PEUCE, S.N. XVI, 2018, p. 55 - 198
A (PARTIAL) ICONOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF EARLY ROMAN IMPERIAL LAMPS (70-130 AD).
A SHORT STUDY OF 290 DISCUS-MOTIFS ADORNING THE LAMPS DISCOVERED WITHIN THE HARBOR GARBAGE COVERING THE "ARLES-
RHÔNE 3" SHIPWRECK AND OF THEIR GEOGRAPHIC REPARTITION
Laurent Chrzanovski , David Djaoui
Abstract: The importance of the Arles harbor's garbage which "sealed" the Arles-Rhône 3 shipwreck, shortly depicted hereafter, is so huge in archaeological materials, quantitatively and qualitatively, that it will give birth in the next decade to more than twenty monographs devoted each one to a specific type of artifact.
This lamp-focused article aims to propose, in "avant-première" and in "globish" (the recently accepted expression designated for non-native very poor English), to highlight only one of the many important results of the final study of the more than 816 intact lamps and +5'000 fragments discovered during the underwater excavations of the Arles-Rhône 3 shipwreck, to be published next year. As a matter of fact, never in lychnological history a single small excavation delivered so many motifs from so many different manufactures and adorning productions framed in only 60 years of history (70 to 130 AD), and the different social, economic, productive and merely lychnological topics to be covered in the monograph abound.
Here, we would like to propose a discussion on the micro- and macro-regional trade roads and their influences on lamp iconography. As a matter of fact, the corpus is made of artifacts brought to Arles from the most remote parts of the Mediterranean as well as from the nearest Gallic workshops, exactly during the apex of creativity of the Roman workshops in terms of quantity and variety of discus themes. This flourishing lamp decoration vogue started with Tiberius' reign and will slowly end with Trajan's one, our garbage is hence covering the second half of this momentum.
Arles, a major multimodal platform as we would say today, transferring goods from the sea to the river Rhône as well as to the consular road network and vice-versa, is certainly one the most perfect observation points possible towards the whole Western Roman Empire.
There we can guess some partial answers on important questions such as: which motifs remained at the level of individual imports? Which ones seduced the local manufactures? Which ones were also produced by the flourishing manufactures of one or both ends of the Western Empire (the Rhine Valley and Africa)? Which ones belong to Gallic lamp-makers' own creativity?
The short comparison tables will indicate that there are a lot of hypothesis to study further in this domain. Further, an in-depth immersion on each motif will be proposed through an "illustrated dictionary"
of the 290 more relevant motifs with the most relevant lists of parallels and the intact/context-dated lamps
Doctoral School of History of the "Lucian Blaga" State University of Sibiu, e-mail:
Musée Départemental Arles Antique, France, e-mail: [email protected]
found in Gaul, eliminating all additional French-known fragments which did not bring anything relevant to the article.
Rezumat: Importanța depunerii de gunoi din portul de la Arles, care a „sigilat” epava Arles-Rhône 3 ce urmează a fi descrisă succint în cele ce urmează, este atât de mare în ceea ce privește materialul arheologic, atât din punct de vedere cantitativ cât și calitativ, încât va da naștere în următorul deceniu la nu mai puțin de douzăeci de monografii, fiecare tratând un anumit tip de artefact.
Articolul de față, concentrându-se asupra opaițelor, este menit să propună, în „avanpremieră” și într-un limbaj „cvasi-global” (expresie recent acceptată asociată non-nativilor cu puține cunoștințe de limbă engleză), să pună în evidență doar unul dintre multitudinea de rezultate importante ale studiului final, a nu mai puțin de 816 opaițe intacte și a peste 5000 de fragmente descoperite în cursul cercetării arheologice subacvatice ale epavei Arles-Rhône 3, ce va fi publicată în anul ce urmează. De altfel, niciodată în decursul studiilor opaițelor romane o singură cercetare de mici dimensiuni nu a rezultat în atât de multe motive iconografice provenite din ateliere diferite, decorând produsele manufacturate într-o perioadă de doar 60 de ani (din 70 până în 130 p.Chr.), cât și în atât de multe teme sociale, economice, de producție sau simple motive caracteristice opaițelor în general, ce urmează a fi tratate în monografie.
În aceste pagini am dori să propunem o discuție asupra rutelor comerciale micro- și macro-regionale cât și a influențelor acestora asupra iconografiei opaițelor în sine. De altfel, acest corpus este compus din artefacte venite la Arles din cele mai îndepărtate regiuni mediteraneene dar și din cele mai apropiate ateliere galice, exact în momentul de maximă creativitate ale atelierelor romane în ceea ce privește cantitatea și varietatea tematicilor reprezentate pe discuri. Această modă înfloritoare de decor a început în timpul domniei lui Tiberius și se va încheia treptat în timpul lui Traian; în consecință, depunerea noastră acoperă cea de a doua jumătate a acestei perioade.
Arles, o platformă multimodală majoră, așa cum am spune azi, transferând mărfuri venite pe mare pentru a fi transbordate atât pe Ron cât și pe drumul consular și viceversa, este cu siguranță unul dintre cele mai bune puncte de observație ale Imperiului Roman de Apus.
Aici putem intui răspunsuri parțiale pentru întrebări importante precum: care motive au rămas la nivelul importurilor individuale? Care dintre acestea au sedus manufacturierii locali? Care motive au fost produse de centrele înfloritoare ale unui capăt sau ale ambelor limite ale Imperiului Roman de Apus (Valea Rinului și Africa)? Care dintre acestea sunt rezultatul creativității producătorilor gali de opaițe?
Scurtele tabele comparative vor indica faptul că există o multitudine de ipoteze pentru studiile viitoare în acest domeniu. Mai mult, o privire aprofundată asupra fiecărui motiv va fi propusă printr-un
„dicționar ilustrativ” ale celor peste 290 de motive relevante și ale listelor relevante de paralele și opaițe intacte sau datate de context descoperite în Galia, eliminând astfel fragmentele suplimentare cunoscute în Franța care nu contribuie cu nimic relevant prezentului articol.
Key words: Arles, Roman shipwreck, harbor garbage, lamps, iconography, imagery diffusion.
Cuvinte cheie: Arles, epavă romană, opaițe din depunerea portuară, iconografie, difuzia imagisticii.
THE ROOTS OF SUCH A PRETENTIOUS TITLE: CAUSES AND AIMS. (L.C.) Studying since decades lamps from all horizons, we have seen or worked on impressive corpuses from museums or excavations. Yet we never dared to write down in any of our researches the used and abused word "amazing". The underwater discoveries made at Arles and, within them, the lamp corpus, are indeed worth of using for the first time this very expression.
The first and main reason is, as David Djaoui will explain, the very short timeframe within which the excavated zone was in use, corresponding to what the archaeologists believe to be the most outlying area used for transshipping purpose during the period of the maximal extension of the Roman city's harbor, one of the most important ones in the whole Northern Mediterranean area. As a matter of fact, except for a few wrecks and occasional discoveries, this southern area on the right shore of the Rhône has been left, as soon as the end of the first third of the 2nd century, to some minor suburban activities, all the main maritime and fluvial activities being led further North, facing the intra muros city, while on the opposite bank, facing the Arles-Rhône 3 location, the magnificent circus was built on the remains of a former suburban area.
