Roman Capitals from Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANDREJA MAVER, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology, Ljubljana HARALD MÜLLER, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Applied Geology, Vienna IGOR RI@NAR, Geolo{ke ekspertize Igor Ri`nar s.p., Ljubljana ROMAN CAPITALS FROM SIRMIUM (SREMSKA MITROVICA, SERBIA) UDC: 904:73"652"(497.113) e-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.2298/STA0959119M Received: January 21, 2009 Original research article Accepted: May 4, 2009 Abstract. – The article brings a detailed formal analysis of the Roman capitals from Sirmium, in the light of the stone analysis conducted on the material at the Museum of Srem and elsewhere in Sremska Mitrovica. The capitals dot the historical development of the town from the first half of the 2nd century until the 4th century. First made of regional limestone, they were later joined by those of limestone and marbles of distant source, whereby different stones in capitals coexisted almost throughout the town’s development. This was certainly the situation during the flourishing times of the late 3rd and the 4th century, when Sirmium, as one of the four capitals of the Roman Empire, stood within several formal circles of capitals. The plain-leaved capitals tie it to the rest of Pannonia, the Corinthianizing capitals to the provinces to the east and south, while part of the Asiatic capitals, the largest group, tie it to the wider area of the Mediterranean. Key words. – Sirmium, Roman period, Roman architecture, Corinthian capitals, Corinthianizing capitals, Corinthian Asiatic capitals, marble analyses. he Roman capitals from Sirmium, particularly selected six capitals. After a hiatus of several decades, those of the Corinthian order, have attracted capitals again came to the forefront, together with other T much attention on the part of the researchers of architectural elements, through papers by Miroslav the city’s Roman architecture or of the form of capitals Jeremi} (1993; 1995; 2002b and others). He published in this and the neighbouring regions. This is with good additional capitals and provided general definitions of reason, since the collection of capitals is notable, where- formal groups, parallels and dating. Christine Ertel (1997; by its importance lies not only in the formal wealth and 2005) provided a historical overview of the capitals and the diversity of material used for their production, but some bases from Sirmium in excerpts, while Kiss (1987) also in the information it provides concerning the mentioned most of these capitals in his overview of the quarrying, trade routes and workshops of architectural architecture in Pannonia. elements in the broader region. Inevitably, this collection The unsystematic approach to the capitals in the past, continues to grow with new excavations taking place in however, did not reflect the true wealth of this architec- the city. tural element in form and quantity; neither did it provide The first author to dedicate special attention to the more than a limited number of detailed studies of indivi- capitals from Sirmium was Ivanka Nikolajevi}-Stojko- dual capitals or their formal groups. In recent years, the vi} (1957; 1969). She first met with the capitals when project entitled Stone Use in Roman Towns. Resources, dealing with the early Byzantine architecture in the Transport, Products and Clients. Case Study Sirmium, Republic of Macedonia. She later wrote a short article headed by Bojan Djuri}, provided a systematic survey especially on the capitals from Sirmium, in which she of all the stone materials used at Sirmium, including provided a detailed formal analysis as well as date for the those used for the capitals. Equipped with the already 119 MAVER, MÜLLER, RI@NAR, Roman Capitals from Sirmium (119–148) STARINAR LIX/2009 published information and encouraged by the new narrows downwards. These differences, however, can findings, I estimated that the capitals from Sirmium hardly lead us to assume uses in different architectural deserved renewed attention, which I will pay in the complexes. paper below. The closest formal parallel for these capitals can be The aim of the paper is to provide a formal analysis found at Asseria (modern Podgra|e near Benkovac, of each capital as well as its parallels, place within formal Croatia), dating to the Trajanic period.2 The upper curve groups and date. Furthermore, it aspires to explore the of the helices, the shape of the palmette, shape and de- formal, material and chronological features of these coration of the caulicules (although they are more oblique capitals in order to bring them in relation with the de- on the Sirmium capitals) indicate that this parallel is velopment of the Roman town in general. Having said closest