The Chora of Metaponto 4: The Late Roman Farmhouse at San Biagio 9780292735422

Citation preview

The Chora of Metaponto 4 The Late Roman Farmhouse at San Biagio

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

The Chora of Metaponto 4 The Late Roman Farmhouse at San Biagio Erminia Lapadula

Edited by Joseph Coleman Carter

Institute of Classical Archaeology Packard Humanities Institute

University of Texas Press, Austin

Copyright © 2012 by the University of Texas Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First edition, 2012 Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to: Permissions University of Texas Press P.O. Box 7819 Austin, TX 78713-7819 www.utexas.edu/utpress/about/bpermission.html The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) (Permanence of Paper).

Lapadula, Erminia The chora of Metaponto 4 : the late Roman farmhouse at San Biagio / Erminia Lapadula ; edited by Joseph Coleman Carter. — 1st ed. p. cm. “Institute of Classical Archaeology, Packard Humanities Institute.” Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-292-72877-6 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-292-73542-2 (e-book) 1. Metapontum (Extinct city) 2. Metapontum (Extinct city)—Rural life and customs. 3. Farmhouses—Italy—Metapontum (Extinct city). 4. Agricultural colonies—Italy— Metapontum (Extinct city). 5. Greeks—Italy—Metapontum (Extinct city). 6. Excavations (Archaeology)—Italy—Metapontum (Extinct city). 7. Metaponto Region (Italy)—Antiquities. I. Carter, Joseph Coleman. II. University of Texas at Austin. Institute of Classical Archaeology. III. Packard Humanities Institute. IV. Title. V. Title: Chora of Metaponto four. DG70.M52L36 2011 937'.773—dc23

2011044210

For reasons of economy and speed, this volume has been printed from camera-ready copy furnished by ICA, which assumes full responsibility for its contents. Title page illustration: Antefix with face of a young satyr from the Greek sanctuary at San Biagio. 4th century BC. (Ch. 3, Architectural Terracottas Cat. No. 1.1.1). Photo: C. Williams

A mia madre, al suo coraggio, al suo grande amore

Special Acknowledgment

This volume and others in this series could not have been conceived,

much less carried through to publication, without the generous financial support of the Packard Humanities Institute.

The Director and staff of the Institute of Classical Archaeology and its collaborators express their profound gratitude.

Preface

Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Joseph Coleman Carter 1. The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period Liliana Giardino Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Basilicata under Roman Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Excavation and Structures Erminia Lapadula

The Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 The 1980 Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Re-evaluation of the Site’s Occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Building Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Interpretation of the Roman Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Virtual Archaeology: A Proposed Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Massimo Limoncelli

3. The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period Erminia Lapadula Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Pottery and Other Neolithic Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Cesare D’Annibale Figured Pottery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Francesca Silvestrelli

Black Gloss and Grey Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 Eloisa Vittoria

Banded Ware, Miniatures, and Plain Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Anna Cavallo Cooking Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Antonietta Di Tursi Transport Amphorae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 Oda Teresa Calvaruso Architectural Terracottas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Anna Lucia Tempesta Coroplastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Rebecca Miller Ammerman Loom Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Lin Foxhall

vii

4. The Materials: The Roman Imperial Period Erminia Lapadula

Study and Presentation of Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 Eastern Terra Sigillata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 African Red Slip Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Slipped Common Ware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 Plain Ware. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 African Cooking Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Cooking Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136 Transport Amphorae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 Dolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157 Glass Finds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Metal Finds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Milling Finds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

5. Furnishings, Utilitarian Artifacts, and Coins Erminia Lapadula

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Personal Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Household Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 Spinning, Weaving, and Sewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Lamps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Tools for Fire-lighting, Carpentry, and Woodworking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 The Repair of Dolia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180 Window Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Coins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183 Anna Rita Parente

6. Archaeozoology, Archaeometry, and Ceramic Analysis The Archaeozoological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191 Joseph Coleman Carter A Goat Skeleton from the Roman Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193 László Bartosiewicz Archaeometric Analyses of Metal, Glass, and Plaster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Claudio Giardino Microscopy of Selected Pottery Fabrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .208 Keith Swift with Victoria Leitch 7. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Erminia Lapadula Reference Materials References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Illustration Credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263

Acknowledgments This publication, which was nearly five years in the making, is the product of many individual contributors, including the excavators, the archaeological authorities, the colleagues who have undertaken the individual studies that it comprises, the skilled technicians who prepared the materials and illustrated them, and the production staff at the Institute of Classical Archaeology in Austin (ICA) at the University of Texas. The roll call goes back to 1980 and comes up to the present, and I am sure that I have not included all those to whom we are grateful. Few sites of the Roman Imperial period are known in the territory of Metaponto, and none has as yet been published in its entirety. I felt honored when Prof. Joseph Coleman Carter, Director of ICA, invited me to participate and take the lead role in coordinating the studies of the site and its material remains. I am grateful for all the help, including editorial work, that he and the staff at ICA have given me over these years, and I hope that the results will justify his trust. Personally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Packard Humanities Institute for its support. There are very few such opportunities available for archaeologists working in southern Italy today as the one PHI has made possible here. I owe much over the years to the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata, which has made it possible for me to study the materials in its collections and to participate in excavations. In particular, I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Antonio De Siena, the current Soprintendente and for many years the

Director of the National Museum of Metaponto, for his constant encouragement and the many exchanges of ideas and opinions that have contributed to the result seen here. Particular thanks to the scientific community at ICA, which has contributed in a variety of ways and at different times to the realization of the San Biagio study. Many are among the names of collaborators listed below. Special thanks go to Esmeralda Moscatelli and Keith Swift, coordinators—administratively and scientifically—of the Metaponto farmhouse publication project. We have shared long hours and demanding work that have reinforced our professional ties and bonds of friendship. Many thanks also to the administrative and technical staff of the Soprintendenza. Sincere gratitude and affectionate memories are addressed to those who actually carried out the excavation at San Biagio in July 1980. Its success owes much to the skill and dedication of trench supervisor Claire Lyons and foreman Giuseppe Di Taranto. For much help with logistical and administrative problems in Italy, we thank Rosetta Torraco and Tiziana Ria. Thanks also to Helga di Giuseppe for her valuable suggestions and exchange of ideas. Finally, a sincere thanks to all those who, in different ways, provided suggestions and advice. It would be impossible to mention all of them, but their contributions have been invaluable for the publication of this book. Erminia Lapadula

x

Joseph Coleman Carter Contributing Authors Rebecca Miller Ammerman Department of the Classics Colgate University László Bartosiewicz Institute of Archaeological Sciences Loránd Eötvös University Oda Teresa Calvaruso Archaeologist Joseph Coleman Carter Director of the Institute of Classical Archaeology University of Texas at Austin Anna Cavallo Archaeologist Cesare D’Annibale Material Culture Researcher Parks Canada Antonietta Di Tursi Archaeologist Lin Foxhall School of Archaeology and Ancient History University of Leicester Claudio Giardino Istituto Universitario Suor Orsola Benincasa Liliana Giardino Università degli Studi di Lecce Erminia Lapadula Archaeologist Victoria Leitch School of Archaeology and Ancient History University of Leicester Massimo Limoncelli Archaeologist Anna Rita Parente Scuola di Specializzazione in Archeologia Università della Basilicata Francesca Silvestrelli, Ricercatore Università del Salento Keith Swift Institute of Classical Archaeology Anna Lucia Tempesta Museo Provinciale “Sigismondo Castromediano” Eloisa Vittoria Archaeologist

Preface Contributors Object Documentation

Massimo Barretta (Eneolithic Ceramics, Black Gloss, Greek Cooking Ware, and Dolia) Teresa Oda Calvaruso (Greek Transport Amphorae) Anna Cavallo (Banded Ware, Plain Ware, and Miniatures) Erminia Lapadula (Roman artifacts) Cesare Raho (Figured Pottery, Architectural Terracottas, and Coroplastic)

Site Documentation Michael Guarino Massimo Limoncelli

Cartography

Jessica Trelogan

Conservation

Vitangela Giacovelli Fiorenza Antonietta Bornè

Site Photography

Joseph Coleman Carter Chris Williams

Object Photography Luca Centola Maria Luisa Giuliani Cesare Raho Chris Williams

3-D Reconstruction Massimo Limoncelli

Translation

Francesca Marzilli Esmeralda Moscatelli

Editing

Deena Berg Joseph Coleman Carter Victoria Leitch

Print Production Chris Bell Estéban Hinojosa Lauren Jackson Jessica Trelogan

xi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Preface

Preface This monographic study of the 2nd and 4th century AD Roman farmhouse at San Biagio attempts to fill two major gaps in our knowledge of the history and civilization of southern Italy. First it describes how farmers of modest means, the backbone of the economy in all periods, lived. Second, it provides a snapshot of rural daily life in the Late Roman period, one that is incompletely known and only recently has attracted the attention of archaeologists and scholars. This farmhouse is a typical and extremely well preserved example of the dwelling and workplace of a farm family in the Late Roman period, and an essential part of ICA’s multifaceted study of the Metapontino. Such structures were the basic unit of the chora (agricultural territory) in both the Greek and Roman periods. They continued to be so from the 6th century BC for a millennium, centuries bracketed by the historical figures of Pythagoras and Constantine—in short, much of Classical Antiquity. Over this long arc of time there were changes in the basic architectural model, but they were slight despite the very different political and economic worlds of the 6th century BC and the Late Empire. The traditions of rural architecture and life have continued—with modifications— down to the present. The site of the Late Roman farmhouse was excavated in the distant summer of 1980. It occupied a prominent position on a point of land below the landmark chapel of San Biagio overlooking the left bank of the Basento River. Several hundred meters to the north, overlooking the Venella valley, lay the major Archaic extra-urban Sanctuary of Artemis. That summer, ICA’s Metaponto project undertook two initiatives that shaped its future direction. Plans were laid for a systematic field survey of a large and representative area of the chora. At the same time, excavation was begun at a number of representative farmhouses, the basic unit of the chora. ICA’s project followed closely the research program outlined by Dinu Adamesteanu in the mid-1960s. The remains on the surface and the good condition of the site, which had never been deeply plowed, first attracted our attention, and so it became one of two farmhouses to be completely excavated in that memorable summer. Nearly thirty years passed before the

xiii

last and most important step in its investigation was taken: its final study and definitive publication. This might never have happened but for the enlightened philanthropy of the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI) and the enthusiasm and knowledge of Erminia Lapadula, author of much, coordinator of the rest, and spirit behind the publication. PHI provided comprehensive and essential financial support for the publication of ICA’s research results, including all aspects of the present work. PHI could not have made a more timely decision. There was the risk that the fruits of 35 years of archaeological investigation in the chorai of Metaponto, Croton, and Chersonesos would never see the light of day, and there was also a growing group of talented and highly trained archaeologists in Italy who were finding few opportunities to exercise their skills. The chance to study important material and publish it under their own names was made possible by grants from PHI. The Roman farmhouse at San Biagio is the first of a series of monographs on farmhouses and other sites that will appear in the coming years. Much in the world of Italian archaeology has changed since 1980. In the specific case of Metaponto, the landscape has undergone significant transformations, which has had serious repercussions on archaeological investigations. It is unlikely that the farmhouse at San Biagio would have survived another 30 years to the present. Many rural sites, as we have noted during three decades of field survey, have been severely compromised. One thing that has not changed, I am happy to report, is the commitment of the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata to the preservation and study of sites in its territory. In 1980, the then-Soprintendente, Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, gave her permission to intervene and excavate at San Biagio. She actively followed the work, as did former Soprintendente Dinu Adamesteanu, with enthusiastic encouragement and wise words. The constant support of Antonio De Siena, longtime Director of the National Museum of Metaponto and Soprintendente since 2010, made the study of the San Biagio site and all the other research projects both practically possible and, because of his knowledge and personal interest, intellectually stimulating. The

xiv

Joseph Coleman Carter

first chapter of this volume, on the historical and geographical setting of the site, was contributed by our colleague and lifelong friend Liliana Giardino, student of Adamesteanu. After more than a quarter-century of warm hospitality at Pantanello, in 2000 ICA and the Regione Basilicata signed a formal agreement of collaboration that made possible the creation of the Centro di Agroarcheologia at Pantanello. With the support of PHI, an ideal workspace was created in the farm structure that had formerly served to house excavation records, pottery restoration, and a small library. Here, the students and scholars engaged in preparing this and the many other volumes of the Chora of Metaponto series meet to study and exchange ideas. Some live in the former residence of the farm manager of the Regione Basilicata. We are grateful to the authorities of the Regione, and especially to Dott. Vito de Filippo, Presidente, to Maria Carmela San-

toro, Dirigente Generale Dipartimento Agricoltura, and to Vilma Mazzocco, Assessore all’Agricoltura of the Regione Basilicata. Particular thanks also to our friends Giuseppe D’Agrosa, Salvatore Martelli, and Carmelo Mennone for their foresight and continued support. An agreement for the use of the land upon which the site lay, made in 1980 with Gaetano Stigliano who farmed it, is still honored by his son Giuseppe Stigliano and his son-in-law Cosimo Danzi, who regularly maintains the site so that it is visitable today. This effort, together with similar ones at several other sites in the chora excavated by ICA, including the Greek sanctuary and Roman tile factory at Pantanello, continue to give life to a long-held dream of creating an archaeological itinerary of the ancient territory. It is the best hope, I feel, for preserving the unique beauty and historical monuments of rural life and civilization in this area of Italy. Joseph Coleman Carter Director, Institute of Classical Archaeology

Preface

The Chora of Metaponto 4 The Late Roman Farmhouse at San Biagio

xv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period Liliana Giardino

Figure 1.1 Map of the territory of Metaponto with sites occupied in the Roman periods and roads. (LG/JT)

Introduction The site of the Late Roman farmhouse is part of a larger ancient settlement at San Biagio including an important Greek rural sanctuary, farmhouses, and burials of both Greek and Roman periods. It occupied the slopes of a small plateau on the left bank of the Basento River, just 6 km from the Ionian coast and the site of the former Greek city, Metaponto,1 which flourished as a major Greek settlement from the 7th to the 3rd centuries BC, but was reduced to the level of a village in Roman times (Fig. 1.1). A summary of political and economic developments in the area beThe name of the ancient Greek polis was “Metapontion,” subsequently known in Roman times as “Metapontum.” The more common Italian name “Metaponto” is used here, along with “Metapontino” and “Metapontine” to describe the surrounding countryside (chora). 1

tween the 3rd century BC and the Late Roman period is presented here to contextualize San Biagio within the history of Roman Basilicata (ancient Lucania).2 This historical overview begins in the 3rd century BC when the discontinuity between the Greek and Roman settlement, recognized by many scholars, first becomes apparent. In the 2nd century BC, settlement and agricultural land use appear to have taken on new forms, but most of the well-known historical events that provoked these developments in fact occurred in the 3rd century BC.3 The modern name for the region, Basilicata, had its origins in the Middle Ages. Lucania together with Bruttium to the south comprised the Augustan Regio III of Italy. 3 Torelli 1990, 127–29; Russi 1999, 487–523; Gualtieri 2003, 19–62; 2008a, 205–10; De Cazanove 2008, 566–69. The 2004 Convegno di 2

2

Liliana Giardino

Figure 1.2 Map of Basilicata with sites of the Roman period and modern population centers. (JT)

The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period The Roman farmhouse and the site of Metaponto will be examined within the context of the close relationship in the ancient world—both economic and institutional—between the urban center and its surrounding territory. Comparable studies of other areas on the Ionian coast and the rest of Basilicata will also be briefly reviewed to identify similarities and differences within the Metapontine territory. The settlement and economic patterns of Basilicata during the Roman period have only recently received much attention from researchers. Previously, studies of the region have focused on the Greek colonies and the relationship between them and indigenous populations. The presence of the Greek polis, its asty or city center, and its chora or surrounding territory, dominated research in this area. Archaeological evidence from the Roman period was known, but until the 1975 Taranto conference, “La Magna Grecia in Età Romana,” the synthesis presented in 1960 by Kahrstedt was the only published work on this subject.4 In recent years two important monographs devoted to the Roman period in Basilicata have appeared, and publications have steadily increased ever since.5

Basilicata under Roman Rule The 3rd Century BC The events that mark the 3rd century BC in Basilicata—the military struggle with Rome, the rebellion and presence of Hannibal, and political subordination of the Greek poleis of Herakleia and Metaponto to Rome—caused serious repercussions not only in the urban centers, but also in their chorai. A demographic decline was immediately evident and it was followed by revival and transformation.6 The most significant difference noted in the chora of Metaponto at the end of the 3rd century BC, but especially in the 2nd and 1st centuries, was the number of new settlements—in sharp contrast with the immediately preceding period.7 A 3rd-century BC farmhouse at San Biagio is a good example of this phenomenon. It lay beside the Taranto was devoted to the 3rd c. BC (Atti Taranto 43). According to David (2002), “Romanization” began at the end of the 3rd c. BC. 4 Atti Taranto 15. Kahrstedt 1960. 5 Russi 1995; Gualtieri 2003. 6 For continuity at Metaponto see: Tagliente 2006, 732–34; De Siena 2007a, 439, Table XII (above); Carter 2006, 242–47; Osanna 2008a, 928–29, Tables XXII–XXIII; Greco 2009, 799, 801. For the most recent findings, see Nava 2002, 734–35, 740, 742, Table LXX, 1. 7 See Carter 2011c, 893.

3

Sanctuary of Artemis. Its builders made liberal use of materials from the sanctuary, effectively cancelling it out. This episode illustrates the deterioration of the Greek chora, and lack of respect on the part of the new occupants for its sacred places. It also reveals “the existence of a political crisis in the polis.”8 In other respects, the new farmhouse also made a clean break with the Greek past. It had a different layout compared to the single-family farms of the 4th century BC. It was larger, with an area of 247 m 2— the farmhouses of the 4th century rarely exceeded 200 m 2—and its floor plan included a courtyard with rooms used for food storage.9 The 3rd-century BC farmhouse at San Biagio had a very short life, and was abandoned by the end of that century. The changes in the Metapontine territory had their counterpart in the chora of Herakleia, which was linked to Rome by a foedus prope singulare,10 and in other internal areas of Basilicata (Fig. 1.2). They included the first manifestations of new residential and production patterns that spread more widely in the 2nd century BC. In the territory of Herakleia some farmhouses occupied previously deserted areas, as at Troyli and the farmhouse at Montalbano (Andriace), in the immediate hinterland of Herakleia. Both were located on terraces between the Agri and Cavone Rivers.11 The farmhouse at Montalbano covered a significant area (ca. 700–800 m 2) and was divided into functional spaces arranged around a large courtyard (Fig. 1.3).12 Its plan with spaces for work and storage as well as a residential sector suggests that it was a large rural property. The complex at Montalbano was abandoned at the end of the 3rd century BC, like the building at San Biagio, while the structure at Troyli remained active down to the Augustan period. The developments in the region of Basilicata in the 3rd century BC affected the chora and city with equal intensity. The network of urban centers underwent a major transformation, marked by the foundation of the Latin colonies (Paestum, Venusia), the birth of the urban center of Grumentum in the Agri valley, De Siena 2005, 442–46, Figs. 1 and 2. De Siena 2005, 442–46, Figs. 1 and 2. San Biagio farmhouse. 10 The stipulation of the foedus prevented the Tarantine colony from suffering the devastating events that took place in Metaponto in the 3rd c. BC (L. Giardino 2005, 402–05). 11 Bianco 2001, 815–16; De Siena and Giardino 2001, 151–53; L. Giardino 2003, 188–89; De Siena 2005, 446–48. The plan of the Troyli structure in its initial phase in the 3rd c. BC is not known. 12 Such structures contained a kitchen with adjacent bathroom, stables, and warehouses with dolia embedded in the floor. See De Siena 2005, Fig. 3. 8 9

Liliana Giardino

4

pretensions of their new occupants.16 Gualtieri has identified these characteristics as early examples of the new model of the villa in Basilicata.17

Storeroom Dolium

Dolium

Storeroom Dolium

Storeroom Dolia

Bath



Kitchen

Phase I 0

5m

The Last Two Centuries BC In southern Italy, the break with the past became even more obvious in the 2nd century BC. New forms of agricultural production emerged, favored by the wide availability of Roman public land, the ager publicus, and the new management model, the villa.18 In the Metapontine chora, animal husbandry and wool processing began to play major roles in the economy beside cereal cultivation. As a result, large areas were given over to grazing, and property holdings (fondi) became extensive.19 The villa was the administrative center. Its characteristic features were a very large area and a complex organization by function, with a residential space and rooms for the processing and storage of agricultural products. Among the sites of the Metapontine chora active in this period, 20 three excavated examples, at Sant’Angelo Grieco (Fig. 1.4), Pantanello, and Masseria Durante (Fig. 1.5), 21 illustrate well the new tenor

Phase II

Figure 1.3 Schematic plan of the farmhouse at Montalbano (Andriace), 3rd c. AD. (After De Siena 2005, Fig. 3/EH)

and the abandonment of many settlements in the interior, such as Serra di Vaglio, Torretta di Pietragalla, Oppido Lucano, and Satriano, and along the coast, such as Garaguso, Pomarico, and Cozzo Presepe.13 In the upper Bradano along the border of the territory of Venusia,14 the earlier farmhouses Mancamasone in the territory of Bantia and Moltone near Tolve were transformed in the same way as the farmhouses along the coast.15 The enlargement of the overall area, the presence of a large central courtyard, and an architecturally more elaborate style reflect the 13 Torelli 1992, xvii; Small 1999, 565–67; Gualtieri 2003, 19–37; 2008a. On the role of Latin colonies in the Romanization of the Italic territory, see Torelli 1992, xxiv; Russi 1999, 514–16; David 2002, 29–32; Grelle 2007. The most recent data on the Italic centers are in Nava 2005, 342–45; Osanna 2008b, 169–70, 173–74; De Cazanove 2008, 566–68; Russo 2010. Cività di Tricarico is a rare example of continuity and Cersosimo is a fortified Lucanian center of the 3rd and 2nd c. BC. 14 For settlement, cultural, and economic patterns after the foundation of Venusia in the surrounding area, see Marchi and Sabbatini 1996; Grelle 2007, 176; Gualtieri 2003, 36–37; 2008a, 206. A similar picture seems to emerge now for the Grumentina area: Nava 2002, 744–54. 15 Russo 1993a (Mancamasone); 1993b (Moltone).

Grey ware ↖

↑

Loom weights

Doric capital (5th c. BC)

Hearth



Doric capital (2nd/1st c. BC)

0

5m

Phase I, 4th c. BC Phase II, 2nd c. BC

Figure 1.4 Schematic plan of the farmhouse at Sant’Angelo Grieco. (ICA/EH) Small 1999, 567–68. Mario Torelli emphasized how in the 3rd c. AD “… land owners don’t belong to the ‘middle’ class of the previous century but are part of the privileged indigenous groups of the post Roman conquest who employed slaves in the management of the farmhouse.” (Torelli 1992, xx). 17 Gualtieri 2008a, 210. 18 Torelli 1992, xix–xxi; Russi 1999, 505–10; Small 1999, 573–74; Gualtieri 2003, 39–46, 131–62. 19 De Siena 2001, 38; Carter 2006, 248. 20 Carter 2006, 244. For a synthesis of the architectonic elements, see De Siena 2005, 448–56. See Carter 2011b, 891, for the results of the survey in the 2nd c. BC. 21 Knowledge of two further structures of the 2nd c. AD at La Cappella and Destra Basento is at present only partial (De Siena 2005, 449–51). 16

The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period

5

Column drum Column drums

Triglyph fragments Bovine skeleton Tiles Dirt road

Column drum Column drum Fallen Mutule tile fragment

Capitals Capital fragment Triglyph fragment

Phase I, 4th c. BC

Capital fragment

Phase II, 2nd-1st c. BC

Column drum

Stelai capitals

Phase III, 1st c. AD Column drums

•



0

5m

0

5m

Figure 1.5 Schematic plan of the villa rustica at Masseria Durante. (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/LG/EH)

of life in the chora. These three structures had diverse site plans and engaged in different activities, but they are a clear testimony to the diffusion of new forms of settlement and production in the Metapontine chora. The large farmhouse known as Sant’Angelo Grieco occupied an agricultural site already in use in the 6th to 4th centuries BC.22 The production center at Pantanello was located beside the rural sanctuary frequented from the 6th to the 3rd centuries BC, 23 and it, like the farmhouse at San Biagio mentioned earlier, made massive use of cut stone from the sanctuary’s structures. The Masseria Durante complex lay over part of the urban necropolis along the northwest side of the Greek city walls.24 Sant’Angelo Grieco did not survive beyond the 1st century AD, while the other 22

De Siena 2005, 449; Carter 2006, 147–48, and Carter 2011c, 909.

23 De Siena 2005, 448–49. The rubbish dump from the kiln at Pantanello

covers and largely obscures a section of the sanctuary, see Carter 2006, 163–64, and Carter 2011c, 910. 24 De Siena and Giardino 2001, 142.

two remained active at least until the end of the 2nd century AD and probably longer. The Pantanello and Sant’Angelo Grieco structures were similar in plan and extension (over 200 m 2), but different in their function and economic activities. 25 Pantanello was a large manufacturing center with kilns, devoted to the production of ceramics and iron 26 for the nearby territory; 27 Sant’Angelo Grieco had a mixed economy based on agriculture, animal husbandry, wool processing, and probably ceramic production, as there is a kiln (undated) also on this site. Sant’Angelo Grieco may be regarded as an early villa rustica without a well developed residential quarter. A recent study of the rural complex at Masseria Durante focused on its particular layout, consisting of Carter 1977, 2006. Carter 2011c, 910. 27 Carter 1977; Hempel 1996. The grey ware production in Pantanello was complementary to and not a substitute for the urban production. 25

26

6

Liliana Giardino

Figure 1.6 Lamps from the villa at Masseria Durante, 1st c. BC. Detail of stamp (inset) from bottom of lamp above it. (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/CW)

a series of enclosed spaces, with the larger ones open to the sky.28 Lissi Caronna identified these areas as the pastureland (pastio agrestis) of a rustic villa, for accommodating a large number of animals, or, alternatively, as a holding area for transhumant livestock, without a residence for the owner.29 Archaeological evidence not known at the time of Lissi Caronna’s work supports the first hypothesis. It consists of stone architectural elements in the large central courtyard of the complex,30 found together with tableware:31 grey ware, thin-walled Megarian cups, Arretine ware, and other Italic, eastern, and African productions. Also present were lamps (with a seal of C. Iunius Alexis) (Fig. 1.6) and transport amphorae of local, Metapontine, and Italian (Dressel 2/4, Dressel 6) production. Activities at the site included milling, wool production, and ceramic production—and perhaps, as at Pantanello, metallurgy. Of particular interest is the presence of a loom weight among the kiln wasters. The new evidence confirms the 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD date originally proposed by Lissi Caronna, but also adds chronological definiLissi Caronna 2000. 29 Lissi Caronna 2000, 200, 203. 30 Lissi Caronna 2000, Fig. 11, area B. 31 Lissi Caronna 2000, Fig. 16. The ceramics presented constituted only a part of those kept in the warehouse. 28

tion to the beginning and end of the settlement. The pottery suggests that it began toward the end of the 3rd century, or shortly after. Lamps and African and Eastern terra sigillata wares testify to occupation in the early decades of the 3rd century AD. An area with burials, probably a part of the complex at Masseria Durante, was identified in 1969. 32 The precise coincidence in the periods of use of the villa and the necropolis, and the fact that there were no burials of the 3rd century AD in the urban necropolis are further indications that the villa and burial grounds were a self-contained unit. The few graves found intact (Fig. 1.7) or disturbed by agricultural work covered a period that encompassed the 2nd century BC and the early decades of the 3rd century AD, with a re-occupation of the area, again in the Late Roman period. The composition of the modest grave goods does not suggest a wealthy, but certainly not a poor population. In this respect, the burials of Masseria Durante resonate with those of the Early Imperial necropolis in the area of the former agora of Metaponto.

Figure 1.7 Grave goods from destroyed burials in the vicinity of the villa at Masseria Durante, 2nd c. BC to 2nd c. AD. (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/CW) The necropolis located in proprietà Grieco was identified and damaged by plowing. There is no indication of the burial typology.

32

The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period Much of the evidence for the frequency and intensity of settlement in the chora of Metaponto between the 2nd and 1st centuries BC unfortunately remains unpublished, or only partially so. It includes a farmhouse in use between the 3rd century BC and 2nd century AD in the Petrulla locality, discovered in 1968, grey ware ceramics from seemingly isolated graves in the area of Orte in Incoronata and Chianestrella, a cremation tomb with grey ware and black-gloss vessels found near Bernalda in 1967,33 and a Late Republican structure with grey ware ceramics and Metapontinetype amphorae in a villa in the locality of La Cappella.34 Excavations conducted by the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata in 2001–2002 discovered a site of considerable size known as “Destra Basento” on the right bank of the Basento River. Only part of its original area was excavated (525 m 2),35 but enough remains to make clear it was a complex structure. It was built in the 2nd century BC, and it was in use until the Augustan period. The demographic and economic contraction affecting the urban center of Metaponto in the 1st century BC, and the subsequent interventions in the Augustan period, are not evident in the chora. The agricultural systems that emerged in the 2nd century BC—just after the Roman conquest, in fact—show continuity up to the 1st to 2nd century AD, and, in some well-documented cases, until the early 3rd century AD. In the nearby territory of Herakleia in the 2nd century BC, an agricultural production based on the ownership of a medium-sized property and villas as management centers was already in place. Termitito on the Cavone, Troyli in the hinterland of Herakleia, and Campo Magno near Valsinni were characterized by large areas and monumental structures.36 Some farmhouses in the territory of Grumentum had new facilities for agricultural production,37 while in the

In proprietà Lumella. of the registered landowners at the time of the discovery cannot be identified today. The material is conserved in the National Museum of Metaponto. 35 De Siena 2005, 449–51; Nava 2003, 673–75. 36 De Siena and Giardino 2001, 153–56; De Siena 2005, 453–56 (Termitito); Bianco 2001 (Troyli); Quilici and Quilici Gigli 2009, 245–46 and Fig. 5 (Campo Magno). A Late Republican to Early Imperial age villa was identified by Kahrstedt in Roccanova, in the middle of the Agri valley (Kahrstedt 1960, 102). 37 Russo 2010, 47; Tarlano 2010, 85–86. The initial chronology of the villa in the locality of Barricelle is unclear: Gargano 2010, 67 (1st c. BC), Greco 2009 (Augustan age); Tarlano 2010, 87 (end of the 2nd c. BC). 33

34 Some

7

area of Potenza the villas did not appear before the 1st century BC (Masseria Ciccotti, and San Gilio at Oppido Lucano) or the Early Empire (San Giovanni di Ruoti, San Pietro di Tolve).38 In the area of Matera, the rustic sites of Monte Irsi and perhaps of Timmari appeared in the mid-2nd century BC over previously abandoned Lucanian settlements.39 Early Imperial Period The Early Imperial period in the Metapontine chora, from the late 1st century BC to the beginning of the 2nd century AD, was once considered poorly documented.40 Now, however, new data and interpretations from surveys and site investigations have changed this perspective and suggest widespread agriculture and intense activity at the two port facilities at the mouths of the Basento and Sinni Rivers.41 Similar patterns are detectable along the Ionian coast, from the Bradano to the Sinni Rivers. The 2nd century BC complexes at Sant’Angelo Grieco— Pantanello, Masseria Durante, Termitito, Troyli, and Campo Magno—continued their productive activities. But a decrease in the archaeological data and a comparison of the more modest architectural structures to those of the Late Republican period suggest economic downturn. Troyli and Sant’Angelo Grieco were abandoned at the beginning of the 1st century AD; at Pantanello space for production and storage was significantly reduced in the Augustan age.42 The villa rustica and its necropolis at Masseria Durante continued to be occupied as attested by the quantity and variety of pottery classes present. The two complexes at Termitito by the Cavone River and at Campo Magno on the Sinni River remained active throughout the 1st and 2nd centuries AD,43 and are characterized by sizeable facilities and architecture of good quality (Fig. 1.8). Evidence for a residential villa has recently emerged at San Vito, on the right 38 For these sites, see the single contributions in Felicitas Temporum. The oldest phase of the villa at the footsteps of the Vulture (around Torre degli Embrici) is provided by a bath complex of the late 1st c. BC (Nava 2005, 365–66; Osanna 2008a, 937–38). 39 Small 1999, 573–75. 40 Small 1999, 580. 41 For both we lack archaeological evidence but clear signs of their presence is revealed in the surrounding areas (roads, baths). 42 Carter 2006, 248. 43 L. Giardino 2001, 210; Quilici 2002, 70–76; De Siena 2005, 453–56. For the villa at Campo Magno the occupation lasted until the 6th c. AD (Quilici 2002, 76).

Liliana Giardino

8

Figure 1.8 Plan of the villa at Termitito. (Adapted from De Siena 2005, Fig. 5)

bank of the Bradano River.44 This large structure with monumental architecture, including a sima with a lion’s head spout, was destroyed by a fire that swept through two large areas of the villa in the Early Imperial period. Some isolated burials of the period are known at Summulco between the Cavone and Agri Rivers and at two locations in Cappa d’Amore, between the Bradano and Basento Rivers in the territory of Metaponto.45 The tombs date to the second half of the 1st century AD and are quite similar to those from the agora of Metaponto (Fig. 1.9). The rite of primary cremation is sparsely documented in Basilicata but it was employed in both burial grounds at Cappa d’Amore.46 The grave goods recovered at Summulco include a bronze vase of Campanian manufacture and an iron dagger very similar to one found in the richest 44

Nava 2003, 667.

45 D’Andria 1979. The Roman tombs at Cappa d’Amore are unpublished;

the area is cited in the bibliography but the publication only refers to a farmhouse with a kiln and necropolis of the 4th c. BC, and in the museum of Metaponto there are two Imperial graves (tombs 4 and 12) and a further ten grave goods of the 5th to 3rd c. BC. The tombs were excavated in 1966. 46 In the excavation diaries the tombs are defined as ad ustrinum involving a funeral pyre. Fire damage to the ceramics and the absence of an urn for the ashes suggest direct cremation.

tomb of the period at Metaponto.47 The dagger was connected by D’Andria to hunting. He saw the burial as symptomatic of broad change in Basilicata after the Roman conquest—change characterized by the formation of large estates, the extension of the forests, and the development of hunting and herding.48 The oldest grave at Cappa d’Amore, the one with the largest number of objects, contained an iron instrument, which has been thought to indicate the existence of local workshops.49 A different level of functionality characterized the two port structures of Metaponto and Herakleia on the Ionian coast of Basilicata. Intense activity at the Tomb 1/94 is peculiar for its placement within an enclosed space and for the quantity and quality of objects recovered. Among these, a glass with figured decoration, a bas-relief, and a silver inkwell with embossed decoration. 48 D’Andria 1979, 226–27. See also Bökönyi and Gál 2010, 36–37, on wild game in the chora in the Roman period. 49 Tomb 4: thin-walled two-handled cup with rouletted and dot decoration. Tomb 12: (1) plate in Eastern terra sigillata with a stamp on the base of the foot with the name MAP[KOY]; (2) thin-walled cup with sandblasted decoration; (3) tubular glass unguentarium; (4) small iron “tool” with a double head, suggesting artisanal activity; (5) bronze nail with the head missing and folded, probably to bring luck. Outside the tomb a bronze coin was found (inv. 306986), minted under Tiberius (AD 34–37): Obv., DIVVSAVG[VST]VSTPATE[R] head of Augustus, a sin.; Rev., Eagle on globe, with wings outstretched and head to the right; on the sides, the mark S C. (RIC I, 82). 47

The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period

9

of wool processing.52 The evidence also identifies the owners of the villas as the descendants of the ancient Lucanian families (gentes) or members of families from other regions of Italy.53 All these sites had been continuously occupied, and some of them became parts of Imperial properties.54 Villages or hamlets (vici and pagi), with small annexed cemeteries and sometimes associated with large villas, completed the network of settlements in the territory.55

Figure 1.9 Grave goods from Tomb 12, Cappa d’Amore, second half of the 1st c. AD. (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/CW)

port on the Sinni River between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD is evidenced by the dense network of settlements that developed on the right bank of the river. It seems to have been related to the gradual collapse of neighboring Herakleia.50 The large bath complex of Cugno dei Vagni was built just beyond the coastline. The grave goods recovered at the nearby necropolis have been linked to the production in this period of the famous and sought-after Lagarian wines.51 The archaeological evidence for the Metapontine port area is less clear but developments here were probably due to Augustus’ policies and the arrival of artisans and traders. This is suggested by the study of the burial nuclei that occupy the ancient agora and the surrounding area (see below, Fig. 1.12). The model of the villa spread rapidly in the interior of Basilicata. The evidence indicates a new type of building, characterized by great size and monumental architectural elements. Material evidence and epigraphic texts attest to the existence of specialized economic activities connected with the various stages 50 51

Kahrstedt 1960, 100–01; Small 1999, 580; L. Giardino 2003. Small 1999, 581; Quilici 2002; L. Giardino 2003, 191–200.

The Late Roman Period in Basilicata Few archaeological finds can be dated to the middle and final decades of the 3rd century AD. The abandonment of earlier forms of settlement does not seem to lead to new patterns, and there are some signs of continuity.56 Finds from the Metapontine chora between the mid-4th and the first half of the 6th centuries AD point to cereal production.57 This is evident in the villas in the locality of La Cappella, at Durante, on the right bank of the Basento River, and in the villas recently discovered in San Vito on the Bradano and near the coastal road.58 The apparent absence of large residential villas along the Ionian coast ought to be reconsidered in the light of the very recent discovery of apsidal rooms, so common in the great villas of this period, in the interior of Basilicata at Bivio Franchi near the coastal road.59 The villa at Masseria Durante was reoccupied during the 3rd century AD following an apparent hiatus.60 The pottery recovered there and at La 52 Gualtieri 2003, 162–77; 2008a, 212–17; Nava 2005, 371–73. The most studied villas are those of Masseria Ciccotti (Gualtieri 2008b) and S. Gilio (Di Giuseppe 2008a) in the area of Oppido Lucano; S. Pietro di Tolve (Di Giuseppe 2008b); S. Giovanni di Ruoti (Small 2008); and Barricelle, in the territory of Grumento (Gargano 2010). For a synthesis, see Small 1999, 584–88. 53 Nava 2005, 371; Di Giuseppe 2008a, 347–50; Gualtieri 2008a, 208; 2008b, 272–75; Small 2008, 430. 54 S. Pietro di Tolve (Di Giuseppe 2008b) and Barricelle; the letter from the Bruttii Praesentes to Commodus concerning his wedding (Di Giuseppe 2010). For an epigraphic discussion of the ager potentinus, see Russi 1999, 552–53. 55 Small 1999, 582–83. For a synthesis on the urban center, see Gualtieri 2003, 63–130. 56 Compare with the discussion on Metaponto and Masseria Durante. 57 Carter 2006, 249–52. ICA survey identified 20 sites with Late Roman ceramics. 58 Greco 2009, 802, 804. 59 E. Lapadula, pers. comm. 60 The funerary evidence seems, in fact, to indicate occupation, considerably reduced, during the 3rd c. AD, at least for the first half (see above). Relative to the Late Roman phase at Masseria Durante, Lissi Caronna (2000) does not record any ceramics.

