportation of certain agricultural goods,
the storage of cosmetic goods, funerary ritual, etc.
The study of pottery from archaeological sites is aimed at: 1) providing absolute dates of stratigraphic units and features excavated at the site;
2) providing qualitative and quantitative information about individual
pottery classes recovered at the site; and 3) contributing toward a more
complete understanding of the patterns of the supply of craft and related agricultural goods toward ancient cities.
Many different ceramic classes were used in the Roman and postRoman worlds.This section presents a brief summary of the major classes of pottery, including ceramic lamps, that we can expect to recover
through excavation at Porolissum.
Bronze Age and Iron Age Pottery. Many varieties of coarse pottery were
utilized by the indigenous Geto-Dacian cultures and may be found at
Porolissum. This pottery is generally dark brown or gray in color and
often has smoothed or burnished surfaces. Some exemplars may even
bear geometric patterns or rudimentary figures. The range of forms is
quite broad and includes bowls, cups, urns, jars, and pots.
Thin-walled ware defines a broad group of ceramics that were manufactured in many parts of the Mediterranean, although Italy was a
major manufacturer. This ware is characterized by very thin-walled
vessels. The range of forms is limited to small open forms, although
there is much variation in the curvature of walls, nature of the rim,
and decoration. Surfaces were often coated with a multi-colored slip.
This ware dates between the second century BC and the third century AD.
44
Fig. 21. Thin-walled ware (Marabini Moevs 1973)
Fig. 22. Italian sigillata with maker’s marks
45
Sigillata refers to a very broad class of red-slipped pottery that was first
manufactured in Italy around 50 BC. By the Imperial period, there were
many local varieties of sigillata. Many varieties were manufactured for
local consumption, whilst other kinds were traded long-distance. The
most common varieties of sigillata are found in many parts of the
Roman world are:
— Italian sigillata refers to a fine-bodied ware with a glossy red to brownish
red slip. The first center to manufacture this pottery in great quantities
was Arezzo (hence Arretine sigillata), but other centers developed in central and northern Italy, including Pozzuoli and Pisa.The range of forms
is limited to small to medium-sized open forms. In the classic period (ca.
50 BC to AD 40) decoration was limited to roulette, geometric or floral
motifs; however, in the so-called late or decadent period (ca.AD 40-150)
the exterior walls were often decorated with complex figural scenes in
relief. Maker’s marks set in the floor of vessels are common, indicating the
worker or master potter responsible for the manufacture of the vessel.
— Gallic sigillata developed from the Arretine tradition and dates from the
mid first century BC to about AD 150, although exportation was only
common beginning ca. AD 50. It was manufactured in southern Gaul,
especially La Graufesenque, and differs from Italian sigillata in paste and
surface treatment. Gallic sigillata is very hard and has a bright, cherry-red
slip.The exterior surfaces of vessels generally bear complex mold-made
floral patterns.
— Eastern sigillata A was manufactured in Syria.This is a fine-bodied pottery with a yellowish fabric and orange-red slip, manufactured between
the mid second century BC and the late second century AD.While its
distribution was generally limited to the Eastern Mediterranean, some
was shipped as far as Italy, especially during the period AD 70-125. Both
open and closed forms are known in the region of production, yet only
open forms were exported.
— Characterized by a fairly soft micaceous fabric, Eastern sigillata B was
manufactured in the Meander valley near Ephesus.This pottery was produced between the late first century BC and the mid/late second century AD and enjoyed its greatest diffusion throughout much of the
Mediterranean basin between AD 70 and 150.
46
— Production centres of Eastern sigillata C have been identified in the Ketios
river valley to the east of Pergamon.This fine-bodied ware has a reddishorange clay and a slip that is often glossy on the interior and opaque on
the exterior. It was manufactured between the first and early third centuries AD and apart from rare examples in the west, its distribution was
generally limited to the Aegean basin and the Black Sea.
— Cypriot sigillata is characterized by a fine reddish-purple fabric with occasional white inclusions and a thin slip with a slight metallic sheen.
Researchers have identified Cyprus as the place of manufacture based
upon patterns of distribution and the discovery of kiln sites on the island.
This pottery was manufactured between the early first century BC and
the early third century AD, but appears to have been exported significant
distances only in the late first and early second centuries AD.
— Pontic sigillata was manufactured in different centres around the western
and southern coast of the Black Sea. It is characterised by a light red to
brownish-red clay and a similarly coloured slip.This pottery was manufactured primarily between the late first century BC and the late second
century AD, although some local production may have continued until
the fourth century. Pontic sigillata is rare outside of the Black Sea and
northern Aegean basin.
— The production of African red-slip ware (a.k.a. African sigillata) began in
the decade preceding the eruption of Mt.Vesuvius. The gritty fabric is
light red and the surfaces are coated with an orange-red slip.There are
three broad sub-classes of ARS:ARS-A (ca.AD 70-280),ARS-C (ca.AD
180-400) and ARS-D (ca.AD 280-650).ARS-A and D were manufactured in northern Tunisia, near Carthage, while ARS-C was produced
throughout central Tunisia. By the late 2nd century AD this was one of the
most common types of pottery in the Roman world. In general, the
range of forms is quite broad, but exported forms were generally cups,
bowls, plates and occasional pitchers.
Internal red-slip cookware was manufactured from the later second century
BC to the second century AD. Originally, this pottery was called Pompeian
red-slip ware, because of the similarity in color between the slip and Pompeian wall paintings. The range of forms is limited to a medium-sized to
large pans or baking containers with relatively low walls.The presence of the
47
slip is thought to have been an early attempt of a “non-stick” effect. Cumae,
Italy was a major producer of this pottery, although it was produced in many
localities throughout the Roman world, including Gaul and Britain.
African cookware was manufactured along side African red-slip ware
and was shipped widely throughout the Roman Empire (ca. AD 50600).The forms are generally limited to pans, casseroles and lids.The clay
is orange-red and surfaced can be either white or gray (although often
heavily scorched). In some locations, African cookware represents up to
two-thirds of all cooking wares.
Aegean cookware was manufactured in several different locations
throughout the Aegean Sea. Unlike African cookware, the vessels
exported from this region were quite variegated and specialized: boilers,
deep pots, casseroles. The clay can often be mistaken for African cookware, but the vessel walls are quite thin. Exported ca. AD 50-400.
Common ware is generally the most numerically abundant variety of Roman period domestic pottery at archaeological sites, yet it is clearly the least
understood.Three decades ago, MercedesVegas and Steven Dyson were pioneers in the study of this pottery that archaeologists tended to ignore or simply discard. More recently, a growing number of specialists have focused
their attention upon this ceramic family and have even begun to establish
more refined typologies than what were proposed in the early 1970’s. However, a survey of modern archaeological literature indicates that there is neither a general consensus as to the definition of this pottery, nor a proper understanding of its role in ancient society. Common ware, which is also termed ‘coarse ware’, ‘utilitarian ware’, ‘plain ware’, or simply ‘miscellaneous
pottery’ in English texts, generally includes all types of undecorated domestic pottery (regardless of provenience) thought by modern scholars to have
been used by the lower classes. Common ware should refer to fine — and
coarse-bodied pottery, including cooking ware, that was manufactured primarily for local/regional distribution.