of all. Other analogies come from Aquileia, Pula that, the aim has two limitations. On the one hand, the and Trieste, but also Salona.3 These are earlier and con- analyses of the Mediterranean white marbles performed firm the observations of earlier models for these capitals up to this point have proved inconclusive and await made by Nikolajevi} (1969) and Jeremi} (2002b). The further analyses and checking of results. On the other earliest date for the Sirmium capitals was the Flavian hand, the formal analysis and analogies of a part of the period, proposed by Nikolajevi}, who tied the capitals Asiatic type Corinthian capitals made of Mediterranean and the Forum to the new status of Sirmium as colonia marbles raise some chronological questions, the answe- Flavia Sirmium.4 This is a very tempting interpretation ring of which surpasses the boundaries of this paper. and one that the parallels, particularly from Aquileia, would not refute. However, the small finds from the systematic excavation that took place on Site 29,5 EARLY CORINTHIAN CAPITALS where these capitals had been uncovered, revealed a chronological span that began with the 2nd century. This The earliest group of capitals so far known from would offer an indirect evidence of a date ante quem Sirmium are the normal Corinthian capitals that came to non for the capitals, but would also come close to the light in the area at the presumed early Forum.1 They date of the Asseria capitals (Trajanic period). The upper came to light already at the end of the 19th century in the limit, on the other hand, is more elusive and the broad vicinity of the later baths (so-called Licinius’ Baths), date, proposed by Ertel (first half of the 2nd century),6 the construction of which in the early 4th century de- cannot reliably be refuted or narrowed. Nevertheless, the stroyed the earlier architecture on that spot. I documented Flavian–Trajanic date of the closest parallels from the five capitals, the size, form and find-spot of which point eastern Adriatic coast favours the date of the Sirmium to the same large, public building. capitals into the Trajanic period. The five normal Corinthian capitals (SRM 47, 48, 60, These five capitals were all made of limestone, more 493 and 606) bear two rows of independent acanthus precisely Lithotype I as defined by Ri`nar and Jovano- mollis leaves of eight leaves per ring on the kalathos. vi} for Sirmium’s material.7 As to the lithotype variants, The caulicules grow at a sharp angle from behind the two are made of Ic (SRM 47 and 48), one of Ib (SRM 60) central leaf of the second ring. The stem of the caulicule is fluted and the collar spirally decorated. Above the central leaf of the second row rises a leaf that resembles most closely that of a palmette. Corner volutes and heli- ces grow from calyces that stem from the caulicules. Both 1 All capitals are individually presented in the catalogue below. volutes are plain, their eyelets protruding. They are 2 A pilaster capital that formed part of the main entrance gate broad and slightly flattened against the kalathos. The into the town, built in the time of Trajan: Liebl, Wilberg, 1908, 35–36, Abb. 12, as well as a capital from the Forum: Liebl, Wilberg, abacus is moulded and decorated at the lower edge with 1908, 47–50, Abb. 26. fluting with crescent base. The capitals were part of 3 For Aquileia: Scrinari 1952, 28–31, nos. 20, 21; for Pula and approximately 5.5 m high columns. Trieste: Scrinari 1956, 21–23, nos. 11 and 16, particularly the capitals Besides the common traits there are also slight formal from the Monte Zaro theatre. As for Salona, I refer to the capital now at the east entrance into the amphitheatre. differences in the rendering of the leaves. The capital of 4 Nikolajevi} 1969, 656. SRM 60, for example, has a sunken midvein. The same 5 Milo{evi} 1994, 25–26. feature can be observed also on the leaves of SRM 606. 6 Ertel 2005, 311. Jeremi} (1995, 142, 146, Fig. 2) proposes a The capitals of SRM 47 and 493 have a midrib, as does date of the early 2nd century or the time of Trajan. the capital of SRM 48, but the midrib on the latter 7 Ri`nar, Jovanovi} 2006, 140. 120 MAVER, MÜLLER, RI@NAR, Roman Capitals from Sirmium (119–148) STARINAR LIX/2009 and one of Ia (SRM 493).8 All of these lithotypes of low relief, placed between the leaves of the first ring. limestone are presumed to be of regional origin, more Only the spaces between individual lobes are carved precisely to have been quarried at the Dardagani Quarry deeper. The leaves are independent. They are not rendered near Zvornik (north-eastern Bosnia) and thus imported fully organically, but do not show the geometric forms from the province of Dalmatia via the Sapna, Drina and and the distinct chiaroscuro tendency, which are charac- Sava Rivers to Sirmium.