PLANIMETRIA ARQUEOLÒGICA DE TÀRRACO...Dupré (1983 and 1987, respectively) on the reconstruction...

PLANIMETRIA ARQUEOLÒGICA DE TÀRRACO

ATLES D’ARQUEOLOGIA URBANA DE CATALUNYA 2DEPARTAMENT DE CULTURA I MITJANS DE COMUNICACIÓ DE LA GENERALITAT DE CATALUNYA

TREBALLS D’ARQUEOLOGIA URBANA 1Ajuntament de Tarragona. Conselleria de Patrimoni

SÈRIE DOCUMENTA 5Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica

Planimetria 01 5/10/07 09:46 Página i

Planimetria 01 5/10/07 09:46 Página ii

PLANIMETRIA ARQUEOLÒGICA DE TÀRRACO

Direcció científica

Josep Maria Macias Solé Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica

Ignacio Fiz Fernández Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica

Lluís Piñol Masgoret Ajuntament de Tarragona - Museu d’Història

Maria Teresa Miró i Alaix Àrea de Coneixement i Recerca

Direcció General del Patrimoni Cultural

Josep Guitart i Duran Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica

ATLES D’ARQUEOLOGIA URBANA DE CATALUNYA 2DEPARTAMENT DE CULTURA I MITJANS DE COMUNICACIÓ DE LA GENERALITAT DE CATALUNYA

TREBALLS D’ARQUEOLOGIA URBANA 1Ajuntament de Tarragona. Conselleria de Patrimoni

SÈRIE DOCUMENTA 5Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica

Tarragona, 2007

Planimetria 01 5/10/07 09:46 Página iii

Coedició del Departament de Cultura i Mitjans de Comunicació de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Ajuntament deTarragona. Conselleria de Patrimoni i l’Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica.

Coordinació editorialPublicacions de l’Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica

Assessorament lingüísticRoser Calvet Riera

Traducció a l’anglèsPaul Turner

Disseny de la portadaElfo Jobs, S.L.

FotocomposicióVíctor Igual, S.L.

ImpressióGrafos S.A.

© De l’edició: Departament de Cultura i Mitjans de Comunicació, Ajuntament de Tarragona. Conselleria dePatrimoni i Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica.

© Del projecte i la infografia arqueològica: Ajuntament de Tarragona. Conselleria de Patrimoni i InstitutCatalà d’Arqueologia Clàssica.

© Dels textos: els autors.© De les fotografies: els autors.© De les fotografies de portada: Institut Cartogràfic de Catalunya (full 267-139, vol 1998) i Unitat de

Documentació Gràfica de l’ICAC.

Dipòsit legal: T-387-2007ISBN: 978-84-934698-4-9

Són rigorosament prohibides, sense l’autorització escrita dels titulars del copyright, la reproducció total o parcial d’aquestaobra per qualsevol procediment i suport, incloent-hi la reprografia i el tractament informàtic, la distribució d’exemplars mit-jançant lloguer o préstec comercial, la inclusió total o parcial en bases de dades i la consulta a través de xarxa telemàtica od’Internet. Les infraccions d’aquests drets estan sotmeses a les sancions establertes per les lleis.

Planimetria 01 5/10/07 09:46 Página iv

Projecte de recerca i documentació de l’Ajuntament de Tarragona i l’Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica.

Comissió institucional del projecteAjuntament de Tarragona: M. Mercè Martorell Comas i Lluís Piñol Masgoret.Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica: Josep Guitart i Duran i Jordi Peiret i Estrada.

Direcció científicaJosep Maria Macias Solé, Ignacio Fiz Fernández, Lluís Piñol Masgoret, Maria Teresa Miró i Alaix i Josep Guitart iDuran.

Coordinació de l’obraJosep M. Macias Solé i Ignacio Fiz Fernández (Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica).

DocumentacióJosep M. Macias Solé i Jordi López Vilar (Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica), amb la col·laboració de RafaelGabriel Costa (Reial Societat Arqueològica Tarraconense), Sílvia Alcaide González, Judit Ciurana Prast i MarionaValldepérez Aixendri (Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica).

Tractament SIG i infografiaIgnacio Fiz Fernández, amb la col·laboració de Paloma Aliende García, Ana Garrido Elena, Óscar Martín Vielba iPau de Soto Cañamares (Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica).

Amb la col·laboració deReial Societat Arqueològica Tarraconense, Codex-Arqueologia i Patrimoni, Cota 64 i Nemesis.

Informació i/o textos facilitats per

Susanna Adell ChavarriaPilar Adiego ErañaMaria Adserias SansPaloma Aliende GarcíaXavier Aquilué AbadíasJoan-Vianney Maria Arbeloa iRigauRoc Arola ArnauDavid Bea CastañosCristina Benet ArquéAlejandro Bermúdez MédelFrancesc Bosch PuchePilar Bravo PóvezLourdes Burés VilasecaIban Cabrelles AlbaredaM. del Carme Carbonell MuiñósAna Carilla SanzElisabet Chimisanas i Mateu Alsina Montserrat Corominas VidalÓscar Curulla FerréRubén Díaz Dalmau

Moisés Díaz García Jordi Diloli FonsMontserrat Esteban NadalReis Fabregat i FiblaFerran Falomir ForcadellIgnacio Fiz FernándezGabriel Foguet CollMontserrat García NogueraNeus Gasull CasanovasPere Gebellí BorràsManel Güell AgramuntAnna Maria León DelclòsJèssica Llop RamosJordi López VilarJosep Maria Macias SoléSagrari Martorell CuberoJaume M. Massó CarballidoJoan Josep Menchon BesImma Mesas TorronterasHéctor Mir LlorenteMaria Teresa Miró i Alaix

Andreu Muñoz MelgarPedro Otiña HermosoRosa Palau i BaigesRubén Pellejà VillalbaLluís Piñol MasgoretCésar Augusto Pociña LópezJosep Maria Puche FontanillesEsther Ramon SariñenaAntoni Rigo JovellsJosep Francesc Roig PérezJordi Rossell ArdèvolJoaquín Ruiz de Arbulo BayonaCristòfor Salom GarretaJacinto Sánchez Gil de MontesM. Immaculada Teixell NavarroEsmeralda Terré VidalOlga Tobías JiménezMercedes Tubilla MartínezEnric Vilalta RibéAlbert Vilaseca Canals

TopografiaJavier Zamarro Martín i Josep Subirà Arbolí.

Base cadastralAjuntament de Tarragona.

Planimetria 01 5/10/07 09:46 Página v

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLANIMETRY OF TARRACO

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE STUDYChapters 1, 2 and 3

Planimetria 02 5/10/07 09:25 Página 249

1. PRESENTATION AND CONTENTS OF THE STUDYIgnacio Fiz and Josep M. Macias

The main aim of this study is the compilation of thearchaeological planimetry of the Iberian, Roman andVisigothic remains in the city of Tarragona, taking thepresent-day cadastral plots as a basic documentationunit. Each of the files we have prepared includes thepictures, description and relevant archaeological doc-umentation or bibliography. Another of the study’sobjectives is the more or less precise reconstruction ofthe urban elements that, due to the processes inherentin the historical and topographical evolution of Tar-ragona during the 19th and 20th centuries, can nolonger be verified archaeologically.

In order to publish this paper we first had to create asystem to digitalise, process and present all the infor-mation following two basic premises: the ability toupdate the information and the relationship with oth-er documentation systems. The system we have de-fined is the result of the previous methodological ex-perience developed by one of the authors (Fiz 2003,2004) and already put into practice in the city of Tar-ragona. In the last ten years other European cities haveundertaken similar programmes and there are yetmore in the planning stage.1 On the other hand, twoattempts have been made at creating a database of Tar-ragona’s archaeological heritage that have unfortu-nately either unsuccessful or have had little dissemina-tion.2

In our case, the established Archaeological Informa-tion System (AIS) is a future tool that could be used toupdate both the content (with the archaeological ex-cavations carried out since 2004) and the subsystemsor computer applications that it amalgamates, as theseare fully standardised commercial programs that areeasy to adapt to our needs. Although this is a docu-mentation system limited to the city of Tarragona, itcan be applied or extended to any territorial area. Theinformation generated by the application can be ex-ported to the city’s cadastral databases and, at thesame time, it is able to import photographic and car-

tographic documentation. It is a reference tool that inthe future could be accessible via intranet or Internet,interacting with a specific program such as AutodeskMapGuide or ArcIMS from ESRI, among others. Inthis way, by clicking on a cadastral plot, additionaltextual or graphic information may be obtained. Al-ternatively, by indicating a specific area it would bepossible to see the plots that have archaeological infor-mation.

1.1. FUNCTIONS AND ORGANIZATION OF THE AIS

The AIS used has three computer applications orcombined work subsystems: the CAD subsystem, rep-resented by Autocad 2006, the REA subsystem imple-mented with Filemaker 6, and the Hipodam subsys-tem, built on the GIS ArcView application version 3.1(fig. 1). The CAD subsystem provides Hipodam withthe vectorised planimetric information; the REAstores the data needed to process the information,while Hipodam processes the data provided by theother two with its vectorial tools and bit map.

