Nadia Agnoli, Elisabetta Carnabuci, Giovanni Caruso, Ersila Maria Loretti, “The Mausoleum of Augustus: Recent Excavations and New Hypotheses on its Reconstruction,” eds. L. Abbondanza, F. Coarelli, E. Lo Sardo, Apoteosi. Da uomini a dei. Il Mausoleo di Adriano. Catalogo della Mostra (= Apotheosis from men to Gods. Hadrian’s Mausoleum, Catalogue of the Exhibition, Roma 2014), 214-29. English only version translation and two of four color photos by Gaius Stern (a bilingual version with both languages is also available on academia.edu) Fig. 1 Layout of the Campus Martius (I had to use Zanker instead of Coarelli, because my photo from Coarelli was blurry) The build-up of the northern Campus Martius under Augustus emblematically begins with the sepulchral monument of the emperor and his family (figs. 1, 2). In fact, the great dynastic sepulcher of Augustus was built, around 28 BC, right after the victorious outcome of the battle of Actium when Octavian was only 35 years old.    The site chosen for the construction, located at the northern edge of the Campus Martius on public property and still poorly built, offered the best conditions to carry out the grandiose urban project desired by Augustus, aimed at his glorification. Among the recent studies of the Campus Martius, see La Rocca 1984; Wiseman 1993 (with a bibliography); Coarelli 1997; Rehak 2006; Gros 2012; Albers 2013. Near contemporary historians of Augustus and Suetonius Suet. Div. Aug. 100.4. See the end for the exact quotation and translation. admired the majestic mausoleum, most of all Strabo. Strab. 5.3.8. See the end for the translation. The Mausoleum of Augustus is the largest circular tomb of the ancient world, with an overall diameter of almost 90 meters, with a presumed height of at least 45 meters; the gigantic mass, which almost equaled the peak of the nearby Pincio, was strategically located near the bank of the Tiber, so as to be visible from most of the city. Fig. 2 - The Mausoleum of Augustus, aerial view Google Earth For more than a century it preserved the function of a monumental sepulcher for the imperial family, as documented by literary sources and above all by the remarkable series of epigraphic evidence, brought to light in various periods inside it or in its immediate vicinity. In general on the Mausoleum of Augustus, see the contributions of Cordingley, Richmond 1927, pp. 23-35; Colini, Giglioli, 1926, pp.192-234; Gatti 1934, pp. 457-464; Gatti 1938, pp. 1-17; Giglioli 1930, pp. 532-567; Panciera 1991, pp. 131-152; von Hesberg, Panciera 1994; Riccomini 1996; Buchner 1996, pp. 161-168; Ortolani 2004, pp. 197-222; Virgili, Carnabuci 2012. There was no mention of the monument in late-antiquity, its next mention dates from the 10th century in a diploma of Agapitus II in 955. In fact, the church of S. Angelo de Agosto is mentioned in a cacumine, with reference to the artificial height of the remains of the Mausoleum. In the 13th century, the Colonna family built a stronghold on the mighty ruins, which was destroyed in 1241. Di Santo 2010, pp. 55-57. In the following centuries a systematic despoliation of the monument was carried out; the marble was reduced to lime by calcararii and used as building material or for various purposes; a perfect example is the reuse of the cinerary urn of Agrippina the Elder, which was placed in the Campidoglio market and used as a unit of measurement for wheat. The post-ancient transformations of the monument are widely changed, Riccomini 1996. During the 16th century the noble Florentine family Soderini, owners of the Mausoleum, built a palazzo north of the monument and set up an Italian garden decorated with ancient sculptures inside the ancient tomb. In the middle of the 18th century the palazzo and the Mausoleum became the property of the Marquise Correa, who, by means of temporary wooden structures, transformed the garden into an amphitheater, in which were held jousts and bull hunts to entertain the nobility and common people. In 1802 the amphitheater passed with other assets to the Apostolic Chamber, and in 1810 it became the first theater of prose for daytime plays. In 1873 the Correa estate passed from the Apostolic Chamber to the Kingdom of Italy; the building was used for shows of various kinds and for events, such as the banquet held in 1875 to honor Giuseppe Garibaldi. Between 1881 and 1883 Count Telfener rented the Correa and named it the Amphitheater Umberto I; since the arena was covered with a glass dome, the Public Security declared the building unusable due to lack of sufficient exit routes and the project to convert it into a theater was entirely abandoned. Sold in 1907 by the State to the Municipality of Rome and altered for safety standards by means of a new open exit at the old entrance, the Correa was transformed into a concert hall, called the Auditorium Augusteo. The concert series ended on May 13, 1936 when the demolition of the dome and the overlying structures began to restore its appearance as an imperial tomb. Riccomini 1996. In particular on the photographic documentation of the demolition, see Betti, D’Amelio, Leone, Margiotta 2012. This synthesis of the main events that affected the Mausoleum, characterized by the alternation of plundering, construction and subsequent destruction, explains the incomplete conservation of the monument. In fact, only the lower portion of the architectural volume of the Mausoleum has been preserved, corresponding to about a third of the original height, reaching such a degraded state (of non-conservation) that the very layout is still the subject of extensive and complex discussions. The condition of the monument has motivated an annual debate aimed at identifying its architectural precedent, variously traced to the tombs of Homeric Troy, Egyptian-Ptolemaic tradition, princely Etruscan tombs, or even that of Alexander the Great, which Augustus visited in Alexandria; on the other hand, it is commonly known that the imperial sepulcher became the prototype of the great circular tombs of the imperial age. On these complex issues see the citations in note 4, to be integrated with Bartoli 