Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:37:33.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Light on the Origins of Floor Mosaics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

Dimas Fernández-Galiano
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Recent discoveries of pebble mosaics in various settlements in southern Spain from the seventh to the fourth centuries B.C. reveal an early tradition in floor-making. These discoveries have thrown new light on the origins of the most commonly used floors in Roman times, opus signinum and opus tessellatum. The first technique, thought to be Italian in origin, was probably developed in Italy from previous experiments in other Mediterranean sites which were of Punic origin. The origin of tessellated floors has been widely discussed and, although they were being produced on a large scale in Italy towards the first century A.D., we can assume that there existed a long experimental stage prior to the Roman period in which two general types of mosaic floors were developed—those with a uniform surface and those formed with small elements.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Antiquaries Journal , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , September 1982 , pp. 235 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 In order to have a classification to work with I have accepted the terms current in archaeology despite the arbitrary nature of some of them. For the terminology of the subject, vide Gioseffi, D., ‘Terminología dei sistemi di pavimentazione nell Antichità’ in Mosaici in Aquileia e nell'Alto Adriatico (Udine, 1975), pp. 23–38.Google Scholar

2 P. Gaukler, ‘Musivum opus’, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines (Daremberg-Saglio).

3 Stern, H.. ‘Introduction au Colloque’ in La mosaïque gréco-romaine, II (Paris, 1975), pp. 23–30Google Scholar; ‘La funzione del mosaico nella casa antica’ in Mosaici in Aquileia e nell'Alto Adriatico (Udine, 1975), pp. 39–57.Google Scholar

4 Blake, M. E., Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, viii (1930), 23Google Scholar; Hirsch, E. S., Painted Decoration on the Floors of Bronze Age Structures on Crete and the Greek Mainland (Göteborg, 1977).Google Scholar

5 Young, R. S., A.J.A. lxi (1957), 322Google Scholar, pl. 89, 7. Robertson, , J.H.S. lxxxv (1965), 72.Google ScholarStern, , M.G.R. ii (1975), p. 27, pl. 1.Google Scholar

6 From the Heraion of Delos: Bruneau, Ph., Délos: les mosaïques (Paris, 1972), no. 200, p. 230, fig. 162.Google Scholar

7 Palau, A. Arribaset al., Excavaciones en el poblado de la Edad del Bronce ‘Cerro de la Encina’, Monachil (Granada), Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 81 (Madrid, 1974), 39–40, pls. VI–VIII.Google Scholar

8 Martínez, J. M. Blázquez, Malla, J. Valiente, Cástulo III, Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 117 (Madrid, 1981), 18 ff., fig. 8.Google Scholar

9 Luzon, J. M., Mata, D. Ruiz, Las raíes de Córdoba: estratigrafía de la Colina de los Quemados (Córdoba, 1973).Google Scholar

10 Ibid., p. 10.

11 Gorbea, M. Almagro, ‘Los relieves mitólogicos orientalizantes de Pozo Moro’, Trabajos de Prehistoria, xxxv (1978), 255–6Google Scholar, fig. 254; ‘Pozo Moro y la formación de la Cultura Ibérica’ Saguntum, xiii (1978), 232.Google Scholar

12 Blázquez, J. M., Cástulo I, Acta Arqueológica Hispánica, 8 (Madrid, 1975).Google Scholar

13 Ibid., 143, figs. 73–74, pl. XIX.

14 Blázquez, J. M., Remesal, J., ‘Hallazgos en la necrópolis oretana de Cástulo’, XIII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología (Zaragoza, 1975), pp. 639–658Google Scholar; ‘La necrópolis del Estacar de Robarinas’, Cástulo II, Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 105 (Madrid, 1979)Google Scholar, 349 ff., plans 14, 16, 18–20, pls. XLI–XLVII; Blázquez, J. M., Remesal, J., Ramirez, J. L., Valiente, J., ‘La necrópolis oretana de Cástulo. Campaña 1976’, VIII Symposium Internacional de Prehistoria Peninsular (Córdoba, 1976).Google Scholar

15 J. R. Sánchez Messeguer, ‘Los Higuerones’, Cástulo II, 418 ff.

16 Pliny, N.H., XXVI, 185: Pavimenta credo primum facta quae nunc vocamus barbarica atque subtegulanea, in Italia festucis pavita. Hoc certe et nomine ipso intellegi potest. Pliny is referring to a type of beaten pavement—a more precise definition is not possible from the text. Some authors, such as Gauckler, consider the pavimentum barbaricum as an opus signinum that has been reinforced with pebbles. I prefer to regard the pavimentum barbaricum as a general type of floor which is first beaten down; in this category we could include both the plain types of beaten floor and the mortar types, which are of clay beaten down before surfaced over with mortar. These are the kind of floors that Italian archaeologists call mattone battuto or cocciopesto. The uncertainty of the terms has led certain authors (such as Blake, M. E., M.A.A.R. viii (1930), 23 ff.) to refer to all these types in general as cement pavements. On the other hand, we lack a term that designates the opus signinum floor which has motifs inlaid in white tesserae.Google Scholar

17 J. M. Luzón, D. Ruiz Mata, op. cit., p. 9.

18 Pellicer, M., Schule, W., El cerro del Real. Galera (Granada), Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 12 (Madrid, 1962), 6.Google Scholar

19 Garrido, J. P., Excavaciones en Huelva. El Cabezo de la Esperanza, Excavaciones Arqueológicas en España, 63 (Madrid, 1968), 22.Google Scholar

20 Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, v, 216d–209e.

21 C. C. Edgar, Zenon Papyri, IV, p. 15.

22 Phillips, K. M., The Art Bulletin, xlii (1960), 243–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Daszewski, W. A., ‘Some problems of early mosaics from Egypt’ in Das ptolemäische Ägypten (Berlin, 1978), pp. 123–36.Google Scholar

24 Morel, J. P., ‘Kerkouane, ville punique du Cap Bon: remarques archéologiques et historiques’, M.E.F.R. lxxxi (1969), 499–500, fig. 28.Google Scholar

25 Fantar, M., ‘Les pavements puniques’ in Les Dossiers de l'Archéologie (Nov.–Dec. 1978), 6–11.Google Scholar

26 Rakob, F., CedacCarthage: Bulletin 2 (June, 1979), 26.Google Scholar

27 Fantar, op. cit.

28 Tusa, V., ‘Segni di Tanit a Selinunte’ in Homenaje a Garcia Bellido, II (Madrid, 1976), pp. 29–35Google Scholar; Fantar, M., ‘Pavimenta Punica et signe dit de Tanit dans les habitations de Kerkouane’, Studi Magrebini, I (1966), pp. 57–65.Google Scholar

29 Chelbi, F., ‘Découverte d'un habitat punique sur le flanc sudest de la colline de Byrsa’, Cedac Carthage: Bulletin 3 (June, 1980), 29–39, figs. 4–7.Google Scholar

30 M. L. Morricone Matini, Mosaici antichi in Italia: pavimenti di signino republicani di Roma e dintorni, I, p. 7, pl. VIII.

31 Bruneau, Ph., ‘Prolongements de la technique des mosaïques de galets en Grèce’, B.C.H. xciii (1969), I, 308–32.Google Scholar

32 I thank X. Barral for this information, given at the Third International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics in Ravenna, September, 1980.

33 Daszewski, op. cit., pp. 125 ff.