The Spread of the Roman Domus-Type in Gaul 9781407307640, 9781407337579

Citation preview

BAR S2206 2011

The Spread of the Roman Domus-Type in Gaul

TIMÁR THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS-TYPE IN GAUL

B A R Timar 2206 cover.indd 1

Lőrinc Timár

BAR International Series 2206 2011

10/03/2011 13:52:24

The Spread of the Roman Domus-Type in Gaul

LĘrinc Timár

BAR International Series 2206 2011

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2206 The Spread of the Roman Domus-Type in Gaul © L Timár and the Publisher 2011 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407307640 paperback ISBN 9781407337579 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407307640 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2011. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................2 Chapter 2 Survey of Antecedents ......................................................................................................................................10 Chapter 3 Floor Plans........................................................................................................................................................20 Chapter 4 The Building Types ..........................................................................................................................................27 Chapter 5 Statistical Analyses ..........................................................................................................................................37 Chapter 6 Comparison with the Residential Houses of Pom ...........................................................................................41 Chapter 7 Mouldings ........................................................................................................................................................47 Chapter 8 Interpretation of the Remains ..........................................................................................................................53 Chapter 9 Summary .........................................................................................................................................................57 Catalogue .........................................................................................................................................................................65 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................................................115

i

Foreword This book is based on my doctoral thesis which was finished and submitted to the Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest in November 2008. Since then some new data has been collected and added into the text but the catalogue remained unchanged. All the images have been drawn by myself with the exception of some ground plans in order to arrange a uniform appearance that allows an easy comparison. I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Miklós Szabó MHAS, who guided my thesis and helped me to improve my knowledge on archaeology. As a member of his Research Group for Interdisciplinary Archaeology I also owe him many thanks for his patience. Thanks are also due to my examiners, Professor László Török CMHAS and Dénes Gabler DSc, who were also of great help with their valuable criticism, but all errors are of course my own. I owe special thanks to Vincent Guichard, director of the European Archaeological Centre of Bibracte for his practical help and to David Davison for his work in bringing this volume to publication. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and tolerance. Lőrinc Timár Hungarian Academy of Sciences Eötvös Loránd University: Research Group for Interdisciplinary Archaeology / MTA-ELTE Interdiszciplináris Régészeti Kutatócsoport Múzeum krt. 4/B 1088 Budapest Hungary

the publication of the first comprehensive works.3 The earliest publication that can be used was the book of F. Mazois (Les Ruines de Pompéi vols. I–IV, Paris, 1824–38), which contained a number of observations that pertained to buildings destroyed since or over-restored. When surveying the history of research it is worth dwelling on one of F. Mazois’s work which can be considered today as a piece for the dissemination of knowledge. The book of an extensive title (Le palais de Scaurus ou description d’une Maison romaine – fragment d’un voyage de Mérovir à Rome vers la fin de la République)4 is in fact a fictitious epistolary novel written on the basis of sources from Antiquity and of the early excavations in Pompeii, but the scientific bases of the work can be followed with the help of its footnotes.5 It is presented in brief within the framework of the present study because its subject, the remains of the Roman residential house could be recently excavated.6

Chapter 1 Introduction The aim of this study is to process a group of problems related to the building of residential houses in Roman Age Gaul. First of all some basic issues are to be clarified by way of introduction. When we refer to Gaul it is primarily the territory of Tres Galliae but since the word is also used for the present territory of France in the French archaeological literature, therefore both geographic definitions would be valid. The limitations in time, the reasons to be detailed later on, are the first century BC and the second part of the first century AD. As we expressly wish to survey the spread of this type of house, namely the Roman domus type, we stop at the point where its spread ended and would deal with later building periods only to the extent deemed necessary. Chronologically it would have been expedient to draw the borderline in the Flavian age because a comparison to buildings in Pompeii is ensured up to that time, but we would cross that borderline occasionally whenever it is necessary to understanding a certain architectural detail.

