Archaeobotany in Italian ancient Roman harbours

Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 218 (2015) 217–230

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/revpalbo

Archaeobotany in Italian ancient Roman harbours Laura Sadori a, Emilia Allevato b, Cristina Bellini c, Andrea Bertacchi d, Giulia Boetto e, Gaetano Di Pasquale b, Gianna Giachi f, Marco Giardini a, Alessia Masi a,⁎, Caterina Pepe a, Elda Russo Ermolli g, Marta Mariotti Lippi c a

Dipartimento di Biologia Ambientale, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, P.le A. Moro 5, I-00185 Roma, Italy Dipartimento di Agraria, Università di Napoli Federico II, Via Università 5, I-80055 Portici, Italy Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Firenze, Via G. La Pira 4, I-50121 Firenze, Italy d Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Agro-ambientali, Università di Pisa, Via del Borghetto 80, I-56124 Pisa, Italy e Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, Centre Camille Jullian (UMR 7299), 5 rue du Château de l'Horloge, 13094 Aix-en-Provence, France f Laboratorio di Analisi, Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana, Largo del Boschetto 3, I-50143 Firenze, Italy g Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, dell'Ambiente e delle Risorse, Università di Napoli Federico II, Largo San Marcellino 10, I-80138 Napoli, Italy b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 5 September 2013 Received in revised form 22 January 2014 Accepted 10 February 2014 Available online 5 March 2014 Keywords: Archaeobotany Italian Roman harbours Central Mediterranean Pollen Plant macroremains Wood shipwrecks

a b s t r a c t The present study is a review of the archaeobotanical analyses carried out in the last decade at the three ancient Roman port/dock system sites of Pisae, Portus, and Neapolis. Pollen, plant macrofossils (leaf, wood, seed/fruit macroremains) and wood constituting the shipwrecks were considered, and the results, partly unpublished, integrated and interpreted. Waterlogged sediments from these port areas turned out to be particularly suited for archaeobotanical analysis and opened new perspectives in ancient harbour studies. This is the first time that a synthesis of archaeobotanical data from Italian archaeological sites of the same typology is attempted for the Roman period. The disparate sampling strategies and available materials for macrofossil analysis in the various sites – cores in Portus, short sediment sequences in Pisae, and single visible hand-collected macroremains in Neapolis – conditioned the results obtained for these remains, making the comparison among sites a particularly difficult task. The urgency of establishing a common protocol between archaeologists and archaeobotanists is thus emphasized. The plant micro- and macrofossils highlight that in Roman times the landscape of the Italian coasts between Pisa and Naples was formed by deciduous oak plain forests (whose relicts are preserved in some protected areas, like in Parco Nazionale del Circeo, south of Rome and along the coast of the Pisan plain, in the Migliarino San Rossore Regional Park) with prevalence of mesophilous elements. The Mediterranean vegetation was not widespread as expected and maquis was limited to small areas by the coast. Surprisingly, mountain elements such as beech and silver fir were not so rare in pre-Roman times, suggesting that these trees could have occupied wider areas than at present. Besides food plant remains typical of the Roman age, the port sediments also preserved seeds, fruits and leaves of the wild vegetation. Comparing the results obtained by palynology with the shipwreck wood study showed that the boats were prevailingly built with local timber, often with conifers. The use of silver fir, though never very frequent, still confirms the preference of shipbuilders for this timber, which was not always available in the close surroundings of the three sites. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Ports and their correlated docking systems, located in the interface between terrestrial and aqueous environments, are crossways between these two environments and their history and evolution depends on a complex mixture of marine, freshwater, and inland features. Concerning ancient Roman harbours, the study of historical documents and archaeological remains has been crucial for assessing their topography and the historical–economical role in trading (for a review,

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 06 49912421. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Masi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2014.02.004 0034-6667/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

see Keay and Boetto, 2010). Besides classical research in archaeological excavations, geoarcheology provided new insights into the reconstruction of the original configurations of harbours by shedding light upon their evolution and infilling processes (for the potential of the discipline see Marriner and Morhange, 2007). Indeed, geoarchaeological research has been successfully applied to the sediments filling ancient Italian maritime port basins, fluvial harbours and the related waterways (docks, canals, river branches) of Roman times (e.g. Benvenuti et al., 2006; Giraudi et al., 2007; Goiran et al., 2010; Mazzini et al., 2011; Salomon et al., 2012). Animal microfossils (ostracods and molluscs) have been used to reconstruct the past water environment providing precious information about the harbour configuration (Goiran et al., 2010; Mazzini et al., 2011; Goiran et al., 2014) and its relation to the river system (Pepe et al., 2013).

218

L. Sadori et al. / Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 218 (2015) 217–230

Furthermore, nautical archaeology brought major developments in the study of ancient ports by shifting the perspective from terrestrial to maritime. This perspective updated our knowledge of the roles and relationships of basins and other water bodies (Boetto, 2010c). In virtue of their depositional environment, harbour fillings are generally rich in plant remains, comprehending very different microand macroremains. These remains have generally been preserved by waterlogging in anoxic conditions, lying under the water table, and comprise pollen grains, microcharcoals, seeds, fruits, leaves, wood and charcoals, and shipwreck timber. Archaeobotanical research on Italian sites of Roman age is rather scarce and not systematic (for a discussion, see Sadori and Susanna, 2005; Sadori et al., 2009, 2010b). Mainly, it concerned the Vesuvian area in 79 AD (e.g. Ciarallo and Mariotti Lippi, 1993, 2000; Ciaraldi, 2007; Moser et al., 2013), and northern Italy (Mercuri et al., 2009; Bosi et al., 2011a,b). In Rome, besides the pioneer work of Maria Follieri on the filling of the Coliseum sewer (Follieri, 1975) at least some researches carried out on Pre-Republican and Imperial periods (Van Kampen et al., 2005; Celant, 2011; Pagnoux et al., 2013) deserve to be mentioned. Moreover, review papers covering sites all along the Italian Peninsula are still lacking. Even if there are excellent regional syntheses (Bandini Mazzanti et al., 2001; Rottoli and Castiglioni, 2011; Bosi et al., 2013) the need for a complete database of archaeobotanical research in Italy is quite clear (Mercuri et al., 2014). The prominent role of archaeobotany in assessing past plant landscapes, economies and human impacts, has been ultimately established (see for references Mercuri et al., 2010). In this perspective, the aim of this paper is highlighting the potentiality of archaeobotanical research in harbour contexts, as well as indicating the possible achievements of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies. In Italy, archaeopalynology in port sediments has already successfully contributed to the reconstruction of past natural and cultural landscapes (Mariotti Lippi et al., 2007a; Allevato et al., 2010; Sadori et al., 2010a,c; Russo Ermolli et al., 2013). Furthermore, wood, seed/fruit and leaf remains in the same contexts (Bertacchi et al., 2008; Giardini et al., 2013; Pepe et al., 2013) have allowed more precise taxonomical identifications than pollen, demonstrating the usefulness of their integration. A different approach is necessary for the study of shipwreck timber. In shipbuilding, the shipwright's skill and his knowledge of wood technology is of overwhelming importance in the choice of species. This choice was certainly influenced by the local availability of wood resources, even if timber could have still been imported. The difficulty and limits of dendrochronology in determining the provenance of timbers in shipbuilding and finally in localizing the shipbuilding yards for maritime cargo vessels have already been stressed (Gianfrotta and Pomey, 1981; Bourquin-Mignot and Guibal, 1999; Guibal and Pomey, 2003). Only a careful integration between identified species and nautical archaeology evidence (ship type, function and transport zone) can help establish the possible shipbuilding yards (Giachi et al., 2003; Muller, 2004; Wicha and Girard, 2006; Allevato et al., 2010). 2. The sites In this paper we focus on three ancient Roman harbours in the Central Mediterranean. They are characterized by different environments (riverine, deltaic and marine) and uses (inland transport or large Mediterranean networking). From north to south Italy, they are: a fluvial docking site of ancient Pisa (Pisae), the ports of Rome (Portus) and Naples (Neapolis). Archaeological excavations at the three sites unearthed ancient shipwrecks and port/dock structures (Fig. 1). Sediments filling the ancient basins have been studied under the lens of archaeobotany, even if with different sampling strategies conditioned by the diverse nature of the sites. The docking system discovered close to ancient Pisae (Fig. 1a) was located in a pre-existing riverbed placed near the confluence of the river Auser (the present Serchio) and the river Arnus (Arno), about

