Pompei-Atti (con scritta Erma).indd

Transcript

MINISTERO PER I BENI E LE ATTIVITÀ CULTURALI SOPRINTENDENZA ARCHEOLOGICA DI POMPEI
NUOVE RICERCHE ARCHEOLOGICHE NELL’AREA VESUVIANA
(SCAVI 2003-2006)
a cura di
Pietro Giovanni Guzzo e Maria Paola Guidobaldi
ATTI DEL CONVEGNO INTERNAZIONALE, ROMA 1-3 FEBBRAIO 2007
«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER
© Copyright 2008 «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER - PIETRO GIOVANNI GUZZO
nale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007
E
MARIA PAOLA GUIDOBALDI (a cura di) - Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell’area vesuviana (scavi 2003-2006) - Atti del Convegno Internazio-
Coordinamento del processo redazionale per la SAP
Maria Paola Guidobaldi
direttore editoriale
Roberto Marcucci
responsabile di redazione
Elena Montani
con la collaborazione di
Erik Pender
in copertina
Operazioni di rilievo topografico con laser scanner 3D nella Regio IX
di Pompei (foto Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”)
direttore tecnico
Massimo Banelli
PIETRO GIOVANNI GUZZO E MARIA PAOLA GUIDOBALDI (a cura di)
Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell’area vesuviana
(scavi 2003-2006)
Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007
© Copyright 2008 MINISTERO PER I BENI E LE ATTIVITÀ CULTURALI
SOPRINTENDENZA ARCHEOLOGICA DI POMPEI
© Copyright 2008 «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER
Via Cassiodoro, 19 - 00193 Roma
http://www.lerma.it
Progetto grafico:
Tutti i diritti riservati. È vietata la riproduzione
di testi e illustrazioni senza il permesso scritto dell’Editore.
Nuove ricerche archeologiche nell’area vesuviana : (scavi 2003-2006) / a cura di Pietro Giovanni Guzzo e Maria Paola Guidobaldi. – Roma : «L’ERMA» di
BRETSCHNEIDER, 2008. – 542 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. (Studi della soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei ; 25) Atti del convegno internazionale , Roma 1-3 febbraio 2007.
In testa al front.: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei.
ISBN 978-88-8265-479-5
CDD 21. 937.7
1. Scavi archeologici – Pompei – Congressi – Roma – 2007
2. Scavi archeologici – Pompei – 2003-2006
I. Guzzo, Pietro Giovanni II. Guidobaldi, Maria Paola
Avvertenza
Il Convegno, organizzato dalla Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei con l’Istituto Nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte e con la Soprintendenza Speciale per il Polo Museale Romano, e con
un contributo della Casa Editrice “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, si è svolto dal 1 al 3 Febbraio 2007 a Roma, nella Sala del Mappamondo del Palazzo di Venezia.
Organizzazione scientifica: Pietro Giovanni Guzzo e Maria Paola Guidobaldi.
Organizzazione tecnica: Maria Paola Guidobaldi (SAP) con Biagio De Felice (SAP), Carmela Piemontino (SAP), Franco Barbato (SAP), Francesca De Lucia e Raffaella Leveque (Ufficio Stampa SAP),
Sandra Cardillo (INASA) e Mario Di Bartolomeo (Ufficio Mostre della Soprintendenza Speciale per il Polo Museale Romano).
Sono stati pubblicati tutti i contributi e i poster pervenuti in tempo utile per l’avvio del processo di stampa. Sono stati pubblicati, inoltre, i contributi di Rick Jones e di Antonio De Simone, non presentati
e discussi in sede di convegno, ma consegnati successivamente per la stampa.
Nemus et Templum. Exploring the sacred grove at the Temple
of Venus in Pompeii
MAUREEN CARROLL
JASHEMSKI 1995; CARROLL 2003, pp. 60-71 (on
the archaeology of sacred gardens in antiquity in
general); CARROLL forthcoming (on Roman temple
groves).
2
JASHEMSKI 1979a, pp. 155-157, 158-160 (referred to as the ‘Sacred Area’).
3
JASHEMSKI 1979a, pp. 157-158, fig. 244; JASHEMSKI 1993, pp. 253-254; CARROLL and GODDEN
2000.
4
SOGLIANO 1899; SOGLIANO 1900; MAU 1900.
5
SPANO 1910; MAIURI 1960, pp. 173-176. More
recently excavations have been conducted by E.
Curti to explore the pre-Roman remains on the
site and the relationship between this quarter of
the town and the harbour: CURTI 2005, and see
this volume.
6
JASHEMSKI 1979a, p. 157.
7
Venus, like Aphrodite, is most often connected with plants and growing things, so, for example, by Lucretius, de Rerum Natura 1.1, who
refers to the earth spreading flowers under her
feet. For the connection between Aphrodite and
gardens, see Pindar, Pythian Odes 5.24; Hesiod,
Theogony 11.194-195; Strabo, Geography 8.3.12,
14.6.3; Pliny, Historia Naturalis 36.4.16; Pausanias, Description of Greece 1.19.2, 1.27.3. See
also MOTTE 1973, pp. 121-137; CARROLL-SPILLECKE
1989, p. 24, fig. 7. Venus at Pompeii also had the
epithet ‘Fisica’. In this guise, she may not have
been primarily fertility related, as she appears also
to have had celestial and marine connections,
and she acted as a goddess of mediation. COARELLI
2002, pp. 88-89, aligns her with the great Near
Eastern goddesses, but one of these goddesses,