We have taken only one example from the book: the comparison of the floor plan drawings by Mazois (Figure 1) and the floor plans of the excavations (Figure 2) is highly informative. Though Mazois could more or less determine the actual place of the domus Aemilii Scauri, moreover, he had ideas about the shape of the insula that approximated reality,7 yet the house reconstructed by him is entirely different from the one excavated. The floor plans

The houses of Gaul were summarised in the Catalogue of buildings and their most important features are indicated in the Table 1. Reference will be made to the houses under the entry numbers given in the Catalogue in the text wherever it is possible, but we would give their full name as well. Where there are no measurements there sure enough metre and square metre should be understood. Generally no translation for the name of the houses is given in order to facilitate checking about them in French literature. 1. An Overview on the History of Research The first phase of the research into the Gallo-Roman urban and residential house architecture is characterised by unsystematic excavations and collecting which was complemented by the observations made during the demolition of buildings and fortifications in the 17th to 19th centuries. Nicholas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580–1637) of Aix-en-Province was a characteristic figure of that period whose universal interest extended also over the history of the city he lived in besides archaeological artefacts and as a result he had significant collecting activities as well.1 The beginnings of a systematic research into the architecture of Roman houses should be sought for in the second half of the 18th century. Scholarly interest was awakened in Roman buildings already in the 16th century, in the wake of the rediscovery of the work of Vitruvius and its publication in print (around 1487 for the first time2); but the decisive stages were the rediscovery of Pompeii (1748), the beginning of regular excavations (1756) and

Figure 1: Ground plan of the domus Aemilii Scaurii by Mazois (Mazois 1869, Pl. 2) Early history of research in Pompeii: Overbeck, Mau 1884, Chapter 4. Published for the first time in 1819, here we use the fourth edition of 1869. 5 Mazois referred to his own observations in Pompeii, see below. 6 Gros 2001 p. 75. The house is located next to the Via Sacra, below the Mons Palatinus, and Pliny’s description tells us that it was sold for 14,800,000 sestertii in 52 BC. (NH XXXVI, 1). 7 Cf. Mazois 1869, p. 18, footnote 3. 3 4

Atlas 1996 p. 9–12, the publication of his work: Nicolas Claude Fabri de Peiresc – Histoire abrégée de Provence, édité par Archives du Sud, Aubanel, 1982. 2 Fensterbusch 1991 p.13. 1

2

INTRODUCTION

2.

1. 0

20

Figure 2: The lower level of the domus Aemilii Scaurii with the ergastulum (1) and the atrium on the level above the ergastulum (2), after Gros 2001, p. 75, fig. 64 and 65

Figure 3: Roman Age and present road network of Senlis, after Bedon et al. 1988 p. 7

The next milestone in the history of excavations in Pompeii was the appointment of G. Fiorelli to head the excavations in 1861, as a result of which scientific conditions of excavations were created at least on the standard of the age. The outcome of that period was the book by J. Overbeck published four times13 which proved to be a work impossible to avoid as other data were not available. The activities of A. Mau should also be mentioned among the comprehensive works on architecture,14 who also laid down the foundations of the periodisation of painting in Pompeii.15 The activities of A. Maiuri started from the first part of the 20th century who did not only excavate new buildings during his long inspectorate,16 but he also tried to deal with archaeological problems that were becoming visible.

of the excavation correspond to parts F and I of the floor plan of Mazois. In reality the ergastulum marked by I was located in the basement8 and constituted the substructure of the atrium marked by F. The floor plan of the atrium given by Mazois resembles to the original, but the ergastulum significantly differs from the actual one. This comparison reflects well the difficulties that accompany reconstructions based on descriptions of Antiquity. On this basis the difficulties can be gauged one had to face in the initial phase of research into the architecture of residential houses. Parallel to the Italian researches, excavations were in progress in France as well: from 1821 on regular excavations were conducted on the territory of Alba,9 in the first part of the 1840s E. Rouard excavated the houses of Aix-en-Province on extensive surfaces,10 but at the time of the oldest excavations documentation was not at all made or was lost11 and part of the publications is expressly misleading. It is characteristic that in an article written by A. Février in 197312 he referred to a lot of antique sources and to relatively few publications of excavations. There is usually little opportunity for control excavations because the early ones were rather destructive, in addition there are rare cases of Roman Age settlements that have not been inhabited continuously since the Roman Age. The building of the medieval and modern urban centres is often the organic continuation of the ones of the Roman times which means that no excavations can be conducted without the demolition of buildings (Figure 3).