The CAD subsystem creates and processes the plansof each of the archaeological excavations, either byvectorising old planimetry or by modifying the digitalplans already created by the technicians who took partin the excavations. We should point out that for thisproject we have used linear drawings of the archaeo-logical structures, without taking into account thespecific details of the building materials, although incertain cases, due to the singularity of the remains, wehave included this information (e.g. ashlars or mega-liths). The vectorisation system is characterised by theuse of polylines or, if appropriate, circumferences, arcsor squares.3 In order to avoid an excessive schematisa-tion of the planimetry, we have taken into account apredetermined description according to the type of ar-chaeological structure, and we differentiated betweenactual and reconstructed elements. We applied con-

251

1. In Cordoba (Murillo et al. 1999), Barcelona (Manoel/Miró 2006), Lecce (Semeraro 1997), Ravenna (Augenti et al. 2003), and Narbonne (Dellong 2006). Another al-ready finished example is Volume One of the urban archaeological atlas of Catalonia referring to the locality of Granollers (Uscatescu 2004).2. This situation may be explained by the characteristic instability that has surrounded the management of Tarragona’s archaeological heritage. An initial declara-tion of intent, pioneering at the time in Spain, can be found in Ted’a 1988. Subsequently the Sicaut (Tarragona Urban Archaeology Cartographic Information Sys-tem) project was undertaken as part of the Catalan Autonomous Government’s Urban Archaeology Programme, which finished in 1993. It was directed by Alejan-dro Bermúdez and Pedro Pujante and carried out by Maria Adserias, Olga Balart, Rosa Palau and Pedro Pujante. The Tarragona Archaeological Plan wassubsequently drawn up. This was intended to be the continuation of the Sicaut project and was extended in terms of the compilation of the archaeological docu-mentation. It was a municipal project with the collaboration of the Department of Culture and the Rovira i Virgili University (Rifà 2000). During this period otherplanimetric compilation archaeological research projects were undertaken to reconstruct certain areas of the city. One example is the work of Th. Hauschild and X.Dupré (1983 and 1987, respectively) on the reconstruction of the provincial complexes, or the proposals put forward by J. M. Macias (2000a) on the intramural roadlayout.3. Given the incompatibility with the Hipodam subsystem, in other words, with the ArcView program, splines have not been applied.


ventional symbols to the thousands of documentedtombs with the aim of illustrating the typological va-riety of the funerary repositories used (fig. 4). We havealso differentiated between three types of altimetricallevels.

At the same time, in order to anticipate the generationof evolutionary plans for chronological phases, the in-formation has been apportioned to predefined histor-ical periods, according to the historical situation ofTarragona and the existing volume of information.The temporal location of the structures has not beenmade merely on the basis of their construction date,but also the period they were in use and their urbanvisualisation. If appropriate, the AIS allows us tomodify the following temporal periodisation:

1. The Iberian period up to the arrival of the Scipios(approx. 500-218 BC). This is a lengthy periodthat has provided us few archaeological remains, allof which are located on the lower part of the hill.They correspond to the ancient Cesse and/or Tarra-con and the chronology of the documented re-mains is reliable, except for that of the silos, forwhich we can only ascertain the date they werefilled in. Based on pottery finds, some of these re-ceptacles have been placed in the later period, al-though we are aware of the interpretative problemsbehind this decision.

2. The Late Republican period up to the beginningof the Principality of Augustus (218-30 BC). Thecity of Tarraco was constituted in this period, withits walls, drainage system, and intramural urbanlayout. In this period we include the city’s cunicu-lus and the main question concerns the construc-tion of the port jetty documented in the historicalplanimetry. Does it belong to this period or was itbuilt during the time of Augustus?

3. The Augustan Period up to the post-Neronian mil-itary crisis (30 BC – 69 AD). This is perhaps themost dynamic historical period in terms of city de-velopment. The status of provincial capital, Augus-tus’ sojourn, and the economic activity of the agerTarraconensis can all be seen in the extramural de-velopment of the city, the restructuring of the roadperiphery, the port, the forum and the construc-tion of the theatre. In addition, the Upper Part ofthe city was almost certainly demilitarised andthere began an urban redevelopment that wouldfinish in the subsequent period.

4. The period between the Flavian and Antonine dy-nasties (69-180 AD). As a result of the previous pe-riods, this was the golden age of Tarraco. It was atthis time that the construction of the seat of theConcilium Provinciae Hispaniae Citerioris and thespectacle venues and ceremonial buildings linkedto it (the Circus and the Amphitheatre) were com-pleted. The construction of numerous port ware-

houses, the epigraphy, statuary, and mosaics are allevidence of the most important and influential pe-riod in the history of Tarragona.

5. The period between the reign of L. Verus and thelast Western emperor, Romulus Augustulus (180-476 AD). This represents the transition to the LateAntiquity city and illustrates its economic decline -the abandonment of the large port facilities, thespread of large, open-air necropolises, and thefalling into disuse of the theatre and the drainagenetwork. A reduction in the size of the residentialareas can be seen from the end of the 2nd centuryand the city was partially destroyed in the year260. Ideologically it represents the transition froman imperial worship city to one of Christianity,and well as the generalised adoption of inhuma-tion as a funerary rite.

6. The Visigothic period (476-713). From the fall ofthe Roman Empire to the loss of the urban institu-tions with the arrival of Islam. This represents anew city shaped around the Visigothic and Chris-tian classes. The disappearance of the venues forspectacles, urban contraction, and a major trans-formation of structures of the Concilium at the be-ginning of the 6th century.

7. Architectural structures of indeterminate chronol-ogy.

Architectural and chronological variety is depictedwith a symbology created with Autocad, establishingguidelines to facilitate the subsequent transfer of theinformation to the Hipodam subsystem (fig. 2 and 3).The information has been centralised in three files:one contains the archaeological information that dif-ferentiates the architectural variety and the predefinedchronological phases; the second establishes thegraphical symbols resulting from the established ar-chaeological interpretation that is also organised intothe corresponding temporal periods, and finally, thethird file incorporates the information regarding thecurrent or archaeological levels.

The REA subsystem is based on FileMaker Version 6,which allowed us to define a standard database usingpre-established fields. The program has taken care toactivate the relevant plug-ins to share data betweenthe different applications (ODBC). Each register be-longs to a cadastral unit in present-day Tarragona andcontains a series of fields with the information com-piled in section 4.1.

The Hipodam subsystem processes the documental,vectorial and raster information associated with thedocumentation. The potential and resources of thisprogram far exceed the needs of this project, in whichwe have given priority to the graphical representationof the archaeological finds. Each register or cadastralunit is entered into the ArcView GIS with its own

archaeological planimetry of tarraco

252


code and is incorporated into the planimetry carriedout with CAD, together with the information fromthe REA subsystem. If necessary, we can add more vi-sual and textual information to each of the recordscreated in this project. This could be photographic in-formation of the excavations or pictures and contentsfrom the corpus of materials, such as collections ofepigraphy, statuary, etc. Each cadastral unit enteredcan be consulted individually by accessing the infor-mation from other subsystems. In addition, there isfull interrelation between the data and therefore byusing the layers of the phases established in CAD itwill be possible to make global consultations on thewhole city by period or exact chronological date. Thuswe can obtain reconstructive snapshots adjusted to apredefined year or period. This AIS also allows forthemed consultations to obtain specific informationon particular archaeological material. There are alsofunctions that permit the incorporation of historicalmaps and old aerial photos, making it necessary to de-fine a geo-referenced system that allows the superposi-tion of each of these raster images.

1.2. FORMA TARRACONIS: DOCUMENTALBASE AND DEPICTION

The Colonia Iulia Urbs Triumphalis Tarraco, capital ofHispania Tarraconensis, was one of the largest cities inthe Western Mediterranean. It was a prosperous placewith a built-up area of between 80 and 90 hectares,spread over an intramural area located on a coastal hill(approx. 60 ha), some suburbia on the lower slopes(10-15 ha), an extensive port area (8-10 ha), and anundefined peripheral inhabitation made up of periur-ban domus and artisans’ workshops. Although weknow the Roman city from its large public buildings(the Concilium Provinciae, the circus, the amphithe-atre, the theatre, the forum Coloniae, the walls, thenecropolis, and the monuments of its territorium),Tarraco on the whole is an unknown archaeologicalreality, as there is no overall view of all the informationcompiled from the beginnings of contemporary ar-chaeology to the present-day professional activity.This is the main objective we are aiming to reach withthis project, although we recognise that the planime-tries we render do not constitute a study of the archae-ological and historical reality, but rather a tool withwhich the researcher can propose work hypothesesand provide valuable information for the agentscharged with the city’s management and revitalisation.

The compilation begins with the planimetries pro-duced in the 19th century, mainly by HernándezSanahuja. Although they are not precise documents,they have been positioned using the cadastral layout

or with the AIS (see section 2). The first conscien-tiously produced planimetries were those made in re-lation to the discoveries in the area of the Francolí ear-ly-Christian Necropolis (Tulla et. al. 1927). Thesesame finds brought Monsignor Serra Vilaró, a true pi-oneer in the techniques of making archaeologicalrecords, to Tarragona. His work on the Necropolisand the Forum is still an essential reference point andthe quality of his graphical and photographic docu-mentation would not be surpassed in Tarragona untilthe arrival of the researchers from the German Ar-chaeological Institute. As far as local researchers areconcerned, no one followed Serra Vilaró’s exampleand, except for certain notable exceptions (L. Bonet,A. Nogués, J. Sánchez Real or Ll. Papiol), post-war ar-chaeological documentation has been distinctly lack-ing. The best example of this situation is the work car-ried out up to 1982 by the Provincial ArchaeologicalMuseum that, with the exception of the amphitheatre,remains largely unpublished. Likewise, the activitiesof the old Archaeological Service during the 1980s didnot generate a large planimetric corpus, except for thework carried out on the head of the circus (Dupré etal. 1988).