Astarte, and her eastern Greek counterpart, Aphrodite, were definitely also fertility deities. On the
cult of Astarte/Aphrodite with physical evidence
for a sacred grove at Kouklia (Paphos) and Kition (Larnaca) in Cyprus, see Herodotus History,
1.105; KARAGEORGHIS and CARROLL-SPILLECKE 1998,
pp. 142-146. On depictions of Venus at Pompeii,
see SWINDLER 1923; SCHILLING 1954, pp. 285-289,
pls. XIV, XV, XVII, Appendix 1; JASHEMSKI 1979a, pp.
124-131.
8
Funding and support for the 1998 fieldwork
were provided by Earthwatch and the University of
Sheffield. Fieldwork in 2004 was enabled by funds
from the University of Sheffield and the Stanley
Smith Horticultural Trust. The British Academy
funded the 2006 season.
9
On central Italian terrace sanctuaries, see
COARELLI 1987.
1
In the Roman world, the provision of temple precincts with
groves and gardens was probably fairly common practice, but
sacred gardens seldom have been investigated archaeologically, and only a few are known anywhere.1 Even in Pompeii
they remain rather elusive. Temple gardens or groves have
been postulated here, but never corroborated archaeologically, at the temple of Isis and around the Doric temple in the
Triangular Forum, as well as at the temple of Venus on the
seafront at Herculaneum.2 The plantings around the suburban temple of Dionysos investigated in 1973 by Wilhelmina
Jashemski remained the only archaeologically explored sacred grove of Roman date in Pompeii until excavations by
the author at the temple of Apollo in 1998.3
At Pompeii in-depth exploration of accessible spaces
such as atria and peristyles in Roman houses is clearly
important for the information that can be gained on
early Roman and pre-Roman occupation sequences and
the processes of change, but the investigation of open
areas around temples is also crucial, as it is here that
we should expect to find the preserved remains of sacred
groves and gardens. This most certainly applies to the
sanctuary of Venus Pompeiana which was first cleared of
ancient pumice and ash between 1898 and 1900.4 The
primary focus of these and subsequent sporadic excavations in the twentieth century was to reveal the architectural remains of the temple and the colonnades around
it.5 No effort had ever been made to explore the sub-soil in
the area between the temple and the surrounding porticoes in search of evidence for a sacred grove, and, in fact,
the existence of plantings on the site was questioned, if
not denied, by modern scholars.6 Because much of the
courtyard of the sanctuary was intact, and because Venus, as a goddess of fertility, could be expected to have
had plantings associated with her cult, the site presented
E
itself as an ideal location for an investigation into the
existence and appearance of a sacred grove.7
A research project of excavation and survey was therefore
designed to clarify the following: 8
- the date of the earliest Roman temple garden and its
relationship to the first Roman temple;
- the nature and type of plantings in the temple garden;
- changes in the design of the temple garden between the
time of its establishment and the eruption of Vesuvius
in A.D. 79;
- the use of water in the sanctuary and the nature of dedicated votive offerings and monuments.
Seven trenches were opened on the west and east sides
of the courtyard, avoiding the areas of nineteenth century disturbance, the large basalt blocks strewn around
the site, and the modern pathway that overlies the most
westerly part of the courtyard and the foundations of the
adjacent portico (Figs. 1-2). The following is a preliminary report on the fieldwork carried out in 1998, 2004
and 2006 by the University of Sheffield.
The location of this Roman sanctuary on the south-west
edge of Pompeii’s lava plateau meant that it spectacularly overlooked the valley below and would have been
visible for some distance by anyone approaching from
this direction. The Pompeian sanctuary is related to a
group of impressive terrace sanctuaries in central Italy
built between the mid- second and the mid-first century
B.C., such as, for example, the sanctuaries of Fortuna at
Palestrina, of Jupiter or Venus at Terracina, of Hercules
Victor at Tivoli, or of Diana Nemorensis at Nemi.9 As at
these sites, the area chosen for the temple of Venus in
Pompeii underwent substantial alterations to accommodate the new complex. In order to build on steeply
38
MAUREEN CARROLL
Fig. 1. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus in its first
Roman phase of the first century B.C. Excavated trenches are shown in grey; the black dots
in the trenches are planting pits (plan by O.
Jessop).
Pottery analysis courtesy of Myles McCallum, University of Nevada.
10
sloping land, masses of building debris, stone, rubble
and soil were brought in and deposited here to create a
level building site for the new temple and its surrounding