10

Liliana Giardino

Cappella perfectly match those from the port of Metaponto and in the Metapontine area: tableware of African, Eastern, and Cypriot production; jugs and decorated tablewares; eastern Mediterranean and North African transport amphorae; and ribbed cooking ware in micaceous fabric from the eastern Mediterranean. The reoccupation of Masseria Durante in this period is also reflected in the continued use of the necropolis, as documented by surface finds brought up by plowing. From the end of the 3rd century AD the roles of the port facilities at Metaponto and Herakleia were reversed. In contrast to the increased activity on the Basento, there was widespread abandonment: of the baths and the necropolis of Cugno Vagni on the Sinni, and of the villa at Recoleta on the Agri,61 all of which suggests that the inclusion of the port of Metaponto in Regio II (see below) and its expansion contributed to the decline of the port on the Sinni and its surrounding area. During the same period, the interior villas reached their productive peak, closely linked to a similar peak in Apulia. Architecture and decorative arts also reached their most advanced stage of development.62 The villas at Masseria Ciccotti, of San Giovanni di Ruoti, at Malvaccaro (Potenza), and perhaps at San Nicola di Melfi and Maiorano, near Viggiano,63 included a residential sector characterized by rooms with three enclosed apses, a tricoro, richly and symbolically decorated. Their abandonment is dated between the 5th (Masseria Ciccotti), 6th (San Gilio, San Pietro di Tolve, Malvaccaro, San Nicola di Melfi, Maiorano), and 7th centuries AD (San Giovanni di Ruoti). The Wider Historical Context To what broader conclusions has the foregoing discussion led? For one, we may now say that the 3rd century BC marked a break with the past for most of the settlements and their territories. New forms of agricultural organization, based on the ownership of medium-sized properties and related to the architectural model of the villa rustica, took place in the L. Giardino 2003. Gualtieri 2003, 255–62. 63 Nava 2001, 971–74; 2004, 952–55; De Siena 2007a, 424–29; Di Giuseppe 2008a, 325–27; Gualtieri 2008b, 284–85; Small 1999, 593–97; 2008, 440–48; Sfameni 2008. The interpretation of the great apse of Torre degli Embrici (Rionero in Vulture) and of Serra dei Canonici (Melfi) is doubtful (Nava 2005, 365–71). Other villas are cited in Small 1999, 597–98. 61

62

Metapontine territory and along the Ionian coast of Basilicata in the second half of the 3rd century BC, and in the rest of the region a few decades later. Between the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, the new economic and settlement patterns were widely diffused. Residential buildings displayed extensive, articulated plans. The breeding of sheep and goats became an important part of agricultural production, sometimes taking a leading role. The Augustan administrative reforms did not affect the continuity of occupation in the Late Republican complexes along the Ionian coast. In fact, the reforms probably created the basis for renewed activities in the ancient ports on the Sinni and the Basento. In the interior of Basilicata it appears that productive villas marked the landscape throughout the Imperial age. They formed the residential and management centers for dynamic business people— members of rich, local gentes or immigrants from other areas of Italy, as well as members of the Roman ruling elite. A close economic connection between the northern area of Potenza, including Oppido Lucano and Tolve, and neighboring Canosa in Apulia is evident, where the former clearly benefited from the link provided by the Via Appia and the Ofanto valley. The interior and coastal landscapes of Basilicata took on a new appearance.64 Along the Ionian coast only the port on the Sinni seemed to prosper, through economic activities that resulted in a demographic increase. The agricultural structures of the Early Imperial age were modest architecturally, and productive activities appear limited compared to the interior. The subject of this study, the farmhouse at San Biagio, dates in its earliest phase to this period. It was located on a site with a previous Greek occupation and had an organization and plan which invites comparison with the first phase of San Giovanni di Ruoti.65 The 3rd century AD is generally defined as a period of decline, both demographically and economically. The reoccupation of many Early Imperial sites in the 4th century AD encourages us to reconsider the concept of “crisis” and to re-evaluate the chronologies of the pottery finds.66 The Late Roman period in Basilicata corresponds to a period of strong do64 For the geographic and economic articulation of Roman Basilicata in smaller regions, see Small 1999, 559–63. 65 San Giovanni di Ruoti I, Fig. 37. 66 Gualtieri 2003, 195–99; Small 2008, 433.

The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period

11

Figure 1.10 Map of the survey of the Metapontino with sites of the Roman period. (ICA/JT)

mestic economic development. This, however, was more limited along the Ionian coast, and is seen in the revival of cereal production at Metaponto, which was incorporated into Regio II at this time (see below), and thus was economically as well as geographically connected to Taranto. The settlement of San Biagio was a clear reflection of renewed economic prosperity in the ancient chora. Metaponto in the Roman and Late Roman Periods In this section, the focus is exclusively and in detail on Metaponto and its immediate surroundings, the Metapontino, during the Roman period, where many important archaeological investigations were carried out during the 1980s and 1990s. These have provided important data for the history and topography of the urban and surrounding areas. The results of many of these efforts remain, unfortunately, unpublished or

only partially so.67 Excavations around the castrum and the port area, the so-called Zona Mele, the results of which have been published in part, suggested a significant level of development including an active port, particularly during the Late Roman period (Fig. 1.10).68 The intensive survey conducted by ICA investigated the settlement history of the chora and its relationship with the Greek and Roman urban center, and has produced a detailed reconstruction of the Roman landscape.69 These studies have improved 67 Nonetheless, significant results are gradually emerging. Data was gathered by the author during a systematic survey of the warehouses at the National Archaeological Museum of Metaponto with the intention of collecting the Late Republic, Imperial, and Late Roman documentation yielded by excavations and conservation efforts in the Metapontine chora during the first years of the new archaeological superintendency of Basilicata (1960–1970). Some data was already presented in L. Giardino 1983, 18; Giardino/Auriemma/Lapadula 2000, 350. 68 L. Giardino 1980, 1982, 1983, 1991; Giardino/Auriemma/Lapadula 2000. 69 See Lapadula 2011.

12

Liliana Giardino

Figure 1.11 Plan of the ancient city in the Roman period (ICA/JT) and inset plan of the excavated area of the castrum. (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/LG/JT)

our understanding of the social, cultural, and economic development of the Metapontine territory in the Roman period and have substituted a picture of modest prosperity and evolution for one of stagnation and decline created by earlier generations of scholars. The historical and economic framework proposed here takes this recent research fully into account. The political, institutional, and economic history of Metaponto is known in broad outline.70 A Greek apoikia of the last decades of the 7th century BC, Metaponto retained the structure of the polis, consisting of an urban center or asty and related chora, up to the clash with Rome in the 3rd century BC.71 As noted in the previous section, changes in the urban configuration of Metaponto and a decline in its eco-

70 The most recent synthesis of Metaponto in Greek and Roman times is in De Siena 2001, with a substantial bibliography; the last days of the Greek polis were the focus of L. Giardino 2005. 71 Small 1999, 564–65; De Siena 2001, 22–38. Studies have focused on the 3rd c. BC and the transformation that occurred in the following two centuries, including the imperial alterations to the urban center. They were partly modified by the findings of the most recent archaeological activities: D’Andria 1976; De Siena 1990; De Siena and Giardino 1994; 2001; Giannotta 1980; L. Giardino 1982, 1983, 1991, 837–57; 2005; Lattanzi 1983.

nomic level are apparent from this time. During the Early Imperial era, the ancient asty was reduced to a small town, enclosed in the area of the castrum (330 x 420 m, equivalent to just under 14 ha).72 The economy was essentially agricultural, based in the territory with some activity around the port.73 Artisan activities ceased during this period. Grey ware ceramics, the production of which is archaeologically documented in Metaponto until the Augustan period, seem to be the last products of the Metapontine potters.74 The new layout of the settlement and the renewed role of the port were apparently related to the administrative reforms in Italy implemented by Augustus. A series of construction projects in Metaponto aimed to reorganize the urban layout and to support the development of an economic system based on a productive relationship between land, town, and port area. Some roads within the castrum that link the coast and the territory (see Fig. 1.11) date to the Augustan period. The De Siena 1990, 305. De Siena 2001, 38–39; L. Giardino 2005, 431–32. 74 L. Giardino 1980, Tables 61, 85, 86, nn. 69–70; 2005, 427. 72 73

The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period

13

tombs and the abandonment of the area after two or three generations has suggested that the tombs belonged initially to outsiders who may later have become part of the Metapontine community. The grave goods recovered on site are evidence for a population composed of modest artisans and small traders whose economic status was relatively low, though they should not be considered indigent (Fig. 1.12). Continuity in the life of the towns during the Early Imperial age is clear. It is evident at Metaponto within the castrum, where the original Greek layout was maintained. A full understanding of the dynamics of its social and economic organization, however, still eludes us. The administrative reforms carried out by Diocletian at the end of the 3rd and beginning of Figure 1.12 Grave goods from a burial in the area of the agora, Metaponto, 1st c. AD. (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/LG) the 4th centuries AD involved a 75 north-south roads, by contrast, were neglected. The partial modification of the regional borders of Basilimoat of the 3rd century BC that defended the castrum cata that affected Metaponto, which now became, as was also filled in during the Augustan period, remov- noted in the previous section, a part of Regio II, Apuing a considerable obstacle to movements between the lia et Calabria.79 The change was likely motivated by town and the surrounding territory. Tombs dating a desire to broaden and strengthen the territorial disfrom the 2nd to 3rd century AD have recently been trict around the port of Taranto. Literary, epigraphic, and archaeological finds suggest that the reform gendiscovered in the moat.76 Archaeological evidence for the first two cen- erated renewed interest in grain cultivation along the turies AD was limited, and decreased still more in Ionian coast in the early 4th century AD, and, indeed, the following century.77 Groups of burials dating to consolidated the position of Taranto.80 Metaponto the Imperial period (end of the 1st to 2nd century was also part of a broad reorganization of the territory, dated on archaeological grounds to the first half AD), located beside the former Greek agora, flanked a plateia that became an access route to the former of the 4th century.81 The new settlement was marked castrum (Fig. 1.11).78 The peripheral location of the by intense economic activity, which persisted until the middle decades of that century.82 75 L. Giardino 1978, 424–26; Giannotta 1980, 73–75. 76

Giannotta 1980, 75, 80–81.

77 L. Giardino 1978, 428; Giannotta 1980, 73–77. A group of researchers

under the scientific coordination of Erminia Lapadula and this author was formed in 2009. They are analyzing the archaeological documentation of the Imperial age recovered in the castrum. The precise quantification of the material relative to the 3rd c. AD will allow an assessment of the extent of the crisis usually attributed to this century. 78 De Siena 2001, 39; De Siena and Giardino 2001, 160 and Fig. 21; 2005, 427. The tombs were excavated in the 1980s (A. Bottini 1984, 460; 1987, 682; Nava 1999, 700) and the grave goods are in the process of being published by this author.

Grelle 1989; 1999, 119–20; Russi 1999, 556. Grelle 1999, 128. 81 The chronological discrepancy between the beginning of the administrative reform at the end of the 3rd c. and the realization of a new plan in the Constantinian age is well documented also in other areas (Grelle 1999, 115). 82 Giannotta 1980, 77–81; L. Giardino 1991, 850–52, 856–57; Giardino/Auriemma/Lapadula 2000; De Siena 2001, 40–43; De Siena and Giardino 2001, 161–62. 79

80

Liliana Giardino

14

•

0

•

5m

5th c. AD 6th c. AD

Figure 1.15 Bronze belt buckle from the excavation of the port, Zona Mele, 5th c. AD. (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/LG)

Figure 1.13 Plan of the structures in the area of the port of Metaponto, Zona Mele. (Archive LG)

Figure 1.14 Eastern façade of buildings 1a and 2a of the 5th c. AD. (After L. Giardino 1999)

Figure 1.16 Lead seal from the excavation of the port, Zona Mele, 5th c. AD. (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/LG)

The developments in Metaponto that affected the town, the port, and the territory were first evident in the construction of a complex of buildings along the coast, in the area, Zona Mele, previously occupied by a monumental necropolis of the Greek asty (Fig. 1.13).83 The buildings had the same orientation and were spaced equidistantly. Some had external storage facilities used for grain and transport amphorae (Fig. 1.14).84 The variety and quantity of tableware and transport amphorae of African and eastern production emphasize the functional connection of the

complex with the port. The discovery of a decorated bronze belt, a lead seal, and small scales and styluses (Figs. 1.15, 1.16 and 1.17) help to identify one of the buildings as an office for the administration of commercial activities. Epigraphic records complete the documentation provided by the material finds.85 The archaeological evidence essentially confirms the presence of cereal production in the territory, the creation of a port district as a place for the storage of the products of the fields,86 and a direct link with

De Siena 1990, 304, 306. L. Giardino 1983; 1991, 852, 856; 1999, 182–85; Small 1999, 599; Giardino/Auriemma/Lapadula 2000, 357–58.

83

84

Bronze seal with TIPO. OEOY (Fig. 6); uncompleted graffito [HCAN] on the bottom of a vessel in ARS H84 (L. Giardino 1983, 24–25, n. 22, Tables 13–14); painted inscription on an LRA of the V DC (L. Giardino 1983, 31 n. 44, Tables 18–20). 86 Amphorae containing wheat were recovered in warehouse 1, destroyed 85

The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period

15

an impressive appearance, but the urban center, with isolated buildings, was modest compared to its predecessor on the site, the Greek city of the 4th century BC. The houses that occupied the area of the ancient stoa were built on existing structures and some made extensive use of materials from earlier buildings. The houses occupied a limited area and were not architecturally noteworthy. They yielded material similar to that of the port area: transport amphorae and tableware productions from Africa and eastern-style painted ceramics from various workshops, some of which were regionally produced.90 Indications of local pottery production are virtually absent. The number and variety of transport amphorae and other imported goods emphasize the Figure 1.17 Styluses and scales from the excavations at the port, Zona Mele, 5th c. AD. economic ties between the town (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/LG) and the port. Mediterranean trade routes between the 4th and 5th The principal axes of the Greek period, connecting the town with the monumental coastal necropolis centuries AD.87 The construction of a Christian basilica with an and the agricultural territory with the Ionian coast, adjoining baptistery and public baths within the town continued in use and were improved (see Fig. 1.1, of Metaponto in this period was integrated in the red). The communications network between port, previous Greek urban layout (see Fig. 1.11).88 Its loca- town, and the interior was further strengthened in tion on a central street strongly suggests that Meta- this period with the construction of a new road which ponto was already an episcopal site during the age of connected the interior directly with the port area. It Constantine.89 The new buildings gave Metaponto intersected the coastal road and ran through an empty area of the former Greek city and along the border of by a fire at the end of the 5th c.: L. Giardino 1983, 11; Giardino/Authe southern side of the Late Roman settlement (see riemma/Lapadula 2000, 358, 363–65. A vast quantity of cereal was, Fig. 1.1, green). however, scattered in the area, the subject of the investigation (L. Giardino 1991, 852). The north-south plateia that ran east of the stoa 87 L. Giardino 1983; 1991, 851–55; Giardino/Auriemma/Lapadula became the main route linking the town and the new 2000, 361–68. suburban road. Two milestones found in the castrum 88 The first two buildings occupy the southeast corner of the Greek were probably placed along the road. One of them agora (Lattanzi 1983, 14–15; L. Giardino 1991, 842–50; De Siena 2001, 40–41, Fig. 41); the bath complex is located 20 m away from the aforeis still in situ today (Fig. 1.18). The inscriptions on mentioned structures (Giannotta 1980, 78, Tables XXII–XXIII). the milestone mention the Emperor Julian,91 but his 89 Giorgio Otranto (2000, 87–88) believes in the “existence of a Chrisname in the dative case indicates that this was a celtian community in Metaponto, with subsequent ecclesiastic hierarchy, since the beginning of the IV century” but he dates “the liturgic and ebratory inscription by the local communities rather ritual complex” to the 6th–7th c., a period of demographic contraction. For a clear presentation of the archaeological data that suggest, for the basilica, a dating to the first half of the 4th c. AD, see L. Giardino 1982; 1991; Giardino/Auriemma/Lapadula 2000.

Salvatore 1983 (kiln of Calle Tricarico). L. Giardino 1999, Fig. 7 nn. 2 and 3 (DN.FL.CL/JULIANO/…. AVG).

90 91

Liliana Giardino

16

(a)

(b) Figure 1.18a and b Two milestones (pietre miliari) with dedicatory inscriptions to the Emperor Julian. One stone (a) is in situ in the castrum. (Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata/LG)

than a road dedication.92 The mention of the station of Turiostu Peutingeriana and its location on the Ionian coastal road, 25 miles (40 km) from Taranto and 4 miles (6.5 km) from Policoro, reflects the importance of the Metapontine area in the Late Roman period.93 The extent and interrelations of these building projects demonstrate a certain unity, and their scale strongly suggests Imperial support. The construction of the early Christian complex and the choice of Metaponto as an episcopal site would point to Constantine’s involvement.94 Whether or not this was the case, we can at least be sure of the central role of the urban area in the road network connecting the port with the Ionian coastal road and the interior, and its function as a statio on a long-distance route.95 This heightened activity at Metaponto complemented that at the port of Taranto. The upgrading of the port is essentially a continuation of Augustus’ program initiated four centuries earlier. The economic and adminSilvestrini 1999. The identification of the station of Turiostu with the Late Roman center of Metaponto negates the theory advanced by Miller (L. Giardino 1982, 161–63; 1999, 837). 94 Doubts on the existence of a diocese in Metaponto still exist. See Otranto 2009, 551. 95 L. Giardino 1982; 1991, 855–56; Giardino/Auriemma/Lapadula 2000, 355; De Siena 2001, 41; Gualtieri 2003, 256. In his synthesis on the Late Roman cities in southern Italy, Paul Arthur compares Metaponto to Siponto and Ordona and he hypothesizes a reorganization “from the central authority as places for the gathering and distribution of goods, especially wheat” (Arthur 1999, 190–91). 92 93

istrative connection with Taranto, however, is specific to developments in the Late Roman period. The economic vitality of the Metapontino continued throughout the 5th century AD. At some point in this century, however, huge fires spread throughout the town and harbor area, causing much damage. The abandonment and the sudden collapse of most buildings ensued.96 The material evidence places the event at the end of the 5th century AD, but a connection with the looting of Taranto by the Imperial fleet in AD 508 cannot be ruled out as a possible cause.97 The event, although dramatic, did not have lasting consequences. The port area was rebuilt immediately and continued to import cooking wares and transport amphorae of eastern and African production.98 In the middle decades of the 6th century AD, a second destruction occurred, as violent as the first. This time it probably was in relation to the events of the Greco-Gothic war, and it caused the rapid abandonment of both the town and the coastal nucleus around the port. These events in the Late Roman period did not result in the total desertion of the area around Metaponto. Life continued, as evidenced by some sporadic but significant discoveries from the following centuries. Three coffin burials located in the ruins of the castrum contained female jewelry, including a pair of silver earrings with miniature drums hanging from them, and a zoomorphic bronze fibula, dating to the second half of the 6th or the first half of the 7th century AD.99 The late 19th century student of Metaponto, Michele Lacava, recorded three Byzantine bronze coins, one of John I. Tzimiskes (AD 960–976) from the area of “an edifice to S. Palagina,” southwest of the castrum, and another of the same emperor (AD 969–976) of unspecified origin.100 Other bronze coins were recovered in the castrum: a Frankish example (AD 768–814) and one of Constantine VII (AD 945). Despite the fragmented nature of the documentation, there is a degree of continuity between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, i.e., during the period between the end of the Late Roman period and the building of Turris Maris, on the site where Castello Torremare L. Giardino 1983, Tables 16–19, 26–29; 1991, Figs. 8–10. The episode is cited in Marcellino comes (Grelle 1999, 130). 98 L. Giardino 1983, Tables 21–25; Giardino/Auriemma/Lapadula 2000, Fig. 8 and Tav. XLVI (below). 99 Lattanzi 1983, 17–18, Fig. 3. For the drum earrings: Possenti 1994, 87–88, no. 75, Table XXVII, 3–4 (end 6th–first half of the 7th c. AD) type 2b, group II, considered the most documented in Italy. 100 Lacava 1891, 231, 325. 96

97

The Farmhouse at San Biagio and the Agricultural Landscape of Basilicata in the Roman Period stands today.101 Located close to the new course of the Basento River, Turris Maris is the last settlement in the Metapontine territory between the 11th and the 17th centuries.102 Continuing Research in the Chora of Metaponto The ambitious, comprehensive archaeological research program initiated in 1964 by Dinu Adamesteanu for the newly created archaeological superintendency of Basilicata continues to this day. Adamesteanu envisioned contemporaneous research on the Greek settlements along the coast, their territories stretching into the interior, and the coexisting native settlements in the interior. To support this vision, he created an infrastructure of museums with trained staff. From the start, he involved scholars from the foreign schools, as well as teams from Italian and foreign universities. Through economic and political vicissitudes, the work goes on, the vision remains intact, and the research results are impressive. Since 1974, Professor Joseph Coleman Carter has led a team from the Institute of Classical Archaeology of the University of Texas, in a multifaceted investigation of the chora of Metaponto. It has included, besides excavation of representative sites, farmhouses, sanctuaries, necropoleis, and related studies (palaeobotanical, archaeozoological, physical anthropological, geological), and since 1980, intensive field survey. L. Giardino 1999, 837–39. For this chronological phase, see Noyé 1984 and the contribution of C. D. Fonseca and G. Bertelli in Torre di Mare I. Tombs of this period have been discovered at Pantanello, along the Basento, 3 km from the coast (editor’s note). 101

102

17

Beginning in the late 1990s, a series of high-impact construction projects were carried out in the Metapontine area. Two pipelines were built, the irrigation basin of the Bradano and Metaponto Consortium was strengthened, and the 106 Ionica and 175 MetapontoMatera roads were both widened.103 In connection with this, the superintendency of Basilicata and ICA undertook survey and excavations prior to and during the constructions with the support of a large group of Italian archaeologists. These activities are still ongoing and have significantly expanded the study area and the quantity of information about the Metapontino available to scholars. Thanks to these efforts, it is now possible to draw a detailed picture of the settlement patterns and productive activities in the chora up to the 3rd century BC, and to improve our understanding of the changes that affected the area between the 2nd century BC and the Late Roman period. The fieldwork by ICA is now being disseminated through an extensive series of publications. The first of these, on the necropoleis,104 appeared in 1998. The definitive publication of the Metaponto survey from the Bradano to the Basento appeared in 2011.105 The full publication of the research on excavated farmhouses of different periods in the Metapontine chora begins with this one, on the Late Roman farmhouse at San Biagio. 103 Nava 2000, 680–81; 2001, 945–50; 2002, 735–36; 2003, 664; Tagliente 2006, 731; De Siena 2007a, 435–36; Greco 2009, 798–805; Osanna 2008a, 925–26. 104 Necropoleis. 105 Survey. An historical overview based on the survey and excavated sites was published in 2006 (Carter 2006), followed by an Italian version two years later (Carter 2008).

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2 The Excavation and Structures Erminia Lapadula

With a contribution by Massimo Limoncelli

Figure 2.1 Satellite image of San Biagio and its immediate surroundings (includes copyrighted material of DigitalGlobe, Inc.). (JT)

The Setting The Roman farmhouse at San Biagio occupies the southern slope of a low hill (40 m above sea level) in the Basento valley, some 250 m to the north of the left bank of the river (Fig. 2.1). To the east, the hill slopes toward the Venella valley. To the west passes another tributary of the Basento, a stream known as the “Conca.” At the foot of the hill on the northern side lies a spring whose wholesome waters augment the Venella. On that spot arose an ancient sanctuary. The area is still a place of veneration: at present the 19th-century chapel of San Biagio, built with ancient worked blocks of stone, occupies the summit of the hill. Archaeological evidence indicates that the area was chosen for permanent forms of settlement as

early as the prehistoric period;1 it came to hold a position of great social, economic, and cultural importance in the Greek period. The spring on the north side of the hill was the focus of one of the most important extra-urban sanctuaries of the Greek polis, that of Artemis and also (probably) of Zeus Aglaos, or Aglaios. It was an active place of worship from the second half of the 7th century until the 3rd century BC. 2 This was one of the earliest sites in the chora of Metaponto to be frequented by the Greeks. In the 3rd century BC a farmhouse was constructed on the ruins of the Greek sanctuary;3 the Roman farmhouse is about 400 m away. The curAdamesteanu 1974, 56. Adamesteanu 1964a; 1973a, 447–48; Mertens Horn 1992; Mertens 1993; De Siena 1998, 152 n. 27; 2007b. 3 Nava 1999, 689–91; 2001, 942–43. See Ch. 1. 1 2

20

Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.2 Medieval chapel of San Biagio. (JCC)

rent chapel was preceded by a Medieval cult place, the probable social and economic center of a nearby small community (Fig. 2.2). In the area in front of the chapel, tombs carved in the rocky bank probably also belong to the Medieval period. One of them, in the immediate vicinity of the entrance, was sacked by tomb robbers. The 1980 Excavation The Site The Late Roman farmhouse on the south side of the hill was identified on the surface by numerous fragments of tile and architectural terracottas, some of which date to the Greek period; there was also a tilelined tomb—probably Greek—visible in the section dug during the construction of the Strada Statale 406, the Basentana road,4 which connects Metaponto with the interior of Basilicata along the Basento River. These elements suggest that a settlement of substantial size once existed near the site. With the kind permission of the Soprintendente della Basilicata, Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, archaeological investigation began on the first of July in 1980. The site, as expected, had been disturbed by agricultural activity. Fortunately, however, the slope to the south of the chapel had been continuously in use for the cultivation of cereal or other crops requiring only shallow plowing. The damage to the site, caused by the plow, was slight compared to the heavy earth moving 4 Alfredo Portarulo, one of the specialist workmen at San Biagio, reported that numerous tombs were visible in the section south of the Roman settlement which were uncovered during the construction work on the Basentana in the decade previous. The remains of these were evident during the 1980 excavation, but constraints of time and resources prevented even a cursory investigation.

typical in the Metapontino when vineyards, olive trees, and fruit orchards are introduced. Still, over the centuries the level of the hillside had been lowered, and the lowest courses of the foundation were only 20 (or at most 30) cm below ground level, and collapsed building materials were visible in the test trenches. As soon as it became evident, however, that San Biagio was essentially intact and an important site, the area was placed under protection by the Soprintendenza.5 The excavation of the site was undertaken by the Institute of Classical Archaeology, in collaboration with the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata.6 The site was located on land belonging to Montescaglioso (demanio di Montescaglioso) and rented by Gaetano Stigliano, who kindly agreed to the excavation and to allow the site to stand undisturbed in the midst of his wheat field. The excavation was directed by Professor J. C. Carter, assisted in the field by C. L. Lyons, the trench supervisor. The graphic and photographic documentation of the site was entrusted to architect Michael Guarino and photographer Chris Williams. The team was completed by specialized workmen led by foreman Giuseppe Di Taranto.7 Excavation was carried out over a period of four weeks, and concurrent with it, the washing and cataloging of the finds. Conservation followed excavation in two sessions; the first, soon after excavation, by Francesca Quarato; and the second, at the beginning of the present study in 2007, by Antonietta Bornè. The site, backfilled in 1980, was cleaned and the foundations conserved by ICA in 2007. The work was carried out by the foreman of the excavation twenty-seven years earlier, Giuseppe Di Taranto. The first study of the ceramic finds, in particular those of Roman date, was undertaken by J. W. Hayes in 1981. The author has made use of his detailed report, an integral part of the archaeological documentation for the excavation of San Biagio. The data and documentation presented here were taken from the excavation diary kept by Carter and Lyons, and from the recording and phoAlthough this was a commendable decision, no official action has since been taken to preserve the site. Periodic cleaning has taken place, so that the excavation area can be visited today and despite backfilling of the site with gravel to protect it, it is possible to identify the remains of the structures belonging to the old building on the soil surface. 6 We express thanks for the concession and the courtesy of Elena Lattanzi, Soprintendente della Basilicata at the time of the excavation (1980), and to Antonio De Siena, the current Soprintendente. 7 We gratefully remember Giuseppe Di Taranto, Alfredo Gallitelli, Leonardo Pacciani, Alfredo Portarulo, Cosimo Danzi, Roberto Squaffetti, and Giuseppe Marino. 5

20

Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.2 Medieval chapel of San Biagio. (JCC)

rent chapel was preceded by a Medieval cult place, the probable social and economic center of a nearby small community (Fig. 2.2). In the area in front of the chapel, tombs carved in the rocky bank probably also belong to the Medieval period. One of them, in the immediate vicinity of the entrance, was sacked by tomb robbers. The 1980 Excavation The Site The Late Roman farmhouse on the south side of the hill was identified on the surface by numerous fragments of tile and architectural terracottas, some of which date to the Greek period; there was also a tilelined tomb—probably Greek—visible in the section dug during the construction of the Strada Statale 406, the Basentana road,4 which connects Metaponto with the interior of Basilicata along the Basento River. These elements suggest that a settlement of substantial size once existed near the site. With the kind permission of the Soprintendente della Basilicata, Dottoressa Elena Lattanzi, archaeological investigation began on the first of July in 1980. The site, as expected, had been disturbed by agricultural activity. Fortunately, however, the slope to the south of the chapel had been continuously in use for the cultivation of cereal or other crops requiring only shallow plowing. The damage to the site, caused by the plow, was slight compared to the heavy earth moving 4 Alfredo Portarulo, one of the specialist workmen at San Biagio, reported that numerous tombs were visible in the section south of the Roman settlement which were uncovered during the construction work on the Basentana in the decade previous. The remains of these were evident during the 1980 excavation, but constraints of time and resources prevented even a cursory investigation.

typical in the Metapontino when vineyards, olive trees, and fruit orchards are introduced. Still, over the centuries the level of the hillside had been lowered, and the lowest courses of the foundation were only 20 (or at most 30) cm below ground level, and collapsed building materials were visible in the test trenches. As soon as it became evident, however, that San Biagio was essentially intact and an important site, the area was placed under protection by the Soprintendenza.5 The excavation of the site was undertaken by the Institute of Classical Archaeology, in collaboration with the Soprintendenza Archeologica della Basilicata.6 The site was located on land belonging to Montescaglioso (demanio di Montescaglioso) and rented by Gaetano Stigliano, who kindly agreed to the excavation and to allow the site to stand undisturbed in the midst of his wheat field. The excavation was directed by Professor J. C. Carter, assisted in the field by C. L. Lyons, the trench supervisor. The graphic and photographic documentation of the site was entrusted to architect Michael Guarino and photographer Chris Williams. The team was completed by specialized workmen led by foreman Giuseppe Di Taranto.7 Excavation was carried out over a period of four weeks, and concurrent with it, the washing and cataloging of the finds. Conservation followed excavation in two sessions; the first, soon after excavation, by Francesca Quarato; and the second, at the beginning of the present study in 2007, by Antonietta Bornè. The site, backfilled in 1980, was cleaned and the foundations conserved by ICA in 2007. The work was carried out by the foreman of the excavation twenty-seven years earlier, Giuseppe Di Taranto. The first study of the ceramic finds, in particular those of Roman date, was undertaken by J. W. Hayes in 1981. The author has made use of his detailed report, an integral part of the archaeological documentation for the excavation of San Biagio. The data and documentation presented here were taken from the excavation diary kept by Carter and Lyons, and from the recording and phoAlthough this was a commendable decision, no official action has since been taken to preserve the site. Periodic cleaning has taken place, so that the excavation area can be visited today and despite backfilling of the site with gravel to protect it, it is possible to identify the remains of the structures belonging to the old building on the soil surface. 6 We express thanks for the concession and the courtesy of Elena Lattanzi, Soprintendente della Basilicata at the time of the excavation (1980), and to Antonio De Siena, the current Soprintendente. 7 We gratefully remember Giuseppe Di Taranto, Alfredo Gallitelli, Leonardo Pacciani, Alfredo Portarulo, Cosimo Danzi, Roberto Squaffetti, and Giuseppe Marino. 5

21

The Excavation and Structures N Baulk

D’-3

D’-2

D’-1

D’1

D’2

D’3

C’2

C’3

A’2

A’3

A C’-3

C’-2

C’-1

C’1

1

4 B

2 A’-3

A’-2

A’-1

A’1 5

3 6

W A-3

A-2

7

E

C

8

Baulk

Test Trench 2 A2

A3

B1

B2

B3

C1

C2

C3

A1

A-1

9 11 B-3

B-2

B-1 12

C-3

C-2

C-1

Test Trench 1

S

Figure 2.3 Diagram of the excavation grid with baulks and test trenches. (EH)

tography carried out during the field operations. A preliminary synthesis of this data has been presented in occasional publications by Carter.8 Methodology The excavation strategy adopted at San Biagio did not follow the tradition of large-scale earth removal that was still widespread in the 1960s and 1970s in the excavation of the urban center of Metaponto and elsewhere in Italy. The archaeological deposit at these sites was removed instead by large teams of workmen to reveal the underlying structures.9 The stratigraphical methods developed by Wheeler for extensive sites involving removing soil in natural or artificial layers Carter 1994b, 192–95; 2006, 140–43; Necropoleis, 242–43. On archaeological excavation methods, see Barker 1981; Harris 1983; the Archaeological Site Manual; and Zanini 2000, with bibliography. 8 9

Figure 2.4 Early stages of the excavation at San Biagio, late June 1980. Foreman Giuseppe di Taranto in the foreground kneeling. (CW)

Erminia Lapadula

22



Figure 2.5 Plan of the farmhouse with rooms numbered; 2nd phase walls in blue. (MG)

(defined by soil type), leaving baulks as a visible record,10 were not employed, and excavation by contexts using a matrix to relate individual contexts spatially and temporally, advanced by Harris and others, was still in the future.11 For the site at San Biagio, Carter applied a modified Wheelerian approach used in previous excavations by ICA. Sites were recorded in three dimensions, using a 5-m grid, and were accompanied by section drawings (see Figs. 2.3, 2.5 and 2.6). Excavation was by natural layers, defined by soil type; intermediate levels, known as battute, corresponding to the depth of 10–15 cm, or a pass with the pick, were also recorded. In practice at San Biagio, this method had to be modified frequently, as the deposits were extremely shallow and the pick was sparingly employed, and only in certain areas on the hilltop, notably in Soundings I and II, where the archaeological features were deeply buried. Wheeler 1955. 11 Harris 1983. 10

Obvious pits and fills were excavated and recorded separately. The characteristics of the soil, including color (classified by Munsell Chart), consistency, and composition, were carefully recorded. The shallow stratigraphy of this site required a flexible approach. In the case of the deeper hypocaust fill, a hybrid method was used: the southern half of the fill was initially excavated by battute and the remaining part was dug following the stratigraphy visible in the section.12 A strength of the excavation strategy lay in the attention paid to the geology of the site and to the evidence of the ancient flora and fauna for the reconstruction of the environment and the diet of the community. These studies involved the field presence of specialists geologist Robert Folk, palaeobotanist Lorenzo Costantini, and archaeozoologist Sándor Bökönyi, who advised during and after the excavation. Collection of particularly significant samples, flotation in the field of specific archaeological deposits The term battuta is written in Italian in the English excavation diary written during the dig. It was decided not to translate the term into English or substitute it in Italian with other synonyms (e.g. taglio).

12

The Excavation and Structures

23

(a)

(b)

Figure 2.6a and b Sections across the site along the intersecting baulks, (a) west to east and (b) south to north. (MG/EH)

in order to collect plant remains, and careful treatment and documentation of the ancient bones, both animal and human, made this excavation a model for its time.13 Recording System and Excavation The excavation was recorded using a Cartesian grid, with axes oriented to the cardinal points, and squares 5 m on a side (Fig. 2.3). Baulks 1 m wide, corresponding to the principle north-south and east-west axes, were reserved from the first. Excavation began with two trial trenches (TTR1 and TTR2), each 2 m wide parallel to the axes, and intersecting at right angles, at the central datum point. Immediately below the soil of the plow zone, which contained much building material (roof tiles, river cobbles, and square sandstone), a buried pithos and a section of wall began to

13Among the soil samples were those from the hypocaust fill (300SS, 400SS, 401SS and 403SS9) and the praefurnium (207SS) and the fill from the dolium situated outside the building (357SS), in the northwest corner of the courtyard. Flotation was undertaken on deposits found inside the dolium in Room V and the impluvium/cistern outside the building.

emerge 10–15 cm below the surface. On the basis of the results from the trial trenches, the excavation was soon expanded to include entire 5 m squares, a total of 21 of them, sufficient to expose the entire ancient structure (Fig. 2.5). The archaeological deposit over the entire site was extremely shallow. No obvious, significant differences in color or texture were noted between the soil of the plow zone and that lying immediately beneath it. The site was, as a result, largely recorded by artificial levels: (1) plow zone, (2) soil just above the walls and features, and (3) soil between and below the walls. There was little if any change within more deeply buried features such as the pithoi and hypocaust, which were separately recorded. The composition of the soil (though not its color) did vary across the site, with outcroppings of gravel at certain points. The virgin soil of the hillside was no more than 20 cm below the surface, a depth comparable to that of the plowing practiced in the field. At this depth, a rectangular building oriented northwest to southeast and

24

Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.7 General view of the excavation site at San Biagio, late July 1980. (CW)

measuring 18 x 17 m, divided into nine rooms with surrounding structures, was discovered. It was nothing short of miraculous that the entire plan, the lowest course of walls, emerged complete (Figs. 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7). During the course of the excavation, two exploratory soundings were dug in the southern area of the main excavation, where tomb robbers had found a burial uncovered during construction of the SS 407 road (Fig. 2.8). Sounding I revealed tile fragments and slabs that had formed the structure of the tombs, which probably date to the Greek period, together with some bone fragments from the deposition. No grave goods were found. Sounding II trenches aimed to identify other tombs, but only more bones, tile, and a number of limestone slabs were found, indicating that the tombs had already been destroyed. The pottery from these excavations defied precise classification but were of Greek date. In light of the recent reassessment of the excavation data, it may be added that level 1 included the surface layers and plow soil and thus characterizes the abandonment layers. Level 2 included the collapsed portions and the structure, while level 3 constitutes the occupation layers.