A new stage began when the Tarragona ArchaeologyWorkshop-School (Ted’a) (1986-1990) was set up. Itslife was much too short, but it did have time to under-take the epistemological renovation that defined themethodological bases that are still valid in today’s pro-fessional practices, notwithstanding the logicalchanges and evolution brought about by the “digitalrevolution”. Subsequently, the professionalisation ofthe archaeologist and the legislation promoted by theCatalan Autonomous Government Department ofCulture’s Archaeological Service has favoured the cre-ation of a planimetric and photographic corpus4 ofthe excavations. This task has been carried out jointlyby the archaeologists who have worked in the city andit represents a significant advance, although unfortu-nately it suffers from varying quality, depth and docu-mentation systems. In this respect we have to lamentthe lack of unification and serious application of ar-chaeological intervention and documentation criteriaamong the numerous professionals and firms thatwork in Tarragona, which, in many instances, has de-termined the result of this archaeological planimetry.The role of the institutions in this overall context hasalso, until recently, been unsatisfactory, given theirpotential and social responsibility. The result of thiswhole process is well known and has recently been un-equivocally illustrated by various authors (Miró 1997and 1999; Mar/Ruiz de Arbulo 1999; Dupré 2001;Ruiz de Arbulo 2004). It is significant that most ofthese reflections or evaluations have been made in fo-

253

presentation and contents of the study

4. It will soon be necessary to raise the question of digitalising all the chemically developed photographic material printed on paper, which is very sensitive to thepassage of time.


rums held outside the city and have not had the reso-nance they deserve.

Apart from specific archaeological publications, themajority of our planimetric information comes fromunpublished archaeological actions, the documenta-tion for which is held by the Office of Cultural Her-itage, with the excavated material being in the safe-keeping of the National Archaeological Museum ofTarragona (MNAT). The information has been gener-ously ceded by the excavation directors and the peri-odisations have been prepared exclusively from the ad-ministrative reports, not from an exhaustive study ofthe archaeological excavations. At first this was an im-pediment, but we have to bear in mind that the AISstructure allows the data to be modified, as well astransferred between the created chronological layers,the names of which can also vary. We insist on theneed to carry out intensive studies of some of the res-cue excavations undertaken. Only careful analysis willallow us to correctly interpret the scientific impressionsobtained from the drawing up of administrative re-ports. By way of example, and from our own experi-ence, it is possible to compare the conclusions drawnfrom the analysis of the port area public baths fromadministrative report (Díaz et al. 2000a-b) and, subse-quently, from an extensive period of revision of the ar-chaeological excavations and the material recoveredfrom it (Macias et al. 2004a).

The comparison of planimetric data has highlightedthe topographical inaccuracy of past archaeologicalinterventions and projections of large public build-ings. This is a consequence of the technical resourcesavailable at the time and the fact that the topograph-ical medium used by archaeologists was based on amunicipal cadastral planimetry produced with old,not completely accurate means. These inaccuraciescan be seen particularly in the large urban complex-es of Roman times, the remains of which are still vis-ible in the city today. For this reason, we included atopographer in the project, with the aim of usingsatellite positioning to reference the city’s main mon-uments.5 With this objective in mind we introduceda network of topographical bases for the present-daystreets, using GPS and coordinates provided by theCatalan Cartographic Institute. This task has al-lowed us to correct the topography of the monu-ments currently visible in the city, which we list be-low.

1. The Roman Walls. We surveyed the externalperimeter of the Late Republican wall of Tarragonafrom the Portal del Roser to the so-called easternhead of the circus. We tried to reflect the projec-tion existing between the megalithic wall and theopus quadratum. We mapped out the topographyof the internal perimeter of the wall in the Baixadadel Roser and the Plaça de l’Escorxador segments.

2. The Worship Area. We worked in the TarragonaCathedral cloister, the Diocesan Museum in Tar-ragona, the Tarragona headquarters of the CatalanArchitects Association, and the Tarraconense Bibli-cal Museum.

3. The Plaza of Representation in the ConciliumProvinciae. We studied the topography of the re-mains in the Plaça del Pallol, Civaderia Street, thePlaça de Santiago Rusiñol, the Plaça del Forum,Santa Anna Street, and the Praetorium Tower.

4. The Roman Circus. We studied the topography ofthe plot of the old Casa dels Militars, the easternhead, the Plaça dels Sedassos, and the commercialpremises with odd numbers in the Plaça de la Font.

5. The Roman Amphitheatre and Visigothic Basilica.6. The Forum Coloniae of Tarraco.7. The area of the early-Christian Necropolis: the

periurban road, the suburban domus and mau-soleum located next to the MNAT Central Ser-vices building.

8. The Tarragona Theatre.

We also compiled the historiographic precedents, in-dicating, as far as possible, the location of the finds.Although they have no graphical content, their infor-mation is useful for understand the forma Tarraconis,as well as for providing elements for the analysis andplanning of the city’s heritage management. Ourstudy does not aspire to be an exhaustive documentalcompilation and it is based on earlier compilations(degree and doctoral theses). Worthy of note are thoseof G. Alföldy6 (1975), R. Navarro (1979), E. Koppel(1985a), J. Gimeno (1991) and M. Claveria (2001),despite the fact that we unfortunately do not knowthe origin of the majority of the objects studied bythese researchers. Other archaeological materials re-main to be studied. For example, the case of thenumismatics is quite flagrant.7 We also refer to thebest-known local history texts (Ponç d’Icard, Al-binyana/Bofarull, Hernández Sanahuja, etc.), the re-ports sponsored by the RSAT (the work of SánchezReal is highly praiseworthy), the commendable com-


254

5. Rather than make a detailed projection of the archaeological remains, we have reoriented and corrected them according to the coordinates used. The result is thatall these monuments are interrelated without depending on the current cadastral planimetry.6. Between 1997 and 2000, this Tarragoní prepared a new revision of the epigraphic collection of Tarraco for volume II of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. He wasassisted in the revision by Heike Niquet in the area of Christian and Jewish inscriptions. The author mentions that the initial figure of 1,080 epigraphs has been in-creased to some 1,400 texts, thanks to the revisions carried out and items obtained in new excavations (Alföldy 2004).7. We have at our disposal various partial studies, but our knowledge of this material does not do justice to its potential. We refer to the works of L. Villaronga (1983,1992, 1993), J. Benaiges (1994), J. M. Carreté (1994), and a recent synthesis by T. Marot (1999). Other specific contributions (L. Avellà, I. Teixell, À. Rifà) are mentionedin the bibliography referring to the descriptive records.


pilation by Rafael Gabriel and Rodolfo Cortés(19858), and the documentation collected by theSicaut project. In addition to these sources, we con-sulted the Valentines Archive9 held by the RSAT(Hernández/López 2001).

All the information we collected was used to generatethe 46-page DIN A2 cartography included in the sec-ond volume of this study, although some parts havebeen reproduced in this first volume. Six evolutionaryplans of Tarraco are depicted on a scale of 1:5000, ac-cording to the established chronological periods, aswell as the project’s guide plans (Scale 1:6000). The

aim of the evolutionary illustrations is to reflect thehistorical periodisation and the urban transformationof the classical city during its nine centuries of exis-tence (fig. 5 and 6). We are aware that the currentstate of research has not allowed us to achieve this ob-jective satisfactorily. Many of the archaeological struc-tures exhumed in the last one hundred years do nothave a precise dating and have therefore not been in-cluded in these plans. On the other hand, we hopethat further studies will allow us to determine withgreater accuracy the chronological questions that arecurrently the subject of various doubts as to their in-terpretation.

255

presentation and contents of the study

8. The compilation of archaeological data has the honour of being the first attempt at what we understand today as an Archaeological Map. It is the compilation of alarge amount of data (unpublished at the time) from documental research and the contributions of RSAT members. It draws up the first planimetry of the knownimperial structures in the Upper Part with some quite accurate measurements. Unfortunately, this document has been ignored in the recent urban transformations. 9. This study can be considered, semiofficially, to be the first archaeological planimetry of Tarragona, even though it was carried out on a voluntary basis with mea-gre resources, which hindered in many cases the positioning of the remains and their drawing to scale. Wherever possible, this information has been included us-ing the methodology described in section 2.1.