1927; Richard 1970; Boschung1980; Coarelli, Thébert 1988; von Hesberg, Panciera 1994; von Hesberg 1994; Toynbee 1993; Johnson 1996; von Hesberg 1996; Davies 2000; Schwarz 2002; Montanari 2009. After centuries of oblivion, in the first decades of the 1500s new attention focused on the Mausoleum of Augustus, an interest fostered in that climate of rediscovery and recovery of classical antiquity that characterizes the years of the Renaissance. Riccomini 1996. In particular, the archaeological exploration of the monument begins in the context of the urban interventions of Pope Leo X (1513-1521), who started an ambitious project to expand this part of the city, involving the whole area around ​​the Mausoleum up to via Lata and up to Porta del Popolo to the north. Leo X called upon Baldassare Fig. 3 - G.B. Piranesi (1762), sectional prospective (GFC Album 7 B39) Peruzzi and Antonio da Sangallo the Younger to build this Leonine village. They found themselves documenting all of the discoveries that gradually emerged during the works, in particular those of the year 1519, when the foundations were dug for the church of San Rocco: their drawings, their notes and their reconstructions are the starting point of the modern investigation of the monument. Bartoli 1914-22. On this occasion one of the two obelisks at the entrance to the Mausoleum was also recovered, which would not be erected for many years until 1587, by Sixtus V at the apse of Santa Maria Maggiore. D’Onofrio 1967, pp. 154-59. In the middle of the century Monsignor Francesco Soderini conducted internal excavations in order to recover ancient sculptures. In 1546 he had bought the ruins of the Mausoleum, on which he built his “ancient” garden, adorned with statues and marble with the flowerbeds that traced the layout of the building. Lanciani1990, p. 15. Following the enthusiasm for archaeology and antiquity that had included the Mausoleum in the 16th century, the monument continued to exist in its Renaissance image down to the renewed interest of 18th century to the renewed interest of 18th century explorations; in 1704, in fact, work on the arrangement of Porta di Ripetta brought about new discoveries. The 18th-century documentation shows that the structures of the monument must have been visible and measurable at the time, at least in part; thus, the engravings by Giovan Battista Piranesi (fig. 3) Piranesi 1762. are the most complete documentary source, from which Guglielmo Gatti would form the basis of future reconstructions. Gatti 1934, pp. 457-64. In the second half of the century, in the wake of the interest aroused by the 1777 discovery of the ustrinum Iulia, located at the corner of via del Corso and the church of San Carlo, Von Hesberg, Panciera 1994. new important archaeological investigations were also conducted around and inside the Mausoleum: in 1781 the second obelisk was restored and was placed in the Fontana dei Dioscuri at the Quirinale, D’Onofrio 1967, pp. 256-67. and in 1788 the new owner, the Marquis Saverio Vivaldi Armentieri, started excavations inside the Mausoleum, by then transformed into an amphitheater. The intention was to recover ancient sculptures, but also to “find the ancient plan of the Mausoleum of Augustus, without minimally damaging the ancient remains of the said factory.” Excavation license signed by the Antichità Commissioner Antonio Guattani (1788): Atti del Commissariato delle Antichità da 1788 al 1793, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Lat. 10308, pp. 24-25. Little is known about this excavation, which was perhaps not very successful, whose only documentation consists of two plates engraved with captions. Carloni 1793, Archivio Fotografico Comunale, in Virgili 1995, p.101, fig. 3. Since then, and for more than a century, there were no further investigations of the ancient structure. From 1907-08 the engineer Rebacchi performed an intervention limited to the corridor of the dromos, which allowed the recovery of the ancient access to the sepulcher. Only in 1926 did new archaeological studies begin, overseen by the fascist political program in the monument, and invasive, because they were linked to the demolitions and the Mausoleum isolation project. Angelo Maria Colini Fig. 4 – Funerary inscription of Marcellus and Octavia and Giulio Quirino Giglioli Colini, Giglioli 1930, pp. 532-567. excavated the (photo: Gaius Stern 2018) annular structure of the monument and discovered the funeral cell complex, recovering very important epigraphic documentation relating to the occupants of the sepulcher (fig. 4). All the same, these investigations concerned only the underground environment, while in the zone above ground the life of the Auditorium continued until 1934. Antonio Muñoz led the project to demolish the latter As Muñoz himself informs us, the demolition removed 120 buildings in an area of 27,000 square meters; cfr. Muñoz 1935; Muñoz 1938; De Angelis Bertolotti, Santarsieri 2003, p. 128; Cederna 1981, pp. 51, 209 ss; Vannelli 1981, pp. 287 ss.; Morganti 1999, pp.420 ss.; Bellanca2003, pp. 199 ss.; for all, see the scornful judgment given to the architecture of the Mausoleum by Colacicchi 1937, p. 170 “that from afar looked like a huge gas meter,” in counter-tendency to the decision to dismantle the Augusteo, see the article of Di San Martino 1937. For a precise reconstruction of the chronology of operations aimed at the destruction of the neighborhood and of the Augusteo cfr. Cambedda, Tolomeo 1991; Ibid. 1995; Lio1995; Riccomini 1996, pp. 191 ss.; Insolera, Sette 2003. together with the fabric of the entire, surrounding, urban plan of the 16th Fig. 5 - The Mausoleum of Augustus amid the demolition, Fig. 6 - Collapses of internal vaults (GFC s.n.). 