Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
convenient outcrops of particularly good quality stone existed, then it was in every
way preferable to exploit them on a standing basis. To develop the most ei cient
installations together with the most experienced and skilled permanent labour force
was the obvious way to exploit such quarries if the market sui ced.
Hand in hand with increased ei ciency in quarrying out stone at such estab-
lishments went the overall economy of, to some measure, dressing the blocks at
the quarry site, since a standing labour force of stone dressers were assembled
there possessing the advantage of great experience in working that particular type
of stone. In this way in the market conditions of imperial Rome, it was custom-
ary industrial development for standard production items of stone, including
architectural elements to be dressed in draught form at the quarry (J.B. Ward
Perkins, “Quarrying in Antiquity,” PBR, LXII, 1971, pp. 137-58; M. Waelkens,
ed.,
“Pierre Eternel . . .,” Brussels, 1990,
pass
, NB Chaps 5, 8, 9; M. Waelkens, ed.,
“Ancient Stones” Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia, Vol. 4, Leuven, 1990,
pass
).
With the exercise of eminent domain over major quarries by the Imperial admin-
istration this development was progressive and it is probably reasonable to say that
stone dressing at the quarry progressed with the lapse of time towards an ever
i ner i nish (N. Ashgiri, “Objets de Marbre i ni . . . du Proconnèse” in
Pierre Eternel
,
pp. 117-24). In short supply of building stone from central quarries passed from
including e.g. draughted Ionic bases (Ashgiri “Observations on two types of quarry,
items from Proconnesus. Column Shat s and Column Bases” in
Ancient Stones
,
pp. 73-80) to including during later antiquity job orders of i nished columns (bases,
shat s and capitals) prefabricated ready to erect In this way e.g. Justinian's great
ecumenical building programme was articulated very frequently by an imperial
donation of a consignment of marble columns (from e.g. Proconnesos quarries)
to a church built by local masons out of local limestone in a distant province,
e.g. Cyrenaica (cf J. Reynolds ed., “Christian Antiquities of Cyrenaica,”
pass
, NB,
pp. 27-30). In this connection it is interesting to note that it was not economic to
prefabricate normal column drums at the quarry and to transport them to the site
for re-erection. Dressing such column drums was site work and when economics
told against this, monolithic columns became the rule. In Byzantine church build-
ing the alternative to monolithic columns were masonry piers, i.e. a wall pierced
by arches. Be it noted that in Byzantine churches columns were internal features,
they were no longer seen as part of the external fabric of construction.
h e upshot of all these considerations was that in the ancient world construction
of columns by drums was outmoded during the 2nd century AD—and thereat er
columns as a rule again took on a monolithic form. h e renewed use of monolithic
columns in part depended on transport facilities over wide ranging lines of com-
munication. Construction of monumental columns out of drums did not again
Fabrica-
tion of
monolithic
columns at
the quarry
in the
later
Roman
Empire
242
244
245
246
235
242
243
245