As a consequence, no archaeologist could have achieved more but dreaming to find, in a single excavation covering less than 200 square meters, more than 5000 lamp fragments, among which ca. 1500 deserved an in-depth research. The very rare occasions when such situations do exist, are in general the discoveries of a huge garbage pit linked to a very rich villa rustica. Yet, in no way, those contexts could
"speak" on behalf of a whole and vital urban sector of activities witnessing the presence of hundreds of men per day between indigenous and foreign nautae, tradesmen, local workforces, inhabitants of the neighborhood etc.
Above all, the whole lamp corpus is framed in less than 70 years, a period we could even sharpen to 60 years as very few lamps can possibly be dated prior to 70 AD or later that 130 AD. The timeframe itself is, among Roman productions, a research heaven: it is the second and last part of the "Golden Age" of Roman Empire as a whole in all aspects of its lychnological productions. At Arles, we have hence Central, Northern and Southern (Campanian) Italian originals, as well as African ones, besides a few lighting devices made in Asia Minor, Alexandria and the Aegean world, all being soon overwhelmed by the birth and massive productions of workshops located in Southern and Central Gaul.
For lamp iconography, it is hence a unique momentum in the Roman history, when themes newly-born in different parts of the Empire reach far-away destinations and, among them, one can witness which ones will be appreciated, hence copied or imitated, and which ones stayed at the level of unique imports without impacting the newly established local manufactures in their repertory choice. In the figures at the end
of this introduction, the reader will find a comparative scheme of the contemporary and consecutive geographical repartition of the adoption of each motif. A very interesting point is that quite a few were beloved both in the Northern provinces and in the South- Western Mediterranean area, i.e. produced by the main Rhine Valley producing workshops and by their African counterparts.
As a consequence of the historical framework and of the characteristics of a major
"international cargo multimodal hub" as one would say today, the impressive quantity of motifs – 331, i.e. less than 3 discus-readable fragments or lamps with the same representation! – is the equivalent of the ones, covering much broader periods, gathered during decennial excavations in major sites like Ampurias, Trier, the Athenian Agora, the Athenian Kerameikos or Corinth just to mention some of them – and more or less the same as all the motifs studied for the whole Swiss territory from the latest years of the 1st century BC to the end of the 4th century AD.
We could not end our introduction without thanking the generosity of the Peuce's editorial office and its team for accepting our very long text as the complete final publication will be edited in French, a language which is far from being accessible to everyone and far from being easy to learn.
THE ARLES-RHÔNE 3 SHIPWRECK (D.D.)
Contextualization of its excavation and its importance for Arles and beyond
The Arles-Rhône 3 (AR3) shipwreck was discovered in 2004 during an archaeological mapping operation. Between 2005 and 2010, a number of assessments, a survey and finally an excavation were carried out on the shipwreck. These operations were conducted by the Arkaeos association, with the collaboration of the Musée départemental Arles antique, the Centre Camille Jullian/CNRS, when Patrice Pomey was the director. Sabrina Marlier was the scientific director of these operations, in co- direction with Sandra Greck (Arkaeos) and David Djaoui (Musée départemental Arles antique). Three years of excavations of this shipwreck revealed the exceptional state of preservation of a flat-bottom Gallo-Roman barge of 31 m long. It appeared that the hull was almost entirely preserved along with the internal layout for loading, also preserved – 21 tons stone cargo –, and the inner furniture with on board discoveries, the steering oar, the towing mast1.
Arles-Rhône 3, from the river to the Museum
For this great operation, 9 million euros was allocated including nearly 2 million for the excavation and the raising of the barge. So, the operation was called “Arles-Rhône 3”
1 Marlier 2014.
and took place between 2011 and 2013. It required a highly organized operation and a tight collaboration between curators, archaeologists, commercial divers, conservators, architects and museographers... more than 100 persons. And a lot of creativity was necessary to maximize efficiency.
After a European bid, the underwater archaeological company, Ipso Facto, the commercial diving firm O’Can and the conservation laboratory ARC-Nucléart were selected. And we worked also in collaboration with the Drassm and the CNRS, and especially with the Centre Camille Jullian.
The excavation and raising operation took place in 2011 under the direction of Sabrina Marlier and David Djaoui (Musée départemental Arles antique), Mourad El Amouri and Sandra Greck (Ipso Facto) and Benoit Poinard (O’Can). The barge was between 4 to 9 m depth and beneath 40 cm to 2 m of sediment that corresponded to the layers of the Roman harbor garbage dump. In this harbor garbage dump, of a great density, we found amphorae, ceramics and a thousand other objects as much related to the internal fittings and shipping gear as to the consumption and artisanal activities of the roman town, as butcheries. So, to excavate and lift the barge we had first to excavate and remove this material. Since we did not have much time, we developed new excavation strategies and established complex operating procedures. At the end of the operation, we removed more than 4000 objects and almost 1200 crates of archaeological artifacts. And we found all types of materials (ceramics, glass, but also wood, bones, leather…) of a high quality. This material is currently in the storages of the museum, to be preserved and studied and just a little part of it is exhibited in the new wing of the museum.
As far as the shipwreck is concerned, it was properly excavated and documented underwater by archaeologists and then, cut in ten sections by a commercial diver with a saw. The sections of the barge, of 3 m each, were lifted one after the other thanks to a crane onto land, where they were recorded and surveyed in 3D. It then followed a series of treatments in the ARC-Nucléart laboratory, situated in Grenoble, 300 km away from Arles. These treatments involved immersion in PEG solutions, freeze-drying and a complementary treatment by gamma radiation for the bow and the mast. In parallel, the museum was extended in 2012. Thereafter, the 200 pieces of the boat were reassembled by the restorers of the Grenoble workshop, and then in the museum, where the barge, put in the new wing of the archaeological Museum, was inaugurated on the 4th of October 2013, as expected.
On the difficulty and the interest to study a harbor garbage area
To an impressive number of amphorae, witnessing the trade activity in Roman times, we have to add thousands of artifacts which offer diverse kinds of information on what was on board of the ships, what was part of their structure and, last but not least, on all the activities led in the harbor itself and the neighboring area at the same period as well
as all that has been used or bought by the inhabitants and the workers. To study a harbor context in a suburban area leads hence to question oneself on the different causes of the artifacts being thrown away2. To achieve this task, signs of use, graffiti, painted marks and, in particular, the state of conservation – intact or fragmentary – of the single objects are all elements of a huge importance to help us to offer an interpretation of their presence in the river.
Fig. 1. Inauguration of the Museum's extension housing the Arles-Rhône 3 barge (Rémi Bénali, MdAa/CD13).
If an exceptional state of conservation as a whole allows a quite easy identification of the diverse single artifacts, on the contrary, the difficulties of excavating underwater in the Rhône River do not allow to achieve a thin stratigraphic sequence. The stratigraphy itself is even more complex due to the fact it regards the floods, high flow and recession cycles of the river, sunk and compressed in a deposit layer of 900 cube meters of archaeological materials3. It is hence delicate, if not impossible, to apprehend with
2 Djaoui 2018, in print.
3 El Amouri 2014, 37-38.
precision the dynamic of the constitution of the garbage deposit through stratigraphy.