porticoes. We excavated this deposit in several places to a
depth of over a metre (Fig. 3). The finds extracted from
this material in the temple terrace date, in the main, to
the second century and first half of the first century B.C.,
suggesting that the temple of Venus Pompeiana, the protectress of Roman Pompeii, dates to the time after the
establishment of the Roman colony in 80 B.C.10 Lead
sling shot found mixed in with the building rubble in the
temple terrace may point to the Sullan siege in 89 B.C.
and the subsequent demolition of buildings damaged in
this incident.11 Some of the ceramics in these deposits
date as late as the mid-first century B.C., suggesting that
the building project may have taken some time after the
deduction of the colony to be completed.
E
The sacred precinct of Venus was inserted into the existing urban fabric of Pompeii, and it became the principal
and largest sanctuary of the Roman city. The temple was
built on the terrace created for it, and our excavations
clearly showed how the porticoes were built on and inserted into the levelling deposits. Parallel to the porticoes
on all sides of the sanctuary was a shallow water channel made of tufa for run-off from the portico roof. One
source of water for the sanctuary was a large cistern built
under the floor of the eastern portico. Contemporaneous
with the building of the temple and its porticoes was the
landscaping and planting of the open courtyard as a sacred grove, the main floor of the courtyard being beaten
earth. Our excavations uncovered planting pits for trees
with a maximum depth of 50-60 cm below the tufa water channels on the edges of the courtyard. The arrangement of the pits indicates that the temple grove consisted
NEMUS ET TEMPLUM. EXPLORING THE SACRED GROVE AT THE TEMPLE OF VENUS IN POMPEII
39
Fig. 2. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus from the
south-west during excavation in 2006 (photo
author).
Fig. 3. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, rubble
and debris used in creating the deposits for
the Roman temple terrace. On the right is the
tufa water channel parallel to the north portico
(photo author).
Fig. 4. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, section
through the temple terrace deposits (547, 546)
into which a planting pot (544) of the temple
grove was inserted. Other features of the Augustan period include a levelling layer (523), a
lead pipe (534, 535) and the mortar paving
(503) of the courtyard. On the upper right are
the east portico (550) and the tufa water channel next to it (drawing by O. Jessop).
of a row of trees planted parallel to the colonnades on the
north, west and east sides of the sanctuary (Fig. 4). In
several of the pits were the buried and complete (but broken) terracotta pots, still in situ, in which young plants
once had been started (Fig. 5-6).12 They are of the type
with four holes in the lower walls and bottom of the vessel (Type A, 14-16.5 cm in height) or with one hole in the
bottom (Type B, 19 cm in height), and they are related to
the ancient practice of propagating and air-layering trees
and shrubs in containers and transporting young plants
in them to their destination (Fig. 7).13 The larger vessels
E
from the sanctuary of Venus may well have been too big
and heavy to be suspended from the branches of a parent tree for the process of air-layering, but they would be
well suited as portable containers for shoots or saplings
of trees.
Evidence, such as planting pits that inter-cut each other,
clearly indicates that some trees had to be replaced from
time to time when they died or failed to flourish, and
the remains of wooden stakes driven into the ground or
through the buried plant pot reveal that temple garden-
11
Lead sling shot also has been found in the
destruction horizon of the Sullan siege at the Casa
delle Vestali in Insula VI: JONES and ROBINSON 2005,
and see also http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/pompeii/field/5.html.
12
CARROLL 2003, p. 89, fig. 70.
13
CATO, De agricultura 52; PLINY, Historia
Naturalis 12.7. On excavated plant pots, see JASHEMSKI 1979a, pp. 238-240; JASHEMSKI 1993; MESSINEO 1993; DESBAT 1997; BARAT and MORIZE 1999;
MACAULAY LEWIS 2006.
40
MAUREEN CARROLL
Fig. 5. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, ceramic
planting pot in situ during excavation (photo
author).
Fig. 6. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, ceramic
planting pot lying on its side in situ (photo
author).
Fig. 7. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, selection
of ceramic planting pots recovered in the temple grove (drawing by O. Jessop).
Faunal remains analysis conducted by Sarah Viner, University of Sheffield.
14
ers propped up the trees or bushes if extra support was
needed (Fig. 8). Traces of this kind of gardening activity are extremely rare anywhere. Furthermore, the plant