The collection of decorative elements was an important stage of research in Pompeii,17 as well as the clarification of the floor plan of the city and the assembly of its maps,18 further on the survey of individual residential homes and their categorisation19 and publication in the series of Häuser in Pompeji. As these surveys are extremely detailed and time-consuming, at first buildings that were important for some reason were processed.20 Parallel to it modern architectural summaries were also made, of which the books of L. Richardson,21 J.-A. Dickmann22 and F. Pirson23 should be mentioned. The two latter works are indispensable to any further research: they represent the summary of all the relevant antecedents. After earlier attempts the sociological aspects of the construction of

An extreme example of continuity is the courtyard of the Archevêché of Aix-en-Provence the function of which has been unchanged since the Roman Age: originally it was the central (presumably uncovered) premise of a domus. During the centuries since that time the building system of the insula survived (Figure 4).

The most detailed edition: Overbeck, Mau 1884 Mau 1908 15 Mau 1882 16 Eg. the Villa dei Misteri or the Casa del Menandro, cf. Maiuri 1931 and Maiuri 1933 17 Pernice 1938 18 Corpus Topographicum Pompeianum, II-V, 1979–84 and the map in Eschebach 1993 19 Eschebach 1970 and Eschebach 1993 20 A precise documentation of the houses is a basic issue of research in Pompeii and Herculaneum and recently attempts are made to solve it with the help of GIS: see Varone 2005. 21 Richardson 1988 22 Dickmann 1999 23 Pirson 1999 13 14

Mazois placed the ergastulum next to the kitchen and the service parts (op. cit. p.188.). 9 Atlas 1996 p. 66. 10 Rouard 1841, 1842, 1844 11 A good example is the activities of the Lyonese canon Sautel in Vaisonla-Romaine. 12 Février 1973 8

3

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL his publications30 contain a plethora mistakes. A. Dumoulin and H. Rolland continued these excavations but sometimes they did not leave any documentation behind to posterity.31 In the early phase of excavations in the area of Glanum (1921–38) archaeologists were satisfied by removing earth and taking photographs, and part of the documentation, sparse at any rate, was lost. The primary aim was often the excavation of elements assessed as structural ones (such as mosaic floors) and it also happened that segments of walls that did not correspond to the actual theories were simply demolished by the excavators prior to World War II. The excavations of H. Rolland between 1939 and 1956 were conducted somewhat more scientifically.32 Luckily, excavations have been on a rather good standard since the 1960s, the only problem is the lack of publications. For instance, only one demanding and autonomous publication was produced of the houses of Saint-Romain-en-Gal,33 and only preliminary reports have been published about the others. In fact the control of earlier excavations has often produced surprising results: for example the “Sanctuary of Cybele” of Lyon or the Maison au Dauphin of Vaison-la-Romaine can be mentioned.34 The shortcomings have been partially eliminated by a summary in the form of a conference volume published in 1996 under the title La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines.35 There is a uniform catalogue that can be used even to statistical analyses in the list of buildings besides the (actually incomplete) set of floor plans36 as well as short descriptions. The book of P. Gros is also an important summary not to be evaded,37 which discusses the development of the residential houses in Gaul and its relationship to the other aspects of the Roman architecture of residential buildings.

Figure 4: The antique city centre of Aix-en-Province in the late first century and in the 12th century (thin lines indicate the outline of the present buildings), after Fixot et al. 1986 p. 207. Fig. 13 and p. 246 fig. 44

residential houses24 was done by A. Wallace-Hadrill.25 The control of the earlier chronology of Pompeii (based on building materials and methods of raising walls)26 by archaeological methods was already on the agenda earlier too, yet it is the result of the recent decades that the necessity of supplementary deep-going excavations has been proved.27

Several possible trends can be observed in the research into the architecture of residential houses in Gaul. The first one is research into the architecture of the coastline of the Mediterranean and the related internal zones. The second one is the study of the spread of Romanization which is in close connection with the problematic of the first one for the reason that it follows similar routes. The third one studies the development of the characteristic local features of provincial domestic architecture, which includes the decoration of buildings as well as the study of the changes in the floor plans. Buildings from the 2nd to 4th century represent an other group of problems (they show an increasing contrast among the demanding and large urban houses, villas and more modest houses in keeping with the growing social differentiation) and comprise the study of the country and small settlements as well as urbanisation; the latter one summarising all the other trends. The