Figure 2.8 Cist tomb with cover slabs (robbed), Sounding I, probably 4th c. bc. (CW)

Re-evaluation of the Site’s Occupation The detailed study of the excavation data began in 2007, which has made it possible to propose new interpretations both for the Roman building and for the periods of occupation preceding it. Many of the new findings and conclusions corroborate those previously advanced by Carter (see Interpretation of the Roman Structure, below), but others diverge in significant ways. A careful analysis of the stratigraphic sequence and the study of the finds has expanded and refined the

24

Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.7 General view of the excavation site at San Biagio, late July 1980. (CW)

measuring 18 x 17 m, divided into nine rooms with surrounding structures, was discovered. It was nothing short of miraculous that the entire plan, the lowest course of walls, emerged complete (Figs. 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7). During the course of the excavation, two exploratory soundings were dug in the southern area of the main excavation, where tomb robbers had found a burial uncovered during construction of the SS 407 road (Fig. 2.8). Sounding I revealed tile fragments and slabs that had formed the structure of the tombs, which probably date to the Greek period, together with some bone fragments from the deposition. No grave goods were found. Sounding II trenches aimed to identify other tombs, but only more bones, tile, and a number of limestone slabs were found, indicating that the tombs had already been destroyed. The pottery from these excavations defied precise classification but were of Greek date. In light of the recent reassessment of the excavation data, it may be added that level 1 included the surface layers and plow soil and thus characterizes the abandonment layers. Level 2 included the collapsed portions and the structure, while level 3 constitutes the occupation layers.

Figure 2.8 Cist tomb with cover slabs (robbed), Sounding I, probably 4th c. bc. (CW)

Re-evaluation of the Site’s Occupation The detailed study of the excavation data began in 2007, which has made it possible to propose new interpretations both for the Roman building and for the periods of occupation preceding it. Many of the new findings and conclusions corroborate those previously advanced by Carter (see Interpretation of the Roman Structure, below), but others diverge in significant ways. A careful analysis of the stratigraphic sequence and the study of the finds has expanded and refined the

The Excavation and Structures chronology for San Biagio, creating a more detailed picture than what was previously considered possible. The first period of occupation is now datable to the Late Neolithic period, as documented by a concentration of plain buff ware and impasto pottery.14 This concentration, which was only partially excavated, is in the area outside the building (quadrant B′-3) next to the building’s northwest corner and up against Room IX (see Fig. 2.3). Excavation of battute 1 and 2 in B′-3 and B′-2 identified a probable cut filled with soft earth, which was rich in ceramic fragments (220PL) and had some faunal remains. The cut, located along the NW–SE axis at a distance of approximately 3 m to the west of the Roman building’s perimeter wall, measured 2.5 m in length and 1.5 m in width. Despite this important evidence of a much earlier occupation, time restrictions dictated the decision not to complete this investigation, which also consisted of a depression outside the Roman structure (not related to the principal evidence of the long cut). The characteristics of the stratigraphy and artifacts suggested a possible pit belonging to a prehistoric settlement in the area, which may also be attested by a number of flints and a fragment of an obsidian blade.15 The second occupation period, dated between the 6th and 4th centuries BC, is the Greek occupation identified by Carter, which is represented by a poorly preserved stretch of wall outside Room V along the western side of the building, along with the ceramic material found in discrete quantities (see Fig. 2.5). The good preservation of other artifacts,16 as well as particular concentrations of materials found below the floors and occupation levels of the Roman building, suggest that an earlier Greek structure preceded the farmhouse. The areas that produced the most fragments of Greek pottery were near its center, where traces of a wall emerged on a different alignment from the Roman building. Some fragments of architectural terracottas are attributable to the sanctuary situated on the opposite side of the hill, and found a secondary use in the later residential structure, as is the case of the antefix from Room V.17 Much worn and very fragmentary pottery from Soundings I and II was

195PL, 197PL, 216PL, 221PL. For the study of the prehistoric material, see Ch. 3, “Pottery and Other Neolithic Artifacts.” 15 Further evidence of Neolithic settlement in the area was found in the Sanctuary of Artemis (Adamesteanu 1974, 56). 16 E.g., Ch. 3, “Catalog of Banded Ware” (1.1.1). 17 Carter 2006, 140–41. For the detailed study of the antefix see below, Ch. 3, “Architectural Terracottas.” 14

25

likely associated with a nearby settlement or tombs of the Greek period and was probably transported by plowing. No full interpretation was proposed during excavation as the available data was too scarce (but see below for Carter’s preliminary 1980 evaluation). In short, the ceramic finds, the structure with a different alignment, and the tombs identified in Sounding I all point to the existence on and around the site of a settlement in the Greek period, most probably a farmhouse with related necropolis. Study of the ceramics suggests occupation between the 6th and 4th centuries BC.18 The third period, dated between the mid-2nd century AD and the first half of the 4th century AD, which is the focus of this study, includes the rectangular structure with rooms and outbuildings, which was interpreted as a farmhouse or small villa. Most of the material datable to this period was found in the rooms and was characterized by the presence of table and cooking wares of African origin (dated to the initial centuries of the Empire), undecorated and cooking wares, and transport amphorae. There were also numerous metal and glass finds of diverse function, important indicators of the economic prosperity enjoyed by the inhabitants of San Biagio. Three phases are discernible in this chronological period: an initial construction phase, a second phase of restoration and modifications, and the final abandonment and collapse of the structure (see Interpretation of the Roman Structure, below, for a full outline of these phases). The Rooms and Contents of the Farmhouse At first, the intended use of the individual rooms of the structure at San Biagio posed many problems and difficulties due to the excavation data (which, though abundant, was incomplete), as well as to the poor state of preservation of the structure, which was visible only for a few cm above the foundation level. Three decades after the first archaeological investigation at San Biagio,19 a new analysis of the finds and the stratigraphy was carried out, and a tentative interpretation of the entire complex with rooms, passageways, and entrances was proposed. The study of the artifacts associated with architectural features, and comparison with similar buildings For details of the chronology and interpretation of the Greek artifacts, see Ch. 3. 19 Carter 1994b, 192–95; 2006, 140–43. Necropoleis, 242–43. 18

26

Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.9 Reconstruction of the floor plan of San Biagio with suggested room function. (ML)

known through the literature, allowed a plausible interpretation, which was nevertheless still open to other suggestions should new research and further excavations be carried out in future. Room function assignment (Fig. 2.9) was based on several factors: (1) the artifacts found within the individual rooms, (2) the room’s location within the plan, (3) the room’s dimensions, and (4) the type of décor and finishes. It is only possible, however, to propose a detailed interpretation of room function for the final phases of use and abandonment, as most of the data is associated with artifacts belonging to the final occupation of the building. The following is a detailed description of each of the rooms and architectural features, including the objects that were found inside them. More detailed descriptions of the objects listed here with catalog numbers can be found in the materials presented in Chapters 3, 4, and 5; those without catalog numbers were not recorded in detail, but are mentioned since they form part of the assemblage for each room.

Room I This small rectangular room (3.20 x 2.50 m; surface area ca. 8 m 2) is located in the southeast corner of the house. Tesserae found within indicate that the floor, now gone, was a white mosaic, likely with a gray border. The floor was supported by five rows of columns, each made up of nine stacked square tiles (known as suspensurae; see Catalog of Building Materials, below). The subterranean chamber (hypocaust) circulated hot air, which in turn warmed the room above by means of radiant heat from both the floor as well as from hollow rectangular pipes (tubuli) that rose up through the walls (Catalog of Building Materials, below) (Fig. 2.10). This space was identified as a small bathing room which could have served as a caldarium (hot room) or sudatorium (sauna).20 A narrow opening (0.5 m wide) in the northwest wall connected Room I with adjacent Room IV. Another entrance is suggested by the remains of what is likely a threshold, made of flat stones, from which a few fragments of burnt wood were recovered, possibly 20

Nielsen 1990, 156–57, 159–60.

The Excavation and Structures

27

Figure 2.10 Praefurnium and hypocaust of the basin complex. (CW)

Figure 2.11 Goat skeleton in a hollow opposite the praefurnium; see Ch. 6. (CW)

from a door. A uniform stratum of collapsed material from within the hypocaust yielded a large quantity of ceramics, tesserae from the mosaic pavement, remains of the terracotta tubuli, fragments of window glass, and a group of six coins dated between the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th centuries AD. The surface of the hypocaust floor itself was charred and mixed with charcoal. The furnace that supplied the heat to the hypocaust was located outside, adjacent to the southern perimeter wall. This structure, located at a somewhat lower level than the foundation it adjoined, was semicircular in plan. It had a rectangular antechamber (praefurnium), oriented northwest–southeast. The two walls of the praefurnium were constructed of tile and stone; the floor had a type of cobblestone pavement in the eastern section, while at the western end the tiles were arranged vertically. Inside the praefurnium (maximum depth ca. 25 cm) was a good deal of ash

and yellow-brown earth (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2) that had clearly been altered by burning. The fill yielded fragments of window glass, pottery, and a small amount of vitrified material. Beyond the praefurnium, just inside the furnace, the ground was hollowed, likely as a work pit for stoking the furnace. Inside this pit, which was filled with soft, dark earth (10YR 5/2), was the skeleton of a small animal (probably a goat or sheep) (Fig. 2.11).21 The furnace itself was constructed of tile and stone arranged in an irregular fashion, while pieces of marble, certainly reused, were present in the lowest courses at a depth of about 30 cm. The interior surface was probably covered in plaster, as suggested by the discovery of many such fragments, which were heavily concentrated in the northwest zone. It is very likely that the furnace had a tile pavement, of which there are still faint traces. In contrast to the praefurnium, 21

See Ch. 6, “A Goat Skeleton from the Roman Period.”

28

Erminia Lapadula

there was no ashy soil present; instead the earth was sandy and dark brown (10YR 4/3), mixed with tile fragments and plaster together with a few shells, bones, and window glass. The notable finds recovered from the destruction level inside the hypocaust include: 22 Building Materials (see below): Pipes (tubuli) fragments (type 5.1.1); square brick suspensurae (6.1.1); small rectangular floor brick (7.1.1). Black Gloss (Ch. 3): Ionic cups (type 1.1.2; 1.1.5); cup (13.1.1). Eastern Terra Sigillata (Ch. 4): ETS A dish H57 (type 1.1.1). African Red Slip Ware (Ch. 4): Cups H8 (type 2.3.1), H9 (type 2.4.1); bowls H14 (type 2.5.1), H16 (type 2.6.1); dish H50A (3.1.3); deep bowl H58B (5.2.2). Slipped Common Ware (Ch. 4): Bowl (1.2.1). Plain Ware (Ch. 4): Cup, lid, closed form fragments. African Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Pan H181C (1.1.1); casserole H23B (2.1.2); lids H196A (3.1.1), H196 (4.3.1). Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Casserole (3.2.1); dishlid (5.1.1); lid (6.3.1; 6.3.2; 6.3.3); and closed forms. Glass Finds (Ch. 4): Bowls (2.1.1; 2.2.1; 2.3.1; 2.4.1; 2.6.1; 2.7.1); bottles (4.1.1; 4.2.1). Metal Finds (Ch. 4): Bronze dish (1.1.1). Personal Artifacts (Ch. 5): Glass beads (3.1.1; 3.2.1); bone hairpin (4.1.1). Household Instruments (Ch. 5): Bell (2.1.1). Spinning, Weaving, and Sewing (Ch. 5): Spindle whorl (1.1.1). Lamps (Ch. 5): Lamp (1.3.1). Tools for Fire-lighting, Carpentry, and Woodworking (Ch. 5): Bronze nail (3.2.1); iron clamp (3.4.1); iron nail (4.4.1). Window Glass (Ch. 5): Window glass (1.1.4). Coins (Ch. 5): Antoniniani (1B–4B); folles (5B; 6B). Also found were numerous mosaic tesserae.

22 Objects appearing in catalogs are followed by their catalog number. Objects not appearing in catalogs that are of the same type as a cataloged piece are indicated by the word “type” before a catalog number. Not all assemblage items are included.

Room II This rectangular space (ca. 3.3 x 4 m; surface area ca. 13 m 2) was located along the southeast side of the structure between Room I to the northeast and Room III to the southwest. An opening in the northwest wall connected it to adjacent Room IV. Another opening is conjectured to have existed in the east wall to allow access to the caldarium (Room I). In the center of the room a large stone was found, for which it is difficult to propose an exact function. A mortar fragment found in situ in the north corner, along with some fragments of tile laid out flat, suggests that the area was used for preparing meals or for grinding cereals. Excavation of the room’s interior revealed a natural layer of sand and gravel present throughout the site. The room likely had an opus spicatum pavement, as suggested by the discovery of some small bricks in the destruction layer which were suitable for this type of flooring. This may have been a service room that had a distinct function, either connected to the kitchen (Room IV) or the caldarium (Room I). The finds from Room II include: Building Materials (see below): Imbrex (3.1.1); small rectangular floor brick (type 7.1.1); white plaster fragments. Black Gloss (Ch. 3): Corinthian-type skyphos (4.1.1); black-gloss foot (14.1.1). Greek Cooking Ware (Ch. 3): Pan (1.1.1). African Red Slip Ware (Ch. 4): Bowl H7B (2.2.1). Plain Ware (Ch. 4): Bowl (1.5.1); cup (2.1.1); fragments of open and closed forms. African Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Casserole H197 (type 2.2.1). Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Unidentified pan fragments. Transport Amphorae (Ch. 4): Dr. 2/4 (1.1.3); African and unidentified fragments. Room III This rectangular room (approximately 3.10 x 3.90 m; surface ca. 12 m2) was located in the southwest corner of the structure. Concentrated scorching and an accumulation of stone and brick fragments in the center were interpreted as traces of a hearth. Two openings can be hypothesized in the northeast and northwest walls to allow communication with Rooms II and V respectively, but the remains of these presumed entrances are slight. This room also is assumed to have had an opus spicatum pavement and was likely another service room.

The Excavation and Structures The finds from Room III include: Building Materials (see below): Small rectangular floor brick (type 7.1.1); white and red plaster fragments. Black Gloss (Ch. 3): Some fragments. Grey Ware (Ch. 3): Open form foot (16.1.1). Banded Ware, Miniatures, and Plain Ware (Ch. 3): Some fragments of plain ware, one fragment of a miniature. Architectural Terracottas (Ch. 3): Antefix with gorgoneion (1.2.1). Loom Weights (Ch. 3): A disc loom weight or oscillum (1.1.4). African Red Slip Ware (Ch. 4): Dish H50A (type 3.1.1); ARS A fragments. Plain Ware (Ch. 4): Bowl (1.4.2); cup (2.1.2); basin (type 4.1.1); jar (type 10.1.1). African Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Pan H181D (1.2.2); casserole H183 (2.3.1); dish H62; lid H195. Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Jar (1.4.2); casserole (3.1.1); dish-lid (5.2.1); lid (6.1.1). Transport Amphorae (Ch. 4): Unidentified body fragments. Personal Artifacts (Ch. 5): Glass paste bracelet (2.1.1). Room IV This rectangular room (5.60 x 4.70 m; surface area ca. 26.32 m 2) was located in the second row of rooms from the southeast and faced east. Against the southeast wall was a rectangular platform (ca. 1 m wide) constructed of terracotta slabs. Association

Figure 2.12 Detail of the possible cooking area, Room IV. (CW)

29

with a large concentration of scorching and ash (5YR 5/8) suggested the presence of a cooking surface or stove (Fig. 2.12) at the back of the wall that separates this room and the adjacent room with the hypocaust (Room I). The terracotta slabs, located roughly 40 cm above ground level and interpreted during the excavation as remains of a paved surface, rest directly on the natural layer of gravel, which is present throughout the structure in slightly different quantities—in other rooms as well as in the exterior area of the courtyard. The room presumably had a beaten-earth floor and walls covered in white plaster. It seems that the room had five passageways: one in each wall, leading to adjacent Rooms I, II, V, and VIb, and another doorway that led directly outside. Only faint traces of these entrances were found during excavation, and some must be conjectured, particularly the opening onto the courtyard (Room VIb). A considerable quantity of pottery was found, suitable for the preparation and cooking of foods, along with traces of scorching and some faunal remains, including a pig’s tooth. Of special interest was an iron flint found in the occupation levels, which was used for starting fires. The room is interpreted as a kitchen (culina). The finds from Room IV include: Building Materials (see below): Pipe (5.1.1); red plaster fragments. Black Gloss (Ch. 3): Residual fragments of open and closed forms from the Roman occupation and destruction levels. African Red Slip Ware (Ch. 4): Dish H50; large dish H50B (5.1.1). Plain Ware (Ch. 4): Double-handler bowl (1.3.1); bottle (7.3.1). African Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Pan H181D (1.2.2); casserole H23B (2.1.4); dish-lid H196A (3.1.3), lid H182 (4.1.1); dish H62. Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Jar (1.5.1). Transport Amphorae (Ch. 4): Unidentifiable spike of Spanish production (2.3.2). Glass Finds (Ch. 4): Bowl (2.8.1). Tools for Fire-lighting, Carpentry, and Woodworking (Ch. 5): Iron spade (1.1.1); fire starter (2.1.1). Coins (Ch. 5): Antoninianus of Claudius Tacitus (1C).

30

Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.13 Views from Room VIII and Room V, large squared block in situ and dolium (Room V); see plan, Fig. 2.5. (CW)

Room V This rectangular room (ca. 4.90 x 6.10 m; surface area ca. 30 m 2) was located in the second row of rooms from the southeast, adjacent to the kitchen (Room IV). There may have been four internal passageways connecting adjacent Rooms VIb, VII, III, and IV. A large rectangular stone block inside Room VII, which had clearly been dislocated by plowing, could have formed the threshold for the opening between the two rooms (Fig. 2.13). The room had white plaster walls—likely with a red dado—and a beaten-earth floor. An important element in the room is a dolium buried in the west corner. The vessel, approximately 1.04 m in diameter, is preserved to a maximum depth of approximately 60 cm, and was embedded in a foundation of mortar and tile fragments. The vessel had 11 lead mending clamps in the base, which rule out use for liquid. It must have held grain or a precious commodity, given that it was located in the most private area of the structure (Fig. 2.14). The dirt inside the dolium was dark brown (10YR 4/3) and soft, mixed with stones, and yielded a few fragments of pottery, bone, and shell as well as a large fragment of curved tile (2.1.1) datable to the Greek period. An antefix (1.1.1) with the protome of a satyr was found immediately outside of the dolium. This reused object from the Greek period suggests some sort of votive or ritualistic intention, and was probably used to furnish the room. Excavation exposed a depression, quasi-rectangular in shape (see Fig. 2.5), along the southwestern perimeter wall and parallel to it, which could be the remains of a piece of furniture. The finds from the room—particularly those connected to the personal female world (thimbles, toiletry objects, parts of a jewelry box, a

Figure 2.14 Interred dolium in Room V, base repaired with lead clamps. (CW)

Figure 2.15 Preserved pavement in Room VIa. (CW)

weight)—and the location in a reserved part of the structure suggest that this might have been the private center of the dwelling. Additionally, the discovery of nine coins in the southwest corner of the room in a layer of gravel (presumably below the floor level) suggests the deliberate concealment of the owners’ cash.23 The space is interpreted as a living room or tablinum. The finds from Room V include: Building Materials (see below): Curved tegula (2.1.1). Black Gloss (Ch. 3): Ionic cup (1.1.2). Architectural Terracottas (Ch. 3): Satyr antefix (1.1.1). African Red Slip Ware (Ch. 4): Dish H50A (3.1.2); large dish H50B (5.1.2). Plain Ware (Ch. 4): Basin (4.1.1); double-handler bottle (7.1.1); unidentifiable open and closed forms. African Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Casserole H197 (2.2.1).

23

For a detailed analysis of the coins, see Ch. 5, “Coins.”

The Excavation and Structures

31

Figure 2.16 Hypothetical digital model of the farmhouse; see Virtual Archaeology, below. (ML)

Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Jar (1.2.1); pot and pan fragments. Transport Amphorae (Ch. 4): Spanish Dr. 14 (2.1.2); unidentified spike (2.3.1); stopper (6.2.1). Dolia (Ch. 4): Complete dolium (type 1.1.1). Personal Artifacts (Ch. 5): Spatula (5.1.1). Household Instruments (Ch. 5): Basalt weight (1.1.1). Spinning, Weaving, and Sewing (Ch. 5): Thimble (2.1.1). Tools for Fire-lighting, Carpentry, and Woodworking (Ch. 5): Appliqué (3.1.1); iron nail (4.1.1). Lamps (Ch. 5): Stamped lamp (1.1.1). Coins (Ch. 5): Folles (1A–9A). Room VI This room is located in the third row of rooms from the southeast. The room was excavated as a single entity, but during the investigation it became evident that this space actually consisted of two distinct rooms divided by a central wall. Therefore these two spaces will be treated separately: Room VIa occupies the northeastern section while Room VIb occupies the southwestern. During excavation these distinctions were not made, so as a conse-

quence the finds were not differentiated and are presented together below. Room VIa is almost square (ca. 3.40 x 4.00 m; surface area ca. 13 m 2) and preserves the remains of a limestone pavement made up of rectangular blocks in the northern section (Fig. 2.15). The entrance to the entire structure opened into this room; there was likely no direct passageway with the other rooms, and this space simply was dedicated as the access to the dwelling. Analysis of the excavation data and comparanda favors a covering for this space, even if the presence of the limestone block pavement suggests an open area. Therefore the existence of a roof over this room remains in doubt, notwithstanding the proposed three-dimensional reconstruction (Fig. 2.16), which opts for the covered solution. This space is interpreted as a vestibule. Room VIb is square in shape (ca. 3.40 x 3.65 m; surface area ca. 13 m 2). No traces of paving are preserved; therefore the presence of a beaten-earth floor is assumed. Its central role in the interior of the dwelling suggests that there were direct passageways with all the rooms that surrounded it, with the exception of the cubiculum (bedroom; Room VII), for which there surely must have been a way to avoid a direct entrance from the courtyard. The space is interpreted in the first phase as an atrium or courtyard.

32

Erminia Lapadula

At a later time a new internal partition, running northwest–southeast, was added to divide the square room into two smaller spaces. Room VIb was reduced to 3.40 x 1.25 m, while the remaining section formed a new room (VIIa) measuring 3.40 x 1.75 m. Possible reasons for this reconfiguration may be due to a change in the entrance to the farmhouse and the need for more privacy for the cubiculum (see below, Interpretation of the Structure). Because of the lack of distinction during excavation of the two rooms, the material recovered is presented from both VIa and VIb together as Room VI. Finds from Room VI are few, though worth noting are: Building Materials (see below): Imbrex fragments. Figured Pottery (Ch. 3): Black-on-buff open shape (3.1.1). Black Gloss (Ch. 3): Corinthian-type skyphos (4.2.2). Banded Ware, Miniatures, and Plain Ware (Ch. 3): Jar. Architectural Terracottas (Ch. 3): Revetment a cassetta (3.3.1). African Red Slip Ware (Ch. 4): Bowl H14A (2.5.1); forms H8 and H50. Plain Ware (Ch. 4): Pitcher and closed form. African Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Pan H181D (1.2.1). Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Jar (1.8.1). Transport Amphorae (Ch. 4): Agora M254. Glass Finds (Ch. 4): Bottle (4.3.1). Room VII This square room (ca. 3.40 x 3.70 m; surface area ca. 13 m 2) is located in the third row of rooms from the southeast. The room appears to have had one passageway connecting with Room V (tablinum). The large rectangular block of limestone in Room V, found adjacent to the western wall that divides it from Room VII, may be evidence of a threshold (see Fig. 2.13). The lack of evidence for paving suggests that the floor was beaten earth, and the walls were likely plastered and decorated with a red dado. The room is interpreted as sleeping quarters (cubiculum). Excavation of this room produced few artifacts, though worth noting are: Building Materials (see below): Flat tegulae (1.1.1; 1.2.1); imbrex (type 3.1.1). Figured Pottery (Ch. 3): One skyphos fragment.

Black Gloss (Ch. 3): Residual bowl (10.1.1); Ionic cup (type 1.1.1) Corinthian-type skyphos S20-28. African Red Slip Ware (Ch. 4): Dish H50A (3.1.1). African Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Dish-lid. Imperial Transport Amphorae (Ch. 4): LRA1 body fragments. Tools for Fire-lighting, Carpentry, and Woodworking (Ch. 5): Iron nail (4.1.1). Room VIII This large rectangular room (ca. 4.10 x 5.10 m; surface area ca. 21 m 2) is located at the northeast end of the structure. Only one point of access from Room VIb (atrium or courtyard) can be hypothesized, which precludes a passageway to the outside along the perimeter northwest wall, as the excavation plan seems to show. The floor was beaten earth. The absence of any stratified artifacts and other helpful evidence (for example, its specific location within the plan) makes it difficult to propose a function. The rather sizeable dimensions suggest a cubiculum, as attested by numerous examples of large rooms with this function in villas found in various regions of south-central Italy.24 Excavation inside this room recovered only two finds: Building Materials (see below): Red plaster fragments. Architectural Terracottas (Ch. 3): Sima slab (2.1.1). Loom Weights (Ch. 3): Disc loom weight (1.1.3). Room IX This large rectangular room (4.10 x 6.45 m; surface ca. 26 m 2) is located in the northwest corner of the structure. In the first phase the room had no internal division. A buried dolium, in fragmentary state and without diagnostic features, was found in the east corner of the room, and it likely dates to first phase of construction. The room probably had only one passageway from the atrium or courtyard. The floor was beaten earth and rubble; the walls had white plaster, but not a red dado. In the second phase, the room is divided in two parts of different dimensions (the east side: about 4.10 x 2.08 m; surface 9 m2; west side: 4.10 x 4.37 m; surface 18 m 2). The reorganization of this 24 For example, the villa of the Volusii at Locus Feroniae, in Lazio. See Sgubini Moretti 1998.

The Excavation and Structures

33

space could suggest its use for food stocking purposes but the archaeological evidence is not sufficient to justify this hypothesis. Identification as a storeroom/pantry was made on the basis of a significant number of fragments of transport amphorae and utilitarian pottery, probably placed on shelves. The dimensions of the room, the embedded dolium in the floor, the beaten earth and rubble paving, and the white plaster support the hypothesis of a storage room for wares and produce. Finds from this room include: Black Gloss (Ch. 3): Cup fragments; skyphos fragments. Architectural Terracottas (Ch. 3): Revetment a cassetta (3.2.1). African Red Slip Ware (Ch. 4): Bowl H53A (4.1.1); bowl H50. Slipped Common Ware (Ch. 4): Basin (3.1.1). Plain Ware (Ch. 4): Bowl fragments; closed form fragments. African Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Casserole H23B (type 2.1.1); dish-lid H196A (type 3.1.1); Atlante I, Tav. CIV 7/8 (4.3.2). Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Jar (1.1.2); lid (6.2.1). Transport Amphorae (Ch. 4): Dr. 14A (2.1.1); unidentified body fragments. Tools for Fire-lighting, Carpentry, and Woodworking (Ch. 5): Metal strip (3.3.1); iron nail (4.2.1). Basin This rectangular structure (1.80 x 2.00 m) was constructed of tiles arranged vertically, lined on the inside with white hydraulic mortar approximately 2 cm thick (Fig. 2.17). The structure is set into the earth slightly, but was essentially constructed above ground to a maximum height that can be estimated at 50 cm (Fig. 2.18). The floor was made of terracotta tesserae (Fig. 2.19); a sub-foundation of plaster and terracotta fragments can be seen in two areas where the paving is missing. In the northeast corner of the basin, at floor level, was the hole for the drainage channel, used to empty the tub, which originally had a lead pipe in it, to judge from the remains found during excavation. The drainage channel was built out of tiles and likely covered with slabs, some of which were found in B′3 and B′4 (Fig. 2.20). It flowed along the natural slope of the hill to the northeast. This basin was assumed to be for water collection.

Figure 2.17 Outline of the basin at the moment of its discovery. (CW)

Figure 2.18 The excavated basin floor with pavement in terracotta tesserae. (CW)

34

Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.19 Detail of the terracotta tesserae. (CW)

Figure 2.20 Basin and drainage channel. A lead pipe ran under the basin wall to the tile-lined channel. (CW)

The earth within the basin yielded only a few finds: Building Materials (see below): Plaster fragments. Neolithic Artifacts (Ch. 3): Obsidian blade (3.1.1). Plain Ware (Ch. 4): Basin (4.2.1). Cooking Ware (Ch. 4): Jar (type 1.7.2). Transport Amphorae (Ch. 4): Forlimpopoli amphora (type 1.2.1). Glass Finds (Ch. 4): Dish (1.2.1); bowl (2.2.2). Window Glass (Ch. 5): Fragments. Coins (Ch. 5): Illegible coin (2C).

88 could not be attributed with certainty to any particular form. The small number of tile fragments is undoubtedly due to agricultural work and continuous plowing in the area, which cut into the stratigraphy and spread the materials from the collapsed structure over a wide area. There was little evidence to tell us about the roofing system, as most of the material consists of small fragments dispersed throughout the stratigraphic sequence. Moreover, no areas of significant tile concentrations were seen in the distribution of fragments that could provide more precise clues regarding the roofing system. The western area, corresponding to Rooms V, VII, and IX, produced the highest concentration of tiles in layers that probably can be associated with the roof ’s collapse. The largest fragments or number of joining fragments from one tile were also found in this area. The presence of a greater quan-

Building Materials Roofing, Pipes, and Coverings The excavation of San Biagio produced 192 Roman tile fragments. Of these, 29 belonged to tegulae (plain flat roof tiles, or flat roof tiles with raised edges) and 75 to imbrices (semi-circular tiles laid over the joints between the tegulae), while the remaining

The Excavation and Structures

35

Figure 2.21 Digital model of the tile roof. (ML)

Figure 2.22 Detail of traditional roof construction in a 20th c. dwelling in Aliano, Basilicata. (ML)

tity of tiles in the western area can be attributed to the natural slope of the hill and plowing on the site, which have partly preserved the stratigraphy in this zone; the slope has favored the washing away of the surface material toward the southeast. Although slight, the excavation data is sufficient to allow a hypothesis regarding the roofing system of the building (Fig. 2.21). Among the important elements are: the fragments of flat tiles with flanges (raised edges) found in Room VII (Catalog of Building Materials, no. 1.2.1) and two incomplete examples of the same tile (Catalog of Building Materials, no. 4.1.1) found in Room II and Room VII. The clay fabrics seem to be the same color and composition when examined macroscopically, suggesting the possibility of a single production source.25 It seems likely that the first-phase building was roofed with flat tegulae with raised edges and large imbrices. The latter, in some cases, have a fingerprint at one end, which probably occurred during the drying stage. Both of these roofing elements are known as copertura alla romana, as they were widely used in the Roman period. Tile size was standardized, with recurring measurements, due to the large-scale production and the use of wooden forms that were easy to reproduce.26 Unfortunately there are no complete examples from San Biagio to determine the original measurements of the tegulae and imbrices. For the tegulae found in Rooms V and VII, however, it is possible to provide a hypothetical measurement of roughly 45 cm for the length, equivalent to the dimensions of

a sesquipedales (a foot and a half). The same length is possible for the imbrices placed over the join between the tegulae, of which two well-preserved examples were found (Catalog of Building Materials, no. 3.1.1). The discovery of tile fragments exclude a roofing system made of perishable material. The roofing was probably placed directly on the underlying reticulate, a system possibly in use in Greek and Roman times, although we lack archaeological evidence at this time. Ethnographic evidence, however, attests the employment of such a system in the area until the middle of last century (Fig. 2.22). The lower layer of laths or battens protected the house from heat in the summer and cold in the winter. The roofing system using imbrices and tegulae tiles covered the entire life of the house. One piece of flat tile that had a simple decoration on the visible surface (Catalog of Building Materials, no. 1.3.1) might suggest the use of decorated tegulae on roof coverings. The use of tiles such as these is common from the Roman through the Late Roman periods, for homes as well as on the roofs of tombs. The data is insufficient to suggest that any other type of coverage was employed during the life of the building. At San Biagio, the large piece of curved tile (Catalog of Building Materials, no. 2.1.1), found in the fill of the dolium in Room V is of particular interest. This type of tile is mainly used in the Hellenistic period and it is also found in the other Metapontine farmhouse of Sant’Angelo Vecchio. The roofing system with curved roof tiles, known as Laconian (as opposed to flat tiles in the Greek period called Corinthian) is widespread in the Hellenistic

A microscopic examination of the fabric (by K. Swift) confirmed this hypothesis. 26 Giuliani 1990, 59–64. 25

36

Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.23 Hypocaust in Room I, the suspensurae (brick piers). (CW)

Figure 2.24 Partially excavated hypocaust in Room I. (CW)

period in Peucezia, Ascoli Satriano, and it is well documented in Basilicata and in the Sinni valley.27 At San Biagio the discovery of this artifact (2.1.1) is an additional element, with the ceramics findings, the remains of wall structures outside the building corresponding to Room V, and graves discovered at a short distance (Sounding I), to support the hypothesis of an earlier Greek rural settlement below the Roman structure. 27

See Serio 2002, 301–02.

The other terracotta construction materials consist of fragments of facing tiles, bricks, and pipes, while only one example attests the use of flat tegulae for facing (Catalog of Building Materials, no. 4.1.1). The latter type have hollows in some cases, in the center or corners, for housing terracotta box tiles or placing small amphorae used to create space between the external wall and the internal facing.28 They were widely used in bath complexes in order to allow the passage of hot air. A substantial quantity of square bricks from the suspensurae was found inside the hypocaust (Catalog of Building Materials, no. 6.1.1). These bricks, used for the small pillars (height 50 cm) were approximately 20 cm on each side and had a minimum thickness of 4.5 cm, equal to a bessalis, the traditional module for Roman bricks (Figs. 2.23 and 2.24). The site also produced 46 fragments of rectangular-section box tiles used as channels and in wall cavities. This type of material was widely used for lining the walls of hot rooms in bath structures to create a uniform distribution of heat without causing condensation on the walls. The archaeological evidence and some written sources date the introduction of this type of heating system to the mid-1st century AD.29 Floor and Wall Coverings Four floor types were found at San Biagio: mosaic, opus spicatum, slabs of limestone, and beaten earth. In addition to the internal floors of the building it is necessary to add the terracotta tesserae which covered the bottom of the basin. The elements found indicate simple and inexpensive coverings, and exclude the use of precious materials (marble or glass-paste tesserae). The mosaic tesserae (a total of 207 were collected) were all cut from limestone, with a predominance of white over dark gray. They are roughly quadrangular and approximately 1 cm in size. Some examples preserve slight traces of whitish-light-gray bedding mortar (Fig. 2.25). All of the limestone tesserae came from the hypocaust fill and therefore suggest that the mosaic was situated in the caldarium, 30 although there was no information regarding the design of the mosaic. The relatively small number of dark tesserae found, On flat facing tiles, see Giuliani 1990, 157. Celuzza 1985b, 36. 30 Only one tessera comes from the excavation of TTR 1, but this also belongs to the hypocaust. 28 29

The Excavation and Structures

Figure 2.25 Mosaic tesserae from the basin. (LC)

however, and comparanda from similar structures of the period suggests the presence in Room I (the caldarium) of a simple white mosaic with a narrow dark border around the edge.31 The service rooms (Rooms II, III) were perhaps paved with opus spicatum, as suggested by a number of small rectangular bricks found (7 examples: 9 x 4.5 x 2.5 cm) of the type used for such flooring (Fig. 2.26).32 Opus spicatum, recommended by Vitruvius for open and rustic areas (De Arch., 7.3), was widely used in public and private buildings between the end of the Republican period and the beginning of the Imperial, both in Rome and other parts of the peninsula. In the nearby villa of Termitito, opus spicatum floors similar to those of San Biagio are present in the building of the Republican period.33 At Settefinestre, small bricks similar to those found at San Biagio were used to pave the large baths and the latrine, where the in situ remains indicate that they were laid on a flat surface.34 At Sant’Angelo Vecchio, close to San Biagio and along the Basento valley, bricks with similar dimension and characteristics were also recovered. The site, excavated in 1979 by Carter, is one of the Greek farmhouses located in the Metapontine chora. However, for the material recovered at Sant’Angelo Vecchio a different hypothesis was advanced. The For example, the mosaics from the houses in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Numerous examples of black and white mosaics are present in this period; central geometric decorations are also found in the area of Lucano (e.g. Masseria Ciccotti, see Felicitas Temporum) and Puglia (at Ordona in the baths and the domus in the Imperial period; see Ordona X and Ordona XI). 32 For the use of this type of material in rural and urban spheres, see the sites of Settefinestre (Celuzza 1985b, 36–37) and Conimbriga (Conimbriga, 31–32). 33 De Siena and Giardino 1994, 205. 34 Celuzza 1985b, 36–37. 31

37

Figure 2.26 Small brick from the opus spicatum floor of Rooms II and III; see cat. no. 7.1.1 below. (LC)

Figure 2.27 Plaster fragments from the wall of Room V during excavation. (CW)

author interprets the bricks at Sant’Angelo Vecchio as possible kiln firing supports.35 Additionally, it is also possible that in the Late Republican period the site of Sant’Angelo Vecchio could actually have been producing opus spicatum brick rather than simply using them as supports. A series of misfired examples would be needed to support this suggestion. Together with opus spicatum, opus signinum was the ideal surface for areas where water was in use. In fact, a floor of terracotta tesserae on a layer of mortar and terracotta fragments (opus signinum) was used for the base of the basin situated in the porticoed area on the eastern side of the building (see Fig. 2.16).36 The terracotta tesserae were irregular sizes (roughly 4 x 5 cm) and shapes, and the sub-floor was visible through two gaps present in zone E of the cistern. Of the rooms, only Room VIa has a preserved floor made The study of the farm at Sant’Angelo Vecchio was carried out by Alessandro Quercia. His work, still in progress, contains bibliographic references in support of this in Greece and France: Bénévent 1997, 132, Fig. 24; Gruat et al. 1999, 85, Fig. 32, 8; Luginbühl 2001, 338, Fig. VI, 25.1. 36 Two examples were found in the basin fill. 35

Erminia Lapadula

38

 Figure 2.28 Plan of the farmhouse indicating where large concentrations of plaster were excavated. (EL)

Figure 2.29 Plaster fragments with thin red bands. (MLG)

of rectangular calcareous tiles, placed side by side directly over the fine gravel of the building foundation. The excavation data suggests that the remaining rooms had floors made of dirt or fine gravel. The excavation produced a discrete quantity of wall plaster, mainly in small fragments, a few cm in size (Fig. 2.27). Fragments of plaster were found in all rooms, although the largest quantity comes from Rooms I, II, and III, which were added in the second phase (Fig. 2.28). The color is predominantly white, with some red fragments. The total absence of decorative elements and of other colors suggests that red was used only for the dado on the lower part of the wall in the reception rooms (with the exception of service rooms such as the kitchen and the storeroom/pantry) while the rest of the building had white plastered walls. Comparison with numerous coeval buildings supports such a proposal.37 In modern times in the territory of

Matera and Metapontino, the technique of coloring the base of the wall is still frequently employed. In order to gain an understanding of its composition, non-destructive analysis was undertaken on small samples of white plaster with a red band and of red plaster (Fig. 2.29).38 Both samples had a plaster layer composed of lime in association with strontium. A thin layer of color was spread on the surface: the white pigment was made of calcium bicarbonate; the red color was obtained from iron oxides and a low percentage of lead, with the use of white lead to regulate the tonality.39 The absence of minio, lead saline oxide, in the red pigment is probably due to the cost of these substances, which was certainly higher than that of iron oxides.40

For this type of coloring technique, there are numerous examples in the peninsula. The best preserved examples are at Pompeii and Herculaneum, and the villas in the surrounding territory.

