11. Metodología Propuesta en el trabajo
11.2 Informe descriptivo de las actividades desempeñadas
7.1. Location and characteristics.
The area identified by MHS as "San Leonardo" is located in the contrada of the same name. The latter, which lies some 8 km up the coast from urban Marsala, is
Fig. 30: San Leonardo location.
527. On the characterization and interpretation of these "haloes", see Chapter 3, Section III.1.2.1 with n. 346.
situated on the shore of the Stagnone more or less opposite the island of Mozia (Fig. 30). As explained elsewhere in this chapter,529 the presence of Mozia—and its proximity to the site which is the subject of this section—was instrumental in the project directors' decision to make San Leonardo a target for survey. From its position in the northwestern corner of the MHS survey universe, it is less than 1.5 km to the island's eastern coast. Accordingly, San Leonardo is the most proximate of the 3 areas comprising a "stratified sample" of survey sites located along the northern edge of the project's theater of operations. Given the area within which MHS was permitted to work,530in fact, San Leonardo is located as near to Mozia as it is possible to get. The next most proximate area—Piscitello, which is also the closest of the other survey sites to San Leonardo—is more than twice as far away, as the crow flies.531 Borso, which is second of the "stratified sample" sites, is more distant still.532
Because of present-day patterns of of settlement in the territory of Marsala, San Leonardo is also the nearest area to a place of concentrated modern habitation. Indeed, it is noteworthy among the areas explored by MHS for the degree to which modern construction influenced the shape of the surveyed area. The course of its eastern– and southern borders, as well as the fact of a gap between the parts walked in 2008 and 2009,533were largely determined by the contours of San Leonardo's urban fabric. In those areas which are not occupied by residential (and some utilitarian534) buildings, meanwhile, the surface is almost entirely given over to cultivation. As elsewhere in the region, the most frequent cultivar is the grape. The latter's predominance, however, is less complete than in some of the other sites treated in this chapter. Vineyards are sometimes bracketed by, or interpenetrate with, fields planted with a variety of tree– and garden crops.535
A full accounting of the factors driving this (locally-noteworthy!) diversity, it seems to me, would have to consider a variety of developments which have little bearing on the present discussion.536 Among them, however, are several which are germane, including the climatological– and topographical fitness of the area for agriculture.537 Like Piscitello to its east, San Leonardo is located on the wide, flat coastal plain which dominates the western half of the project survey universe. Topographical relief in the vicinity of San Leonardo is typical of this region. In the
529. Section II.1.2.
530. See Chapter 1, Section II.1, with n. 5.
531. San Leonardo to Piscitello: c. 2.3 km SE. Piscitello to the eastern coast of Mozia: c. 3.3 km WNW. 532. Borso lies c. 3.7 km east of the eastern coast of Mozia.
533. Details, see Section 7.2 below.
534. Viz., predominantly structures related to agriculture, chief among them greenhouses (one is visible east of DU 2008; another four are located to the east of DUs 2035 and 2036) and utility sheds (two are found in DU 1003).
535. Olive– and fig trees are planted in e.g. a plot to the south of DU 2045, while tomatoes and zucchini (in Sicilian, "cucuzeddi") are cultivated primarily in greenhouses like those mentioned in n. 534.
536. Among other things, the fact of substantial modern investment in agricultural infrastructure. The area is dotted with greenhouses and covered enclosures built to facilitate the cultivation of a greater range of crops than might be grown in the open air.
537. Viz., in the present day. Thehistoricalfertility of the region, as we have already noted (see Chapter 1, Section II.1), was very probably less noteworthy.
area explored by MHS, elevations are consistently low, and slopes, almost uniformly gentle.538 As such, there are few natural barriers to expansive cultivation.
7.2. Survey.
It is an indication of the interest the area held for MHS that San Leonardo, alone of all the sites explored by the project, was afforded two seasons of survey. In the summer of 2008, project fieldwalkers spent a total of three days (July 1–2, 4) on
Fig. 31: San Leonardo survey units. 2008 units are to the north, 2009 units to the south. site. During this time, they surveyed a total of 12539Discovery Units (1001–1012; total area: 4.29 Ha) located a little above the northern edge of the nearby Salina Infersa.
