AUDIO-GIDA, Laburpena eta ahotsa, Antton (5 minutu)
AUDIO-GUIDE Spanish (Sintetizada) 5 minutos
AUDIO-GUIDE ENGLISH to (Synthesized) 1:30 minutes
Inside
Facade
Domus of Pompeia Valentina
By Idoia Filloy Nieva and Eliseo Gil Zubillaga
Initially, only the presence of an impluvium or courtyard, equipped with a bichrome mosaic of drying circles, was known from this sector, with a cistern with a half-point vault cover under it, equipped with hydraulic coating and cleaning box. It was foritely located in the 1960s during agricultural work. Around this courtyard, a sector was dignated in extension, the 5, under the direction of E. Gil Zubillaga, until almost completing the plant of a large urban residence - distributed around an atrium and a peristyle - and the street to which it was opened. It is the urban residential complex that we know best, since almost 900 m2 have been excavated from it.
The space in which the Domus de Pompeia Valentina (DPV) will be built was occupied in pre-Roman times, retaining some of its entire hut bottoms, under the Roman levels. A first Roman house will therefore be built on the collapses of the houses of the pre-Roman settlement, whose oldest data date back to the beginning of the Ier millennium BC. This first urban dwelling was built in pre-flavian times, specifically around the middle of the 1st century AD, which was practically dismantled to build the DPV, although some foundations remained and, above all, a cistern of opus caementitium or Roman concrete, around which the house had been distributed.
DPV was built in flavia at the end of the 1st century AD and remained in use until the middle of the 5th century AD, with frequent repairs and modifications recorded there. In its final configuration, it is a large house that is articulated in three levels of height, becoming terrified to fit the hillside, so that the area distributed around the atrium is higher than that organized around the peristyle and, in turn, the access area, is with respect to that of the atrium. This territy was achieved on the basis of the construction of parallel walls used, as well as as containment structures, as pipes at the service of the house.
A first level, it was access to the house, next to which were located some enclosures corresponding to tabernae, which were opened to the street. The facade fits the road axis, adopting a stair plan that is reflected in the taverns that flank the main entrance or jaws. A second level of the house was the one that was distributed around an open central courtyard or impluvium, endowed with its corresponding cistern in the subsoil. This courtyard was of atrium, with no corridor around it, so that from it was directly accessed to the rooms, which show a certain lateral symmetry, with bedrooms on both sides of the courtyard. A third level is the back of the domus, where the representative spaces of the house are concentrated, among which would stand out a porticated or peristyle gallery, with a pavement of large slains, around which these spaces were distributed and, among them, the so-called enclosure 59. Finally, at the southern angle, next to a rocky outcrop, domestic outbuildings have been identified.
The moment of maximum splendor of this residence was the 2nd century and even part of the 3rd century AD, evident its widespread ruin around the 2nd half of this century. It still had a subsequent reoccupation of some of its spaces, specifically, on the rubble of the peristyle there was an occupation in the late-Roman era, around the middle of the 4th century, lasting until some point in the following century. This occupation is only maintained at the subsoil level, having even located a childhood burial corresponding to this last phase. In addition, one of the old taverns installed on the facade of the domus, was reused as a dump.
Among the excavated enclosures we would highlight, because a large set of exceptional graphites, the 59th, had been located in them. Other graphites that we can also consider exceptional were located in isolation in other enclosures, such as 26, 52, 56 and 61. They would not relate to those of precinct 59, perhaps excluding those located in enclosures 52 and 61, located in the same general context of the collapse of part N. of the house and corresponding, therefore, to similar chronology. Among these isolated graphites, we will include the one that gives name to the house, that of Pompeia Valentina, located among the debris fallen on the street to the S. de la domus although it would not be, in its own, an exceptional graphite.