pots testify to the existence of plant nurseries supplying a
cult organisation with the desired vegetation in containers for the landscaping of a sanctuary. Analysis of the
soil in the containers also points to the practice of soil
E
enrichment in the nursery in which these plants were
grown before being transferred to the temple of Venus.
The analysed planting soil in the pots was fertilised with
shells, fish vertebrae and the bones of juvenile pigs.14
This sacred grove of Venus was very much an ‘architectural’ one in which trees were planted parallel to the
water channel in front of the columns of the colonnades
on three sides of the courtyard (Fig. 9). The rows of
trees on the two long sides of the courtyard did not continue to the southern limit of the sanctuary, but they did
flank the temple itself. A visitor approaching from the
south, where there was no portico, would have seen the
temple framed and highlighted by this grove. The trees
were planted at fairly regular intervals of approximately
.90-1.00 m (from the centre of the planting pit to the
centre of the next pit), and it is to be expected that they
echoed the rhythms of the columns of the porticoes in
some way. Although the columns of the porticoes will
not have been spaced as closely as the plantings, perhaps there was one tree in front of each column and
one in between, giving us a colonnade with columns at
intervals of roughly 2 m. This juxtaposition of vegetation and portico columns is evident in other architectural contexts, as, for example, in the peristyle garden at
the so-called villa of Poppaea at Oplontis, where there is
a planting about every 1.80 m in front of each column,
and in the courtyard of the Palestra Grande in Pompeii,
where there are plane trees at intervals of about 9 m,
that is one tree in front of every fourth column.15 It is
suggested here that the plantings at the temple of Venus
constituted what Latin texts refer to as a nemus, a grove
created or manipulated by man and furnished with sacred buildings and images.16 Unfortunately, due to later
alterations and rebuilding of the sanctuary, it is entirely
unclear what images and votives may have stood in the
precinct at this time.
The plantings in the sanctuary of Venus are as yet of botanically undetermined types, as no organic remains had
survived.17 Analysis of the flotation residues may yet reveal surviving phytoliths that can shed light on the vegetation in these planting pits. Jashemski’s excavations at
many sites in Campania have demonstrated that the size
of Roman planting pots need not mean that only small
trees and shrubs were able to grow in them. Trees with
the potential to grow quite large and have an extensive
root system, such as lemons or citrons, were started in
ceramic pots 14 cm in height, for example, at the socalled Garden of Hercules in Pompeii 18 The ancient written sources do not help much either in determining what
grew at the temple of Venus, because they say that the
vine, the fig, the olive, the pomegranate, quinces, every
variety of the apple, the laurel, the plum, the myrtle, the
E
41
Fig. 8. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, voids left
by wooden stakes, one of which pierced a planting pot in situ next to the north portico (photo
author).
Fig. 9. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, simplified reconstruction of the Roman temple and
its grove with alternating types of trees and
bushes in the first century B.C. (drawing by
O. Jessop).
hazelnut, and the plane are capable of being propagated
by layers using pots or baskets, although we can probably
rule out the existence of fruit trees in the sanctuary.19
At any rate, the evidence uncovered in the sacred grove of
Venus indicates a regular pattern of alternating planting
pits containing one of the two types of pot and planting pits with no pot in them: a type A pot, a pit with no
pot, a type B pot, a pit with no pot, a type A pot, and so
on (Fig. 10). This may suggest tall vegetation alternating with shorter vegetation, or slender plants alternating
with bushier, or it may simply imply a sequence of trees
and shrubs that required propagation in ceramic pots
and those that did not need this treatment. Candidates
for the plantings are laurel, as has been suggested for the
peristyle garden at Oplontis (now replanted with laurel),
or citrons and oleander, as suggested at Livia’s Villa at
15
Oplontis: JASHEMSKI 1979a, pp. 293-296, figs.
443-446, 464; JASHEMSKI 1981, pp. 43-46, figs. 3134; JASHEMSKI 1993, pp. 294-295, plan 131; Palestra
Grande: JASHEMSKI 1979a, pp. 160-161, fig. 246.
16
SCHEID 1993.
17
Palaeobotanical analysis conducted by
Glynis Jones, University of Sheffield.
18
JASHEMSKI 1979a, 284-285, figs. 428-429,
and 1979b, p. 408, pl. 58, fig. 8.
19
CATO, De agricultura 51-52, 133; PLINY,
Historia Naturalis 17. 97-98.
42
MAUREEN CARROLL
