By Sergi Moreno
Arco Iris Eiriz
Joan Roig
Arco Iris Eiriz
Joan Roig
Here we present, in a brief form, a structure related to the pressing of the grapes for wine production, possibly the first one of its kind found in the island (Figs. 1 and 2). This structure, found at the site of Can Pere Arabi (Sant Jordi de ses Salines), was a receptacle with trend to rectangular morphology (although slightly trapezoidal), retained only a one line of limestone with clay mortar at the joins and in the bottom a thin layer of lime mortar very poor (Fig. 3). Is obvious that we are dealing with the remains of foundations of the structure, with only 25 cm of deep. It had a length of about 3.75 m, counting the walls and 3.15 m only the raft, its width was 1.55 m maximum (in the northeast edge) and 1.2 m minimum (in the southwest). We believe this rectangular structure could be the carcatorium, where were the grapes for their first pressing with feet. Next to its east corner, had a cavity digging in geological substrate with irregular form, but with a circular trend, its diameter was about 0.90 m and 15cm deep. Its bottom showed a clear inclination towards a hole that led into a round cuvette (lacum). The objective of this hole could be to put the torcularium (press) where the second pressing would made with the weight of the press. This liquid, from the second pressing, would go inside the round cuvette, the lacum that we talk before: its had a diameter of 1.4m and 0.8m of depth (fig. 4). It was digging in the geological substrate and the hole was filled up with a calcareous stone masonry with clay mortar at the joins. The liner had a very good finish with a plaster lime mortar with calcareous gravels and crushed ceramic. The bottom was a solid piece of opus signinum. The amortized of this cuvette was given to us for its filler, it had a lot of ceramic forms, but the chief among them were the edges of amphorae PE-25: amphora to transport wine that begins their production in mid of 1st century AD and lasted until mid 3rd AD. The edges found seem to obey the primal stage of production, therefore, we could date the abandonment of the press in the second half of 1st century AD.
Wine production.
Varro is a gorgeous source, in this sense, in this fragment cited he talks about the prolific wine of the ager Gallicus, at the northern Adriatic Sea (R.R. I, II, 7):
“In eo agro aliquotsariam in singula iugera dena cullea vini fiunt. Nonne item in agro Faventino, a quo ibi trecenariae appellantur vites, quod iugerum trecenas amphoras reddat. Simul aspicit me, Certe, inquit, L. Martius praefectus fabrum tuus in fundo suo Faventiae hanc multitudinem dicebat suas reddere vites”.
Also he praised the abundant production of the italian vines (ibid. I, II, 7):
“In qua terra iugerum unum denos & quinos denos culleos fert vini, quot quaedam in Italia regiones”.
The author is speaking of an average production between 10 and 15 barrels [1], for those more fertile vines. For the region of Gaul he talks about vines called trecenariae, name that he presupposes it arises from its production of 300 amphorae [2] (15 barrels) that produced by an iugerum: the equivalent of about 300hl/hectare.
Well, so following this argument, we could connecting the production proposed with Cato's mesures for a vineyard: 100 iugera (25 ha) of which were would obtain, attending the scales we talk about, a production of 7,500 hectoliters. Amount very similar to Varro said pointing to the vineyard of L. Martius: 300 amphorae = 7.800 l = 78 hl /iugerum (x100 = 7.800 hl). That shall be producing in a modest rural domain or medium (if we consider the foreman condition of Martius) that could hover around the 7,500 and 7,800 hl. It is also interesting to note the figure of the L. Martius, who in addition to working as a foreman in the land of owner, had an estate that must surely possess lease, demonstrating the coexistence, in the exploitation of this Roman ager, of the settlers and owners. This farm, no of landowner's direct property and dedicated to polyculture, should have been the dominant in Republican era, since the law Licinian agrorum (367 BC) prevented that any Roman citizen could have more than 500 iugera (Col. 1.3.11).
When we are trying to make an approach to the production of the wine of the villae by the archaeological remains we find a severe problem: the unreliability of the storge vestiges. Perishable materials such as cullea do not reach us and them are the main unit of accounting in wine production by the agronomists treaties.
This problematic for the production can be reflected the wide divergence that we found between production that noted by J.P. Brun for the villa Pisanella vineyards, on the slopes of Vesuvius, and the one we have referenced here (Brun, 2004: 16):
“Les dolia ayant une contenance moyenne de 11hl. la capacité de vinification de la villa s’élevait donc au máximum à 800hl., correspondant peut-ètre à un vignoble compris entre 13 et 23ha environ”.
This production is very low, considering that the classic agronomists speak almost unanimously of 10 or 15 barrels per iugerum (between 200 and 300hl per hectare), this mistake is the result of trying to make an approximate calculation based only on the archeological vestiges (which are reduced, normally, to dolia and potteries). In this kind of studies we lose, among those storage materials, the variables that are difficult to find at the archaeological excavations: the barrels (cullea).
We can accept and is more in keeping with the classical sources for wine production, the amount that he assigns to the Pompeians's villae (Brun, 2004: 17):
“Du vignoble intra-muros de Pompéi (Regio II, insula 5), certes très dense et cultivé comme un jardin, le propriétaire espérait un rendement annuel de 150hl. à l’hectare”.
