Natural speed please
The countryside around Jesolo, now a vast expanse of cultivated fields planted on reclaimed land, was once dotted with lagoon lakes that lingered on until the end of the 19th and early 20th century. The Roman coastline was further back than the modern coast meaning that the area now occupied by the town of Jesolo would have been situated immediately inland behind the barrier of sand dunes protecting the hinterland from the sea.
No trace survives of the ancient sand dunes, which were approximately three kilometres long and followed the course of the ancient coastlines that succeeded each over the centuries. In the Middle Ages, these dunes were home to pinewoods, relicts of which were still visible at the beginning of the last century. As the highest ground in the area, they were the preferred location for settlements as well as enabling the cultivation of the adjoining lands by protecting them from the action of the water.
Although this area is mainly known for aspects connected to the geomorphology of lagoons – it is home to both the Jesolo and Eraclea lagoons – and coastal areas, it is located in a vast alluvial plain. The settlement of Jesolo grew up on a “morphological high”, identified by an ancient fluvial ridge connected to the Piave.
The area occupied by the Jesolo settlement is crossed by the Piave Vecchia ridge, originally produced by a branch of the Piave Vecchia (dated to AD 530-680 by peat studies), which runs along the edge of the lagoon, rising up above its low-lying surroundings. In 1684, the waters of the Sile flowed into this branch via a new cut created on the orders of the Serenissima with the aim of diverting the river to Porto Santa Margherita to prevent the lagoon from silting up. In brief, the Piave Vecchia (modern Sile) did not fill the present riverbed until the 6th-7th centuries onwards, and its mouth was considerably further inland than the modern mouth, which was formed during subsequent centuries through the build-up of river sediment. The latest geomorphological studies carried out by the group of geologists from the University of Padua accompanying our most recent excavations on the Jesolo site reveal the presence even beneath the Late Antique and Middle Imperialsettlement of fluvial sands probably belonging to an older buried river system of the Piave whose course cannot be established using the data currently available.
The geologists also found numerous traces of minor marsh or lagoon channels in the area lying between the main river courses. The Canal d'Arco and Canale Revedoli, two of the most important canals, were joined, in the late Middle Ages, by the Cava Zuccherina: although of natural origin, they were later straightened and embanked for the purpose of navigation and hydraulic exchange flows. The Canal d'Arco started south of the town of Jesolo and continued in a north-easterly direction before flowing into two further canals south of the modern settlement of Eraclea: to the south, the Revedoli canal, which flows east along the coastline towards the River Livenza and region of Friuli; and to the north, the canal going to Cittanova known as "Canale del Doxe". A third waterway was the Fossa Vecchia, identified by means of core samples taken during surface surveys carried out in 2011, and which had a meandering course that began in the area south of Equilo and headed eastwards towards its sea outlet, which was still indicated as “Portexin” in 16th-century maps. Another important communication route was the Canale di Caligo, whose modern course follows its ancient course without major changes and flows into the lagoon just a few kilometres west of the town of Jesolo, creating a direct link between this area and the Venice lagoon. Obviously, in addition to these water routes joining Equilo and nearby centres, there were also other lagoon channels – only a few stretches of which can be identified by means of aerial photography – that were used by those moving around the lagoon, especially for fishing or hunting. Therefore, the main fluvial routes – the Piave and its palaeochannels – were responsible for shaping the development of the settlement of Jesolo.
The ancient settlement known as Equilus in the sources is situated on the edge of the modern town of Jesolo, in an area that is now farmland.
For this reason photointerpretation and remote sensing represent useful tools for preliminary studies, along with surveys, provided their limits are kept in mind. Only very few sites in the area adjoining the lagoon and immediately beyond can match the archaeological potential of this settlement (see, for example, Altinum): as an ‘abandoned town’ (the modern town has shifted or shrunk compared to the ancient settlement), Jesolo, like the nearby town of Cittanova, represents an exemplary case study for the development of models of early medieval urbanisation.
The original town of Jesolo was undoubtedly a lagoon settlement: small areas of land surrounded by valley areas and channels used for communication and transport needs. Archaeological and palaeo-environmental data allows us to establish the exact location of the main insula that was the site of ancient Equilo. Further evidence from the late 18th and early 19th century permits the identification in a wider area of additional inhabited nuclei corresponding to monasteries that are currently invisible to surveys. In fact, the extensive reclamation carried out at the beginning of the 20th century completely cancelled the archaeological deposits linked to these nuclei. Such schemes also eliminated the ruins of several religious buildings shown on historic maps such as the ruins of the Monastery of San Giorgio del Pineto, which were mentioned until 1840.