1935-36. (GFC 16 AF 510). century (fig. 5). Spagnesi 1979; for the analysis of the numerous and complex transformations of the monument documented starting from the 12th century, see Riccomini 1996, p. 24 ss., With extensive previous bibliography. For the deterrents of the neighborhood and the Auditorium Augusteo, see Ponti1935 (on p. 235 he says “The pickaxe began the work of liberating the Mausoleum of Augustus. Let us take note of it because it marks the end of the humble, unworthy neighborhood - entanglement of small, narrow black streets - arisen only in relatively recent times.”). See the event’s celebration in Gatti 1938, p. 1. Unfortunately, he erased both the Auditorium and the powerful archaeological interior also, 10 to 14 meters deep, which had accumulated under the concert hall floor; so the possibility of analyzing the imposing structures referring to the upper floors of the sepulcher, largely preserved still in their original position of collapse, was lost (fig. 6). Nevertheless, at the end of the demolitions and excavations, carried out over only two years, from 1934-36, what remained of the august sepulcher was all too beautiful to be seen; the decoration had completely disappeared and the structures were seriously damaged. An over hasty integration of the masonry and a quick make-up tried to restore the “decayed tooth” – as the Mausoleum Cederna 1981, p. 213; Manacorda, Tamassia 1985, p. 203. was ironically known the dignity of the imperial Fig. 7 - The Mausoleum of Augustus, (photo Gaius Stern 2016) – sepulcher, recalling the arrangement of the green tumulus described by Strabo. After the inauguration, the restoration work was also interrupted for the whole war and only in 1952 was the arrangement of the area outside the monument completed, with the construction of the retaining walls and access stairs to the ancient level. The urgency of a conservation intervention and the opportunity for new cognitive investigations have finally been realized within the valorization of the area with a new systemization of the piazza and the recovery of the monument. Fig. 8 – Periodization of masonry (L. Braccalenti, E. Carnabuci, from relief Archipendolo). The Excavations 2007-10    La Sovrintendenza ai Beni Culturali di Roma Capitale (The Cultural Heritage Department of Rome the Capital) The working group consists of Giovanni Caruso (responsible for the procedure), Sebastiano La Manna (designer and director of the works), Nadia Agnoli, Elisabetta Carnabuci and Ersilia Maria Loreti (scientific direction). conducted an extensive in-depth archaeological excavation starting in September 2007, including the entire perimeter of Piazza Augusto Imperatore, covering an area of about two hectares. The archaeological investigation, completed in December 2010, concerned the Mausoleum and the area surrounding it and, for a substantial breadth and depth, the area in front (fig. 7). A first examination of the results of the excavation is in Virgili, Carnabuci 2012; Coletti, Loretic, et al. A synthesis of the research results appears below, relating to the Augustan phase of the monumental layout. Throughout the investigated sector, accurate geo-archaeological investigations were carried out with the aim of defining the environmental conditions of the area before the construction of the Mausoleum. For this long note see the end. Research uncovered a shallow depression near the course of the Tiber, originally closed in very ancient historical times by a bank built along the river. The realization of this embankment, an intervention prior to the construction of the imperial sepulcher, matches what is known about the urban development of the Campus Martius under Augustus, to whom the sources attribute the credit of having first restored the central plain and raised the river banks, to prevent repeated flooding of the city. Cfr. Suet. Div. Aug. 30.1. Sommella, Migliorati 1998, p. 75. See the end for the exact quotation and translation. Fig. 9 – Gatti’s plan for the Mausoleum, 1934. The Mausoleum    The construction of the imperial sepulcher occurred within a reclaimed area which, as shown by the results of the geo-archaeological survey, remained throughout the ancient period at a level of about 0.60-0.70 meters lower than the urban area immediately to the south. The markedly inclined course of the construction site also suggests the existence of a depression at the point where the monument was built, attributed to the work for the foundation of the sepulcher; this beaten solid, brought to light by some trenches, opened around the Mausoleum, Virgili, Carnabuci 2012, pp. 189-190. consisted of mortar mixed with marble and travertine flakes, which can be interpreted as residual processing of the blocks of the external face of the drum. The magnitude of post-ancient robberies, together with the complex and diverse architectural transformations of the monument linked to the changed destinations of use, have generated a great uncertainty over the reconstructive hypotheses, advanced from the late 1400s to the present day. Cfr. note 5. In such a compromised context, the study began with the stratigraphic analysis of all the high surviving portions, dating to a wide chronological span between the Augustan Age and the 1930s (fig. 8). In-depth surveys in sectors that presented particular Fig. 10 - Hypothetical reconstruction by von Hesberg, 1994 difficulties in interpretation supplemented the study of the walls. Furthermore, the acquired data was useful to define some aspects of the construction technique and of the planar and architectural layout of the Mausoleum. Carnabuci 2012. The plan is organized with a central cylindrical structure, around which is a series of concentric annular walls, traditionally indicated with the numbers 0 to 5 (fig. 9). The central element, inside a quadrangular layout and perhaps the sepulchral cell of the princeps, was probably the support for the bronze statue mentioned by Strabo, of which the Prima Porta Augustus is copy in marmot. Cfr. from the previous citation, Parisi Presicce 2013. The funerary chamber, bounded by wall 1 in a square work of travertine blocks, was reached through barrel-vaulted internal, annular, ambulatory walls 2 and 3. One entered the annular ambulatory through the imposing barrel- vaulted access corridor, which is covered by overlapping rows of travertine blocks, interrupting the Key: Schematic Sections ▓ Remains visible and recovered by recent excavations ░ Integral parts circumferences of the three, outermost ▒ Remains visible to G. Piraanesi Fig. 11 - Reconstructed sections, Gatti 1934. walls 3, 4 and 5. The long dromos opened to the south of the drum outside, preceded by a short staircase. In this context, the explorations conducted within the Mausoleum were of great interest, in the eastern sector comprising the annular walls 1 and 3; these investigations have shown a much more complex and articulated organization than what was proposed. So far, the interpretation of wall 2, commonly understood as a structure with an exceptional thickness of 5.70 m. and characterized by square-faced vestments of travertine blocks laid on a concrete core, Gatti 1934, pp. 460 ff. has been particularly difficult and controversial. This masonry is preserved up high only in a small and isolated section at the end of the dromos, while in the remaining circumference it can be identified only in the foundation. Due to its enormous thickness, wall 2 was commonly interpreted as the lower part of a high drum, crowned by a Doric entablature with metopes and triglyphs, which would have distorted the burial mound (fig. 10). From the previous citation, von Hesberg 1996; hence, Albers 2013, pp. 251-252, tav. 133. The excavation and analysis of these archaeological sites showed a completely different architectural arrangement; on the surface of the cement conglomerate, erroneously considered to be the foundation of the wall, large portions of the preparatory layers of mortar and travertine flakes, bearing the imprints of the floor slab, were found to be perfectly preserved. Except for the short section preserved in elevation, the preserved remains cannot be attributed to a wall, but to an annular corridor, included between the two already known ambulatories; we are therefore faced with an internal organization of the tomb that is much more complex than the one so far reconstructed, whereas the whereas the labyrinth, created by the three contiguous barrel-vaulted annular ambulatory, traces the complex paths of the funerary processions. Windfeld-Hansen1965; Ortolani 2004; Muzzioli 2006. The identification of this additional ambulatory, in all likelihood in barrel form like those adjacent, serves to exclude the existence of a height above wall 2. The cylindrical drum should therefore be located above wall 3 (fig. 11), as it seems to document the precious north-south perspective section of the Mausoleum compiled by Piranesi, which reproduces, above this wall, an apparently isolated structure indicated in the caption as “Part of a Pilastrode Corritoj.” Piranesi 1762, tav. LXII; Gatti 1934, pp. 460 ff. Ortolani 2004,pp. 203 ff.; note the accuracy of the perspective section of Piranesi, in particular in the relief of the radial septum of the second floor above the ambulatories, where the string course of the reticulate work is indicated (see infra). Further in-depth surveys were conducted within the two series of rooms delimited by walls 3, 4, and 5, where a large part of the interior origin from the Augustan age was preserved. An initial report of the results of the surveys within the subsections is in Carnabuci 2012. These walls, made in opus reticulatum, connect to masonry walls of the same building technique, arranged radially at uniform distances. The annular walls and the septa define two series of rooms, in ancient times contiguous but non-accessible; the most external rooms divide into empty compartments facing an arched circle and joined together by walls, while the 12 innermost rooms have a simpler, roughly trapezoidal plan. From the time of the excavations conducted during the Fascist regime, the functional destination of these two series of rooms, then called chambers, but more correctly defined as substructures, appeared indisputable, Giuliani 1991, p. 112. being aimed at contrasting the thrust on the front of the monument of the mighty drum and, at the same time, to harness and contain the amount of land of the mound above. The sequence of superimposed waste discharge layers coming from the construction of the monument, alternating with solid construction materials, These stratifications yielded conspicuous residual building materials and ceramics between the late Republican age and the early Augustan age, deriving from the demolition of an important building complex that was likely to rise in the area; cfr. Carnabuci 2012. has revealed a very close relationship with the adjacent high-rises, with a scan that carried out exactly the construction phases of the walls (fig. 12). It has thus been clarified that the two series of external substructures of the Mausoleum, made with very high, opus reticulatum walls entirely devoid of bridge holes and of any other traces of scaffolding, were completely underground (Fig. 13). The perimeter wall of the Mausoleum, re-proposed at the current height after the demolition of the 1930s, therefore had to present itself at a much higher level than the current one. This datum is very important for the reconstruction of the external architecture of the monument, traditionally represented by scholars with overlapping concentric annular volumes, decreasing in height towards the outside; the archaeological evidence, on the other hand, suggests proposing a mound reconstruction, surrounded on the outside by a mighty, cylindrical height. Gaius: I could not read the key that explained Fig. 12 – Stratigraphic section of the the differences of coloration in Fig. 12. substructure’s interior (on Pragma relief) The External Area The archaeological investig-ations outside the tomb were carried out to the south of the monument, while on the other sides they were limited by the structure given to the area in the 1950s. For this reason, if our knowledge of the original arrangement of the urban sector in front of the Mausoleum is quite detailed, very little is known about the definition of space on the other sides. A careful analysis of the stratification of the surviving structures Fig. 13 - External substructures: simplification of construction methods showed that the arrangement of the southern area was completed in (L. Braccalenti Design). several