CARTOGRAPHIC COMPILATION OF THE BRIEFCASENumbering

• Legend

• General plan of the archaeological remains and the current urban layout E:1:6000

Situation and contextualisation plans E: 1:500010

• I Iberian period up to the arrival of the Scipios (approx. 500-218 BC)• II Late Republican period up to the beginning of the Principality of Augustus

(218-30 BC)• III Augustan period up to the post-Neronian military crisis (30 BC-69 AD)• IV Period between entre les dinasties flàvia i antonina (69-180 AD)• V Period between L. Verus and Romulus Augustulus (180-476 AD) • VI Visigothic period (476-713/714)

Situation and contextualisation plans E: 1:1250• Page plan guide E: 1:1250• A Upper Part: worship area and Concilium Provinciae plaza plus the circus• A’ Upper Part: structures built during the Julian-Claudian and Flavian period• B Residential area affected by the 19th century quarrying • C Residential and port area around the Forum and the theatre• D Western suburb• E Francolí western outskirts• F Northern suburban area• G North-western outskirts• H L’Oliva northern outskirts• I Eastern suburb and amphitheatre• J Eastern outskirts

Situation plans of the sectors with no archaeological remains E: 1:1500• K Western outskirts• L Eastern outskirts

Detailed plans on a scale of E: 1500• Page plan guide E: 1:500• 1-24 Detailed cadastral plans E: 1:500


The scale of 1:1250 was chosen in order to provide amore intelligible view with a greater perspective. It isnot the normal proportion used in cartography, buthas been chosen as it fits in with the format of the pa-per chosen for publication and allows us to show rep-resentative areas of Roman Tarraco on a single sheet.For example, on a single page we were able to depictthe present-day Upper Part, the ancient seat of theConcilium Provinciae and the circus; on another wehave included the monumental area of the colonial fo-rum and the theatre, and there are other similar cases.On the other hand, a scale of 1:500, a more commonstandard used in urban documents, permits a moredetailed view of the architectural structures, the levels,the graphical symbols used, etc. With this scale we canappreciate the archaeological reality of each plot stud-ied, as well as evaluating the potential of the sur-rounding area. We also created evolutionary or histor-ical phase plans based on specific cadastral units thatare included in this first volume, together with thecorresponding textual information.

In both the E. 1:1250 and the 1:500 plans we delim-ited the urban plots with archaeological interventionsor information, and on their perimeter we incorporat-ed the number identifying the file or register, whichwe compiled in chapter 4 of this volume. Geographi-cal north does not coincide with the vertical axis ofthe paper in either type of plan. This was done in or-der to adapt the orientation of the archaeological re-mains to that of the paper, with the aim of giving pri-ority to the visual aspect of the remains and makingoptimum use of the available space.

1.3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A project of these characteristics cannot be undertak-en without the help and support of many profession-als who, in one way or another, have been part of theprocesses derived from the documentation and re-search of the archaeological heritage. The compila-tion of the archaeological information has been anonerous task, made lighter by the faculties of the col-leagues who have overseen the excavations in the city;some on an individual basis and others as part of thearchaeology firms working in Tarragona up until the

year 2004 (Codex, Cota 64 and Nemesis). They allallowed us to consult their studies, many of which areunpublished. In part, merit for this study goes to agroup of professionals who often work under morelimitations than would normally be considered desir-able. Everybody who has cooperated with us is listedin the study credits and in section 4 under their ini-tials.

We also have to mention the considerable assistance inthe task of documentation given to us by Dr JordiLópez Vilar, Sílvia Alcaide, Judit Ciurana and MarionaValldepérez. We should emphasis the work of PalomaAliende, Ana Garrido, Óscar Martín and Pau de Sotoin entering the data into the computer. The study hasalso benefited from the extensive support in scientificguidance given by Dr Josep Guitart, Dr M. TeresaMiró and Lluís Piñol, who, throughout the preparationof this study, have taken part in monitoring and im-proving the results. We are grateful to the Royal Ar-chaeological Society of Tarragona for their support andcollaboration in the documentation phase and for al-lowing us access to the Valentines Archive. We shouldalso like to thank the Port of Tarragona CentralArchive, which offered us part of the digitalised histor-ical cartography, the Tarragonès County Council forproviding us with the topographical bases of the city,and the topographers of the firm of J. Zamarro for theirinvolvement. Various institutions allowed us to accessthe areas in their custody in order to carry out topo-graphical studies of the archaeological remains: the Na-tional Archaeological Museum of Tarragona, the Tar-ragona Museum of History, the Tarragona DiocesanMuseum, the Tarraconense Biblical Museum, and Tar-ragona branch of the Architects Association of Catalo-nia. We were also allowed access to the premises of theCaixa Tarragona bank in Merceria Street.

Finally, we would like to acknowledge the help andguidance of all those people who, through their gener-ous support, have contributed to the positive outcomeof this study: Xavier Aquilué, Francesc d’Assís Barri-ach, Coia Escoda, Rafael Gabriel, Josep Granell, JosepLluís Gras, Jaume Massó, Joan J. Menchon, AndreuMuñoz, Josep M. Puche, Joaquín Ruiz de Arbulo, M.Immaculada Teixell and Elena Virgili.


256

10. These plans include an illustration of the theoretical contour lines of Tarragona in 1800 according to R. Gabriel (2001).


2.1. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

It is obvious that the compilation of an archaeologicalplanimetry is the best way to reconstruct the Romancity. However, it is also true that the technological andmethodological developments that allow an AIS to beused make it possible to take advantage of the histori-cal cartography to support our research. The compila-tion and comparison of maps that show the situationof the city in different periods, and can also be linkedto the current cadastre, is a productive line of research.Moreover, the results obtained from this comparisonand superposition allow us to see the evolution of theurban landscape and to evaluate a posteriori the im-pact of the most important historical events. All in all,the archaeological planimetry and the historical car-tography are basic tools for the recovery of the urbanmemory, on the basis that they explain the processesthat are the origin of a city’s historical development,while at the same time they add to the sense of identi-ty of the municipality’s inhabitants.

Tarragona, like any other modern city superimposedon an ancient one, has transformed its subsoil, and as aconsequence has caused irreversible changes to its past.These destructive processes have gone on throughoutthe city’s history, although the greatest impact was dur-ing the urban expansion of the 19th century. This phe-nomenon was favoured by a sustained demographicand economic growth, caused in part by the founda-tion and growth of the modern port. In addition, thequarrying of rock over an area of approximately sevenhectares inside the city itself had a negative effect onthe preservation of the archaeological substratum (see adescription of the urban process in Ferrer et al. 1994).

The use of historical cartography, combined with thearchaeological planimetry and the current cadastre, isseen as the only resource available to fill the “informa-tion gaps” in the topography of ancient Tarraco causedby the expansion and destruction processes in Tarra-gona. This methodology was used in studying the ur-ban evolution of the area of the imperial baths in theTarraco port district (Fiz/Macias 2004), and it allowedus to improve our understanding of the processes bywhich the Roman water installations were reusedfrom the mediaeval period on. We also have the inter-pretative experience of restoring the walled perimeter

of the city, as well as the intramural urban layout. Inthat case we compared the archaeological evidencewith that of the historical cartography (Macias 2000a;Fiz/Macias in the press). The results we present hereare a continuation of that research and they comple-ment, at least theoretically, the reconstruction of theforma Tarraconis produced in this study.

Scanning the historical cartography generates rasterimages that can be geo-referenced and entered intothe Hipodam subsystem. The register of each of theseimages becomes a geometric transformation that re-lates the coordinates intrinsic in the plans or recordedto the coordinates of the reference system. This systemof transforming, adapting, and geo-referencing oldplans is based on the geometric correction techniquesused in aerial photographs. An aerial picture containsa series of errors caused by the distortion of the sensor(e.g. the photographic lens), the inclination of the in-struments or the medium in relation to the geometricvertical, the speed of the platform or its height, etc.The most common geometrical correction methodconsists of using a polynomial in a determined orderthat minimises the errors produced when the originalpicture was taken and creates another modified one.The transformation is achieved by building polyno-mials and taking a series of checkpoints entered by theoperator as coefficients. When the most appropriatedegree of transformation, and that closest to reality, isdefined, it is applied to each pixel of the photographor raster from the historical cartography that is to betransformed. This transformation can be representedby using a polynomial11 of the order of m such as:

m m-j

x’= Σ Σajkxjykj=0 k=0

m m-j

y’= Σ Σbjkxjykj=0 k=0

The use of polynomial transformations is very com-mon in recording pictures, as it establishes a link be-tween the coordinates of the original picture andthose of the reference system with checkpoints estab-lished by means of a specific methodology (Fiz/Macias2004). For our purposes, these checkpoints are the

257

2. HISTORICAL CARTOGRAPHY, AIS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCHIgnacio Fiz and Josep M. Macias

11. Here, X and Y represent the original coordinates of the picture in question, while X’ and Y’ are the coordinates resulting from the final transformation.


recognisable topographical elements in the pictureand in reality, which is the reason they were previous-ly included in the archaeological planimetry. We arereferring to crossroads, preserved stretches of walls,unique buildings, etc. The parameters of the selectedpolynomial transformation are determined by meansof a system of equations that requires knowing the co-ordinates of the checkpoints of both the picture andthe reference system.12

It has to be recognised, however, that processing oldplans is much less accurate than rectifying aerial pho-tographs. The system does not adapt well to the defi-ciencies inherent in historical cartography, in otherwords, when the cartographer made disperse, non-proportional errors. In such situations we have to raisethe degree of polynomial transformation and it istherefore advisable to increase the number of check-points. However, this modification means that the restof the picture will suffer considerable distortion,which can only be corrected if the checkpoints areuniformly distributed. In the processing of early car-tography, it is difficult to achieve either conditionsince the older the maps, the less reliable points of ref-erence they have in common. An example of this canbe found in the walls or the amphitheatre. For thisreason, we need to combine the historical cartographywith the new archaeological remains that are beingdiscovered. This helps to increase the reliability of thegeo-referencing.

2.2. CARTOGRAPHY AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE URBANTOPOGRAPHY

Luckily for our purposes the Roman city of Tarrago-na, particularly the intramural area, is located on acoastal hill that rises gradually from 15 metres to aheight of 80 metres above sea level (in the area of theMinerva Tower). This conditioned the layout of largecontainment structures built on the slopes of the hill;the orientation of the cardines and cloacae adhered tothe relief of the hill and the sun’s trajectory, and alsotook into account the flow of sewage towards the portbay. These atemporal principles have endured to thepresent day, despite the deurbanisation of the LateAntiquity and the continuous process of agriculturaltransformation carried out from the mediaeval periodon.