For this reason, assessable archaeological data is limited to the main island, which was occupied by the Church of Santa Maria and the surrounding settlement. The importance of this island is not just determined by the presence of Equilo’s basilica and subsequent cathedral, but also by its strategic position favouring links between the northern lagoon and the hinterland. This gives weight to the hypothesis confirmed by tradition of the presence of a port in Equilo or in the immediate vicinity. Unfortunately, the historical information available is scarce and dates to a later period; moreover, our ability to identify the port is hindered by the massive urbanisation that has taken place in the area lying between modern Jesolo and the coast over the past fifty years.
On the other hand, the location of the site and data gathered by the archaeological surveys, even recent ones, make the presence of a trading centre here (since the 5th century at least) extremely probable. The early medieval port, which would have been equipped with infrastructures made from perishable materials as in other settlements in the northern Adriatic basin, probably had links to the nearby Piave Vecchia. It will be up to the future environmental and geomorphological studies (due to be carried out in the peripheral areas surrounding the central settlement) to interpret the evidence of possible port facilities. In order to do so, they should also focus on the presence of several major canals – some of which reaching the periphery of the settlement – that formed a complex system intended to guarantee Jesolo’s key role in lagoon links.
Field research carried out in Jesolo from 2013 onwards (preceded by surveys in the previous years) uncovered a series of indicators that can be interpreted in terms of infrastructure, that is, as a consequence of the actions of a unitary planned organisation.
In particular, it was possible to identify major earth fills (mainly sandy silt) that appear to be the result of actions intended to level, raise, maintain and prepare ground for the construction of new buildings. In fact, large earth fills marking a break on top of Imperial layers (from the 1st century AD) seem to correspond to the base of what appears to be the first phase – in the sequence studied so far, which has reached significant dimensions – in a site in which there are considerable traces of buildings. The centre that grew up between the late 4th and early 5th century was characterised by structures partially set on a socle made from reused materials and partially built with load-bearing elements set directly on piles. It seems that there was a continuous intense building activity right from the beginning, made up of a dense series of building phases. The settlement sequence was interrupted when the area was occupied by burials that indicate a different form of land use and that seem to suggest a hiatus starting in the 7th or 8th century.
Later geomorphological studies, carried out in 2014 together with the team of geologists from the University of Padua in a site situated at a considerable distance from the area currently under investigation, revealed further traces of these earth fills suggesting that they may have occupied extensive areas of land. Finally, it should be pointed out that these fills may also result from the excavation or re-engineering of canals that further defined the ‘infrastructure’ of the site.
In broader topographical terms, we should also mention the data resulting from remote sensing that has been the focus of several studies in recent times. Although this data can be interpreted in numerous ways, we would like to mention the picture drawn up in the Parsjad project report by way of example.
It is far too early to draw up a general outline also because it would be advisable to first create an ‘interpretative key’ (on the relationship between traces and buried evidence) that could finally be based on excavation data. On this occasion we are mainly concerned with pointing out the correspondence between the constant orientation of the neighbourhood north of the cathedral (and the cathedral itself) until late antiquity, as we saw from the reported excavation data, and a system of major lines that seem to concern another series of orientations present well beyond the area directly involved in the excavation.
Going back to the data resulting from the excavations, the archaeological evidence reveals that from the 5th century onwards there was continuous and progressive use of the area, which was densely inhabited and exploited for both housing and production.
In the 5th century there were buildings constructed on a base made from brick rubble, cemented with earth, and equipped with structured fireplaces; the ‘material culture’ is mainly represented by ceramics imported from North Africa and the Near East. The building fabric is continuous, and for the moment it is possible to distinguish courtyard spaces alternating with small-roomed buildings.
During the course of the 6th century there was an initial phase of production, when a neighbourhood was used for iron-working activities. Later, probably between the 6th and 7th centuries, there was a new phase of building marked by further earth fills and structures made entirely from perishable materials, probably for residential use.
Either at the end of this century or in the early 7th century, there was a major change in the use of the entire area, which was transformed into a cemetery.
Only a few hundred yards from the excavated area are the remains of the Romanesque cathedral, studied on numerous occasions during the second half of the 20th century. Prior to the construction of the cathedral, two religious buildings from the 5th and 6th centuries stood on this same site.