4 km from the sea in the Roman period and about 9 km from the present coastline (Mazzanti and Pasquinucci, 1983; Bruni and Cosci, 2003). The archaeological findings indicate that the dock worked from the 7th cent. BC to the 6th cent. AD, from Etruscan to Late Antique times. During this period repeated flooding episodes of the Arno river caused the wreckage of several ships: in this area, 31 hulls (entire or portions dated back to the 2nd cent. BC–6th cent. AD) have been discovered (Benvenuti et al., 2006; Camilli et al., 2006). Here, archaeobotanical investigations were performed on the wood constituting the shipwrecks and other wood artefacts, among which a palisade of the 7th cent. BC located in the southern part of the excavation area (Giachi et al., 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2011). Moreover, fruits, seeds, leaf remains, and pollen were sampled and analysed (Mariotti Lippi et al., 2007a; Bertacchi et al., 2008); these, together with pollen analysis (Benvenuti et al., 2006; Bellini et al., 2009) of two sediment cores, provided information on the past plant landscape. The remains of the ancient maritime harbour of Rome are located in the Tiber delta area (Fig. 1b). Its construction started in the mid 1st cent. AD under Claudius. Inaugurated in 64 AD by Nero, the port was enlarged, due to silting of the Claudius basin, by Trajan who added an inner hexagonal basin. Under the Empire, Portus, connected to Rome through the Tiber River, was the backbone of the supply system of Rome. This function continued until Late Antiquity. In the 6th–7th cent. AD, the granaries for crops imported from the empire were abandoned, but the harbour activity continued up to the Early Middle Ages (Keay et al., 2005; Keay and Paroli, 2011). The most remarkable change of the Tiber delta is the progression of the coastline toward the sea and the transformation of the ancient harbour basins in swampy land sites. Today, the remains of Portus are 3.5 km away from the present coastline. In this area, archaeobotanical investigations (Sadori et al., 2010a, 2010c) have been carried out on two sediment cores (Fig. 1b), one from the pre-Trajanic dock (Darsena), a protected basin related to the large warehouse Magazzini di Traiano, and the other from Canale Trasverso, a channel connecting the harbour to the Fossa Traiana and then to the Tiber. The two cores probably do not overlap and together record the port and the Tiber delta history from the 1st cent. AD to Middle Ages. Finally, at least eight shipwrecks came to light in the 1950s–60s in a peripheral area of the Claudian basin. These vessels, out of use, were abandoned from the 2nd to 4th cent. AD. The study of their structure and function revealed a local use. This information has been correlated to the analysis of wood species used to emphasize a neighbouring supply of timber and a local shipbuilding (Boetto, 2006a). The Greek-Roman harbour of Neapolis lies about 500 m inland with respect to the present day docks of Naples (Fig. 1c). Historical sources (Capasso, 1905) and archaeological finds (Giampaola et al., 2005) extensively documented the prosperity of this harbour and the complexity of its trades. In particular, a stratigraphic sequence at Piazza Municipio revealed the use of harbour activities from the end of the 4th/beginning of the 3rd cent. BC until the 5th cent. AD. The full silting up of this zone was completed in the 6th cent. AD. In the excavated area, a mole made of calcareous blocks resting on vertical wood poles was built at the end of the 1st cent. AD. In this period, two old repaired vessels (Napoli A and C) were abandoned too. In the 2nd cent. AD, two jetties made of wood poles were built obliquely to the mole and then a third vessel (Napoli B) wrecked near these structures (from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 3rd cent. AD) (Giampaola et al., 2005; Amato et al., 2009; Carsana et al., 2009). The analysis of the Napoli C ship revealed an undeniable local construction and its use for harbour service (Boetto, 2005, 2009, 2010). The wood species used in the construction of the three ships were analysed and related to pollen diagrams from the harbour area and a regional supply for timber has been established (Allevato et al., 2010). Moreover, the 7 m thick sediment record from the Municipio excavation was sampled for palynology (Russo Ermolli et al., 2013, 2014). The analysed sediments represent the infilling of a protected inlet in the ancient harbour. The sedimentary succession is almost continuous and chronologically well constrained by a number of


219

Fig. 1. Ancient Roman ports of a. Pisae (Bruni and Cosci, 2003, modified), b. Portus (Boetto, 2006a, modified), c. Neapolis (Carsana et al., 2009; Allevato et al., 2010, modified). Port structures, ancient coastlines and river courses, shipwreck location, and pollen and macroremains sampling points are drawn on the light grey base taken from Basemap Esri.

datable archaeological artefacts, between the end of the 4th cent. BC and the beginning of the 6th cent. AD. Pollen data were obtained for the 1st cent. BC-5th cent. AD time interval.

International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), the Melbourne Code, accessible online at http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php. 3.1. Pollen

3. Results As usually happens in archaeological research, the results are conditioned by the excavation and sampling strategies, so comparing three different sites with such different histories is a challenging endeavour. The river dock system of Pisa was discovered recently during the building of the Control Centre of the Tyrrhenian railway line in the Pisa San Rossore railway station. Besides the shipwrecks, the excavation provided sediments rich in plant macroremains and pollen. Archaeobotanical sampling of sediments from different floods was carried out as the excavation proceeded, both inside and nearby the vessels. In the imperial harbour of Rome the shipwrecks were unearthed in the 1950s–60s during the construction of the international airport of Rome. Pollen and macroremain analyses were carried out on limited amounts of sediment taken through coring in key sites in the big harbour basin, whose remnants are still visible in the Tiber delta area. The excavation at Neapolis is a typical example of preventive archaeology intervention planned before the construction of the underground. The three shipwrecks were excavated and removed. They are now stored in water, trying to replicate the waterlogged conditions of their discovery, and waiting for the expensive conservation treatment. Pollen samples were collected along the stratigraphic sequence, while plant macroremains were sampled on the ancient sea floor only when visible to the naked eye. For details on analytical methods and plant types for each site we refer to the single published articles cited in the following paragraphs. Botanical nomenclature is in accordance with the latest edition of the

Palynology is based on the assumption that pollen deposited in sediments is strictly related to the vegetation that produced the pollen rain. In the case of ports the pollen provenance could be rather wide, and the main source of the pollen rain should be singled out. 3.1.1. Pisae The flooding episodes in the Pisa docking site left thick sandy deposits alternating with short sequences of low-energy sedimentation, which allowed favourable conditions for pollen deposition. Despite this discontinuity, pollen analysis (Mariotti Lippi et al., 2007b) well evidenced two different vegetation phases. During the first phase, the pre-Roman one, ranged roughly from before the 7th to 6th cent. BC (Fig. 2, bottom), AP (Arboreal Pollen) percentages indicate that the Pisa plain was covered by woods. The most ancient samples are particularly rich in mountain taxa (mainly Fagus sp., beech), probably as a consequence of a wetter and cooler climatic oscillation that forced the beech forest at low altitudes (Bellini et al., 2009). The second phase (Fig. 2, top) mainly refers to the Roman period: the reduction in AP percentages and the increasing values of wetland plant pollen indicate that the area was a poorly drained alluvial plain. This is consistent with the occurrence of river floods reported by Benvenuti et al. (2006) between the 2nd cent. BC and the 5th cent. AD. In the most recent samples, the mixed oak woodland is well represented; the spreading of welldrained meadows and the occurrence of cultivated plants suggests soil reclamation for agricultural purposes. On the whole, the pollen data show a change in the vegetation that may be attributed to different

220


Pisae -

pollen percentage diagram

Roman period an

us

ilo

s

Me

AP

50 100

ne

ra

h op

r ite

d

Me

25

50

10

n tai un Mo gus Fa 30

na

pa

Ri

ic te iva

lt

Cu

Sy

es

bs

er

re

dt

op

r nth

n ria

dh

te iva

lt

Cu

60

35

15

5

5

100 BC-150 AD 100 BC-100 AD

250-100 BC

pre-Roman period

(before 7th to 6th cent. BC)

50 100

25

50

10

30

60

35

15

5

5

50 100

25

50

10

30

60

35

15

5

5

Fig. 2. Pisae. Pollen percentage diagrams of selected “ecological” groups/taxa. Bottom: pre-Roman period; top: Roman period. The diagram has been drawn according to the geological stratigraphy and each “layer” represents a flood event. AP: arboreal pollen. Mesophilous: Acer, Carpinus betulus, Ostrya/Carpinus orientalis, deciduous Quercus, Ulmus, Tilia. Mediterranean: Cistus, Ephedra fragilis, Fraxinus ornus, Olea, Pistacia, Phillyrea, Quercus ilex type, Rhamnus. Mountain: Abies, Betula, Fagus, Picea. Riparian: Alnus, Populus, Salix, Tamarix. Synanthropic: Asteroideae, Caryophyllaceae, Cichorioideae, Plantago cf. lanceolata, Rumex, Urticaceae. Cultivated trees: Castanea, Juglans. Cultivated herbs: legumes, cereals. For a detailed chronology see Benvenuti et al., 2006 and Mariotti Lippi et al., 2007a.

climatic conditions, from cooler and wetter to warmer and dryer, and also to increasing land use. In fact, the drastic and frequent flooding events recorded in the site since the Republican age forced the local communities to adapt to this highly instable environment by repeatedly relocating the docking structures (Benvenuti et al., 2011).

3.1.2. Portus Palynological investigations at Portus (Sadori et al., 2010a,c) are summarized in one diagram for the two cores PTS13 (Darsena — dock core, Fig. 3, bottom) and PTS5 (Canale Trasverso — channel core, Fig. 3, top), whose chronology was established in the previous articles. The composite record spans one thousand years, from the foundation of the port in the 1st cent. AD to the 12th/13th cent. AD, as the marshy environment allowed pollen deposition even when the port silted up and became inactive (Pepe et al., 2013). AP percentages are rather high in PTS13, the older core, and decrease in PTS5. The sediments show the presence of a rather preserved vegetation in the first centuries of the port activity, with a forest canopy mainly formed by Mediterranean and mesophilous arboreal elements (Fig. 3, PTS13) typical of a Mediterranean deltaic area, with maquis and plain forests (mesophilous) elements mixed with riparian trees. Considering the latter, inflows from the Tiber River are indicated by several increases in freshwater riparian trees, while repeated expansions of Tamarix sp. (tamarisk), which in PTS5 make up the bulk of the riparian group (in Fig. 3 tamarisk is between the grey – all riparian except tamarisk – and the black – all riparian trees – curves) suggest either an intensive cultivation to stop strong saline winds or a closer sandy coast. Mountain pollen, always present but never showing high percentages, was probably either air- or water transported. Cultivated/cultivable plants are not present in the bottom record and slightly increase upward,

achieving their maximum at the top. Synanthropic taxa show high percentages at the top of the record.