Therefore, despite the stratigraphic sedimentationcaused by both the wind and the rain that always oc-curs after any building has been demolished or has

collapsed, some of the architectural structures remainvisible in spite of the passing of the centuries. In thecase of Tarraco, the abandonment of certain residen-tial areas began at the end of the 2nd century AD, andincreased in intensity between the second half of the3rd century and the first half of the 4th. Archaeology isnot always able to identify the use of a residential areaonce it has been abandoned. In some cases we can ver-ify the pillaging of building materials and a funeraryoccupation of the buildings that were already aban-doned and presumably roofless. These circumstancescan be observed in the suburban areas of Tarraco, butwhat happened in the intramural area abandoned inthe 3rd and 4th centuries? Why was the road networkdefined by the Roman city maintained until the urbanexpansion of the 19th century? Although we needmore evidence, it appears that there was pillaging,dumping in certain places, and no intramural funer-ary occupation (Adserias et al. 2000b; Gurt/Macias2002).

One hypothesis is that there were rustic areas withinthe walls from the 4th century on, presuming an activ-ity that would cause the ancient urban viae to be usedand maintained as tracks separating the agriculturalplots or to connect the area with the port. This theoryexplains why the urban structure was maintainedthroughout the Late Antiquity, as well as during theinstitutional abandonment of the city from the 8th tothe 11th century. A similar situation occurred in theMiddle Ages when the ancient viae became ruraltracks and the façades of the insulae were used as agri-cultural plot borders and embankments. Later, themediaeval agricultural plots would condition the lay-out of the 19th century urban expansion. Therefore,despite the number of centuries that have passed, wecan still identify the Roman urban layout from thehistorical cartography. The clearest example can beseen in the 19th century streets, such as Unió, Fortuny,Soler, etc., that maintain the same orientation (35º Eof geomagnetic north) as the cardines laid out betweenthe 2nd and 1st centuries BC. The same is true of thetransversal streets – Governador González, Reding,etc - that have the same orientation as the ancient de-cumani.

The conversion of the ancient intramural residentialarea into a rural landscape allows us to use the studyand interpretation techniques from other disciplinesthat apply them to the analysis of seemingly differentareas. We are referring to archaeomorphology basedon, among other factors, the interpretation of mapsand photographs. This is traditionally used to study


258

12. The picture coordinates (line, column) are obtained by clicking on one of the selected topographical points, then looking for its parallel in the picture of refer-ence and, in turn, marking that. In this way the program saves a mass of points that help it to make the necessary polynomial transformations. The main advantageis that this avoids the difficulties associated with converting the various local measurements, such as the vara (approx. one yard), used before the generalisation ofthe international metric scale.


territories and reconstruct cadastral networks and canlikewise be applied methodologically to urban con-texts, particularly when the territorial layouts reflectthe urban layouts. This was the case of Tarragona,where the bygone societies built, integrated and re-structured the Roman urban layout, transforming itinto a Late Antiquity agricultural landscape, whichthen conditioned the urban landscape from the medi-aeval period on. Research has identified and posi-tioned the 18th century agrarian morphology elementsas rustic plots, tracks or margins, while looking forpredominant and constant orientations, as well asmetrological rates that provide evidence of earlier ur-ban modules (González 2002, 74-78).

We have applied the polynomial transformations tovarious city plans; those that best depict the intramu-ral residential grid are numbers 5 and 6.13 Other as-pects to which we can apply this methodology are thetheoretical definition of the walled perimeter, theperiurban road network, and the water facilities.

The Roman wall is an archaeological reality of whicha length of some 1,330 metres is still preserved on theupper perimeter of the city. This is the section that to-day borders the Upper Part or historical centre andwhich has already been the subject of numerous stud-ies (compiled in Menchon/Massó 1999). On the oth-er hand, the entire central and southern section hasgone forever; the descriptions of Lluís Ponç d’Icard(1572) and the sketches of Anton Van den Wyngaerde(Kagan 1986) are the most reliable testimonies wehave to part of its route. The Renaissance scholar de-scribes the route of the unpreserved section of the walland his text has been widely studied and reconstruct-ed (see Aquilué/Dupré 1986; Remolà 2004; Fiz/Ma-cias 2004; Díaz et al. 2005). As far as the western en-closure is concerned, we can establish a hypotheticalroute from the Simancas plan (1641), Ponç’s bound-aries that have been identified today, the current divi-sion into plots, and certain specific finds (files 441,14

463 and 466). This stretch of wall was the longeststraight section on the whole perimeter (in theorysome 634 m) and was an arbitrary enclosure of thesouthwestern slope of the hill, the flattest and mostvulnerable area. The combination of the planimetricdata obtained in the area of Lleida Street with thatfrom the Via de l’Imperi Romà poses a problem whenit comes to reconstructing this rectilinear stretch as asit has traditionally been depicted in the topographicalreconstructions of Hernández Sanahuja, Th. Haus-child, Dupré/Aquilué, etc., or in the historical cartog-raphy from the fortification project preserved atSimancas (1641). We believe that this segment ofmore than half a kilometre had a slight angle orchange of direction at some point, as we have found itimpossible to make a rectilinear reconstruction.15

The described route mentions several towers, as well asthe “portal de Sagunto”. It does not, however, mentionthe access ramps to the patrol path that are still pre-served in the Upper Part. All these elements have beenpositioned in accordance with the measurements setout by Ponç d’Icard and take as a reference the churchof Sant Fructuós, located on the AIS on the basis of the1641 Simancas plan. According to the proposal putforward by Jordi López (2006, 229-234), the road thatpassed through this Roman gateway flanked by twotowers was the Via Augusta, which has been partiallydocumented on different plots and from which a mile-stone has been found (files 560, 569 and 634). On theother hand, the decumanus that connects the gatewayto the external road has a series of features that have led

A list of the historical cartography used in theGIS

1. Planta de la ciudad de Taragona con sus nuebasfortificaçiones (1641, preserved in the ArchivoGeneral in Simancas). Gabriel/Hernández1981 (see fig. 8)

2. Plan de la Ville, Fort et Molle de Taragone (pri-or to 1717, Bonet 1991)

3. Plano de la Parte Baja de la Población (1854,Ángel Camón)

4. Plano del ensanche parcial de la ciudad de Tar-ragona (7/5/1857)

5. Plano de la porción de terreno que media entre elRecinto alto de la plaza de Tarragona y su Puer-to (published in 1800 by Antonio LópezSopeña) (fig. 9 and 11)

6. Plan de la Ville et du nouveuau Port de Tar-ragone published by Laborde around 1806(fig. 10)

7. Plano del Puerto de Tarragona, su Raya, Arra-bal, Bateria, Muralla arruinada, la proyectada(1780, Juan de Santa Cruz) (fig. 13)

8. Acròpolis primitiva de Tarragona de B. Hernán-dez Sanahuja (fig. 15, taken from Remesal et.al. 2000)

259

historical cartography, ais and archaeological research

13. Both plans were drawn before the events that had the greatest effect on Tarragona’s historical heritage – the large urban quarries and the urban expansion inthe second half of the 19th century. Plan number 5 is a reliable document that has recently been analysed from a topographical perspective and that of the historicalevolution of the city (Gabriel 2001). Number 6 was drawn at the end of the 18th century.14. The references file xxx correspond to the registers on the database, equivalent to the cadastral units, included in Chapter 4 of this volume.15. We have placed this slight inflection in the area of the forum (file 410, plates C and 10, second volume), although it could also be elsewhere. Another less likelypossibility is that the change in orientation of the wall at the present-day Via de l’Imperi Romà number 19 (plates A and 5) came about before that which is tradi-tionally depicted.


to it being interpreted as a decumanus maximus (fig.11-12; file 469; Díaz et al. 2005).

The route of the wall as it skirts around the southerncliffs is unknown, although it appears clear from his-torical comparisons and its relationship with the SantMiquel Street public baths and the theatre that theport area was in a suburban location. Ponç d’Icard’s de-scription states that the walls reached as far as the Porttower built in the 16th century on the site of the pres-ent-day Plaça dels Carros (Fiz/Macias 2004, fig. 6).This fact, together with R. Gabriel’s topographical re-construction (2001), leads us to believe that the wallfollowed the line of the two coastal promontories thatended at the hill. Our problem now is to define thesection between the two elevations. To date there hasonly been one (purely hypothetical) proposal for re-constructing this section (Remolà 2004, fig. 8), and itposes numerous problems when it comes to fitting inthe large known buildings in the port area - the theatre(file 470), the square located in front of the northernfaçade of the theatre (file 457) and the Apodaca Streetpublic baths (files 355 and 359). Moreover, R.Gabriel’s proposal for the reconstruction of the south-eastern hill makes the hypothetical reconstruction ofthe defensive enclosure presented in 2004 even moreproblematical. On the other hand, we also find thatthe density of the known archaeological remains heremake it possible to theorise that the Republican wallwas demolished at the time of the Early Roman mon-umentalisation of the area. However, in that case whatwere the remains seen by Ponç d’Icard in the mid-16th

century? Ponç d’Icard only saw the foundations of twosections of wall, at the beginning and the end of thestretch he describes for us (Duran 1984, 104).