From a geological point of view, it is also very difficult to access to the stratigraphic layers associated to the archaeological remains and which are all located in today's active river channels4.
To give an example, from this deposit and only during the excavation campaign led in 2011, the team brought out of the river more than 3000 amphorae (235 of which being intact), tens of thousands of diverse Roman ceramics, 816 lamps, 428 coins, a thousand glass artifacts, 106 wood objects and 110 metal ones (23 made of iron, 72 of different copper alloys, 15 of lead), 30 composite artifacts (wood and copper alloy), but also 2000 fragments of wall paintings and ca. 50 fragments of colored marbles. We also filled 139 crates – more than 2.5 cube meters – with animal bones and shells.
Among the artifacts which benefitted of a first counting and preliminary study, numbers have revealed 3124 clay lamps (L. Chrzanovski), 28 000 fragments of Southern-Gallic sigillata vessels (estimations made by T. Martin from a sample of 50 crates), 22 000 fragments of thin-walled ceramics made in Baetica, corresponding to 3149 individuals (M. Chanas), 4619 fragments of glass corresponding to 1261 individuals5. Finally, 120 tons of fragments of amphorae and diverse ceramic groups have been left on the river bed, in the depression created after the removal of the wreck.
The "multimodal transport platform" area
In terms of volume, the amphorae naturally dominate and come to constitute the principal nature of the deposit, indicating a "multimodal" area where maritime, fluvial and road ways interconnect and interact6. The amphorae, arrived at their destination,
4 In the frame of the Rhône excavations, Claude Vella has been able to achieve interesting results by drilling systematic under the Arles-Rhône 3 wreck as well as under the other wrecks identified by Luc Long (cf. Carte Archéologique du Rhône). As a matter of fact, the wreck of every single boat allowed the preserving sequences of sediments enabling to date the underlying deposits (Vella, Tomatis, Sivan 2014, 65). On the contrary, the sequences situated above the ships were, most frequently, swept by the strength of the Rhône current.
5 Fontaine 2014.
6 It is extremely difficult to propose precise numbers on the counting of amphorae, for which, due to reasons not belonging to the Museum procedures, the inventory has been made in two steps. A first global counting allowed nevertheless to identify the main categories. The provisory minimal number of individuals has been calculated according to the number of rims preserved without attempts of restauration. Said in another way, four fourth of a rim of a same type amphora built one individual. If these first estimations offered the advantage to frame the huge tendencies in the statistics, it had the disadvantage to let heavily underestimated some categories. It is the case, for
were emptied – sometimes probably cut with a sword and then thrown to sink in the deep waters of Rhône.
To those amphorae, we have to add a number of ceramics for which – voluntary or by accident – dumping causes are to be related as well to the local inhabitants of the neighborhood next to the river as to the harbor workers' life itself: onboard life of the shippers, repacking contents into smaller ceramics from a bigger container – then thrown away – and even cult offerings.
As far as cooking vases of local or regional production are concerned, the huge quantities of carinated pots and, in a minor way, of pots with ribbed necks, we could observe that they were systematically covered by traces of fire. Those used vessels correspond with all probability to voluntary dumps after use7. In the same way, lots of small jars with molded bands8 and with simple spilled rim9 and also the pots with two knee-shaped handles said
"from the Rhône Valley"10 are to be seen as dumped in the same logic.
If all those ceramics, known to be made in the whole area of the Rhône Valley, can also have a micro-regional or even local origin11, the huge quantity of boiling vessels made with a kaolin clay witness, on the contrary, a North-South commerce of this specific type of ceramics. The fire marks, observed in almost every single vessel, include them too in the category of after-use voluntary dumps.
instance, for the amphorae made in Baetica, with 698 individuals, for the Oriental ones, with 111 individuals, considerably higher results obtained thanks to the help of Séverine Lemaître (Université de Potiers, EA 3811-HeRMA), or even for Ibiza with 12 individuals... In the case of the African amphorae, this category benefitted of a much more accurate inventory mainly thanks to Michel Bonifay (CNRS/CCJ), who allowed pushing the provisory minimal number from 60 to 91 individuals. The same happened with amphorae from Lusitania, first given as 19, and finally counted as 32 (Djaoui, Quaresma 2016). A second global counting, integrating the restorations results, has started in 2017.
7 Among the US 2007, which delivered 83 individuals of dark common ceramics, 90% of the cooking pots are regional productions made in the mid Rhône valley, with a majority of carinated pots (24%) followed by ribbed pots (14%).
8 This type of small jars is very frequent in the Rhône Valley (Long, Piton, Djaoui 2009, p. 584, fig. 52-54) as well as in the Gulf of Fos where 65 individuals have been counted so far (Marty 2002, p. 202, fig. 8 and p. 203).
9 The jars with spilled rim are also common in the Rhône Valley (Long, Piton, Djaoui 2009, 584, fig.
57) while in the Gulf of Fos 72 individuals have been counted so far (Marty 2002, 201, 203, fig. 1-4).
10 Those pots were initially seen as productions made in Lyon or Vienne (Long, Piton, Djaoui 2009, 584, fig. 59-62; Marty 2002, 214, fig. 51-53).
11 Cf. infra.
The garbage of the seamen
The prolonged stationing of the boats moored to the right bank of the Rhône has certainly been the cause of the dumping of a part of their board vessel as well as of the containers of the shipmen's food reserves which, broken or consumed by the nautae, where thrown in the river12. If a global inventory of the ceramics is still to be completed, we have no doubts that the elevated percentage of the ceramics qualified as "from yet unknown origin" will be one of the main characteristics and also one of the main research challenges of this context13.
We can also underline a huge repertory of extremely rare – sometimes unique – shapes, to which we shall add all those very scarcely diffused in the middle Rhône Valley area. The exogenous characteristics of those artifacts recalls the different board equipment from the ships, which original home harbor has to be found, for each of them, in the whole Mediterranean area14. As far as the thin-walled ceramics are concerned, we can for instance notice the presence of Hispanic sigillata from La Rioja, Tricio as well as from Baetica, of a kind unknown previously in the whole Narbonensis Province, those called
"Peñaflor type"15. On the same logic, the daily ceramics of the shipmen whose boats carried the thousands of amphorae from the harbors of the Iberian Peninsula are well represented by productions from Baetica, Cartagena, Seville and also from the Algarve region (Portugal)16. We can also observe more than sixty fish containers coming from the Latium17. As a conclusion, we will retain that among the board vessels we can also identify some artifacts as being the own property of a single shipman.
In a so reduced space as the one available on trade ships, where the living area can be confined in less than two square meters18, the seamen often personalized their own ceramics by incising them. Graffiti of anchors, of ships as well as even tria nomina are some of the characteristic signs of the board vessel. For instance, on a pot from Baetica, a graffito can be read DIVRNI, meaning the daily food ration, restituting
12 This area of docking is perfectly illustrated by the numerous excavated elements belonging to the boats themselves, such as the rigging and the fittings (anchors, pullies, sheaves; belaying pins, sticks, brail rings, boat-hooks, lead lines, awls, fid spikes…).
