Abstract :
[en] The history of the archaeology of Ostia Antica is dominated by the massive, hurried excavations carried out in the years 1938-41 in anticipation of the Universal Exhibition in Rome, and by the paucity of documentation related to this period. By contrast, if we examine the Ostian archives of excavations from the first two decades of the 20th century, we can uncover documentation of exceptional quality. This period begins with Vaglieri's arrival as director of excavations and continues through Calza’s appointment to that same position. These archives consist of "the most accurate" excavation journals and fortnightly reports compiled by the soprastante Finelli, plans and sections executed by draughtsmen Gatti and Gismondi, and photographs taken by the scientific staff of the Excavation Office. Unfortunately, these archives have been overlooked by many archaeologists.
The documents in question are dispersed throughout the various archives of the Archaeological Park of Ostia Antica (the Historical Archives, the Photographic Archives and the Drawing Archives), so that the scholar who studies them must reconnect the missing links between them. The archaeological and epigraphic evidence was published at the time of the excavations, but in a partial way, so that many of the discoveries and results remain unknown to this day. Although these archival materials present invaluable resources for the modern archaeologist, they cannot be studied without critical evaluation. The present contribution focuses on two key aspects of this critical approach:
(a) The historical context in which the excavations and documentation were carried out. Over the course of twenty years, the quality of the documentation fluctuates with current events. Archaeologists usually believe that the passing of Dante Vaglieri in December 1913 marked a turning point in the way that the excavation was documented. The situation turns out to be more complex in light of the larger historical context. Two events were as important as Vaglieri's death in determining the course of the archaeological excavations at the mouth of the Tiber: the outbreak of World War I and the construction of Ostia Nuova (modern Lido di Ostia). By comparing the excavation journals with the correspondence preserved in various Roman archives (Central State Archives, State Archives of Rome, Capitoline Historical Archives) it appears that these other events also had real consequences on the excavation and the documentation;
(b) the data delivered in excavation journals: descriptions, personal observations, publications. Despite the quality of the documentation in question, the scientific criteria of the time do not correspond at all to those of today. I will focus on the excavation journals written by Finelli, which represent an indispensable source. I will first define the distinction between descriptions and personal observations, which do not have the same value for today's archaeologist. Next, I will show the importance for him of reconstructing the links between written and visual documentation (drawings and photos). Finally, I will compare excerpts from the unpublished excavation journals with excerpts from the published notes in Notizie degli Scavi in order to highlight the existence of discrepancies between documentation and publication. To illustrate this second point, I will present a case study from my doctoral thesis, which is currently being published: the eastern section of the decumanus. This example highlights the contribution and limitations of the documentation under consideration, as well as the need to study and publish all available evidence.