phases, to be interpreted as different stages of realization of a unitary and well-defined project (fig. 14) and not as a succession of additions and second thoughts. Originally there was no pavement and the ground level around the monument must have matched that of the first step of the access stairway, 10.25 m above sea level, on whose sides were two foundations in cement conglomerate, which supported a row of travertine blocks, level with the first step. The hypothesis of Gatti (1938, pp. 8-10), which fixed most of the Augustan plan 9.26 m above sea level. Virgili 2012, pp. 187-188, nt. 30. On the occasion of the recent investigations, the foundation located east of the stairway, 2.65 m wide and at least as long, was partially brought to light and documented in correspondence with the dump for the lining blocks of the Mausoleum. An analogous structure located to the west was investigated in 1996 by Buchner, according to whom the two foundations would refer to architectural elements supporting the bronze plates of the Res Gestae. Buchner 1996, pp. 167-168. These foundations have recently been attributed to architectural elements attributable to a forepart with a functional access to the monumental sepulcher. Virgili 2012, pp. 187-188. The paving in travertine slabs was put in place later; it obliterates, in fact, the two lower steps of the access ladder Fig. 14 - Reconstruction of the Augustan and to the dromos and, in part, the rows of blocks of the two, imperial structure (re-vision of Pragma relief) lateral foundations. Buchner 1996, pp. 161-168. The excavation has yielded a large section of the paving, already partially identified in the 1950s, CAR, p. 99, nn. 92-93, tav. II D. and it has allowed us to establish that it extended exclusively in front of the Mausoleum approximately 33 m. in the east-west direction; the southern limit has also been determined, along which it is cut from the edge of a sewer, also with an east-west course, built at a later time. The laying of the pavement, slightly sloping towards the monument, brought the floor to the level of 10.52-10.60 m. above sea level. The excavation did not provide any useful information to date the paving, generally attributed by scholars to the Flavian era. Haselberger 1994 proposes dating it to the time of Domitian. See Virgili 2012, p. 187. On the surface of numerous slabs are depictions of architectural elements; L. Haselberger interpreted analogous graffiti, found on the paved portion brought to light in the 1950s, as construction site site drawings for the working of the marble of the Pantheon. Haselberger 1994. The set of graffiti is the subject of a new study by Ersilia Maria Loreti. Recent investigations have led to the discovery of the foundations of the two obelisks that flanked the Mausoleum, placed there by one of the emperors after Augustus, according to Ammianus Marcellinus. Amm. 17.12-6. Having established the exact position of the spiers, variously placed in the past by antiquarians and scholars, constitutes an important element of novelty. Note that they are placed at different distances from the axis of the dromos: the western obelisk is placed at a distance of 36 m, the eastern at a distance of 39 m (fig. 10). Virgili 2012, pp.185-186. The conglomerate of the foundations preserves Fig. 15 - Forma Urbis Romae of Lanciani the surface remains of paving slabs placed around the bases of the obelisks; with their thickness the plan had to reach a height similar to that of the paved square. In correspondence with the difference in height between the pavement in front of the monument and the area immediately to the south at the highest level, the pavement is partially cut to create an east-west moving conduit, which ran from the via Lata towards the Tiber. The duct, probably dating from the end of the 1st to the first half of the 2nd century AD, was presumably connected to the water collection network of the monumental area. In this sector the excavation has provided useful elements to understand the connection between the space surrounding the tomb and the external road layout. Along the sewer route the archaeological evidences have not confirmed the existence of the paved road reproduced by Rodolfo Lanciani in plate 8 of Forma Urbis Romae (fig. 15) coinciding with the sections in which the duct was seen by Baldassarre Peruzzi, near S. Rocco, and by Pietro Narducci, under S. Carlo. Lanciani1893-1901, tav. 8; Buonocore 1997, Vat. Lat 13040, 252 R. IX. Baldassarre Peruzzi did not represent such a road in his design of the aqueduct (fig. 16), nor did Narducci describe it in his report on the exploration of the sewers. Lanciani1882, pp. 154-155, drawing by Baldassarre Peruzzi, file 394. Narducci 1889, p. 15. The natural connection of the sewer network with the road network leads however to hypothesize the existence of a road link between via Lata and the Tiber, coinciding with the route of the conduit. The road axis in question was based on the Renaissance via degli Schiavoni until the 1930s. On the collector and the problems connected to the viability see the study in press of Coletti, Loreti. This hypothesis can be confirmed in the analysis of the archaeological evidence emerged immediately south of the sewer, where interesting clues lead us to reconstruct a strip of pavement in travertine slabs, placed in line with the access to the sepulcher and bounded on the south by inconglomerated foundations and travertine blocks, referable to a monumental structure. The structure is being studied by Nadia Agnoli and Elisabetta Carnabuci; for a first reading, see Paola Virgili, in Virgili 2012, p. 189, note 37. From this paved floor (11.21 m), extending east-west for about 14 meters and in a north-south direction for about 13 meters to cover the sewer, it was possible to go down a few steps into the area in front of the Mausoleum (about 10.60 meters above sea level); to the east and west of the pavement the floor was made up of a surface beaten in part with the marked level of the structure which we have mentioned. We are not, therefore, in the presence of a paved road, but of a path that