Transport amphorae are large containers that were used in antiquity to
transport agricultural goods, such as wine, olive oil, legumes, and fish sauce
from one port on the Mediterranean to another. Some forms were unique
48
to particular areas, such as the Dressel 20 in Baetica whereas other forms,
like the Dressel 2-4, were manufactured in many different centers throughout the Mediterranean. In the Roman period, there was a nearly global system of trade, meaning that goods were produced in many parts of the
Roman world and transported to distant markets. Not all areas of the Roman world had access to the Mediterranean Sea or possessed enough
wealth to tap into this market and were, thus, largely self-sufficient.
Nevertheless foreign goods reached the most distant areas of the Empire
and even crossed its borders. Large volumes of olive oil and fish sauce were
Fig. 23. Typology of transport amphorae (H. Dressel 1899)
49
produced in North Africa and Baetica (south Spain). Wine derived from
Italy, Gaul and the Aegean. In the Republican period, the most common
forms were the Greco-Roman and Dressel 1 amphorae.The dominant
form of early Imperial wine amphorae was the Dressel 2-4, characterized
by double handles.The variety of Spanish and North African amphorae was
very broad but the clays are very easily recognized. The most common
forms of Aegean amphorae are the “Cretan” and “Rhodian” in the early
Imperial period and Kapitän amphorae in the middle and late Roman
periods. Amphorae from Gaza, Palestine, Egypt, Asia Minor and Calabria
were common in the late Roman period. Many amphorae bear maker’s
marks, graffiti or tituli picti — epigraphy that indicates the place of manufacture, the nature and volume of contents, destinations, etc.
Lamps. While torches, large candelabra and braziers were used to provide
light, small oil lamps were used as well. In wealthy households, lamps were
often made of copper alloy (iron and lead were also used for lamps).
However, terracotta lamps are far more abundant.At first, lamps were made
by hand and resembled bowls. By the seventh century, the Greeks began to
make bowl-shaped ceramic lamps on a potter’s wheel. Over time, the bodies of lamps began to close and nozzles were attached to one end. In the
third century BC, potters began to manufacture lamps using a pair of molds.
The upper and lower sections of the lamps were pressed into molds and
allowed to dry.They were removed from the molds, assembled and finished.
By the mid first century BC, mold-made lamps were mass-produced by
unskilled workers. Many lamps from the late Republican and Imperial periods are decorated in relief with figural scenes, involving deities, circus events,
and quotidian life. Between the mid first and early third centuries AD the
bases of lamps were often stamped with a maker’s mark, consisting of geometric symbols, single letters, or the abbreviated name of the craftsmen.
While the clay used for lamps is often similar to that used for pottery, you
can easily distinguish mold-made lamps by the presence of finger impressions on the interior surfaces.
GLASS
The study of ancient glass is not as well developed as pottery. One
reason for this is that glass was frequently recycled. Glass is also far more
50
fragile and may shatter or be crushed into virtually unrecognizable fragments. It was used for a broad variety of uses from household containers to window panes. Glass was made by either shaping, molding or
blowing; the technique of blown glass developed around 50 BC.At first,
glass vessels were prestigious items that cost a fair amount of money. By
the 2nd or 3rd century AD, glass vessels were often mass-produced,
which affected the market value and even commoners could afford to
purchase some glass items.At this time there were both low — and highcost vessels. The shapes of many glass vessels were mimicked in pottery
— in fact, a large part of the repertoire of a pottery class called Thinwalled ware was based upon forms produced by glass workers.
METAL
The first metals to be exploited by man in central Europe were copper, gold and silver, which can be extracted from veins of pure metal.The
Copper Age began around 2700 BC in central Europe, while more
sophisticated metallurgical practices began around 2000 BC, marking
the beginning of the Bronze Age. At this time men realized that certain
metals — copper, tin, lead, arsenic — could be extracted from ore
through smelting (heating crushed stone in order to separate metals from
Figs. 24–26. Lamps from the American Academy in Rome (24 – Volute lamp, inv. no. 181;
25 – Loeschcke VIII lamp, inv. no. 2011; 26 – interior of Loeschcke VIII
lamp with finger impressions, inv. no. 2063)
51
silicon and other impurities).A much more resistant metal — bronze, or
copper alloy — was introduced at this time. Bronze is by definition an
alloy of copper and tin, but since tin was so rare in the Mediterranean,
copper was frequently alloyed with lead or arsenic in order to achieve a
similarly resistant, but aesthetically appealing metal. Iron technology was
introduced around 1000 BC.
Figs. 27–28. Copper alloy weights (AAR, inv. no. 1861) and pincers (AAR, inv. no.
1893)
Fig. 29. Lead lamp from the American Academy in Rome (Inv. no. 1948)
52
Copper and copper alloy - copper and copper alloy artifacts will appear
green and corroded, since they are affected by oxygenation. Common
items include coins, cosmetic containers, jewelry, components of furniture, figurines and statues. These objects should be stored in moisturefree conditions. These objects can be cleaned delicately with a toothbrush or a glass brushes and beneath the corrosion, the original object is
often well preserved. Coins can also be soaked in distilled water or olive
oil, which helps to loosen encrustations or corrosion. More serious work
should be reserved for professional conservators.
Iron will appear to be a mass of rust, although the form of the object
can generally be recognized. Iron was used for utilitarian goods, such as
farming and construction equipment, blades and nails. Iron quickly
deteriorates and cannot be easily cleaned or conserved by non-specialists. Iron objects should simply be stored under dry conditions with little or no attempt to clean them.
Lead was used commonly in antiquity for a variety of purposes, most
famously as water pipes (fistulae). One of the questions among archaeologists and non-archaeologists is whether or not Romans suffered from
lead-poisoning. Clearly some Romans may have suffered. On the other
hand, scholars have recently pointed out that calcium-rich water will
leave calcium deposits in pipes, which may have protected people from
the ill-effects of lead pipes. Lead is generally well-preserved, although
some corrosion occurs. Lead is very soft and is, thus, more prone to distortion and breakage than other metals.
Silver/gold - hopefully we will find a hoard or two of silver and gold, but
this is actually quite unlikely.These precious metals were first exploited by
man in the 3rd millennium BC, since extraction and forming do not require
sophisticated technology. Silver and gold were always viewed as noble and
the objects into which they were formed reflect this notion: jewelry,
diadems, funeral masks of elite, cult statues, princely service vessels and,
later, in the 6th century BC, coins. Western Dacia hosted important gold
mines, one reason why the Romans wanted to possess this province.These
metals may become tarnished or deformed, but do not corrode.