of temple and plantings resembles that in the sanctuary of Hephaistos in Athens, a grove laid out probably in
the third century B.C. and replanted thereafter in the late
first century B.C., possibly just after the damage caused
by Sulla in his attack on Athens in 86.24 A grove laid out
somewhat earlier than that in Pompeii, but in a similar
manner surrounding three sides of the temple, is that of
Juno at Gabii.25 This grove dates to the mid-second century B.C. and was replanted in the early first century B.C.
Of the late Republican terrace temples named earlier,
certainly the sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis had a grove
of trees planted in pits along the porticoes, as recent preliminary geophysics and excavation have suggested.26
These date to the first centuries B.C. and A.D. Perhaps
all the other grand central Italian terrace sanctuaries
were also planted with a grove, although this has yet to
be confirmed by archaeological investigation.
Fig. 10. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, plan of
one section of the row of planting pits parallel
to the east portico (plan by O. Jessop).
JASHEMSKI 1979a, p. 295, although she does
not rule out citrons; KLYNNE and LILJENSTOLPE 2000a,
233; KLYNNE and LILJENSTOLPE 2000b, p. 125.
21
PLINY, Natural History 12.2.
22
The planting pots from Pompeii tend to
range from between 12 and 15.5. cm, and many
of them, but perhaps not the smallest ones, definitely were used for trees.
23
KLYNNE 1997-1998, fig. 8. According to A.
Klynne, investigations in 2006 at Prima Porta
uncovered clusters of six vessels of only 9-10 cm
in height, and he interprets these as containers for
flowers, not trees (pers. comm.).
24
THOMPSON 1937. The cuttings for plantings
at the temple of Hephaistos are the same distance
apart as the columns of the temple so that the columns and the trees mirror each other’s rhythm:
THOMPSON 1937, p. 403, fig. 6. The cuttings have
sides of up to 90 cm in length and were up to 6590 cm deep. This almost certainly has to do with
the fact that they are cut into the bedrock, making a large cutting that could accommodate the
necessary amount of soil for proper tree growth
necessary.
25
LAUTER 1968-1969; COARELLI 1993, pp. 48-52,
figs. 1-2. As at the Athenian temple of Hephaistos,
the cuttings at Gabii are hewn out of the bedrock,
so their large size is also explained by the need
for an adequate amount of fertile soil. The biggest
cuttings there measure 1.50 by 1.60 m, and are
1.20-1.30 m deep, the smaller ones are 1.20 x 1.30
m in size and .60-.80 m deep. COARELLI 1993, p. 50,
suggests the latter might have been for myrtles.
26
GHINI forthcoming, and see GHINI 1993 for
recent excavations at Nemi.
27
ZACHOS 2003.
28
KLYNNE 2005.
20
Prima Porta, although we have no mention of oleander
at any temple garden in Greece or Italy.20 The myrtle,
with its dark berries and white blossoms, was particularly
sacred to Venus and also remains a good possibility.21
Most of the planting pots from the temple of Venus are
bigger than examples found in private and commercial
contexts in Pompeii, and since, as we have seen, a pot 14
cm in size could accommodate a citron with large roots,
we can be confident that the plant pots in the sacred
grove were for trees of non-dwarf varieties.22 When less
substantial plants such as small bushes or flowers were
grown in ceramic containers, these tended to be much
smaller.23
It remains to explore how the grove in this sacred complex in Pompeii was related to other Roman sanctuaries
of the late Republic and early Empire. The arrangement
E
The idea of a planted porticus triplex was taken up
later for landscape planning in the context of Augustan religious architecture. The courtyard of the victory
monument of Augustus, built between 29 and 27 B.C.,
at Nikopolis, was planted, as ceramic plant pots indicate.
Like the earlier terrace sanctuaries in Italy, this colonnaded monument was located in a dramatic setting on
a hill sacred to Apollo with a view to the sea below where
the battle of Actium was decided in Augustus’ favour.27
Allan Klynne recently has investigated another porticus
triplex, built possibly in the 20s B.C., on Prima Porta
hill to the east of the Villa of Livia with the open side
of the complex overlooking the Tiber valley.28 As terracotta planting pots excavated here reveal, this porticus
triplex was planted, very possibly with the laurels from
which Augustus and later Julio-Claudian emperors cut
branches for their triumphal wreaths. The porticus and
laurel grove may have been designed intentionally to reflect the layout of a sacred precinct planted with trees and
to therefore act as a manifestation of the divine sanction
of the gens Iulia.
The ceramic evidence retrieved in our excavations indicates that at the end of the first century B.C. or in the
early first century A.D., the temple of Venus and its porticoes were refurbished with marble, a material that was