In 2009, team members substantially enlarged upon the area surveyed the previous season (See Fig. 31). Over a period of three days (July 9–11) at the beginning of the season, project participants walked some 56 mostly-contiguous DUs, the total area of which was 13.01 Ha. These units, which were numbered 2001–2056, occupy
538. Elevation in the area of San Leonardo ranges between 2–16 m asl (mean: 7.6 m asl), which constitute the lowest minimum and maximum values recorded for any of the areas surveyed by MHS. Slope values, which range between 0º–16º, are a little higher, but the maximum is distinct outlier: the area's mean slope is a mere 1.9º.
539. Cf. the figures provided in Blake & Schon 2010: 52, where the authors state that 11 DUs were covered during the 2008 season, for a total of 3.5 Ha in toto. As project records make clear reference to 12 such units, however, I am inclined to think this is simply a typo.
an irregular expanse of agricultural land located less than 0.2 km to the south of the area surveyed in 2008. Such a gap was basically unavoidable, given the constraints on project members' activity in this part of the survey zone. Expansion to the west or north of DUs 1001–1012 was prohibited by the terms of the project's permit, and the possibilities afforded by extending survey eastward were limited by the density of construction in that direction.540
The area ultimately designated for exploration, on the other hand, was eminently well-suited to systematic pedestrian survey. Like the area explored in 2008, it consists almost entirely in modern agricultural fields, the borders of which were often employed to delimit the DUs which overlay them. In keeping with prevailing local crop frequencies, most of the latter were located in fields planted with grape vines.541
Happily, given so significant an investment of time and energy, survey in the vicinity of San Leonardo proved to be extremely productive. A number of the units from 2009 weresoproductive, in fact, that the project directors chose to maintain the separation of materials by tract.542 And an even larger group of units furnished grab samples alongside those recovered in the area which was actually walked (see below).
The group of ceramics pertaining to the period of this thesis is commensurately large. The catalogue of such sherds includes a total of 588 fragments which were recovered during the course of systematic survey, as well as a further 37 grab samples. I consider this corpus—with, as usual, an emphasis on the quantifiable tract finds—in the following section.
7.3. Quantification and intra-areal distribution.
The massive quantity of tract finds from San Leonardo were recovered, according to the project's standard collection protocol, from 55 of the 68 units walked between 2008–2009.543 The much smaller number of grab finds, meanwhile, were recovered from a group of six DUs, three of which—1006, 1008, 1012—were surveyed in 2008, and three—2003, 2010, and 2011—in 2009.544 A plurality of these
540. Consisting, specifically, in the inhabited nucleus along via Torre Lupa—which evidently continues to grow; in the years since MHS acquired the satellite imagery employed in the project GIS, the Case Vacanze Torre Lupa appear to have acquired a large in-ground pool—and a little beyond that, provincial road SP21. It is worth remarking, here, that even absent such impediments, an eastward expansion of survey would not likely have appealed to the project directors. As explained in Section 7.1, their interest in San Leonardo was predicated on its proximity to the coast, and moving eastward would have served toincreasethat distance. On the terms established by the project's permit, see Chapter 1, Section II.1 with n. 5.
541. Including both those which under cultivation at the time of survey and a smaller number which had been allowed to fallow.
542. Viz., 6 units: DUs 2003, 2010–2013, and 2024. DUs 2003 and 2024 were divided into 5 tracts apiece; 2010 and 2011 contained 4; and 2012–2013, 2. In all but one case, materials pertaining to each of these tracts were kept separate from others from the same unit. The finds from DU 2024, in contrast, were assigned to one of two groups, the first comprising the materials from tracts 1–4, and the second, those from tract 5.