53
WORKED BONE AND IVORY
An important industry in antiquity involved crafting items such as
cosmetic implements (combs, hair pins, etc.), components of furniture,
toys and other objects from animal bone and ivory. Implements crafted from animal bone are relatively common, while ivory goods are
quite rare. Such items are often fragile, but can be cleaned delicately
with water or a very soft brush. They should be stored in dry conditions.
PLASTER
One method of covering walls in antiquity was to apply a layer of
mortar and plaster. Plaster is a paste consisting of calcium carbonate
(lime) that hardens quickly and serves to insulate and embellish walls and
ceilings. It was often painted – dry technique (paint applied to dry plas-
Fig. 30–31. Worked bone objects from the American Academy in Rome (Inv. no. 1242 and
1244)
54
ter) and fresco (paint applied to moist plaster). Plaster should not be
washed in water: undecorated surfaces can be cleaned lightly with a soft
brush; decorated surfaces can be gently cleaned with a cotton swab and
acetone or alcohol.
Classes of Ecofacts
ANIMAL BONE
Nearly all animal bones found at urban sites are the result of nutritional behavior (i.e. meat for human consumption).The most common
varieties of animals at Roman sites are pig, sheep/goat, cattle and fowl.
The remains of other domestic animals (e.g. dogs, horses) are rare, probably because they often died a natural death and their remains were disposed of differently.The remains of wild animals are sometimes found –
the result of hunting. Bones of smaller animals and fish are often present, but are somewhat more difficult to recover due to their small size.
Archaeozoologists study animal bones in a similar way as pottery specialists study pottery – qualitatively, to understand what types are present,
and quantitatively, to determine proportions and, hence, information
regarding ancient dietary patterns. Bone can be cleaned in water with a
soft brush.
CHARCOAL
The result of deliberate or accidental fire – hearths, kilns, house fires,
etc. Wood is generally not preserved outside of highly arid or waterlogged conditions; carbonized wood may is more readily preserved.
Charcoal may reveal information regarding events or activities conducted at a site (industrial activity, destruction, etc.). Carbonized wood can
also be tested by C14 in order to establish a date when other evidence
lacks.
PLANT REMAINS
Generally recovered by following the procedures of “environmental”
archaeology, such as flotation. Seeds, pollen and carbonized plant remains
are common finds. Ancient plant remains are often compared to the
55
modern vegetation of a given region, since evolution and migration are
relatively slow processes. Once again, plant remains are studied qualitatively and quantitatively in order to establish synchronic and diachronic
trends in agricultural production.
Fig. 32–33. Local inhabitants of Moigrad/Porolissum
56
V. RESULTS
OF THE
2004 FIELD SEASON
A pilot season was undertaken June 6-July 3, 2004 with an excavation team of 20 members. The PFP team excavated three trenches in
order to investigate specific questions pertaining to the Roman forum at
Porolissum.We offer here a summary of the results of this campaign.
Trench 1 (Fig. 34) was excavated in order to verify the existence of a
N-S wall suggested by the magnetometry readings that seems to define the
east side of the forum’s courtyard.Very early in the excavation season, the
magnetometry readings were proven to be correct.This trench also yielded
our most important evidence for the chronological development of the forum.At least four phases of construction and use were noted in this trench:
a pre-forum or early forum phase; two phases that involved the construction of and modifications to the mature forum; and a post-Roman phase.
Phase 1.The earliest feature within Trench 1 pertains to a pre-forum
or early forum phase consisting of the corner of a stone building that
Fig. 34. PFP 2004,Trench 1PFP 2004,Trench 1
57
underlies and is off-axis with the N-S wall.Two walls of identical stone
and concrete masonry meet to form the corner of a room. The walls
are about one Roman foot wide and are faced in an irregular pattern
of roughly hewn igneous stone. By the end of the 2004 season, we did
not reveal the floor of this structure and there were no indications as
to its function. We are, therefore, uncertain whether this represents an
early public building, a shop or a house. Moreover, it is difficult to provide an absolute chronology for this phase since no coins were
encountered and the typologies of local pottery are not developed sufficiently to provide a solid date. In other areas of Porolissum, archaeologists have shown that the earliest features were constructed mostly of
wood, whilst stone masonry only began a generation or so afterwards.
In this case, a date in the second quarter of the 2nd century is not
unreasonable. This feature was systematically demolished in order to
construct the mature forum.
Phase 2.The excavations revealed a 6-meter long segment of the NS wall that represents a component of the mature phase of the Roman
forum.This segment of the wall was constructed over the Phase 1 structure, which had been razed to a uniform level. The wall is about two
Roman feet thick and is composed, again, of roughly hewn igneous
stone bonded by concrete.The magnetometry readings suggest that this
wall defined the eastern side of a rectangular courtyard measuring about
100 x 85 m. A small area of packed earth on the west side of the N-S
wall, and below the destruction level (see phase 4), may represent the
original surface of the courtyard or a preparation for pavement.
Phase 3. An unanticipated discovery was a large hypocaust system on
the east side of the N-S wall.At some undetermined time after the construction of the N-S wall, a wall composed of large sandstone blocks and
small hewn volcanic stones was built perpendicular to the N-S wall and
a hypocaust system was installed.The exposed portion of the hypocaust
system on either side of the partitioning wall consisted of four rows of
ten brick pillars within an area measuring 6 x 2.4 m. The system continues for an undetermined distance to the east and south beyond the
limits of Trench 1. There were no indications as to the function of this
heated area. It may, thus, represent a heated space within a public building or a bath complex.
58
There was no firm evidence to allow us to date the N-S wall and the
hypocaust; nor was it possible to estimate the span of time that had
elapsed between the two phases.Two moments are possible: around the
time of the Sarmatian attack on Dacia during the Marcomannic Wars
(AD 167-168), when Marcus Aurelius founded the city of Potaissa, some
80 km to the SE of Porolissum, or during the reign of Septimius Severus
when the city was granted municipium. In the first instance, the construction of public monuments at Porolissum may have been an effort to
increase the city’s prestige in the light of the newly founded Potaissa. On
the other hand, one would expect major building campaigns as a physical symbol of Porolissum’s rise in civic status at the time of Severus.
Local red-slipped pottery found between the phase 1 and 2 walls is reminiscent of certain African red-slip C forms dating to the late 2nd-early
3rd century AD (Hayes 1972; Atlante I) and, thus, may support the latter hypothesis.