From the southeastern promontory the wall climbedalong the line of the eastern cliffs until it joined upwith the section still preserved at the eastern head ofthe circus. The easternmost stretch is the least knownand does not appear in the Modern-period planime-try. Moreover, some of Ponç d’Icard’s boundaries werelost in the extensive 19th century quarrying. All thatremains of this section is the find made in 1852 of asection of wall at an angle and with evidence of aposterula (fig. 11-12, file 333). This fragment has beenincluded in the planimetry based on a drawing byHernández Sanahuja (fig. 15).

We also propose that on this corner of the wall theremay have been a porta for wheeled traffic at a pointwhere one of the branches of the Via Augusta arrived.This road followed the eastern cliffs of the hill, givingrise to a small funerary area, which was subsequentlyabandoned when the amphitheatre was built over it(Ted’a 1990). The road can be identified in the 18th

and 19th century planimetry, in which we can see thatcontemporary-period road enters the city via a trans-

versal street that is continuously depicted in the his-torical cartography and which, as a result of the digi-tal correction, can be clearly seen to coincide with oneof the city’s decumanus. The Roman road has recentlybeen identified below the theatre (Macias 2004c;Fiz/Macias in the press). The fact that it can still beseen in the modern cartography can be attributed toits proximity to the southwestern promontory, forwhich it possibly acted as containment (fig. 9 and 11).

Another reconstructed element is the projection of thewall in the centre of the eastern part of its perimeter.This is inferred from Ponç d’Icard’s descriptions andfrom the direction of the preserved section of wall be-hind the head of the circus. This angular shape can beintuited from the known planimetry from the year1641 on and its purpose was to encircle small hill lat-er occupied by the convent of Santa Clara (Gabriel2001). This is not the first time this proposal has beenput forward; Hernández Sanahuja also suggested it inthe second half of the 19th century, thus demonstrat-ing a considerable knowledge of the ancient Romancity and its topography (fig. 15). Although this poly-gon is not frequent in the Roman poliorcetica, wehave reconstructed it on the basis of the walls reflect-ed in the Modern-period cartography, and also the di-agonal road that connected the former Cervantes bas-tion with the Camí dels Caputxins road.

As far as the intramural urban planning is concerned,the objectives of this line of research focus on the ratifi-cation or modification of the theoretical model created:insulae of 35 x 70 m and viae of approximately 5.90 m(Macias 2000a). We know that a process of intramuraldeurbanisation took place in the 3rd and 4th centuries,although it recovered the urban duality of the Late Re-publican period and it is also reproduced from the me-diaeval repopulation to the first half of the 19th century.On the other hand, modern and contemporary cartog-raphy reproduced the traces of the orientations of thecardines and decumanus and it is necessary to show that,despite the passing of the centuries, the agricultural ac-tivity that began in this area in the Late Antiquity wasnot able to hide or destroy all the evidence of the urbanlayout - viae and insulae - the most important of whichwere used to divide the land into agricultural plots or aspart of the road network that connected the Upper Partof the city to the port area. This continuity leads us toreflect on another theory, which here we will only openup to debate: if the basic axes of the intramural residen-tial area were maintained between the Late Antiquityand the Middle Ages, was the city really unoccupied be-tween the 8th and the 12th centuries? Or was the Romanimprint so strong that despite four centuries of com-plete abandonment, these lines were still visible?

With the deliberation merited by the precision of thehistorical cartography and the polynomial transfor-


260


mations, we can determine that around the year 1800the city was linked to its port quarter by three mainroads named in López Sopeña’s plan as La Piràmide,El Mig and Els Caputxins. These roads can be sensedin Anton Van den Wyngaerde’s engravings (Kagan1986) and the easternmost of the three is depicted inthe 1641 Simancas plan, while the other two are doc-umented graphically from 1769 on (cf. Flórez 1769;Aresté 1982). Using the AIS, we can determine thatthe three roads coincide with the three of the city car-dines, laid out around 100 BC (fig. 9, 11 and 12).

The Camí de la Piràmide is a reflection of the cardomaximus (CM) and was a basic communications routebetween the Upper Part of the city and the port quar-ter during the Modern and Contemporary periods. Itused to be called the Camí Nou del Port (New PortRoad) and is now known as Unió Street, a reference toits function of uniting to port and the upper city. Be-neath it there was a 7-metre-wide Roman road (file351) and, according to M. Aleu’s planimetry (1983),the city’s main drain on the final part of its route to thesea. The Camí del Mig16 is the extramural continua-tion of the Camí Vell del Port (Old Port Road) thatconnected to the gate in the 14th century wall, or thepresent-day Sant Agustí and Adrià Streets (de Palma1958, 449). The Camí dels Caputxins was subsequent-ly fossilised in Girona and Roger de Llúria Streets.

As far as the cross streets are concerned, the histori-cal cartography also shows us the coincidences withthe layout of the Roman decumani, which is veryuseful when it comes to reconstructing the formaTarraconis in the areas affected by the 19th centuryquarry. The most obvious case is the Republican de-cumanus identified beneath the city’s Early Romantheatre (Macias 2004c), which, if we take into ac-count the 1800 cartography, continued as far as theeastern wall of the city, coinciding with the pre-sumed gateway we mentioned earlier. It is significantthat the Camí del Mig and the Camí dels Caputxinsend at this cross street. The eastern end of this de-cumanus is a constant in the historical cartography,possibly because it served as containment for thesoutheastern promontory in which the hill of Tarra-gona ended (Gabriel 2001). In both López Sopeñaand Laborde’s plans we can make out a segment ofdecumanus, located to the east of the CM, that coin-cides with a segment of road documented by I.Valentines (file 344). Two other roads branch offperpendicularly from this road and go in the direc-tion of the port. They could also be kardines.

Where the cartography does not show any roads, wecan see numerous traces of agricultural divisions –

tracks and margins – that are also a reflection of the Ro-man road layout. Moreover, some of the margins oragricultural banks depicted coincide approximatelywith the transversal axes of the insulae that were 70 me-tres in length. A theoretical reconstruction of the slopeof the intramural residential city from the preserved re-mains on the present-day Rambla Vella to the area ofCaputxins Street, shows a steep incline (an approximateaverage gradient of 7%), so that between two decumaniseparated by an insula there would theoretically havebeen a height difference of about 5.3 m. Evidence ofthis slope has been noted in some archaeological exca-vations. At 12-14 Fortuny Street (file 401) we identifya twenty-metre-long segment of decumanus with an av-erage gradient of 6.5%. At number 32 GasòmetreStreet (file 469) archaeologists found twenty-three me-tres of a drain that ran below a large square in the samedirection as the decumani. This had an average gradientof 7.5%. Based on these indications, we believe that theslope of the city would have meant in some cases thatthe southern half of an insula would have been built ata lower level than the decumanus that bordered it to thenorth. This would no doubt have required the con-struction of containment and embankment walls insidethe insulae that, taking into account the data providedby the AIS, would have subsequently been used as mar-gins for agricultural plots (fig. 11).

Although less convincingly, the ancient cartographyallows us to glimpse traces of an urban layout in theport area that follows the orthogonal model of the in-tramural city. This is a previously noted observation(Macias 2004c) that is based on the possible presenceof a street below the theatre (file 470) and on the ori-entation of the port buildings at number 33 SantMiquel Street and number 10 Sant Josep Street (497and 502 respectively). A late 18th century plan, whichit has not been possible to geo-reference (fig. 14),shows a division of agricultural plots inherited fromthe layout of the Republican urban streets, beyond thepossible southern enclosure of the wall. It is also pos-sible, and the present-day urban layout does not ruleit out (plate 14, vol. II), that there was a porticus postscaenam between the theatre and the docks.

On the other hand, the urban drains identified atnumber 1 Castaños Street (file 503) and in ApodacaStreet (files 359 and 363) must be considered as ele-ments that remained in use, either totally or partially,during the Modern period. This highlights the coinci-dence of the layout of the archaeological remains of“Rec dels Molins” and that of another with an un-known name in the Modern period planimetry (seefig. 13; Fiz/Macias 2004).

261

historical cartography, ais and archaeological research

16. This road appears under the name of Camí dels Caputxins 30 years before (Flórez 1769).


3.1. URBAN PLANNINGIgnacio Fiz and Josep M. Macias

Although not the main objective of this study, thepreparation and chronological separation undertakenin the compilation oblige us to raise a series of ques-tions about the scientific and methodological prob-lems that have arisen during this process. They are as-pects that cannot be avoided, as they complement andjustify the numerous decisions taken in the course ofthe project that also make the plans comprehensible.The documental compilation, the unification of theplanimetries, and the GPS geo-referencing applied tocertain sites resolve numerous questions, althoughthey also raise others that, unfortunately, cannot al-ways be answered due to the historical and urban de-velopment of contemporary Tarragona.

Our desire to break down the planimetric evidence asmuch as possible intrinsically defines an interpretativeproposal conditioned, in many cases, by the lack ofdata in terms of both the physical conservation andthe stratigraphic contextualisation and analysis of thematerials. For this reason, we have taken a series of de-cisions that are at present questionable, but thanks tothe malleability of the AIS, can be easily modified aspart of future updates of the database.