543. Thirteen units reported zero tract finds, eight from 2008 (DUs 1001, 1002, 1003, 1005, 1007, 1009, 1010, and 1011) and 5 from 2009 (DUs 2020, 2037, 2047, 2049, and 2056).
grabs (=16 sherds, 43% of total) were documented in two DUs (2010 and 2011) whence, as we will see, a significant number of tract finds also emerged. An even greater number (=18 sherds, 49% of total), however, were found in three DUs (1006, 1008, and 1012) which supplied a mere handful of the tract finds which were
ultimately
catalogued.545 This
imbalance is a useful reminder that perceived distributions of surface
remains are as
powerfully affected by
observer, or
methodological, biases as they are by the patterns observed. In this case, the presence
of (predominantly
Early Imperial)
materials in the area of DU 1012 is invisible if we limit our gaze to to the corpus of sherds collected during formal survey. Many of the ceramic remains recov– Fig. 32: Density distribution, Roman sherds.546 ered from this area of activity were collected as grab, rather than tract, finds,547 and consequently do not enter into the quantitative analyses to which the latter are subject.
With respect to the tract finds, the story is once again one of concentration, albeit in a different part of the surveyed area (Fig. 32). Of the 588 sherds sherds catalogued as tract finds, two-thirds (=388 sherds, 66% of total) were found in a group of four adjacent survey units (See Table 10, Appendix 1). DUs 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, which cumulatively occupy a mere 3% of the area surveyed at San Leonardo, are unmistakably its center of gravity. Considerations of find density, rather than raw artifact counts, only reinforce this impression. The average sherd density within DUs 2010–2013 is a factor oftwelvegreater than that recorded for San Leonardo as a whole.548 And it is surely significant that, of the next four most-
ultimately catalogued.
545. Viz., five sherds: two from DU 1006, one from 1008, and two from 1012.
546. For purposes of legibility, I depict only the 2009 units within which the local center is located. (DU numbers referenced later on are otherwise too small to be easily read when the view is widened sufficiently to encompass both areas.)
547. For reasons which I have not yet been able to ascertain. Doing so—which I expect will be possible, pending continued correspondence with the project directors—would allow the finds from this area to be integrated with a greater degree of confidence.
productive DUs—2009, 2016, 2024, and 2025, which, alone of the remaining survey units, reported double-digit finds—three (2009, 2024, and 2025) are adjacent to the nucleus at 2010–2013. Under the circumstances, they should probably be understood as constituting the periphery of the concentration they surround. Whatever the significance of each of these zones, their existence is indicative of a measure of intra- site articulation.
What of the remaining third of the sherds recovered at San Leonardo? If we focus, for the moment, on the units surveyed in 2009,549 the most immediate impression is one of widely-dispersed small quantities. Of the 48 other units surveyed in 2009, five (DUs 2020, 2037, 2047, 2049, and 2056) contributed zero catalogued sherds, and 43, between 1–6. The more-or-less scattered distribution of these finds cannot be explained simply as a function of distance from the center of the distribution. This is not to say, however, that it is unpatterned. The modest cluster of finds recovered from DUs 2004, 2005, 2007, 2015, and 2016, which lie to the west of the primary concentration, may be a result of the local topography. To the degree that it is possible, given San Leonardo's uniformly gentle relief,550to speak of a "plateau", the remains at DUs 2010–2013 lie at its western edge, and DUs 2004, 2005, 2007, 2015, and 2016 are located at the base of its western slope. The gradient of this incline is so slight that, under normal circumstances, we would not expect it to contribute to a meaningful lateral displacement of surface remains. In this case, however, an additional factor must be considered. The surface of the slope in question is occupied by vineyards, and their rows are oriented parallel to the direction of the slope on which they lie. As a result, the act of plowing may have
encouraged a greater measure of downslope displacement.551 Given the local
direction of slope, and the latitude of the concentration at 2010–2013, a similar process may have contributed to the formation of this secondary concentration. As in the case of DUs 2009, 2024, and 2025, however, we cannot disregard the possibility that it was a result of historical patterns of use.
With regard to the place of primary concentration, explanations are even harder to come by. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to expect that the local topography was influential here, too. Owing to its relatively greater altitude, the area of DUs 2010–2013 would have enjoyed an advantageous view of the coast. And if, as now, the coastal plain contained some productive farmland, it would be reasonable to avoid occupying surface area that could be employed for cultivation.