seems to have been paved only in correspondence with the front of the imperial tomb. Baldassarre Peruzzi’s design once again creates considerable interest in the attempt to reconstruct the organization of the space and the paved passages of the Mausoleum and external viability. The conduit’s section represented the continuation towards the west of the one found during the recent investigations and, it should be emphasized, the existence of the paving in this sector is not documented; along the northern edge of the sewer, two cippi can be seen, inserted in the masonry, certainly pertinent to an arrangement with barriers, or chains, having the function of delimiting the axis of travel so as to prevent the descent into the area of the Mausoleum. Therefore, the definition of the access Fig. 16 - Baldassarre Peruzzi, scheda 394 clearly results from the south to the relevant area of the Mausoleum: from the east-west road axis plan, the passage in the tract in correspondence with the entrance to the sepulcher, where the connection was acquired through steps of some height with the large paved area; to the west and east of this axis the presence of small pillars and barriers limited the path and prevented descent. The presence of the pillars, and consequently of the barriers, can be proposed by analogy also along the section of collector not excavated eastwards. Based on a still incomplete documentation, Paola Virgili accepted the hypothesis of the existence of an axis of connection between the Pantheon and the Mausoleum (Virgili 2012). The question may be taken elsewhere, based on recent discoveries and the relief of the paved area. One must note that Bartoli had interpreted the cippi, which Peruzzi reproduced, as belonging to the enclosure of the locus sepulchri, the square sepulchral area of 120 meters on each side, Muñoz 1938, pp. 491-508. and in reality, to the north of the Mausoleum and very close by, one or more buildings of unclear designation were already present in the 1st century AD. Therefore, on the basis of our knowledge, it can be stated that while in the north there was no provision for limiting the area pertaining to the tomb, to the south it is bounded along the route of the road axis and the underlying conduit. The Restoration and Enhancement Project The Mausoleum of Augustus stands today isolated in the center of Piazza Augusto Imperatore as a result of the never completed design of Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo (1937-40). Due to the isolation and the height difference with respect to the city plan, the monument is forced into an unfortunate position of extraneousness within the urban context. Roma Capitale, while accommodating and developing the Trident area, held an international competition in 2006 for a new systematization of Piazza Augusto Imperatore. The common goals of all proposals were the redevelopment of the piazza and the recovery of the monument. The winning project, Urbs et Civitas, developed by the group led by the architect Francesco Cellini (fig. 17), proposes the creation of a green square, which surrounds the monument on the level of the modern city. Two ramps, descending behind the churches of S. Carlo and S. Rocco, reach the level of the Roman city, in the paved area in front of the entrance to the Mausoleum, creating a large pedestrian area, destined to enhance the imposing architecture of the sepulcher. To verify the feasibility of the hypothetical project, preliminary archaeological investigations have been conducted, here illustrated, throughout the area of the square, with the aim of acquiring information useful for the preparation of the final project. The excavation brought a new knowledge of the monument’s exterior, at the same time substantially revising the Mausoleum’s image compared to that proposed by the conservative, reconstructive interventions of the 1930s, which remained unfinished with the arrival of WW II. This circumstance resulted in a slow and inexorable deterioration of the walls, in consideration of which the Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali (Capitoline Superintendency for Cultural Heritage) has drawn up a conservative restoration Fig. 17 - Piazza Augusto Imperatore, per Urbs et Civitas (http://www.06blog.it) and enhancement project. The aim of the works is to make the building visible and accessible again, ensuring adequate safety conditions for re-opening to the public, who could thus travel around the interior, for which a re-use for future exhibitions is foreseen. The restoration work will also offer a valuable and indispensable opportunity for study and documentation of the Mausoleum, which appears as an exemplary palimpsest (a reused object whose original use can be recognized) of unbroken monumental stratifications, still largely recognizable, despite the radical demolitions carried out by the project under Antonio Muñoz for the government. Bartoli 1927, pp. 44-45; hence Albers 2013, pp. 110-12, fig. 48. Long notes: 2Suet. Div. Aug. 100.4: Nec defuit vir praetorius, qui se effigiem cremati euntem in caelum vidisse iuraret. Reliquias legerunt primores equestris ordinis tunicati et discincti pedibusque nudis ac Mausoleo condiderunt. Id opus inter Flaminiam viam ripamque Tiberis sexto suo consulatu exstruxerat circumiectasque silvas et ambulationes in usum populi iam tum publicarat. (transl. Gaius Stern) … they buried (his remains) in the Mausoleum. Augustus had built that building between the via Flaminia and the banks of the Tiber during his sixth consulship (28 BC) and then opened its woods and walkways for the use of the people. 3Strab. 