Phase 4. We suspect that the heated structure was utilized well into
the post-Roman period, either according to its original function or to
serve another purpose. A portion of the N-S wall was demolished at an
unknown time to create a crude passageway, suggesting that the area
served a different function in the post-Roman period. Of considerable
interest for our understanding of the lifeways during the post-Roman
period were indications of industrial activity in the SW corner of
Trench 1. The excavations revealed a concentration of ceramic and
metal slag within a narrow area of the trench. This is not completely
surprising considering the discovery in 2003 of a post-Roman pottery
kiln some 50 meters to the south.Two sherds of lead glazed pottery dating to the 4th or 5th centuries AD were revealed in related strata on the
west side of the Roman N-S wall, providing an approximate date for
the duration of activity in this area prior to the destruction of the
forum building. The building containing the hypocaust system was
destroyed by fire, but not before it had been stripped of its internal furnishings, since no refinements such as paving stones were discovered
below the destruction level.The fire is attested by a deep layers of charcoal, ash, ceramic tiles and stone, suggesting the collapse of the roof, followed by the collapse of the walls.
59
Trench 2 (Fig. 35) was excavated with our sights set upon what
appears to be a Roman basilica.The magnetometry study suggests that the
northern side of the forum’s courtyard was bounded by a large structure
composed of a series of parallel walls, which is consistent with the plan of
a basilica. The archaeological evidence is not overwhelming, yet it reinforces the hypothesis of a basilica. In the 2004 season, we revealed the corner of a porticus consisting of a foundation wall of concrete and stone
masonry (2.8 x 0.6 m) with a column base (ca. 0.5 x 0.5 m) at the easternmost end.A drain runs parallel to the porticus on the side of the courtyard. Four meters to the north, the excavations revealed a solid wall of similar masonry situated parallel to the porticus and preserved to a height of
1.1 m.We suspect that the solid wall represents the southernmost wall of
the presumed basilica. The section of the porticus, thus, served as a covered walkway on the north side of the forum’s courtyard. A similar
arrangement occurs in one of the few known fora in Dacia, namely the
forum at Colonia Ulpia Traiana where a basilica defines the south side of
the courtyard (MacKendrick 1975: 109-111; Diaconescu 2004: 90-99).We
Fig. 35. PFP 2004,Trench 2
60
cannot be certain of the date of this structure, since the masonry is not
identical to the N-S wall in trench 1 and the artifacts found in association
with the presumed basilica provide only a generic “Roman” date.
Trench 3 (Fig. 36), a long, narrow exploratory trench beginning
seven meters to the southeast of Trench 1, revealed a wealth of architectural features, most of which require further study.The westernmost end
of the trench pertains to the mature forum phase and included the continuation of the hypocaust area of Trench 1. A concrete and stone wall
runs E-W through this trench and probably joins to the N-S wall of
Trench 1. To the north of this wall are two additional hypocaust pillars
and a partitioning wall composed of large sandstone blocks set perpendicular to the E-W wall.The two pillars and sandstone blocks had been
subjected to a very hot oxidizing flame.This evidence may indicate that
a praefurnium (furnace) was situated nearby. Immediately to the south of
the E-W wall, we revealed the beginning of an apsidal space pertaining
to the same “mature” phase of the forum.
Fig. 36. PFP 2004,Trench 3
61
To the east of the partitioning wall, the situation becomes more complicated. The E-W wall continued for 11 m. It was built partially against
what appears to be the base of a massive pillar (ca. 2 x 2 m). Judging by the
seams between the masonry, it appears that the pillar corresponds to a
somewhat earlier phase in the sequence of Roman-period building activity. The east end of the E-W wall joins with a N-S wall, which extends
immediately into the balk.Another N-S wall emerges from the main E-W
wall, some 2.5 m to the west, defining a small space, perhaps a taberna.
At some moment, a segment of the E-W wall near the hypocaust area
was removed and a drain was inserted. Finally, the area near the hypocaust
revealed the same pattern of destruction observed in Trench 1.
Archaeological materials. While the examination of the artifacts
and ecofacts recovered during the 2004 season has only been conducted in cursory manner, some preliminary notions are reported here. In
2004, we unearthed about 100 kg of non-architectural finds: glass, iron,
copper alloy, animal bone, worked bone and pottery. Most glass consisted of window glass, although a few examples of Roman period domestic glassware were recovered. Iron took the form of nails and clamps; the
few copper alloy fragments included the letter “A” of a military insignia.
Animal bone consisted primarily of pig, sheep/goat and cattle with some
bones demonstrating butchering marks. Also recovered were several
worked bone needles and hairpins from Roman and post-Roman
deposits. The great majority of the pottery, red-slipped pottery and
coarse wares, derived from the immediate environs of Porolissum
(Gudea 1996: 199-284). Some portion of the overall assemblage may
have been imported from other Dacian settlements, while four fragments from the early Roman phase were imported from farther afield.
In particular, two small fragments of pottery may be Germanic terra sigillata, one small amphora-like sherd is of North African origin and the
rim of one amphora (Dressel 7-11?) is in the Baetican fabric.
These finds indicate that in the first phase of Roman occupation
there was a small but steady chain of supplies deriving from other areas
of the Empire. For the remainder of the Roman period, the majority of
supplies were locally derived or at most extra-regional.This fits the pattern of supplies in the other European provinces (Millett 1990: 157;
62
Woolf 1992: 283-293; Erdkamp 1998). Lastly, the material record of
Porolissum indicates that there was no break in craft production in the
immediate post-Roman period, attested primarily by the pottery industry, which witnessed the continued use of the same clays and decorative
styles (i.e., the use of a red slip) into the 4th or 5th centuries (Matei
1979; Băcuet-Crişan and Băcuet-Crişan 2003, 28-73).
´
´
Publications
The results of the project will be presented annually at conferences,
lectures and in articles.We expect to publish the final results of the project in a series of volumes. Papers on the work conducted in 2004 were
presented at the 106th Annual Meetings of the Archaeological Institute of
America (January 2005, Boston) and a public lecture at the American
Academy in Rome (January 2005). Two articles have been written for
publication:
E.C. De Sena and A.V. Matei,“The Porolissum Forum Project: report on
the first field season, 2004,” submitted to Journal of Field Archeology.
A.V. Matei and E.C. De Sena (2005), “Rapoarte la campania 2004 din
forum de Porolissum (jud. Sălai)”, in Cronaca Cercetarilor Archeologice din
Romania, campania 2004: section 126.
63
APPENDIX 1 – THE ROMAN ARMY
Rome developed from a city to a territory to an empire, due in
large part to her well organized and well maintained army. Until the
late 2nd century BC, the Roman army consisted exclusively of Roman
citizens (from Italy) who owned property.
The rank of soldiers depended upon the size of their land holdings
and, hence, their social status. In the late 2nd century BC, an important military leader and statesman, Gaius Marius, reorganized the
Roman army from a militia where men were called away from their
homes at times of need to a professional standing army whereby men
enlisted for a certain period of time, generally 20 years. From this
point on, men often chose the army as a career. In the late 1st century BC, the first emperor, Augustus, transformed the Roman army
once again.
Subsequent emperors would modify the internal struction, but the
basic imperial system had been established by Augustus. During the
Empire, the Roman army consisted of two bodies: legiones and auxilia.
The legiones had been established under the Republic and consisted of Roman citizens — by this time not only Italians.