3.1.3. Neapolis Pollen analysis of the Neapolis harbour sediments (Russo Ermolli et al., 2013, 2014) indicates that a broadleaved forest (mesophilous taxa) dominated by oaks occupied the reliefs surrounding the town and that vegetables were cultivated around the harbour area (Fig. 4). Mediterranean vegetation probably occupied the sunniest and rocky slopes, especially close to the sea coast, while the mountain trees, represented by beech and by low amounts of Abies sp. (silver fir), formed woods on the highest reliefs. The mainly low percentages of mountain taxa are due to the far distance from the possible source areas. The tree crops mainly consisted of Juglans sp. (walnut) and secondly of Castanea sp. (chestnut) and Vitis sp. (grapevine). Very high percentages of Brassicaceae were recorded along the sequence and possibly interpreted as extensive cultivation of cabbage, broccoli and radish in the vicinity of the harbour (Russo Ermolli et al., 2014). Comparison with reference pollen material, selected on the basis of the local peculiarities and historical background of the study site, seems to reinforce this hypothesis (Russo Ermolli et al., 2014). The diffusion of cabbage cultivation in the Vesuvian area during the Roman period is attested by palynological analyses from two Villae Rusticae (farmhouses) of the Pompeian countryside (Mariotti Lippi, 1993; Mariotti Lippi and Bellini, 2006). In fact, vegetables of the Brassicaceae family represented one of the main plant food sources for the Romans and Pliny the Elder (Book XIX, ch. 41) in his Naturalis historia reported not only that cabbage and colewort were the preferred garden vegetables for Romans, but also specified that some plants were never cut, allowing flowering for seed production (Bostock and Riley, 1855). During the 3rd


Portus -


PTS5 - Canale Trasverso / channel core

lus

an

AD nt. depth ce m

ilo

di Me ea Ol

h op

s

50 100

Me

30

pu

ne

ra ter

us

AP

221

60

n ria a pa +S Ri lnus A

n

i nta

u

15

30

Mo

Po

+ lix

5

pic

60

30

60

Sy

te iva

Cu

40

4

bs

er

dh

te iva

lt

lt

n

30

es

re

dt

ro

th an

5

Cu

5

5 10th-11th

6 7 8 4th

PTS13 - Darsena / dock core r

l. y

AD

ca

50 100

235 ± 105

30

60

15

30

5

5

40

5

2 3

212 ± 128

Timber

4 5 harbour foundation

Fig. 3. Portus. Pollen diagrams of selected groups/taxa. Bottom: PTS13 — darsena/dock core; top, PTS5 — Canale Trasverso/channel core. The diagram follows the chronological interpretation published in Sadori et al. (2010a) and in Pepe et al. (2013). AP: arboreal pollen. Mesophilous: Acer, Carpinus betulus, Ostrya/Carpinus orientalis, deciduous Quercus, Ulmus, Tilia. Mediterranean: Cistus, Ephedra fragilis, Ericaceae, Fraxinus ornus, Juniperus, Olea, Pistacia, Phillyrea, Quercus ilex type, Rhamnus. Mountain: Abies, Betula, Fagus, Picea. Riparian: Alnus, Populus, Salix, Tamarix. Synanthropic: Asteroideae, Caryophyllaceae, Cichorioideae, Plantago cf. lanceolata, Rumex, Urticaceae. Cultivated trees: Castanea, Juglans. Cultivated herbs: legumes, cereals. Note that tamarisk makes up the bulk of the riparian group in PTS5.

(Fig. 4). The presumed vegetable cultivation recovers, indicating the restart of farming activities close to the harbour area.

cent. AD a drastic decrease of horticultural activities, in concurrence with an increase of wild vegetation and tree crops, suggests a minor upkeep due to a phase of abandonment. After the 3rd cent. AD the situation appears to have been restored and in the 4th and 5th centuries AD the vegetation is very similar to that preceding the 3rd cent. AD, apart from a generally higher presence of deciduous Quercus spp. (deciduous oaks) and a continuous presence of walnut and grapevine

Neapolis AD

C/

t. B

n ce

The analysis of plant macroremains such as seeds, fruits, wood and leaves, whose finds are rather fortuitous in archaeological contexts,


hm

pt de re P o c A

3.2. Plant macroremains

n

a ne

s lou

rra

hi

op

ite

s Me

50 100

25

50

in

ria

20

10

pa Ri

5

re dt

thr

n

nta

u Mo

d Me

es

ic op

an

ate

ltiv

n Sy

Cu

20

10

bs er d h ae e t a ce ltiv ica Cu ass Br

30

5th

3 4th 3rd 2nd

4

1st AD

5 1st BC

Fig. 4. Neapolis. Pollen diagrams of selected groups/taxa. AP: arboreal pollen. Mesophilous: Acer, Carpinus betulus, Ostrya/Carpinus orientalis), deciduous Quercus, Ulmus, Tilia. Mediterranean: Cistus, Ephedra fragilis, Ericaceae, Fraxinus ornus, Juniperus, Olea, Pistacia, Phillyrea, Quercus ilex type, Rhamnus. Mountain: Abies, Betula, Fagus, Picea. Riparian: Alnus, Populus, Salix, Tamarix. Synanthropic: Asteroideae, Caryophyllaceae, Cichorioideae, Plantago cf. lanceolata, Rumex, Urticaceae. Cultivated trees: Castanea, Juglans. Cultivated herbs: legumes, cereals, Brassicaceae.

222


generally provide a more local framework of flora and vegetation, in view of the dispersal strategies of these plant parts. In the case of ports, however, this general “rule” doesn't always apply because macroremains can derive not only from the local vegetation but also from the natural vegetation of the entire river catchment by fluvial transport (Bertacchi et al., 2008), from human use and trade (Allevato and Di Pasquale, unpublished data), or all of these sources combined (Bertacchi et al., 2008; Pepe et al., 2013).

3.2.1. Pisae During the archaeological excavation at Pisae, more than two thousand plant macroremains (leaves, fruits, seeds, stems, cortex) were recovered and 65 taxa identified, 45 of which at the species level (Bertacchi et al., 2008). A total of 124 sediment samples, collected by the archaeologists nearby or inside six shipwrecks, were analysed. The plant remains can be divided into two assemblages. The first group includes predominant cultivated arboreal species, like Prunus persica (L.) Batsch (peach), Juglans regia L. (walnut), Corylus avellana L. (common hazel), Olea europea L. (olive tree), Vitis vinifera L. subsp. sylvestris (C.C. Gmel.) Hegi (grapevine) and some remains of cultivated herbs such as Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walpers (cowpea) and Vicia faba L. (fava bean). These edible species are rather common in Italian archaeological contexts of the Roman period (Bandini Mazzanti et al., 2001). As far as grapevine is concerned, the wild subspecies was identified considering the morphology of both pips and bunch. The second group includes wild plants widespread in the surrounding of the site and in the catchment of the Arno River (Fig. 5). Macroremains of mountain arboreal species such as Fagus sylvatica L. (beech) and Abies alba Mill. (silver fir) are the most common. Mesophilous trees forming mixed deciduous woods in plain and hilly areas, e.g. Quercus robur L. (English oak), Q. cerris L. (Turkey oak), Q. pubescens Willd. (downy oak), Carpinus betulus L. (common hornbeam) and Acer campestre L. (field maple) are abundant as well as the typical riparian hygrophilous trees such as Salix spp. (willow), Populus spp. (poplar) and Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. (common alder).

3.2.2. Portus Plant macroremains of Portus have been extracted from two sediment cores. The rareness of large seeds/fruits is probably related to the limited amount of sediment available for analysis. Apart from wood remains drilled by the corer in PTS13 (Ulmus sp., elm, and deciduous Quercus), no other macro-remains were visible to the naked eye. Known quantities of sediments were carefully floated and water sieved with different meshes; the plant remains consisted not only of seeds/ fruits, but also of wood fragments and, in one case, of leaves of Erica arborea L. (tree heath). The state of preservation of the plant remains was rather poor and often prevented a detailed identification in the absence of preserved diagnostic features. Diagrams published by Pepe et al. (2013) show a mixture of natural and anthropic elements (Fig. 6). Seeds of herb plants are overwhelming and, among these, weeds, and edible and fresh-water taxa (including Posidonia rhizome fragments) are dominating and alternating along the sequence. Pips of Ficus carica L. (common fig) are abundant, accompanied at times by endocarps of Rubus sp. (blackberry), seeds of Cucumis melo L. (melon), and grapevine. Considering the huge amounts of cereals that were imported and stored in the horrea of Portus (Keay et al., 2005; Keay and Paroli, 2011), it is surprising that the most common crops (cereals and legumes) are completely absent in both cores. The absence of cereal caryopses could be due either to the fact they are hardly preserved if uncharred or to the sampling strategy, as higher quantities of soil should generally be processed for macroremain analysis.

3.2.3. Neapolis No systematic sampling for plant remains was carried out in Neapolis. Samples were handpicked from the palaeo-seafloors by archaeologists when visible to the naked eye. Sampled layers are dated by ceramics between the 2nd cent. BC and the 5th cent. AD. Preliminary data suggest that the macroremain assemblages are dominated by cultivated plants that could either represent waste from crew meals or probably accidental falls from cargos during the loading and unloading of the ship trade. Peach, walnut, Corylus avellana L. (hazelnut), and Castanea sativa Mill.