37

38 Both samples underwent x-ray fluorescence, while a small piece was taken from sample 305SS and subjected to RAMAN testing. For details of the analyses and results, see Ch. 6, “Archaeometric Analyses of Metal, Glass, and Plaster.” 39 For wall plaster in general, cf. Cagnana 2000, 141–45, in particular 141–43 and related bibliography. 40 For details on color and coloring techniques, see Cagnana 2000, 157–63.

The Excavation and Structures

39

Catalog of Building Materials The following catalog is a typology of the building materials. The dimensions correspond to the width (w), length (l) and height (h) of the tegulae and their flanged/raised

edges: all measurements are in cm unless otherwise specified. When the color of the ceramic fabric is described, the Munsell Soil Color Chart 1992 has been used as reference.

Roof tiles

1: 6

1.1.1 Flat tegula Context: Room VII. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-311Tb Dimensions and technical features: Max. cons. l 35.3; max. cons. w 18.3; tegula h 2.8; flange h 6.1. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 5YR 6/8 (reddish yellow); some large white and small dark inclusions; occasional shiny inclusions. Formmade. Condition: Partially reconstructed. Description: Flat with pronounced lateral flanges. Comparisons and comment: This type of tegula, widely used in the Roman period but also present in earlier periods in diverse morphologies, could relate to the roofing of the first-phase building in association with imbrices. Date: 2nd–3rd c. AD.

1.2.1 Flat tegula Context: Room VII. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-311Td Dimensions and technical features: Max. cons. l 15.6; max. cons. w 4.4; tegula h 2.4; flange h 5.8. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 5YR 6/6 (reddish yellow); occasional small white inclusions. Form-made. Condition: Fragment. Description: Flat tegula with thin lateral flanges. 1.3.1 Flat tegula Context: TTR II. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-21T Dimensions and technical features: Max. cons. l 9; max. cons. w 12.2; max. h 2.2. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 7.5YR 6/6 (reddish yellow); small evenly distributed white inclusions. Form-made. Condition: Fragment. Description: Flat tegula; decorated with slanting parallel lines made with fingers. Comparisons and comment: Finger-made decoration with various types of motif on the surface of tiles, both tegulae and imbrices, was widespread from the Imperial to the Late Medieval period. The motifs were usually simple

1:3

Comparisons and comment: This type of tegula differs from 1.1.1 in the profile of the lateral flanges. Date: 2nd–3rd c. AD. 1:3

and quickly made without any significance, even though in some cases a symbolic value has been identified. For interpretations in this sense, see Bisogno 1984, 150–51. Date: Imperial period.

40

Erminia Lapadula

Roof tiles, cont.

1.4.1 Flat tegula Context: Sounding I, area A. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-158T Dimensions and technical features: Max. cons. l 28.4; max. cons. w 19.5; max. h 5.7. Fabric type: surf. 2.5Y 873 (pale yellow), fract. 2.5Y 7/4 (pale yellow); unevenly distributed small–large dark and red inclusions, vesicles. Form-made. Condition: Fragment. Description: Flat tegula with lateral flanges. Comparisons and comment: This type was widely used in Greek and Roman building for roofing, but also for tomb

1:6

coverings. It cannot be excluded that this example was part of the covering of a tomb present in the area SE of the building, and found in trench 1 of the excavation. The tomb structure, already disturbed, was probably identified during the construction of the SS 407 road. The numerous tile fragments on the surface suggest the presence in the area of other burials belonging to a small necropolis of the 4th c. BC. Date: Greek period (4th c. BC?)

1:6

2.1.1 Curved tegula Context: Room V, A-1, B-1. Lev. 3. Bat. 1. In dolium. Lot: SB80-177T Dimensions and technical features: Max. cons. l 34.5; max. cons. w 34; h 10. Fabric type: surf. 7.5YR 7/6 (reddish yellow), fract. 5YR 7/6 (reddish yellow); small–medium unevenly distributed white and dark inclusions; vesicles. Form-made. Condition: Fragment. Description: Curved profile with rounded edges; incised line on the upper part. Comparisons and comment: Fragment of curved tegula

of the Laconian type. Similar samples were found at Sant’Angelo Vecchio. The context here, in the dolium, suggests it was residual. This type of curved tile is attested in the Hellenistic period at Ascoli Satriano, Monte Irsi, and in the Sinni valley (Serio 2002, 301–02). Date: Greek period (4th c. BC?)

The Excavation and Structures Imbrices 3.1.1 Imbrex Context: Room II. Lot: SB80-418T Dimensions and technical features: Max. cons. l 33; max. cons. w 16; h 8. Fabric type: surf. 7.5YR 8/6 (reddish yellow), fract. 5YR 6/6 (reddish yellow); numerous evenly distributed small-large white and dark inclusions; voids. Form-made. Condition: Fragment. Description: Curved profile and indistinct margin. A fingerprint at one end could have provided grip during the moving of the tile during the drying process. Comparisons and comment: Another example with the same fabric and morphological characteristics comes from Room VII (Lev. 3, Bat. 2). Date: 2nd–beginning of the 4th c. AD. Wall tiles

4.1.1 Flat tile Context: TTR 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-4PLa Dimensions and technical features: Max. cons. l 9.5; max. cons. w 7.3; h 3.5. Fabric type: surf. 7.5YR 7/6 (reddish yellow), fract. 2.5YR 6/6 (light red); small evenly distributed white, dark, and red inclusions. Form-made. Condition: Fragment. Description: Flat with shallow hollow. Comparisons and comment: This type of tile was used for wall facing. This example was probably used in the

1:6

1:3

caldarium, although it was found quite near the surface and lacks an exact position. Date: 3rd–beginning of the 4th c. AD.

Pipes (tubuli)

5.1.1 Hollow box tile Context: A1, below Bat. 2. Lot; SB80-4PLc Dimensions and technical features: Max. cons. l 10; w 8.5; th 1.2. Fabric type: surf. 10YR 8/4 (very pale brown), fract. 7.5YR 6/4 (light brown); occasional small white and dark inclusions. Form-made. Condition: Fragment. Description: Rectangular hollow tile. Comparisons and comment: Similar box tiles are attested

41

1:2

in numerous urban and rural contexts and are usually connected to bath buildings, both large and small. For general considerations on this type of piping, see Celuzza 1985b, 36. Date: 3rd–beginning of the 4th c. AD.

42

Erminia Lapadula Suspensurae 1:4

6.1.1 Square brick Context: Hypocaust. Lot: SB87 Dimensions and technical features: Ca. 20 x 20; h 4.5. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 2.5Y 7/4 (pale yellow); occasional large red inclusions, very small dark inclusions. Form-made. Condition: Chipped. Description: Quadrangular brick.

Comparisons and comment: This brick was collected as a sample during a survey in 1987. A stack of eight bricks formed a suspensura in the hypocaust. Date: 3rd–beginning of the 4th c. AD.

Brick floor 7.1.1 Small rectangular brick Context: Hypocaust. Lev. 3. Bat. 5. Lot: SB80-396T Dimensions and technical features: L 8.9; w 4.6; h 2.4. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 7.5YR 8/4 (pink); occasional white and small white inclusions. Badly fired. Form-made. Condition: Intact. Description: Rectangular brick. Comparisons and comment: Bricks of similar dimensions and morphology were used in the opus spicatum pavements at

1:4

Settefinestre (Celuzza 1985b, 36–37, Pls. 3. 6–8). Date: Mid-3rd–beginning of the 4th c. AD.

Object of uncertain function 8.1.1 Closing device? Context: A1, A2. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB 80-54PLa Dimensions and technical features: L 11.2; w 9.3; h 2. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 7.5YR 7/4 (pink) and 6/4 (light brown); occasional small white inclusions and very occasional dark inclusions. Form-made. Condition: Incomplete fragment with handle stub. Description: Rectangular object, concave in section; on the upper external surface is a join, probably for a circular handle. Comparisons and comment: Probably some sort of building material, form-made rather than wheel-thrown. It may be associated with a water channel in relation to the hypocaust (it was found in Room IV adjacent to the caldarium).

1:4

The possible handle on the outside suggests a cover for closing and opening an access hole to the water channel. Date: 2nd–4th c. AD.

The Excavation and Structures

43

Figure 2.30 1985 graphic reconstruction of the farmhouse at San Biagio. (AP)

Interpretation of the Roman Structure Carter’s 1980 Interpretation41 Carter presented a brief and general analysis of the structure at San Biagio while awaiting the detailed study of the excavated materials. He proposed a farmhouse constructed of building materials available in loco, with walls of unbaked bricks on a footing of stones and cobbles, roofed with tegulae and imbrices on a timber frame. The possibility of the building having a second floor was not excluded (Fig. 2.30).42 The lack of evidence for corridors between rooms did not make it possible to suggest with any certainty the passage routes inside the house, although it seemed likely that the rooms communicated with one another, contrary to the circulation pattern seen in structures with a central courtyard. Carter further postulated that in the final occupation phase the structure had been enlarged along the southern and eastern sides by the addition of three rooms (I–III in Fig. 2.5; 10–12 in Fig. 2.31), including a balneum and an enclosed courtyard.43 Carter’s first-phase construction would therefore have been characterized by a square building divided into rooms (1–8) and arranged in three rows, following the traditional pattern of rural buildings of the Greek period present in the Metapontino. The second Carter 1980. See the reconstruction in Carter 2006, 142, Fig. 4.9. 43 Carter 2006, 142–43, and Fig. 4.8. 41

42

Figure 2.31 Early schematic plan of the farmhouse with its numbering of the rooms, now superseded. (Carter 2006, 141, Fig. 4.8)

construction phase, the date of which is not specified, saw the enlargement of the original structure on the southern and eastern sides by the addition of three rooms of residential nature and of a courtyard, perhaps enclosed by a low wall, with a water collection basin (impluvium) at one end, complete with a drainage channel (see Fig. 2.20). No suggestions

44

Erminia Lapadula

were made regarding room function in the first- and second-phase building, with the exception of Room I (10 in Fig. 2.31), which was clearly used as a bath, as attested by the presence of the hypocaust and furnace. Instead, it was proposed that the house had other annexed structures for agricultural and productive purposes, though no archaeological evidence for this remains.44 Carter interpreted the building at San Biagio as a farmhouse or a small villa, perhaps belonging to a vilicus with sufficient economic means to have a bath, glass in the windows, plastered and painted walls, and a simple mosaic floor.45 The faunal remains and the large containers, perhaps for wine or oil, suggested an economy based on intensive agriculture and the raising of sheep, goats, and pigs.46 The discovery of two groups of coins firmly documented that occupation occurred between the end of the 3rd and the first half of the 4th century AD, after which point the structure was abandoned.47 A New Interpretation The interpretation of the Roman buildings has evolved over the last few years, with the addition of new insights on the original investigations based on traditional methodologies. Coarelli carried out the first sociological interpretation of the Roman dwellings,48 although Vitruvius had already made the link between the planned organization of space and the social status of the owner in his De Architectura (6.5.1). A historico-archaeological and sociologicalanthropological approach to the study of Roman dwellings allows a fuller interpretation of their structures and the economic implications. In this way, an interpretation of the different areas of a house is possible as well as an overall reading of the dwelling. This methodology was applied to the study of San Biagio with the aim of proposing a hypothetical model based on the excavation data and a critical analysis of the material already published. The excavation revealed a rectangular structure with a NW–SE orientation, measuring about 14 x 19.5 m with a surface area of 270 m 2; on the east side there was an open area (porch) of about 64 m 2 Carter 2006, 142–43. Carter 2006, 140, 250–51. 46 Carter 1994b, 194. 47 Carter 1994b, 194. 48 Coarelli 1983, 1989; Wallace-Hadrill 1988; Zanker 1993. 44 45

resulting in a total footprint of 334 m 2.49 Internally the building is divided into ten rooms (Rooms I–IX, with VI split into VIa and VIb) arranged on parallel lines (see Fig. 2.5). Initially, Carter proposed two occupational phases for the building. The first phase consisted of a building with a square plan divided internally into seven rooms with a central area (Room VIb), interpreted as a small atrium or “pozzo luce.” This central area was linked to the remaining private rooms. The second phase saw a restructuring and enlargement of the main plan. The building became rectangular and on the south side a bath was added. This area is characterized by three rooms (Rooms I, II, and III), and another space delimited by a wall containing a cistern possibly linked to the bath.50 It is also possible to identify two construction phases: a first phase with a rectangular building plan divided into ten rooms (Rooms I–IX) and an external porch on the east side of the building, and a second phase when the internal divisions of the existing rooms were altered. The initial construction of the building was completed in a single episode and dates to the first half of the 2nd century AD. The second phase, around the 3rd century, was characterized by internal adjustments. Phase I (First Half of the 2nd–3rd Century AD): Construction and Life of the Villula51 The original plan included a rectangular central part internally divided into ten rooms arranged in four rows.52 An open area on the east side of the building, probably a veranda, contained a rectangular cistern. Finally a furnace was located on the external south wall associated with the room with the hypocaust. The internal and external walls were erected at the same time. This is confirmed by the materials and techniques for the construction of the walls, which included the use of medium-sized pebbles, sand, soil, and brick fragments and reused architectural terracottas from the nearby Greek settlement on the northern side of the hill. The depth of the walls is uniform, on The different measures recorded by Carter (2006, 136, Table 4.A) are explained by the different calculation he used to measure the dimensions: it is a matter of using the internal or external profile as a reference point. 50 Carter 2006, 140–43. 51 About the word villula, see Migliario 1992, and recently Vera 2001, 621. 52 The room numbering in the excavation phase refers to the last phase of the building. As a result some rooms do not have unique numbers on the excavation plan (such as Rooms VIa and VIb). 49

The Excavation and Structures

Figure 2.32 House with mud brick walls and ceramic tile roof, Aliano, Basilicata. (ML)

average 50 cm. The height of the walls is unknown since only the foundations are visible. A pebble and stone base plate probably formed the lower part of the walls, while sun-dried bricks were used for the upper section, a common building technique for rural constructions during the Classical period.53 During the excavation there were no archaeological traces of pisè (rammed earth) walls made of sun-dried bricks or clay. However, parallels with other rural buildings and Vitruvius’ descriptions suggest this as a possible alternative (De Arch. 6). Useful ethnographic parallels can be found in the numerous sun-dried brick buildings still visible today in the area of Metaponto and Matera. (Fig. 2.32). The attribution of the Rooms I–III on the south side of the building to the first construction phase (previously attributed to the subsequent period) is explained by the particular position of the northernmost row of suspensurae in Room I. These five small pillars are part of the wall that separates Room I from Room IV in its SW orientation and so must be from the same construction period (see Figs. 2.23 and 2.24). The African cooking ware (2.3.1) found in the foundations of the northern wall in Room III suggests a 3rd century date for the building. The dimensions of the rooms, their arrangement, decoration, and the finds within them indicate ways in which the space was used; parallels with other settlements of the Imperial age in Italy and the Aegean offer additional hypotheses. The entrance to the building was most likely located on the east side and, specifically, in Room VIa where 53 For examples of rural buildings in the Classical period in the region with similar building characteristics, see Russo 2006.

45

a vestibule, possibly with a testudinato (covered roof), is located. The entrance leads to the small Room VIb, an atrium that served as the central courtyard found on a larger scale in grander villas. The interpretation of Room VIa as the entrance is based on its position within the structure and the limestone paving slabs used on the floor, typical of open areas and transition rooms. The small atrium (Room VIb) leads to the internal rooms: Room VII, a cubiculum (bedroom); Room V, the tablinum (living room); Room VIII, another possible cubiculum; Room IX, a warehouse; and Room IV, the culina (kitchen). The kitchen is quite large and is located, contrary to custom, along the front wall of the house.54 This room was interpreted as a kitchen due to the discovery of a cooking stove and its location close to the hypocaust, a common practice in both rural and urban Roman houses.55 The rooms located in the southeastern part of the house are a caldarium (Room I) and two service rooms connected to the functioning of the kitchen and the bath (Rooms II and III),56 which were perhaps storerooms or a pantry. Room II seems to have been used for food preparation, as demonstrated by the presence of tiles (perhaps from a hearth). The presence of opus spicatum, however, suggests water usage, linking it with the caldarium, and introducing the possibility of a larger balneum complex. Both hypotheses seem valid. The presence of small bathrooms inside rural and urban residences, villas, and farmhouses is well documented across the peninsula from the 1st century AD, when water consumption becomes significant in daily life. The private bathroom suggests a certain standard of living and is symbolic of the owner’s status, real or presumed.57 At San Biagio the hypocaust suggested the presence of a small bath, though alternative functions are possible: rooms with a hypocaust could be employed as drying rooms in association with certain production activities. The mosaic floor in this room does, however, support the hypothesis of a bathing room, since drying rooms do not have mosaic pavements, The placement of the kitchen at the back or corner of the building is more common in the Roman period, to enable fumes and bad odors to escape, away from the main entrance (Bonini 2006, 100). 55 On the culina and the balneum in rustic dwellings, see Settefinestre 3. 56 No elements were recovered to support the existence of a lavatory, usually characterized by the presence of pipes for water drainage. However, the probable opus spicatum floor could indicate of the use of chamber pots and movable tubs. 57 Nielsen 1990. 54

46

Erminia Lapadula

and the marginal placement of the room along the kitchen wall (Room IV) confirms this hypothesis.58 Identifying private bath complexes is not easy as we cannot employ the classification criteria used for public baths, since private baths vary greatly in shape, size, number of rooms, and decoration, often dictated by the wealth of the owner. In many rooms (Rooms I, II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII), below the collapsed layers of the walls and roofing systems, white and red plaster fragments were recovered. Despite the scarce quantity, these fragments allow suggestions as to the internal wall coverings. The private rooms were most likely plastered in white with a red dado on the lower part. Some buildings of the Roman period present a useful comparison with the presence of a dado in red in the interior rooms. No floor fragments were recovered with the exception of the limestone slab in Room VIa and the small opus spicatum bricks recovered not in situ but in the southern side of the building.59 It is possible that many rooms had simple beaten-earth floors. The layer of pebbles found below the floor of Room VIa suggests a flooring technique that may have been employed in other rooms. The location of the passageways and the windows, which would have been relatively small, are uncertain. Hypotheses about their size and placement are based on the buildings around Vesuvius with standing walls.60 Window glass found in the caldarium suggests the economic comfort of the owner, and one piece of window glass analyzed was of a different production to that in the caldarium, suggesting either that there was another window, or perhaps that it was a later replacement. Small sealed glass windows are, in the Roman period, exclusively employed in bath complexes.61 An important element of the building is the open area along the east side that Carter thought was separated off by a small wall. However the recovery of a pillar base identified in situ in square B′2 (0.97 x 0.75 m) (Fig. 2.33) suggests the existence of a porch that may have had wooden pillars. No traces of the other bases were identified, which may have been looted and stripped over time. The architectonic solution of a porch along the facade Corrado 2007, 303 n. 99. For a detailed analysis of these bricks, see above. 60 Besides the famous examples of Pompeii and Herculaneum, villas and rural buildings in the region of Campania were also considered (e.g., Antiquarium Boscoreale). 61 For a detailed analysis of the window glass, see Ch. 5, “Window Glass,” and Ch. 6, “Archaeometric Analyses of Metal, Glass, and Plaster.” 58 59

Figure 2.33 Large block, a probable column or pillar base found in situ in the area of the portico. (CW)

of the building is attested in rural structures of the Late Imperial and Late Roman periods.62 A large amount of gravel was found in the porch area, of the type found locally. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that the archaeological excavation around the portico (squares B′1, B′2, B′3, and C′2, C′3, and C′4) was not uniform and in the NW of B′2, the excavation of battuta 3 identified a burnt patch which was not excavated. As a result, it is not possible to make any definitive interpretations for this area. Porticos generally had an aesthetic and a utilitarian function, monumentalizing the façade and providing shelter for the daily working activities of the dwellers. (Fig. 2.34). In the area outside the building, a lead pipe for drainage was found. The location of the cistern and this lead pipe exclude the existence of an enclosure wall as previously suggested, because it would have cut through the channel for the pipe.63 The branching to the west of the lead pipe suggests the existence of a second cistern for which there is as yet no archaeological evidence. Below the portico in the NE section of the building (B′1) adjacent to the perimeter wall corresponding to Room VIII, fragments of a buried dolium, which had been repaired, were recovered. The dolium was likely employed as an ash container, which explains its location outside the house and its use for solid substances. The presence of ash suggests domestic laundry activities, for which the ash was employed sometimes as a whitening agent, but does not indicate a fullonica, which was for industrial-level laundries and would have been much larger.64 For the presence of porches in rural buildings, see Vagnari (Favia et al. 2005, 212 n. 60) and Settefinestre (Manacorda 1985, 192, 195). 63 Carter 2006, 141–42, Fig. 4.9. 64 Flohr 2011. 62

The Excavation and Structures

47

Figure 2.34 Digital model of the farmhouse with details of the portico. (ML)

Phase 2 (3rd–Beginning of the 4th Century AD): Restoration Few modifications and restoration interventions are carried out in this period. The building maintains the same plan of the first phase. The rooms are structured the same way. The internal space is more articulated with the division of some rooms in the northwest section of the building. Room IX is subdivided in two through a central partition, whereas Room VIb is divided through a central division wall. The other rooms are untouched. The walls built in Room IX and VIb are characterized by a construction technique similar to the others with a prevalence of small pebbles held together by a sandy soil (see Fig. 2.5, blue). Phase 3 (First Half of the 4th Century AD): Abandonment and Collapse of the Villula The excavation data suggests that the abandonment of the structure occurred in one event, with the collapsed layers being homogenous. A complete goat/ sheep skeleton was recovered in its original position at the entrance of the praefurnium and a group of coins in Room V was also recovered, as well as another collection of money located in the hypocaust. The collapsed layer identified in Room I provided valuable

information. A large quantity of ceramics and glass, ornamental objects, and six coins were recovered, suggesting abandonment on account of their fragmentary nature or for the coins, perhaps by accident. No other walls or mural structures were recovered. The poor preservation of the walls is partly due to later agricultural activities in the area. There are no traces of fire as the cause of the abandonment of the building. Virtual Archaeology: A Proposed Reconstruction Massimo Limoncelli Computer graphics were used to reconstruct the Roman farmhouse at San Biagio as a visual aid for improving our understanding of its architectural genesis. In recent years, virtual reality applications, including digital modeling, have become an integral part of archaeological research. These methods were first used as educational tools simply to provide visual references for buildings, cities, regions, and so on, but more recently, virtual reality is being used to increase our understanding of the constructions, how they were built and how they evolved. Integrated Computer Graphic methodologies, in the fields of archaeology and architecture, as well as architectural and archaeological

The Excavation and Structures

47

Figure 2.34 Digital model of the farmhouse with details of the portico. (ML)

Phase 2 (3rd–Beginning of the 4th Century AD): Restoration Few modifications and restoration interventions are carried out in this period. The building maintains the same plan of the first phase. The rooms are structured the same way. The internal space is more articulated with the division of some rooms in the northwest section of the building. Room IX is subdivided in two through a central partition, whereas Room VIb is divided through a central division wall. The other rooms are untouched. The walls built in Room IX and VIb are characterized by a construction technique similar to the others with a prevalence of small pebbles held together by a sandy soil (see Fig. 2.5, blue). Phase 3 (First Half of the 4th Century AD): Abandonment and Collapse of the Villula The excavation data suggests that the abandonment of the structure occurred in one event, with the collapsed layers being homogenous. A complete goat/ sheep skeleton was recovered in its original position at the entrance of the praefurnium and a group of coins in Room V was also recovered, as well as another collection of money located in the hypocaust. The collapsed layer identified in Room I provided valuable

information. A large quantity of ceramics and glass, ornamental objects, and six coins were recovered, suggesting abandonment on account of their fragmentary nature or for the coins, perhaps by accident. No other walls or mural structures were recovered. The poor preservation of the walls is partly due to later agricultural activities in the area. There are no traces of fire as the cause of the abandonment of the building. Virtual Archaeology: A Proposed Reconstruction Massimo Limoncelli Computer graphics were used to reconstruct the Roman farmhouse at San Biagio as a visual aid for improving our understanding of its architectural genesis. In recent years, virtual reality applications, including digital modeling, have become an integral part of archaeological research. These methods were first used as educational tools simply to provide visual references for buildings, cities, regions, and so on, but more recently, virtual reality is being used to increase our understanding of the constructions, how they were built and how they evolved. Integrated Computer Graphic methodologies, in the fields of archaeology and architecture, as well as architectural and archaeological

Massimo Limoncelli Erminia Lapadula

48

Figure 2.35 An early stage in the creation of the digital model of the farmhouse, overlying the original site plan. (ML)

survey, constitute a new approach to the traditional studies on ancient buildings. Today, 3D reconstruction is employed to verify and synthesize analytical data and to explain the functional and structural logic of a building through innovative methods and visualization. The goal is to better understand our architectural heritage.65 In architecture, the genesis of a building encompasses “the way in which construction activities take place and order themselves intellectually and physically, yielding to one or more architectural artifacts.”66 The process follows three steps: the plan, including the definition, purpose, use, and cost of the building; the architectural design, which is the theoretical development of the plan;67 and the final construction. During the design stage “the order of spaces and structural elements consistent with the chosen plan” 68 are defined. This stage is divided into ideazione, which transforms the plan into areas and volumes, and constructive solutions—namely the study of construction Giuliani 1990, 21; Bennardi and Furieri 2007. Enc. Arch. 1996, 272. 67 Enc. Arch. 1996, 541. 68 Samonà 1968, 11. 65

66

methodologies through the choice of building materials available and their use according to the laws of nature, static, and building science. The relationship between the design and the construction solution precede the construction of the building itself. The reconstructive study of the building follows a completely different path to that of the initial construction. The starting point is the archaeological remains that suggest an architectonic design and an original plan. To further understand the building, the mental processes and cultural conditions that influenced the execution of the project need to be questioned. Building forms and techniques of construction are influenced by both natural and cultural environments: climate, construction materials, economic structures, religious beliefs, and political and economical doctrines.69 This reconstructive study examines the interaction of all these different elements in the original building plan together with the commissioning, construction techniques, and the context through reference to the archaeological and historical literature.70 The 3D model allows the researcher to 69

70

Muller and Vogel 2000, 67. Benevolo 1969, 7.

The Excavation and Structures

49

Figure 2.36 Hypothetical traffic flow in the farmhouse with entrances from the interior and exterior passageways. (ML)

“enter” the building being analyzed in order to attempt to recreate its original architectonic plan. Ancient buildings are often poorly preserved, without the interior decorations, so the interaction between the real structure and its 3D reconstruction provides a tool to aid the understanding of the building. Analysis of the Construction Process Only 4.5% of San Biagio’s original building survives,71 due to agricultural activities (plowing) and robbing. The walls are just 15 cm high, so information from the archaeological investigations was essential for creating the virtual reconstruction. The first step in the 3D reconstruction was the analysis of the building plan: an architectural plan, “Complesso Architettonico” (CA),72 composed of two contemporary building units—“Corpi di Fabbrica” (CF)—dating to the 2nd century AD and continuing to the first half of the 4th century (Fig. 2.35).73 The entire building is oriented at a 45° angle when compared to the N–S axis. It has a rectangular structure 14 m wide and 19.5 m long; it Measurements calculated using AutoCad 2009. Brogiolo 1988, 16. 73 See above. 71

72

occupies an area of ca. 270 m2 and it has a perimeter of 66 m. The first unit, CF 1, has a square plan of  15 m x 14 m (with a surface of 212 m2); it is divided into seven functional units “Unità Funzionali” (UF) that divide the internal space into three rows of rooms on parallel lines (UF IV–V, UF VI–X-VII, UF VIII–IX) with a SW– NE orientation. The bearing walls function as the perimeter walls but also as the two partition walls placed between the UF IV–V and VIII–IX along the longitudinal axis of the house (see Figs. 2.5 and 2.9). These division walls functioned as a central spine bearing the weight of the roofing ridge which was divided into two big pitches. CF 2 corresponds to the three rooms (UF I–III) placed in a row along the south side of CF 1, on the same orientation as CF 1 with the kiln placed on the southeast side of the complex. The building plan includes the semi-open space and courtyard to the east of CF 1 that at the beginning was interpreted as a courtyard enclosed by a small wall on three of its sides (see Fig. 2.30).74 A reinterpretation of the data suggests a different hypothesis for the existence of the “courtyard” as a possible veranda (see above), since 74

Carter 2006, 140.

50

Massimo Limoncelli Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.37 Axonometric view of the digital model from the north. (ML)

the excavation produced no evidence of a courtyard perimeter wall, with the exception of a faint trace along the south wall of the caldarium, adjacent to the cistern. The presence of a large stone of the Classical period (0.97 x 0.75 m), placed in situ parallel to the east perimeter wall of the house, and 3.8 m from it, could be the base for a vertical element, a column or pillar in wood or stone. Analysis of the Architectonic Project The relationship between the different spaces and passages inside a building is one of the most important aspects of the architectonic composition and of its internal functions.75 In the case of San Biagio, the poor state of preservation did not reveal the location of the openings (doors and windows). As a result, the reconstruction of San Biagio was hypothesized on the basis of room function and material evidence (Figs. 2.36 and 2.37). Comparison with other farmhouses in the Metapontine chora from the Hellenistic and Republican periods, such as Fattoria Fabrizio and Fattoria Stefan, did not provide further information since they are also poorly preserved. 75

Giovannoni 1958, 77.

The main entrance to the farmhouse was hypothesized along the east side of the house, corresponding with UF VIa (vestibulum). The central room, the fulcrum of the building (UF VIb), interpreted as a courtyard (atrium), is reached directly from the entrance, proceeding toward the inside of the house. Access to the other rooms is possible from the courtyard: to the north and east is the warehouse (UF IX) and the cubiculum (UF VIII), to the west another possible cubiculum (UF VII), and to the south the tablinum (UF VI) and the kitchen (culina). From the kitchen is a connection to CF 2 through a doorway leading to a service room (UF II), shown archaeologically by a gap in the wall of UF IV. A direct passage from the kitchen to Room I is also evidenced by an opening in the wall. It is possible that other internal passages existed between Room V and Room III to allow access to the service/bathing area directly from the tablinum; direct access from the tablinum (UF V) to the kitchen (UF IV), and to the more private cubiculum (UF VII) is also possible. The distribution of the windows would have followed a logical plan. The only certain glass window

The Excavation and Structures

51

Figure 2.38 Digital model of the farmhouse with detail of the roof construction. (ML)

was placed in Room I (UF I). Other modest openings were likely to be in the warehouse, in the living room (tablinum) and perhaps in the cubicula. The farmhouse would thus have been poorly lit inside—a common characteristic of Roman domestic buildings. CF 1 has a square plan with a simple linear foundation which follows the building plan. The base plate of the walls was made out of pebbles and small stones mixed with dirt. The walls were likely constructed using clay and sun-dried bricks. These materials were available in loco and could have been gathered from the surface or collected from older constructions and re-employed. It is likely that architectonic fragments from the extra-urban Greek temple located north of the farmhouse were used for the walls at San Biagio.76 The farmhouse was covered by a double weathered roof (see Fig. 2.16) with two pitches oriented toward the longitudinal axis of the building. The surface measured 113.5 m 2 to the east and 98.5 m 2 to the west, showing a slight asymmetry of the ridgeline corresponding to the bearing walls. See “Catalog of Building Materials” above for information on reused material from the Greek period.

76

The roof was covered in flanged tiles, tegulae, measuring 0.45–0.50 m wide, laying one next to the other and placed directly on the lathing. During the excavation two whole imbrices were recovered, suggesting their employment along the ridgeline in between the tegulae. The roofing system would have been supported by wooden beams slotted into the bearing walls and with the same orientation as the pitches. The space between the beams and the roof tiles was either occupied by the lathing (Fig. 2.38) or by another row of beams placed orthogonally and above the others. The inclination of the pitches was between 20° and 24°, a common inclination in similar—albeit more modern—roofing systems in the lower Basento area. The original height of the walls was 6.60 m at the top and 4.75 m at the eaves. The suggested measures take into account the construction techniques of the time, the bearing walls, and the roofing system. This method was also employed in the hypothesized reconstruction of the main building, opening up the possibility of a veranda along the east side of the farmhouse. The porch (Figs. 2.37, 2.38, and 2.39)

52

Massimo Limoncelli Erminia Lapadula

Figure 2.39 Detail of the interior of the portico. (ML)

Figure 2.40 Axonometric view of the digital model from the south. (ML)

The Excavation and Structures

53

Figure 2.41 View of the roof (CF2) from the SE (ML).

would have been made of wooden pillars or columns placed on a single foundation block, likely reused, which are still in situ. The surface area of the veranda was 64 m 2 and the distance between the pillars and the east wall was 3.85 m. The existence of a vertical support of 2 m, plus the wooden architrave, suggests a single pitch held by a row of rafters with a 15°–20° inclination. This construction solution indicates a minimum measure for the east and west perimeter walls of 4.75 m. As a result, it is possible to calculate the ridgeline on the base of the roof inclination. Concerning the upper structures of the building, such as the attic and the false ceiling, there are various possibilities. Upper structures were present in the central rooms of the house but not in the kitchen (UF IV) where the hypothetical presence of an opàion (opening) in the roof excluded their existence. In the warehouse (UF IX) there was likely a wooden attic, suggested by the height of the room, and there was

also an extra floor or contabulatio for the servants or for food storage (Fig. 2.40). The reconstruction of the upper section of CF 2 was simpler. The rooms (UF I, II, III) were covered by a roof of similar construction and slope to the veranda (Fig. 2.41). The height of the walls using the upper ridge of the roof as the top section was 4.75 m. Taking into account the inclination, the south wall of CF 2 is about 3.30 m. No further information was gathered for the service rooms (UF II, III), while the caldarium (UF I), with the suspensurae and the tubuli for the hot air from the adjacent kiln, was likely covered by a vault not visible from the outside. To conclude, this reconstruction study is not based on a perfect reconstruction of the farmhouse but instead, a model was created using the methodologies of Virtual Archaeology combined with the archaeological data and information on construction techniques and materials.77 77

Borra 2000, 259–72; Scagliarini Corlaità and Coralini 2008.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3 The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

Introduction The area around the farmhouse site at San Biagio attracted human activity and settlement from the prehistoric period down to the present. The excavation has revealed something about the predecessors of the Roman occupants.1 The excellent spring drew Neolithic farmers to the site. Greeks occupied the slopes of the Venella on both sides, and may have settled on the very site of the Roman farmhouse. In any case, the cult of Artemis and the same spring, at its heart, were architecturally embellished as early as the end of the 7th century BC, and some of its decoration eventually reached the Roman site where some of it may have been incorporated. This chapter presents catalogs of various classes of materials documenting the earlier phases of the site. Pottery and Other Neolithic Artifacts Cesare D’Annibale The prehistoric assemblage from San Biagio consists of 75 ceramic fragments and 6 lithics (Table 3.1). The ceramics can be broadly grouped into two ware types, a very fine ceramic ware (figulina) and a semidepurated coarse ware (impasto). Fine ware ceramics are represented by at least 5 vessels while a minimum of 6 vessels constitute the impasto group. The ceramic assemblage is attributed to the Late Neolithic period with elements that can be attributed to both Serra d’Alto and Diana culture traditions, which flourished in the 4th millennium bc in southern Italy. Although the lithic assemblage is small, it presents typical patterns associated with the prehistory of the Metapontine basin, in which locally available stone dominates, while some imported raw material displays participation in a greater regional sphere of interaction. Foremost amongst the lithics is an obsidian bladelet segment. The remainder are local cherts and rough stone. The following catalogs have been compiled and recorded in the same way as other chapters; please refer to Ch. 4 introduction for the general methodology. 1

Fine Ware ( figulina) A total of 38 sherds were securely identified as Late Neolithic fine ware. They have a soft powdery feel resulting from the loss of their original burnish. The sherds are finely depurated and macroscopically homogenous, lacking any noticeable inclusions. The fabric color is consistently even with no drastic variation on the interior or exterior. These characteristics are all indicative of controlled firing conditions. The identifiable vessels could all be classed as bowls, with carinated types being well represented. The body wall was as thin as 4 mm in some instances, at the juncture of the body and foot or base. The thickest part of these vessels is at the shoulder where the thickness can vary from 9 to 16 mm. The shoulder construction technique is evident on a number of pieces where it is thickened by applying two strips of clay together. One sherd near the basal portion of a bowl stood out for having a drill hole with an aperture of 4–5 mm. The assemblage of fine ware ceramic material from San Biagio can be attributed to the Serra d’Alto and Diana cultures. Similar cultural elements were recovered from several localities in the Metapontine basin to suggest that the Late Neolithic was indeed a period of great settlement (sites 300, 683, 754, 893, 913, 916, 918, 923, 954, 960, 967, 1004). Parallels for these Late Neolithic forms are documented at excavated sites such as Saldone 2 and Pantanello. 3 The field survey conducted by the Institute of Classical Archaeology (ICA) from 1981 to the present also revealed many Late Neolithic artifacts,4 at two sites in particular: site 7/8 in the Sant’Angelo locality, and site 227 in the San Marco locality, both of which have similar forms to those recovered from San Biagio. Di Fraia 1970. For the Pantanello necropolis, see Carter 1994a, 167–68. 4 The full publication of prehistoric sites from the ICA survey will appear in a forthcoming volume in The Chora of Metaponto series. For a preliminary discussion, see Carter 2011a. 2 3

3 The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

Introduction The area around the farmhouse site at San Biagio attracted human activity and settlement from the prehistoric period down to the present. The excavation has revealed something about the predecessors of the Roman occupants.1 The excellent spring drew Neolithic farmers to the site. Greeks occupied the slopes of the Venella on both sides, and may have settled on the very site of the Roman farmhouse. In any case, the cult of Artemis and the same spring, at its heart, were architecturally embellished as early as the end of the 7th century BC, and some of its decoration eventually reached the Roman site where some of it may have been incorporated. This chapter presents catalogs of various classes of materials documenting the earlier phases of the site. Pottery and Other Neolithic Artifacts Cesare D’Annibale The prehistoric assemblage from San Biagio consists of 75 ceramic fragments and 6 lithics (Table 3.1). The ceramics can be broadly grouped into two ware types, a very fine ceramic ware (figulina) and a semidepurated coarse ware (impasto). Fine ware ceramics are represented by at least 5 vessels while a minimum of 6 vessels constitute the impasto group. The ceramic assemblage is attributed to the Late Neolithic period with elements that can be attributed to both Serra d’Alto and Diana culture traditions, which flourished in the 4th millennium bc in southern Italy. Although the lithic assemblage is small, it presents typical patterns associated with the prehistory of the Metapontine basin, in which locally available stone dominates, while some imported raw material displays participation in a greater regional sphere of interaction. Foremost amongst the lithics is an obsidian bladelet segment. The remainder are local cherts and rough stone. The following catalogs have been compiled and recorded in the same way as other chapters; please refer to Ch. 4 introduction for the general methodology. 1

Fine Ware ( figulina) A total of 38 sherds were securely identified as Late Neolithic fine ware. They have a soft powdery feel resulting from the loss of their original burnish. The sherds are finely depurated and macroscopically homogenous, lacking any noticeable inclusions. The fabric color is consistently even with no drastic variation on the interior or exterior. These characteristics are all indicative of controlled firing conditions. The identifiable vessels could all be classed as bowls, with carinated types being well represented. The body wall was as thin as 4 mm in some instances, at the juncture of the body and foot or base. The thickest part of these vessels is at the shoulder where the thickness can vary from 9 to 16 mm. The shoulder construction technique is evident on a number of pieces where it is thickened by applying two strips of clay together. One sherd near the basal portion of a bowl stood out for having a drill hole with an aperture of 4–5 mm. The assemblage of fine ware ceramic material from San Biagio can be attributed to the Serra d’Alto and Diana cultures. Similar cultural elements were recovered from several localities in the Metapontine basin to suggest that the Late Neolithic was indeed a period of great settlement (sites 300, 683, 754, 893, 913, 916, 918, 923, 954, 960, 967, 1004). Parallels for these Late Neolithic forms are documented at excavated sites such as Saldone 2 and Pantanello. 3 The field survey conducted by the Institute of Classical Archaeology (ICA) from 1981 to the present also revealed many Late Neolithic artifacts,4 at two sites in particular: site 7/8 in the Sant’Angelo locality, and site 227 in the San Marco locality, both of which have similar forms to those recovered from San Biagio. Di Fraia 1970. For the Pantanello necropolis, see Carter 1994a, 167–68. 4 The full publication of prehistoric sites from the ICA survey will appear in a forthcoming volume in The Chora of Metaponto series. For a preliminary discussion, see Carter 2011a. 2 3

Cesare D’Annibale

56

Location

Level

Pottery Lot

Impasto

Fine Ware

A3 Cistern

Level 2 Battuta 1

111

B’-1, B’-2, A’-2

Level 3 Battuta 2

195

4

B’-2, A’-2 west

Level 3 Battuta 2

197

12

2.1.2; 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.2.1; 2.4.1

4

1.1.4

B’-2, A’-2

Level 3 Battuta 3

216

11

2.1.1

12

1.1.1; 1.1.2; 1.1.3; 1.2.1

A’-2, B’-2

Level 3 Battuta 3

217

B’-3

Level 1 Battuta 2

220

B’-2, -3

Level 1 Battuta 2

221

4

Room IX

Level 3 Battuta 3

437

1

Room IX

Level 3 Battuta 4

439

1

Room IX

Level 3 Battuta 5

442

4

3.1.1 8

4.1.1 3 2.3.1

9

shoulder w/ drill hole

2

shoulder

granite spall 3.2.1; 3.2.2; 3.2.3

Surface Total NFr

Lithic

37

38

6

Table 3.1 Frequency and type of prehistoric material by excavation contexts.