increasingly being employed for public and sacred buildings in Pompeii and elsewhere in the Augustan period.
This is further supported by the analysis and dating of
surviving architectural elements by L. Jacobelli and P.
Pensabene.29 More recently M. Wolf, in an architectural
study of the sanctuary of Venus, has suggested that the
temple and its colonnades were rebuilt in marble and
completed before A.D. 30 on exactly the same alignment
and on the same scale as the earlier buildings constructed of tufa.30 Our excavations clearly show that at
the time the temple was rebuilt, the grove was destroyed
or intentionally abandoned, and the planting pits and
pots were covered by a deposit of soil containing pieces of
wall plaster, tile and pottery, as well as off-cuts and chips
of white marble (possibly Luna) that may have been
left from the Augustan building work on site (Fig. 4).
On top of this deposit, the courtyard was now paved with
a layer of white mortar, and in places this mortar was
applied in more than one layer, possibly as a measure
to repair minor wear or damage to the pavement (Fig.
11).31 The sanctuary may not have had a grove in this
phase, but the remains of lead water pipes, masonry water tanks abutting the tufa water channels on the edges
of the courtyard, and the bases of monuments and statues (some connected to a water source) indicate that the
courtyard clearly was a focus of religious veneration and
social activity. Yet, quite how the trees could be disposed
of, although they belonged to Venus and were therefore
of religious significance, remains unclarified.
Years later, in A.D. 62, most public and private buildings in Pompeii, including the temple of Venus, were
destroyed or ruined by the earthquake. In the following years, the site was cleared for the reconstruction
of the sanctuary and building work on the new temple
foundations began. The excavations uncovered rare
evidence for the work done in this final phase and for
the appearance of a Roman construction site, complete
with heaps of stone chips and architectural debris from
the cutting of basalt foundation blocks and the carving
of columns, architectural decoration and votive monuments of white and coloured marbles imported from
the eastern Mediterranean.32 The temple was to be the
biggest and finest yet on that site, and the builders had
dug a broad and deep foundation trench around the
old temple and were in the process of erecting courses
of large basalt blocks against the original building for
the new structure (Fig. 12).33 The precinct itself was
enlarged over the slope to the south and out into the
street to the north. The sanctuary, however, was never
E
43
Fig. 11. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, mortar
paving layer of Augustan date in the sanctuary
courtyard that seals the remains of the earlier
temple grove (photo author).
Fig. 12. Pompeii, sanctuary of Venus, looking
north at the Augustan mortar paving cut at the
far left after A.D. 62 by the construction trench
for the new temple and by these pits associated
with the building of this temple (photo author).
JACOBELLI and PENSABENE 1995-1996.
WOLF 2004, p. 193.
31
MAU 1900, p. 291, mentions this mortar
paving, but erroneously associates it with the first
and oldest phase of the temple.
32
On the marbles, see BRUNO et al. 1994.
33
The explanations of MAU 1900, pp. 273-279,
regarding the building of the new basalt foundations are still valid, although the new excavations
now give us a better idea of the actual width of the
foundation trench.
34
There may have been a plan to pave the
courtyard and insert new plantings and water
features into this paving once the sanctuary
was complete, but this can only be speculation.
For paved precincts and public parks in Rome
with inserted plantings, see Porticus of Pompey:
GLEASON 1994; Forum Pacis: CARETTONI et al. 1960,
pp. 73-74, pl. XX.15-16; ANDERSON 1982, pp. 105107; LLOYD 1982, pp. 91-92, fig. 1; RIZZO 2001, pp.
234-243, fig. 27; Temple of Elagabalus: VILLEDIEU
2001, pp. 84-100.
29
30
finished, nor was its sacred grove replanted, because
Vesuvius erupted before this could happen.34
Sacred groves in Roman sanctuaries rarely have been
the focus of any controlled archaeological excavation.
The results of our investigations, therefore, have validity not only for Pompeii, but also for an understanding of and insight into the physical appearance and
workings of Roman sanctuaries in general, especially
those in the late Republic. If our interpretation of the
evidence is correct, the establishment of an impressive
new landscaped sanctuary in an existing settlement
44
MAUREEN CARROLL
35
SOGLIANO 1937, pp. 109-115; COARELLI 1998;
COARELLI 2002, pp. 86-90.
36
MAU 1908, pp. 120-121, 124, refers to Samnite houses on the site of the later Roman temple.
casts light on the ways in which a community used sacred space to express changing political circumstances