5.3.8 (Loeb translation with Gaius’s small modifications): Indeed, the remarkable size of the Campus Martius affords space at the same time and without interference, not only for the chariot-races and every other equestrian exercise, but also for all the multitude of people who exercise by playing ball and hoops and wrestling; and the works of art situated around the Campus Martius, and the ground, which is covered with grass throughout the year, and the crowns of those hills that are above the river and extend as far as its bed, which present to the eye the appearance of a stage-painting — all this, I say, affords a spectacle that one can hardly resist. And near this campus is another campus, with colonnades around it in very great numbers, and sacred precincts, and three theatres, an amphitheatre, and very costly temples, in close succession to one another, giving you the impression as if they are trying to declare the rest of the city a mere accessory. For this reason, in the belief that this place was holiest of all, the Romans have erected on it the tombs of their most illustrious men and women. The most noteworthy is what is called the Mausoleum, a great mound near the river on a lofty foundation of white marble, thickly covered with ever-green trees to the very summit. Now on top is a bronze statue of Augustus Caesar; beneath the mound are his own tomb and those of his kinsmen and closest friends; behind the mound is a large sacred precinct with wonderful promenades … . 25Antonia Arnoldus-Huyzendveld conducted investigations in 2011 considering 15 sections exposed during the recent excavations and the cores of 19 surveys, carried out in the area by ENNEBIEFFE s.r.l. in 2010-2011. The study also took the results of the sampling of the 17 surveys carried out in the context of research conducted in 1996 in the Mausoleum by Buchner (Buchner 1996, pp. 161-168). The data acquired was integrated with the information in the 1998 report produced by Soc. Sogea, based on the 8 core samples taken before work for the construction of the new Ara Pacis Museum. For the reconstruction of the ancient hydrographic network of the northern Campus Martius, see Corazza, Lombardi 2005, pp. 177-211. 26 Cfr. Suet. Div. Aug. 30.1: ...ad coercendas inundationes alveum Tiberis laxavit ac repurgavit, completum olim ruderibus et aedificiorum prolationibus coartatum. (transl. Gaius Stern) He widened and removed junk from the bed of the Tiber River to prevent floods, which previously had been filled with debris and projections of buildings imposing into it. Bibliografia An American will find the original format of this bibliography confusing due to unfamiliar usage of abbreviations and italics, for example both journals and articles appear in italics not journal and “article name.” Also commas appear not where we expect (sometimes between abbreviated title and edition of the journal, etc.). I reformatted the bibliography and undid all-capital letters for authors alongside other small fixes. Albers 2013 = J. Albers, Campus Martius. Die urbane Entwicklung der Marsfeldes von der Republik bis zur mittleren Kaiserzeit, (Wiesbaden 2013). Bartoli 1914-22 = A. Bartoli, I monumenti antichi di Roma nei disegni degli Uffizi di Firenze, (6 vol., Roma 1914-1922). Bartoli 1927 = A. Bartoli, “L’architettura del Mausoleo di Augusto,” BA 21, (1927), 30-46. Bellanca2003 = C. Bellanca, Antonio Muñoz: la politica di tutela dei monumenti di Roma durante il Governatorato, in BullCom, Suppl. 10, (Roma 2003). Betti, D’Amelio, Leone, Margiotta 2012 = F. Betti, A. D’Amelio, R. Leone, A. Margiotta, Mausoleo di Augusto, Demolizioni e scavi. Fotografie, 1935-1942 (Napoli 2012). Boschung1980 = D. Boschung, “Tumulus Iuliorum, Mausoleum Augusti. Ein Beitrag zu seinen Sinnbezügen,” HASB 6 (1980), 38-41. Buchner 1976 = E. Buchner, Solarium Augusti und Ara Pacis, in Röm. Mitt. 83 (1976), 319-65. Buchner 1996 = E. Buchner, “Ein Kanal für Obelisken. Neues vom Mausoleum des Augustus in Rom,” Antike Welt 27 (1996), 161-68. Buonocore 1997 = M. Buonocore, Appunti di topografia romana nei codici Lanciani della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 3. Codici Vaticani Latini 13039, 13040, 13041, 13042, 13043, 15224 (Roma 1997). Cambedda, Tolomeo 1991 = A. Cambedda, M.G. Tolomeo, Una trasformazione urbana: piazza Augusto Imperatore a Roma (Roma 1991). Cambedda, Tolomeo 1995 = A. Cambedda, M.G. Tolomeo, L’apparatodecorativo di piazza Augusto Imperatore, ed. L. Cardilli, Gli anni del Governatorato (1926-1944) (Roma 1995), 157-60. CAR = Carta archeologica di Roma (Firenze 1965). Carnabuci 2012 = E. Carnabuci, “Gli scavi nelle substructiones del Mausoleo di Augusto: considerazioni sulle dinamiche costruttive e sugli elevati del tamburo esterno,” eds. Virgili, Carnabuci (2012), 192-201. Cederna 1981 = A. Cederna, Mussolini urbanista. Lo sventramento di Roma negli anni del consenso (Roma 1981). Coarelli 1997 = F. Coarelli, Il Campo Marzio. Dalle origini alla fine della Repubblica (Roma 1997). Coarelli, Thébert 1988 = F. Coarelli, Y. Thébert, “Architecture funéraire et pouvoir: réflexions sur l’hellénisme numide,” MEFRA 100.2 (1988), 761-818. Colacicchi 1937 = L. Colacicchi, “L’Augusteo scuola musicale dei Romani,” Capitolium 13 (1937), 170-80. Coletti, Loretic.s.= C.M. Coletti, E.M. Loreti, “Il Chiavicone di Schiavonia,” Atti del Convegno La Cloaca Massima e sistemi fognari di Roma dall’antichità a oggi, c.s. Colini, Giglioli 1926 = A.M. Colini, G.Q. Giglioli, “Relazione della prima campagna di scavo nel Mausoleo di Augusto,” Bull.Com. 54 (1926), 192-234. Colini, Giglioli 1930 = A.M. Colini, G.Q. Giglioli, “Relazione della prima campagna di scavo nel mausoleo di Augusto. Estate-Autunno 1926,” Capitolium 6 (1930), 532-67. Corazza, Lombardi 2005 = A. Corazza, L. Lombardi, “Idrogeologia dell’area del centro storico di Roma,” in R. Funiciello, La Geologia di Roma. Il Centro Storico, in Mem. Descr. Carta Geol. It., 50, (2005), 177-211. Cordingley, Richmond 1927 = R.A. Cordingley, I.A. Richmond, “The Mausoleum of Augustus,” PBSR 10 (1927), 23-35. Davies 2000 = P.J.E. Davies, Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge, New York 2000). De Angelis Bertolotti, Santarsieri 2003 = R. De Angelis Bertolotti, P. Santarsieri, Roma. I Teatri della Musica, dal Tordinona all’Auditorio (Roma 2003), 115-33. Di San Martino 1937 = E. Di San Martino, “I concerti sinfonici all’Augusteo. Origine e storia dell’istituzione,” Capitolium 13 (1937), 159-69. Di SanTO 2010=A. di Santo, Monumenti antichi, fortezze medievali.Il riutilizzo degli antichi monumenti nell’edilizia aristocratica di Roma (VIII-XIV secolo) (Roma 2010), 