In addition to architectural analyses researches into the sociological aspects of houses have also proved to be extremely important. The works of A. Wallace-Hadrill of a sociologist’s and historian’s outlook28 represent a milestone in the interpretation of Roman residential homes. The book by J. Clarke (The Houses of Roman Italy, 100 BC – AD 250. Ritual, Space, Decoration29), should also be stressed in interdisciplinary literature for it has produced a number of new understandings. Research in Gaul became more active in the first part of the 20th century but its standard has not improved much compared to the previous ones. Excavations had been in progress for decades in many places and results were not published to a required extent or later on the documentation was lost. Canon J. Sautel conducted excavations on a huge territory in Vaison-la-Romaine between 1907 and 1955, but

Luckily he was satisfied with spading out earth and stopped at the uppermost floor level. Yet he caused tremendous damage. 31 Bellet et al. 1990 p. 71. 32 Atlas 1996 p. 281–283. 33 Desbat et al. 1994 34 Vaison-la-Romaine: Goudineau 1979, Lyon: Desbat 1998 35 Borgard 1996 36 Atlas 1996 37 Gros 2001 30

For example: Packer 1975 Wallace-Hadrill 1994 26 Richardson 1988 p. 369–381. 27 Fulford, Wallace-Hadrill 1998 and Wallace-Hadrill 2005 28 Wallace-Hadrill 1988 and idem. 1994 29 Clarke 1991 24 25

4

INTRODUCTION

material offering a research basis is heterogeneous: the remains of early periods are usually physically difficult to access to due to modern structures on them, yet they are more often brought to the surface at least partially because of the rescue excavations, than 3rd and 4th century villas of great extension located in the countryside, the floor plan of which is mostly known by aerial photos.

rooms (atrium, alae, peristylium),42 which does not constitute an autonomous building. Vitruvius in his work (obviously written for demanding readers43) classifies the floor plans of the domus – that can be defined as the residential house of the middle-class and of the aristocracy44 – in two groups such as: Roman residential houses (Vitr.VI.3.) and the Greek residential ones (Vitr.VI.7.). One may learn about the names of the rooms of the Roman and the Greek domus and also about the differences between the two from his descriptions. He even gives the size of the rooms in the case of the Roman domus on which basis a large part of a building can be reconstructed.45 When describing the Greek residential house, Vitruvius quotes relatively few terms in Greek which suggests that unless the codex copyists translated them into Latin, several Greek architectural terms had been adapted by Latin already before the early Imperial period.46

2. 'H¿QLWLRQRIWKHdomus type The first step of assessing is the analysis of types (namely the floor plans of buildings). As one has to give names to the different types, one has to survey the names that survive from Antiquity as well as those that are used in the literature. In the Latin language there were several expressions for the denomination of domestic buildings and parts of buildings. The residential houses were called domus or insula in our sources; in addition expressions such as taberna, pergula, cenaculum, hospitium and cryptae were also used. The term domus expressly meant a house, a residential one of one or two stories, whereas insula in this sense meant a building of several stories of rented flats,38 therefore we are not going to deal with this meaning of the term from now on. The remaining expressions clearly stand for a room or several rooms with residental function, not for an entire building, consequently the possession or renting of a domus could be afforded only by a certain segment of the Roman society which is, among others, well reflected by a sentence of the Satyricon: C. Pompeius Diogenes ex kalendis Iuliis cenaculum locat, ipse enim domus emit.39 The authors of Antiquity used the term domus in a similar sense, and Vitruvius gives a detailed description of the domus as a building type. Of the other terms enumerated, taberna has the broadest meaning, in an architectural sense it is a room or rented place opening to the street, without any more precise definition of its function. Hospitium was not an architectural concept but was the comprehensive legal name of all kinds of rented structures. In this context pergula and cenaculum also means a room on an upper story with entrance from the street, whereas cryptae stood for the lower floor of a house standing on a terrace and touching upon the ground (basement).40

If the Vitruvian definitions are compared to the archaeological finds, it can be seen that the Roman type of domus is easy to identify without any problem: only in Pompeii itself there are several houses to which the description perfectly fits.47 The description of the Greek residential house corresponds to a certain type of house of Hellenistic origin, the best examples of which can be found at Delos.48 It should be noted, however, that Delos was already under Roman influence when those houses were built. The axial feature and efforts towards symmetry in the floor plan manifest in the houses of Delos can be quoted as a contrary example to the floor plan of buildings like the palace of Attalos at Pergamon. Though the scheme of its floor plan is identical with the Maison au Trident of Delos, signs indicating axiality can not be discovered at the former one.49 At the same time, subsequently it will be seen that axiality appeared in the Hellenistic Egyptian architecture, hence the parallel of Pergamon is misleading in this case. It is a separate problem that part of the excavated Roman residential houses had no atrium but only peristyle (therefore theoretically they can correspond only to the Greek type of domus of Vitruvius), at the same time these houses possess those features like the domus have: they have a large floor plan and have rooms suitable for representative purposes. This is why we have to extend the