Augustus reduced the number of legions to 25 (down from 60).
Each legion consisted of about 5500 infantry soldiers and 120 cavalry.The infantry was subdivided into smaller bodies — 59 centuries in
10 cohorts.
The first cohort consisted of 5 centuries, each with 160 soldiers;
nine other cohorts of the legion consisted of 6 centuries composed of
about 80 soldiers apiece (the numbers varied from time to time and
place to place). Soldiers were expected to serve for 20 years and males
could enlist from the time they were 17 years old.
Ordinary soldiers were paid 225 denarii per year and upon their discharge received approximately 3000 denarii in money, land or both.
During times of peace, the legions were stationed throughout the
Empire to defend the frontier, pave roads, construct aqueducts and
cities. During times of war, legions normally stationed in one part of
the Empire may have been transferred to the combat zone.
64
Realizing that a new strategy was required in order to increase the
number of troops and emply non-citizens who could govern their
own territories, Augustus re-organized another division of the army,
the auxilia (auxiliaries).
This body had been assembled as early as the 2nd century BC, consisting of men living in the Roman provinces who had not gained citizenship. Beginning with Augustus, there was a total auxiliary force of
about 150,000 soldiers stationed thoughout the Empire, especially in
the north and east.
These troops were organized in cohorts of 500 soldiers who were
commanded by praefecti cohortis, often local chiefs. There was also a
cavalry. Following 25 years of service, in addition to annual pay and a
bonus at retirement, members of the auxilia were granted Roman citizenship.
Beginning with Augustus, a new branch of the military was developed — the Praetorian Guard. The cohors praetoria consisted of 9
infantry cohorts of 1000 men apiece and a cavalry, which served in
peace and in war directly under the emperor; they also acted as the
emperor’s bodyguard.These troops were normally stationed in Rome
and Italy, but moved wherever the emperor saw fit to engage in military action. The Praetorians were well treated and well paid, receiving 730 denarii per year and a retirement bonus of 5000 denarii (after
a mere 16 years of service).
The Roman navy was considered a separate entity and was organized much as the auxilia with a mix of citizens and non-citizens. Naval
units were based at strategic points with major ports at Misenum,
Ravenna (Italy), Forum Iulii (Gaul), Alexandria (Egypt) and Seleucia
(Syria). River guards were positioned along the Rhine and Danube
Rivers.
Chain of Command
Emperor: Commander-in-Chief of Roman military forces
Consuls: annually elected officials in Rome who commanded the Roman army
65
Proconsuls/Propraetors: governors or other high-ranking officials appointed by the Senate to a lengthy term of service (often 5 years) in a specific province; overall commanders of the military based in that
province
Legatus: high-ranking military official who oversaw one or more legion
Praefectus: high ranking military official directly below the rank of legatus, commanded one or more cohorts.
Military trinbune: 6 tribunes per legion, responsible for 1 cohort
Centurion: commander of a century
Fig. 37. Trajan’s Column, Rome (Source: Settis 1988, Pl. 15)
66
APPENDIX 2 – THE STUDY
OF
ROMAN POTTERY
Ancient pottery has been of interest for centuries. Large collections
of fine Greek and Italian figured vases were assembled as early as the
Renaissance period. Considering archaeology’s antiquarian heritage, it is
not surprising that ceramics of greater aesthetic value were studied,
while undecorated wares were completely ignored. However, by the
later 19th and early 20th centuries, archaeologists began to recognize the
importance of classifying more than just the black and red-figured pottery in order to begin to understand chronology. By the 1940’s and 50’s
most archaeological reports included chapters or entire volumes on the
ceramic finds. Pottery was classified according to form and other superficial characteristics (slip, hardness, color). On this basis, scholars such as
Heinrich Dressel and Nino Lamboglia succeeded in assigning fairly tight
dates to particular pottery types based upon their occurrence in the
archaeological record at sites like Albintimilium in north-western Italy.
At this time pottery was generally associated with a particular production site on the basis of the distributional evidence. Still, not all classes of
pottery were treated equally: common wares were (and often still are)
discarded, Roman pottery at Greek sites and Medieval pottery at Roman sites were also often ignored.
Since the 1960’s, with the development of Processual and PostProcessual archaeology and the division of archaeologists into specialized
fields, ceramics specialists devoted increasingly more effort into analyzing pottery and more important questions were being asked (not just
what is the date and style). Where were the specific points of origin?
What was the extent of distribution over time? How were workshops
organized? Questions such as these began to have an important bearing
on our understanding of the ancient economy. In order to answer some
of these questions, archaeologists examined the entire ceramic assemblage (including the common wares) and paid closer attention to the
ceramic paste (what kinds of mineral inclusions occur and with what
frequency). Scientific instrumentation was used by archaeologists with
greater regularity in the 1970’s, so techniques such as thin-section petrography, X-ray fluorescence, neutron activation analysis, and gas chro-
67
matography were employed to assist in the determination of provenience, manufacturing techniques, and utilization of specific classes of
ceramics (of particular interest is G. Olcese 1994).
Fabric: Fabric or paste are terms used to describe the clay mixture
used in the manufacture of ceramic objects. Clay is a highly abundant
(and cheap) natural resource that is available in most parts of the world.
Clay is a product of the weathering of certain kinds of rocks. Clay particles are very small (up to 0.002 mm) and flat and when water is present, the platelets slide over each other very easily; thus, clay is malleable.
However, when the water is removed and the platelets bond to each
other through firing the clay becomes as hard as stone (in effect, metamorphic rock) and is virtually indestructible.
Potters often add foreign materials to a base clay (temper), such as
sand or straw, for various purposes. For example, small mineral inclusions
provide strength to the body of a ceramic vessel when the clay is still
moist—potters can often produce thinner walled products with tempered clay than with a very fine, pure clay. Mineral inclusions are also
very important in cookwares, products which were used to cook food
on or near fire or coals.As you know, materials expand when heated and
contract when cooled, and fine-bodied clay vessels suffer from repeated
heating and cooling. Mineral inclusions in the fabric of cookware vessels reduce the effect of thermal shock.
Technique: After the clay was prepared, vessels could have been
formed in a variety of manners, depending upon the available technology, dimensions of the vessel, or desired outcome. Hand-forming is the
least technical method, but products often have a crude, rustic appearance. Often walls were formed by coiling and could have been made
more regular with a paddle. This technique generally lost favor in Italy
by about the seventh century BC, although certain large vessels, like
dolia, were built by hand even through the late Roman period.The potter’s wheel was introduced to Italy during the Iron Age. This device
enabled craftsmen to manufacture goods with greater uniformity and
productivity, although it required a certain competence. Molds were
also used (especially for lamps after the second century BC) in ceramics
68
workshops. A jolly is a bowl-shaped mold that could be set onto a fast
potter’s wheel. Clay was thrown into the jolly. Craftsmen in central Italy
and Gaul often used this technique for tablewares (Italian and Gallic sigillata).The interior wall of the jolly could have been incised with a decorative pattern that would have produced the same pattern in relief.