13 On common ceramics from Port-La-Nautique, Corinne Sanchez indicated that the research is made extremely complex by the huge diversity of the shapes and of the origins of the artifacts (Sanchez 2011, 171).
14 Djaoui, Capelli 2017.
15 Martin 2009, 304-307.
16 Djaoui 2016.
17 Djaoui, Piques, Botte 2013.
18 Djaoui, Greck 2014, 271.
perfectly the alimentary function of those containers19. As far as the lamps are concerned, the examination of combustion traces as well as of the graffiti will allow to add some of those artifacts, with due prudence, to this type of dumps. It will also be useful to see which lamps are absent from all known domestic areas excavated in the city. To see the difference between the seamen's lamps and the commercial ones is not an easy task, yet lamps as other artifacts used as geographic markers could indicate us, for instance, the harbors from where the ships came to Arles and the trade ways followed20. If the origin of the amphorae discovered in the river allows, of course, to have an idea of the main trade routes used by the ships, it is much harder to determine the redistribution harbors or the commercial fluxes associated to perishable containers like wooden barrels21.
Fig. 2. Set of ceramic vases made in Latium, 1st c. DC. (MDAA/CD13 © J.-L. Maby and L. Roux).
The important quantities of Southern Gaul sigillata vases discovered without any sign of use are highly probably to be inserted into the category of the merchandises transiting at Arles. Those vessels, breached or broken during the transport, would hence have been dumped in the river at their arrival22. To illustrate this example, we can underline the
19 Djaoui 2014, fig. 4/3 166.
20 Djaoui, Capelli 2017.
21 Djaoui, Tran 2015; Djaoui 2015.
22 At Port-La-Nautique, an identical hypothesis had been made by H. Rouzaud to explain the important present of sigillata vessels (Fiches et alii 1978,188).
presence, in the same excavation square, of four big complete cups of Drag. 37 shape, with identical dimensions, coming from the Graufesenque and marked with the signature of the same decorator, Germanus23. Those ceramics, stockpiled before the departure of their boat (at Narbonne?) have probably been damaged during their sea transport and were dumped at Arles during the arrival selection process made before being transshipped. We have yet to underline that in the case of drinking pots, like the thousands of thin walled ceramics from Baetica, their function itself makes it impossible to notice any trace of use, and hence to attribute their dumping after a damage due to their use or due to the transport. Besides the selection upon arrival of the merchandises coming from the sea or form the river, we also have to take into account the artifacts broken during a road transport. At Port-La-Nautique, H. Rouzaud explained in this sense the important presence of the Rutenian ceramics, after a selection of the merchandises coming there by chariots24. In this last case, the "quality control" before shipping regards the exports of regional productions reaching a harbor by road ways. The clay lamp fragments without traces of use and identified as regional productions could be part of this type of dump. In the same way, the identified exogenous lots could correspond to the lychnological merchandises arrived by sea boats. As a secondary cargo, the lamps could hence, again, allow us to think about the departing harbors and the trade routes. We have also not to forget that a single chariot could bring more than a thousand lamps and that it was hence easy and cheap to move from a region to the other thousands of ceramics to be exported. We can hence understand better the importance to isolate the board equipment belonging to the seamen to get a clue on the original harbor where they came from25. Else said, it is well the whole corpus of the discovered material and its synthesis which will, maybe, give some answers to all those questions, vital questions which are difficult to answer but compulsory to be thought about in permanence.
Dumping as a form of cult offering
More than a hundred objects have been discovered perfectly intact26. Said it in another way, the state of preservation of this category of objects would fit better with the idea of an intentional offering than with a garbage dumping. If the hypothesis of manipulation mistakes is also plausible, we cannot exclude the hypothesis of a voluntary ritual act.
23 Martin 2011, 88-91.
24 Fiches et alii 1978, 188.
25 Djaoui, Capelli 2017.
26 This exceptional conservation state observed on a hundred artifacts automatically despite their falling into the river and of the conditions of the archaeological interventions implies that the real number of intact objects thrown in Roman times had to be considerably higher.
Apuleius27 recalls for instance several rituals aiming to be granted of the river's clemency or to celebrate the annual opening of navigation: «Everybody, soon, initiated as well as profanes, start to bring vases filled with aromas and different offerings, and made on the waters libations of curdled milk, until the moment when the boat charged of presents and pious offerings, finally free of the ties holding it to the dock, and profiting of a soft wind born for the occasion, raised the high sea".
Fig. 3. Thin-walled ceramics from Baetica (Rémi Bénali, MdAa/CD13).
If this concept is extremely delicate to deal with, the ritual acts performed in rivers are nevertheless well witnessed practices in Saône-et-Loire during the 1st century AD28. More recently, S. Nieloud-Muller has proven, in the Bourget Lake (Savoie), ritual acts clearly linked to a religious dimension29. As a matter of fact, a ceramic lot of the second half of the 2nd century AD showed an over-representation of high shapes among a particular mix of ceramics bearing voluntary mutilations very probably to be set within a goodwill- demanding ritual. In the Rhône, it seems to by highly possible that facing the hazards of the navigation and of the floods, violent and unforecastable, donation acts could have been performed to gain the clemency of the big river. Yet contrary to the "relatively closed" and hence peaceful constituted by a lake, the complexity of the constitution dynamics of a harbor garbage deposit at Arles does not allow to evaluate the part of the artifacts potentially linked to a ritual act. If we take the example of the oil lamps, a particular
27 Metamorphosis, XI, 16.
28 Bonnamour, Marinval 1985.
29 Nieloud-Muller 2011.
attention has been drawn on the voluntary mutilations. If such kind of intentional acts are always very difficult to observe, the very large lychnological vision of L. Chrzanovski allowed to distinguish voluntary and accurate discus extractions from the lamps themselves, with a recurrence of some motifs – systematically associating wine, gladiators and theatre –, finds an amazing analogy with several sanctuaries of the Vocontii, where the same process with the same discus decorations do not let any interpretation open other than ritual. Their very meaning at Arles will be, on the contrary to those favissae, very difficult to understand. Moreover, the different causes of the dumps are raising not a few interrogations. Within the intact lamps, how to distinguish transshipment errors from the agglomerations consecutive to flood periods? How to separate rejections of the lamps used by the inhabitants from those used by the harbor workers and the seamen? And how, at the end, to consider the constitution itself of this deposit? Is it ceramic facies fed by daily dumps or one-time facies resulting from a particularly devastating flood?
When facing a context with so many faces, is it reasonable or pertinent to quantify the whole corpus of the individuals in the aim to compare them to other contexts? To be already conscious of those difficulties will allow, in the future, to mitigate the first statistic results and to draw prudent interpretations of the data even if they remain in many ways, complex and equivocal.
THE LAMPS (L.C.)
A well-defined lychnological timeframe: a short explanation
According to all researches led on the wreck itself, of each of its components and its load, the date of the sinking has been set during the 70's of the 1st century AD. The lamps found there can not only confirm this date, but also the hypothesis according to which the area was very scarcely used before the wreck: only 3 fragmentary lamps, of late Republican types, were found under the ship itself, while the ship's crew lamp found among the board vessel is a Gallic-made Loeschcke type IV ornamented with a very rare representation of Eros at a banquet (Fig. 5).