Enclosure 59
Gran recinto de algo más de 58 m2 de superficie, ubicado en la terraza norte, junto al pasillo E. del área residencial distribuida en torno al peristilo y delimitada al sur por uno de los canales que marcan además un cambio en el nivel de suelo de la misma. A juzgar por los restos conservados, este recinto 59 no tendría acceso directo desde él sino que, probablemente, se entraría directamente desde el área residencial distribuida en torno al atrio. Los datos estructurales del recinto 59 nos permiten proponer como hipótesis que dicha habitación pudo tener un piso principal cuyo suelo -presumiblemente de madera- estaría a la cota del atrio y, un piso inferior o semisótano con una cota similar a la del enlosado del peristilo. Sus muros perimetrales, -cerrados, en la parte inferior conservada- mostraban una protección antihumedad, en forma de revestimientos de arcilla y, en dos de ellos, con lajas de caliza dispuestas verticalmente unidas -también con arcilla- al propio muro. Se identificaron varios momentos de uso en este recinto, instalado sobre niveles de ocupación prerromanos. La habitación se construyó en torno a fines del I-principios del II, correspondiendo por tanto a la fase de ampliación de la DPV. No se conservan los niveles de ocupación de este momento, pero sí del siguiente. Y es que a fines del II-principios del III, se produjo una reforma en el recinto, por la que se le dotó de los revestimientos antihumedad y de un nuevo suelo, eliminando el anterior. Este recinto, sufrió un colapso en la 2ª mitad del siglo III, que no fue exclusivo de él sino que se detecta, especialmente, en toda la zona norte de la domus. Se localizaron grafitos excepcionales en la fase correspondiente al colapso del recinto, concretamente en el nivel inferior de derrumbe sobre el suelo (UE 51144). Las características y ubicación del recinto, así como el material localizado en él, nos llevaron a proponer, como hipótesis interpretativa que estábamos ante una estancia dedicada a servir de paedagogium. Sin embargo, ésta es sólo una hipótesis de trabajo que habrá de ser confirmada, matizada o contradicha, tras el estudio en profundidad del material gráfico y epigráfico en ella localizado.
Enclosure 26
Canal sur de la domus. A su vez era la estructura de contención del aterrazamiento de esta parte de la casa, concretamente entre su zona de acceso fauces/tabernae y el área distribuida en torno al atrio. Se localizó de forma aislada un grafito excepcional en este canal, concretamente en su relleno de amortización formado cuando el canal ya estaba en desuso, en algún momento del siglo III d.C.
Enclosure 52
Pasillo sur del peristilo de la zona N. de la domus. Se localizó aquí de forma aislada algún grafito de carácter excepcional en el nivel de derrumbe generalizado de la zona, producido en la 2ª mitad del siglo III d.C., así como en un nivel de suelo de época altoimperial.
Enclosure 56
Pasillo norte del peristilo de la zona N. de la domus. Se localizó aquí de forma aislada un grafito en el nivel superior de remoción agrícola. Lo incluimos por su proximidad al recinto 59.
Enclosure 61
Canal norte de la domus. A su vez era la estructura de contención del aterrazamiento de esta parte de la casa, concretamente entre el área distribuida en torno al atrio y la organizada alrededor del peristilo. Se localizó de forma aislada un grafito excepcional en este canal, concretamente en su relleno, formado en el momento del derrumbe generalizado de la 2ª mitad del siglo III d.C.
Street
Vial situado al sur de la domus y al que se abrirían las fauces o acceso a la misma, así como las tabernae situadas en este frente de fachada. Se localizó de forma aislada un grafito entre el derrumbe caído sobre la calle hacia el siglo III d.C.. Aunque no se trataba de un grafito de carácter excepcional, lo incluimos aquí ya que fue el que nos dió un nombre con el que identificamos la casa.
A total of 705 graffiti appeared in this sector distributed in different UUES. Of these, 300 were located in the so-called 59th precinct, of which 289 were recorded in the EU 51144, forming - for the most part - a coherent set - despite the apparent thematic disparity - created at a specific chronological time. As we explained in the introduction, not all of these graphites were exceptional and all had to be part of the set itself. However, we present here a total of 203 graphites of the 289 in the EU, that is, all of us, except only those formed by strokes. And we do it without further selection to get a global view of the find.
We consider that EU 51144 graphites would be part - for the most part - of a set with a well-marked chronological horizon. And we consider it an ensemble (with exceptional graphites and others that are not) because we think that this graphic material was executed in a certain context and in a more or less contemporaneous way, at a chronological moment prior to the collapse of the structure that left them buried. However, we are aware that some of the graphites identified would not be part of this set, but would have been executed before and in another context. These would have nothing to do with the set itself. In fact, parts were detected with graphite attributable to the time of use of the vessel and another or others, engraved when that part was already broken and amortized and that would be part of the graphic assembly. This has a very obvious explanation. If, as we thought, the archaeological material was contributed to the site during its operation, possibly from a dump, it was perfectly feasible that said material already had some engraved graphites.
Apart from EU graphites 51144, in Sector 5 some more exceptional graphites were located in isolation, of which we make a drastic selection and refer to their context in a shallow way. This is a total of 11 graphites, specifically 1 of the 4 located in the EU 5079 of the 26th precinct, 1 of the 11 located in the EU 5851 in precinct 52, the 2 located in the EU 5919 of venue 52, the one located in the EU 5001 above precinct 56 and the 5 located in the EU 5184 of the 61st precinct. We will nevertheless include a graphite located in the EU 5139-B - on the street - since it is the one that provided us with a name with which to identify, if you want, in a human sense, housing, although it is not a particular graphite.