Mold-made vessels do not require skilled labor, except for the craftsman
who makes the molds.
Secondary forming operations included the trimming of bases and
exterior walls, smoothing of surfaces, or the attachment of other features,
such as handles. Vessels were left to dry to a leather-hard state. At this
time, further embellishment (slipping, burnishing, etc.) may have been
executed.
The ceramics were then stacked in a kiln and fired. In general, light
or reddish colored fabrics indicate that there was plenty of oxygen in the
kiln (oxidation), while dark-colored fabrics indicate that there was a
paucity of oxygen (reduction). Potters had excellent control of the kiln
atmosphere and only in rare instances were results accidental.You should
realize that dark slips alone do not necessarily indicate reduction (manganese-based slips fire dark even with oxygen).
It is possible for ceramics experts to identify the specific methods of
manufacture based on tell-tale signs like the regularity of walls, string
marks on bases (which indicate that vessels were cut off of the potter’s
wheel with a cord), or finger impressions.
Surface treatment:This refers to anything that is done to alter the
visible surface of ceramic vessels. In antiquity, surfaces were treated in a
variety of ways. Burnishing involves rubbing the leather-hard surface
of a vessel with a hard instrument, like a pebble, in order align the clay
particles, producing a smooth, glossy effect. A slip is a liquid substance
derived from clay that was used to paint the surfaces of vessels. A glaze
is another substance that could be applied to the surface of vessels. Glazes
are essentially a form of glass and were not common in Roman Italy
until the fifth century AD. Burnishing, slips or glazes could have been
applied over the whole surface of a vessel for a uniform effect or may
have been applied to create geometrical or figural motifs. Other forms
of decoration include incision, rouletting, stamped motifs, and appliqués.
69
Form/type: Form or type refers to the shape of individual vessels.
Vessels are often described as bowls, plates, beakers, pitchers, etc., but are
termed open, semi-closed, or closed when the function is more ambiguous, or when archaeologists are hesitant about using such functionally
suggestive terms as bowls, plates, beakers, etc., since customs changed
over time (for example, people in antiquity often drank from vessels
resembling modern-day cereal bowls).
Recent trends in the study of pottery
The 1970s and 80s witnessed a paradigm shift in Roman pottery studies, introducing a wave of research aimed at elucidating aspects of the
ancient economy. Pottery derived from stratigraphic excavations was
viewed as an indicator of broad trends in the Roman economy, especially
patterns of trade and consumption, but also as a means to establish the
socio-economic organization of certain industries. Traditional objectives
and methods served as the foundation (i.e. the development and refinement of ceramic typologies and dates and the study of epigraphy), but pottery catalogues were no longer viewed as the final product of research.
Due to a number of factors, scholars began to formulate deeper
research questions and reflect more carefully over their methods of study.
Foremost among these stimuli was the development of the New
Archaeology and Post-Processual archaeology in the United States and
Britain, which called for stratigraphic excavation, the study of all artefacts and ecofacts and the interpretation of archaeological sites and
materials in the light of pre-defined research questions or hypotheses. In
Italy, these theories were coupled with Marxist thought, which necessarily drove scholars to elucidate the nature of the ancient economy. Many
projects were well funded and teams carried out large-scale excavations
in urban settings like Rome, Ostia and Carthage that resulted in the
recovery of literally tons of pottery whose chronological sequence could
be meaningfully traced.The question of provenience became a primary
focus of research–fabric analysis by optical, microscopic and geo-chemical techniques allowed researchers to establish the origin of pottery
classes quite specifically–and quantification of pottery from stratigraphic excavations was viewed as imperative.Thus, knowing the origin, date
and proportions of pottery types at a given site resulted in an ability to
70
shed light upon aspects of the ancient economy that could not be understood through readings of the ancient sources. Rostovtzeff had already
indicated the importance of North Africa in the supply of nutritional
goods to Rome, but ceramics specialists could indicate exactly how
much olive oil and fish sauce were produced and shipped each year!
The pioneers in this wave of research were Michael Fulford, John
Hayes, David Peacock and David Williams in Britain, Jean-Pierre Morel,
Maurice Picon, André Tchernia and Georges Vallet in France, Andrea
Carandini and Clementina Panella in Italy and Steven Dyson and John
Riley in the United States. Thanks to the archaeological, statistical and
archaeometric work conducted by these scholars and their students, we
are now well informed about the shifts in the trade of amphora-borne
commodities and domestic wares toward the city of Rome, particularly
for the Late Antique and early Medieval periods, at Ostia between the
Flavian and Severan periods, in Carthage and central Tunisia throughout
much of the Imperial period, in the coastal areas of Hispania and Gaul,
throughout Britain and in portions of the eastern Mediterranean in the
Late Antique/early Byzantine period.
After two decades of intellectual bliss, some scholars began to raise
concerns over methodological issues and the validity of historical conclusions.The greatest methodological questions concerned classification
and quantification: should pottery be classified according to forms or
according to fabrics? How should pottery be counted? How should
numerical information be presented? How does the presence of residual
pottery affect quantification? These seemingly simple questions are of
paramount importance, because reliance upon different methodologies
will produce radically different results! The principal concern with
regard to historical conclusions was the representativeness of pottery as
an indicator of economic patterns: do pottery assemblages represent
household, citywide, or global trends? Within this context, a major point
of contention regards the extent of long-distance trade in the Roman
world. One group of scholars who have been termed ‘primitivists’ view
the ancient Roman economy as rather simple, claiming that cities were
strictly dependent upon their hinterland for agricultural resources and
other supplies. Proponents of this theory deny that long-distance supplies played a major role in the ancient economy. ‘Modernist’ scholars
71
adhere to the opposite point of view, namely, that long-distance supplies
were of chief importance in the ancient Roman economy and that the
Mediterranean was essentially the world’s first global system. Regions
such as Tuscany and the Bay of Naples in the Republican period and
Gaul,Africa Proconsularis and Baetica in the Imperial period are viewed
as having produced tremendous quantities of specialized goods for the
export market. According to Carandini and others, because transport by
sea was cheap and relatively fast, inhabitants of the Mediterranean had
easy and equal access to all goods. Most pottery studies have tended to
support the latter theory – that the Mediterranean was “an enormous
conglomeration of interrelated markets.”The broad distribution of certain varieties of domestic pottery, such as Italian sigillata,African red-slip
ware or African cookware, and transport amphorae has been offered as
widely accepted proof of a global economy.