The little surviving evidence of the older building mainly consists of robber trenches. The traces of the sixth-century basilica are more significant and consist of geometric patterned mosaic floors with dedicatory epigraphs containing the name of the donors who funded sections of the floor (the exact floor area funded by each donor is given in feet in various mosaic panels).
The front of the sarcophagus discovered near the cathedral and dating to the 7th or possibly even 8th century belonged to a certain Antonino Tribuno, documenting the presence of a high-ranking official.
Although these finds are related to individuals with an important role in society or considerable economic resources, it is impossible to define the social structure of the community as a whole in greater detail on the basis of the archaeological record.
In fact, current studies do not allow us to go beyond the most basic and obvious level of differentiation, that is, the one based on the distinction between monumental building (coinciding with episcopal and ecclesiastic centres) and residential building, with the latter currently perceived in terms of diachronic depth, but not in terms of the different possible synchronic social analyses.
Equilo (as well as neighbouring sites like Cittanova) stands out for the remarkable quantities of imported finds present in the respective sequences. The vast quantities of African and oriental imports recovered during the excavations at Jesolo show that since late antiquity this site seems to have had a marked vocation for imports and therefore exchanges.
Although the early medieval phases are harder to identify, there were various indicators such as objects made from soapstone, early medieval amphorae, coarse earthenware from the same period as well as imported materials dating from between the 11th and 13th century. In general terms, we can affirm that, from the time of the foundation of these settlements to the early medieval period of consolidation, the component related to exchange, and therefore to a possible role as emporium, is always present.
The formation of this civic community and its development in the early medieval period was strongly influenced by these aspects, as has been repeatedly pointed out in the cases of Comacchio and Torcello.
Another key aspect is the link with production-related aspects. In Jesolo there were forges and possibly even an iron-refining site (6th and 7th century); similar traces dating to early medieval phases have also been found in Cittanova. Although possibly a rather premature conclusion, it is likely that the manufacturing activities carried out in sites like this were not merely local in scope; this evidence may be one of the typical characteristics of emporia.With regard to establishing social distinctions between the different groups making up the community on the basis of the ceramic indicator or other material elements (imports/local products), we believe that the known difficulties involved are accentuated in this type of settlement precisely because of the marked presence of allochthonous materials, which end up creating a kind of ‘background noise’. The widely and intensely diffused materials, goods and containers – many with extremely distant origins – in this siteare not the clear indicators of social differentiation that they would be in inland sites where they are present in far smaller quantities.
– The formation or reorganisation of the settlement, which may ‘boast’ traces of a Roman past, coincides with a late antique period largely limited to the 5th century. This formative phase is further accentuated by the fact that the previous Middle Imperial phase was overshadowed, poorly represented and in strong decline.
– It seems that between the 6th and 7th centuries – in other words, during the subsequent early medieval phase – the community underwent another phase of reorganisation that impacted upon several aspects, in particular upon the modification and functional redefinition of spaces. In fact, this period was marked by the creation of artisan workshops followed by a cemetery in an area that was previously residential.
– These transformations seem to be linked, directly or indirectly, to the development of major religious centres featuring elaborate architectural and monumental complexes. It seems that such undertakings ended up by modifying or by creating focal points exerting a significant influence upon the functions of the surrounding areas. The case of Jesolo is very interesting in this regard; the site of the cemetery (if we accept the suggested link with a nearby 6th-century church) seems to date to the 7th century, occupying spaces that did not seem to have a particularly elevated social status given the quality of the building work and artisan character of at least part of the neighbourhood.
– Although the maintenance of infrastructures and landscape, a constant in the lives of lagoon communities like Jesolo, can be inferred from the archaeological surveys, it is impossible to assess their scope. Given the likelihood that such work would have been carried out in a manner and according to times reflecting the discontinuous history of these towns, it is nonetheless worth making an attempt to establish the various phases involved. Geo-archaeological surveys are the only type of surveys that could broach such an attempt because they are capable of analysing the countryside in all its complexity and breadth. It is also our belief that the economic and commercial aspect of the settlement would have been closely tied to such aspects? given the type of material culture characterising Jesolo’s buildings, which are distinguished by the presence of considerable quantities of imported goods.
¬– Finally, we would like to dwell briefly on the territorial dimension of these northern Adriatic communities, which has slipped into second place in our report. Traces revealed by remote sensing, in particular the presence of various types of canal are indicative of territorial concerns that are inseparable from the urban dimension. In addition to its “aqueous” dimension, Jesolo also possesses a “land-based” dimension, linked for example to the settlement of the inland sand bars.