The questionable affirmation, for the reasons given above, is Brun's attempt to extrapolate this production to the equation "production = area" because for this we must be very sure of the production of the villa, and we insist that material culture is not enough by itself, and in this aspect is not entirely reliable (Brun, 2004: 17):
“Si l’on appliquait ce ratio aux villae suburbaines, le vignoble de la Pisanella ne représenterait plus que 5ha; sans aller jusque-là, on retiendra que c’est plutôt la fourchette base (10-12ha) qu’il fautretenir”.
Later he stresses again with the error when he is projecting onto the area the potteries remains (dolia cella) of the domus Villa Regina (Brun, 2004: 26):
" L'addition de ces chiffres donne un total de 100 hl environ, ce qui pourrair correspondre à un vignoble de l'ordre de 1,5ha à 2,5ha".
Ergo, we believe that is more reliable, to try to make an approach to a villae's wine production, an analysis done by territory and sources and the results will be less distorted and partials than one made only with the archaeological remains of the pars urbana.
Corollary
We think that the production of the ancient Ebusus should be put in this context of a mid or small domain; before venturing to make any lucubration about landowners with properties with only one kind of cultivation and with a production destined to industry, we should have to consider two questions:
This problematic for the production can be reflected the wide divergence that we found between production that noted by J.P. Brun for the villa Pisanella vineyards, on the slopes of Vesuvius, and the one we have referenced here (Brun, 2004: 16):
“Les dolia ayant une contenance moyenne de 11hl. la capacité de vinification de la villa s’élevait donc au máximum à 800hl., correspondant peut-ètre à un vignoble compris entre 13 et 23ha environ”.
This production is very low, considering that the classic agronomists speak almost unanimously of 10 or 15 barrels per iugerum (between 200 and 300hl per hectare), this mistake is the result of trying to make an approximate calculation based only on the archeological vestiges (which are reduced, normally, to dolia and potteries). In this kind of studies we lose, among those storage materials, the variables that are difficult to find at the archaeological excavations: the barrels (cullea).
We can accept and is more in keeping with the classical sources for wine production, the amount that he assigns to the Pompeians's villae (Brun, 2004: 17):
“Du vignoble intra-muros de Pompéi (Regio II, insula 5), certes très dense et cultivé comme un jardin, le propriétaire espérait un rendement annuel de 150hl. à l’hectare”.
The questionable affirmation, for the reasons given above, is Brun's attempt to extrapolate this production to the equation "production = area" because for this we must be very sure of the production of the villa, and we insist that material culture is not enough by itself, and in this aspect is not entirely reliable (Brun, 2004: 17):
“Si l’on appliquait ce ratio aux villae suburbaines, le vignoble de la Pisanella ne représenterait plus que 5ha; sans aller jusque-là, on retiendra que c’est plutôt la fourchette base (10-12ha) qu’il fautretenir”.
Later he stresses again with the error when he is projecting onto the area the potteries remains (dolia cella) of the domus Villa Regina (Brun, 2004: 26):
" L'addition de ces chiffres donne un total de 100 hl environ, ce qui pourrair correspondre à un vignoble de l'ordre de 1,5ha à 2,5ha".
Ergo, we believe that is more reliable, to try to make an approach to a villae's wine production, an analysis done by territory and sources and the results will be less distorted and partials than one made only with the archaeological remains of the pars urbana.
Corollary
We think that the production of the ancient Ebusus should be put in this context of a mid or small domain; before venturing to make any lucubration about landowners with properties with only one kind of cultivation and with a production destined to industry, we should have to consider two questions:
a) The diachronism of parcels: it is true that in can Arabí Pere we have documented large tracts of vineyards, but the site has revealed overlapping of the agricultural structures with a large chronology that extend for six centuries (from the IV BC to I-II AD). Therefore, we must clearly establish this diachrony before to make any synchronous accounting of the parcels.
b) We would have to find the infrastructure required for such a broad market. So far, the equipments found at the rurals settlements in Ibiza is closer to narration of mid and small domain made by Cato and Varro (Cato, RR, XI-XIII, Varro, RR, I, XVII-XII).
Without ruling that the island production, made by free men [3]-owners and settlers-, could be channeled and managed by the power (through its control) for commercial transaction, for example with the Gimnesias islands (Mallorca and Menorca). The remains (amphorae) found in other parts of the East cost of the Peninsula are too few, at this moment, to talk about a big comercial net.
Figure 1. Torcularium location in the site.
Figure 2. Planimetry with the components of the wine press. (In red: prensa de vino= wine press and in green: habitación del prensado de la uva= room for the pressing of the grape).
.jpg)
Figure 3. Receptacle for the pressing of the grape with feet (carcatorium), you can appreciate the hole for torcularium.
Figure 4. Cuvette for the collection of the wine (lacum).
Figure 5. 3D hypothetical reconstruction of the press
Bibliography
BRUN, J.P.: Archéology du vin et de l'huile dans l'Empire romain. Editions Errance, Paris, 2004.
[1] Barrel = 20 amphorae= 520 liters.
[2] Amphora = 26 liters. 1 amphora / iugerum (1/4 hectare) = 1 hl / hectare.
[3] Varro, R. R. I, XVII, 2:
“Omnes agri coluntur hominibus servis aut liberis, aut utrisque. Liberis, aut cum ipsi colunt, ut plerique pauperculi cum sua progenie: aut mercenariis, cum conducticiis liberorum operis res maiores, ut vindemias, ac foenisicia administrant: iique, quos obaeratos (esclavos por deudas) nostri vocitarunt, & etiam nunc sunt in Asia atque Aegypto, & in Illyrico complures”.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario