The state of preservation
The stationes have mosaic floors bordered by frames of mosaic and marble. A variety of masonry is encountered: opus reticulatum, opus latericium, and opus vittatum mixtum A, B, and simplex.[1] When studying these features we are confronted continuously with many restorations of the mosaics and of the walls, ancient and modern.
I have summarized the state of the masonry and floors in the back rooms in a table. The state of preservation of the mosaics in the back rooms is much worse than that in the front rooms. This is not what we expect, because the back rooms are protected much better, being in the back part, along a continuous back wall. The front rooms are open to the square. One explanation is that there were few depictions of interest in the back rooms, so that in antiquity tesserae in the back rooms were used to restore the front rooms. Especially the back halves of the back rooms, often behind a dividing black mosaic band, are missing. This could point to floors of large stone or terracotta slabs that could easily be removed without leaving a trace. However, no such slabs have been found, and when there are remains of the floor in a back half it is always mosaic. Sharp divisions between front half and back half may also be the result of modern restorations. This is also suggested by the blue colour pencil on NADIS inv. nr. 644.
A feature restricted to the back halves of the back rooms are benches or secondary walls depicted on the plans of Vaglieri and Gismondi. They sometimes coincide with a thicker part of a flanking wall, or start where there is a kink in a flanking wall. It is most surprising that not a single trace of these structures remains and has been restored after excavation.[2] A few of these remains, preserved to a low height, can be seen with difficulty in the north part of the west porticus on a photo from 1912 or 1913 (AIR 148058). Because these structures occur in the back halves only, and because they can concide with thicker walls or kinks, I prefer to think of benches, rather than additional walls. They are shown as benches in stationes 51 and 52 on the model of the square in the Museo della Civiltà Romana.
Modern restorations of the mosaics
It is not clear whether restorations took place already in or shortly after 1881. Restorations are mentioned regularly in the excavation diaries from the period 1908-1916. Special "mosaicisti" were active, who sometimes started working immediately after excavation.
The modern restorations of mosaics in Ostia in general were described by Becatti.[3] Most of the mosaics were lifted and replaced on modern cement. First of all, panels were created with saws, with the cut in white areas or areas with a minimum of decoration. Next, the panels were turned upside down. The ancient substratum was removed and substituted by modern mortar, consisting of cement and marble dust, containing a metal mat. This was then replaced on top of modern mortar, with a slight inclination for the drainage of the rainwater. In the stitches ancient tesserae were placed. Today the stitches can often be seen quite clearly, because they are filled with modern mortar. Large gaps were filled with grey cement. Becatti notes that most of the white tesserae are of limestone. Marble tesserae were sometimes used in the late third and in the fourth century. The black tesserae were made of flint.
Becatti says that the restorers refrained from additions. There are exceptions however. For example, the head of the right Dioscure in the Domus dei Dioscuri (SO IV, tav. 201, nr. 216) is modern. This is evident from a photo taken shortly after the excavation (ICCD neg. E024016).
From the comparison of descriptions, photos and drawings results that on the square major modern additions are absent. Exceptions are some texts. In statio 43 the C of CODICARI was added, in statio 32 NAVI before NARBONENSES. In statio 38 a text that was partly lost after excavation was apparently restored from memory: SCF was changed into SFC. Here we must conclude that the restorers of the mosaics did or could not always record the situation before starting their work, did not discuss it with an archaeologist, did not consult the excavation diary and the photo and drawings archive. There was apparently no proper supervision. Still, the restorers did their best to preserve the ancient situation. A striking exception is the extreme misplacing of panels in statio 20, probably the result of errors and ambiguity in the description in the excavation diary.
Later restorations were carried out by various companies. In 1998 work was carried out by CCA (website, publication), in 2009 and 2014 work by Eures Arte (website), in 2009 and 2013 work by Lattanzi Srl (website, website).
Ancient restorations of the mosaics
Ancient restorations of the mosaics on the square are numerous, often called ugly, untidy, and careless by the excavators. We should note first of all that the most accurate ancient (and modern) restorations may be missed completely. For example, the C added to CODICARI looks completely ancient. The same text shows that panels, such as a tabula ansata, may be laid with a different texture, possibly by a different (senior) mosaicist. Abrupt shifts in tessera size do not necessarily indicate different phases.[4] Furthermore, when part of a mosaic is clearly not the original situation that does not necessarily mean it is a repair: it may also be a modification. A statio may have been completely or partially redesigned when a different group of people started using it, or when the same group of people was still there, but with adjusted tasks. A special kind of modification is the filling of removed, black lines with white tesserae. This happened in statio 55, where the letters S and O can still be recognized. There are other stationes where the rectangular grid of tesserae unexpectedly shows diagonal or curved lines, apparently a reflection of something that was removed.
This is not the place for an in-depth discussion of ancient restorations of the mosaics of Ostia, but some remarks must be made for a proper understanding of the square. I will limit myself to obvious restorations.
We expect damaged designs to be complemented.
- Example: a restored double black band (photo at the top) in the Edificio degli Augustali (SO IV, tav. 200, nr. 420).But the ancient restorations of the mosaics cause a few surprises. Sometimes a simple feature was filled with tesserae of a different colour, when it would have been easy to complement the damaged design.
- Example: the broken upper part of a black band (photo at the bottom) in a mosaic in a room to the south of the palaestra of the Terme del Foro (SO IV, tav. 137, nr. 34). Or is the missing part an intentional feature of the original design?The filling of intricate patterns with white tesserae can be understood as time- and cost-saving.
- Example: the filling of an intricate pattern (centre) and a simple pattern (right and bottom) in the Casa delle Pareti Gialle (SO IV, tav. 68, nr. 228).Intricate patterns could also be restored halfheartedly.
- Example: a mostly, but not entirely restored intricate pattern (diagonal band in the lower part) in the Terme dei Sette Sapienti (SO IV, tav. 84, nr. 268); detail of the same mosaic (SO IV, tav. 85, nr. 268).Missing areas could be filled with a mixture of black and white tesserae, often alternating in a checkerboard pattern. There is no indication in Becatti's publication of the mosaics that this is modern.
- Example: mosaic in the Terme dei Cisiarii (top right) ( SO IV, tav. 108, nr. 64).
- Example: mosaic in the Terme di Nettuno (photo at the bottom) (SO IV, tav. 136, nr. 71).The checkerboard pattern sometimes invades the original design, and sometimes lies next to it.
- Example: invading the original design (photo at the bottom) in the Domus Fulminata (SO IV, tav. 38, nr. 195).
- Example: invading the original design (photo in the middle) in the Sacello sul Decumano (SO IV, tav. 55, nr. 67).
- Example: invading the original design (photo at the top) in the Terme dei Sapienti (SO IV, tav. 156, nr. 271).
- Example: next to the original design (both photos) in the Sacello sul Decumano (SO IV, tav. 55, nr. 67).
The latter mosaic is made of coloured tesserae. The lower left part was also restored, with the same pattern, but with black and white tesserae.Gaps could also be filled with other material.
- Example: a filling with bipedales (photo at the bottom) in the Casa delle Volte Dipinte (SO IV, tav. 34, nr. 187).
This mosaic was also restored with a completely different pattern. The alternating black and white squares on the left side are a restoration.
- Example: a filling with bricks (photo at the top) in the Terme della Trinacria (SO IV, tav. 134, 275).
- Example: a filling with marble and bricks (photo at the top) in Terme V,V,2 (SO IV, tav. 147, nr. 415).The restorations of the mosaics on the Piazzale delle Corporazioni fit in the pattern seen throughout Ostia. There might be one exception. A few stationes have large, solid black areas (for example nrs. 9, 14, 19). For this, browsing through the photos published in Scavi di Ostia IV, I could find only one parallel (photo at the bottom), in the Casa dell'Invidioso (SO IV, tav. 163, nr. 411). Becatti suggests that here a black area was below a wooden sales counter. There may be more such areas however: the published photos often focus on central panels only.[5]
Modern restorations of the masonry
Restorations of the masonry on the square are sometimes quite obvious, but often difficult to detect. Gallico and Turco published some notes about restorations from 1926 and 1953 (stationes 2-9 and rooms to the east).[6]
(1) Opus reticulatum: small tufa stones set on one corner, sometimes reinforced at the corners with oblong tufa stones. Latericium: brickwork. Mixtum A: layers of brick alternated with layers of oblong or square tufa stones, 1:1. Mixtum B: layers of brick and tufa stones in all other combinations, 1:n, n:n. Simplex: layers of oblong tufa stones only.
(2) Perhaps more information is available in the archives of Ostia.
(3) Becatti 1961, 249-250. In the decades before he wrote the restorations were carried out by V. Barletta and L. Bracale.
(4) Cf. Clarke 1979, 83.
(5) The black-and-white photos were taken by Omero Visca (Becatti 1961, 7).
(6) Gallico-Turco 2018, fig. 5.