Four of the Serra d’Alto bowls from San Biagio display similar forms with slight variation in size, presenting diameters that range from 24 to 30 cm (nos. 1.1.1–4). These are distinguished by their distinct angled juncture between shoulder and offset rim. The small bowl displays a somewhat smoother transition between shoulder and rim (no. 1.2.1). Due to the lack of distinguishing decorative and handle elements on the bowls from San Biagio, the form

finds generic parallels with many sites including Serra d’Alto,5 Murgia Timone,6 Diana on Lipari,7 Le Fiatte, Manduria,8 and Tirlecchia.9 Lo Porto 1989, Tav. XXXII, no. 268. Lo Porto 1998, Tav. XXXVII, no. 302. 7 Bernabò Brea and Cavalier 1980, Fig. 13j. 8 Corrado and Ingravallo 1988, 62, Tav. 18 no. 8. 9 Bernabò Brea 1984, 57, Fig. 16 no. 7. 5 6

57

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period Catalog of Fine Wares 1.1.1 Large carinated bowl Context: B′-2, A′-2. Lev 3. Bat. 3. Lot: SB80-216PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 24, body th 0.8, shoulder th 1.3. Fabric type: finely depurated lacking any noticeable inclusions with some mica flecks. Color: light red 2.5YR 6/6. Condition: Seven fragments: rim, neck, shoulder. Description: Everted rim, offset from shoulder; interior thinning to lip while exterior flat sharp separation between rim and shoulder. Lip rounded to point. Comparisons and comment: Very distinct separation between shoulder and rim; bulbous shoulder displays construction technique of applying thin layers of clay 5 to 7 mm thick to create thickening of shoulder; soft powdery feel. Parallels: survey site 7/8 no. 1.8.11 (D’Annibale un-

1:3

SB 216 PL 2

pub.); Latronico, (Grifoni Cremonesi 2003, Fig. 5 no. 5); Le Fiatte, Manduria (Corrado and Ingravallo 1988, Tav. 18 no. 8). Date: Neolithic. 1:3

1.1.2 Large carinated bowl Context: B′-2, A′-2. Lev. 3, Bat. 3. Lot: SB80-216PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 30 (at shoulder), body th 1.1, shoulder th 1.6. Fabric type: finely depurated lacking any noticeable inclusions. Color: 7.5YR 7/4 (pink). Condition: Two fragments; shoulder fragment broken at juncture with rim.

SB 80 216-3

Description: Very distinct separation between shoulder and rim; thick bulbous shoulder. Comparisons and comment: Survey site 7/8 no. 1.8.11 (D’Annibale unpub.); generically similar to Latronico (Cremonesi 1984, Tav. 20 no. 1). Date: Neolithic.

1:3

SB 80 - 197 PL

1.1.3 Large carinated bowl Context: B′-2, A′-2 Lev. 3. Bat. 3. Lot: SB80-216PL; B′-2, A′-2 west. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-197PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 28 (at shoulder), body th 0.7, shoulder th 1.2. Fabric type: finely depurated lacking any noticeable inclusions. Color: 7.5YR 7/4 (pink). Condition: Two fragments; Shoulder fragments broken at juncture with rim.

Description: Very distinct separation between shoulder and rim. Comparisons and comment: Survey site 7/8 no. 1.8.11 (D’Annibale unpub.); generically similar to Latronico (Cremonesi 1984, Tav. 20 no. 1) Date: Neolithic.

58

Cesare D’Annibale

1.1.4 Large carinated bowl Context: B′-2, A′-2 west. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-197PL Dimensions and technical features: Body th 1, shoulder th 1.4. Fabric type: finely depurated lacking any noticeable inclusions. Color: 2.5YR 6/6 (light red). Condition: One shoulder fragment broken at juncture with rim.

Description: Bulbous shoulder displays construction technique of applying thin layers of clay to thicken body. Comparisons and comment: Survey site 7/8 no. 1.8.11 (D’Annibale unpub.). Date: Neolithic.

1.2.1 Small carinated bowl Context: B′-2, A′-2 . Lev 3. Bat. 3. Lot: SB80-216PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 18, body th 0.4, shoulder th 0.9. Fabric type: finely depurated lacking any noticeable inclusions with some mica flecks. Color: 5YR 6/4 (light red). Condition: Three fragments: rim, neck, shoulder. Description: Everted rim, offset from shoulder interior thinning to lip while exterior flat. Lip rounded to point. Comparisons and comment: Bulbous shoulder. Parallels to Pizzica Pantanello Pit C 1 no. 102 (D’Annibale 2011); survey site 7/8 no. 1.8.11 (D’Annibale unpub.); generically similar to Latronico, (Grifoni Cremonesi 2003: Fig. 5 no. 5). Date: Neolithic.

1:3

Semi-Depurated Impasto Semi-depurated impasto wares are characterized by a clay fabric that contains noticeable inclusions of various types such as quartz, feldspar, and chert. These particles can reach a grain size of 5 mm, however most fall within the 1–2 mm range. A characteristic of the surface of these sherds is occasional small cavities left behind after some of the larger grains have been dislodged during polishing or burnishing. Some of these cavities may also derive from leaching or burning out of carbonate grit. Another typical feature of this ware type is the uneven interior and exterior color that often displays drastic variation and blackened surfaces. This is likely the result of an uneven firing process which is also responsible for the darker core of many of the sherds. The thickness range of these sherds spanned between 7–14 mm with most clustering around 9–11 mm. A total of 37 sherds of semi-depurated impasto pottery were identified, representing a minimum of six vessels. The vessels display a greater variety of

forms than the fine ware ceramics, with both open and closed containers being represented. The tubular or rocchetto handle (2.3.1) is the only diagnostic artifact from the semi-depurated impasto category. These handles are the most distinctive elements of Diana culture ceramics, and are widely distributed across the southern Italian Neolithic landscape. The piece from San Biagio derives from a vessel with an everted or offset rim. Aside from a number of sites from the survey, as well as the site of Pantanello, parallels for this type of vessel and handle location are to be found at sites such as Latronico Grotta 1 in the upper Sinni valley,10 Le Fiatte, Manduria,11 Tirlecchia, Matera,12 Serra d’Alto, and Murgia Timone.13 The rest of the semi-depurated impasto ceramic forms are somewhat difficult to allocate to a specific ceramic tradition. However, given their similarity in fabric composition, this group likely derives from a

SB 216 PL 1

Bianco 1984; Cremonesi 1984. Corrado and Ingravallo 1988. 12 Bernabò Brea 1984. 13 Lo Porto 1989; 1998. 10 11

59

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period common production center, possibly a local ceramic workshop. Extensive evidence for local ceramic production was identified at Pantanello in Late NeolithicEneolithic contexts to argue for localized production of vessels supplementary to the imported fine wares. The variety of forms indicates a varied functional assemblage as opposed to the finer Serra d’Alto and Diana vessels. Vessels 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 are closed globular containers, one with a distinct straight elon-

gated collar, while the other presents an outsloping neck. At Spatarella on Lipari, similar semi-depurated forms were found in association with Diana culture material.14 Vessels 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 are larger closed containers with out-flaring collared rims. The last form in the assemblage is a small bowl, vessel 2.2.1, vaguely reminiscent of the Serra d’Alto small bowl (vessel 5). Their inclusion in Serra d’Alto and Diana culture contexts would seem appropriate. 14

Cavalier 1979, 84, Fig. 8 a–d.

Catalog of Impasto 1:3

2.1.1 Closed collared container Context: B′-2, A′-2. Lev. 3. Bat. 3. Lot: SB80-216PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 15, body th 0.7, shoulder th 0.9. Fabric type: fract. grayish brown 10YR 5/2; surf. light brown 7/5YR 6/4, but mottled with red blotches (2.5YR 5/6) on exterior, likely a result of inconsistent firing temperatures. Quartz, reddish brown feldspar, and chert grain inclusions reaching 2 mm are common. Grain sizes reaching up to 5 mm occur but are rare. 2.1.2 Closed collared container Context: B′-2, A′-2 west. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-197PL; B′-2, -3, Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-221PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 12, body th 0.9–1.1, neck th 0.7–0.8. Fabric type: semi-depurated fabric with similar color and matrix characteristics as vessel 2.1.1. Color: 2.5YR 6/8 (light red) blotches on 7/5YR 6/4 (light brown) exterior; 7/5YR 6/4 (light brown) interior. Inner core 7/5YR 6/2 (pinkish gray). Condition: Two fragments, rim to neck and shoulder section. Description: Everted rim. Lip flattened. Comparisons and comment: This vessel finds exact parallels

SB 216 PL

Condition: Three fragments, rim, neck and juncture with body. Description: Rim in-sloping, thinned at lip. Lip rounded to pointed. Comparisons and comment: Distinct separation between collar and shoulder. Generally similar to some semidepurated forms from Spatarella on Lipari (Cavalier 1979, 84, Fig. 8 a–d). Date: Neolithic. 1:3

with a vessel recovered from Pizzica Pantanello in Pit G surface no. 237. The pit produced both Late Neolithic and Eneolithic ceramics (D’Annibale unpub.). Also generally similar to some semi-depurated forms from Spatarello on Lipari (Cavalier 1979, 84, Fig. 8 a–d). Date: Neolithic.

SB 80 - 197 PL SB 80 - 221 PL

60

Cesare D’Annibale

2.1.3 Closed collared container Context: B′-2, A′-2 west. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-197PL; B′-2, A′-2. Lev. 3. Bat. 3. Lot: SB80-216PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 19, body th 1.0. Fabric type: semi-depurated fabric with similar color and matrix characteristics as vessel 2.1.1. Color: 2.5YR 6/6 (light red); interior core 10YR 6/3 (pale brown). Condition: Two fragments, rim to neck and shoulder junction. 2.1.4 Closed collared(?) container Context: B′-2, A′-2 west. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-197PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 20, body th 1.2, neck th 1.1. Fabric type: semidepurated fabric with similar color and matrix characteristics as vessel 2.1.1. Surf. exterior 7/5YR 6/4 (light brown); surf. interior 7/5YR 5/4 (brown); fract. 10YR 6/2 (light brownish gray). Condition: One fragment, rim to neck and shoulder section. 2.2.1 Bowl Context: B′-2, A′-2 west Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-197PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 15, body th 0.9, shoulder th 0.7. Fabric type: semi-depurated fabric with similar color and matrix characteristics as vessel 2.1.1. Surf. light red exterior (2.5YR 6/8) mixed with light brown 7/5YR 6/4. Condition: Two fragments, rim towards base. Description: Rim slightly everted. Lip pointed. Comparisons and comment: Virtually identical technical 2.3.1 Carinated bowl with tubular handle (rocchetto type) Context: B′-2, -3. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-221PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 19 at neck; body th 0.9–1.3; lug/handle th 0.8; lug/handle aperture 20 restricting to midpoint of handle. Fabric type: surf. exterior 2.5YR 3/3 (dark reddish brown); surf. interior 2/5YR 5/6 (red). Moderate burnish on exterior and interior small amounts of sandy grains all less than 0.1. Condition: One fragment from juncture of neck and shoulder of vessel. Description: Handle attached at juncture of neck and shoulder of vessel. Comparisons and comment: Parallels to survey site 227 no. 2; Pizzica Pantanello Pit D Level 4 no. 175 (D’Annibale

1:3

SB 80 - 216 PL SB 80 - 197 PL

Description: Rim slightly everted, thinned at lip. Lip flattened. Comparisons and comment: Technical similarities to vessel 2.1.1 would suggest a common production. Date: Neolithic.

1:3

SB 80 - 197 PL

Description: Rim slightly everted. Lip flattened. Comparisons and comment: Technical similarities to vessel 2.1.1 would suggest a common production. Date: Neolithic. 1:3

SB 80 - 197 PL

characteristics and overall appearance as 2.1.2 could possibly indicate a shared ceramic workshop production. Date: Neolithic. 1:3

unpub.); Latronico Grotta 1 (Bianco 1984, Pl. 38 nos. 2–4; Cremonesi 1984, Pl. 23, nos. 6, 8); Le Fiatte, Manduria (Corrado and Ingravallo 1988, 58–59, Tav. 14 no. 1); Tirlecchia (Bernabò Brea 1984, 58, Fig. 17, no. 5); Murgia Timone (Lo Porto 1998, Tav. XXXVII no. 309, Tav. XXXIX no. 351); Serra d’Alto (Lo Porto 1989, Tav. XXXIV). Date: Neolithic.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

61 1:2

2.4.1 Decorated sherd Context: B′-2, A′-2 west. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-197PL Dimensions and technical features: Diam 21 at widest point of body; body th 0.9–1.1. Fabric type: semi-depurated fabric with similar color and matrix characteristics as vessel 2.1.1. Surf. exterior 2.5YR 5/8 (red); surf. interior 7/5YR 6/4 (light brown). Condition: One fragment. Description: Decoration at least 4 incised lines 0.9–0.5–0.9 separating each at base; 2–1.5–1.5 where they become eroded. Comparisons and comment: Amongst the bodies of semidepurated impasto ceramics from pottery lot 197, one

Lithic Material Although few in number, the lithics recovered from San Biagio reflect some of the general trends associated with Neolithic chipped stone production and consumption patterns. These trends have been documented across the Metapontine basin from surface survey, and verified through excavations conducted at Pizzica-Pantanello. Chert is by far the most common raw material. It is readily available in pebble and nodule form within the relict beach terraces of Pleistocene age, characteristic of the soil morphology of the Metapontine landscape.15 Since the majority of these cherts originally derive from the Calabrian Arc, those found in these ancient secondary deposits consist of several varieties and subsequently exhibit varying degrees of quality. 15

Abbott 1997.

sherd was found to have finely incised lines. The decorative technique was applied prior to firing. The overall pattern cannot be discerned, however what remains appears to be from a radiating pattern emerging from the basal portion of the vessel. Although incised decorated impasto ceramics are an Early Neolithic trait, some semidepurated incised impasto ceramics can be regarded as contemporaneous to the Late Neolithic fine wares. This sherd from San Biagio is likely associated with Late Neolithic ceramics given that the fabric is similar to the rest of the semi-depurated impasto assemblage from the site. Date: Neolithic.

The specimens from San Biagio are indicative of the range in quality or fracturing properties that exist. Given the small size of the locally available pebbles, chert was utilized primarily to produce flakes. Both direct percussion and bipolar reduction technology was practised on pebble cores. Two flakes derive from randomly flaked pebble cores (3.2.1 and 3.2.2). Both display remnants of the pebble core’s cortical surface. The olive green chert flake (3.2.1) in particular retains the cortical surface on its striking platform demonstrating that most of these pebbles lacked formal core preparation but were simply reduced by the most convenient natural striking platform. Flakes are essentially produced to be utilized as expedient tools. The majority would be manufactured on the spot and serve as informal tools for a variety of tasks. The green chert flake (3.2.1) is typical of ad hoc utilization, it

62

Cesare D’Annibale

probably had a scraping function, resulting in usewear marks along the distal edge. The flake specimen 3.2.3 is indicative of the use of bipolar technology to reduce pebbles. Pebble cores on the verge of exhaustion are no longer useful and are unworkable as standard flake producers. Bipolar reduction prolongs the life of these final stage pebble core fragments by splintering fragments off. Suitable pieces would then be used as wedges to split or slot wood or bone, as this item reveals from the crushing at one end and battering on the other. In contrast to chert, obsidian is primarily linked to blade manufacturing technology for the exclusive production of prismatic blades. The blade fragment from San Biagio originates from the initial series of blade removals from a core (3.1.1). The blade segment displays core preparation flake scars in opposition to a blade removal scar. Through not conforming to classic prismatic blade morphology, this item nonetheless

was utilized, since the straight blade edge shows signs of use wear. Further modification appears in the form of ventral thinning that was intended to reduce the bulb of percussion below the striking platform. This would likely have served to aid in hafting the blade onto a handle. Not only is obsidian tied to a single formalized reduction process but to a limited number of sources as well. In such cases the material lends itself to specialized production and formal acquisition strategies that subsequently imbed the commodity as an integral part of Neolithic material culture. It is generally accepted that the greatest diffusion of obsidian begins with the Middle Neolithic and reaches its peak during Late Neolithic. Although various obsidian sources are represented in southern Italian site assemblages, the Lipari source would appear to be the predominant and most consistent.

Catalog of Lithics 3.1.1 Obsidian blade Context: A3. Lev. 2. Bat. 1 (basin). Lot: SB80-111S Dimensions and technical features: L 1.7; w 1.5; th 0.4. Weight 1.1 g. Black color. Condition: Proximal end. Description: Blade from initial series; right facet displays flake removal scars from core preparation; left facet shows previous blade removal scar. 3.2.1 Chert flake Context: Surface Dimensions and technical features: L 2.9; w 3.5; th 1.0. Weight 9 g. Matte olive green color 5Y 4/3 to dark greenish gray G1 4/1. Condition: Complete. Description: Tertiary. Comparisons and comment: Dorsal/ventral distal end, use wear scraping function. Remnant of cortical surface on striking platform. 3.2.2 Chert flake Context: Surface Dimensions and technical features: L 2.3; w 2.2; h 0.7. Weight 3 g. Matte red/maroon color, 2.5YR 3/4 (matte dark reddish brown), 2.5YR 3/1 (dark reddish gray banding). Condition: Complete. Description: Secondary.

1:1

Comparisons and comment: Splintered at proximal end with one flake removed on ventral side; possibly utilized since left lateral edge displays wear marks. Date: Neolithic. 1:1

Date: Neolithic.

1:1

Comparisons and comment: No sign of use. Date: Neolithic.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period 3.2.3 Chert flake Context: Surface Dimensions and technical features: L 2.2; w 2.0; h 1.0. Weight 4 g. Color: speckled with white inclusions; translucent dark reddish gray 10R 4/1. Condition: Complete. Description: Bipolar, tertiary. Comparisons and comment: Utilization: crushing marks at distal end possibly from use wear as a wedge.

63 1:1

Date: Neolithic.

4.1.1 Ochre nodule Context: A′-2, B′-2. Lev. 3. Bat. 3. Lot: SB-80 217PL Dimensions and technical features: L 6.5; w 5.8; h 2.4; Weight 103 g. Condition: Complete. Description: Nodule. Date: Neolithic.

1:2

Prehistoric Material in the Context of San Biagio The obsidian blade fragment is the only Neolithic artifact found in isolation, in the cistern, whereas the ceramics were all consistently recovered toward the NW end of the site. The area adjacent to, and extending into, the west end of the building, specifically Room IX, produced prehistoric pottery. An irregular scatter of stones is encountered in the area outside the building (B′-2 and -3). When excavations in the area were halted, the layer dug produced a good quantity of prehistoric ceramics mixed in with Greco-Roman material. The layer lies below the level of the Roman walls. The soil here was dark grayish brown, soft with relatively few pebbles, something that is indicative of culturally produced deposits. A soil lens consisting of relatively soft soil, likely a continuation of the area outside the walls, was still present below the floor in Room IX when excavations ceased. There appears to be a disturbed deposit from a previous occupation of the terrace on which the Roman building was sited. The disturbance could have been produced when scavenging for building material from the previous Greek farmstead. The re-deposition of prehistoric material could have also occurred during the initial Greek farm construction. In any case it

appears that a prehistoric occupation existed on the terrace. No features relating to this early phase were discerned. It is possible that a prehistoric occupation is still preserved elsewhere in the site buried under terrace slope deposits. The predominance of prehistoric ceramics in the NW area of the site may hint at remnants of prehistoric occupation strata dipping down the slope of the terrace. The Roman modification of the landscape specifically to create a level terrace top on which to erect the building may have razed whatever traces of prehistoric occupation existed. The prehistoric remains may have been used as fill to support the new structure in areas that dipped below the required level, especially at the NW corner of the building. The total annihilation of a small Neolithic settlement at San Biagio during the Roman landscaping activities to erect the dwelling is possible. A similar destructive event occurred at the prehistoric site of Pizzica-Pantanello during the construction of the tile factory and its subsequent modifications also during the Late Roman period. Massive disturbance of the site occurred during the 4th century ad that effectively removed the Late Neolithic and Eneolithic occupation strata. The total reformation of the landscape appears to be a common practice in Roman building

64

Cesare D’Annibale

Figure 3.1 Map of Neolithic survey sites. (ICA/JT)

methods. At San Biagio the natural sloping land was probably restructured by terracing to form a level podium on which to erect the new structure. A deposit of Late Neolithic ceramics was excavated in the NE corner of the Roman site. Despite the sporadic recovery of individual prehistoric artifacts across the Pizzica-Pantanello site, nowhere else was such a concentration found. The practice, in this case, of reburial of habitation refuse was noted also in the contents of isolated pits across the top of the Pantanello hilltop during the Late Roman period. The custom of burying remnants of past habitations is a universal phenomenon that spans both time and space. The burial of such artifacts in important parts of the dwelling, such as the entrance, storage room, and the cistern are all ominous portents that hint at cult and ritually derived actions. Whether this was the case at San Biagio or merely the result of the random concordance of association between chance and functional space allocation within the building, nevertheless it does provide some basis for reflection. However, the recovery of the obsidian blade in the cistern is perhaps the one case for ritually charged

deposition. It is possible that prehistoric implements were collected as talismans and utilized as tokens in some cult-related action. San Biagio in the Context of the Metapontine Neolithic A field survey aimed at recovering signs of prehistoric activity on the surface failed to detect any other evidence for a substantial and extensive prehistoric settlement on the San Biagio terrace. Although the recovery of three chert flakes, found around the perimeter of the NW end of the Roman dwelling, does attest to some form of prehistoric activity in the immediate vicinity. It is probable that the San Biagio material derives from a small settlement, perhaps a group of huts. The recovery of material in isolation or away from nucleated Neolithic settlements is a common occurrence in the Metapontine territory. These finds are likely remnants from temporary activity areas that point to an intensive use of the prehistoric landscape for various forms of resource procurement, cultivation, and livestock maintenance, emanating from or servicing major settlements (Fig. 3.1). Radiating from

65

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

Class

Form

Type

Date

NFr

Attic Red Figure

Bell-krater

1.1.1

Mid5th c. BC

1

Skyphos

C

First half 4th c. BC

1

4th c. BC

1

1

1

South Italian Red Figure

Closed shape, probably pseudopanathenaic amphora Pelike

2.1.1

Second half 4th c. BC

4

Black-on-buff Pottery

Open shape

3.1.1

Second half 4th c. BC

1

Figured Pottery?

Closed shape

1

Figured Pottery?

Unknown

1

Total

10

MNI

2

Table 3.2 Figured pottery quantities.

these sites are also findspots consisting primarily of chipped stone that are indicative of limited activity areas. From San Biagio, a series of these isolated recoveries points to a trailway access route to the upper plateau following the edges of the Venella valley and the smaller Conca valley. This linear exploitation of the landscape can be visualized following a string of sites starting from below the San Biagio terrace (sites 484, 485, and 531), rising gradually up the slopes (sites 406, 505, 532, and 533), and eventually leading to the upper plateau (sites 394, 395, 397, and 399). A prime example of such a relationship was identified on the Bradano River where a small dependent site (site 59) was found some 1.5 km distant from a major nodal settlement (site 227). The nearest contemporary Late Neolithic settlements to San Biagio bordering the Basento River are to be found at Pizzica-Pantanello and site 7/8, just upstream from Sant’Angelo Vecchio. These two sites are roughly equidistant from the San Biagio site, 3.5 km and 3 km respectively. The location of major springs such as those at Pizzica-Pantanello, San Biagio, and Sant’Angelo have a long history of use and it is possible that the San Biagio area attracted a Neolithic occupation as well.16 A major contributing factor in the choice of location for settlements follows a natural tendency to choose proximity to perennial sources of water. 16

Adamesteanu 1974.

Rivers such as the Basento and Bradano are another influential determinant in the location of Neolithic settlements in the Metapontine basin. These rivers are major transportation arteries which Neolithic groups would have used to access the interior of Basilicata and connect to coastal routes. Both major and subsidiary settlement sites are situated on the first river terraces overlooking the river plain. Their geographical positions are not in dominating, isolated, or defensive positions, suggesting that security was not an issue. Instead they promote an image of a well-organized Late Neolithic regional network of interdependent sites to which San Biagio can now be added. Figured Pottery Francesca Silvestrelli The figured pottery from the excavation of the farmhouse consists of 10 fragments, all worn and of reduced dimensions, and in some cases of uncertain identification (Table 3.2). Noteworthy is the fragment of an Attic bell-krater (1.1.1), an uncommon shape at Metaponto, attested by Archaic examples from the Pantanello necropolis,17 and by fragments of the second quarter of the 5th century BC found in the kerameikos,18 and from the ICA survey.19 Burn 1998, 594 and 608 (b–f column-krater and calyx-krater). D’Andria 1980c, 120, 127–29; Silvestrelli 2005, 114 no. 12; Mannino 2008, 432. 19 Silvestrelli 2011, 311, No. 4 Plot 2001.062-01. 17

18

66

Francesca Silvestrelli

A skyphos and a bell-krater, probably dating to the first half of the 4th century bc, as well as the rim of a pelike are the only items of southern Italian red-figure pottery found (2.1.1). The pelike could belong to an important vase (see catalog below). The open shape body sherd 3.1.1 adds new evidence to the small number of fragments that can be attributed to black-on-buff pottery. This was possibly produced in

Metaponto during the second half of the 4th to the beginning of the 3rd century bc.20 Figured pottery was found in association with Roman pottery and is therefore residual; its presence could be explained by hypothesizing a Greek settlement on or near the site. Red-figure pottery was regularly found in sites identified by the survey as well as nearby necropoleis identified by the survey.21

20 21

Silvestrelli 2011, 309 (with bibliography). See Silvestrelli 2011.

Catalog of Red-figure Pottery Attic red-figure pottery 1.1.1 Bell-krater Context: TTR 1, A′1, B′1, C′1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-9PLA Dimensions and technical features: H 4.1; w 5.47; th 0.67. Fabric type: red, 5YR 6/6. Thick, lustrous black gloss on both the internal and external surface. Condition: Two adjacent fragments of the rim. Description: Egg decorations (kymation) and below decorated with leaves and dots. Comparisons and comment: This type of decoration can be found on Attic bell-kraters of the central decades of the 5th c. BC. See, for example, Siracusa, Museo Archeo-

1:2

logico Regionale Paolo Orsi 22886: ARV2, 1073.3 and CVA Siracusa, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 1, Pl. 17.1 (Eupolis Painter) or Paris, Louvre A488: ARV2 1067.2 and CVA Louvre 4, III.Id.15, Pl 23.710 (Barclay Painter). Date: Mid-5th c. BC.

Red-figure pottery 2.1.1 Pelike Context: A′1, 2, 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-34PLB + SB80-27PL + SB80-167PLB + SB80-112PLC Dimensions and technical features: Rim ext. 17; h 2.4; w 12.35. Fabric type: from reddish yellow, 7.5YR 7/6, on outer surface to gray, 10YR 5/1, hard, with very small white inclusions. Thick, lustrous dark gray gloss outside and inside. Misfired fragment. Condition: Four adjacent fragments, 27% of the rim preserved. Description: On the external surface of the rim, impressed egg-shapes (kymation) with overpainted decoration, now faded. Comparisons and comment: The impressed kymation with decoration added in color on the outer surface of the rim is used in monumental red-figure Apulian vases of the second half of the 4th c. BC. This type of decoration can be found on hydriai (see RVAp Suppl. I 18/63d, attributed to the Darius Painter, Napoli 3238 by the Group of New York 28.57.10: RVAp 18/189, RVAp Suppl. I 18/281c by the Underworld Painter) and pelikai (RVAp 18/25

1:2

by the Darius Painter), the shape to which the fragment can probably be ascribed. Similar decoration, but without added color, can also be seen on oinochoai (Manchester School of Art Aa 38: RVAp 18/170 and Vicenza, Banca Intesa no. 159: 18/169, both by the Group of Athens 1450). Date: Second half of the 4th c. BC.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

67

Black-on-buff pottery 3.1.1 Open shape Context: Room VI, A′1. Lev. 2. W tile floor. Lot: SB8063P Dimensions and technical features: W 2.5; h 3.7; th 0.5/0.6. Fabric type: pink, 7.5YR 8/6, hard, levitated. Gray to very dark brown, diluted gloss inside. Condition: Wall of an open shape. Description: Line of dots below which is an ivy leaf.

Black Gloss and Grey Ware Eloisa Vittoria Black Gloss The black-gloss pottery found during the excavation covers a period ranging between the 6th and the 3rd centuries bc (Table 3.3). All of the black-gloss pottery, 197 fragments from 51 individual vessels, was examined in order to obtain a general view of the Greek period: analyses made on finds based on diagnostic types, 22 including body sherds, only supplied accurate data from a chronological and morphological point of view for under half the fragments. In some cases, however, the color of the clay (using the Munsell Color Chart 1992) and the type of gloss suggested a possible date for a fragment, which can be a very useful guideline, although not always very accurate. A number of different shapes were identified and many could be referred to those from the publication of the Pantanello necropolis (in Necropoleis) and from the survey between the Bradano and Basento (Survey), suggesting that this assemblage was typical of Greek occupation in the area and thus a useful addition to the archaeological record. Ionic cups. The Ionic-type cups from the 6th century bc belong mainly to the B2 type according to the classification of Vallet and Villard, 23 with rims 22 The term “diagnostic” indicates the sherds that can definitely be attributed to a shape, even if belonging to a wall fragment. There are 65 diagnostic sherds, with 22 for which it is not possible to determine the exact stratigraphical location. 23 Vallet and Villard 1955, 27–31.

1:2

Comparisons and comment: For the class, see Silvestrelli 2011, 309, with previous bibliography. Date: Second half of the 4th c. BC.

sharply distinguished from the shoulder, and truncated, cone-shaped feet. These are represented by items with internally glossed rims (the gloss goes all the way down to the shoulder; 1.1.1) or with external decoration, i.e., a narrow band on the shoulder where it connects to the rim (1.1.2). The small fragment SB80-71PL is slightly different, having a rim with a profile externally more concave. A further variation is represented by almost miniature shapes like the SB80-383PL item, with a short rim and a gradual transition from rim to shoulder. The foot of these cups is the characteristic truncated cone-shaped type, tall with a flat base, usually not glossed except for item 1.1.3 which has a miltos surface (a thin red slip). There is also the type with a narrower ring (1.1.4 ). All these types are well-known in the Metapontine chora, apart perhaps from 1.1.4 which is less common but known from Timmari.24 Skyphoi. The skyphoi with offset rim are known in the area in the mid-6th to early 5th century bc. One has a low, reserved band near the internal upper part of the rim and an external reserved band near the handles (2.1.1). Some are almost entirely covered with gloss except for a small external band near the area where the rim is connected to the shoulder (2.1.2). The base fragment is the ring foot type with trapezoidal secSee Vallet and Villard 1955, 27–31. The variant tending toward miniature is known in the Metapontine chora, as the SA79-988PL.03 bowl from the nearby Sant’Angelo Vecchio shows. This has the same dimensions and similar characteristics due to poor quality firing. We must also add to the list of Ionic-type cups some shoulder fragments that might belong to the different types mentioned: SB80-71PL, SB80-220PL and SB80-280PL.

24

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

67

Black-on-buff pottery 3.1.1 Open shape Context: Room VI, A′1. Lev. 2. W tile floor. Lot: SB8063P Dimensions and technical features: W 2.5; h 3.7; th 0.5/0.6. Fabric type: pink, 7.5YR 8/6, hard, levitated. Gray to very dark brown, diluted gloss inside. Condition: Wall of an open shape. Description: Line of dots below which is an ivy leaf.

Black Gloss and Grey Ware Eloisa Vittoria Black Gloss The black-gloss pottery found during the excavation covers a period ranging between the 6th and the 3rd centuries bc (Table 3.3). All of the black-gloss pottery, 197 fragments from 51 individual vessels, was examined in order to obtain a general view of the Greek period: analyses made on finds based on diagnostic types, 22 including body sherds, only supplied accurate data from a chronological and morphological point of view for under half the fragments. In some cases, however, the color of the clay (using the Munsell Color Chart 1992) and the type of gloss suggested a possible date for a fragment, which can be a very useful guideline, although not always very accurate. A number of different shapes were identified and many could be referred to those from the publication of the Pantanello necropolis (in Necropoleis) and from the survey between the Bradano and Basento (Survey), suggesting that this assemblage was typical of Greek occupation in the area and thus a useful addition to the archaeological record. Ionic cups. The Ionic-type cups from the 6th century bc belong mainly to the B2 type according to the classification of Vallet and Villard, 23 with rims 22 The term “diagnostic” indicates the sherds that can definitely be attributed to a shape, even if belonging to a wall fragment. There are 65 diagnostic sherds, with 22 for which it is not possible to determine the exact stratigraphical location. 23 Vallet and Villard 1955, 27–31.

1:2

Comparisons and comment: For the class, see Silvestrelli 2011, 309, with previous bibliography. Date: Second half of the 4th c. BC.

sharply distinguished from the shoulder, and truncated, cone-shaped feet. These are represented by items with internally glossed rims (the gloss goes all the way down to the shoulder; 1.1.1) or with external decoration, i.e., a narrow band on the shoulder where it connects to the rim (1.1.2). The small fragment SB80-71PL is slightly different, having a rim with a profile externally more concave. A further variation is represented by almost miniature shapes like the SB80-383PL item, with a short rim and a gradual transition from rim to shoulder. The foot of these cups is the characteristic truncated cone-shaped type, tall with a flat base, usually not glossed except for item 1.1.3 which has a miltos surface (a thin red slip). There is also the type with a narrower ring (1.1.4 ). All these types are well-known in the Metapontine chora, apart perhaps from 1.1.4 which is less common but known from Timmari.24 Skyphoi. The skyphoi with offset rim are known in the area in the mid-6th to early 5th century bc. One has a low, reserved band near the internal upper part of the rim and an external reserved band near the handles (2.1.1). Some are almost entirely covered with gloss except for a small external band near the area where the rim is connected to the shoulder (2.1.2). The base fragment is the ring foot type with trapezoidal secSee Vallet and Villard 1955, 27–31. The variant tending toward miniature is known in the Metapontine chora, as the SA79-988PL.03 bowl from the nearby Sant’Angelo Vecchio shows. This has the same dimensions and similar characteristics due to poor quality firing. We must also add to the list of Ionic-type cups some shoulder fragments that might belong to the different types mentioned: SB80-71PL, SB80-220PL and SB80-280PL.