and social relations. Should an older indigenous sanctuary (of the Samnite goddess Mefitis perhaps?) have
been replaced by the Roman sanctuary of Venus Pompeiana, the significance of the appropriation of this
space becomes clear, especially if this occurred on the
initiative of the Roman colonists.35 By the same token,
a real change in the social identity of the community
is also evident if the Roman temple replaced other
structures such as private houses of Pompeii’s indigenous population. In either case, the establishment
of the Roman temple of Venus with its sacred grove
played a formative role in the political, religious and
social transformation of Pompeii from a Hellenistic
town to a Roman colony.36
Abbreviazioni bibliografiche
ANDERSON 1982
BARAT and MORIZE
1999
BRUNO et al. 1998
CARETTONI et al.
1960
CARROLL 2003
CARROLL
forthcoming
CARROLL and
GODDEN 2000
CARROLL-SPILLECKE
1989
COARELLI 1987
J.C. ANDERSON, Domitian, the Argiletum and the Temple of Peace,
in American Journal of Archaeology, 86, 1982, pp. 101-110.
Y. BARAT and D. MORIZE, Les pots d’horticulture dans
le monde antique et les jardins de la Villa Gallo-Romaine
de Richebourg (Yvelines), in Société française d’Étude de la
Céramique antique en Gaule. Actes du Congrès de Fribourg, Mai
1999, Paris 1999, pp. 213-235.
M. BRUNO, L. CONTI, P. PENSABENE and B. TURI, Pompeii after the AD
62 earthquake: historical, isotopic, and petrographic studies of
quarry blocks in the Temple of Venus, in J.J. HERRMANN, N. HERZ,
R. NEWMANN eds, Asmosia 5. Interdisciplinary studies on ancient
stone. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity,
Boston 1998, pp. 282-288.
G. CARETTONI, A.M. COLINI, L. COZZA and G. GATTI, La pianta marmorea di Roma antica, Rome 1960.
M. CARROLL, Earthly Paradises. Ancient Gardens in History and
Archaeology, London 2003.
M. CARROLL, Temple gardens and sacred groves, in W.F. JASHEMSKI
ed, Gardens of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1, New York, forthcoming.
M. CARROLL and D. GODDEN, The Sanctuary of Apollo at Pompeii: Reconsidering Chronologies and Excavation History, in
American Journal of Archaeology, 104, 2000, pp. 743-754.
M. CARROLL-SPILLECKE, . Der antike griechische Garten,
Munich 1989.
F. COARELLI, I Santuari del Lazio in età repubblicana, Rome 1987.
E
COARELLI 1993
COARELLI 1998
COARELLI 2002
CURTI 2005
DESBAT 1997
GHINI 1993
GHINI forthcoming
GLEASON 1994
JACOBELLI and
PENSABENE 1995-1996
F. COARELLI, I luci del Lazio: la documentazione archeologica,
in O. LE CAZANOVE and J. SCHEID eds, Les Bois Sacrés. Actes du Colloque International organisé par le Centre Jean Bérard et l’École
Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Ve section), Naples, Novembre 1989,
Naples 1993, pp. 45-52.
F. COARELLI, Il Culto di Mefitis in Campania e a Roma, in I Culti
della Campania Antica. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi
in ricordo di Nazarena Valenza Mele, Napoli 1995, Rome 1998, pp.
185-190.
F. COARELLI, The sacred, in F. COARELLI ed, Pompeii, New York 2002
E. CURTI, Le aree portuali di Pompei: ipotesi di lavoro, in V. SCARANO USSANI ed, Moregine. Suburbio ‘portuale’ di Pompei, Naples
2005, pp. 51-76.
A. DESBAT, Pots horticoles antiques de Lyon et de Vienne, in Revue
archéologique de l’Est, 48, 1997, pp. 311-318.
G. GHINI, La ripresa delle indagini al santuario di Diana a
Nemi, in Quaderni del Centro di studio per l’archeologia etrusco-italica 21, Archeologia Laziale XI, 1993, pp. 277-289.
G. GHINI, Nemi: The Temple and Sanctuary of Diana Nemorensis, in W.F. JASHEMSKI ed, Gardens of the Roman Empire, Vol. 2, New
York, forthcoming.
K.L. GLEASON, Porticus Pompeiana: a new perspective on the first
public part of ancient Rome, in Journal of Garden History,
14.1, 1994, pp. 13-27.
L. JACOBELLI and P. PENSABENE, La decorazione architettonica
del Tempio di Venere a Pompei: contributo allo studio e alla
JASHEMSKI 1979a
and 1993
JASHEMSKI 1979b
JASHEMSKI 1981
JASHEMSKI 1992
JASHEMSKI 1995
JONES and ROBINSON
2005
KARAGEORGHIS and
CARROLL-SPILLECKE 1998
KLYNNE 2005
KLYNNE and
LILJENSTOLPE 1997-1998
KLYNNE and
LILJENSTOLPE 2000a
KLYNNE and
LILJENSTOLPE 2000b
LAUTER 1968-1969
LLOYD 1982
MACAULAY LEWIS 2006
riconstruzione del santuario, in Rivista di Studi Pompeiani, 7,
1995-1996, pp. 45-76.
W.F. JASHEMSKI, The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the
Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius, New Rochelle 1979 (Vol. 1) and
1993 (Vol. 2).
W.F. JASHEMSKI, The garden of Hercules at Pompeii (II.viii.6): The
Discovery of a Commercial Flower Garden, in American Journal of Archaeology, 83, 1979, pp. 402-411.
W.F. JASHEMSKI, The Campanian Peristyle Garden, in E.B. MACDOUGALL and W.F. JASHEMSKI eds, Ancient Roman Gardens. Dumbarton
Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture VII,
Washington 1981, pp. 29-48.
W.F. JASHEMSKI, Vasa Fictilia: Ollae Perforatae, in R. W. WILHELM and