Por tanto y con respecto a la cronología, hemos de tener en cuenta que la que aquí se ofrece es la correspondiente al momento de formación del estrato. Esto es extensible al resto de los grafitos del sector 5 que también incluimos. Eso nos proporcionaría la datación ante quem de los grafitos. No hay que perder de vista que, en el caso de los que presentamos aquí, corresponden a niveles de derrumbe y de amortización de los espacios, donde el material arqueológico se encuentra en disposición primaria, por lo que podemos suponer que el momento de grabado de los grafitos, sería bastante próximo al momento de formación del estrato o algo anterior (con límite cronológico en la fechación del estrato subyacente, en cada caso). Como ya hemos visto, el caso de la UE 51144 es un poco especial porque cuenta con material aportado de otro lugar a una posición secundaria, por lo que hay grafitos correspondientes a una fase anterior. Sin embargo, la reutilización de parte de este material como soporte de escritura o de dibujo, les proporciona una reubicación estratigráfica que acotaría su datación en relación a la formación del nuevo estrato en el que, finalmente, quedan depositados en la estratigrafía. Es decir, al reutilizarse el material, este segundo momento en su uso (al ser reutilizados como soporte) les otorgaría una nueva ubicación primaria en la secuencia estratigráfica.
Enclosure 59
UE 51144
Lower stratum of collapse fallen on the floor of the enclosure.
Stratigraphic relations: It is endorsed to US 5912 / 5952 / 51146 / 51193 / 51194 (5912 and 5952 wall slit cladding; 51193 and 51194 clay cladding of the walls; 51146 north side wall in the part where he had lost the cladding). Located under the EU 51143 (collapse stratum) and covering 51187 (ground interface).
Timeline: 2nd half century 3rd century AD.
C14 dating
• Ref. Gr.N-29997 (IR-11088): 1925 x 15 BP (25 A.D. x 15). Calibration at 2 sigma 95%: 33-35 A.D./53-90 A.D./101-125 a.d. It is a sample of charred wood, which falls within the chronological range provided by the rest of the material evidence of the level. Keep in mind that the date would correspond to the time when the part of the tree was formed from which the table was extracted, the strut, etc.
• Ref. Gr.N-29999 (IR-15006): 1820 x 60 BP (130 A.D. x 60). Calibration at 2 sigma 95%: 65-345 A.D./373-376 A.D. This is a wildlife sample. Both this coom the following fit within the chronological range provided by the rest of the material evidence of the level. They would also confirm the fact that there was a supply of waste material (garbage) from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD to a stratum formed in the 3rd century. Even taking into account the most extreme date that calibration provides us, we would have extreme dating in the 4th century, dismissable by what we have pointed out, but Roman nonetheless.
• Ref. Gr.A-31246 (IR-15007): 1905 x 30 BP (45 A.D. x 30). Calibration at 2 sigma 95%: 26-43 A.D./47-140 A.D./153-169 A.D./195-210 A.D. It is a wildlife sample, dated by AMS.
• REf. Gr.N-29998 (IR-15008): 1940 x 40 BP (10 A.D. x 40). Calibration at 2 sigma 95%: 38-7 BC/2 A.C-131 A.D. This is a wildlife sample.
Calibrations
The calibrations offered, from the BP dates of the Isotope laboratory of the University of Groningen (references Gr.N. conventional C14 dates; Gr. A-dates by AMS accelerator) have been obtained from the WinCal25 application (transformation of a radiocarbon date BP into a calender year probability distribution (Cal AD/BC), centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen, The Netherlands, J. van der Plicht, version 1.4 16 november 2007 AD (-57 BP), http://wincal25.software.informer.com/. In addition we also offer your calibrations through the OxCal 4.1, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Lab for Archaeology app, https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html. So we would have; IR-11088: 29-126 A.D. IR-15006: 65-377 A.D. IR-15007: 25-212 A.D. IR-15008: 45 a.C.-136 A.D., with the probability of certainty supplied by this 95.4% system.