Epigraphically, all the readable marks on the lamp bases belong to workshops which were extinguished at the beginning of the reign of Hadrian for the latest of them, with the only exception of the Gallic lamps marked LHOSCRI, whose original workshop (launched around 90 AD) ceased its activities around 140 AD, while some counterfeited lamps, still bearing its mark, were produced until 175 AD.
Fig. 4. a. Some of the intentionally-cut discus scenes found in the garbage deposit; b. some of the intentionally-cut discus scenes from Arles (blue frame) compared with two identical scenes from the hundreds of cut discuses found at the sanctuaries of Chastelard de Lardiers and of Lachau (red frame: one sample from each sanctuary) (Images selected from Rouzeau 201630, Illustration n. 7, p. 195 and map of the location of the sanctuaries © N. Rouzeau, DRAC / MET, 2016; re-elaboration L. Chrzanovski).
30 Rouzeau 2016, 191-195.
Fig. 5. The crew's lamp and vessels as they were discovered and the lamp after cleaning (©
Christine Durand, CCJ/CNRS).
Fig. 6. The most amazing lamp at the moment of its discovery: the 22-wicked lustrum, finding parallels only at Delos and at Mons Porphyrites (© Christine Durand, CCJ/CNRS).
Moreover, all attempts to reveal stratigraphic layers have been inconclusive, leading to think there was an only single consolidated "magma" covering the wreck and including all the artifacts. In all sectors, at all levels, all types (volute lamps to Loeschcke VIII) are represented, even if in different proportions. The quantitative repartition of the individuals sufficiently well preserved to be inscribed into a broad specific type is as follows:
Type and quantity Conventional dating and comments
Loeschcke I B-C: 79 30-100 AD in Italy, max. until 125 AD for Gallic productions Loeschcke II: 1 0-50 AD in Italy, max. until 100 AD for Gallic productions
Loeschcke III: 44 0-75 AD in Italy, same date range for the seldom for Gallic productions Loeschcke IV : 148 30-125 AD (rare Gallic survivals up to 140 AD)
Volute lamps fragments: 200+ Huge majority of them finding analogies only in Loeschcke types IV and V Standard Loeschcke V: 39 70-150 AD (175 AD for the latest Gallic productions)
Regional Loeschcke V: 58 80-150 AD, identical to Loeschcke V but of smaller size
Late Vogelkopflampe: 1 First quarter to mid-2nd century AD in Italy, later for Northern Iberian workshops. Extremely rare type in Gaul, where it has never been produced.
Firmalampen : 48 60 AD to 150 AD in Italy, until 180-200 AD in Southern Gaul depending of the workshop's mark (original or counterfeit), the subtype and the quality Loeschcke VIII : 102 Claudius reign to 250 for the latest Gallic productions
Coming to the terminus ante quem, as far as the extinction of the harbor zone and its garbage deposit are concerned, we can propose without doubts the end of the 1st third of the 2nd century AD., more probably within the twenties of the century.
As a matter of fact, not only all the lamps of the latest type (Loeschcke VIII) were found mixed with earlier types, but those of them in a sufficiently well-preserved condition allowed to establish analogies with parallels dated no later than 120 AD.
In addition, two other elements come to strengthen our hypothesis. First, we found no lamps bearing the marks of the most important industrial Tunisian workshops, whose productions were exported in all the Western Mediterranean. In the meantime, lamps of the manufactures of Marcus Novius Iustus (120-180 AD), Caius Iunius Alexis (120-200 AD) and Caius Iunius Draco (120-200 AD) are well known at Arles and were recently discovered at ca.
two hundred meters northwards Arles-Rhône 3, where they are among the ceramics found in the Arles-Rhône-14 (AR14) shipwreck, recently published31.
This wreck is situated on the same bank of the river, docked at the wharf of the Trinquetaille harbor zone, where underwater excavations started in 2011. There, researches revealed that the peak period of activity of the area32 runs from the middle of
31 cf. Long et alii 2013, 155-158.
32 Long (dir.), Fouille du dépotoir urbain de Trinquetaille (Rhône, Arles). Opération de fouille archéologique subaquatique programmée, Rapport d'opérations 2011 (Unpublished field report, DRASSM). Cf. pp. 38-49 (layers VI and VII).
the 2nd to the 4th century AD, exactly right after – and maybe as a consequence of – the abandon of the Arles-Rhône-3 quay portion as a major transshipment location.
Fig. 7. The location of AR3 and of the relevant areas mentioned in the introduction (© DAO M.
Heijmans (CCJ/CNRS) and M. El Amouri (Ipso Facto) and additions by L. Chrzanovski).
Macro-regional repertories: affinities and divergences Quantitative results (on 271 motifs):
We selected 290 motifs for the iconographical dictionary proposed hereafter (paying attention to the 271 ones having known and dated analogies) for this short study aiming to consider the proportions of the different affinities and divergences we can find between Arles, Gaul and the best studied regions - with extremely active workshops - in the concerned period : Northern Africa (with the exhaustive catalogues made on Morocco, Algeria, Carthage) and the Transalpine area, mainly the Rhine Valley (with the exhaustive catalogues made on Trier, Cologne and Switzerland), without of course neglecting the Spanish corpuses when useful (mainly the recent volume on the imperial lamps found at Ampurias) as well as the authoritative volumes on the topic such as the unavoidable British Museum catalogue. Our choice was made on a total of 331 motifs catalogued for our final study, from which we excluded the "banal" seashells, rosettes and other geometric or vegetal patterns, which not only are common Empire-wide, but do often propose slight or broad differences of detail treatment. As such, we noticed they would cause more inexactitude than providing additional accuracy in our synthetic attempt of geographical diffusion and production of iconographical themes on Roman lamps during the 50 years timeframe of our garbage.
Arles, a Mediterranean-rooted harbor (61 themes)
The direct import of lamps ornamented with original motifs which will not be copied neither in Gaul, nor in Africa or in the Rhine area (42 themes, Table 1), is the mere definition of the ecosystem of a city living on the rhythm of the long-haul ships coming from all over the Mare Nostrum. To those 42 representations, we added 19 more, which were "skipped" by the regional Southern Gaul and Rhône valley workshops but were adopted by the German and/or by the African manufactures (Table 2).
Table 1. Imported themes, not to be found on lamps made in Gaul, Germanies or Africa (42).