55-57. D’Onofrio 1967 = C. D’Onofrio, Gli obelischi di Roma (Roma 1967). Gatti 1934 = G. Gatti, “Il mausoleo di Augusto. Studio di ricostruzione,” Capitolium 10 (1934). Gatti 1938 = G. Gatti, “Nuove osservazioni sul Mausoleo di Augusto,” L’Urbe 8 (1938), 1-17. Giglioli 1930 = G.Q. Giglioli, “Il sepolcreto imperiale,” Capitolium 6 (1930), 532-67. Giuliani 1991 = C.F. Giuliani, L’edilizia nell’antichità (Roma 1991). GROS 2012 = P. Gros, “Le Champ de Mars augustéen: continuité et rupture par rapport aux projets césariens,” ed. Y. Rivière, Des réformes augustéennes (Roma 2012), 225-46. Haselberger 1994 = L. Haselberger, “Ein Giebelriss der Vorhalle des Pantheon. Die Werkrisse vor dem Augustusmausoleum,” Röm. Mitt. 101 (1994), 279-308. Von Hesberg 1994 = H. von Hesberg, Monumenta: I sepolcri romani e la loro architettura (Milano 1994). Von Hesberg 1996 = H. von Hesberg, in ed. E.M. Steinby, Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae III (Roma 1996), see under “Mausoleum Augusti: das Monument,” 234-37. Von Hesberg, Panciera 1994 = H. von Hesberg, S. Panciera, “Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften,” Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-Historische Klasse, Suppl.108, (München 1994). Insolera, Sette 2003 = I. Insolera, A. Sette, Dall’Augusteo all’Auditorium, Catalogo della Mostra, (Roma 2003) Johnson 1996 = M.J. Johnson, “The Mausoleum of Augustus. Etruscan and Other Influences on Its Design,” in ed. J.F. Hall, Etruscan Italy. Etruscan influences on the Civilization of Italy from Antiquity to the Modern Era (Provo Utah 1996), 216-39. Lanciani 1882 = R. Lanciani, “Supplementi al vol. VI del Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,” Bull.Com. 10 (1882), 154-55, tavv. XVI- XVII. Lanciani 1893-1901= R. Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae (Milano 1893-1901). Lanciani 1990 = R. Lanciani, Storia degli scavi di Roma e notizie intornole collezioni romane di antichità II, Roma 1990 (ed. orig. 1902-1912). La Rocca 1984 = E. La Rocca, La riva a mezzaluna. Culti, agoni, monumenti funerari presso il Tevere nel Campo Marzio occidentale (Roma 1984). Lio 1995 = A. Lio, “L’Arciconfraternita di S. Rocco e la sistemazione del piazzale di accesso all’Augusteo,” ed. L. Cardilli, Gli anni del Governatorato (1926-1944), (Roma 1995), 105-08. Manacorda, Tamassia 1985 = D. Manacorda, R. Tamassia, Il piccone del regime, Roma 1985. Montanari 2009 = P. Montanari, Sepolcri circolari di Roma e suburbio. Elementi architettonici dell’elevato, (Pisa, Roma 2009). Morganti 1999 = G. Morganti, “L’impiego del materiale vegetale nel re-stauro dei monumenti antichi,” ed. V. Cazzato, La memoria,il tempo, la storia nel giardino italiano fra ‘800 e ‘900 (Roma 1999), 409-530. Muñoz 1935 = A. Muñoz, “La sistemazione del Mausoleo di Augusto,” Capitolium 11 (1935), 251-55. Muñoz 1938 = A. Muñoz, “La sistemazione del Mausoleo di Augusto,” Capitolium 13 (Oct. 1938), 491-508. Muzzioli 2006 = M. P. Muzzioli, Topos labyrinthos, in Aeimnestos. Miscellanea di studi per Mauro Cristofani II (Firenze 2006), 817-21. Narducci 1889 = P. Narducci, Sulla fognatura della città di Roma. Descrizione tecnica (Roma 1889). Ortolani 2004 = O. Ortolani, “Ipotesi sulla struttura originaria del Mausoleo di Augusto,” Bull. Com. 105 (2004), 197-222. Panciera 1991 = S. Panciera, “Gli elogia del Mausoleo di Augusto,” Epigrafia. Actes du colloque international d’epigraphie latine en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi pour le centenaire de sa naissance. Actes du colloquede Rome (27-28 mai 1988), (Rome 1991), 131-52. Parisi Presicce2013 = C. Parisi Presicce, “Arte, imprese e propaganda. L’Augusto di Prima Porta 150 anni dopo la scoperta,” AA.VV., Augusto, Catalogo della Mostra, Roma 18 ottobre 2013 - 9 febbraio 2014 (Roma 2013), 118-29. Piranesi 1762 = G.B. Piranesi, Il Campo Marzio dell’antica Roma (Roma 1762). Ponti1935 = E. Ponti, “Come sorse e come scompare il quartiere attornoal Mausoleo di Augusto,” Capitolium 11 (1935), 235-50. Rehak 2006 = P. Rehak, Imperium and Cosmos. Augustus in the Northern Campus Martius (Madison, Wisconsin 2006). Riccomini 1996 = A.M. Riccomini, La ruina di sì bella cosa. Vicende e trasformazioni del Mausoleo di Augusto (Milano 1996). Richard 1970 = J.-Cl. Richard, “Mausoleum”: D’Halicarnasse à Rome puis à Alexandrie,” Latomus 29 (1970), 370-88. Schwarz 2002 = M. Schwarz, “Tumulat Italia Tellus. Gestaltung, Chronologie und Bedeutung der Römischen Rundgräber,” Italien (Internationale Archäologie 72), Rahden/Westf 2002. Sommella, Migliorati 1998 = P. Sommella, L. Migliorati, “Corso Vittorio Emanuele II. Storia di una stratificazione urbanistica areale: il periodo antico,” ed. M.G. Cimino, M. Nota Santi, O. Rossini, Corso Vittorio Emanuele II tra urbanistica e archeologia. Storia di uno sventramento, Catalogo della Mostra, Roma, Museo Barracco, 6 febbraio - 29 marzo 1998 (Napoli 1998), 75-120. Spagnesi 1979 = G. Spagnesi, Il centro storico di Roma. Rione Campo Marzio (Roma 1979). Toynbee 1993 = J.M.C. Toynbee, Morte e sepoltura nel mondo romano (Roma 1993). Vannelli 1981 = V. Vannelli, Economia dell’architettura in Roma Fascista (Roma 1981). Virgili 1995 = P. Virgili, “I lavori al Mausoleo di Augusto,” in ed. L. Cardilli, Gli anni del Governatorato (1926-1944), (Roma 1995), 99-104. Virgili 2012 = P. Virgili, “Le indagini nella piazza,” in Virgili, Carnabuci (2012), 181-92. Virgili, Carnabuci 2012 = P. Virgili, E. Carnabuci, “Mausoleo di Augusto: nuovi dati per la lettura della pianta, degli elevati e delle tecniche costruttive. Le indagini archeologiche,” in eds. S. Camporeale, H. Dessales, A. Pizzo, Arqueología de la construcción III. Los procesos constructivos en el mundo romano: la economía de las obras, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, 10-11 de dicembre de 2009, Madrid-Mérida 2012, pp. 181-201. Windfeld-Hansen1965 = H. Windfeld-Hansen, “Les couloirs annulaires dans l’architecture funerarie antique,” Acta ad archaeologiam et atrium historiam pertinentia II (1965), 35-63. Wiseman 1993 = T.P. Wiseman in LTUR I, 1993 (see under “Campus Martius”), 220-24 (with preceding bibliography).