One of the areas in which the lack of definition is cur-rently most acute is the interpretation and perceptionof the pre-Roman Iberian settlement dating from the6th century BC (cf. Adserias et al. 1993; Asensio et al.2001; Otiña/Ruiz de Arbulo 2002). Such is the cur-rent uncertainty that there is no absolute consensus asto its name. On the other hand, the geopolitical rolethat has been attributed to this human population isvery important in the context of Cessetània. Perhaps ithas been overemphasised, given that there is a clearimbalance between the weight attributed to it in theterritory and the existence of archaeological remains.We are aware that the expansion of imperial Tarracoled to the destruction of the Iberian settlement, butwe also believe that the geopolitical weight of Late Re-publican Tarraco – including its Late Republicancoinage – has influenced the historical evaluation ofthe earlier Iberian village. On the other hand, an ex-tensive Iberian site is currently being excavated at Sel-la Point (Cape Salou), some 8 km from Tarraco. De-spite the effects of contemporary quarrying, this site isof considerable size (Fabregat 2006), and its locationclose to Salou is very interesting if we bear in mind the

toponym Salauris mentioned by Avenius in his OraeMaritimae.

To date archaeology has only recorded the unconnect-ed presence of isolated structures over an area at thetop and on the southwestern slope of the western cliffsthat bordered the natural bay of Tarraco. The struc-tures have been interpreted as residential zones, butthere is insufficient area to give an exact definition(files 476, 479, 488, 567, 568, 570, 573 and 593). Inany case, the current data indicates that the majorityof the settlement was at the foot of the coastal hill,clearly related to the agricultural plains of the Fran-colí, the roads leading inland, the bay where Greekand Phoenician trading ships anchored, and, obvious-ly, the proximity of the rich water resources of theFrancolí basin and the springs from the large subter-ranean lake below the hill (fig. 16).

With regard to Iberian silos, we were only able to con-firm the depositories documented in Caputxins (file488) and Pere Martell Streets (file 568). The rest ofthe storage deposits have been dated to the Late Re-publican period. They are located outside the prefer-ential area of the Iberian settlement and some havepottery contexts. We refer to the data obtained fromSevilla Street (file 475; Díaz et al. 2005), Unió Street,14 (file 322; Díaz/Otiña 2003), and other more dis-tant cases, such as the early-Christian Necropolis (file645) and Sant Francesc Street (file 278). A high con-centration of silos has also been recorded in the areaoccupied by the forum and its surroundings (files 385,404, 418, 419, 422, 423, 424, 427, 429 and 434), al-though a small amount of known pottery evidencecould equally represent a Late Republican chronology(Serra 1932). For all these reasons, we believe that ce-real storage in Tarraco was a more a Late Republicanthan an Iberian phenomenon. We have more experi-ence of this situation in the neighbouring town ofEmpúries, which is associated with the centralisingrole of the Roman town within a new trade and con-sumer dynamic (Aquilué et al. 2002).

As far as Late Republican urban planning is con-cerned, it was not until 1999 that a proposal was firstmade to reconstruct the road layout that was limitedto the intramural residential area. This raised manyquestions that have yet to be answered (Macias 2000).This theory was devised using a not entirely suitableprogram, in which the archaeological finds in the cityare inserted into the present-day topography with a

262

3. FORMA TARRACONIS: A DISCOVERY IN PROGRESS


ratio of 1 per 2 actus and the cardines at 31º E of GN(geographic north). It is, on the other hand, a rectan-gular module of insula common in that period andwhich, in the case of Tarragona, complies with an ur-ban development programme planned and executed,at a pace that is unknown to us, around the year 100BC. The latest archaeological studies show that the ex-tension of the walls, the building of the Forum Colo-niae, and the section of the main urban sewage pipethat crosses the middle of the hill were other signifi-cant elements that made up this new city (cf. Aquiluéet al. 1998; Puche/Díaz 1999; Díaz et al. 2005; Arbu-lo et al. 2006). On the other hand, the identificationof the possible auguraculum belonging to this trans-formation (file 427) indicates that the urban modula-tion and orientation was able to be planned topo-graphically from the area of the forum. We can seethat its position coincides with the western façade ofan alignment of insulae and with the transversal axis ofa row of urban housing blocks. Subsequently, the fo-rum basilica aedes augusti (file 439) and the exedraadded later to the containment cryptoportico (file469) were aligned along this axis.

New archaeological interventions and the undertak-ing of this project have made this street layout theorynecessary, although everything seems to indicate thatit was restricted to a rectangular intramural strip thatexcluded the two promontories in which the hill ofTarragona ended (fig. 17). We have identified this gridin the southern half of the walled area, although sometraces in the port zone lead us to believe that these ge-ographical axes were prolonged. We are referring tothe street below the theatre and the known port areas(files 470, 497, 502 and 503). Moreover, the prolon-gation of the main sewage pipe below RebolledoStreet indicates, theoretically at least, that the cardomaximus continued outside the walled enclosure (file832). On the other hand, we can also see that thewidth of the theatre coincides approximately with thatof two insulae with viae, and that the exedra in the ad-joining monumental area coincides with the longitu-dinal axis of one of these blocks.

Given all this data we believe that this urban layoutcan be applied to some five horizontal rows of insulae,with approximately 55-60 topographically plannedurban blocks. Obviously, the irregularity of the hilland the urban pre-eminence of the forum, the area ofthe auguraculum, as well as other unidentified build-ings, modified the application of the planned grid.

With regard to the southwestern end of the intramu-ral area (the area between Sevilla, Caputxins, Zamen-

hoff and Soler Streets), the lack of more exhaustive in-formation on the port area and the extramural slopesthat ended at the Francolí River means that at presentwe can only determine that it is one of the oldest sitesof Roman occupation. The studies carried out atnumbers 12-14 Sevilla Street and 23 and 24 Caput-xins Street (files 475, 476 and 488, respectively) indi-cate a different urban layout and orientation to that of1 per 2 actus. This difference in the street layout showsthat it has been adapted to the pre-existing orographyand also allows us to identify the route of the possibledecumanus maximus (DM) (file 469) that separatedeach urban model. Moreover, the traces of the DMhelp us to pinpoint the emplacement of the Romangateway flanked by two towers described by Ponç d’I-card in the 16th century (file 466; Duran 1984, 103).We are not able to confirm whether there was an ur-ban modulation in this small sector, possibly prior tothe plan dated around 100 BC and built directly overthe earlier Iberian structures.

As far as the southeastern end is concerned, the effectsof the 19th century quarrying make it impossible totheorise on its urban planning. We assume, however,that part of it must have been a continuation of theRepublican orthogonal layout, as the analysis carriedout in the previous chapter appears to indicate, whilethe southernmost part was strongly conditioned bythe relief, which made it necessary to plan for the con-tainment and stability of the terraces. This would ex-plain the divergent urban orientation on the plots atnumber 9 Apodaca Street (file 363), number 5 SantMiquel Street (file 369) and in Nou de Sant Pau Street(files 371 and 373). All these plots are located to theeast of the underground drain and the few structuresthat have been identified appear to be laid out perpen-dicularly to the slope of the hill.

The comparison of various planimetries (files 296,311 and 313) and particularly the cardo documentedduring the construction of an underground car parkon the Rambla Nova (file 297), shows the break withthe Late Republican scheme and the existence of anew model that we have been unable to satisfactorilyreconstruct. The sparse archaeological data and the se-rious effects on the area caused during the Modern pe-riod17 mean that today we are unable to put forward areliable proposal. Nevertheless, we believe that thisnew model defined a network of decumani with thesame equidistance (70 m or 2 actus) and the same ge-ographical direction as the earlier pattern. The identi-fied structures can be made to fit in with these dimen-sions and orientations and they indicate a newintramural residential area subsequent to the Republi-

263

FORMA tarracoNIS: a discovery in progress

17. This third urban development pattern coincided approximately with the area between the Rambla Vella and the Rambla Nova. It was developed following thewalled expansion in the 16th century. This has caused the area to be seriously affected since that time, particularly during the 19th century expansion when the irreg-ularities of the relief in this part of the city were levelled out.


can expansion, but conditioned by the same urbanplanning axes: the intramural viae and the walls of thesecond half of the 2nd century BC. Moreover, it ishighly significant that the southern façade of the Fla-vian circus and the figlina discovered below its arena(file 238) adapt to the geographical axis defined by theroute of the Via Augusta, which, in turn, was a conse-quence of the orientation of the Republican city. Weshould point out that the work on the road of theRambla Vella (file 267) documented a wide contain-ment wall that we have interpreted as the separationbetween the via and the urban housing blocks. Thisstructure coincided with the development of an urbanmodule of 2 actus in length.

Theoretically, this third urban area had three horizon-tal rows of insulae. Its chronology is doubtful: themost significant data was obtained in the excavationof the Rambla Nova (file 297), where the archaeolo-gists were able to document a segment of cardo some6 metres wide and with a foundational chronology ofthe end of the 1st century BC. The break with the LateRepublican street model, plus the chronology of thisroad, are the elements that allow us to work on the hy-pothesis that this evidence does not belong to a specif-ic action, but shows an urban area that came aboutlater than the development of around 100 BC. Thistheoretical model does not imply that that part of thecity remained deurbanised, rather that the streets andresidential buildings were not built until a later date.Thus, we have Late Republican evidence in the UpperPart of the city, near or below the circus (files 264, 275and 284) in the area of the Rambla Nova (files 296,299 and 313). Another action shows an Augustan-pe-riod chronology (file 293). We also recognise that allthese actions are specific plots in the Roman city andthat they cannot be interrelated. Moreover, there havebeen no in-depth studies of the pottery that wouldprovide a more accurate chronology.