7.4. Chronology.
For information concerning the chronology of all this activity, we have recourse to a (usefully large) subset of the 588 catalogued tract finds treated above. More or less specific chronologies can be assigned to a group of 473 sherds (c. 80% of total). These sherds comprise 96 distinct chronotypes, details concerning which distant, and relatively unproductive, units surveyed in 2008; DUs 2001–2056 have a mean sherd density of 871 sherds/Ha.
549. As mentioned above, the significance of grab finds in the units surveyed in 2008 suggests a degree of methodological incommensurability with those explored in 2009.
550. Details, see Section 7.1.
appear in the San Leonardo chonotype database file. After being weighted by sherd count, their annual find probabilities may be averaged to produce a chronology for
Fig. 33: San Leonardo tract sherd assemblage histochronology.
the assemblage. This is depicted in Fig. 33, the shape of which corresponds to a pattern we have seen elsewhere in the MHS survey universe. The chronology of the tract finds catalogued at San Leonardo—and so, presumably, of San Leonardo itself, albeit with certain reservations discussed further on—is one in which a phase of comparatively more significant human activity may be discerned. The interval in question spans the period of more than three centuries between the last quarter of the second–end of the fifth century. The frequency and significance of ceramic tes–
Fig. 34: San Leonardo tract (white) and combined tract and grab (green) sherd assemblage histochronologies.
timonia for this period varies across the centuries in question, however. As depicted in Fig. 33, the curve is bimodal. During the first three quarters of the first century,
and especially during the first fifty years thereof, finds are relatively scarce. Thereafter, however, they appear to increase. A first peak occurs around the end of the second–beginning of the third century, after which testimonia decline, notably if not precipitously in number. The subsequent trough continues through the first quarter of the fourth century, at which point the curve begins to rise again. It peaks a second time during the first half of the fifth century before once again falling, this time more dramatically. Between the end of the fifth–beginning of the sixth century, the number and significance of dateable sherds decreases to a level which is comparable with, albeit slightly lower than, the early fourth century trough which preceded it. It does not, however, appear to fall to the level observed during the early second and especially first centuries. Furthermore, it remains basically stable for the balance of the period under consideration.
As already intimated, the series of developments just summarized is one we have previously encountered. The chronology of human activity at Piscitello is similar in a variety of respects.552 As at San Leonardo, the ceramic testimonia are bimodally distributed. Moreover, the periodization of Piscitello's first and second peaks, and indeed the trough intervening between them, is basically congruent. Grosso modo, it is probably reasonable to assume that the same goes for the two areas' settlement histories, too. Human activity at San Leonardo peaks, and subsequently declines, at the same time as it does at Piscitello; but (again, as at Piscitello) it does not thereafter seem to disappear.
Alongside these similarities, however, are a number of differences. Perhaps the most obvious concerns the relative height of the areas' two peaks. In comparison with Piscitello, ceramic testimonia at San Leonardo speak to a relatively more significant second peak period. The impression is strongest when, as illustrated in Fig. 33, we consider only tract sherds; in that case, the second peak appears to be
higherthan the first. If we also take into consideration the grab sherds, the two peaks are more nearly equal in height (Fig. 34). Even so, it seems that the second period was locally more significant than elsewhere: a fact to which I return in Section III.2.2. A second difference concerns the period preceding the first peak. In respect of Piscitello, I have argued that the increase in testimonia leading up to that point was likely to have been pretty abrupt: to have constituted an "event" rather than a "process".553 At San Leonardo, meanwhile, it was pretty clearly the latter. The portion of the curve corresponding to the first–third centuries describes a process of relatively gradual increase. An explanation for this difference is probably to be sought in the fact that, as noted above, human habitation at San Leonardo was a fact of demonstrably early vintage.554 That said, it is worth drawing attention to a
discontinuity which Fig. 33 fails to convey. The second–third century intensification of activity in the region did not affect all of San Leonardo equally. In particular, DU 1012—that is, the area where evidence for pre-existing settlement isstrongest—seems to have been almost entirely exempted from the local spur to development. There is