24

68

Eloisa Vittoria

tion and foot base, and the bottom part of the body is unpainted (2.1.3). The skyphoid cup with ring foot and external convex body, represented by two items having slightly different dimensions (3.1.1 and 3.1.2) dates back to the 5th century bc, common in the area. The S40 Corinthian-type skyphos with a thick, slightly oblique wall is from the mid-5th century bc (4.1.1), while the S25 skyphos rim (4.2.1) and the base of type S33 (SB80-292PLb) 25 date to the second half of the same century, both known from the area and the potters’ quarter at Metaponto. The only skyphos of Attic tradition is represented by the type S69 rim (5.1.1), though this is well represented in the area. The Corinthian type S65 skyphos (4.2.2) dates to the second half of the 4th century bc. Then from the late 4th–early 3rd century bc are the 7 type S20/28 skyphoi and a very small rim fragment which might belong either to a skyphos of the same type or to a bowl with stem (SB80-20PLb).26 In general, the skyphoi are well-known forms, typical of the area, and suggest local production, many in imitation of Greek forms. Kylikes. Two early shapes come from the 5th century bc, of which only the lower part of the so-called trumpet foot is preserved (6.1.1 and 6.1.2). Though clearly not common at San Biagio, they are known from the survey.

Bowls. There is a bowl with an amygdaloidal rim (9.1.1), from the 5th century bc, and then dating to the late 4th century bc are two small containers, the type SB1 small bowl (11.1.1) and the SB2 type (SB80-437PL) but the type B5 bowl with inverted rim (10.1.1) also belongs to this phase.27 These bowls are all well known from the area. Mug/cup. The mug (12.1.1) is a 5th century bc example, and a one-handler cup CO1 (13.1.1) belongs to the second half of the 4th century bc. Both can be compared with examples from the pottery dump in Metaponto. Closed form. The closed form (14.1.1) could be the foot of an oinochoe, a form which has been found in tombs in the area. Open forms. The bottom of an open-shaped vessel with the stem intentionally perforated for ritualistic reasons (SB80-430PL), which was found inside the dolium of square B′1, 28 is roughly 5th century bc. A further foot of an open form (15.1.1) could be a cup or small bowl.

Pelike. A base most likely belonging to a pelike (8.1.1) is from the 5th century bc, and similar forms are known from the survey and funerary contexts in the Metapontino.

Chronology. The 6th century bc is represented by 27 fragments, mainly Ionic-type cups and skyphoi with offset rims, and the possible oinochoe (14.1.1). The clay of these finds is fairly homogenous, while the gloss is thin and streaked in colors varying from black to black-brown and sometimes gray—due to imperfect firing.29 From the 5th and first half of the 4th centuries bc are a total of 22 diagnostic sherds but with a larger variety of shapes than the previous period, though still mainly drinking vessels. The clay is denser than in fragments of the 6th century bc. The gloss is homogeneous, sometimes translucent black, tending to brown only in cases of defective

25 The fragment is quite small and therefore is not included in the table or catalog. 26 The 7 S20/28 type rim fragments are small and therefore were not included in the table or in the catalog. These are the following: SB8058PL, SB80-87PL (2 fragments), SB80-112PL, SB80-266PL, SB80280PL. Comparisons include: Necropoleis, 679, S28 (320–280 bc, Metaponto-Pizzica); du  Plat Taylor/Macnamara/Ward-Perkins 1983, 352, no. 295 (320–270 bc, Cozzo Presepe); Gravina II, 121, Fig. 36.894 (335–300 bc); Natali and Palmentola 2006, 24, tomb 4.13 (330–320 bc), 27, tomb 6.14 (320–310 bc), 34, tomb 8.16 (first half of the 4th c. bc), from Rutigliano. For the skyphos/bowl on a stem, see type SC2 in Necropoleis, 651 (3rd c. bc, Metaponto-Pizzica).

The SB80-437PL fragment is quite small, therefore is neither included in the table or catalog; Necropoleis, 682, SB2 (310–275 bc, from Metaponto-Pizzica). 28 Regarding the ritual hole placed on the bottom of the vase, see Necropoleis, 122–25; Rafn 1984. 29 A further 19 fragments belong to body sherds and handles, provisionally dated to the 6th c., while for a further 19 fragments it is not possible to define a precise period, although we can say that they possibly belong to the 6th/5th–4th c. bc. Regarding the clay used there is also a yellow-orange type, used especially for finds typologically dated to the late 6th c.: this is the case of the rim of SB80-20PLj, with a thin red slip with offset rim.

Lebes. Two bases, which likely belong to lebes (7.1.1 and SB80-75PLd), are from the 5th century bc and compare with other forms from funerary contexts in the area.

27

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period Form

Type

Date

NFr

MNI

Ionic cup

1.1.1–5

580–early 5th c. BC

19

15

2.1.1–3

6th–early 5th c. BC

8

7

3.1.1–2

480–440 BC

2

2

4.1.1

460–440 BC

2

2

4.2.1

440–400 BC

3

2

4.2.2

340–300 BC

2

2

S33

440–380 BC

1

1

5.1.1

340–300 BC

1

1

Skyphos

S20/28

320–280 bc

7

5

S20/28 – SC2

Late 4th–3rd c. BC

1

1

6.1.1–2

500–450 BC

2

2

Lebes?

7.1.1

460–430 BC

2

2

Pelike

8.1.1

440–370 BC

1

1

9.1.1

500–450 BC

1

1

10.1.1

310–200 BC

1

1

Kylix

Bowl

Mug Cup

Closed

Open

Unknown

SB2

Late 4th–3rd c. BC

1

1

11.1.1

300–200 BC

1

1

12.1.1

480–400 BC

6

1

n. id.

5th c. BC

1

0

13.1.1

350–300 BC

1

1

14.1.1

6th c. BC

1

1

n. id.

6th c. BC

1

0

n. id.

5th c. BC

1

0

n. id.

5th c. BC?

1

0

n. id.

5th–late 4th/3rd c. BC

5

0

n. id.

Late 4th–3rd c. BC?

1

0

n. id.

6th c. BC

6

0

n. id.

6th c. BC

10

0

n. id.

6th–5th c. BC

11

0

n. id.

6th–5th c. BC

6

0

n. id.

5th c. BC

4

0

n. id.

5th c. BC?

11

0

n. id.

5th–late 4th/3rd c. BC

27

0

n. id.

5th–late 4th/3rd c. BC?

20

0

15.1.1

325–275 BC

1

1

n. id.

Late 4th–3rd c. BC?

1

0

n. id.

Unknown

7

0

n. id.

6th c. BC

2

0

n. id.

6th–5th c. BC

2

0

n. id.

5th c. BC

7

0

n. id.

5th–late 4th/3rd c. BC

6

0

n. id.

Unknown

3

0

197

51

Total Table 3.3 Black gloss quantities.

69

firing.30 Fifteen fragments date from the late 4th to 3rd century bc; two further wall sherds are most likely connected with this phase. Pottery from this period usually has thin walls, orangepink clay, homogeneous, opaque, black or tending to brown gloss if not properly fired. By looking at the pottery in these broad chronological phases it is possible to suggest that production was centered at different (probably local) workshops over time, or it may simply signify a chronological evolution in the techniques. Conclusions. Looking at the assemblage as a whole, drinking vessels make up 25% of the finds, and this figure rises to 77% if only the diagnostic sherds are considered. To these must also be added elements which are related to the table set, including the 12.1.1 mug, the 11.1.1 and SB80-437PL small bowls, the 9.1.1 and 10.1.1 bowls, and possibly the 6th-century foot (14.1.1) tentatively attributed to a jug/oinochoe.31 The 8.1.1 base, belonging to a pelike, and two base fragments, possibly belonging to two lebetes, 7.1.1 and SB80-75PLd can be attributed to closed shapes. Nine body sherds of closed-shaped vessels that cannot be easily identified were also present. This indicates a domestic assemblage, used also in funerary contexts (particularly the lebes and the pelike) from the Greek period of occupation in the area from the 6th to the 3rd century bc. The forms and fabrics, although limited, allow the hypothesis that these wares came from the same area of production, perhaps around Metaponto, as they have similar forms and fabric groups in certain chronological periods. The forms are already well known from the excavations of the Metaponto kerameikos (the potters’ quarter at Metaponto), as further evidence.32 Scientific analysis would be needed to confirm this. The repertoire and the possible local production suggest a Greek settlement of modest wealth, aware of and influenced by forms originating from Greece. Note that 24 fragments, both of body sherds and handles, are provisionally attributed to this phase, and a further 58 fragments most likely date to the 5th/late 4th–3rd c. bc. 31 There are 50 fragments belonging to drinking vessels: 27 belong to the 6th c., 12 to the 5th, and 11 to the late 4th/3rd c. bc. Note there are 28 diagnostic sherds for the 6th c., 22 for the 5th, and 15 for the late 4th/3rd c. bc. 32 D’Andria 1980a. For bibliography on the kerameikos of the Metaponto, see Silvestrelli 2005, 113, and Silvestrelli forthcoming, 1 n. 1. 30

70

Eloisa Vittoria Catalog of Black Gloss Ionic cups

1.1.1 Ionic-type cup Context: B-1, -2. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-89PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.6; th 0.25–0.3. Fabric type: light reddish-brown 5YR 6/3, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, matte, not very homogeneous, painted bands. Condition: A small portion of the rim is preserved. Description: Flaring offset rim with slightly pronounced join between rim and shoulder. Painted exterior and interior bands except for a thin band on the interior surface of the rim and a band on the shoulder. Comparisons and comment: Silvestrelli forthcoming, 5, Fig. 1.1.2 Ionic-type cup Context: Room V. Lev. 3. Bat. 3. Lot: SB80-341PLf Dimensions and technical features: H 1.95; rim 12.0; th 0.25. Fabric type: orange-yellow 5YR 6/8 and 7.5YR 6/6, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, matte, not very homogeneous, painted bands. Condition: A tiny fragment of the rim is preserved. Description: Flaring offset rim with pronounced join between rim and shoulder. Painted exterior and interior except for a thin band on the interior surface of the rim, the outer face of the rim and a band on the shoulder. Comparisons and comment: Survey Types AFW 397-47; AFW 334-14 (Catti et al. 2011, 160–61). D’Andria 1980a, Fig. 13.38 (from the kiln of the kerameikos of Metaponto dated to the end of the first half of the 6th c. BC); Liseno 2004, Pls. XXXVIIb–e–f (600–550 BC, from Metaponto, deposito Favale); Adamesteanu 1980, 277, Fig. 290e and passim (600–550 BC, from Metaponto); Lo Porto 1973, 157 and passim, Pl. V, nos. 1.4 and 5 (from tomb dated mid-6th c. BC, from Pisticci) and Pl. LXX, no. 1.5 (second half of the 6th c. BC, from a 1.1.3 Ionic-type cup Context: Surface. Lot: SB80-125PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.1; foot 5.5; th 0.40.5. Fabric type: beige 10YR 6/4, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, matte, not very homogeneous, miltos (red slip) effect. Condition: 1/3 of the foot is preserved. Description: High conical foot. Painted interior and exterior upper bands, except for the flat base where miltos is visible. Comparisons and comment: Survey Type AFW 477-44 (Catti et al. 2011, 163). D’Andria 1980a, Fig. 13.38 (from the 6th c. BC kiln of the kerameikos of Metaponto,

5, no. 2 (from 6th c. BC rubbish dump of potters’ quarter at Metaponto); Liseno 2004, Pls. XXXVIIc–d (600–550 BC , Metaponto, Favale property); Adamesteanu 1980, 277, Fig. 290a and passim (600–550 BC, Metaponto); du Plat Taylor/Macnamara/Ward-Perkins 1983, 324, no. 160 (580–540 BC, Cozzo Presepe); Togninelli 2004, 91, Pl. XII.4 (from tomb 28, Timmari); Gravina II, 285, no. 603 (6th c. BC). Date: 580–end of the 6th c. BC.

1:2

tomb from Matera); Barberis 1997, Pl. 28.7 (580–500 BC, from Pomarico); Togninelli 2004, 76, Fig. 5 (from tomb 6, dated mid-6th c. BC, from Timmari); Greci, Enotri e Lucani, 148, no. 2.11.1 (T. 500 dated to mid-6th c. BC, from Alianello-Cazzaiola); Gravina II, 285, no. 608 (6th c. BC), Museo Taranto I.3, 143, no. 1.6 and passim (from tomb dated 560–550 BC, from Taranto); Van Compernolle 1996, 304, no. 293 (600–550 BC, from Saturo); Natali and Palmentola 2006, 98, tomb 32.5–6 and passim (tomb dated to end of 6th–early 5th c. BC, from Rutigliano); Kaulonia I, 39, Fig. 29, no. 22 (600–520 BC); Semeraro 1997, 41, and passim Fig. 2, nos. 1–4 (550–500 BC, from tombs of Alezio); Yntema 2001, 80, no. 107 (530–450 BC, from Valesio); Hayes 1984, 6, no. 4 (mid-6th c. BC); Agora XII, nos. 379 and 382 (575–550 BC); Mégara Hyblaea 2, Pl. 76.1 (580–540 BC). Date: 580–early 5th c. BC.

SB 80 - 341 PL

1:2

SB 80 - 125 PL

dated to the end of the first half of the 6th c. BC); Liseno 2004, Pl. XXXVIIf (600–550 BC, from Metaponto, Favale property); Necropoleis, 697, T. 266–8 (600–550 BC); du Plat Taylor/Macnamara/Ward-Perkins 1983, 324 no. 168 (550–480 BC, Cozzo Presepe); Agora XII, nos. 379 and 382 (575–550 BC); Mégara Hyblaea 2, Pl. 76.1 (580–540 BC). Date: 580–early 5th c. BC.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period 1.1.4 Ionic-type cup Context: B′-3. Lev 2. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-221PLi Dimensions and technical features: H 2.05; foot 9.0; th 0.5–0.55. Fabric: pink-brown 5YR 5/4, hard, smooth feel. Black-brown gloss, matte, thin, painted. Condition: 1/7 of the foot is preserved. Description: Low conical foot. The whole fragment is reserved, except for a painted band on the outer face of the foot.

1.1.5 Ionic-type cup Context: Hypocaust. Lev. 3. Bat. 4. Lot: SB80-383PL Dimensions and technical features: H 1.95; rim 12.0; th 0.25. Fabric type: gray-brown 7.5YR 4/1, hard, smooth feel. Black-brown gloss, matte, not very homogenous, painted bands. Condition: A small portion of the rim and body is preserved. The gloss appears partially misfired, particularly on the interior surface. Description: Flaring offset rim with slightly pronounced join between rim and shoulder. Painted exterior and in-

71 1:2

SB 80 - 221 PL

Comparisons and comment: Togninelli 2004, 78, Fig. 6.6 (from tomb 7 dated to second half of the 6th c. BC, from Timmari). Date: 580–early 5th c. BC.

1:2 SB 80 - 393 PL

terior bands except for a plain thin band on the interior surface of the rim and a band on the shoulder. Comparisons and comment: See no. 1.1.1. A very similar sample coming from the near S. Angelo Vecchio has the same measurements and it is likewise misfired. Date: 580–early 5th c. BC.

Skyphoi 2.1.1 Skyphos with offset rim 1:2 Context: A-1, -2, -3. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB-56PLd Dimensions and technical features: H 2.5; rim 14.0; th 0.3–0.35. Fabric type: orange-yellow 7.5YR 6/6, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, matte, homogeneous, painted. ponto); Liseno 2004, Pl. XXXVIb (575–480 BC, from SB 80 - 56 PL D Condition: 1/10 of the rim is preserved. Metaponto, Favale property); du Plat Taylor/MacnamaDescription: Flaring offset rim with carination between ra/Ward-Perkins. 1983, 329 nos. 171–72 (550–480 BC, rim and shoulder; convex shoulder leading to conical Cozzo Presepe); Barberis 1997, Pl. 29.12 (second half of body. Painted exterior and interior bands except for a thin the 6th–early 5th c. BC, Pomarico); Lo Porto 1973, 157, plain band on the interior surface of the rim and shoulder. Pl. V, no. 1.2 and passim (from tomb dated mid 6th c. BC, Comparisons and comment: Survey Type AFW 622-01 from Pisticci); Greci, Enotri e Lucani, 148, no. 2.11.7 (T. (Catti et al. 2011, 166). Silvestrelli forthcoming, 5, Fig. 500 mid-6th c. BC, Alianello-Cazzaiola); 5, no. 1 (from 6th c. BC dump of the kerameikos at MetaDate: 550–480 BC. 1:2 2.1.2 Skyphos with offset rim Context: TTR 2. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-20PLj Dimensions and technical features: H 2.6; rim 14.0; th SB 80 - 20 PL 3 0.3–0.35. Fabric type: orange 5YR 6/8, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, matte, homogeneous, painted. bc, Metaponto); Lo Porto 1966, 209–10, Fig. 64.3 (tomb Condition: 1/20 of the rim is preserved. 29, mid-6th c. bc, Metaponto); Lo Porto 1981, 364–65, Description: Flaring offset rim with carination between Fig. 85.2 (tomb 18, end of the 6th c. bc, Metaponto, lorim and shoulder; convex shoulder leading to conical cal production); Lo Porto 1973, 222, Pl. LXX, no. 1.3 body. Painted exterior and interior bands except for a (second half of the 6th c. bc, from a tomb from Matera); plain thin band on the joining between rim and shoulder. Semeraro 1997, 227, Fig. 197, nos. 786 and 788 (480–470 Comparisons and comment: Survey Type AFW 477-56 bc, Oria). (Catti et al. 2011, 167). Necropoleis, 677, S1 (460–440 Date: 550–480 bc.

72

Eloisa Vittoria

Skyphoi, cont. 2.1.3 Skyphos with offset rim Context: B-1, -2. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-89PLi Dimensions and technical features: H 3.1; foot 7.8; 0.3– SB 80 -th 89 PL I 0.5. Fabric type: gray N6/, hard, smooth feel. Gray-olive gloss, matte, thin, painted. Condition: 1/7 of the foot is preserved. The gloss is partly worn away. Description: Convergent base ring; flaring lower body. Painted interior and exterior bands. Flat base and the inner surface of the foot and the underside are plain. Comparisons and comment: Survey Type AFW 523-29 (Catti et al. 2011, 167). D’Andria 1980a, Fig. 13.39 (from the 6th c. bc kiln of the kerameikos of Metaponto); 3.1.1 Cup-skyphos Context: B′-2. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-76PLj Dimensions and technical features: H 2.25; foot 10.0; th 0.4– 0.6. Fabric type: brown-gray 7.5YR 5/1, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, not very bright, not very homogeneous, dipped/painted. Condition: 1/20 of the foot is preserved. Description: Ring base with rounded outer face; rounded underside. Gloss interior and exterior except for underside where a thin band is painted and the inner face of the foot that is painted. 3.1.2 Cup-skyphos Context: A-1, B-1, in dolium. Lev. 3. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80178PLa Dimensions and technical features: H 1.45; foot 7.8; th 0.25. Fabric type: brown-gray N4/ and 5YR 5/3, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, matte, not very homogeneous, painted? Condition: 1/20 of the foot is preserved; the gloss is worn. Description: Ring base with rounded outer face; rounded 4.1.1 Corinthian-type skyphos Context: Room II, North side. Lev. 3. Bat. 4. Lot: SB80290PL Dimensions and technical features: H 3.5; th 0.4–0.5. Fabric type: light reddish brown 5YR 6/3, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, matte, homogeneous, dipped. Condition: A small portion of the rim is preserved; the gloss is partly worn. Description: Direct rim narrowing toward the rim, slightly flaring body. Gloss interior and exterior.

1:2

Liseno 2004, Pl. XXXVId (575–480 bc, Metaponto, property of Favale); du  Plat Taylor/Macnamara/WardPerkins 1983, 329 no. 172 (550–480 bc, Cozzo Presepe); Barberis 1997, Pl. 29.14 (second half of the 6th–early 5th c. bc, Pomarico). Date: 550–480 bc. 1:2 SB 80 - 76 PL I

Comparisons and comment: Survey Type AFW 524-01 (Catti et al. 2011, 216). Necropoleis, 682, CS3 (460–440 bc); Giorgi 1988, 195, Pl. 30, no. 3 (first half of the 5th c. bc, Forentum); Locri II, Pl. XIX, no. 15 (500–480 bc); Semeraro 1997, 203, Fig. 183, no. 617 (from Oria); Hayes 1984, 196, no. 71 (475–450 bc); Agora XII, Fig. 6.572 (ca. 500 bc). Date: 480–440 bc. 1:2 SB 80 -178 PL

underside. Painted interior and exterior except for underside and the foot. Comparisons and comment: See no. 3.1.1. Date: 480–440 bc. 1:2

SB 80 - 290 PL (VN)

Comparisons and comment: Necropoleis, 680, S40 (460–440 bc); Hayes 1984, 12, Fig. 15, no. 15 (500–450 bc). Date: 460–440 bc.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period 4.2.1 Corinthian-type skyphos Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 3.0; rim 10.0; th 0.3. Fabric type: gray 10YR 6/1, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, not very bright, homogeneous, dipped. Condition: 1/20 of the rim is preserved; traces of one handle are preserved below the rim. Description: Direct rim narrowing toward the lip, nearly 4.2.2 Corinthian-type skyphos Context: Room VI. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-304PLa Dimensions and technical features: H 1.7; foot 4.65; th 0.3– 0.45. Fabric type: pink-orange 5YR 6/6, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, matte, homogeneous, dipped/painted. Condition: 1/2 of the foot is preserved. Description: Flaring ring foot with vertical outer face; body with rounded underside. Gloss interior and exterior, except for the lower surface of the foot, where a band is painted, and the lower surface of the body, upper surface of the foot, and underside. Comparisons and comment: Survey Type BG 341-26 (Catti

73

vertical upper body. Gloss interior and exterior. Comparisons and comment: Silvestrelli forthcoming, 9, Fig. 8, no. 5 (425–400 bc, from rubbish dump—scarico 16—of the kerameikos of Metaponto); Necropoleis, 678, S25 (440–400 bc); Gravina II, Fig. 36 no. 870 (450–375 bc); Morel 1981, 4314a1 (450–400 bc, Ruvo di Puglia). Date: 440–400 bc. 1:2 SB 80 - 304 PL A

et al. 2011, 227). Silvestrelli forthcoming, 14, Fig. 13, no. 17 (350–325 bc, from rubbish dump (scarico 3) of the kerameikos of Metaponto); Pianu 1990, Pl. V, no. 160.1 (330–300 bc, Herakleia); Palmentola 2006, Pl. 37b (4th c. bc, Rutigliano); Sibari IV, Fig. 229 no. 196 (350–300 bc, Sibari); Yntema 1993, 104, Fig. 39.237 (350–300 bc, Oria). Date: 340–300 bc.

1:2 5.1.1 Attic-type skyphos Context: B1. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-78PLa Dimensions and technical features: H 4.1; rim 10.0; th 0.3. Fabric type: beige 7.5YR 6/4, hard, smooth feel. Black SB 80 - 78 PL A (VN) gloss, matte, homogeneous, dipped. Condition: 1/10 of the rim is preserved. Description: Direct rim, turning outwards slightly at the c. bc, Pomarico); Palmentola 2006, Pl. 38d (350–300 bc, lip; ovoid body. Gloss interior and exterior. Rutigliano); Morel 1981, Pl. 131 no. 4373b2 (325–300 Comparisons and comment: Survey Type BG 043-07 (Catti bc, Ordona); Semeraro 1983, Pl. 89, no. 157 (330–300 et al. 2011, 221). du  Plat Taylor/Macnamara/Wardbc, Otranto); Costamagna 1999, Fig. 145. 324 (325–300 Perkins 1983, 352 no. 293 (Cozzo Presepe, ca. 300 bc); bc, Castellace). Surra and Preacco Ancona 1997, Pl. 35.68 (4th–early 3rd Date: 340–300 bc.

Kylikes 6.1.1 Trumpet foot of kylix Context: A′1, A′2, A′3. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-30PLh Dimensions and technical features: H 1.5; foot 8.0. Fabric type: orange 5YR 5/8, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, bright, homogeneous, painted? Condition: 1/7 of the foot is preserved. Description: Trumpet base with outer face rounded. Painted upper surface. Comparisons and comment: Survey Type BG 328-01 (Catti

1:2 SB 80 - 30 PL H

et al. 2011, 218). Barberis 1997, Pl. 29.16 (end of the 6th–early 5th c. bc, Pomarico); Semeraro 1997, 65, Fig. 20.102 (Cavallino, type C cup, first quarter of the 5th c. bc); 86, Fig. 42.142 (from Egnazia); Agora XII, Fig. 4.415 (type C cup, 525–500 bc). Date: End of the 6th–first quarter of the 5th c. bc.

74

Eloisa Vittoria

Kylikes, cont. 6.1.2 Trumpet foot of kylix Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PLp Dimensions and technical features: H 1.5; foot 7.8. Fabric type: orange and yellow-gray 7.5YR 6/6 and 7.5YR 6/1, hard, smooth feel. Gray gloss, matte, not very homogeneous, painted. Condition: 1/7 of the foot is preserved. Description: Trumpet base with outer face rounded. Painted upper and lower surface.

1:2 SB 80 - 17 PL 9

Comparisons and comment: Survey Types BG 328-01; BG 285-12 (Catti et al. 2011, 218). Semeraro 1997, 43, Fig. 4.8 (Alezio, type C cup, first quarter of the 5th c. bc); Agora XII, Fig. 4.420 (type C cup, 500–480 bc). Date: First half of the 5th c. bc.

Lebes 7.1.1 Foot of open form (lebes?) Context: B′-3. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-220PLa Dimensions and technical features: H 1.3; foot 6.7; th 0.45. Fabric type: pink-orange 5YR 6/6, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, matte, homogeneous, dipped. Condition: The whole foot is preserved. Description: Ring foot base with rounded underside. Gloss interior and exterior except for the flat base and the inner side of the foot and underside. Traces of fingerprints due to the technique for applying the gloss (immersion) are visible on the exterior surface of the foot.

1:2 SB 80 - 220 PL A

Comparisons and comment: The base could belong to a lebes, for which see Necropoleis, 663, LG44 (460–430 bc); Lo Porto 1966, 230, Fig. 89.1–2 (tomb 6, mid-5th c. bc, Metaponto-San Salvatore); Vittoria 2000, Pl. 23.5 (tomb 95, Metaponto-Pizzica). Date: 460–430 bc.

Pelike

1:2 8.1.1 Pelike Context: B′1, 2. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-99PLf Dimensions and technical features: H 2.1; foot 10.0; th 0.4-SB 80 - 99 PL 0.9. Fabric type: brown-yellow 7.5YR 6/6, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, not very bright, homogeneous, dipped/ (350–300 bc, Falerii Veteres). The same foot is on site painted. 401, no. 20, from the survey between Bradano and Condition: 2/5 of the foot is preserved. Basento: see Survey. Similar bases are common on the Description: High ring base with flat upper surface and figured pottery: Necropoleis, 621 (480–380 BC, red-figure vertical outer face. Dipped/painted exterior. pottery, tomb 219, Metaponto-Pizzica). Comparisons and comment: Necropoleis, 672, P12 (440–400 Date: 440–370 bc. bc) and 674, P37 (420–370 bc); Morel 1981, 3686a1

Bowls 1:2

9.1.1 Bowl Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PLa SB features: 80 - 71 PL A (VN) Dimensions and technical H 2.4; rim 18.0; body th 0.4; rim th 0.65. Fabric type: pink-orange 5YR 6/6, hard, smooth feel. Black gloss, bright, not very homogeneous, painted. Condition: 1/20 of the rim is preserved.

Description: Outward-turned thickened rim; shallow, concave body. Painted interior and exterior. Comparisons and comment: Locri II, Pl. XX, no. 40 (450 bc, pateretta); Agora XII, Fig. 8.777 (ca. 500 bc). Date: First half of the 5th c. bc.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

75 1:2

SB 80 - 280 PL (VN) 10.1.1 Bowl Context: Room VII. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-280PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.7; th 0.3-0.45. Fabric type: orange 5YR 6/8, hard, smooth feel. Black-brown gloss, matte, not very homogeneous, dipped. Condition: A small fragment of the rim is preserved; the gloss is partly misfired, brown, on the interior surface. Description: Inward-curving rim with groove on outer edge

11.1.1 Small bowl Context: B-1. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-85PLd Dimensions and technical features: H 2.15; rim 8.0; th 0.25. Fabric type: pink-orange 5YR 6/6, hard, smooth feel. Black brownish gloss, matte, homogeneous, dipped. Condition: 1/20 of the rim is preserved. Description: Direct rounded rim, convex upper wall. Gloss interior and exterior. Comparisons and comment: Necropoleis, 682, SB1 (310–275 bc); du  Plat Taylor/Macnamara/Ward-Perkins 1983,

of lip; hemispherical body. Painted interior and exterior. Comparisons and comment: Survey Type BG 258-04 (Catti et al. 2011, 248). Postrioti 1996, Fig. 4d (4th c. bc, Metaponto, votive pit of Temple E); Morel 1981, 2563a1 (4th– 3rd c. bc, Spina); Gravina II, 290, no. 770 (300–260 bc). Date: 300–200 bc.

1:2 SB 80 - 85 PL (VN)

356, Fig. 127, no. 322 (Cozzo Presepe, early 4th c. bc); Gravina II, 292, no. 832 (late 3rd–2nd c. bc); Morel 1981, 2788g1 (3rd c. bc); Valentini 1993, Pl. 20, no. 182 (Gravisca, late 4th–early 3rd c. bc). Date: 310–200 bc.

Mug

12.1.1 Mug Context: B-1, B-2. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-89PLh Dimensions and technical features: Foot 6.2; rim h 1.45; foot h 2.15; th 0.3–0.4; handle 2.3 x 0.4. Fabric type: brownorange 7.5YR 5/6, hard, smooth feel. Black-brown gloss, matte, homogeneous, dipped. Condition: Six fragments are preserved; 1 small fragment of the rim with handle and 5 fragments of the base; the gloss is partly worn. Description: Out-turned rim with rounded outer face and vertical tape-handle attached on the rim; flat base with groove near the body that was probably globular. Painted interior and exterior except for the groove and underside. Comparisons and comment: Necropoleis, 667, M5 and M11

1:2

SB 80-89 PL H (VN)

(480–380 bc); Silvestrelli forthcoming, 7, Fig. 7.10 (kerameikos, rubbish dumps 19 and 22, third quarter of the 5th c. bc); Greci, Enotri e Lucani, 166, no. 2.30.12 (T. 227 dated 420–400 bc, Chiaromonte-San Pasquale); Giorgi 1988, Pl. 22, no. 1.1 (late 6th–mid-5th c. bc, Forentum); Palmentola 2006, 477, Pl. 34d (475–400 bc, Rutigliano); Morel 1981, 5333c1 (Campania? 4th c. bc). Date: 480–400 bc.

Cup

1:2

13.1.1 Cup SB 80 - 239 PL (VN) Context: Hypocaust. Lev. 3. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-239PL Dimensions and technical features: H 1.9; rim 8.0; th 0.35. et al. 2011, 238). D’Andria 1980a, Fig. 60.322 (from the Fabric type: brown-yellow 7.5YR 5/6, hard, smooth feel. rubbish dump—scarico 3—of the kerameikos of MetaBlack gloss, matte, homogeneous, dipped. ponto, dated 350–325 bc); du  Plat Taylor/Macnamara/ Condition: 1/20 of the rim is preserved. Ward-Perkins 1983, 354 no. 309 (Cozzo Presepe, 4th c. Description: Direct rim, which is flat on top and slopes bc); Gravina II, Fig. 34 no. 817 (310–275 bc); Ricchetti slightly inwards; shallow, concave body. Gloss interior 1992, 253 (4th c. bc, Canosa); Morel 1981, 6214d1 (4th and exterior. c. bc, Ruvo); Agora XII Fig. 8 no. 755 (ca. 400). Comparisons and comment: Survey Type BG 122-02 (Catti Date: 350–300 bc.

76

Eloisa Vittoria Closed forms

14.1.1 Foot of closed form, (?) oinochoe Context: Room II. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-266PLa Dimensions and technical features: H 2.9; foot 7.0. Clay brown-gray 7.5YR 6/1–7.5YR 5/1, hard, smooth feel. Brown gloss, matte, not very homogeneous, painted. Condition: 1/7 of the foot is preserved. Description: High conical foot, slightly flaring on base. Painted exterior surface. Comparisons and comment: Togninelli 2004, 82, Pl. VI.9

1:2 SB 80 - 266 PL A

(tomb 8, mid-6th c. bc, Timmari); Museo Taranto I.3, 143, no. 1.1 (anfora a fasce from tomb, 560–550 bc, Taranto); Agora XII, Fig. 2.90 (oinochoe, 575–550 bc); Fig. 11.1213 (lekanis, ca. 575 bc). Date: Mid-6th c. bc.

Open forms 1:2

15.1.1 Foot of open form Context: TTR 1, A1, B1, C′1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-9PLc Dimensions and technical features: H 1.35; foot 4.1; th 0.45. Fabric type: gray-brown 7.5YR 4/1 and 7.5YR 5/6, hard, smooth feel. Black-brown gloss, matte, homogeneous, dipped. Condition: The whole foot is preserved.

Description: Ring foot. Painted interior. Comparisons and comment: The base could belong to a small bowl or a cup. For example Necropoleis, 650, B10 (320–275 bc), 669, O3 (325–275 bc), 682, SB1 (310–275 bc). Date: 325–275 bc.

Some sporadic fragments of grey ware provide evidence of human presence in the 2nd and 1st centuries bc.

Three fragments were identified. For color determinations, the Munsell Soil Color Chart 2000 was used.

SB 80 - 9PL

Catalog of Grey Ware Open shapes 16.1.1 Foot of open form Context: Room III. Lev. 3, Bat. 4. Lot: SB80-338PLc 1/3 Dimensions and technical features: H 1.1; foot 5.4; th 0.4. SB 80 - 338 PL C Condition: Fragment. Description: Ring-foot base of open shape vessel. Fragment Date: Late Republican. painted only on interior. 16.1.2 Foot of open form Context: Surface, NE square. Lot: SB80-57PLa Dimensions and technical features: H 1.75; foot 6.95; th 0.55. Fabric type: greenish gray gley 1 6/1, hard. Dark gray gloss, matte. Condition: The whole foot is preserved. Description: Gloss is worn. Painted interior and exterior

1:2 SB 80 - 57 PL A

where trickles of paint are visible. Comparisons and comment: See Burgers 1991, Form 2. Date: Late Republican

Handles

16.2.1 Handle Context: A′-1 -2, B′-1 -2, Lev. 3, Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-112PLe Dimensions and technical features: H 5.1; min. cons. th 1.1; max. cons. th 1.6. Fabric type: greenish gray gley 1 6/1, hard.

1:2

Condition: Fragment. Description: Vertical handle, entirely painted. Date: Late Republican.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period Class

Banded Ware

Form

Date

NFr

MNI

Small bowl/one-handler

575–200 bc

9

5

Lekane

500–200 bc

5

2

Flanged lekane

500–300 bc

2

1

Dinos

320–80 bc

4

4

Globular pyxis

550 bc

1

1

Lebes

400–370 bc

1

1

Jug

520–280 bc

7

6

Unguentarium

400–200 bc

1

1

Total

Miniatures

30

21

Skyphos

600–500 bc

1

1

Krateriskos

550–300 bc

1

1

Phiale

550–300 bc

1

1

Unknown form

Unknown

1

1

4

4

Total

Plain Ware

Small bowl/one-handler

575–200 bc

4

1

Basin

500–200 bc

23

12

Unguentarium

320–150 bc

1

1

Open form

Unknown

1

1

Closed form

Unknown

4

4

Unknown form

Unknown

38

0

71

19

Total

77

Table 3.4 Banded ware, miniatures, and plain ware quantities.

Banded Ware, Miniatures, and Plain Ware Anna Cavallo A small group of 105 fragments of banded and plain wares, as well as some miniatures, dating to the Greek period was found during the archaeological investigations at San Biagio (Table 3.4). These generally were in fragmentary condition, in many cases rendering the identification of form problematic. The clay used in these wares is different from that used in the more common Roman vessels found at this site; the vast majority of fragments analyzed here instead have a compact fabric, well purified, sometimes with a few small inclusions. The same fabric was characteristic of artifacts found in Metaponto farmhouses of Greek date and clay artifacts generally from the Metapontino. Most of the finds were concentrated in the uppermost level of squares B1 and B2 and of B′1–3 outside the farmhouse, and thus it is not possible to attribute them to a specific context. Still, a good number of fragments came from earlier layers in squares B1 and

B2, which would indicate likely occupation of the area during the Greek period. A total of 30 fragments of well-preserved decorated ceramic with painted bands were found during the excavation, 21 of which have an identifiable shape. Four fragments of miniature vessels were recovered, one of which cannot be tied to a precise shape. The plain-ware fragments—mainly body fragments, with a few sherds that have identifiable shapes (particularly bowls)—have no coating. Among the finds analyzed, there are relatively few shapes, represented by a limited number of objects. From a morphological and structural point of view, these are not unlike those found in the farmhouses of the Metapontine chora.33 The only exceptions are the miniature mesomphalic phiale (3.1.1) and the small globular olla with bands (5.1.1). These are not usually found in settlements but are frequent in sacred and funerary contexts. The author’s studies of the plain ware, banded ware, and miniatures from the other Metaponto farmhouses excavated by ICA are forthcoming in the series.

33

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period Class

Banded Ware

Form

Date

NFr

MNI

Small bowl/one-handler

575–200 bc

9

5

Lekane

500–200 bc

5

2

Flanged lekane

500–300 bc

2

1

Dinos

320–80 bc

4

4

Globular pyxis

550 bc

1

1

Lebes

400–370 bc

1

1

Jug

520–280 bc

7

6

Unguentarium

400–200 bc

1

1

Total

Miniatures

30

21

Skyphos

600–500 bc

1

1

Krateriskos

550–300 bc

1

1

Phiale

550–300 bc

1

1

Unknown form

Unknown

1

1

4

4

Total

Plain Ware

Small bowl/one-handler

575–200 bc

4

1

Basin

500–200 bc

23

12

Unguentarium

320–150 bc

1

1

Open form

Unknown

1

1

Closed form

Unknown

4

4

Unknown form

Unknown

38

0

71

19

Total

77

Table 3.4 Banded ware, miniatures, and plain ware quantities.