Fig. 5. Pisae: plant macroremains: a. Fagus sylvatica (beech) leaf; b. F. sylvatica (beech) cupulae and nuculae; c. Quercus robur (English oak) leaf; d. Salix spp. (willow) leaf.


223

chemical degradation when buried; it may, however, be preserved in water filled sites, in anaerobic conditions (Fig. 8).

Fig. 6. Portus: plant macroremains: a. Vitis vinifera L. (grapevine); b Rubus sp. (blackberry); c. Ficus carica L. (common fig); d. Hyosciamus cf. niger (black henbane); e. Ranunculussardous Crantz (hairy buttercup); f. Scirpus sp. (club-rush); g. Verbena officinalis L. (common vervain); h. Typha latifolia/angustifoliaL. (bulrush); i. Juncus sp. (rush).

(chestnut) occur widely from the 1st half of the 1st cent. AD. Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) remains such as cones, seeds and bark are widely present along the whole considered period starting from the 2nd half of the 2nd cent. BC. Olive tree and grapevine, on the contrary, are scarcely represented respectively in the 2nd cent. AD and in the 2nd half of 4th cent. AD. This absence could be ascribed to the lack of a sampling protocol. Some macroremains (e.g. grapevine pips) were extracted in the laboratory by sieving the little amounts of sediment mound in the storage bags of the samples. Concerning wild species, the assemblage, apart from the marine species Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile (Neptune grass), includes only arboreal species such as Pinus halepensis Mill. (Aleppo pine) and Pinus pinaster Aiton (maritime pine) dated to the 1st cent. AD.

3.3. Shipwrecks Over the past few years a huge number of shipwrecks have been discovered thanks to the improvement of preventive archaeology in silted harbour basins and river branches. These shipwrecks do not necessarily belong to the maritime cargo vessel types, well known from underwater researches in coastal and open sea sites, but also to types totally or partially unknown related to different functions (harbour service, fishing) and geographical transport zones (river–sea, inland navigation) (Pomey, 2009). The meticulous in situ study of these shipwreck remains, the definition of their function and transport zone and the reconstruction of the shape of the original vessels, could offer important data for the localisation of their construction yards. Just as any other organic material, wood normally decays under combined biological and

3.3.1. Pisae The shipwrecks found in Pisa preserved most of their original structure (Figs. 8, 9): only the so-called “Hellenistic ship” was completely disassembled. The results of the diagnostic analysis point out that a lot of wood species were used for the construction of the vessels (Table 1). Coniferous wood is largely represented: the entire planking of the ships A (Fig. 9) and C is mainly made of maritime pine, and silver fir was used for the mast carling of the prow deck in ship C (Giachi et al., 2003, 2009, 2011). Ship D, the largest one (12 m long, 4 m wide) among the Pisa shipwrecks, is almost entirely realized with Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) used for planking and frame (Giachi et al., 2000). Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. (Norway spruce) was identified in sporadic elements in ship C, but is probably referable to repairs (Giachi et al., 2003, 2009, 2011). Regarding hardwoods, deciduous oak constitutes the keel, whereas poplar the inner of ship C. The frames are made of a great variety of hardwoods: common fig, Fraxinus excelsior L. (common ash), Ulmus cf. minor (field elm), Alnus cf. glutinosa (black alder), and Quercus cf. ilex (evergreen oak) are present in ship C (Giachi et al., 2003, 2011), and walnut, ash, elm and deciduous oak woods in ship A (Giachi et al., 2009). In ship D, the occurrence of hardwoods, specifically beech, olive tree and walnut is sporadic (Giachi et al., 2000). On the other hand, some hulls are completely realized with hardwoods: deciduous oak was mostly used for the construction of ship B (Giachi et al., 2000); the same wood constitutes the planking of ship F (Fig. 9) where the ceiling and the two monoxile extremities are of common alder, and the frame is of ash, walnut, elm and evergreen oaks (Giachi et al., 2003). Also the most ancient ship, the “Hellenistic” ship, shows several hardwood elements: oak, elm, alder, ash and evergreen oak constitute most part of its elements, but there is also one element of silver fir (Giachi et al., 2006). Most of the identified timber was available in the surroundings of Pisa and the Apennine reliefs, though a foreign origin from anywhere in the northern Mediterranean cannot be excluded. 3.3.2. Portus The study of the shipwrecks found in Portus has allowed identifying three ship types (Boetto, 2006a, Fig. 8) and a number of woody taxa (Table 2). In particular, three shipwrecks (Fiumicino 1, 2 and 3) belong to the caudicaria navis type vessel, a transport river–sea vessel used to lighten huge cargo maritime ships and to transport the supplies from the maritime port up to Rome via the Tiber. Their particular structure and propulsion (towing mast), combined with their local use (harbour service and sea–river navigation), support the hypothesis of a local construction in shipyards probably localized in Ostia-Portus. The choice of wood species is particularly suited for this type of vessel: Mediterranean cypress and deciduous oak for keel; stone pine, Aleppo pine and deciduous oak for planking; deciduous oak and evergreen oak for frame; stone pine and deciduous oak for ceiling; deciduous oak and Aleppo pine for keelson (Boetto, 2008, 2010a, 2011). All of these taxa were available in the surrounding woodlands. For stone pine and, in a lesser way, for Mediterranean cypress, which are cultivated species, a special cultivation related to shipbuilding could be assumed (Boetto, 2006a). The smallest boat found in Fiumicino (Fiumicino 5) is a fishing boat belonging to the vivarianavis-type, for the transport of live fish within an internal flooded box (Boetto, 2006b, 2010b). This boat, of local use and construction, presents the same species as the caudicariae with the addition of Juniper sp. (juniper) for the frame. Finally, in Fiumicino 4, a small transport maritime vessel probably of local construction, besides the above-cited species, Alnus sp. (alder), silver fir, walnut, and Pinus cf. nigra J.F. Arnold (black pine), have been identified (Boetto, 2006a). The consistent use of cypress in both planking of Fiumicino 4 and 5 vessels should be stressed.

224


Fig. 7. Neapolis: plant macroremains: a. Pinus pinea (stone pine) cone and seeds (1st cent. AD), b. stone pine bark (2nd half 2nd cent. AD); c. Olea europaea (olive tree), treenail from ship Napoli B; d. Quercus cf. ilex (evergreen oak) wood, transverse section from the keel of ship Napoli B; e. Abies (fir) wood, radial section from the planking of ship Napoli C.

3.3.3. Neapolis In Naples, three wooden shipwrecks, Napoli A and Napoli C dated to the 1st–2nd cent. AD, and Napoli B dated to the 2nd–3rd cent. AD, were recovered in a good preservation state in the infilling of a protected inlet of the harbour (Fig. 8). The terrestrial conditions of the excavation facilitated sampling accuracy and allowed to fully collect the elements of the ships, label them according to their structural role and identify the timber (Table 3). Among coniferous wood, silver fir is largely used in all the ships of Naples. Cypress was also identified in all wrecks and represents the only taxon in the planking of Napoli B; pines (Pinus sylvestris group, probably P. nigra (black pine), stone pine, Aleppo pine and maritime pine) were also moderately used in all ships. The main taxa used among hardwoods are walnut and deciduous oaks which constituted almost the unique timber for shaping the frame respectively of the ship Napoli A and Napoli C, while the frames of the ship Napoli B were more heterogeneous being made of several different hardwoods such as Fraxinus ornus L. (manna ash), Ostrya carpinifolia Scop. (European hop hornbeam), maple, beech, elm and walnut. As in other Mediterranean shipwrecks, evergreen oak was used for keels in the ships Napoli A and Napoli B for its hardness; good coniferous timber like silver fir, Mediterranean cypress and Norway spruce (the latter only in the ship Napoli A) were employed to shape the planking and the axial carpentry; Arbutus unedo L. (strawberry tree), Phillyrea/Rhamnus and small pruned branches of olive trees were used for treenails in virtue of the hardness of the wood and the small dimension of their branches unsuited for other elements.

Broad comparison with other western Mediterranean wrecks evidenced the peculiarity of the Neapolis shipwrecks, where both walnut and cypress timber were systematically employed. A local provenance of the ship Napoli C is strongly suggested by its typology for harbour service or, less probably, for fishing. Furthermore, the available archaeobotanical data regarding cypress and walnut and the similarities in wood choice between Napoli A and Napoli B and the local ship Napoli C could constrain the shipyard area to the ancient Campania region, but this assumption needs further confirmation. 4. Discussion and conclusions Analyses of plant remains from harbour basins and docking systems turned out to be quite promising. Even if the sedimentation in a port can undergo various processes related either to a marine, fluvial, or deltaic environment, the evidence we have is that plant remains can be preserved in such transitional and dynamic areas. The presence of a water table persistently in anoxic conditions allowed the preservation of plant parts (pollen, leaves, wood, etc.) and materials such as the timber of the shipwrecks. Preservation by waterlogging is quite a rare phenomenon in semi-arid environments such as the Mediterranean one, where charring is the most common way of preservation for archaeobotanical materials. These results should encourage archaeologists to carry out systematic sampling for plant materials in these types of sites and to plan sampling strategies with archaeobotanists. Indeed, the sampling methodology strongly affects the results. Regarding macroremains, for instance, the lack of a common

Fig. 8. Shipwrecks. Pisae: a. ship A; b. ship D. Portus: c. Fiumicino 1 shipwreck (Oneraria maggiore I); d. Fiumicino 5 shipwreck (Barca del Pescatore) (photos courtesy of the Archaeological Superintendence of Rome). Neapolis: e. View of Napoli C from the transom bow; f. the three shipwrecks and the harbour structures (photo F. Avallone, courtesy of the Special Archaeological Superintendence of Naples and Pompeii and https://www.flickr.com/groups/ship3/discuss/72157629901290362/).