H. JONES eds, The Two Worlds of the Poet. New Perspectives on
Vergil, Detroit 1992, pp. 371-391.
W. F. JASHEMSKI, Roman Gardens in Tunisia: Preliminary Excavations in the House of Bacchus and Ariadne and in the East
Temple at Thuburbo Maius, in American Journal of Archaeology, 99, 1995, pp. 559-576.
R. JONES and D. ROBINSON, Urban Development and Social dif-ference at Pompeii: Evidence from the Casa delle Vestali and
Insula VI,1, 1994-2000, http://www.bradford.ac.uk/archsci/
field_proj/anampomp/urban4.htm.
V. KARAGEORGHIS and M. CARROLL-SPILLECKE, Die heiligen Haine und
Gärten Zyperns, in M. CARROLL-SPILLECKE ed, Der Garten von der
Antike bis zum Mittelalter, Mainz 1998 (3rd edition), pp. 141-152.
A. KLYNNE, The laurel grove of the Caesars: looking in and looking out, in B. SANTILLO FRIZELL and A. KLYNNE eds, Roman villas
around the Urbs. Interaction with landscape and environment. Proceedings of a conference held at the Swedish Institute in
Rome, September 2004, Rome 2005, pp. 167-175.
A. KLYNNE and P. LILJENSTOLPE, The Imperial gardens of the
villa of Livia at Prima Porta: A preliminary report on the 1997
campaign, in Opuscula Romana 22-23, 1997-1998, pp. 127147.
A. KLYNNE and P. LILJENSTOLPE, Investigating the gardens of
the Villa of Livia, in Journal of Roman Archaeology, 13, 2000,
pp. 220-233.
A. KLYNNE and P. LILJENSTOLPE, Where to put Augustus? A Note
on the Placement of the Prima Porta Statue, in American Journal of Philology, 1.1, 2000, pp. 121-128.
H. LAUTER, Ein Tempelgarten?, in Archäologischer Anzeiger,
1968-1969, pp. 626-631.
R.B. LLOYD, Three Monumental Gardens on the Marble Plan, in
American Journal of Archaeology, 86, 1982, pp. 91-100.
E. MACAULAY LEWIS, The role of ollae perforatae in understanding
horticulture, planting techniques, garden design and plant
trade in the Roman World, in J.-P. MOREL, J.T. JUAN and J.C. MATAMA-
E
MAU 1900
MAU 1908
MAIURI 1942
MAIURI 1960
MESSINEO 1993
MOTTE 1973
RIZZO 2001
SCHEID 1993
SCHILLING 1954
SOGLIANO 1989
SOGLIANO 1900
SOGLIANO 1937
SPANO 1910
SWINDLER 1923
THOMPSON 1937
WOLF 2004
VILLEDIEU 1992
VILLEDIEU 2001
ZACHOS 2003
45
LA eds, The Archaeology of Crop Field and Gardens. Proceedings
of the First Conference on Crop Fields and Gardens Archaeology,
Barcelona 2006, Bari 2006, pp. 207-219.
A. MAU, Der Tempel der Venus Pompeiana, in Jahrbuch des
Deutschen Archäologischen Insituts, 15, 1900, pp. 270-308.
A. MAU, Pompeji in Leben und Kunst, Leipzig 1908.
A. MAIURI, L’ultima fase edilizia di Pompei, Rome 1942.
A. MAIURI, Pompei. Sterro dei cumuli e isolamento della cinta
murale. Contributo all’urbanistica della città dissepolta, in
Bolletino d’Arte, 45, 1960, pp. 166-179.
G. MESSINEO, Ollae Perforatae, in Xenia, 9, 1993, pp. 65-82.
A. MOTTE, Prairies et jardins de la Grèce antique. De la Religion
à la Philosophie, Brussells 1973.
S. RIZZO, Indagini nei fori Imperiali. Oroidrografia, foro di Cesare, foro di Augusto, templum Pacis, in Römische Mitteilungen, 108, 2001, pp. 215-244.
J. SCHEID, Lucus, nemus. Qu’est-ce qu’un bois sacré?, in O. LE
CAZANOVE and J. SCHEID eds, Les Bois Sacrés. Actes du Colloque International organisé par le Centre Jean Bérard et l’École Pratique des
Hautes Etudes (Ve section), Naples, Novembre 1989, Naples 1993,
pp. 13-20.
R. SCHILLING, La Religion Romaine de Vénus depuis les Origines
jusqu’au Temps d’Auguste, Paris 1954.
A. SOGLIANO, Pompei. Relazione degli scavi fatti durante il mese
di gennaio 1899, in NSc, 1899, pp. 17-24.
A. SOGLIANO, Pompei. Relazione degli scavi fatti durante il mese
di gennaio 1900, in NSc, 1900, pp. 27-31.
A. SOGLIANO, Pompei nel suo sviluppo storico. Pompei preromana
(dalle origini all’a. 80 av. C.), Rome 1937.
G. SPANO, Pompei, in NSc, 1910, pp. 270-271.
M.H. SWINDLER, Venus Pompeiana and the New Pompeian Frescoes,
in American Journal of Archaeology, 27, 1923, pp. 302-313.
D.B. THOMPSON, The garden of Hephaistos, in Hesperia, 6, 1937, pp.
396-425.
M. WOLF, Tempel und Macht in Pompeji, in E.L. SCHWANDNER and K.
RHEIDT eds, Architektur der Macht – Macht der Architektur, Berlin
2004, pp. 190-199.
R. VILLEDIEU, Le Palatin (Vigna Barberini), in Mélanges de
l’École française à Rome, 104, 1992, pp. 465-479.
F. VILLEDIEU ed, Il giardino dei Cesari: Dai palazzi antichi alla
Vigna Barberini sul monte Palatino. Scavi dell’École Française
de Rome, 1985-1999, Rome 2001.
K.L. ZACHOS, The Tropaeum of the sea-battle of Actium at Nikopolis. Interim report, in Journal of Roman Archaeology, 16, 2003,
pp. 64-92.

Pompei-Atti (con scritta Erma).indd

Transcript

Documenti analoghi

TEMPLE OF VENUS

Italian version - Temple of Venus

Temple Grandin: scienziata senza pari

FILM TEMPLE GRANDIN Una donna straordinaria Perché guardare

temple grandin - PremioEleanor : Home Page

Ref: Anfiteatro Complex

planimetria

planimetria

Dati del Cliente

dublino il centro la sistemazione il corso di studio tempo libero ed