Theme M Origin
Jupiter with the eagle holding the thunder, variant 2 2 Italy
Mars Ultor walking to the left 11 Italy
Pan standing 21 Italy
Head of satyr, variant 1 30 Italy, Asia Minor
Head of satyr, variant 2 31 Italy
Head of Silenus with crown of ivy and flowers 35 Italy Eros trying to ride Bacchus' panther on a richly rendered bed 38 Italy Eros jumping to reach a grape from the branch 50 Italy Eros with thyrsus trying to steal a bunch of grapes from a rabbit 53 Italy Standing Eros, holding a vase full of flowers 56 Italy Eros playing with a puppy dog raising its leg 61 Italy
Lunar crescent ending with stars 79 Italy
Theme M Origin Bust of Sol Radiatus, with undressed breast 80 Italy
Cybele-Fortuna on a throne 81 Italy
Hercules (or Silenus) wrapped by the lion skin and holding a kantharos
Ulysses naked kneeling in front of a temple 93 Italy Ulysses tied to the ship's mast before the sirens start singing 94 Italy
Ulysses hiding under a big ram 95 Asia Minor
Feminine face 109 Italy
The cooking of the pork 124 Italy, Asia Minor
Scene with an altar 125 Italy
Trophy (?) 136 Italy
Allegory of the victory: cantharus, garland and palm leave 138 Asia Minor
Running desultor 146 Italy
Defeated gladiator, hands behind his back 150 Italy Defending gladiator on the left, rival attacking on the right 154 Italy Gladiator (of a pair) with Augustan-time weaponry 157 Italy
Victorious quadriga 164 Italy
Horse standing on its rear legs (scene of dressage) 166 Italy
Small beardless mask, variant 2 179 Italy
Grinning mask with hair dressed in side-braids, variant 2 178 Italy
Erotic/banquet scene 193 Italy
Erotic scene? 194 Italy
Resting camel, lying on the ground 197 Italy
Dog attacking a panther 199 Aegean world
Head of lion 204 Italy
Swine with back fur, standing on a mace 222 Italy
Ronde of two dogs pursuing two hares 224 Italy
Greyhounds coupling 229 Italy
Bull running rightwards, head in attack position 238 Egypt Protome of bull with wrinkled baleens on the neck 240 Italy Horse trotting leftwards and turning back its head 249 Italy
Southern Gaul and the Rhône valley until Lyon: a cosmopolitan world with workshops adopting mainstream iconographical themes, sometimes common with Africa, sometimes with the Rhine Valley area (98 themes).
The most interesting part of the attempt of preliminary research we led consisted into analyzing which topics seduced not only the workshops established in Gaul, but also their homologues in the Rhine Valley and in Tunisia. In this frame, we numbered 42 themes which were imitated in Gaul and in the Germanies (Table 3), 40 which were imitated in Gaul and in Africa (Table 4) and only 17 motifs which will be adopted by manufactures of all of the three areas (Table 5).
Table 2. Imported themes, later common on lamps made in Germanies and/or Africa but not on lamps made in Gaul (19).
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Jupiter with the eagle holding the thunder, variant 1 1 No No Yes Italy Minerva casting her vote in favor of Orestes 7 No No Yes Italy
Sitting Eros 36 No Yes No Italy
Eros walking rightwards while looking backwards 47 No Yes No Italy Winged Victoria on a two-horses driven chariot 72 No No Yes Italy, Africa
Amazon fallen from her horse 88 No Yes No Italy
Gladiator seen backwards 147 No Yes Yes Italy
End of fight with two gladiators 156 No Yes No Italy
Defeated gladiator rendered on left profile 158 No Yes Yes Italy Charioteer on a biga, holding his whip 163 No Yes Yes Italy
Erotic scene a tergo, variant 2 189 No Yes Yes Italy
Baby-charioteer on biga whipping his horses 165 No No Yes Italy Erotic scene with pygmies, second variant 186 No No Yes Italy
Ram walking rightwards, variant 2 241 No No Yes Africa
Goat walking leftwards 243 No No Yes Africa
Bird on a "olive-tree branch" reaching a fruit (variant 2) 253 No No Yes Africa Standing wader, head looking upwards 272 No Yes No Italy
Two dolphins swimming side by side 285 No No Yes Africa
Two dolphins’ swimming towards each other 286 No No Yes Italy
Table 3. Imported themes, later common within lamps made in Gaul and in the Germanies (42).
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Head of Jupiter-Ammon (on Firmalampen) 4 Yes Yes No Italy
Minerva standing (Athena Parthenos) 6 Yes Yes No Italy
Sitting and toileting Venus 13 Yes Yes No Italy
Venus combing her hair 14 Yes Yes No Italy
Sitting Apollo paying the cithara 16 Yes Yes No Italy
Bacchant holding thyrsus and tambourine 24 Yes Yes No Italy
Head of young satyr, right profile 28 Yes Yes No Italy
Standing Eros holding Hercules' mace and lion skin 39 Yes Yes No Italy Bust of Luna wearing a tunica with round neck 75 Yes Yes No Italy
Busts of beardless Hercules 87 Yes Yes No Italy
Head of Medusa with baby cheeks 97 Yes Yes No Italy
Griffin running rightwards 102 Yes Yes No Italy
Pegasus on run to the right 105 Yes Yes No Italy
Pair of clues 111 Yes Yes No Italy
Double Cornucopia 112 Yes Yes No Italy
Cleaning a Herm 120 Yes Yes No Italy
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Slave washing his hands 122 Yes Yes No Italy
Chalice on high stand 134 Yes Yes No Gaul
Theme of the "Gallic chevalier" 135 Yes Yes No Italy
Iubilator 161 Yes Yes No Italy
Charioteer on a biga whipping his horses 162 Yes Yes No Italy Defeated pugilist, knee on the ground 168 Yes Yes No Italy
Muse or musician playing cithara 169 Yes Yes No Italy
Itinerant showman: animal handler and juggler 176 Yes Yes No Italy
Erotic-comic scene with pygmies 184 Yes Yes No Italy
Erotic scene with pygmies, first variant 185 Yes Yes No Italy
Erotic scene a tergo, variant 1 188 Yes Yes No Italy
Erotic scene with lying woman 191 Yes Yes No Italy
Erotic scene with woman holding weapons 192 Yes Yes No Italy
Lion bouncing rightwards 202 Yes Yes No Italy
Wild boar bitten on its flank by a hunting dog 217 Yes Yes No Italy
Wild boar running rightwards 220 Yes Yes No Italy
Hare running rightwards, variant 1 225 Yes Yes No Italy
Huge sheep dog barking 232 Yes Yes No Gaul
Harnessed horse, galloping leftwards 247 Yes Yes No Italy Eagle, wings folding, holding a crown with its beak 252 Yes Yes No Italy Standing eagle, holding a palm branch with its beak 255 Yes Yes No Italy Bird on an "olive-tree branch" facing a fruit (variant 1) 257 Yes Yes No Italy Rooster going rightwards, long tail in torsade 263 Yes Yes No Italy
Couple of swimming ducks 266 Yes Yes No Italy
Duck only, seen on three quarters 267 Yes Yes No Italy
Peacock in right profile 270 Yes Yes No Italy
Table 4. Imported themes, later common within lamps made in Gaul and in Africa (40).
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Jupiter with the eagle holding the thunder, variant 3 3 Yes No Yes Italy
Venus anadyomene 12 Yes No Yes Italy
Diana hunting 15 Yes No Yes Italy
Bust of Mercury bearing the winged petasus 18 Yes No Yes Italy Ivy-crowned head of Silenus on a panpipe 27 Yes No Yes Africa
Sitting Eros playing the double pipe 43 Yes No Yes Italy
Eros going leftwards, playing double pipe 44 Yes No Yes Italy
Eros grape-picker 51 Yes No Yes Italy
Eros going leftwards, holding a vase upside down 54 Yes No Yes Italy Eros holding a small amphora with his right hand 55 Yes No Yes Africa Eros playing a double pipe while riding a dolphin 59 Yes No Yes Africa Eros riding a seahorse swimming to the left 60 Yes No Yes Africa
Nereid riding a dolphin to the left 63 Yes No Yes Italy
Sitting Fortuna, rendered in left profile 66 Yes No Yes Italy
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Standing Victoria holding her shield 70 Yes No Yes Africa
Bust of Luna with delicate hairdressing 76 Yes No Yes Italy Different busts of Luna/Diana on the lunar crescent 77 Yes No Yes Italy
Harpocrates with cornucopia 85 Yes No Yes Italy
Standing Sirena rendered on three quarters left 100 Yes No Yes Africa
Sphinx rendered frontally 101 Yes No Yes Italy
Griffin on left profile, raising its front right leg 103 Yes No Yes Italy Double Cornucopia with body decorated with grooves 113 Yes No Yes Italy Herm rendered frontally, on a pedestal and flanked
by a solar scepter
118 Yes No Yes Italy
Skyphos on low foot 133 Yes No Yes Italy
Eques or riding gladiator 145 Yes No Yes Italy
Defeated or resting gladiator 148 Yes No Yes Italy
Defeated gladiator, seating on the ground 149 Yes No Yes Italy
Right-profile elephant head 198 Yes No Yes Italy
Lion walking leftwards, one of its front legs raised 203 Yes No Yes Italy
Bear attacking a bull 208 Yes No Yes Miletus
Furry dog or young bear (attacking a deer) 212 Yes No Yes Italy
Wild boar running leftwards 220 Yes No Yes Italy
Dog pursuing a hare, under a tree 223 Yes No Yes Italy
Hare eating a bunch of grapes 228 Yes No Yes Italy
Hunting dog kept with a leash tied to a tree 233 Yes No Yes Italy
Wild horse galloping rightwards 248 Yes No Yes Italy
Bird on left profile, on a pomegranate branch 256 Yes No Yes Italy Bird on a myrtle branch reaching a fruit (variant 3) 259 Yes No Yes Italy
Crab heading upwards 289 Yes No Yes Italy
Scorpion headed rightwards 290 Yes No Yes Italy
Table 5. Imported themes, later common within productions made in Gaul, Germanies and Africa (17).
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Bust of Mercury bearing the winged petasus 19 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Bacchant standing 26 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Head of satyr with widely displayed beard 32 Yes Yes Yes Italy Eros holding a shell and a perfume flask 45 Yes Yes Yes Italy Standing Victoria, holding a crown and a palm leave 69 Yes Yes Yes Italy Standing Victoria holding her shield with her right
70 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Bust of a curly haired child 110 Yes Yes Yes Italy
War ship 126 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Krater with vine and grapes 131 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Gladiator raising his hand leftwards 152 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Lion assaulting an antelope 200 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Lion bouncing leftwards 201 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Bear running rightwards 209 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Deer running rightwards 207 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Tale-plumed rooster walking rightwards 262 Yes Yes Yes Italy Tale-plumed rooster walking rightwards, right leg
raised, palm leaf
264 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Facing peacock making the wheel 271 Yes Yes Yes Italy
Arles, Mediterranean Gaul and the Rhône valley, between imitations and original creations (113 themes)
If we look at the merely "regional" productions made in Gaul, ornamented with themes which have not benefitted of the appreciation neither of the Rhine valley workshops nor of the Tunisian ones, the AR3 excavations allowed to underline two contemporary – and not contradictory – phenomena: the imported motifs, imitated or copied by over- molding, and the newly created original motifs, fruit of the culture and the skills of the local manufacturers. We can witness 66 themes generated after original imports (Table 6) and 46 motifs invented in Gaul and mainly addressed to local customers (Table 7).
Table 6. Imported themes to be found only in productions made in Gaul (66).
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Leda and the swan, pushed by a small Eros 5 Yes No No Italy
Minerva coming to feed Erychthonios, variant 2 10 Yes No No Italy,Asia Minor
Bacchant standing 22 Yes No No Italy
Child holding a small krater 34 Yes No No Italy
Eros at a banquet 37 Yes No No Italy
Standing Eros togatus facing an altar and the caduceus, a horn lying on the ground
41 Yes No No Italy
Standing Eros togatus, alone 42 Yes No No Italy
Eros naked walking rightwards 46 Yes No No Italy
Eros walking rightwards, holding a torch 49 Yes No No Italy
Eros holding a bunch of grapes 52 Yes No No Italy
Fishing Eros 57 Yes No No Asia Minor
Fishing Eros, floating on an amphora 58 Yes No No Italy Feminine bust surrounded by two dolphins 65 Yes No No Italy Fortuna standing, rendered in left profile 67 Yes No No Italy
Standing Ceres 74 Yes No No Italy
Bust of Attis 82 Yes No No Italy
Standing Anubis 83 Yes No No Italy
Standing Anubis, rendered in 3/4 profile 84 Yes No No Italy
Omphale surrounded by small cupids 90 Yes No No Italy
Telephus being suckled by the doe 96 Yes No No Italy
Head of Medusa on a vegetal palmette, her hair crowned by two crab claws
98 Yes No No Italy
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Pegasus trotting leftwards 106 Yes No No Italy
Busts of the imperial couple on profile 107 Yes No No Italy
Bust of Hadrian (right profile) 108 Yes No No Italy
Round altar ornamented with offerings 116 Yes No No Italy Personage with a knife facing a broken amphora 123 Yes No No Italy
Two personages on a sailing boat 127 Yes No No Italy
Two monkeys on a small skiff 128 Yes No No Italy
Basket with fish and birds 125 Yes No No Italy
Krater on a stand 132 Yes No No Italy
Helmet and sica 139 Yes No No Italy
Parma, helmet and sica 140 Yes No No Italy
Helmet 144 Yes No No Italy
Defeated or resting gladiator 148 Yes No No Italy
A gladiator, on the right, counters the attack of his rival 155 Yes No No Asia Minor Venatio: personage, lion and mule 160 Yes No No Italy Pygmies (Kinaidoi) dancing while holding two sticks
in each hand
170 Yes No No Asia Minor
Hunchbacked pygmy dancing, holding two sticks his right each
171 Yes No No Italy
Ithyphallic dancer with a sharp-ended cap, holding two sticks with a hand
172 Yes No No Italy
Hunchbacked ithyphallic grotesque personage, running while playing double panpipe
173 Yes No No Asia Minor
Grotesque ithyphallic personage, crouched, playing lyre 174 Yes No No Italy
Two small beardless masks 180 Yes No No Italy
Grinning mask with hair dressed in side-braids, variant 2
182 Yes No No Italy
Mask with grumpy nose 183 Yes No No Italy
Allegory of Cleopatra, variant 1 195 Yes No No Italy
Bear running leftwards 210 Yes No No Italy
Sitting bear, forelegs up 211 Yes No No Italy
Wild boar on the ground, attacked by two dogs 216 Yes No No Italy Wild boar attacked in its lair by a dog 218 Yes No No Italy Wild pig or wild boar going leftwards 221 Yes No No Italy Dog with a collar running rightwards 230 Yes No No Italy Bull running rightwards, head in attack position 238 Yes No No Egypt
Ram walking rightwards, variant 1 241 Yes No No Italy
Ibex bouncing to the right 244 Yes No No Italy
Horse trotting leftwards and turning back its head 249 Yes No No Italy
Eagle hunting a hare 250 Yes No No Italy
Eagle, wings spread, holding (or not) the triple thunder
251 Yes No No Italy
Eagle looking rightwards, depicted with the caduceus
253 Yes No No Italy
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Hen and her chicks 260 Yes No No Italy
Rooster to the left (scene of the two roosters fighting) 261 Yes No No Italy Tale-plumed rooster walking rightwards, left leg
265 Yes No No Egée
Duck swimming, holding a snake with its beak 268 Yes No No Italy Dolphin with trident, left profile t 276 Yes No No Italy Dolphin swimming rightwards above a bed of
277 Yes No No Italy
Dolphin swimming rightwards, raising its large crescent-shaped tail
280 Yes No No Italy
Tuna, sea-bass and squid 287 Yes No No Italy
Table 7. Gallic autochthonous themes (46).