225

226


Fig. 9. Pisae: timber used for ship A (a.) and ship F (b.).

sampling protocol was the main cause of the different outcomes in the three sites (Fig. 10): in Pisae, an exact chronological collocation of some remains was not possible and most of them come from the natural arboreal vegetation of the catchment or from cultivated plants (Figs. 5 and 10); in Portus, the results were conditioned by the limited amount of sediment in the cores, even if the analytical method led to the recovery also of very small seeds of wild plants (Figs. 6 and 10); in Neapolis, the small carporemains, such as those of many wild herbaceous plants, were not recorded and so the remains of edible fruits/seeds were mainly found (Figs. 7 and 10). The final result is that data from the three sites can hardly be compared in detail, due to sampling and taphonomical biases, but also to the different sample resolution and investigated time intervals. We are in fact comparing depositional environments with different energies: high energy in the river branch dock of Pisae, ruled by hinterland phenomena such as floods; low energy in the protected inlet of Neapolis, and both kinds in Portus, with flood phenomena weakened by the location of the port basin in the Tiber delta, in a basin connected to the river through a channel. Differences between the three sites might also reflect the different prosperity of the ports, port functions, and types of trade, but the data we collected do not allow specific conjectures on such important economic factors. Socio-economic changes occurring in Classical times are indeed evident from the occurrence of cultivated plants in the pollen spectra of Pisae, Neapolis, and also of Portus, although to a lesser extent. The find in Neapolis of a non-native species (Allevato, Di Pasquale, unpublished data) confirms that important trades with eastern Africa actually were running. Archaeobotanical data from ports need to be integrated with both historical sources (see the example of the Neapolis pollen record) and with on-site excavations results (for example in the imperial palace of Portus). Botanical investigations in archaeological sites aiming to reconstruct past plant uses are not a novelty, and not even the comparison of pollen and macrofossil analyses in lacustrine sediments to establish past vegetation and climate is something new. However, with this integrated approach we were able to synthesize multidisciplinary studies along the Tyrrhenian coast in a period with high human impact such as the Roman one. Pollen and plant macroremains from the considered ports and dock systems also provide some hints for climate reconstruction, especially if the archaeobotanical data are validated by other palaeoenvironmental analyses (Benvenuti et al., 2006; Mazzini et al., 2011; Pepe et al., 2013). In the catchment of the Arno basin, between the 1st cent. BC and 5th cent. AD, in a period in which river floods were quite frequent also in Rome (see Camuffo and Enzi, 1995; Pepe et al., 2013) the forest

landscape was characterized by mesophilous taxa such as deciduous oaks. Pollen of Mediterranean taxa, in an area adjacent to the coast, was not abundant. A similar situation is found in the port of Rome, where a mixed deciduous forest was widespread during the first century/centuries AD, probably leaving space to Mediterranean maquis closer to the sea and to riparian vegetation in the delta area. The Romans partly modified this mosaic landscape typical of a delta, cultivating tamarisks to protect the ports from the sea winds. A clear climatic trend is not visible in the pollen record, but well evidenced in other proxies (Pepe et al., 2013). Thus, the port of Rome was ruled not only by fluvial sedimentary fluxes and coastal dynamics occurring at the mouth of Tiber river, but also by human influence. A similar situation was also found in the Rhone delta, in Camargue (Rey et al., 2009). The area of Naples was characterized by mesophilous woods and, partly, by Mediterranean taxa. Areas with natural vegetation coexisted with areas used for various cultivations. Data from Pisa show that beech in pre-Roman/early Roman times, in correspondence with the final retreat of fir from the coastal plain (Bellini et al., 2009), was quite widespread in the region, probably not only in the catchment of the Arno river as testified by the beech pollen percentages around these times in the cores from the nearby Lago di Massaciuccoli (Colombaroli et al., 2007; Mariotti Lippi et al., 2007b). A slight expansion of beech was also found at Lago dell'Accesa (southern Tuscany) since 3800 years BP and lasted for more than one millennium (Drescher-Schneider et al., 2007). The same evidence is not available neither from the coast (Bellotti et al., 2011) nor from the hinterland of Latium (Mercuri et al., 2002), where beech must have decreased earlier, before 3000 yr BP. Just offshore of Campania, in a core from the gulf of Salerno (Russo Ermolli and Di Pasquale, 2002) a slight expansion of beech pollen is found between 3200 and 3000 yr BP. In Roman times the Tyrrhenian coast ranging from Pisa to Naples, even if widely exploited, appears to have been quite preserved and covered by a mixed oak forest typical of coastal plains. The same signal also comes from a core taken in the Tiber delta, in the hinterland of Portus, where mesophilous elements dominated in the first centuries AD (Bellotti at al., 2011). But this was not certainly the case of the whole coast: in the lagoon of Maccarese, located a few kilometres to the north of Portus, during the period of port activity evergreen oaks dominated over deciduous ones, and chenopods were overrepresented, due to the historical documented presence of saltworks (Di Rita et al., 2011). Evergreen elements coexisted with mesophilous ones, probably either forming parallel belts aligned along the coasts or a mosaic vegetation, but were not anyway dominant just around the three ports. Sporadic traces of mixed oak forests are still preserved along the western coast of Italy, and the best-preserved forests of this kind are


found nowadays in the Pontina plain, in the Circeo National Park and along the coast of the Pisa plain, in the Migliarino San Rossore Regional Park. Human activity of the ports, nevertheless, left important traces in the sediments, consisting in the remains of edible plants, both arboreal and herbaceous. These could have been either the traces of meals or of some goods lost during loading and unloading from the ships. Food plant macroremains are therefore a direct link between naval trade and human life in the ports and in the related towns. Regarding the shipwrecks, extensive wood analyses in most cases indicate an attentive selection of species: in fact, technological properties of the taxa employed are closely related to the structural role of the construction elements. Coniferous timber was used for planking in Pisa (ships A, C and D), Fiumicino (vessels 4 and 5, and partially in caudicariae

Table 2 Portus. Identified wood taxa in shipwrecks (Boetto, 2006a). Portus Identified wood taxa Fiumicino 1 Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak) Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) Quercus cf. ilex L. (holm oak) Salix sp. (willow) Fiumicino 2 Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak) Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) Quercus cf. ilex L. (holm oak) Fraxinus excelsior L. (common ash) Salix sp. (willow)

Table 1 Pisae. Identified wood taxa in shipwrecks (Giachi et al., 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2011).

Shipwreck/part of the ship's structure

Fiumicino 3 Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak)

Planking Frame Frame Frame Frame

Pinus halepensis Mill. (Aleppo pine) Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) Quercus cf. ilex L. (holm oak) Fraxinus excelsior L. (common ash) Olea europaea L. (olive tree) Salix sp. (willow)

Beam Planking, frame

Fiumicino 4 Quercus cf. ilex L. (holm oak) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak)

Pisae Identified wood taxa Ship A Pinus pinaster Aiton (maritime pine) Fraxinus excelsior L. (common ash) Juglans regia L. (walnut tree) Ulmus cf. minor Mill. (field elm) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oaks) Ship B Abies alba Mill. (silver fir) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oaks) Ship C Abies alba Mill. (silver fir) Alnus cf. glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. (black alder) Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) Fagus sp. (beech) Ficus carica L. (common fig) Fraxinus excelsior L. (common ash) Olea europaea L. (olive tree) Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. (Norway spruce) Pinus pinaster Aiton (maritime pine) Populus alba L. (white poplar) Ulmus cf. minor Mill. (field elm) Quercus cf. ilex L. (holm oak) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak) Ship D Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) Fagus sp. (beech) Juglans regia L. (walnut tree) Olea europaea L. (olive tree) Pinus pinaster Aiton (maritime pine) Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) Quercus cf. ilex L. (holm oak) Ship F Alnus cf. glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. (black alder) Fraxinus excelsior L. (common ash) Juglans regia L. (walnut tree) Ulmus cf. minor Mill. (field elm) Quercus cf. ilex L. (holm oak) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oaks) Hellenistic ship Abies alba Mill. (silver fir) Alnus cf. glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. (black alder) Fraxinus excelsior L. (common ash) Ulmus cf. minor Mill. (field elm) Quercus cf. ilex L. (holm oak) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oaks)

Planking, mast carling, prow deck Frames, mast carling, prow deck Wale, mast carling Mast carling, prow deck Frame Frame, frame's treenails, mast carling, vertical prow element Tenon's pegs, tenons Planking, prow deck Planking, frame, wales, beam, keelson– mast step, footwales, thwarts Planking, footwales Frame (futtocks), prow deck Frames, thole-pins Keel Planking, frames Sporadic element Sporadic element Stringers Stringers Stringers Frame Monoxyle elements of prow and stern, ceiling Frames, frame's treenails Frame Planking, frame Frame, tenon's pegs, tenons Planking, ceiling Frame Frame Frame Planking, frame Planking, frame Planking, frame, stringers

227

Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) Conifer Quercus sp. (oak) Juglans regia L. (walnut tree) Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) Pinus halepensis Mill. (Aleppo pine) Pinus cf. nigra J.F. Arnold (black pine) Alnus sp. (alder) Olea europaea L. (olive tree) Abies alba Mill. (silver fir) Fiumicino 5 Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak) Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) Juniper sp. (juniper) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak) Olea europaea L. (olive tree) Ulmus cf. minor Mill. (field elm) Quercus sp. (oak)

