The construction phases may be summarized as follows.
Republican period
It seems that remains of a porticus of tufa columns were found on the south side of the square, in unpublished trenches dug by Pensabene. It can be dated to the later second or first century BC, being at the level of the Monumento Repubblicano (V,XI,6).
Augustus
The square was laid out in conjunction with the theatre, at the end of the first century BC. It was an initiative of Agrippa, right-hand man of Augustus. To the north, west and east of the square was what may be described as a very wide corridor, of the same depth as the later double porticus. It was flanked by walls, not columns as we see today. There is no information about doors or windows in the walls, and about the floor. There must have been a lightweight roof, sloping down towards the square. In this period or in the next period tufa piers in the outer north wall created a monumental entrance consisting of eleven passages. The south side was bordered by the stage building of the theatre. In front (to the north) seems to have been a corridor. At its north end is a long row of marble columns, resting on tufa bases that may be from this or the next phase.
Claudius
The level of the corridors was raised considerably during the reign of Claudius. The main changes documented are the replacing of the inner wall, along the square, by - presumably - a new wall,[1] and the raising of the outer wall. The wall decoration consisted of plaster and stucco reliefs. Depictions have been preserved of a man playing a lyre, a fisherman and perhaps a ship. One floor mosaic has been preserved, depicting Diana and a deer.[2] The ceiling consisted of undecorated beams. The new roof must have been similar to the previous roof.
Domitianus
During the reign of Domitianus a temple was erected in the centre of the square, slightly towards the south and facing the south. The outer wall of the east corridor was completely rebuilt. A series of rooms was set against the outside of this wall, communicating with the corridor through three doors. At some point in time a bar with an adjacent heated room was installed in the south part of these rooms. No dividing walls (for example of wood) were envisaged in the rooms to the west of the doors, and quite possibly not at all. The eastern ceiling and roof must have been renewed.
Domitianus - Traianus
At some point in time the corridors to the west, north and east of the square were divided lenghtwise by brick columns resting on travertine plinths. This happened before the Hadrianic raising. We might think of the period of Domitianus, although Traianus cannot be excluded.[3] This obviously implies a new ceiling and roof.
The columns were decorated with plaster in the Tuscan order. Some were later changed to the Attic-Ionic order, before the Hadrianic period. This change remains a mystery. Pohl reaches the remarkable but inescapable conclusion that the result was a row of columns partially in the Tuscan and partially in the Ionic order, because remains of both orders were found in the Hadrianic filling.[4]
Traianus - Hadrianus
Three mosaics, depicting a hunter and a bull, a Nereid, and the flax and flax-comb of stuppatores-restiones, are later than the Ionic decoration. Because they are at a lower level than the Hadrianic raising, we might be inclined to think that they are older. This is not necessarily the case: the absence and presence of brick plinths indicate that there was a structural difference in height between the southern and northern part of the west porticus. On top of the hunter was a mosaic from the period ca. 190-210 AD. We do not know what was above the other two mosaics. A wall between the hunter and the Nereid suggests that the latter mosaic remained visible after ca. 190-210, while the former was covered with a mosaic in this period. Continuity with the statio of the stuppatores-restiones on the other side of the square suggests that the mosaic with flax and a flax-comb remained visible until at least ca. 190-210 AD. However, if the mosaic remained visible like the Nereid, then we cannot exclude that it is a replacement from the years around 200 AD.
Hadrianus
The level of the northern part of the west porticus was raised again. Existing central brick columns were reused, the lower part of the columns now covered. Square, fake brick plinths were laid at the new level. These are absent in the southern part of the west porticus, with the exception of statio 54, where the situation is rather disturbed. Along the square new inner columns were erected, on which remains of plaster can be seen.[5] They replace the presumed Claudian wall. Two travertine steps led down to the square itself. No trace has been found of Hadrianic floors. It seems unlikely that these were covered with mosaics. In that case there would surely have been some remains, intact or reused later. Rather we should image a floor of marble, travertine, or large bricks (bipedales). A new ceiling and roof must have been installed.
Not later than the Hadrianic period a marble slab with the words naviculari Africani (shippers from Africa Proconsularis, Tunisia) appeared, possibly supported by two slender columns in the exact centre of the inner edge of the east porticus, in statio 12. Honourary inscriptions and statues started appearing. They were most likely placed behind the columns on the south side of the square, against the outside of the stage building. The Altar of the Origins of Rome, found in a little room to the south of the west porticus and dated to 124 AD (perhaps Flavian and re-dedicated), might be related to the inauguration of the renewed square. It may have been standing on a foundation to the north of the temple.
Commodus - Septimius Severus
During the reign of Commodus a major rebuilding of the theatre was begun, to be finished during the reign of Septimius Severus. Between the theatre and the square two little shrines were built, at the south end of the west and east porticus. We do not know which deities were worshipped here. A brick repair of the outer west wall most likely belongs to this period.
In the 190's the square was given its current appearance. At the end of this period the monumental entrance in the north side of the square had been blocked by a myriad of rooms and passages, still allowing access from some of the stationes. It should be noted that much or all of the masonry may be earlier. On a column on the inner south edge a dedication was chiseled to the Genius of the Castra Peregrina (in Rome, Ostia or Portus), home of the frumentarii, Imperial messengers. It is accompanied by a relief, and high up on the column. Most likely the gaze of visitors was attracted to it by the heads of the statues resting on pedestals that were standing against the back wall of the corridor behind the columns (so against the outer wall of the theatre).[6] Presumably the frumentarii were responsible for the practical aspects of the reorganization.