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Head of Jupiter-Ammon (on discus lamps) 4 Yes No No Gaul
Minerva at war (Athena Promachos) 8 Yes No No Gaul
Minerva coming to feed Erychthonios, variant 1 9 Yes No No Gaul
Head of Mercury or actor's mask 20 Yes No No Gaul
Bacchus child with a Silenus as his mentor 23 Yes No No Gaul
Dionysian head 29 Yes No No Gaul
Horned head 33 Yes No No Gaul
Eros with a basket on his breast, both arms raised 48 Yes No No Gaul
Nereid riding the Ceto to the right 62 Yes No No Gaul
Lunar crescent with raised dots 76 Yes No No Gaul
The mongoose fighting the cobra 86 Yes No No Gaul
Chimera? 104 Yes No No Gaul
Winged caduceus 111 Yes No No Gaul
Small round altar adorned with offerings 117 Yes No No Gaul
Bearded herm, caduceus and circle 119 Yes No No Gaul
Woman bearing a small box 121 Yes No No Gaul
Amphora 130 Yes No No Gaul
Small naked warrior 137 Yes No No Gaul
Shield, hilt of sword and crossed greaves 141 Yes No No Gaul
Two helmets, two shields 142 Yes No No Gaul
Helmet with panache, sword, shield and palm leave 143 Yes No No Gaul
Raetiarius (?) 151 Yes No No Gaul
Pigmy with a shield, fighting a cock 159 Yes No No Gaul
Pygmy walking rightwards 175 Yes No No Gaul
Bearded mask 177 Yes No No Gaul
Small beardless mask, variant 1 178 Yes No No Gaul
Cervid 215 Yes No No Gaul
Hare running rightwards, variant 1 225 Yes No No Gaul
Hare running rightwards, variant 2 226 Yes No No Gaul
Theme M Gaul Germanies Africa Origin
Small dog running leftwards 231 Yes No No Gaul
Tree and bouncing dog 235 Yes No No Gaul
Ferret 236 Yes No No Gaul
Crouched goat 245 Yes No No Gaul
Two sheep, and a sucking lamb 246 Yes No No Gaul
Eagle, rendered alone without any ornaments 254 Yes No No Gaul
Standing ostrich 269 Yes No No Gaul
Standing wader, left leg raised forwards, head looking backwards
273 Yes No No Gaul
Standing wader, his head bent to clean his feathers 274 Yes No No Gaul
Dolphin swimming leftwards 278 Yes No No Gaul
Dolphin swimming rightwards 280 Yes No No Gaul
Diving dolphin 281 Yes No No Gaul
Two dolphins in vertical dive (var. 1), head-to-head 283 Yes No No Gaul Two dolphins in dive (variant 2), each one aiming to
reach the other
284 Yes No No Gaul
Two dolphins in dive (variant 3), touching themselves by their nose
285 Yes No No Gaul
Cuttlefish rendered frontally 288 Yes No No Gaul
Even if to be considered as of the highest importance possible, a single excavation alone will never give us the capacity to give trustworthy statistics, following the real meaning of the word in mathematics. This does not apply only to the settlement where the research has been led, but even more to the micro- and macro-regional reality the Roman city was a part of. Hence, all the work here is to be considered, no more no less, than a simple study hypothesis, from which the only reliable elements are some macro- tendencies evidenced by the analyzed data.
In this sense, the Mediterranean openness of Arles and its harbor, so often proved by researches on different topics, is now witnessed also from the "lychnological front", with those 61 themes made in as many workshops from different parts of the Mare Nostrum and present, in Gaul, at Arles – sometimes exclusively, sometimes within very small groups of the same lamps found in areas situated not so far away.
On the other side, the analysis made allows to come again on an already known yet very scarcely studied phenomenon, the one of the appreciations by Gallic workshops and customers of many subjects "en vogue" at Rome and in the major cities of the Mediterranean. With 164 motifs copied or adapted, the Rhone Valley workshops proved to be more receptive to "external fashions" than their Rhine Valley or Tunisian counterparts, while, in the same time, they proved to be able of great creativity,
inventing original motifs. Only within our corpus, we number almost fifty ornaments which will never be reproduced outside Gaul.
Last but not least, at the southern end of the Rhône commercial corridor, Arles proves again to be a spectacular gatherer of micro- and macro-regional productions.
Not only we found in the harbor garbage almost all typologies used in the region during the mentioned timeframe, but 211 motifs made in Gaul (mainly from the workshops situated in the Rhone delta area as well as from the huge production centers that were Vaison-la-Romaine and Lyon). If we look at the results of the excavations led, not so far away, at Glanum, Fos-sur-Mer, Saint-Paul-les-Trois-Châteaux, each of them does not reach a half of the repertoire found under the Rhone waters. The full publication of the corpus, owing a lot to the specific kind and spot of the excavations, but also to the strategic commercial position of Arles will give birth to not a few additional hypotheses, to be confirmed or infirmed by future researches.
Lychnology, particularly in France but also in the Mediterranean as a whole, has still a lot of secrets to deliver, but at the same time, has already delivered enough pieces to start playing different "puzzles" than the "niche ones" played most of the times until now. In this sense, one of the aims of this appendix – despite its numbers with a merely
"hypothetic" value – is to show that the iconographical repertories can also be inscribed among the elements helping to retrace with precision long-haul as well as short-haul commercial trade routes and, what is even more important, the impact of the goods coming via those routes on the local populations and hence of the local manufactures in each different region of the Empire.
Fig. 8. Map of the sites of Southern France where analogies have been found and reported in the dictionary.
Fig. 9. Map of further French sites and important Swiss, German and Spanish sites where most of the analogies have been found and reported in the dictionary.
ICONOGRAPHICAL CATALOGUE M1. Jupiter with the eagle holding the thunder, variant 1
Lamps: Loeschcke III (2 ex., 1 bilychnis, 1 monolychnis).
Discussion: Representation (and lamps) typical of Italian original productions. Jupiter is completely dressed and taller than his iconic bird. The bird's wings are widely open, feathers to the top. Motif common on lamps of big size (Loeschcke III) and on Italian earlier to contemporary productions of Loeschcke IV. It is the first time this representation is found in Gaul on intact lamps; until now only a fragment belonging to a lamp of Italian manufacture has been unearthed, in the same region, at Fos-sur-Mer.