Shipwreck/part of the ship's structure Keel, keel's transitional timber, keelson/ mast-step, planking, frame, repair Planking, tenon's pegs, repair Planking, ceiling, repair Frame, tenons, tenon's pegs Frame's treenails

Keel, keel's transitional timber, planking, frame Planking Tenons Tenon's pegs Frame's treenail

Keel Keel's transitional timber, planking, frame, ceiling Keelson Ceiling Tenons Tenon's pegs Frame's treenails Frame's treenails

Keel, frame Keel's transitional timbers, frame, ceiling, tenons, tenon's pegs Planking, ceiling, repair Planking, frame, ceiling, repair Frame Frame, ceiling Keelson/mast-step, ceiling, repair Ceiling Ceiling Ceiling Tenon's pegs, frame's treenails Ceiling

Keel's transitional timbers, frame, fishing well timber, repair Planking, frame, tenon's peg, fishing well timbers, repair Planking, frame, fishing well timbers Frame Tenon, tenon's pegs Frame's treenail Fishing well timbers Planking

Fiumicino 1 and 2) and in Naples; the elasticity of coniferous wood and the possibility of obtaining long straight boards from their tall upright trunks make them ideal for longitudinal carpentry (Giordano, 1981; Rival, 1991; Nardi Berti, 2006). Oaks were used for the keel in ship C of Pisa, in all the Fiumicino ships (with the only exception of cypress for the keel of Fiumicino 3) and in the ships Napoli A and Napoli B. The hardness of this wood is consistent with the functional role of the keel, this wood being very crash-resistant (Giordano, 1981; Rival, 1991; Nardi Berti, 2006). Moreover, the study of shipwrecks, both to determine their use and to comprehend their provenance, provides a link between the trades in the Mediterranean Sea and/or the transportation through rivers. It is important to note that the area of timber import from supply woodlands is still difficult to define. Palynology can be of help in defining the

228


Table 3 Neapolis. Identified wood taxa in shipwrecks (Allevato et al., 2010). Neapolis Identified wood taxa Ship Napoli A Abies sp. (fir) Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) Picea/Larix Pinus sylvestris group Pinus halepensis/P. pinaster Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) Fagus sylvatica L. (common beech) Fraxinus ornus L. (manna ash) Juglans regia L. (walnut tree) Populus sp. (poplar) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak) Quercus cf. ilex Mill. (holm oak) Ulmus sp. (elm)

Ship napoli B Abies sp. (fir) Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) Pinus sylvestris group Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) Acer sp. (maple) Fagus sylvatica L. (common beech) Fraxinus ornus L. (manna ash) Juglans regia L. (walnut tree) Ostrya carpinifolia Scop. (hop hornbeam) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak) Quercus cf. ilex L. (holm oak) Ulmus sp. (elm) Arburtus unedo L. (strawberry tree) Olea europaea L. (olive tree) Phllyrea/Rhamnus Ship napoli C Abies sp. (fir) Cupressus sempervirens L. (Mediterranean cypress) Pinus sylvestris group Pinus halepensis/P. pinaster Pinus pinea L. (stone pine) Juglans regia L. (walnut tree) Ostrya carpinifolia Scop. (hop hornbeam) Populus sp. (poplar) Quercus deciduous (deciduous oak)

Shipwreck/part of the ship's structure Ceiling Ceiling, planking Ceiling, planking Ceiling, planking Ceiling, planking Ceiling, planking Ceiling Frame Frame, keel's transitional timber Ceiling Frame, keelson/mast-step Keel Ceiling, frame, keel's transitional timber

Ceiling Planking Ceiling Frame, keelson/mast step Frame Ceiling, frame Frame Frame Frame Ceiling, frame Keel Ceiling, frame Frame's treenails Frame's treenails Frame's treenails

delimit the provenance area of the ships and the timber exploitation areas (Allevato et al., 2010). One of the main challenges when dealing with marginal and open environments such as ancient harbours is establishing the provenance area of all plant remains, not only of the shipwrecks. In fact, the plant remains we analysed could have arrived either from the close surroundings or they could have been transported by the river flows or floods, or by the sea currents, or by human uses, trades or transportation. Moreover, the plant assemblages can mirror not only the local and the regional plant landscape, but also the human use and impact in a territory. In conclusion, the signal that can be read in plant assemblages is in fact not univocal, but includes a mixture of both “natural” and human signals. This is true for all the types of plant remains dealt with in this review. Acknowledgements The analysis of the wood of the Pisa shipwrecks was carried out with the collaboration of IVALSA-CNR Florence (Nicola Macchioni, Simona Lazzeri, Chiara Capretti) and their mapping on the hulls with the collaboration of TecSette s.p.a. We would like to thank Frédéric Guibal (Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, IMBE) and Claus Malmros (National Museum of Denmark) who did the analysis of the wood of the Fiumicino ships. We would like to give special thanks to the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma, sede di Ostia and to Daniela Giampaola (Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Napoli e Pompei). We are grateful for all the suggestions of the guest Editor Donatella Magri and of two anonymous reviewers, which contributed significantly to the improvement of our paper. References

Ceiling, planking Planking Ceiling, planking Ceiling, keel Ceiling, planking Frame Frame Frame, planking Ceiling, frame

provenance of timber (Muller, 2004; Mariotti Lippi et al., 2007b; Allevato et al., 2010). Broad comparison with other archaeobotanical data as well as biogeographical considerations can also be helpful to

Allevato, E., Russo Ermolli, E., Boetto, G., Di Pasquale, G., 2010. Pollen-wood analysis at the Neapolis harbour site (1st–3rd century AD, southern Italy) and its archaeobotanical implications. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 2365–2375. Amato, L., Carsana, V., Cinque, A., Di Donato, V., Giampaola, D., Guastaferro, C., Irollo, G., Morhange, C., Perriello, Zampelli S., Romano, P., Ruello, M.R., Russo Ermolli, E., 2009. Ricostruzioni geoarcheologiche e morfoevolutive nel territorio di Napoli (Italia): l'evoluzione tardo pleistocenica-olocenica e le linee di riva di epoca storica. Méditerranée 112, 23–31. Bandini Mazzanti, M., Mercuri, A.M., Bosi, G., Marchesini, M., Accorsi, C.A., 2001. The archaeobotanical archive: plants used by man (which, where, how, when?). What fruits did Romans eat in Emilia Romagna (northern Italy)? Some responses from seeds and fruits. In: Guarino, A. (Ed.), Science and Technology for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Basin, vol. I. CNR, Alcalà, pp. 318–324. Bellini, C., Mariotti Lippi, M., Montanari, C., 2009. The Holocene landscape history of the NW Italian coasts. The Holocene 19, 1161–1172. Bellotti, P., Calderoni, G., Di Rita, F., D'Orefice, M., D'Amico, C., Esu, D., Magri, D., Martinez, M.P., Tortora, P., Valeri, P., 2011. The Tiber river delta plain (central Italy): coastal

Fig. 10. Comparison of plant macroremain finds in the three harbour sites.

L. Sadori et al. / Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 218 (2015) 217–230 evolution and implications for the ancient Ostia Roman settlement. The Holocene 21, 1105–1116. Benvenuti, M., Mariotti Lippi, M., Pallecchi, P., Sagri, M., 2006. Late-Holocene catastrophic floods in the terminal Arno River (Pisa, Central Italy) from the story of a Roman riverine harbour. The Holocene 16, 863–876. Benvenuti, M., Bellini, C., Censini, G., Mariotti Lippi, M., Pallecchi, P., Sagri, M., 2011. Floods, mudflows, landslides: adaptation of Etruscan–Roman communities to hydrogeological hazards in the Arno river catchment (Tuscany, Central Italy). In: Martini, I.P., Chesworth, W. (Eds.), Landscapes and Societies. Selected cases. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 187–201. Bertacchi, A., Lombardi, T., Sani, A., Tomei, P.E., 2008. Plant macroremains from the Roman harbour of Pisa (Italy). Environ. Archaeol. 8, 181–188. Boetto, G., 2005. Le navi romane di Napoli. In: Giampaola, D., Carsana, V., Boetto, G., Bartolini, M., Capretti, C., Galotta, G., Giachi, G., Macchioni, N., Nugari, M.P., Pizzo, B. (Eds.), La scoperta del porto di Neapolis: dalla ricostruzione topografica allo scavo e al recupero dei relitti. Archeologia Marittima Mediterranea, International Journal of Underwater Archaeology, 2, pp. 63–76. Boetto, G., 2006a. Les navires de Fiumicino (Italie): architecture, matériaux, types et functions. Contribution à l'étude du système portuaire de Rome à l'époque impériale. (Ph.D. Thesis) Université de Provence, Aix-Marseille 1, Aix-en-Provence. Boetto, G., 2006b. Roman Techniques for the Transport and Conservation of Fish: The Case of the Fiumicino 5 Wreck. In: Blue, L., Hocker, F., Englert, A. (Eds.), Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 123–129. Boetto, G., 2008. L'épave de l'Antiquité tardive Fiumicino 1: analyse de la structure et étude fonctionnelle. Archaeonautica 15, 29–62. Boetto, G., 2009. New archaeological evidences of the Horeia-type vessels: the Roman Napoli C shipwreck from Naples (Italy) and the boats of Toulon (France) compared. In: Bockius, R. (Ed.), Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology. Verlag des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, pp. 289–296 (Mainz 2006). Boetto, G., 2010a. Les navires de Fiumicino, influences fluviales et maritimes. In: Pomey, P. (Ed.), Transferts technologiques en architecture navale méditerranéenne de l'Antiquité aux temps modernes: identité technique et identité culturelle. Actes de la Table Ronde Internationale. Istanbul 2007, IFEA. Varia Anatolica, XX, Istanbul, pp. 137–150. Boetto, G., 2010b. Fishing vessels in antiquity: the archaeological evidence from Ostia (Rome). In: Bekker Nielsen, T., Bernal Casasola, D. (Eds.), Ancient Nets and Fishing Gears. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Net and Fishing Gears in Classical Antiquity. A First Approach, Cadiz 2007. Universidad de Cadiz-Aarhus University, Cadiz-Aarhus, pp. 243–255. Boetto, G., 2010c. Le port vu de la mer: l'apport de l'archéologie navale à l'étude des ports antiques. Bollettino di archeologia on line I, Volume speciale B/B7/9, 112–128. Boetto, G., 2011. Tra il fiume e il mare: le caudicariae di Fiumicino. In: Harris, W.V., Iara, K. (Eds.), Maritime Technology in the Ancient Economy: Ship-design and Navigation. Journal of Roman Archaeology. Portsmouth, Rhode Island, pp. 103–112 (JRA, Suppl. Series, 84). Boetto, G., Carsana, V., Giampaola, D., 2010. I relitti di Napoli e il loro contesto portuale. In: Medas, S., D'Agostino,, M. (Eds.), Archeologia storia e etnologia navale. Atti del I convegno nazionale, Cesenatico 2008. Edipuglia, Bari, pp. 115–122. Bosi, G., Bandini Mazzanti, M., Florenzano, A., Massamba N'siala, I., Pederzoli, A., Rinaldi, R., Torri, P., Mercuri, A.M., 2011a. Seeds/fruits, pollen and parasite remains as evidence of site function: piazza Garibaldi and Parma (N Italy) in Roman and Medieval times. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 1621–1633. Bosi, G., Rinaldi, R., Bandini Mazzanti, M., 2011b. Flax and weld: archaeobotanical records from Mutina (Emilia Romagna, Northern Italy), dated to the Imperial Age, first half 1st century A.D. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 20, 543–548. Bosi, G., Rinaldi, R., Rottoli, M., Castiglioni, E., Bandini Mazzanti, M., 2013. Archaeobotanical evidences of food plants in Northern Italy during the Roman Age. Abstract Book 16th Conference of the International Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany 17–22 June 2013. Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 135–136. Bostock, J., Riley, H.T., 1855. The natural history. Pliny the Elder. Taylor and Francis, London. Bourquin-Mignot, C., Guibal, F., 1999. La dendrologie in La Botanique, Collections “Archéologiques”. A. Ferdière, Errance, Paris. Bruni, S., Cosci, M., 2003. Alpheae veterem contemplor originis urbem quam cingunt Arnus et Ausur aquis. Il paesaggio di Pisa etrusca e romana: materiali e problemi. In: Bruni, S. (Ed.), Il porto urbano di Pisa antica. La Fase estrusca. Il contesto e il relitto ellenistico. Silvana Editoriale, Milano, pp. 29–43 (2003). Camilli, A., Pallecchi, P., Remotti, E., 2006. Stratigrafia fluviale, portuale e terrestre: la sequenza dello scavo delle navi di Pisa. Proceedings of “S. Rossore, in Aequora, πόντος, jam, mare… Mare, uomini e merci nel Mediterraneo antico”, Genova, pp. 74–86. Camuffo, D., Enzi, S., 1995. The analysis of two bi-millenary series: Tiber and Po River floods. In: Jones, P.D. (Ed.), Climatic Variations and Forcing Mechanism of the Last 2000 Years. NATO-ANSI Series, 1: Global Environmental Change. vol. 41. Springer, Berlin, pp. 433–445. Capasso, B., 1905. Napoli Greco-Romana. Berisio editore, Napoli. Carsana, V., Febbraro, S., Giampaola, D., Guastaferro, C., Irollo, G., Ruello, M.R., 2009. Evoluzione del paesaggio costiero tra Parthenope e Neapolis. Méditerranée 112, 15–22. Celant, A., 2011. Risultati delle analisi paleobotaniche effettuate su macroresti vegetali. In: Panella, C. (Ed.), I segni del potere. Realtà e immaginario della sovranità nella Roma imperiale. Edipuglia, Bari, pp. 231–233. Ciaraldi, M., 2007. People and Plants in Ancient Pompeii: A New Approach to Urbanism From the Microscope Room: The Use of Plant Resources at Pompeii and in the

229

Pompeian Area From the 6th Century BC to AD 79. Accordia Research Institute, University of London, London. Ciarallo, A., Mariotti Lippi, M., 1993. The Garden of “Casa dei Casti Amanti” (Pompeii — Italy). Gard. Hist. 21, 110–116. Colombaroli, D., Marchetto, A., Tinner, W., 2007. Long-term interactions between Mediterranean climate, vegetation and fire regime at Lago di Massaciuccoli (Tuscany, Italy). J. Ecol. 95, 755–770. Di Rita, F., Celant, A., Magri, D., 2011. Holocene environmental instability in the wetland north of the Tiber delta (Rome, Italy): sea–lake–man interactions. J. Paleolimnol. 44, 51–67. Drescher-Schneider, R., de Beaulieu, J.L., Magny, M., Walter-Simonnet, A., Bousset, G., Millet, L., Brugiapaglia, E., Drescher, A., 2007. Vegetation history, climate and human impact over the last 15,000 years at Lago dell'Accesa (Tuscany, Central Italy). Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 16, 279–299. Follieri, M., 1975. Resti vegetali macroscopici nel collettore ovest del Colosseo. Ann. Bot. 34, 123–141. Giachi, G., Lazzeri, S., Paci, S., 2000. Il legno utilizzato per la costruzione delle imbarcazioni: indagini preliminari. In: Bruni, S. (Ed.), Le navi antiche di Pisa. Ad un anno dall'inizio delle ricerche. Polistampa, Firenze, pp. 80–86. Giachi, G., Lazzeri, S., Macchioni, N., Mariotti Lippi, M., Paci, S., 2003. The wood of “C” and “F” Roman ships found in the ancient harbour of Pisa (Tuscany, Italy): the utilisation of different timbers and the probable geographical area which supplied them. J. Cult. Herit. 4, 269–283. Giachi, G., Lazzeri, S., Paci, S., 2006. I legni dei manufatti portati alla luce nell'Ampliamento Sud. In: Bruni, S. (Ed.), Il porto urbano di Pisa antica. La fase etrusca. Il contesto e il relitto ellenistico. Silvana Editoriale, Milano, pp. 174–178. Giachi, G., Macchioni, N., Pallecchi, P., Pizzo, B., Capretti, C., 2009. Un nuovo passo nella diagnostica dei relitti di Pisa: La Nave A. Atti del XXV Convegno Internazionale di Scienza e Beni Culturali. “Conservare e restaurare il legno conoscenze, esperienze, prospettive”, Bressanone 23–26 giugno 2009, pp. 999–1008. Giachi, G., Macchioni, N., Pizzo, B., Capretti, C., 2011. The waterlogged wood of the shipwrecks found in Pisa (Italy). Diagnosis and conservation, Proceedings of “Shipwrecks” 2011. Chemistry and Preservation of waterlogged wooden shipwrecks, Stochkolm, pp. 78–84 (18–21 October 2011). Giampaola, D., Carsana, V., Boetto, G., Bartolini, M., Capretti, C., Galotta, G., Giachi, G., Macchioni, N., Nugari, M.P., Pizzo, B., 2005. La scoperta del porto di Neapolis: dalla ricostruzione topografica allo scavo e al recupero dei relitti. Archeologia Marittima Mediterranea. Int. J. Underw. Archaeol. 2, 47–91. Gianfrotta, P.A., Pomey, P., 1981. Archeologia subacquea. Storia, tecniche, scoperte e relitti, Milano. Giardini, M., Giraudi, C., Goiran, J.P., Masi, A., Mazzini, I., Pepe, C., Sadori, L., 2013. Archaeobotanical investigations and human impact at the imperial harbour of Rome. Ann Bot (Rome) 3, 199–205. Giordano, G., 1981. Tecnologia del legno — la materia prima, vol. 1. Unione tipografico — editrice torinese, Torino. Giraudi, C., Tata, C., Paroli, L., 2007. Carotaggi e studi geologici a Portus: il delta del Tevere dai tempi di Ostia Tiberina alla costruzione dei porti di Claudio e Traiano. www. fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2007-80.pdf. Goiran, J.Ph., Tronchere, H., Salomon, F., Carbonel, P., Djerbi, H., Ognard, C., 2010. Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of the ancient harbors of Rome: Claudius and Trajan's marine harbors on the Tiber delta. Quat. Int. 216, 3–13. Goiran, J.Ph., Salomon, F., Mazzini, I., Bravard, J.-P., Pleuger, E., Vittori, C., Boetto, G., Christiansen, J., Arnaud, P., Pellegrino, A., Pepe, C., Sadori, L., 2014. Geoarchaeology confirms location of the ancient harbour basin of Ostia (Italy). J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 389–398. Guibal, F., Pomey, P., 2003. Timber supply and ancient naval architecture. In: Beltrame, C. (Ed.), Boats, Ships and Shipyards. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Venice 2000. Oxbow books, Oxford, pp. 35–41. Keay, S., Boetto, G., 2010. Introduction: Portus, Ostia and the ports of the Roman Mediterranean. Contributions from Archaeology and history. XVII International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Roma 22–26 Sept. 2008. Bollettino di Archeologia on line I, volume speciale. B,7,1, pp. 1–4. Keay, S., Paroli, L., 2011. Portus and its hinterland: recent archeological research. British School at Rome, Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 18, London. S.Keay, S., M.Millet, M., L.Paroli, L., K.Strutt, K., 2005. An archaeological survey of the port of Imperial RomeArchaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 15, Rome. Mariotti Lippi, M., 1993. Contributo alla conoscenza del paesaggio vegetale dell'area di Pompei nel 79 d.C. Atti del III Convegno “Paesaggi e Giardini del Mediterraneo”, Pompei, 4–6 giugno 1993, 3, p. 141–148. M.Mariotti Lippi, M., 2000. The garden of the Casa delle Nozze di Ercole ed Ebe in Pompeii (Italy): palynological investigationsPlant Biosyst. 134, 205–211. Mariotti Lippi, M., Bellini, C., 2006. Unusual palynological evidence from gardens and crop fields of ancient Pompeii (Italy). In: Morel, J.P., Tresseras, J.J., Matamala, J.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Conference on Crop Fields and Gardens Archaeology Held in Barcelona, 1–3 June 2006. Crop Fields and Garden Archaeology. Centro Studi Europei per i Beni Culturali, Ravello, pp. 153–159. Mariotti Lippi, M., Bellini, C., Trinci, C., Benvenuti, M., Pallecchi, P., Sagri, M., 2007a. Pollen analysis of the ship site of Pisa San Rossore, Tuscany, Italy: the implications for catastrophic hydrological events and climatic change during the late Holocene. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 16, 453–465. Mariotti Lippi, M., Guido, M., Menozzi, B.I., Bellini, C., Montanari, C., 2007b. The Massaciuccoli Holocene pollen sequence and the vegetation history of the coastal plains by the Mar Ligure (Tuscany and Liguria, Italy). Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 16, 267–277.