Offices (stationes) now become clearly visible. They are usually made up of a single front room plus a back room between the brick columns, but clusters also occur. A grid was laid out with marble lines and bands, between front rooms of the stationes. With the exception of rooms in the south part of the west porticus, old floors were removed and covered by new ones. In each statio a black-and-white mosaic was laid. The shippers of Alexandria had an office that was three stationes wide. The special status of Alexandria was emphasized by the shippers through the choice of mosaic in an old-fashioned style.
The newly decorated square was most likely inaugurated together with the rebuilt theatre. Work on the new theater was begun during the reign of Commodus, but he was murdered (December 31, 192 AD) before it was completed. The work was finished by Septimius Severus and Caracalla. The new theatre was inaugurated in 196 AD, witness a large inscription inlaid with bronze letters. The square may well have been inaugurated at the same occassion: enough time had passed for finalizing agreements and laying the mosaics. Septimius Severus probably referred to the occasion when he addressed the Roman senate in 197 AD: "For if it was disgraceful for Commodus with his own hands to slay wild beasts, yet at Ostia only the other day one of your number, an old man who had been consul, was publicly sporting with a prostitute who imitated a leopard".[7] Does the dressing up as a leopard mean that short sketches were performed in the theatre, referring to the import depicted on the square?
Caracalla - Constantine
After the reign of Septimius Severus the back rooms of many stationes were separated by dividing walls. In the east porticus they are only absent when there is a door in the back wall. Countless ancient restorations of the mosaics, impossible to date, indicate that what we see today should not be regarded as a frozen, original situation. Rather, the mosaics reflect an ever-changing reality over a long period of time. It was determined by Imperial initiatives, and by adapted or new laws. Guilds of shippers will have left the square, after financial problems or the siltung up of their main harbour, to be replaced by other guilds. At an unknown point in time the Imperial government decided to end the commercial function of the square. The functionality must have been transferred to Portus. From then on the mosaics lay neglected, and large gaps started to appear.
Late antiquity
At the end of the fourth century AD the theatre was restored by a prefect of the annona, Ragonius Vincentius Celsus. In the interior of the theatre cisterns were installed, and the orchestra could now be flooded for aquatic displays. The Altar of the Origins of Rome, which must have been in a prominent position, seems to have been damaged by Christians. It was placed in the small shrine in the south-west corner of the square. One of the statue bases from the square was reused to the south-east of the theatre. A statue of Roma was erected on top.[8] Inside the masonry of one of the exterior piers of the theatre a fourth-century bronze coin was found with the head of Roma looking to the left and the text VRBS ROMA, with on the other side a depiction of the she-wolf and the twins.[9]
Example of the type of coin found in a brick pier of the theatre. Photo: Wikimedia.On the square gladiators and artists such as jugglers started performing. We see them as graffiti on a marble slab, one was depicted in statio 60. The spectators watched them from the porticos. The gaps in the damaged mosaics were filled with black and white tesserae. The ancient restorers, out of respect, preserved what was left of the earlier depictions and texts. We must be grateful to them. They could have removed all that was left of the older mosaics. But simultaneously these restorers clearly showed where the restorations were, by using a checkerboard pattern (almost as modern restorers might do). They showed that a new era had begun.
At an unknown point in time the central corridor of the theatre was reinforced or blocked with bases from the square. The arches of the first level of the theatre were blocked, so that the building could be used as a fortress. This may have been done in the fifth or sixth century, when Goths and others invaded Ostia and especially Portus. Layers of rammed earth were placed on top of the square, over which a path led from the Decumanus Maximus to the north-west. In the sixth to eighth century a little church was built to the south-east of the theatre, in the area where many martys had been executed in the third century. The chapel was visited for many centuries. As late as 1162 AD the faithful came from Gregoriopolis, modern Ostia Antica, following the old Via Ostiensis and Decumanus Maximus. In the sixteenth century the corpses of forty soldiers were placed in a room in the theatre, next to the corridor leading to the orchestra. In 1881 the first stationes were excavated.
Reconstruction drawings of the final phase
Artist unknown.
Angelo Coccettini.
Artist unknown.
(1) I do not follow Pohl, who suggests that the wide Claudian foundation of the inner edge supported nothing, and that the inner half of the corridor was a platform.
(2) The position of the mosaic shows that no central columns were present.
(3) With this date I do not follow Pohl, who suggests that the columns are Claudian. However, there was a major change (laying a mosaic in the absence of columns, then putting a column on top of the mosaic), for which some time should be allowed. The later date implies a secondary pouring of the foundations of the columns, which is mentioned several times by Pohl.
(4) Unless we imagine that there was also a row of columns on the inner edge, decorated in the Tuscan order. But in that case, why were these not reused in the Hadrianic period, like the central columns?
(5) On the scant remains of the north wall of the room to the north of the front room of statio 23 is also a brick column. Presumably it is Hadrianic. It is not on line with the other columns.
(6) I do not follow Pensabene, who suggests that they were placed against back walls of the porticos, so in the back part of the stationes, and removed when dividing walls were erected in the back rooms (Pensabene 2007, 421, 427). The statues would have been in the dark and there is no relation between the inscriptions and individual stationes.
(7) Cassius Dio, Roman History 76, 8, 2; translation E. Cary.
(8) The statue base with inscription was found to the south-east of the theatre (CIL XIV S, 4621 and 4716).
(9) Giornale degli Scavi volume 26, page 28, November 10 1939.