Interpretation
We will dwell briefly on the aspects of the interpretation (which is not the sequencing - basis of dating - of this stratum, since it has been subjected to a debate which we consider somewhat misplaced. We will bring our point of view based on something irreplaceable such as on-site visual inspection, the first-hand data we have, the field experience and the knowledge of the site itself. We insist, however, that it is the sequencing of the stratum, that is, its location in the stratigraphic register, which provides the basis for its dating (along with the associated material). Interpretation, as the word itself indicates, enters a more reconstructive and therefore more subjective ground; although, however, it must be based on reliable data and not on assumptions, as we believe has been done to try to discredit our proposal, without achieving it. On the other hand, varying interpretations in the process of an excavation is not only common, but totally normal and even necessary. Because the input of new data when field and study work is underway, or the reflection processes themselves inherent in any research, often force the starting assumptions to be rethought. What's the matter? We answer them: none. The problem is to hold on to an initial and, as such, provisional interpretation.
See. Under the agricultural removal layer (EU 5001), we detected the same generalized level of collapse, composed of large slages, that we had identified in the rest of the N. area of the house. In this area this collapse was called EU 51143. Under it we find another stratum directly deposited on a floor. Soil very evident by its own compaction and leveling (EU 51197 with its interface EU 51187). This level, stratigraphically identified as EU 51144 was contained within the boundaries of enclosure 59. First we will point out why we interpret this stratum as a level of collapse. The stratum had a heterogeneous composition, a common feature in collapses in which the process of structural collapse provides construction materials of different kinds, from - logically - constructions in which various elements (stone, adobe and wood, for example) were used. The expert eye formed in field archaeology, allows to perfectly distinguish when heterogeneity corresponds to the same stratigraphic unit or several. In this case, it was very clear that it was a single unit. It was collapsed construction material and fallen in situ, providing the different material that made up the structure to the formation of the stratum, resulting in areas of different composition and coloration with diffuse boundaries, not defined as would have been typical of different units. Thus, there were more heavy areas next to the walls of E. and W., showing the fall of construction elements composed of clay from, in all likelihood, from these same walls (possibly from their coatings without ruling out a possible clay composition of the walls themselves, at least partial, as we have seen in the lifts of other walls in this same sector). These more heavy areas were clearly falling in situ, they were blurring to make way for more carbonous ones, where what was there was a greater contribution of wood. All of which seems to us to be clear evidence that this is a level of collapse. This would be joined by the presence of abundant bulkheads in the stratum, of those usually used in the construction of the walls of the site.
However, at first, we do not throw away any interpretative hypotheses, shuffling all possible ones and, among them, that it was a filling, as we set out in the original report. However, we immediately discarded this possibility because a filling, considered as an anthropic action by which a soil contribution (which may include materials) is produced to fill or fill a space, would never have presented the characteristics of the EU 51144. On the much-brought and carried question of this stratum being interpreted as collapsing the elevation structures, we do not see where the problem is. The landslides don't fall as directed by a manual. There are many circumstances that can affect the fact that we find fallen remnants of elevation below fallen remains of roof. Moreover, the collapse may not be preserved completely and we have lost other upper layers of debris that would have allowed for a better definition of the structural collapse process. The fact is that the EU 51144 had in its composition clay (especially concentrated next to two walls), wooden remains (especially in the central area) and bulkheads generalized in its composition. Nor can we dismiss therefore that the generation of such debris could have contributed as we noted in our report 'the ruin of its roof and wood forging and part of the clay coating on its walls', in reference to the possible existence of a semi-basement. In any case, the presence of bulkheads points to the fall, at least partial (possibly due to some structural failure) of one of the elevations. That is why in general, we concluded that the EU 51144 was a level of collapse of elevation structures (walls, clay plasters and including, if any, the wooden floor). And on top of that I had another stratum with large slabs attached to a deck. The rest of the debris that probably was above the preserved levels, we don't know. We believe that the data and the preserved evidence would point to our reconstructive proposal of the collapse process, as the most logical with the available data.
But what did this collapse fall on? We have two options: either directly on the ramsped clay floor identified in the excavation process, or on a possible wooden floor that had to be destroyed in the process, thus eventually the debris would have ended up falling on the clay floor, the only one preserved in the stratigraphic register. Shallow and non-definitive evidence of such wood flooring could be the remains of wood scattered throughout the stratum but concentrated in its central part.
On the other hand, we have the large volume of material evidence from Roman times located at the level, which mark a chronological arc between the middle of the 1st to the 3rd century AD, the most abundant evidence being those of the II and, already very specific, those of the III, which are the ones that allow to narrow the moment of formation of the stratum. We proposed as a hypothesis that this material had been intentionally contributed to this enclosure. And for this reason the possibility that it could have been brought together with earth as a filling was initially shuffled. But we have already seen that the composition of the stratum pointed towards a level of collapse with which, we considered it more likely to be material provided for storage (perhaps from a nearby dump), without any prior selection process. In addition, the appearance of graphites, many of them engraved on already fragmented material, made us propose the hypothesis that it was stored material to have where to select fragments then used as writing media. Whether this material was stored in a semi-basement or not, it is something that cannot be demonstrated with absolute certainty. But it has a very secondary importance. In any case, it was on the clay floor. The fact is that, in the collapse process, the material that was deposited on the floor of the room (whether directly on the clay floor, or on a hypothetical wooden floor) was incorporated into the level of debris formed, mingling with the elements themselves contributed by the collapse. That is, the material did not fall with it, but was the one that was on the ground, stored or in use, which, as a result of a violent event such as a collapse, was incorporated into a stratum of debris that is the one that we identify, archaeologically.
For us, therefore, it is clear that we are facing a landslide. But we cannot fail to point out an issue that has been raised with regard to this stratum. It has been indicated that the different colors recorded in it (especially in relation to the central carbonous spot) could indicate a possible post-victim alteration not detected in the excavation process. This statement cannot cease to amaze us by its gratuitousness, for being totally unfounded and for not being able to be proved. A post-historical alteration is something that is evident in the excavation, precisely because it modifies the sequence in a traumatic way. These alterations always have well-defined boundaries - like any pit - and do not respect strata. We explained to ourselves. How to understand a post-Roman alteration in the stratigraphy of enclosure 59, which would not have altered the upper level EU 51143, which would have affected the next EU 51144 and only this one since it had also not altered even the underlying EU 51197 soil? How to understand a post-historical alteration in the form of a blackish spot, the appearance of which is limited to a single stratum, whose boundaries are blurred and whose composition clearly shows an archaeological formation? And that, in addition, this assumption is made by those who have not directly seen the excavation or consulted the field data, it is really unsustainable. This possibility must therefore be ruled out.
It is obvious that there may be other opinions on this matter that we respect, but if they are argued and based on data from which we here, we have only been able to outline a few slight notes. Because it is important to take into account many other aspects of a structural nature (for example, how this enclosure is incardinad with the rest of the construction of the domus) and take into account endless data and indications which we cannot explain here and which corresponds to the excavation memory itself.
Additional graphites
Los grafitos que a continuación se exponen aparecieron de forma aislada, no formando parte de un conjunto como el visto anteriormente.
Enclosure 26
UE 5079
Relleno de amortización del canal S. de la domus cuando éste estaba ya en desuso.
Relaciones estratigráficas: Bajo las UUEE 5001 (estrato de remoción agrícola) y 5177 (relleno puntual de colmatación del canal). Rellenaba a la UE 51297 (interfase del hueco del canal)
Cronología: siglo III d.C.
Enclosure 52
UE 5851
Estrato de derrumbe generalizado sobre el peristilo. El grafito en cuestión se localizó en el pasillo S. del mismo o recinto 52.
Relaciones estratigráficas: Bajo la UE 5001 (estrato de remoción agrícola) y sobre la UE 5904 (estrato de ocupación).
Cronología: 2ª mitad del siglo III d.C.
UE 5919
Estrato de preparación del suelo del pasillo situado al S. del peristilo.
Relaciones estratigráficas: Bajo la UE 5122 (interfase de suelo) y sobre las UUEE 5921 (estrato de ocupación anterior a la construcción del peristilo de mediados del I d.C.), 51042 y 51027 (fosa de saqueo y relleno de fines del I d.C.).
Cronología: Época romana altoimperial, siglo II d.C.
Enclosure 56
UE 5001
Estrato de remoción agrícola generalizado a todo el sector.
Relaciones estratigráficas: En el recinto 56, cubría a la UE 5983 (estrato de ocupación) y a la UE 5981 (cimentación del muro de cierre del recinto 56 por el norte).
Cronología: El soporte del grafito es claramente romano, pero la estratigrafía no aporta datos cronológicos al tratarse del estrato superficial.
Enclosure 61
UE 51184
Relleno del canal N. de la domus, producido en el momento del derrumbe y formado con la aportación de éste.
Relaciones estratigráficas: Bajo la UE 5001 (estrato de remoción agrícola) y rellenando a la UE 51183 (interfase del hueco del canal).
Cronología: 2ª mitad el siglo III d.C.
Street
UE 5139-B
Estrato de derrumbe generalizado sobre la calle al S. de la DPV.
Relaciones estratigráficas: Bajo la UE 5139-A (parte superior de este estrato derrumbe) y sobre la UE 5139-C (parte inferior de este estrato de derrumbe)
Cronología: siglo III d.C.