The reason for this new urban expansion is uncertain,although the building of this road at the end of the 1st

century BC allows us to propose a hypothetical linkwith the presumed deductio carried out in the city dur-ing the time of Caesar (Ruiz de Arbulo 2002) and/orthe economic and demographic development of theAugustan period (Macias/Puche 1997; Macias2004c). Current research also shows a possible rela-tionship between this urban model and the establish-ment of a cadastre in the ager Tarraconensis. This rela-tionship has to be confirmed by new studies of theterritorial morphology using new digital cartographicresources to draw up maps that are closer to the 1:500scale we are using in the urban studies (cf. Palet 2003;Macias 2005b).

Finally, we have to take into account that the struc-tures identified in the area of Hernández Sanahuja

Street (files 659 and 661) have a geographical orienta-tion that coincides with the Late Republican urbanlayout. We have to bear in mind the Early Roman dat-ing for these areas, although we cannot tell whetherthey are one-off actions or whether they were part ofan expansion phase in the city.

As far as the walls are concerned, we have already not-ed the link between the second phase and the urbanexpansion at the end of the 2nd century BC. We dealwith other questions about the defensive structure insection 2.2 and here we only note that this project hasbeen unable to resolve the doubts raised by the sup-posed and well-known “megalithic walls” identified ascoinciding with the transversal axes of the RamblaVella (file 266) or Merceria Street (files 112-114).These walls can be interpreted in various ways, al-though none of them is very convincing. The mostsignificant would be to identify these finds with possi-ble transversal divisions of the Republican city andthus link the archaeological evidence to the judicialproblem resulting from the exile in Tarraco of the ex-consul P. Cato in 108 BC and a possible urban duali-ty (Otiña/Ruiz de Arbulo 2002, 113). However, theRambla Vella wall, only the middle section of whichhas been documented to date, could also have beenmerely a containment structure linked to the route ofthe sewage pipe that flowed into a deep watercourselocated in the subsoil of nearby Portella Street. This“sewage pipe-containment structures” relationship,with large, irregular dimensions bonded with clayfrom the Late Republican era was also discovered dur-ing excavations at numbers 7 and 9 Apodaca Street.The structures in Merceria Street could also be part ofterraces built before the Early Roman buildings.

The ancient chronology of the intramural residentialarea has no archaeological reflection in the definitionof the extramural road network. Only the presence ofthe Portal dels Socors (file 2) is clear evidence of a LateRepublican road that, in this case, can be intuited ifwe accept the continuance of the present-day Camí dela Cuixa as a reminiscence of an earlier Roman road.The present-day plot division denotes, for the uppersection of the Camí de la Cuixa, a line that can be pre-sumed to be the fossilisation of the Via Domitia. Nev-ertheless, it should be pointed out that the follow-upexcavations on the adjoining plots (files 734 and 720)have failed to contribute any clarifying data. On theother hand, the presence of gates integrated into thesecond phase of the walls gives theoretical credit to theperipheral roads entering and leaving the city. Agreater problem is the porta that existed in the area ofthe Plaça de Ponent (file 463), which was approxi-mately 11.88 metres wide and, if we believe a brief Re-naissance-period description, we can match its con-struction technique to that used on the walls thatformed part of the Late Republican extension of the


264


defences.18 This implies the presence of an ancientroad that connected the city to its hinterland andwhich has not been documented, except for sparse ev-idence discovered on plot 581. The proximity of theRepublican forum (file 434) and the possible de-cumanus maximus (file 469) are elements that point tothe existence of a pre-eminent access during that peri-od in that area of the city. Another theoretical accesshas been placed in the present-day Plaça de la Pedrera(file 361), based on the geo-referencing of the histori-cal cartography and linking it to a decumanus identi-fied below the city’s theatre and the reconstruction ofthe intramural road layout (fig. 17).

More disputed has been the identification of a majorreorganisation of the roads in the Augustan period, al-though the current state of research does not allow usto establish an irrefutable historical periodisation, asthe latest archaeological interventions and on-goingstudies are progressively updating the results.19 Wehave one piece of epigraphical evidence (RIT 934, file569) and numerous excavations that show the layoutof periurban roads. The Via Augusta arrived at the cityfrom Barcino via a recently documented road (files776, 777 and 781) that explains the concentration offinds in Robert d’Aguiló Street, and which leads to thegate on the present-day Rambla Vella (file 262). Thereis no specific evidence, but the majority opinionplaces this new road in the time of Augustus. On theother hand, cartographic analysis indicates a hypo-thetical connection between the two eastern roads –the Republican and the Augustan (fig..), although ithas to be recognised that the recent urban develop-ment of the Vall de l’Arrabassada area or the UA 27has not allowed us the corroborate this archaeological-ly. This is in part because of the changes that have tak-en place over the centuries, and in part because nothorough archaeological excavations, delimitations orprospecting have been carried out.

On the western slope, recent excavations have allowedJordi López to propose a new section of the Via Au-gusta on the western slope of the hill, as well as plac-ing the bridge over the Francolí farther inland thanhad been thought up until now (files 560, 634 and827). The material evidence points to this stretch ofroad having been built in the Augustan period. It isalso hypothesised that there was a road parallel to thewestern walls of the city (file 455) that connected theroad from Barcino (that crossed the present-day Ram-bla Vella) to those leading to the port area (López Vi-lar 2006, fig. 274). An Augustan chronology has alsobeen attributed to a second road that follows the route

of present-day Eivissa Street (the old Camí de laFonteta, files 586, 595, 596 and 646), although itshould be pointed out that in a recent excavation evi-dence was found of a Republican precedent to theroad, a fact that would fit in perfectly with the evolu-tion of the city (file 581). Based on the work of SerraVilaró we know of a third road parallel to the riverthat has been the subject of new discoveries that alsopoint to an Augustan chronology (files 638, 642 and645). This road joined up with the Camí de la Fonte-ta and, if it followed the river course, with a fourthroad that presumably ran parallel to the western endof the port bay (files 609, 620 and 621).

The maritime porticus nature of the structures associ-ated with this fourth road have been emphasised, tak-ing into account the width (some 10 metres), theproximity to the sea, and the functional nature of thehorrea. However, we have to take into account thepresence of buildings in various excavations (files 614,616, 618 and 620) located to the south of its routeand which have yet be be subjected to an exhaustivestudy. Some of these buildings are from a period sub-sequent to the urban redevelopment; others could becontemporary with the warehouses located on theother side of the road. This raises the question as towhether this part of the city really faced the coastlinedirectly. The chronology of these remains could alsobe later, presumably in the Flavian period (Adserias etal. 2000b; Pociña/Remolà 2001a). While this roadmay have connected to the west with that document-ed by Serra Vilaró, what happened to the other end ismore difficult to ascertain with the data we currentlyhave. The excavations carried out in UA 15 (files 590,591 and 593) interrupt its route through the port areaand we believe that the road climbed the slope of thehill until it joined up somewhere near the city gatewith the road documented below Eivissa Street.

All this data allows us to divide the southern and west-ern extramural area into four zones, based on the fourlarge roads that ran approximately from west to eastand that probably converged in front of the gate in thepresent-day Plaça de Ponent area, which was the en-trance nearest to the Colonial Forum. These extramu-ral streets were originally some ten metres wide, al-though over time they became considerably smaller.

The sector located to the north of the section of roadidentified as the Via Augusta appears to be an area oflow building density. There are noteworthy residentialstructures near the walls (files 398, 403, 426, 535,551, 554 and 547), as well as two segments of road

265

FORMA tarracoNIS: a discovery in progress

18. “...I found that some quarrymen had just ruined it to use its large rocks or stones (megaliths of the base?) like barbarians or enemies of such antiquity...” (Du-ran 1984, 103). 19. You can see how our knowledge of the road and urban layout of the city has evolved in the following publications: Ted’a 1987 and 1990e; Adserias et al. 2000b;Macias/Menchon 2002; Macias/Remolà 2004; Remolà 2004a; López Vilar 2006, 229-234.


that are difficult to interpret (files 403 and 446). Thearea between the road identified as the Via Augustaand the one that runs below Eivissa Street (the oldCamí de la Fonteta) has a high archaeological densitybetween the present-day Pere Martell Street and thewalls. Proof of this can be seen in the excavations cor-responding to files 560, 567, 568, 570, 573 and 577.The road network in this area is unknown to us andwe can only refer to the courtyard or plaza document-ed on plot 577. Likewise, on plot 568 there is evi-dence of a large plaza or portico of uncertain featuresor use. To the west of Pere Martell Street the archaeo-logical documentation diminishes considerably andwe only have plot 572. The building density in thisarea no doubt decreased the farther away it was fromthe walls, although we also believe that the context ofthe period in which the present-day buildings werebuilt in these blocks did not allow for a correct archae-ological documentation. Consequently, the planimet-ric perception we have today is unreal. Moreover, wehave to bear in mind how these periurban roadswould have attracted buildings and, subsequently, theFrancolí Christian suburb during the Late Antiquity.Proof of this can be found in the archaeological find-ings from plots 549, 581, 640 642 and 645.

The area between the so-called contiguous road to theport horrea and the Camí de la Fonteta road is a highurban density zone built on land progressively re-claimed from

PLANIMETRIA ARQUEOLÒGICA DE TÀRRACO...Dupré (1983 and 1987, respectively) on the reconstruction...

Documents

Transcript of PLANIMETRIA ARQUEOLÒGICA DE TÀRRACO...Dupré (1983 and 1987, respectively) on the reconstruction...