Banded Ware, Miniatures, and Plain Ware Anna Cavallo A small group of 105 fragments of banded and plain wares, as well as some miniatures, dating to the Greek period was found during the archaeological investigations at San Biagio (Table 3.4). These generally were in fragmentary condition, in many cases rendering the identification of form problematic. The clay used in these wares is different from that used in the more common Roman vessels found at this site; the vast majority of fragments analyzed here instead have a compact fabric, well purified, sometimes with a few small inclusions. The same fabric was characteristic of artifacts found in Metaponto farmhouses of Greek date and clay artifacts generally from the Metapontino. Most of the finds were concentrated in the uppermost level of squares B1 and B2 and of B′1–3 outside the farmhouse, and thus it is not possible to attribute them to a specific context. Still, a good number of fragments came from earlier layers in squares B1 and

B2, which would indicate likely occupation of the area during the Greek period. A total of 30 fragments of well-preserved decorated ceramic with painted bands were found during the excavation, 21 of which have an identifiable shape. Four fragments of miniature vessels were recovered, one of which cannot be tied to a precise shape. The plain-ware fragments—mainly body fragments, with a few sherds that have identifiable shapes (particularly bowls)—have no coating. Among the finds analyzed, there are relatively few shapes, represented by a limited number of objects. From a morphological and structural point of view, these are not unlike those found in the farmhouses of the Metapontine chora.33 The only exceptions are the miniature mesomphalic phiale (3.1.1) and the small globular olla with bands (5.1.1). These are not usually found in settlements but are frequent in sacred and funerary contexts. The author’s studies of the plain ware, banded ware, and miniatures from the other Metaponto farmhouses excavated by ICA are forthcoming in the series.

33

78

Anna Cavallo

Banded Ware Small bowl/one-handlers. Small one-handler bowls were common in the territory of Magna Grecia from the 6th century bc onward. They belonged to the repertoire of so-called Ionic shapes, and reached southern Italy during the second quarter of the 6th century bc. Here they became very common in domestic and funerary contexts.34 In the area of Metaponto, the local production of these containers is known to date from the second half of the 6th century bc, while along the Bradano River and in nearby sites, examples are known from the 3rd century bc with a few items dating back to the 2nd century bc.35 In Taranto these were still locally produced at the beginning of the 4th century bc, while in the Apulian area they were produced until the 2nd century bc.36 The nine one-handler cup fragments found at San Biagio correspond to five whole items. They had hemispherical bodies, accentuated rims, flat or slightly concave feet, and horizontal—sometimes slightly raised—handles placed just under the lip. These items are closely comparable to examples found in the Pantanello necropolis, and to items recovered during the survey of the chora between the Bradano and Cavone rivers and inside excavated farmhouses. Lekane. Lekanai with bands were widely distributed between the second quarter of the 6th and the 3rd centuries bc. They have protruding rims and deep, carinated bodies. Local production is known from the 5th century bc thanks to study of the potters’ quarter, the kerameikos of Metaponto.37 They are frequent finds in the Bradano River basin, especially in the Pantanello necropolis, at Cozzo Presepe, and amongst the finds from the survey of the chora between the Bradano and Cavone Rivers.38 The two lekanai at San Biagio, represented by five fragments, have standardized characteristics: decoration with large bands on the upper part of the rim and on the upper part of the inside of the bowl. Lo Porto 1981, 303. For the pottery produced in the kerameikos (potters’ quarter) of Metaponto, see Silvestrelli forthcoming, Figs. 4, 6, 7. For items dating back to the end of the 4th–beg. of the 3rd c. in the Bradano River area, see: Macnamara 1977, 337, various nos.; Saunders and du Plat Taylor 1992, 15, various nos.; Marchegiani 1997, 165. 36 For the Taranto production, see Arte e artigianato, 329–30. For production of the “one-handlers” in the Apulian area, see Valesio I, 67–68. 37 See Silvestrelli forthcoming, Figs. 5.12, 6.20. 38 Pantanello: Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998a, 709–10; Cozzo Presepe: du Plat Taylor/Macnamara/Ward-Perkins 1983, 338–39. On the finds from the Bradano to Basento River survey, see Vittoria 2011. 34 35

Flanged lekane. The lekane with ribbon handles and flanged rim to receive a lid is known during the 6th century bc, both in decorated and plain versions. The latter is sometimes decorated with bands. Both versions were still being produced during the 4th century bc.39 Though rather rare in excavations of the farmhouses in the chora of Metaponto, examples are documented in the excavation of sanctuaries (e.g., the Pantanello sanctuary) and at survey sites. The two fragments discovered in San Biagio have lost the horizontal ribbon handle although the connecting area and one of the decorative apophyses with a triangular profile is still visible. On the external surface, under the flanged rim, there are traces of decoration. Dinos. Dinoi are widely distributed throughout the Bradano valley. They are often quite large, with a deep vertical, or more frequently olla-shaped body and protruding rim. They were found in large quantities both in the excavated farmhouses and during the survey. At San Biagio, no complete profiles were found. Handles are vertical, ribbon shaped, quite large, and placed just under the rim. The decoration is concentrated on the area around the rim, though some items have a Saint Andrew’s cross on the handles. Plain dinoi were found both in the farmhouses and in the chora, but not at the Pantanello necropolis.40 The function of dinoi is still unclear: some scholars believe they were used to store foodstuffs.41 The four fragments found at San Biagio were dated from the late 4th to 3rd century bc on the basis of comparisons with items found in Basilicata and Apulia. Globular pyxis. Among the Greek pottery with decorated bands from San Biagio there is a small pyxis with a pronounced globular body and protruding rim with sub-rectangular section. This item is characterized by a body decorated by thin concentric bands. This type of vessel is widely distributed in the Metaponto necropoleis and was locally produced.42 Globular pyxides are decorated in the Pantanello necropolis during the 39 See Agora XII, 165, on the subject. For the black gloss lekanai, see Morel 1981, 327, Type 4713. 40 Finds from the Fabrizio farmhouse are being studied by this author. For Pantanello, see: Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998a; 1998b. 41 Dinoi are included amongst the storage containers by Saunders and du Plat Taylor, 30–31; Valesio I, 97, 271. 42 This theory has been suggested by Adamesteanu (1980, 59 n. 163). He emphasizes the frequent recurrence of these containers in the San Biagio sacred area.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period second half of the 6th century bc. Examples were also found in the ancient asty and during the survey, but somewhat surprisingly, none were found in the studied farmhouses or in other funerary contexts. Lebes. A small container with vertical rim—slightly offset from the body—laid on the convex shoulder is identified as a lebes, a shape commonly found in the chora of Metaponto, in both settlements and funerary contexts. Several such items decorated with bands were found in the Pantanello necropolis43 and in the farmhouses of the chora.44 The condition of the fragment found at San Biagio does not permit precise comparisons, so the date proposed is very approximate. Regarding the banded ware found in the Pantanello necropolis, see Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998a, 700, no. T 306-10/14. 44 Note 6 lebetes from Sant’Angelo Vecchio, 3 from Fattoria Stefan, and one item from Sant’Angelo Grieco. These finds are still being studied. 43

79

Jug. All seven jug fragments found at San Biagio have traces of banded decoration. These have similar morphological characteristics, including thickened flanged rims with the upper surface turned inwards, atop a neck of cylindrical section. Decoration is concentrated on the upper portion of the rim. Only one poorly preserved item, not included in the catalog, has a different profile, having a sub-rectangular section and flattened flange.45 On the basis of comparisons, all seven fragments can be dated between the 6th and the 3rd centuries bc. Unguentarium. One body sherd belonging to an unguentarium was found at San Biagio. It has traces of decoration on the outside, but is so poorly preserved that only a broad date between 400 and 200 bc is proposed. 45

For comparisons and in particular type J21b, see Vittoria 2011.

Catalog of Banded Ware Small bowl/one-handlers 1:2

1.1.1 Small bowl/one-handler Context: B-1, -2, -3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-89PL Dimensions and technical features: H 3.8; rim 9; foot 3.3. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, clean matrix, 5YR 7/6. Black gloss, thin, opaque, diluted in some areas. Condition: Severed fragments. Description: Vertical rim with tapered termination; hemispherical body; slightly concave base. Wide band on the external surface, narrow band on the rim; completely painted inside. 1.2.1 Small bowl/one-handler Context: A-1, A-2, A-3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-54PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.9; rim 8.4. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, clean matrix, 2.5YR 7/6. Brown-black gloss, thin, opaque. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of body. Description: Vertical rim with rounded termination; hemispherical body; band on the exterior in center part of the body.

Comparisons and comment: Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998a, 704, no. T336-3. Date: 460–440 bc.

1:2

Comparisons and comment: Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998a, 702, T15-1. Date: 420–360 bc.

80

Anna Cavallo Lekanai

2.1.1 Lekane Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 3.4; rim ext. 22.4. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 7/4. Brownblack gloss, thin, opaque. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Everted rim, slightly overhanging with triangular section and flat upper surface. Strongly carinated 2.2.1 Lekane Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.2; rim 23.6. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified 5YR 7/4. Condition: Reconstructed from two fragments of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Horizontal everted rim with triangular section and flat upper surface. Carinated body, oblique wall. Band on upper rim and upper section of interior. 3.1.1 Flanged lekane Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1, 2. Lot: SB80-89PL+71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 3.3; rim 19.4. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified 5YR 8/4. Condition: Two fragments of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Rim with flat termination; external flange with triangular profile and flat upper surface, traces of a band. Handle connecting point with apophysis arranged on a triangle. Comparisons and comment: Kaulonia I, 69, no. 283, Fig. 45;

1:3

body. Regular band on the rim flange, on the walls and on the body’s upper section. Comparisons and comment: Kaulonia I, 68–69, no. 274, Fig. 45; Vittoria 2011, 365, CLne6a type. Date: 5th c. bc.

1:3

Comparisons and comment: Prag 1977, 339, no. 209, Fig. 116; Silvestrelli forthcoming, Fig. 5.12. Date: 450–300 bc.

1:3

Saunders and du Plat Taylor 1992, 24, no. 203, Fig. 9; Liseno 2004, Pl. LXII.c. Date: 5th–4th c. bc.

Dinoi 1:3

4.1.1 Dinos Context: A-1. Lev. 2. Lot: SB80-65PL Dimensions and technical features: H 1.9; rim ext. 32.0. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 8/4. Traces of brown-black gloss, thin, opaque on the internal surface. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body.

Description: Horizontal everted rim with sub-rectangular section, slightly inverted. Coating band in upper interior. Comparisons and comment: Vittoria 2011, 378, Dn5c type. Date: End of the 4th c. bc.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period 4.1.2 Dinos? Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.0; rim 34.4. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 7/4. Brown-black gloss, thin, opaque. Condition: One rim fragment and beginning of the body. Description: Thickened rim with convex, oblique, upper profile; overhanging, tapered lip. Band on the rim and

81

on the inside of the vessel at the beginning of the body. Coating band on the flange and on the internal surface at the top of the body. Comparisons and comment: Morel 1970, Fig. 24, nos. 9–10; Carter 1983, 474, no. 73, Fig. 30; Vittoria 2011, 378–79, Dn6 type. Date: 4th c. bc. 1:3

4.2.1 Dinos Context: A-1, A-2, A-3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-54PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.7; rim 27.0. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 7/6. Traces of brown-black gloss, thin, opaque on the external surface and on the rim. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Thickened rim with triangular section inter-

nally protruding, with upper convex profile and hanging, tapered lip. Slight bulge under the lip. Hemispherical body, coating band on the upper flange. Comparisons and comment: Bianco and Deodato 1997, 179, no. 98, Pl. 71; Casagrande 2002, 140, type 4 cup, Fig. 41; Vittoria 2011, 377, Dn5a type. Date: End of 4th–beginning of the 3rd c. bc.

Olla 5.1.1 Small olla Context: TTR 2. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-25PL Dimensions and technical features: H 4.2; rim ext. 7. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 7/6. Traces of brown, thin, opaque gloss on the external surface. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Everted rim with sub-triangular section and vertical external profile; globular body. Coating band on the upper exterior of the rim.

1:3

Comparisons and comment: Adamesteanu 1980, 61, Fig. 47a; Maruggi 1996, 257; Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998a, 698, nos. 105.2, 105.6; Vittoria 2011, 413, GU1a type. Date: ca. 550 bc.

Lebes 6.1.1 Lebes Context: A-1, A-2, A-3. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-56PL Dimensions and technical features: H 1.2; rim 8.0. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified 5YR 7/6. Traces of brown-black gloss, thin, opaque. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Rim slightly distinguished from the shoulder,

1:3

vertical, round ended; convex shoulder, globular body. Narrow band on the external surface of the rim. Comparisons and comment: Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998a, 700, no. T306-10/14; Elliott 1998, 662, no. LG24. Date: 400–370 bc.

82

Anna Cavallo Jugs

7.1.1 Jug Context: B-1, B-2. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-89PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.4; rim 13.4. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 7/6. Brown-black gloss, thin, opaque. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Flanged rim with convex external profile, 7.2.1 Jug Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 1.8; rim 14.6. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified 5YR 7/4. Traces of gloss on the brim and under the rim. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Flanged rim with sub-rectangular section, concave external profile, upper surface slightly oblique. Internal and external band on the rim. Comparisons and comment: Saunders and du Plat Taylor 7.3.1 Jug Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 3.0; rim 11. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified with a few chalky inclusions, 5YR 7/6. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Flanged rim with sub-rectangular section,

Miniatures Skyphos. One miniature skyphos, with a vertical rounded rim and low foot with flat base, was recovered during the excavation. The decoration consists of one external coating band on the rim which partially overflows on the inside of the container. The band was painted quickly and not very carefully. Similar vessels, both plain and with bands, were found in the Pantanello necropolis and sanctuary.46 Miniature skyphoi are very typical of sanctuary contexts in the MetaA study of the miniature ceramics found in the Pantanello sanctuary will be included in the publication of the Pantanello sanctuary, which is forthcoming.

46

1:3

shallow recess at the top, concave external profile and flat upper surface. Irregular band of both the interior and exterior rim surface.

1:3

1992, 36, no. 358, Fig. 20 (end of the mid-1st c. bc); Postrioti 1996, 123, D24, Fig. 8.d; Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998a, 711, no. T324-2; Marchegiani 1997, 170, no. 46, Pl. 62; Gassner 2003, 298, Ia.32, Pl. 2; 318, IIa.141, Pl. 19; Silvestrelli forthcoming, Fig. 6.21; Vittoria 2011, 386, J8 type. Date: End of the 6th–beginning of the 3rd c. bc.

1:3

rounded external profile and oblique upper surface, faint traces of banding. Comparisons and comment: Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998a, 711, no. T300-2; Vittoria 2011, 386, J7a3 type. Date: 460–440 bc.

pontine chora,47 and the vast majority of comparisons suggest a 6th century bc date. Krateriskos. Krateriskoi are without doubt one of the most common votive shapes in sacred contexts in Magna Grecia. They were also found in great numbers in the Metaponto area and at least one example was found in each farmhouse studied by ICA. In the Metapontino, the shape was widely distributed among religious sites, while few examples are found in 47 Adamesteanu 1980, 220–22, Fig. 230; 286, Fig. 297; Lo Porto 1981, 312.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period other contexts.48 The San Biagio item had an everted rounded rim, carinated body, and a cylindrical foot. These characteristics were common without variation between the second half of the 6th century and the beginning of the 3rd century bc.

48 For the sacred areas, see: Adamesteanu 1980, 100, Figs. 94–96; 131, Fig. 137; 220, Figs. 228, 230; 222, Fig. 230; 282, Fig. 296; 286–87, Figs. 297–99; Lo Porto 1981, 312–14, Figs. 20, 22–24. For the settlements, see: Cotton 1983, 368–69, Fig. 137. For the funerary contexts, see Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998b, 729, nos. T 29-6, T 218-12.

83

Mesomphalic phiale. The characteristics of the miniature mesomphalic phialai are closely related to those of the larger metal and pottery items, and are constant throughout the 6th and late 4th to 3rd centuries bc. In the area of Basilicata, this type of small vessel is exclusively found in sacred areas; it does not appear to have been found in any of the settlements published or currently under study. Numerous fragments were found in the Pantanello sanctuary.

Catalog of Miniatures Skyphos 1.1.1 Skyphos Context: B′-3. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-220PL Dimensions and technical features: H 3.5; rim 5.6; foot 3.2. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 7/6. Brown-black gloss, thin, opaque. Condition: Reconstructed profile. Description: Rounded rim, hemispherical body with cylindrical flat base. Faint traces of external and internal band on the rim, painted quickly with long external dripping.

1:2

Comparisons and comment: Adamesteanu 1980, 220–22, Fig. 230; 286, Fig. 297; Lo Porto 1981, 312, no. 188, Fig. 22.5. Date: 600–500 bc.

Krateriskos 2.1.1 Krateriskos Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-89PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.4; rim 4.0. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, rough external surface, 5YR 7/6. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Rim with continuous profile slightly everted; wall with convex profile; connecting area of small horizontal handle.

1:2

Comparisons and comment: Cotton 1983, 368, no. 396, Fig. 137; Lo Porto 1981, 314, no. 255, Fig. 23.19; Liseno 2004, 101, no. 5, Pl. 66.f. Date: Second half 6th c.–300 bc.

Phiale 3.1.1 Phiale Context: B′-3. Lev. 2. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-221PL Dimensions and technical features: H 1.6; rim 6.2. Misfired clay, 5YR7/6. Condition: Reconstructed profile. Description: Mesomphalic phiale with convex walls and uneven base. Comparisons and comment: Hano/Hanoune/Morel 1971, 433, Fig. 13; Adamesteanu 1980, 100, Fig. 94; 287, Fig.

1:2

299e; Lo Porto 1981, 312, nos. 204–206, Fig. 23.5; Fracchia 1990, 219, no. 3, Pl. LXXXV.4; Roccagloriosa I, 121, V32; Liseno 2004, 101, no. 6, Pl. LXVI.i; Di Noia 2005, 344, no. 491; Vittoria 2011, 420, Min3 type. Date: 550–4th c. bc.

84

Anna Cavallo

Plain Ware Small bowl/one-handler. The small one-handler bowls were widely distributed in southern Italian contexts between the 6th and the 3rd centuries bc, at the same time as those decorated by bands (see above). The plain items, as in this section, were the more common.49 In the Metaponto area they were found in the asty, in the chora, and in the Pantanello necropolis. They were also popular in other sites of the Bradano valley under Greek influence, such as Cozzo Presepe, Gravina, Pomarico, and Oppido Lucano. One example was found in San Biagio. Bowl. Some 23 fragments of plain bowls corresponding to twelve vessels were recovered. Their condition was so poor that it was not possible to classify them precisely. Where clearly identifiable, rims had similar characteristics, often with large horizontal rims, with sub-rectangular sections and vertical, slightly overhanging lips. This type of rim was widely distributed in southern Italy between the 5th and the 3rd centuries bc (2.1.1). In a smaller group of bowls, the rim is tapered with a long vertical overhanging lip and convex body (2.2.1) typical of the 5th century bc. A decoration with concentric incisions made with a tool having rounded ends is very common. When For a more detailed analysis of the shape please see above, “Banded Ware.”

49

preserved, the feet are of the raised disc type with rounded external profile (2.3.1). Unguentarium. Following the excavation at the farmhouse, a plain fusiform unguentarium base was found. This type of container, appearing during the 4th century, was common in funerary and domestic contexts and is well documented in the Metaponto farmhouses, in both the plain and slipped versions.50 As the San Biagio fragment is not well preserved, it is not possible to determine exactly which type it belongs to, so a generic date between 320 and 175 bc has been proposed. Bases. Four fragments of plain bases are preserved. Of these, three are not well preserved and most likely belong to small olpai. This shape was quite common between the second half of the 6th and the 3rd centuries bc throughout southern Italy, but less so in the Metapontine chora.51 One fragment of a foot belonging to a medium-size open shape is most likely from a bowl or lekane (4.1.1), and a base fragment, probably belonging to a jug (5.1.1), was found. 50 The unguentaria from farmhouse sites of late 4th and 3rd c. bc have been studied by D. Rizzello. 51 Very few fragments of olpai were found in the Metapontine farmhouses, suggesting that other small and medium-size shapes were preferred for pouring liquids.

Catalog of Plain Ware Bowls 1.1.1 Small bowl/one-handler Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: Rim 10.6 (reconstructed); foot 3.4. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified 5YR 7/4. Condition: Two fragments of the rim and two wall sherds. Description: Rounded rim; hemispherical body, flat base. Comparisons and comment: For the type: Lo Porto 1973, 174, Pl. XXIII, 1; Sibari I, 87; Cotton 1983, 365–66; Lissi Caronna 1980, 184–85, Fig. 86, nos. 2,3,4; 1983,

1:3

no. 18, Fig. 9; Kaulonia I, 53, Fig. 34, nos. 89–94; Carter and Parmley Toxey 1998b, 702–03. Date: 5th–3rd c. bc.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

85 1:3

2.1.1 Bowl Context: C′-3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-364PL Dimensions and technical features: H ext. 3.4; rim ext. 40.0. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified 5YR 7/6. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Everted horizontal flanged rim with overhanging lip. Oblique walls. Incision made with a stick on outer upper edge. Comparisons and comment: Adamesteanu 1958, 328, Fig.

31 (photo); Hänsel 1973, 451, no. 2, Fig. 31; Carter 1983, 478, n. 88, Fig. 53; Kaulonia I, 63, no. 205, Fig. 41; Conti 1989, 305, n. 360, Pl. XLI; Musumeci 1989, 104, no. 438, Fig. 12; Marchegiani 1997, 68, no. 40, Pl. 61; Brizzi 1999, 314, no. 629, Fig. 315; Di Stefano and Anelli 2001, 42, no. 61, Pl. 5; Carè and Cavallo 2006, 251, no. CC1, Pl. 1; Silvestrelli forthcoming, Fig. 5.16; Vittoria 2011, 368, Lne6a type. Date: 5th–3rd c. bc. 1:3

2.2.1 Bowl Context: A-1. Lev. 2. Lot: SB80-65PL Dimensions and technical features: H 3.7; rim ext. 37.0. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified 5YR 7/6. Condition: One fragment of the rim and beginning of the body. Description: Everted rim with horizontal flange having

vertical and overhanging lip. Slightly convex walls. Two incisions on the flange made by a stick. Comparisons and comment: Cotton 1983, 366, no. 379; Kaulonia I, 63, no. 205; Vittoria 2011, 368, Lne6b type. Date: 550–400 bc.

1:3

2.3.1 Bowl Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.4; rim 14.0. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 7/8. Condition: One fragment of the foot and beginning of the body.

Description: Foot of open shape vessel with rounded external profile; ovoid body.

Unguentarium 3.1.1 Unguentarium Context: B′3. Lev. 1. Bat. 3. Lot: SB80-108PL Dimensions and technical features: H 4.5; foot 2.8. Very hard clay, compact purified 5YR 8/4. Condition: One fragment of the base. Description: Cylindrical stem on truncated cone shaped base. Comparisons and comment: Adamesteanu 1980, 104, Fig. 98.g; Pianu 1990, 230, types 8–9, Pl. V; Lippolis 1994, 258, Fig. 194; Elliott 1998, 687, no. U41; Liseno 2004, 102,

1:3

no. 4, Pl. LXVII.g; Agora XXXIII, 154, cat. VI, Fig. 65. Date: 320–150 bc.

86

Anna Cavallo Bases

4.1.1 Base of open shape vessel Context: A-1, A-2, A-3. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-56PL Dimensions and technical features: H 1.8; foot 10.0. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, dusty on the surface, 5YR 7/6. Condition: One fragment of the foot and beginning of the body.

1:3

Description: Ring foot with oblique external profile and concave bottom. Oblique walls. Most likely to be identified as a bowl or lekane.

5.1.1 Base of open shape vessel? Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.8; foot 8.4. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 7/4. Condition: One fragment of the foot and beginning of the body. Description: Foot of close shape vessel with oblique exter-

Cooking Ware Antonietta Di Tursi Only a small quantity of residual cooking ware of the Greek period was present at San Biagio. Some 16 fragments were recovered, of which only two were diagnostic. These belonged to a shallow pan (1.1.1), probably used for frying, and a casserole (2.1.1), suitable for slow cooking.52 Pots were also present, 52 For frying in the Greek and Roman cuisine, see Bettini and Pucci 1986. Regarding origin of forms and their use, see Sparkes and Talcott 1970; Bats 1988; 1994.

1:3

nal profile and concave underside. Probably to be identified as a jug.

although only as body sherds that could not be dated or morphologically defined. On the basis of a macroscopic examination, the fabric was probably locally produced and attributed to a 4th- to 3rd-century bc settlement present in the area before the Roman dwelling. It is not possible to determine a precise date for these types of containers due to the slow evolution of this ceramic class and the poor state of preservation.

Catalog of Cooking Ware Pans 1.1.1 Pan Context: Room II, near the mortar. Lot: SB80-415PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.25. Rim diam not calculable. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 2.5YR 6/8 (light red). Hackly fracture, hard, rough feel. Average amount of white and brown small inclusions, uniformly distributed. Vacuoles on the surface. Probably local fabric. Condition: Fragment. Description: Slightly inward-sloping rim, shallow body with oblique walls, thin groove near the base. Comparisons and comment: Similar items were present at Metaponto in contexts dated to the first half of the 4th c.

SB80-41S PL

1:3

(Quercia 2003, 189, Fig. 6 D2); in Valesio from layers dated to the end of the 3rd–2nd c. bc (Valesio I, 283, Form N01a no. 483); in Cozzo Presepe’s contexts dated to 325–300 bc (Cotton 1983, 378, Fig. 149 no. 487), in Gravina (Cotton 1992, 183, Fig. 74 no. 1394) and nearby Herakleia in layers dated 375–270 bc (Casagrande 2002, 172, Fig. 50 no. 215). Date: 4th–3rd c. bc.

86

Anna Cavallo Bases

4.1.1 Base of open shape vessel Context: A-1, A-2, A-3. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-56PL Dimensions and technical features: H 1.8; foot 10.0. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, dusty on the surface, 5YR 7/6. Condition: One fragment of the foot and beginning of the body.

1:3

Description: Ring foot with oblique external profile and concave bottom. Oblique walls. Most likely to be identified as a bowl or lekane.

5.1.1 Base of open shape vessel? Context: B1, 2, 3. Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-71PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.8; foot 8.4. Fabric type: hard clay, compact, purified, 5YR 7/4. Condition: One fragment of the foot and beginning of the body. Description: Foot of close shape vessel with oblique exter-

Cooking Ware Antonietta Di Tursi Only a small quantity of residual cooking ware of the Greek period was present at San Biagio. Some 16 fragments were recovered, of which only two were diagnostic. These belonged to a shallow pan (1.1.1), probably used for frying, and a casserole (2.1.1), suitable for slow cooking.52 Pots were also present, 52 For frying in the Greek and Roman cuisine, see Bettini and Pucci 1986. Regarding origin of forms and their use, see Sparkes and Talcott 1970; Bats 1988; 1994.

1:3

nal profile and concave underside. Probably to be identified as a jug.

although only as body sherds that could not be dated or morphologically defined. On the basis of a macroscopic examination, the fabric was probably locally produced and attributed to a 4th- to 3rd-century bc settlement present in the area before the Roman dwelling. It is not possible to determine a precise date for these types of containers due to the slow evolution of this ceramic class and the poor state of preservation.

Catalog of Cooking Ware Pans 1.1.1 Pan Context: Room II, near the mortar. Lot: SB80-415PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.25. Rim diam not calculable. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 2.5YR 6/8 (light red). Hackly fracture, hard, rough feel. Average amount of white and brown small inclusions, uniformly distributed. Vacuoles on the surface. Probably local fabric. Condition: Fragment. Description: Slightly inward-sloping rim, shallow body with oblique walls, thin groove near the base. Comparisons and comment: Similar items were present at Metaponto in contexts dated to the first half of the 4th c.

SB80-41S PL

1:3

(Quercia 2003, 189, Fig. 6 D2); in Valesio from layers dated to the end of the 3rd–2nd c. bc (Valesio I, 283, Form N01a no. 483); in Cozzo Presepe’s contexts dated to 325–300 bc (Cotton 1983, 378, Fig. 149 no. 487), in Gravina (Cotton 1992, 183, Fig. 74 no. 1394) and nearby Herakleia in layers dated 375–270 bc (Casagrande 2002, 172, Fig. 50 no. 215). Date: 4th–3rd c. bc.

87

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period Casseroles 2.1.1 Casserole Context: Surface. Lot: SB80-1PLb Dimensions and technical features: Rim diam not calculable. Rim h 2–2.4; h 2.10. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 2.5YR 6/6 (light red). Hackly fracture, hard, rough feel. Average amount of white and brown small lithic inclusions, uniformly distributed. Micaceous inclusions and vacuoles on the surface. Probably local fabric. Condition: Fragment. Description: Everted, slightly outward-sloping rim, oblique pronounced lip.

Transport Amphorae Oda Teresa Calvaruso The amphorae of the Greek period recovered from the San Biagio are residual finds attributed to earlier phases of the site. These finds can be dated only on a typological basis and are represented by a few fragments identifiable with forms from the mid-6th to the beginning of the 5th century bc, and the late 4th to 3rd century bc. The forms are eastern Greek, Corinthian, and Magna Grecian in origin, though they were produced in other regions as well. The eastern Greek amphorae are usually divided into various production areas, including Miletus, Klazomenai, Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and the “Ionic,” according to their supposed origin from Phocaea. These were also largely imitated in the West.53 At San Biagio, an amphora type with a thickened rim, a small indentation between rim and neck (1.1.1), and a handle (1.1.2) can be identified with the “Ionic type.” This identification for the two fragments can be confirmed by the type of fabric, which with frequent small golden mica inclusions, is typical of this area. The Corinthian B-type amphorae, widely distributed throughout southern Italy and Sicily, were most likely used for wine since traces of pitch have been noted on some. These are more difficult to identify when in fragmentary condition as they share many morphological features with the contemporary “Ionic” This group of amphorae has only recently been placed in their correct position within the Greek amphorae world. Previously they were erroneously identified with the “Ionic-massaliote” or “Ionic tradition” types. This identification caused a distorted image of the real origin of the containers and hampered a correct historical and archaeological evaluation. It was probably a form devised in the West and produced in several centers, sometimes a long way from each other: from Massalia to the Poseidonia zone and Velia, to the Calabria area to Sicily. Corretti 2003; Morel 2000. 53

1:3 SB 80 - 1 PL

Comparisons and comment: This type of casserole can be compared with items from Cozzo Presepe, from layers dated 300–250 bc (Cotton 1983, 376, Fig. 147 no. 462), Kaulonia, from contexts from the beginning of the 4th century bc (Kaulonia I, 85, Fig. 59 no. 420), and Roccagloriosa, from mid 4th-c. bc contexts (Roccagloriosa I, 263, Fig. 185, no. 245). Date: 4th–3rd c. bc.

production. This type of amphora is produced from the last quarter of the 6th century bc, with origins around Corinth, although some examples found during the last decade suggest they dated from the second quarter of the same century.54 At San Biagio both the foot of the low, cylindrical, hollow type (2.1.1), characteristic of the 6th century bc, and the hollow, rounded foot (2.1.2), dated to the 5th century bc, can be attributed to the Corinthian B-type amphora. The fabric type and the orange-pink color might suggest that these two fragments were produced in southern Italy. The handle with central rib (3.1.1) can be attributed to the so-called ancient Greco-Italic productions of Magna Grecia, dated from the mid-4th to the beginning of the 3rd century bc.55 This production, thought mainly to have been used to transport wine, was spread along the coasts of the western Mediterranean in still strongly Hellenized centers. It is likely that there were a series of different local productions.56 This production continues in the area also during the Roman period, starting from the mid-3rd century bc until the appearance, during the last quarter of the same century, of the so-called “late Greco-Italic” amphorae. These shared some morphological characteristics with the previous production but represent the first typical Italic and Roman product. 54 Regarding the date of these containers, see Koehler 1979, 33. For a later date, see Gras 1987, 44 (finds from the La Liquière oppidum in southern France in contexts dating to the second quarter of the 6th c. bc); De Caro and Gialanella 1998 (excavation of a 6th-c. bc dwelling in Punta Chiarito, Pithecusa). 55 This definition was first given to a group of amphorae with triangular section rims by Will (1982, 338–56). Later Empereur and Hesnard (1987) confirmed the use of this definition. 56 Auriemma 2004, 152–56; Van der Mersch 1994.

87

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period Casseroles 2.1.1 Casserole Context: Surface. Lot: SB80-1PLb Dimensions and technical features: Rim diam not calculable. Rim h 2–2.4; h 2.10. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 2.5YR 6/6 (light red). Hackly fracture, hard, rough feel. Average amount of white and brown small lithic inclusions, uniformly distributed. Micaceous inclusions and vacuoles on the surface. Probably local fabric. Condition: Fragment. Description: Everted, slightly outward-sloping rim, oblique pronounced lip.

Transport Amphorae Oda Teresa Calvaruso The amphorae of the Greek period recovered from the San Biagio are residual finds attributed to earlier phases of the site. These finds can be dated only on a typological basis and are represented by a few fragments identifiable with forms from the mid-6th to the beginning of the 5th century bc, and the late 4th to 3rd century bc. The forms are eastern Greek, Corinthian, and Magna Grecian in origin, though they were produced in other regions as well. The eastern Greek amphorae are usually divided into various production areas, including Miletus, Klazomenai, Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and the “Ionic,” according to their supposed origin from Phocaea. These were also largely imitated in the West.53 At San Biagio, an amphora type with a thickened rim, a small indentation between rim and neck (1.1.1), and a handle (1.1.2) can be identified with the “Ionic type.” This identification for the two fragments can be confirmed by the type of fabric, which with frequent small golden mica inclusions, is typical of this area. The Corinthian B-type amphorae, widely distributed throughout southern Italy and Sicily, were most likely used for wine since traces of pitch have been noted on some. These are more difficult to identify when in fragmentary condition as they share many morphological features with the contemporary “Ionic” This group of amphorae has only recently been placed in their correct position within the Greek amphorae world. Previously they were erroneously identified with the “Ionic-massaliote” or “Ionic tradition” types. This identification caused a distorted image of the real origin of the containers and hampered a correct historical and archaeological evaluation. It was probably a form devised in the West and produced in several centers, sometimes a long way from each other: from Massalia to the Poseidonia zone and Velia, to the Calabria area to Sicily. Corretti 2003; Morel 2000. 53

1:3 SB 80 - 1 PL

Comparisons and comment: This type of casserole can be compared with items from Cozzo Presepe, from layers dated 300–250 bc (Cotton 1983, 376, Fig. 147 no. 462), Kaulonia, from contexts from the beginning of the 4th century bc (Kaulonia I, 85, Fig. 59 no. 420), and Roccagloriosa, from mid 4th-c. bc contexts (Roccagloriosa I, 263, Fig. 185, no. 245). Date: 4th–3rd c. bc.

production. This type of amphora is produced from the last quarter of the 6th century bc, with origins around Corinth, although some examples found during the last decade suggest they dated from the second quarter of the same century.54 At San Biagio both the foot of the low, cylindrical, hollow type (2.1.1), characteristic of the 6th century bc, and the hollow, rounded foot (2.1.2), dated to the 5th century bc, can be attributed to the Corinthian B-type amphora. The fabric type and the orange-pink color might suggest that these two fragments were produced in southern Italy. The handle with central rib (3.1.1) can be attributed to the so-called ancient Greco-Italic productions of Magna Grecia, dated from the mid-4th to the beginning of the 3rd century bc.55 This production, thought mainly to have been used to transport wine, was spread along the coasts of the western Mediterranean in still strongly Hellenized centers. It is likely that there were a series of different local productions.56 This production continues in the area also during the Roman period, starting from the mid-3rd century bc until the appearance, during the last quarter of the same century, of the so-called “late Greco-Italic” amphorae. These shared some morphological characteristics with the previous production but represent the first typical Italic and Roman product. 54 Regarding the date of these containers, see Koehler 1979, 33. For a later date, see Gras 1987, 44 (finds from the La Liquière oppidum in southern France in contexts dating to the second quarter of the 6th c. bc); De Caro and Gialanella 1998 (excavation of a 6th-c. bc dwelling in Punta Chiarito, Pithecusa). 55 This definition was first given to a group of amphorae with triangular section rims by Will (1982, 338–56). Later Empereur and Hesnard (1987) confirmed the use of this definition. 56 Auriemma 2004, 152–56; Van der Mersch 1994.

88

Oda Teresa Calvaruso Catalog of Amphorae Eastern Greek productions

1.1.1 Ionic Context: A1. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-56PLb Dimensions and technical features: H 3.6; rim 13.0; th 0.8. Fabric type: 7.5YR 8/4; grainy fabric with some vacuoles, few small black and gray inclusions, some micaceous inclusions. Condition: Fragment. Description: Externally rounded rim, marked by a small depression. Comparisons and comment: This container, present in southern Italy and Sicily from the 6th–5th c. bc, shares many morphological details with contemporary Corinthian B amphorae. It is possible to confuse the two types if the examples studied are fragmentary; Locri IV, 231, 1.1.2 Ionic Context: B1, Lev. 1, Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-78PLb Dimensions and technical features: H 6.0; th 2.7. Fabric type: 5YR 5/6; very grainy fabric, with frequent white and dark medium size inclusions, some micaceous inclusions. Condition: Fragment. Description: Handle with almost uniform circular section. Comparisons and comment: Swift 2011, 473, no. 11 (similar amphora recorded as “sixth ‘Calabrian’ amphorae”).

1:3

Pl. LX, no. 181 (from Locri); Semeraro 1997, 91, Fig. 47, no. 172e (from Leuca); 271, Fig. 229, no. 994 (from Ruffano, recorded as probably from Klazomenai?); 302, Fig. 250, no. 1134 (from Vaste, recorded as probably from Klazomenai?); Swift 2011, 473, no. 9 (similar amphora recorded as 6th c. bc “Calabrian” amphorae); Van der Mersch 1989, 94–95, Fig. 64, no. 480 (from Kaulonia, second half of the 6th–first quarter of the 5th c. bc). Date: Second half of the 6th c. bc. 1:3

Date: End of the 6th c. bc?