Quite recently critics have pointed out that many of these studies are
based upon the archaeological record of large metropoleis, such as
Rome, Carthage and Corinth, which have presented far too generalised
a vision of the Roman economy. When comparisons are made among
assemblages from different areas, including more remote areas that had
little connection with the sea, we note that the ancient economy was not
uniform throughout the entire Roman Empire and not even within
Italy. Scholars have indicated that despite long-distance trade between
many Mediterranean ports, there was also strong local production that
only served local markets. In fact, in the last decade or so, a growing
number of researchers are assuming a more moderate stance: that longdistance trade was significant toward centres possessing great wealth
and/or an unusually large population, but that locally produced goods
stood as the basis of subsistence. Thus, in the case of Rome – the mistress of consumer cities – there would have been significant amounts of
imported supplies, but many local products as well.
As we know all too well, the archaeological record does not provide
enough information to allow us to reconstruct a complete picture of any
given entity or system of antiquity.The ‘life-assemblages’ (i.e. the whole
range of goods used by people) of past cultures were far richer than what
we see in the archaeological record. Despite the relatively unique preservation of foodstuffs, parchment and other normally perishable goods at
72
sites such as Pompeii or in desert regions, like Egypt, archaeologists will
never achieve a full reconstruction of past lifeways and behaviour.
Households used ceramic vessels alongside copper and glass containers;
wine was frequently transported in ceramic amphorae, but it was also
transported in wooden casks and wineskins. It, therefore, becomes crucial to bridge elements of the archaeological record with other sources
of information, such as epigraphy and ancient literary sources, visual culture and ethnographic/historical data in order to attain a broader and
deeper understanding of ancient trends.
73
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ancient Sources with some bearing on the Porolissum Forum Project
Ammianus Marcellinus, The Histories.
Cato the Elder, On Agriculture.
Julius Caesar, The Gallic Wars.
Cassius Dio, Roman History.
Columella, Country Life.
Lives of the Later Caesars.
Ovid, The Poems of Exile.
Strabo, Geography.
Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome ;The Histories.
Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture.
Modern Sources
Adam, Jean-Pierre (1994), Roman Building: Materials and Techniques,
London: Batsford.
Atlante I = A. Carandini ed. (1981), Enciclopedia delle forme ceramiche I. Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (medio e tardo impero), E.E.A.,
Rome.
Atlante II = A. Carandini ed. (1985), Enciclopedia delle forme ceramiche I.
Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (medio e tardo impero),
E.E.A., Rome.
Băcuet-Crişan, S. and D. Băcuet-Crişan. 2003. Cercetări Arheologice pe
´
´
Teritoriul Oraşului Zalău. Zalău: Bibliotheca Musei Porolissensis V.
Bălută, Cloşca L. (1999), Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae.Volumen III: Dacia
´
Superior, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române.
Bărbulescu, Mihai (1997), Das Legionslager von Potaissa (Turda) / Castrul
74
Legionar de la Potaissa (Turda), Zalău: Ghid al Monumentelor Arheologice din Dacia Porolissensis 7.
Barker, Graeme (1995), A Mediterranean Valley. Landscape Archaeology and
Annales History in the Biferno Valley, Leicester University Press.
Barker, Philip (1993), Techniques of Archaeological Excavation, London:
Batsford, 3rd edition.
Bats, Michel, ed. (1996), Les céramiques communes de Campanie et de
Narbonnaise: La vaisselle de cuisine et de table, Naples: Collection du
Centre Jean Bérard 14.
Baxter, Michael J. (1994) Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bell,T.,A.Wilson and A.Wickham (2002),“Tracking the Samnites: landscape and communication routes in the Sangro Valley, Italy,” American
Journal of Archaeology 106: 169-186.
Benea, Doina and Petru Bona (1994), Tibiscum, Bucharest: Editura
Museion.
Binford. L.R. (1983), In Pursuit of the Past, London:Thames and Hudson.
Braudel, Ferdinand (1972), The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World
in the Age of Philip II, Harper and Row Publishers.
Brown, F.E. (1980), Cosa: the Making of a Roman Town, University of
Michigan Press.
Brown, F.E., E.H. Richardson and L. Richardson (1993), Cosa III: The
Buildings of the Forum. Colony, Municipium and Village, Memoirs of the
American Academy in Rome 37.
Ciaraldi, Marina and Jane Richardson (1999), “Food, ritual and rubbish
in the making of Pompeii,” TRAC 9: 74-82.
Clarke, David L. (1968), Analytical Archaeology, London.
Conspectus 1990 = E. Ettlinger, B. Hedinger, B. Hoffmann, P.M. Kenrick,
G. Pucci, K. Roth-Rubi. G. Schneider, S. von Schnurbein, C.M.Wells,
S. Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger (1990), Conspectus Formarum Terrae Sigillatae Italico Modo Confectae, Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
De Sena, Eric C.“Regional economies in Roman Italy: the upper Latina
Valley in Rome’s ‘global’ system,” in preparation for Journal of Roman
Studies.
De Sena, Eric C. (2005), “An assessment of wine and oil production in
Rome’s hinterland: ceramic, literary, art historical and modern evi-
75
dence,” in A. Klynne and B. Santilli Frizell (eds.), Roman Villas around
the Urbs. Interaction with Landscape and Environment (www.svenskainstitutet-rom.org).
De Sena, Eric C. (2003),“Seeing the Trees and the Forest: toward a more
refined understanding of socio-cultural systems in classical antiquity.
The case of olive oil in ancient Latium,” Archaeologiae. Research by
Foreign Missions in Italy 1: 11-32.
De Sena, Eric C. and Janne P. Ikäheimo (2003),“The supply of amphora-borne commodities and domestic pottery in Pompeii, 150 BCAD 79: preliminary evidence from the House of the Vestals,” European
Journal of Archaeology 6.3: 301-322.
Dobbins, J.J., L.F. Ball, J.G. Cooper, S.L. Gavel and S. Hay (1998),
“Excavations in the sanctuary of Apollo at Pompeii, 1997,” American
Journal of Archaeology 102.4: 739-756.
Dyson, Stephen L. (1998), Ancient Marbles to American Shores: Classical
archaeology in the United States, Univeristy of Pennsylvania Press.
Dyson, Stephen L. (1992), Community and Society in Roman Italy,
Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Erdkamp, Paul (1998), Hunger and the Sword.Warfare and Food Supply in
Roman Republican Wars (264-30 B.C.), Amsterdam.
Feinman, G.M. (1997),“Thoughts on new approaches to combining the
archaeological and historical records,” J. Archaeological Method and
Theory 4(3/4): 367-77.
Finley, Moses I. (1973), The Ancient Economy, updated edition (1999)
with forward by Ian Morris, University of California Press.
Giuliani, Cairoli F. (1990), L’edilizia nell’antichità, Rome: La Nuova Italia
Scientifica.
Goldsworthy, Adrian K. (1996), The Roman Army at War: 100 BC-AD
200, Clarendon Press.
Greene, Kevin (2002), Archaeology: an Introduction, Routledge (4th edition).
Grose, D.F. (1989), The Toledo Museum of Art. Early Ancient Glass: core-formed,
rod-formed and cast vessels and objects from the late Bronze Age to the early
Roman Empire, 1600 BC to AD 50, New York: Hudson Hills Press.
