POSSIBLE ROMAN VILLA IN VILLAFÁFILA

Given the news provided by our student María del Carmen Ruiz about a site in the town of Villafáfila, which seemed to be of interest, we decided to visit it; and once the possibility of finding ourselves before the remains of a Roman villa is confirmed, carry out a brief survey in the place that offered the greatest guarantees.

The deposit is located in the municipality of Villafáfila (Zamora). This area, in particular and we could say that the entire municipality because in other remote areas we find "tegulea" brick and sigillata remains on the surface, offers a remarkable archaeological context, since less than 1km. There are other probable deposits, due to the pottery remains that appear on the surface; there is also a strong barrel vault formed with large ashlars, clearly Roman and which remains unpublished, very similar to that of a Vandulciel Causeway [1] .

 The site is located in a fertile area, an almost obligatory circumstance for this type of establishment. The building is on a small hillside, within fundamentally flat land. Relatively close, about 100 m. From the excavated area, there is currently a pond, which, although it is very likely to dry up in summer, provides moisture to the contour, which would go against the conditions that Latin agronomists indicate for the establishment of the Villa. We can think that perhaps this pond did not exist in Roman times, although it is of natural origin.

 We began the prospecting by marking a 3x3 m grid that did not provide any interesting material or building remains, and showed us the impossibility of finding any stratigraphy.

After this, we excavated a second grid of 3x3m, in which we found remains of a wall, and from this moment on, given the survey nature of the survey, we excavated based on the walls found, as can be seen in the Attached plan.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

The materials used in the construction do not offer any special characteristics of import wealth, etc. Is used:

Stone: a sandstone of little consistency, taken from the vicinity of the deposit. Better quality stones do not appear on the ground. They are used raw or slightly squared.

Mortar. Used for solidity to walls.

Bricks. Numerous fragments appeared in the excavation and on the surface, we did not find any whole, not even large enough to deduce their measurements; In any case, most of them give the impression of being very large and usually 30 mm thick. They may have been used as floor tiles.

 We collected several racamentos such as the LD FVS mark (Plate 2 B).

Roof tiles. Numerous fragments appeared in the excavation and especially on the surface, both "tegulae" and "Imbrices". Neither did any complete.

THE CONSTRUCTION

Walls. The walls found, which correspond mostly to foundations, are of a relatively solid construction with rough stones, or slightly carved, of a uniform width of 0.50 m.

It is presumable that except for the foundations and at most a plinth, made of stone, the rest was made of adobe or rammed earth, since stone is scarce in the area and none was found loose in what was excavated.

Some of these walls were covered with stucco, of which some small fragments appeared. It could be seen in (Plate 1 A).

Pavements. No pavement was actually found, although it could be that it was tiled, given the large number of them found and in a relatively horizontal position. The possibility of decomposed concrete flooring cannot be ruled out, given the high prevailing humidity, as a large amount of lime was found, although this may be due to the stucco. If the pavement had been made of trodden clay, it would not be distinguished by the aforementioned humidity.

Roof. It can only be said that it was from "tegulae" and "Imbrices".

DEPENDENCIES

Strictly speaking, it is not possible to speak of dependencies, since only three walls appeared, which, although related to each other, did not allow us to deduce the room or rooms they formed. The interpretation is even more difficult, since some pavement appeared to us clearly. The only data that could be added to those provided by the walls is the fact that the remains of stucco appeared in the northern part of the main wall.

All the walls are 0.50 m wide and stand on virgin land, maintaining a height of 0.30 to 0.40 m. The largest wall, which runs from this to the west, is 7 m long and at its eastern end, forms a perfectly square angle, from which comes another in a northerly direction of 3 m in length.

 For its western part, it ends in another wall that runs from north to south, 5m. in length, of which approximately 1.50 are to the north and approximately 3 m to the south.

MATERIALS

Dispensing with the construction materials "tegulae", "Imbrices" and bricks, which appeared in abundance, they were reduced to a few fragments of stucco, some of sigillata ceramics and quite a few common ones.

SIGILLATA CERAMICS

1. 35mm cup foot. Diameter. orange colour. Smooth. Well decanted and clean fracture. Opaque and fairly adherent varnish. Drag form. 46 [2] with potter's stamp: KICKABLE. (Plate 1B). Mark from which Merquíriz [3] a specimen from Mérida is collected, in form 15-17 and Balil [4] a second, from Italica in form 46 (Frothinghan, 42, number 301, corrected) (fig. 3.1).

2. Border fragment. Smooth orange colour. Little decanted and rough cut. Shape Drag gloss varnish. 27 [5] (fig. 3.2).

3. Vase fragment. orange colour. Smooth. Little decanted, rough cut. Glossy varnish, little adherent. Drag form. 18 [6] (fig. 3.3)

4 Fragment of edge horizontally ex-vased to the outside and concave wall. Pink paste. Little decanted, rough cut. Glossy varnish. Little sticky. Drag form. 46 [7] (fig. 3.4).

 5. Vessel foot fragment. orange colour. Smooth. Little decanted. Rough cut. Somewhat shiny varnish. Very sticky. Probable form 29/37 [8] . (fig. 3.5).

6 various fragments of Hispanic sigillata. Lisa. Among them we can highlight some that are very well decanted and have a clean fracture, and whose shape cannot be deduced due to their tiny size.

COMMON CERAMICS

1. Rim fragment of a large ex vasado lip vessel. Light brown clay. Very rough cut (fig. 4.1).

2. Fragment of the rim of a pot with an outward facing lip. Light orange mud. Rough cut (fig. 4.2).

3. Fragment of the rim of a vessel with thin walls, which thicken towards the bottom. Orange color, quite well decanted (fig. 4.3).

4. Fragment of a vessel with a flat bottom and frustoconical walls where it joins. Light brown in color, quite decanted and with thin walls that retain traces of a brown-colored slip-paint (fig. 4.4).

5. Fragment of a flat-bottomed container with thick walls. Rough, orange-gray fracture (Fig. 4.5).

6. In addition, numerous other fragments of typical pottery were collected.

STUCCOS

Due to the fragments found, painted in white, ochre, dark brown, pink, etc., it is not possible to reconstruct the themes represented, although it is not the classic geometric type decoration, typical of the baseboards, but perhaps a plant-like representation.

CHRONOLOGY

Due to the scarce elements found, it is difficult to establish a chronology. But, according to the ceramic forms found, the total absence of some late ones, and, above all, the finding of a potter's mark, it can be said that even without knowing the moment in which the probable villa was built, it existed in the 2nd century. .

Author: 

Jose Rodriguez Hernandez.

A Possible Roman Villa in Villafáfila (Zamora).

https://revistas.usal.es/index.php/0514-7336/article/view/734

villafafila.net

http://villafafila.net/villaromana/villaromana.htm

Photography:

Jose Rodriguez Hernandez.

Transcription and montage:

Jose Luis Dominguez Martinez.

All text, photographs, transcription and montage, the rights belong to the authors, any type of use is prohibited without authorization.

All text and photography has been authorized for storage, treatment, work, transcription and assembly to José Luis Domínguez Martínez, its dissemination on villafafila.net, and any other means that is authorized.