230


Marriner, N., Morhange, C., 2007. Geoscience of ancient Mediterranean harbours. Earth Sci. Rev. 80, 137–194. Mazzanti, R., Pasquinucci, M., 1983. L'evoluzione del litorale lunense-pisano fino alla metà del XIX secolo. Boll. Soc. Geogr. Ital. 12, 605–628. Mazzini, I., Faranda, S., Giardini, M., Giraudi, C., Sadori, L., 2011. Late Holocene palaeoenvironmental evolution of the Roman harbour of Portus, Italy. J. Paleolimnol. 46, 243–256. Mercuri, A.M., Accorsi, C.A., Bandini Mazzanti, M., 2002. The long history of Cannabis and its cultivation by the Romans in central Italy, shown by pollen records from Lago Albano and Lago di Nemi. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 11, 263–276. Mercuri, A.M., Bigi, P., Bottazzi, G., Accorsi, C.A., Bandini Mazzanti, M., Bosi, G., Marchesini, M., Montecchi, M.C., Pedini, D., 2009. From the “Treasure of Domagnano” to the archaeobotany of a Roman and Gothic settlement in the Republic of San Marino. In: Morel, J.-P., Mercuri, A.M. (Eds.), Plants and Culture: Seeds of the Cultural Heritage of Europe. EdiPuglia, Bari, pp. 69–91. Mercuri, A.M., Sadori, L., Blasi, C., 2010. Archaeobotany for cultural landscape and human impact reconstructions. Plant Biosyst. 144, 860–864. Mercuri, A.M., Allevato, E., Arobba, D., Bandini Mazzanti, M., Bosi, G., Caramiello, R., Castiglioni, E., Carra, M.L., Celant, A., Costantini, L., Di Pasquale, G., Fiorentino, G., Florenzano, A., Guido, M., Marchesini, M., Mariotti Lippi, M., Marvelli, S., Miola, A., Montanari, C., Nisbet, R., Peña-Chocarro, L., Perego, R., Ravazzi, C., Rottoli, M., Sadori, L., Ucchesu, M., Rinaldi, R., 2014. Pollen and macroremains from Holocene archaeological sites: a dataset for the understanding of the bio-cultural diversity of the Italian landscape. In: Bertini, A., Cirilli, S., Magri, D. (Eds.), Special issue 'Changing Flora and Vegetation Through Time'. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology. Moser, D., Allevato, E., Clarke, J.R., Di Pasquale, G., Nelle, O., 2013. Archaeobotany at Oplontis: woody remains from the Roman Villa of Poppaea (Naples, Italy). Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 22, 397–408. Muller, S.D., 2004. Palynological study of antique shipwrecks from the western Mediterranean Sea, France. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 343–349. Nardi Berti, R., 2006. La struttura anatomica del legno ed il riconoscimento dei legnami italiani di più corrente impiego. In: Berti, S., Fioravanti, M., Macchioni, N. (Eds.), CNR — IVALSA, Firenze. Pagnoux, C., Celant, A., Coubray, S., Fiorentino, G., Zech-Matterne, V., 2013. The introduction of Citrus in Italy with reference to the identification problem of seed remains. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 22, 421–438. Pepe, C., Giardini, M., Giraudi, C., Masi, A., Mazzini, I., Sadori, L., 2013. Plant landscape and environmental changes recorded in marginal marine environments: the ancient Roman harbour of Portus (Rome, Italy). Quat. Int. 303, 73–81. Pomey, P., 2009. A new approach of Mediterranean nautical archaeology: harbour, river and river–sea. In: Bockius, R. (Ed.), Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology. Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Mainz 2006. Verlag des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz, pp. 267–276 (RGZM-Tagungen, Band, 3). Rey, T., Lefevre, D., Vella, C., 2009. Deltaic plain development and environmental changes in the Petite Camargue, Rhone Delta, France, in the past 2000 years. Quat. Res. 71, 284–294.

Rival, M., 1991. La charpenterie navale romaine. Éditions du CNRS, Paris. M.Rottoli, M., E.Castiglioni, E., 2011. Plant offerings from Roman cremations in northern Italy: a reviewVeg. Hist. Archaeobotany 20, 495–506. Russo Ermolli, E., Di Pasquale, G., 2002. Vegetation dynamics of southwestern Italy in the last 28 kyr inferred from pollen analysis of a Tyrrhenian Sea core. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 11, 211–219. Russo Ermolli, E., Romano, P., Ruello, M.R., 2013. Human-environment interactions in the southern Tyrrhenian coastal area: hypothesis from Neapolis and Elea-Velia. In: Harris, W.V. (Ed.), The Ancient Mediterranean Environment Between Science and History. Brill, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, 39, pp. 213–232. Russo Ermolli, E., Romano, P., Ruello, M.R., Barone-Lumaga, M.R., 2014. The natural and cultural landscape of Naples (southern Italy) during the Graeco-Roman and Late Antique periods. J. Archaeol. Sci. 42, 399–411. Sadori, L., Susanna, F., 2005. Hints of economic change during the late Roman Empire period in central Italy: a study of charred plant remains from La Fontanaccia, near Rome. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 14, 386–393. Sadori, L., Allevato, E., Bosi, G., Caneva, G., Castiglioni, E., Celant, A., Di Pasquale, G., Giardini, M., Mazzanti, M., Rinaldi, R., Rottoli, M., Susanna, F., 2009. The introduction and diffusion of peach in ancient Italy. In: Morel, J.P., Mercuri, A.M. (Eds.), Plants and Culture: Seeds of the Cultural Heritage of Europe. PaCE, a Project for Europe. Centro Universitario Europeo per i Beni Culturali Ravello. Edipuglia, Bari, pp. 45–61. Sadori, L., Giardini, M., Giraudi, C., Mazzini, I., 2010a. The plant landscape of the imperial harbour of Rome. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 3294–3305. Sadori, L., Giardini, M., Susanna, F., 2010b. The plant landscape as inferred from a basket of the Roman town of Privernum (Latium, central Italy). Plant Biosyst. 144, 874–887. Sadori, L., Mercuri, A.M., Mariotti Lippi, M., 2010c. Reconstructing past cultural landscape and human impact using pollen and plant macroremains. Plant Biosyst. 144, 940–951. Salomon, F., Delile, H., Goiran, J.P., Bravard, J.P., Keay, S., 2012. The Canale di Comunicazione Traverso in Portus: the Roman sea harbour under river influence (Tiber delta, Italy) Etude du Canale di Comunicazione Traverso à Portus: le port maritime antique de Rome sous influence fluviale (delta du Tibre, Italie). Géomorphol. Relief. Process. Environ. 1, 75–90. Van Kampen, I., Rathje, A., Celant, A., Follieri, M., De Grossi Mazzorin, J., Minniti, C., 2005. The pre-Republican age habitation layers of the Via Sacra in Giacomo Boni's excavation of the Sepolcreto Arcaico. In: Attema, P., Nijboer, A., Zifferero, A. (Eds.), Communities and Settlements From the Neolithic to the Early Medieval Period. Proceedings of the 6th Conference of Italian Archaeology (Papers in Italian Archaeology VI, BAR International Series 1452 (II), 745–753). Wicha, S., Girard, M., 2006. Archaeobotanical characterisation of three ancient sewn Mediterranean shipwrecks. In: Blue, L., Hocker, F., Englert, A. (Eds.), Connected to the Sea, Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003. Oxbow books, Oxford, pp. 111–116.