Vinum Picenum and Oliva Picena II Further Thoughts on Wine and Oil Presses in Central Adriatic Italy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BABESCH 94 (2019), 97-126. doi: 10.2143/BAB.94.0.3286781 Vinum picenum and oliva picena II Further Thoughts on Wine and Oil Presses in Central Adriatic Italy Dimitri Van Limbergen Abstract This paper is a continuation of a previous article by the author on Roman wine and oil production in central Marche and northern Abruzzo, published in this journal in 2011. In essence, it reflects on what five years of complementary research have contributed to our knowledge on the wine and oil business in this area between the Late Republican and the late antique period (2nd century BC-5th century AD). Through a substantial expan- sion of the original press database and a fresh blend of both older and newer data, the author further stresses the importance of this sector in central Adriatic Italy, while at the same time expanding our view on how it is represented archaeologically. In doing so, he revisits and refines several key-aspects of this topic, such as the chronology and layout of the production plants, as well as their relationship with wider processes of colonisation, urbanisation and agricultural exploitation in Roman Italy.* INTRODUCTION In a 2011 paper published in this journal, I set out This paper builds on this earlier work and aims to assess the role of wine and olive oil production at further deepening and expanding our knowl- in the agrarian economy of the Marche region edge on the wine and oil sector in this particular and northern Abruzzo in Late Republican and area of central Italy in Roman times. Since 2011, Early Imperial times (2nd century BC-2nd century several new production plants have come to light AD). To this purpose, the available information in the region through rescue excavations by the from literary sources and amphora studies was Soprintendenza Archeologica delle Marche, while integrated with a first-time systematic analysis of some older data have only recently been pub- the archaeological record with regard to the pres- lished, or previously did not capture my atten- ence of press installations in the central Adriatic tion. Furthermore, I was able to identify a num- countryside. This inventory resulted in the regis- ber of dispersed press remains in the area through tration of 35 sites that bore clear evidence for the personal fieldwork during the summers of 2012, functioning of one or several presses in Roman 2013 and 2014. All this has led to a significant times. By carefully interblending some of the expansion of the original press database presented chronological and architectural patterns that came in 2011, as the total number of known production out of this analysis with the textual and ceramic sites now amounts to 55 (figs. 1-2) (appendix). In documentation, I was able to argue - contrary to addition, in light of my research activities over long-standing scepticism - for the existence of a the past few years, I felt the need to review more sizable wine and oil production, seemingly peak- thoroughly a number of press facilities that could ing between the mid-1st century BC and the mid- not be included previously due to place restric- 1st century AD.1 However, many questions tions, but whose analysis I deem of major interest remained unanswered. How did this sector for a better understanding of the archaeological emerge and evolve during the long era of Late record in this area. Together then, these ‘old’ and Republican colonisation? What role did local and ‘new’ sites form a good basis for revisiting and distant markets play in its further development? reframing some of the trends, themes and issues What is the precise relationship between the press touched upon in my earlier work, while at the record and the amphora evidence herein? And same time they help in fully capturing the diverse how did the post-2nd century AD events in Italy nature and evolution of the production plants in affect the nature and scale of these businesses? this region. As such, this article can be considered 97 Fig. 1. Wine and/or oil production sites in northern Marche: 49. Colombarone di Pesaro; 1. Fano Contrada S. Cristina; 5. Cesano di Senigallia: 50; Senigallia-Via Cavalotti; 6. San Pellegrino di Ripe; 37. Monte Porzio; 4. Fano Sant’Ippolito; 48. Fossombrone-Forum Sempronii; 53. Isola del Piano; 40. Ca’Balduini di sopra; 2. Fer- mignano San Giacomo; 3. Colombara di Acqualagna; 38. Peglio Ca’Casella; 39. Peglio Ca’Boccio; 7. Jesi-Villa Romagnoli; 8. Gallignano di Ancona; 9. Monte Torto di Osimo; 45. Osimo-Auximum; 10. Castelfidardo; 11. Porto Recanati-La Pineta; 36. Montarice Villa; 12. Chiarino di Recanati; 13. Cingoli Moscosi; 14. Cingoli Piano San Martino; 47. Treia-S. Crocifisso; 15. Pollenza Santa Lucia; 41. Villamagna (map author). the conclusion to a diptych on wine and oil pro- on the implications