Gudea, Nicolae (1989), Porolissum: un complex arheologic daco-roman la marginea de nord a imperilui roman, I. Săpături şi descoperiri arheologice până în
anul 1977, Zalău.
76
Gudea, Nicolae (1996), Porolissum: un complex arheologic daco-roman la marginea de nord a imperilui roman, II. Vama romană. Monografie arheologică,
Cluj-Napoca.
Gudea, Nicolae and Dan Tamba (2001), Porolissum: un complex arheologic
daco-roman la marginea de nord a imperilui roman, III. Despre templul zeului Iupiter Dolichenus din Municipium Septimium, Zalău.
Hanson,W.S. and I. Haynes, eds. (2004), Roman Dacia: the Making of a Provincial Society, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplemental Series 56.
Harris, Edward (1989), Principals of Archaeological Stratigraphy, London:
Academic Press, 2nd edition.
Hayes, John W. (1972), Late Roman Pottery, London.
Hodder, Ian, ed. (2001) Archaeological Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Horden, P. and N. Purcell (2000), The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Lugli, Giuseppe (1957), La Tecnica Edilizia Romana, Rome.
Keay, S. and N.Terrenato, eds. (2001), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues
in Romanization, Oxbow Books.
MacKendrick, Paul (1975), The Dacian Stones Speak, University of North
Carolina Press.
MacKinnon, Michael (2004), Production and Consumption of Animals in
Roman Italy: Integrating the Zooarchaeological and Textual Evidence,
Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplemental Series 54.
Matei, Alexandru V. (1998), “Porolissum: a Roman town,” in N. Gudea
and A.M. Hakkert (eds.), Porolissum. Ausschnitte aus dem Leben einer
dakisch-römischen Grenzsiedlung aus dem Nordwestern der Provinz Dacia
Porolissensis. Amsterdam.
Matei, Alexandru V. (1997), “A new defensive line discovered at the
Roman military site of Porolissum in Dacia Porolissensis,” in Roman
Frontier Studies, Oxford, 93-101.
Matei, Alexandru V. (1997), „Die Töpferöfen für graue stempelverziete
Keramik aus Zalau,“ in N. Gudea (ed.) Barbari ?i Romani la frontierele
Daciei, Acta Musei Porolissensis XXI, 367-75.
Matei,Alexandru V. (1996),“Un nou castru descoperit la Porolissum?” in
Civilizatia romana in Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 231-46.
Matei, Alexandru V. (1993), “Aşezarea dacilor liberi de la Panic, jud.
Sălaj,” in Material 17.2, 325-327.
77
Matei, Alexandru V. (1985),“Cuptorul de ars ceramica cenusie stampilata descoperit in asezarea dacilor liberi de la Panic (jud. Salaj),” in Acta
Musei Porolissensis IX, 247-58.
Matei, Alexandru V. (1982), “Vasul decorat cu serpi descoperit la
Porolissum,” in Acta Musei Porolissensis VI, 17-22.
Matei, Alexandru V. (1979), “Repertoriul de aşezări şi descoperiri
apartinand secolelor IV-IX e.n. pe territoriul judetului Sălaj,” in Acta
´
´
Musei Porolissensis 3, 475-513.
Matei, Alexandru V. and I. Stanciu (2000), Vestigii din Epoca Romana (sec.
II-IV p.Ch.). Cluj-Napoca.
Matei,Alexandru V. and István Bajusz (1997), Castrul roman de la RomitaCertiae, Zalău: Ghid al Monumentelor Arheologice din Dacia
Porolissensis 4.
Mattingly, David (2004),“Being Roman: expressing identity in a provincial setting,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 17: 5-25.
Millet, M. (1990), The Romanization of Britain. An Essay in Archaeological
Interpretation, Cambridge University Press.
Olcese, Gloria, ed. (1994), Ceramica romana e archeometria: lo stato degli
studi, Florence.
Orton, C., P.Tyers and A.Vince (1993), Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge.
Oxè, A., H. Comfort and P. Kenrick (2000), Corpus Vasorum Arretinorum.
A Catalogue of the Signatures, Shapes and Chronology of Italian Sigillata,
Second edition completely revised and enlarged, Bonn: Antiquitas 3,41.
Parslow, Christopher C. (1998), Rediscovering Antiquity. Karl Weber and the Excavation of Herculaneum, Pompeii and Stabiae, Cambridge University Press.
Peacock, D.P.S. and D. Williams (1986), Amphorae and the Roman
Economy: an Introductory Guide, London.
Pensabene, Patrizio, ed. (1996), Marmi antichi II. Cave e tecnica di lavorazione, provenienze e distribuzione, Studi Miscellanei 31.
Pollard, A. Mark and Carl Heron (1996), Archaeological Chemistry,
Cambridge:The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Preucel, Robert W., ed. (1991), Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies:
Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Occasional Paper no. 10.
Schiffer, Michael B., ed. (2000), Social Theory in Archaeology, Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press.
78
Settis, Salvatore, ed. (1988), La colonna traiana, Rome: Giulio Einaudi
Saggi 716.
Stern, E.M. (1995), The Toledo Museum of Art. Roman Mold-blown Glass:
the first through sixth centuries, Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider.
Taylor,Walter W. (1948), A Study of Archeology, Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1983 edition.
Webster, Graham (1969), The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second
Centuries AD, London: Adam and Charles Black Publishers.
Wells, Peter S. (1999), The Barbarians Speak. How the Conquered Peoples
Shaped Roman Europe, Princeton University Press.
Wells, Peter S. (2001), Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians: archaeology and
identity in Iron Age Europe, London.
Woolf, Greg (1992), “Imperialism, empire and the integration of the Roman
economy,”World Archaeology 23.3: 283-293.
Woolf, Greg (1998), Becoming Roman: the Origins of Provincial Administration in Gaul, Cambridge University Press.
79
AREE SCIENTIFICO–DISCIPLINARI
Area 01 – Scienze matematiche e informatiche
Area 02 – Scienze fisiche
Area 03 – Scienze chimiche
Area 04 – Scienze della terra
Area 05 – Scienze biologiche
Area 06 – Scienze mediche
Area 07 – Scienze agrarie e veterinarie
Area 08 – Ingegneria civile e Architettura
Area 09 – Ingegneria industriale e dell’informazione
Area 10 – Scienze dell’antichità, filologico–letterarie e storico–artistiche
Area 11 – Scienze storiche, filosofiche, pedagogiche e psicologiche
Area 12 – Scienze giuridiche
Area 13 – Scienze economiche e statistiche
Area 14 – Scienze politiche e sociali
Le pubblicazioni di Aracne editrice sono su
www.aracneeditrice.it
Finito di stampare nel mese di gennaio del 
dalla «ERMES. Servizi Editoriali Integrati S.r.l.»
 Ariccia (RM) – via Quarto Negroni, 
per conto della «Aracne editrice S.r.l.» di Roma