Corinthian productions 2.1.1 Corinthian B Context: A1, A2, A3. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-31 PLa Dimensions and technical features: H 7.1; th 1.2. Fabric type: 2.5YR 5/6; hard fabric, compact with few, medium size, white and dark inclusions, some vacuoles. Condition: Fragment. Description: Short, hollow, cylindrical foot. Comparisons and comment: This is the most common type of container in southern Italy and Sicily. Type B dates from the mid-6th c. bc: Koehler 1979, 33, 171, 214 (late 6th c., possibly to 480 bc); 1981, 452; Gras 1987, 172, 2.1.2 Corinthian B Context: B′-2. Bat. 1. Lot SB80-76PLe Dimensions and technical features: H 3.8; th 0.9. Fabric type: 7.5YR 7/4; hard fabric, quite purified with few small white inclusions. Condition: Fragment. Description: Short, rounded, hollow feet Comparisons and comment: Locri IV, 222, 236, Pl. LXIV, no. 223 (from Locri, second half of the 5th c. bc); Sem-

1:3

175, Pl. 74; Semeraro 1997, 91, Fig. 48, n. 171c–d (from Leuca); 255, n. 955 (similar from Rocca Vecchia). Date: Last quarter of the 6th c. bc.

1:3

eraro 1997, 211, Fig. 189, no. 698 (similar from Oria, 460–440 bc); Koehler 1979, n. 230, 231 (460–420 bc); Van der Mersch 1989, 99–101, Fig. 65, n. 500, 504 (from Kaulonia, 450–400 bc). Date: Mid-5th c. bc.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

89

Magna Grecian productions 3.1.1 Greco-Italic MGS III Context: A′-2, B′-2. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot SB80-105PLk Dimensions and technical features: H 7.4; th 1.7. Fabric type: 10YR 8/4; fabric compact, with few, small, white and dark inclusions. Condition: Fragment. Description: Handle with oval section and double rib. Comparisons and comment: This type of amphora, also known as amphora with quarter of a circle rim, is widely distributed in southern Italy and Sicily from the 4th c.

Architectural Terracottas Anna Lucia Tempesta During the excavation of the San Biagio farmhouse site, several terracotta architectural elements were recovered, all fragmentary and belonging to buildings of various periods and types. None of the finds were in contexts useful for defining the chronology: superficial levels, remains of walls, and mixed layers. The only source of information for dating and reconstructing the original structural context was comparisons with architectural terracottas found during excavations in the 1960s in the area of the extra-urban sanctuary of San Biagio on the Venella, dedicated to Artemis and Zeus.57 There are few architectural remains, due to systematic destruction in antiquity of the monumental buildings for reuse in other more recent structures nearby. Nevertheless it has been possible to create a typological and morphological sequence of architectural terracottas from the sanctuary and to define with sufficient precision their chronological development.58 The Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Puglia e del Materano performed the first archaeological studies on this site in 1962 (Adamesteanu 1964a; Adamesteanu 1964b, 127–31). Trial trenches and surface surveys continued until the mid-1970s, especially in the northern part of the plateau. Here, near a spring where the concentration of stone and architectural terracottas was higher, a fountain-votive chapel was discovered (Adamesteanu 1973a, 447–48). After a long break, trial trenches were resumed in 1998 and a small peripteral temple with limestone foundations and a tiled roof was found southwest of the spring. A large rural building, a farmhouse, partially superimposed over earlier structures, was discovered further to the west (Nava 1999, 689–91; 2001, 942–43). On the theory that the temple was dedicated to Zeus, see De Siena 1998, 152 n. 27; 2007b. 58 Reused material was found in the small nearby church of San Biagio 57

1:3

bc. Regarding this subject in general, see Van der Mersch

1994 and Olcese 2004. Date: Mid-4th c. bc.

Some plaques depicting scenes from the Homeric myths, produced in low relief with a roller stamp, possibly by an artist from the Cyclades, indicate the presence as early as the end of the 7th century bc of a small oikos with a simple layout, most likely with dry stone wall foundations and a wooden structure. While architectural terracottas usually covered the projecting ends of roof beams, in this case the plaques decorated the upper part of the oikos walls in a continuous horizontal band.59 Toward the end of the 6th century bc, following the development of the urban sanctuary of Metaponto and the city’s plan, a more monumental structure was erected at the Sanctuary of Artemis and Zeus. It was not yet completely made of stone. The building had one of the most ancient and innovative roof fictile revetments found in the Metaponto area, with the revetment elements distinguished from the protruding sima having functional water spouts in the shape of a lion’s head. The sima (Fig. 3.2), is decorated on the front by rich floral motifs in the form of a spiral and palmettes derived from Ionic patterns. It protrudes from the roof edge and the eave tiles are painted on the underside. Around the mid-5th century bc, this type of late6th-century roof revetment was most likely replaced by a system with a double meander revetment: a cassetta and sima with lotus flowers and palmettes with lion-shaped eaves. This was a slightly more evolved reproduction on a smaller scale of the urban Temple and, slightly more inland, along the Venella ditch, in the Pietra di San Giovanni country house-fort. 59 Mertens-Horn 1992; Mertens 1993.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

89

Magna Grecian productions 3.1.1 Greco-Italic MGS III Context: A′-2, B′-2. Lev. 1. Bat. 2. Lot SB80-105PLk Dimensions and technical features: H 7.4; th 1.7. Fabric type: 10YR 8/4; fabric compact, with few, small, white and dark inclusions. Condition: Fragment. Description: Handle with oval section and double rib. Comparisons and comment: This type of amphora, also known as amphora with quarter of a circle rim, is widely distributed in southern Italy and Sicily from the 4th c.

Architectural Terracottas Anna Lucia Tempesta During the excavation of the San Biagio farmhouse site, several terracotta architectural elements were recovered, all fragmentary and belonging to buildings of various periods and types. None of the finds were in contexts useful for defining the chronology: superficial levels, remains of walls, and mixed layers. The only source of information for dating and reconstructing the original structural context was comparisons with architectural terracottas found during excavations in the 1960s in the area of the extra-urban sanctuary of San Biagio on the Venella, dedicated to Artemis and Zeus.57 There are few architectural remains, due to systematic destruction in antiquity of the monumental buildings for reuse in other more recent structures nearby. Nevertheless it has been possible to create a typological and morphological sequence of architectural terracottas from the sanctuary and to define with sufficient precision their chronological development.58 The Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Puglia e del Materano performed the first archaeological studies on this site in 1962 (Adamesteanu 1964a; Adamesteanu 1964b, 127–31). Trial trenches and surface surveys continued until the mid-1970s, especially in the northern part of the plateau. Here, near a spring where the concentration of stone and architectural terracottas was higher, a fountain-votive chapel was discovered (Adamesteanu 1973a, 447–48). After a long break, trial trenches were resumed in 1998 and a small peripteral temple with limestone foundations and a tiled roof was found southwest of the spring. A large rural building, a farmhouse, partially superimposed over earlier structures, was discovered further to the west (Nava 1999, 689–91; 2001, 942–43). On the theory that the temple was dedicated to Zeus, see De Siena 1998, 152 n. 27; 2007b. 58 Reused material was found in the small nearby church of San Biagio 57

1:3

bc. Regarding this subject in general, see Van der Mersch

1994 and Olcese 2004. Date: Mid-4th c. bc.

Some plaques depicting scenes from the Homeric myths, produced in low relief with a roller stamp, possibly by an artist from the Cyclades, indicate the presence as early as the end of the 7th century bc of a small oikos with a simple layout, most likely with dry stone wall foundations and a wooden structure. While architectural terracottas usually covered the projecting ends of roof beams, in this case the plaques decorated the upper part of the oikos walls in a continuous horizontal band.59 Toward the end of the 6th century bc, following the development of the urban sanctuary of Metaponto and the city’s plan, a more monumental structure was erected at the Sanctuary of Artemis and Zeus. It was not yet completely made of stone. The building had one of the most ancient and innovative roof fictile revetments found in the Metaponto area, with the revetment elements distinguished from the protruding sima having functional water spouts in the shape of a lion’s head. The sima (Fig. 3.2), is decorated on the front by rich floral motifs in the form of a spiral and palmettes derived from Ionic patterns. It protrudes from the roof edge and the eave tiles are painted on the underside. Around the mid-5th century bc, this type of late6th-century roof revetment was most likely replaced by a system with a double meander revetment: a cassetta and sima with lotus flowers and palmettes with lion-shaped eaves. This was a slightly more evolved reproduction on a smaller scale of the urban Temple and, slightly more inland, along the Venella ditch, in the Pietra di San Giovanni country house-fort. 59 Mertens-Horn 1992; Mertens 1993.

90

Anna Lucia Tempesta

Figure 3.2 Sima from the Sanctuary of Artemis, San Biagio, 5th c. BC. (After Adamesteanu 1974, 62–63)

of Apollo of Metaponto (roof B), considered among the finest 5th century bc architectural decoration in Magna Grecia (Fig. 3.3).60 The buildings of the latest period of the sanctuary in the 4th century bc had roofs with ogival plaque antefixes decorated with human heads or plant elements of the so-called Taranto type, as the small 6th century bc buildings used to have. On present evidence, the group of sacred buildings is believed to have been in use between the last decade of the 4th and the very beginning of the 3rd centuries bc, coinciding with increasingly frequent and dramatic military and political developments such as the Italiot league and those in and around Herakleia and Metaponto and throughout Magna Grecia. Sizeable fragments of architectural terracottas were found in the walls of an extensive rural building which was partially built over the preexisting sacred structures. This suggests that the main cult buildings were completely in ruins by the mid-3rd century bc.61 Furthermore, the ceramic finds from the floor levels under the collapsed roof tiles of the farmhouse are dated to the late 3rd century bc. The area had a completely different use and no longer had any religious purpose. Instead it was used in relation to new patterns in the exploitation of Metaponto’s agricultural land.62 An identical roofing system, both in dimensions and proportions, was found in the extra-urban Heraion, the so-called Tavole Palatine. It is believed that the two were made by the same team of workers and using the same molds. Similar but smaller slabs were found in the nearby colony of Herakleia. 61 Nava 1999, 689–91. 62 This is consistent with the archaeological data gathered from the Pantanello excavation, performed on the opposite side of the Venella (Carter 1994a, 168–74; Carter 2006, passim, in particular 157–70). In both cases a 3rd c. farmhouse replaced the complex buildings of the 60

Figure 3.3 Sima from the Temple of Apollo (roof B), Metaponto, 5th c. BC. (After Mertens 2006, Fig. 548)

Considering that architectural elements of the same type were recovered from both the excavation of the 3rd-century bc farmhouse and the extra-urban sanctuary at Venella, which was close to the sanctuary and Late Roman farmhouse of San Biagio on the other side of the hill, 400 m to the west, it seems very likely that all the terracotta architectural fragments found originally in the 3rd-century bc farmhouse and sanctuary, modifying their structure and reducing the number of functions performed.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

91

Figure 3.4 Sima from San Biagio sanctuary with catalog fragments indicated, 6th c. BC. (Adapted from Mertens 1973)

at San Biagio came from the sacred buildings beside the spring. The San Biagio excavation produced a relatively homogeneous group of terracottas consisting of 12 fragments, which, except for two antefixes and one sima (not clearly identifiable), belonged to simas and revetments a cassetta of the two known roof revetment systems of the sanctuary. Three fragments belonged to the late-6th-century bc roof—two sima fragments and one of revetment a cassetta (2.1.1–2.1.2 and 3.1.1) (Fig. 3.4)—while some seven fragments, including one sima and five revetments a cassetta, belonged to the 5th century bc revetment system (2.2.1 and 3.2.1–3.2.2 and 3.3.1–3.3.3) (Fig. 3.5). Although the 5th century items were very fragmentary, it was possible to identify and recover them from the wall remains, where they had been reused. The identification was facilitated by the high relief of the meander decoration of the casing. On the other hand, the casing of the late-6th- to 5th-century bc roof bears a double-plait motif, painted exclusively on the vertical plaque and therefore, even if the colors were well preserved, this was less identifiable during the excavation. Fragment 3.1.1 is a good example of the difficulty encountered in identifying these finds. The antefix with satyr’s head recovered in two adjoining fragments between Rooms III and V of the building (1.1.1) presents a different problem. This might have belonged to the nearby sanctuary as well, although current research makes the question unclear as no similar finds were found in the area of the

sanctuary. Antefixes sealed the ends of roof tiles and eave tiles of sacred, public, and private buildings with the double purpose of protecting the wooden parts of the roof from the rain and decorating the roof ’s slope. These were usually mass-produced from molds and were widespread, to varying degrees, in all Greek colonies in the Ionic area from Taranto to Reggio and in several Italic inland settlements. Following initial analyses, more than sixty antefixes from the Venella sanctuary were subdivided into four groups: 1. This group included a gorgoneion and a type with a palmette sprouting from spirals. In both types the plaques are semicircular with the roof tile placed along the edge and secured a few cm from the base.63 Fragment 1.2.1 might belong to this first type. It was reused as building material in one of the walls of Room III, indicated by the thick layer of white plaster preserved on one side. 2. This group is represented by two examples of a 5th-century bc? gorgoneion, which is a variation of the type with open plaque and crown of small serpents identified in the deco-

No reductions are recorded. The clays used are typical of the Metapontine area, orange in color. Data gathered during the archaeological excavation suggest a higher concentration of 6th c. items in the peripheral area of the sanctuary, far from both the votive chapel-fountain of the lower terrace and the monumental remains of the possible peripteral temple of the higher terrace.

63

92

Anna Lucia Tempesta

Figure 3.5 Sima from San Biagio sanctuary with catalog fragments indicated, 5th c. BC. (Graphic elaboration, FM/FG)

ration of the Ionic temple (D) of the urban sanctuary of Metaponto.

traits suggest a connection with the masks of comedy or Phlyax plays. This is made apparent by the special design of the eyelids and by the projecting pupils, which are reminiscent of the eye openings in masks cut out to enable actors to see. The closest comparisons are with images of young or beardless satyrs with feline tails and ears, and horns, sometimes hidden by a crown of ivy leaves. These are very common on red-figure vases from the first half of the 4th century bc.66 There is also a possible comparison with a statuette of a young satyr displayed in the Museo Nazionale of Taranto, dated by Langlotz to the second half of the 2nd century bc.67 This date was, however, questioned by Moreno, who suggested the type might derive from an original from Taranto dated to the beginning of the late 4th to 3rd century bc. The original item may have influenced much of the satyr iconography of the period.68 Taking into account the longevity of this group and the fact that the worn relief with its indistinct hairstyle details and the

3. In the third group, the largest and best represented, all types are feminine.64 These are dated between the end of the 5th and the 4th centuries BC. They are amongst the earliest items and are concentrated around the remains of the temple with limestone foundations. 4. The male types (Dionysos, Pan, satyrs, Helios) belong to the last group, which is the most heterogeneous. These were the first male types used at San Biagio. The plaques belonged to later generations and were produced from molds made from items in positive.65 The San Biagio satyr does not appear in any of these types. On present evidence it belongs to a type known only in Taranto, and therefore does not seem to belong to an “extended circuit,” based on the exchange of molds and/ or positive items shared between specialized workshops. On the contrary, it seems to be a typical example of a “locally distributed” product, as they are found only in first generation items and there are no known variations. The stylistic characteristics and the facial Except for the ogive-shaped plaque with a palmette starting from a double spiral, which imitated a type found in the urban sanctuary. 65 Among fourteen complete items and fragments were found ten different types. 64

One example is the oinochoe from Ruvo displayed in the Jatta Museum and dated between 380 and 360 bc (Orlandini 1983, Fig. 633). Same images are on a second oinochoe from the Bari Museum (LCS, Pl. 32, nos. 1–3) and on a column-krater from Altamura, now in Brooklyn, attributed to the Brooklyn-Budapest painter (LCS, Pl. 53, nos. 1–2). 67 Langlotz 1968, 307, n. 148; Fuchs 1982, 119, Fig. 126. 68 Moreno 1974, Pl. 53. It would be very interesting if the original statuette was from Taranto. This would suggest that craftsmen’s products were sometimes influenced by important sculptures. 66

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period frequent touching-up indicated that the mold was used many times before, a 3rd century bc date seems plausible. It is believed that the production of antefixes in Magna Grecia stopped by the end of the 3rd century bc.69 However, recent data seem to suggest that these terracottas were used, and therefore produced, until the 2nd century bc, although repeating in a tiresome way the earlier patterns dating from the beginning of the late 4th to 3rd century bc.70 The habit of adorning atria and porticoes with Magna-Grecian-type antefixes is, therefore, a completely Italic phenomenon. It is nowadays well known that the use of Italic-type antefixes was widespread in the rest of the peninsula during the same period. These were more or less influenced by the decorative repertoires of the “Campana” plaques.71 The resistance to adopting new decorative patterns, typical of some Laviosa 1954, passim; Orlandini 1983, 504–05. This recent unpublished data concerns the 1994–1996 excavation results. These excavations were performed in the southern part of Metaponto’s agora to understand the urban settlement. An antefix representing a new type of Silenus was found in the porticoes of a metal workshop. A house in the central area of the “collina del Castello” of Herakleia, dated by archaeological material to the 3rd–2nd c. ad, was also decorated by two antefixes bearing women’s heads with Phrygian caps (De Paola 1996/1997); the Imperial-age villa in the nearby Termitito locality was decorated during the 1st–2nd c. ad by antefixes on the internal courtyard and on one of the two impluvia. These items are also influenced by known types widespread in temples dated to the beginning of the late 4th–3rd c. bc (L. Giardino, pers. comm.). 71 Regarding the production and distribution of these materials, cf. Strazzulla 1981; Anselmino 1981; and Tortorella 1981. For more generic information, see Mertens Horn 1994. 69

70

93

Italic settlements and of other settlements directly in contact with these, suggests that a strong local production was still in place, even though of low quality craftsmanship. This is also an indirect confirmation of the so-called “Italiotic conservatism,” i.e., the use until the very beginning of the Imperial age of previous ideological patterns of Italic origin.72 The reverse of one plaque (1.1.1) bears the negative impression of the end of the small roof tile where it formed the antefix. But all the remains of the clay used to reinforce the joint have been removed, to make it flat.73 This effort might suggest a non-functional reuse of this antefix, not as part of the roof system of the atrium, but exclusively for a decorative or evocative purpose. This relief, with its artistic value and symbolic meaning, might have been displayed on the wall of one of the most public and impressive areas of the house. The choice of images for architectural terracottas is not random, but is instead always dictated by specific needs. The images are related to a specific cultural domain and supply ideological support to those needs.74 Our satyr with his apotropaic value would therefore reveal the proud connection for the inhabitants of the new San Biagio with strong traditions and cultural patterns of the past. 72 With reference to the goldsmith activity which was slow to evolve, this idea is expressed in Da Leukania a Lucania, 146–47. 73 This was used to strengthen the area where the roof tile was attached to the antefix slab. Fresh clay was added after the items were dried but before the firing process. 74 Tempesta 2005.

94

Anna Lucia Tempesta Catalog of Architectural Terracottas Antefix

1.1.1 Semi-ellipse-shaped slab with satyr head Context: B-1. Room V. Lev. 2 (adjoining with a fragment from Room III, Lev. 3. Bat. 3). Lot: SB80-86T; SB80299SS Dimensions and technical features: H 16.0; w 14.5; th 1.8–3.5. Fabric type: surf. 2.5Y 8/3 (pale yellow); fract. 10YR 8/3 (very pale brown); fine, compact, quite hard fabric dusty to the touch; a few small ceramic inclusions. Mold-made with touch-ups using a stylus; slipped and originally painted surface: traces of black color between the locks of hair. Condition: Made of two fragments, incomplete: right part missing. Chippings on the base. Description: Plaque with semi-elliptical profile, uniform thickness and simple, rounded border. On the front, in high relief, is the face of a young satyr with strongly characterized traits. The forehead is wrinkled, the eyes are large, open wide, with impressed pupils below the protruding brow ridges; the nose is squat, marked by a deep expressive wrinkle on the forehead; the mouth is small and the lips slightly parted to show the upper teeth. Amongst the thin hair locks, divided in two on the fore-

head, are “the feral ears” (only the left one is preserved), while there are two small horns on the upper part of the head. The neck is not represented. On the reverse of the plaque, in the center, the joining area of a small roof tile with curved section is visible. Comparisons and comment: Two identical items are kept in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Taranto (Laviosa 1954, 247, no. 47; Viola 1996, 179, no. 129), while a third one is in the Villa Giulia museum in Rome, labeled with a generic provenance from Magna Grecia (Cultrera 1927, Fig. 41). The satyr type is widespread in Magna Grecia. Its success can be traced to the 5th c. bc, with the first types found in the sanctuaries of poleis, along the Ionic coast from Taranto to Reggio. The satyr type undergoes a process of gradual humanization from the mid-5th c. bc, as do the mythological characters and gods. Numerous possible comparisons can be made with red-figure vases from the first half of the 4th c. bc (LCS, Pl. 32, nos. 1–3; LCS, Pl. 53, nos. 1–2; Orlandini 1983, Fig. 633) and with the early late 4th–3rd c. bc coroplastic production from Taranto (Fuchs 1982, 119, Fig. 126). Date: End of the 4th–beginning of the 3rd c. bc.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period  1.2.1 Semicircular slab with gorgoneion Context: Room III. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-295T Dimensions and technical features: H 8.5; w 8.4; th slab 2.7; th. plaster layer 0.4. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 5YR 7/8–6/8 (reddish yellow); fine grain fabric, not very hard, compact, dusty feel; a few small white inclusions and vacuoles due to plant inclusions. Mold-made; some imperfections on the impression. Condition: Fragments; worn and encrusted surfaces. Description: Part of the lower border with double flat flange and remains of the beard of a 6th c. bc (?) gorgoneion. Thick layer of white plaster on the reverse, where there are no traces of the part where the tile joined it. Comparisons and comment: The gorgoneion type is not identifiable and the only useful elements for determining

1:3

the fragment’s date are the morphology of the semicircular slab—used until the beginning of the 5th c. bc and thereafter replaced by the circular one—and the presence of the border, which usually is typical of the more ancient gorgoneion heads. The substantial remains of wall plaster on the side of the slab without relief suggest that this architectural fragment was reused in the farmhouse walls. Date: Second half of the 6th c. bc.

Sima  2.1.1 Sima slab Context: Surface. Lot: SB80-2T Dimensions and technical features: H 16.0; w 14.5; th 3.2– 3.5. Fabric type: surf. 2.5Y 8/3 (pale yellow); fract. 10YR 8/3 (very pale brown); fine grain fabric, compact, quite hard, dusty feel; frequent, small white and micaceous inclusions. Mold-made; slipped and painted surfaces. Condition: Fragment. Chipped and worn surfaces, coated by hard, blackish encrustations. The slip is partially preserved. Description: Portion of vertical slab with palmette sprouting from a low relief spiral. Rounded petals ending with a bulge alternate with fine stems having lanceolate ends. Along the right border there is the beginning of a lion’s head–shaped water sprout. Comparisons and comment: The fragment belonged to the late 6th c. bc roof revetment of the extra-urban Sanctuary of Artemis and Zeus (Mertens 1973, 221). Remains of roof revetment were recovered from terrace around the sacellum that incorporates and protects the spring. More fragments came from the excavation trail trenches around the remains of the monumental building (possibly a peripteral temple) with “carparo” stone foundations discovered on the northwest slope (Nava 1999, 689–91; De 2.1.2 Sima slab (Inv. No. 321023) Context: Room VIII (B′-1). Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-107T Dimensions and technical features: H 8.2; w 8.5; slab th 3.2– 3.8. Fabric type: surf. 5YR 8/3 (pink); fract. 2.5YR 8/3 (pink); grainy fabric, hard and rough feel; frequent white and brown, small and medium inclusions. Mold-made. Condition: Fragments, chipped, worn, encrusted surfaces. Description: Portion of the upper part of the slab with low relief palmette: fine lanceolate and rounded petals with apophysis on the ends. Plain reverse.

95

1:3

Siena 2007b). The votive deposits discovered to the north of the sacred building were sealed by both architectural terracottas of a more recent type (2.2.10) and some stone slabs. These deposits contained terracotta figurines, objects in bronze, and pottery dated between the first half of the 7th and the end of the 4th c. bc (Adamesteanu 1964b, 127–31; Adamesteanu 1973a, 447–48). Furthermore, numerous fragments of these terracottas, sometimes large, were reused in the walls of the 3rd century rural building discovered in the western zone of the terrace (Nava 2001, 942–43, Pl. 27). Date: Second half of the 6th c. bc. 1:3

Comparisons and comment: See no. 2.1.1. Date: Second half of the 6th c. bc.

96

Anna Lucia Tempesta

Sima, cont. 2.2.1 Sima slab Context: A′3. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-038T Dimensions and technical features: H 13.5; w 14.2; slab th 3.3–4.9. Fabric type: surf. 7.5YR 8/3 (pink); fract. 5YR 7/6 (reddish yellow); coarse grained fabric, very hard and with a rough feel; frequent white and brown, medium and large inclusions. Mold-made; slipped and painted surfaces. Condition: Fragment. Worn surfaces coated by hard, blackish encrustations. Considerable remains of black and red color on the petals; white traces on the “cavetto” molding. Description: Slab upper part with painted top border and “cavetto” base molding with painted palmettes in relief and lotus flower decoration. The medium petal, painted in black, and one palmette with spear profile and central rib are preserved. The upper part of another petal painted in red is also preserved. Vertical line engraved on the reverse of the slab. Comparisons and comment: The fragment belongs to a sec2.2.2 Sima slab Context: Surface. Lot: SB80-212T Dimensions and technical features: H 8.0; w 13.5; slab th 3.2–3.5. Fabric type: surf. 7.5YR 7/4 (pink); fract. 5YR 7/6–6/6 (reddish yellow); hard and porous fabric, rough feel; frequent small and medium whitish inclusions and scarce large ones. Mold-made; slipped and painted surfaces. Condition: Fragment. Chipped and worn surfaces; black color traces mainly on the astragal and on the upper vertical fillet. Description: Upper frame and astragal with remains of alternatively black and red painted kyma reversa. Joining area of the vertical plain slab.

1:3

ond fictile roof revetment found in the extra-urban sanctuary of San Biagio. This reproduces (in smaller scale) the more famous roof of Temple A of the urban sanctuary of Metaponto and of the extra-urban Temple of Hera, the Tavole Palatine (Adamesteanu 1967, 18–25; Adamesteanu 1974, 253–55, Pl. 32; Mertens 1973, 222–23). Date: First half of the 5th c. bc. 1:3

Comparisons and comment: The kyma type is not identifiable due to the limited dimensions and poor condition of the fragment but the generic type allows a date to be proposed. Date: 5th c. bc.

Horizontal revetments a cassetta 3.1.1 Revetment a cassetta Context: TTR 2. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-39PL Dimensions and technical features: H 2.5; w 3.7; depth 3.7. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 10YR 8/3 (very pale brown); coarse fabric, hard, rough feel; numerous inclusions including some of plant origin. Mold-made; slipped and painted surface. Condition: Fragments; considerable remains of color. Description: Portion of the lower thickened part of casing with black-brown painted meander on white background, framed by a motif of oblique lines. Comparisons and comment: This item belonged to the late6th-c. bc-style roof where the closed sima and the re-

1:2

vetment were separately produced (2.1.1, 2.1.2; Mertens 1973, Pl. 49). The fragment, although very small, enables the identification of the casing’s lower cut, a sort of “atrophied soffit.” The same profile can be seen on a slightly later casing found in Taranto and kept in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale (Andreassi 1970, Pl. 67, 2). Date: Second half of the 6th c. bc.

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period 3.2.1 Revetment a cassetta (Inv. No. 321025) Context: Room IX (A′-2). Lev. 1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-100T Dimensions and technical features: H 4.4; w 9.7. Fabric type: surf. 10YR 8/3 (very pale brown); fract. 5YR 8/4 (pink); coarse grain fabric, very hard and grainy feel; frequent small, medium and large white and brown inclusions. Mold-made; slipped and painted surfaces. Condition: Fragment; considerable color remains. Description: Portion of the upper border with Ionic kyma reversa. Two white eggs with black border and one lanceolate element in red. 3.2.2 Revetment a cassetta (Inv. No. 321024) Context: TTR 2. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-19T Dimensions and technical features: H 4.3; w 6.9. Fabric type: surf. 10YR 8/3 (very pale brown); fract. 5YR 8/4 (pink); coarse grain fabric, very hard and grainy feel; frequent small, medium, and large white and brown inclusions. Mold-made; slipped and painted surfaces. Condition: The fragmentary condition of the find does not allow verification of the thickness of the slab; considerable color remains. Description: Upper border with Ionic kyma reversa. Both 3.3.1 Revetment a cassetta Context: Room VI. Lev. 3. Bat. 2. Lot: SB80-306T Dimensions and technical features: H 12.0; w 7.1; th slab 2.9–4.5. Fabric type: surf. and fract. 5YR 8/4 (pink); fine grain fabric, hard and compact with scarce small inclusions. Mold-made. Condition: Fragmentary; worn surfaces, coated by a thick layer of limescale encrustations. Description: Portion of the vertical slab decorated in relief with a meander alternated with chessboard motif. Portion of the lower astragal. Through-hole for the fixings. On the reverse, along the border, the joining area of the lower fold is visible. 3.3.2 Revetment a cassetta (Inv. No. 321021) Context: TTR 1. A′1, B′1, C′1. Bat. 1. Lot: SB80-12T Dimensions and technical features: H 8.0; w 6.1; th slab 2.9–4.5. Fabric type: surf. 7.5YR 8/4 (pink), fract. 5YR 7/6 (reddish yellow); coarse grain fabric, very hard and grainy feel; frequent small, medium, and large white and brown inclusions. Mold-made; slipped surfaces. Condition: Fragmentary; chipped, worn and encrusted surfaces. Description: Portion of the vertical fillet decorated in relief with a meander alternated with chessboard motif. Portion of the lower astragal. Hole for the fixings to wooden

97 1:3

Comparisons and comment: This fragment belongs to the same sima-casing roofing system as item 2.2.1. Date: First half of the 5th c. bc.

1:3

the medium area of the egg and the lanceolate element are painted in red with black borders. Comparisons and comment: Very similar to the previous item both for the decoration and the color characteristics and for the fabric composition. The two fragments might belong to the same casing. Date: First half of the 5th c. bc. 1:3

Comparisons and comment: This fragment belongs to the first half of the 5th-c. bc roof. See comments on no. 2.2.1. Date: First half of the 5th c. bc. 1:3

beams. On the reverse, along the border the joining area of the lower fold is visible. Comparisons and comment: Very similar to the previous item, both in dimension and the decorative motif. Date: First half of the 5th c. bc.

98

Rebecca Miller Ammerman

Horizontal revetments a cassetta, cont. 3.3.3 Revetment a cassetta (Inv. No. 321022) Context: Surface. Lot: SB80-211T Dimensions and technical features: H 8.1; w 9.5; slab th 2.9–3.3. Fabric type: surf. 7.5YR 8/4 (pink), fract. 5YR 8/4 (pink); coarse grain fabric, very hard and grainy feel; frequent medium and large white and brown inclusions. Mold-made; slipped surfaces. Condition: Fragmentary; chipped and worn surfaces; widespread black and limescale encrustations. Description: Vertical fillet decorated in relief with a meander alternated with chessboard motif; hole for fixing to wooden beams. Small cavity on the reverse.

Coroplastic Rebecca Miller Ammerman The single terracotta fragment recovered during the excavations at the farmhouse at San Biagio portrays the torso of a female figurine of the mid-6th century bc. From the fragment it cannot be determined whether the female figure was seated or standing. The terracotta belongs to an extensive class of figurines from this period that are found in most Greek citystates on the Gulf of Taranto as well as in Paestum and Palinuro on the Tyrrhenian coast.75 The female figure usually wears a polos and a peplos with an apoptygma or a short, poncho-like cape. She may stand with her weight placed squarely on both legs, but often sits hieratically on a throne. In many figurines she sports wings and carries an animal, such as a goat, horse, deer, or sea creature. Snakes or birds may perch on her shoulders. Due to the combined presence of these various attributes, the figurines are usually interpreted as representations of a goddess. The flat, plank-like form of the torso of the figures suggests that they may be the coroplast’s rendering of a xoanon, or statue made of wood. While such figurines are frequently of substantial size—some approaching almost 50 cm in height—the fragment from San Biagio belongs to a figurine of more modest dimensions. When complete, it may Regarding discussion on this class of figurine and additional bibliography, see Ammerman 2002, 45–50. See also: Olbrich 1979, 26–38, 146–60, 171–81; Liseno 2004, 36–37; Barberis 2004, 79–82.

75

1:3

Comparisons and comment: See no. 3.2.1. A cut on the flat non-grooved side suggests the simple juxtaposition of the casings on the roof. Date: First half of the 5th c. bc.

have measured 15 to 20 cm in height. Solid and flat, these smaller figurines echo the tradition of terracotta plaques in Daedalic style of the late 7th century bc. The smaller figurines, moreover, rarely present the elaborate attributes, such as wings and animals, found among the terracottas of larger scale. When seated, the hieratic pose nevertheless still suggests that a goddess was represented. When a terracotta portrays a standing figure, on the other hand, the status of the female figure is less clear. The small-scale terracottas usually portray the standing female holding her arms at her sides or, as in the case of the figurine from the farmhouse at San Biagio, extending her arms forward as if to hold a phiale or an offering.76 The small standing figurines thus present a more ambiguous imagery than those of an enthroned figure. Such a standing figurine may have been intended, like its seated counterpart, as a representation of a divine personality. One need only think, for instance, of representations in 5th- and 4thcentury bc vase paintings of cult statues of a standing goddess who extends her arms forward and frequently holds a phiale from the 6th century bc.77 The gesture of raising her arms, however, may have signaled Regarding some examples of standing and seated small-scale figurines with hand-modeled forearms extended forward, see Barberis 2004, 78, Fig. 95 (standing) and 99–100, Figs. 154–56 (seated). Hand-modeled arms from this class of figurine, usually from larger scale terracottas however, may hold a phiale: Ammerman 2002, 66, Pl. 11, no. 105. 77 LIMC 2 (1984) 15, nos. 41, 42, 44 s.v. Aphrodite (A. Delivorrias). LIMC 2 (1984) 634–35, 731, nos. 113, 1391 s.v. Artemis (L. Kahil). 76

98

Rebecca Miller Ammerman

Horizontal revetments a cassetta, cont. 3.3.3 Revetment a cassetta (Inv. No. 321022) Context: Surface. Lot: SB80-211T Dimensions and technical features: H 8.1; w 9.5; slab th 2.9–3.3. Fabric type: surf. 7.5YR 8/4 (pink), fract. 5YR 8/4 (pink); coarse grain fabric, very hard and grainy feel; frequent medium and large white and brown inclusions. Mold-made; slipped surfaces. Condition: Fragmentary; chipped and worn surfaces; widespread black and limescale encrustations. Description: Vertical fillet decorated in relief with a meander alternated with chessboard motif; hole for fixing to wooden beams. Small cavity on the reverse.

Coroplastic Rebecca Miller Ammerman The single terracotta fragment recovered during the excavations at the farmhouse at San Biagio portrays the torso of a female figurine of the mid-6th century bc. From the fragment it cannot be determined whether the female figure was seated or standing. The terracotta belongs to an extensive class of figurines from this period that are found in most Greek citystates on the Gulf of Taranto as well as in Paestum and Palinuro on the Tyrrhenian coast.75 The female figure usually wears a polos and a peplos with an apoptygma or a short, poncho-like cape. She may stand with her weight placed squarely on both legs, but often sits hieratically on a throne. In many figurines she sports wings and carries an animal, such as a goat, horse, deer, or sea creature. Snakes or birds may perch on her shoulders. Due to the combined presence of these various attributes, the figurines are usually interpreted as representations of a goddess. The flat, plank-like form of the torso of the figures suggests that they may be the coroplast’s rendering of a xoanon, or statue made of wood. While such figurines are frequently of substantial size—some approaching almost 50 cm in height—the fragment from San Biagio belongs to a figurine of more modest dimensions. When complete, it may Regarding discussion on this class of figurine and additional bibliography, see Ammerman 2002, 45–50. See also: Olbrich 1979, 26–38, 146–60, 171–81; Liseno 2004, 36–37; Barberis 2004, 79–82.

75

1:3

Comparisons and comment: See no. 3.2.1. A cut on the flat non-grooved side suggests the simple juxtaposition of the casings on the roof. Date: First half of the 5th c. bc.

have measured 15 to 20 cm in height. Solid and flat, these smaller figurines echo the tradition of terracotta plaques in Daedalic style of the late 7th century bc. The smaller figurines, moreover, rarely present the elaborate attributes, such as wings and animals, found among the terracottas of larger scale. When seated, the hieratic pose nevertheless still suggests that a goddess was represented. When a terracotta portrays a standing figure, on the other hand, the status of the female figure is less clear. The small-scale terracottas usually portray the standing female holding her arms at her sides or, as in the case of the figurine from the farmhouse at San Biagio, extending her arms forward as if to hold a phiale or an offering.76 The small standing figurines thus present a more ambiguous imagery than those of an enthroned figure. Such a standing figurine may have been intended, like its seated counterpart, as a representation of a divine personality. One need only think, for instance, of representations in 5th- and 4thcentury bc vase paintings of cult statues of a standing goddess who extends her arms forward and frequently holds a phiale from the 6th century bc.77 The gesture of raising her arms, however, may have signaled Regarding some examples of standing and seated small-scale figurines with hand-modeled forearms extended forward, see Barberis 2004, 78, Fig. 95 (standing) and 99–100, Figs. 154–56 (seated). Hand-modeled arms from this class of figurine, usually from larger scale terracottas however, may hold a phiale: Ammerman 2002, 66, Pl. 11, no. 105. 77 LIMC 2 (1984) 15, nos. 41, 42, 44 s.v. Aphrodite (A. Delivorrias). LIMC 2 (1984) 634–35, 731, nos. 113, 1391 s.v. Artemis (L. Kahil). 76

The Materials: Prehistoric through the Roman Republican Period

99

instead the ritual act of offering. In this case, a priestess or female worshiper might then be the intended subject portrayed by such a terracotta.78 At Metaponto, similar figurines have been found at most sanctuaries, including that at San Biagio,

Venella, Favale, and the urban center.79 The presence of a single fragment from the context of the ground surface at the Roman farmhouse at San Biagio represents, however, probably no more than frequenting of the area in the 6th century BC.

78 On ambiguity of the meaning of such votive imagery, see Renfrew 1985, 4, 22–24; Alroth 1989, 15–66, 106–08; Barberis 2004, 153–54.

79 For San Biagio: Olbrich 1979, 146–60, 171–82. For Favale: Liseno 2004, 36–39. For the urban sanctuary: Barberis 2004, 78–82, 85–86, 99–101. For additional bibliography, see Ammerman 2002, 46 n. 10.

Catalog of Coroplastic 1.1.1 Female figurine Context: A′3. Bat. 1. SB80-37T. Inv. No. 321027 Dimensions and technical features: H 3.7; w 5.0. Fabric type: 5YR 6/6, fairly finely levitated clay with small (