of these data for the dia- duction in the central Adriatic area of Italy that chronic evolution of the wine and oil sector in started several years ago.2 central Adriatic Italy. In particular, renewed sci- The core of this second article is once again entific attention for the concurrent developments formed by the appendix at the back, where the 20 in town and country now allows for integrating ‘new’ sites with press remains are assembled (ap- the ever-enlarging press database with intra- and pendix).3 This archaeological evidence is reviewed extra-regional trade systems, as well as wider in a first part, together with a more comprehensive diachronic processes of colonisation, urbanisation presentation of some emblematic sites from the and agricultural exploitation.5 In turn, this pro- original press database.4 The main aim of this sec- vides the opportunity to fine-tune some earlier tion is to illustrate the archaeological situation in interpretations, and to formulate a few novel this area to a greater degree, to highlight some of research questions. the peculiarities of the press evidence, and to A brief outline of how wine and oil were made address some of its interpretative problems. This in antiquity is useful to fully capture the dis- review is subdivided into sites found through course. Both production processes involved a survey and sites known by excavation. In a sec- crushing phase prior to a pressing stage. Olive ond discussion part, some thoughts are offered crushing was a preparatory treatment meant to 98 Fig. 2. Wine and/or oil production sites in southern Marche and northern Abruzzo: 55. San Lorenzo; 20. Fermo Penna San Giovanni; 16. Fermo San Salvatore; 17. Fermo Villa Vitali; 42. Fermo 1; 43. Fermo 2; 44. Fermo 3; 18. Monterubbiano San Gregorio; 19. Grottazzolina; 21. Rocca di Pieve Torina; 22. Moresco Valdaso; 23. Mas- signano San Giuliana; 24. Cupra Marittima Bocca Bianca; 25. Cupra Marittima San Basso; 26. Cupra Marit- tima San Michele; 27. Ripatransone Castelluccio; 28. Offida San Giovanni; 29. San Benedetto Porto d’Ascoli; 51. Monsampolo del Tronto; 52. San Benedetto-Paese Alto; 30. Tortoreto Case Ozzi; 31. Tortoreto Muracche; 32. Castrum Novum Via Turati; 33. Castelnuovo Vomano; 34. Piano della Monaca; 35. Montorio Brecciano; 54. Piana dei Cesari (map author) destroy the integrity of the fruit, and thus to sep- most dominant and effective way to collect juice arate the flesh from the nut, which was essential from grapes throughout Antiquity. Afterwards, in order to enable the subsequent efficient extrac- with the aid of a mechanical press, extra pressure tion of olive juice from the olives. Only a small could be applied to the trodden grapes for extract- amount of liquid was retrieved during this initial ing the remaining juice. Both fruits could be squeez- stage; the largest portion was extracted during ed by using the same type of press. The oldest type the pressing of the crushed olive pulp, soaked in known in Italy (mid-2nd century BC) is Cato’s hot water and piled in baskets under the press ‘lever-and-drum/winch’ press; a simple installa- beam. A widespread type of olive crusher through- tion that saw one end of a long wooden beam fit- out the Mediterranean was the rotary mill, most ted between two wooden piers (arbores), and the famously represented by Cato’s trapetum (A) (RR other end attached to a drum or winch fixed 20.2) and Columella’s mola olearia (B) (Rust. between two uprights (stipites) (fig. 4, A) (Cato, RR 12.52.6-7) (fig. 3). In grape processing, the largest 18-19). Around the mid-1st century BC, the more amount of liquid was released during crushing - efficient ‘lever-and-screw’ press appeared, replac- usually in the form of underfoot treading on a ing the drum/winch with a vertical wooden screw treading floor - and this method remained the mechanism, whose lower end was placed in either 99 Fig. 3. Trapetum (A) and mola olearia (B) (after White 1975, figs. 56 and 58). a stone weight or a box with stones, while its dolia fragments were found on 28 sites.10 Bricks of higher end pierced through the horizontal beam the spicatum-type are also known from three rural (fig. 4, B) (Heron, Mech. 3.15; Pliny, HN 18.317). This sites registered during field surveys carried out by type was followed by various types of ‘direct-pres- Ghent University in the Potenza river valley in sure-screw’ presses (fig. 4, C). All types remained in central Marche. The same surveys further attested use until Late Antiquity. After pressing, olive oil the presence of dolia on 30 sites.11 needed to be decanted, while the grape must under- While these bricks and potsherds surely recall the went clarification and fermentation. Both operations utilitarian character of a site - or at least of one of its took place in single or multiple collecting vats.6 sectors - they cannot, however, on their own pro- vide firm proof for the existence of a press.