It derives from the above that the term taberna is a kind of collective concept from a functional angle, which could mean even smaller workshops and commercial units besides the pergula, cenaculum, hospitium and crypta as simple places for dwelling or mixed use.41 Consequently the taberna can be defined as a small architectural unit consisting of one or more rooms, without representative

Gros 2001 p. 82–90, Clarke 1991 p.25, Vitruvius VI.5.1. Like Imperator Caesar addressed in a praefatio. It is revealed at several places that the cheap and less enduring structures characteristic of the buildings of the lower strata (such as the opus craticium – II.8.20) or residential houses without representative houses (VI.5.1.) are only tangentially related to the subject of the De architectura. 44 Cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1994 p. 105 ff 45 He does not only give the floor plan but also the height of some rooms. For an interpretation of the descriptions see: Knell 1985 p. 145–165. 46 Adaptation could take place by the development of the peristyle houses and the appearance of Hellenistic elements in villa architectue. See: Mielsch 1987 p. 97–100. 47 For example the Casa di Salustio, Casa di Trebio Valente, or the suburbana type: Villa dei Misterii, etc. 48 For example the Maison des Comédiens, m. aux Frontons, m. au Trident, m. aux Masques: Hoepfner, Schwandner 1994 p. 293–297 and Tang 2005 p. 237–257. 49 Wallace-Hadrill 1994 p. 45–46. and fig. 3.11-12. 42 43

Pirson 1999, p. 21. Petronius 38,10 40 Pirson 1999 p. 19–22 and p. 68–69. 41 Pirson suggests an “investigation of habitableness” for deciding upon the actual function. A taberna was certainly a residential place where either a place of a bed, a wall painting typical of a residential room, a drain or a niche for the lararium was found (Pirson 1999, p. 53–54.). Sure enough, such an investigation can be done in the case of any kind of building. 38 39

5

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL definition of the Roman domus type to this type of house too, thus extending the Vitruvian definition.

requirement the side of which in any direction is bigger than 180 to 200 cm. At the same time it is seen on the basis of sources that all imaginable activities could be performed in a cubiculum.57 Similarly universal names are

The modern term for the two variants of the Roman domus type are atrium house and peristyle house. Presumably, the two terms originate from German literature. The Atriumhaus (atrium house in English) and the Peristylhaus (peristyle house in English) figure often in current archaeological literature and they very often stand for the type of house as well as part of the building. In the case of a domus where the atrium as well as the peristyle can be found, using the two terms as peristyle part and atrium part may suggest that two separate buildings were built into one, which is further complicated by the fact that the bigger residential houses of Pompeii were actually developed by merging two or more plots of land. In the following we would use these words as technical terms and would indicate the two main groups of the domus.

the conclave and the cella, though the latter one is a room more related to slaves.58 The terms balneum, latrina and culina can be regarded as free of problems as the architectural development and function are interrelated. The tablinum can be easily recognised on the basis of Vitruvius: it should be in the longitudinal axis of the atrium, but sources are somewhat inaccurate as to its function.59 The word cenaculum has a dual meaning: in addition to a rented room or group of rooms in the upper story mentioned above, it means a room for feasts or dining as the name indicates. Triclinium is of a similar meaning like the latter one has, though the term was used for klinés set up in the open as well.60 In the following, the term cenaculum would be used for large representative rooms.

3. ,VVXHVRI,GHQWL¿FDWLRQ The terminology used for the rooms of the domus type originates from Roman authors (mostly from Vitruvius) as it was mentioned earlier, and their identification with archaeological finds was done in the 19th century mainly by Mazois and Overbeck.50 Initial attempts at identification were accompanied also by their interpretation with contemporary terms, this is how atrium, for example became “Staats- und Repräsentazionsraum51”. This kind of differentiated use of rooms, at least up to the 1st century AD was known to some extent through the separation of genders in the Greek residential houses, but it was alien to Roman attitude.52 The lack of permanent furniture (excepting the heavy klinés) also supports it. Here one has to dwell in brief on two problematic details. The first is that the Classical denomination of rooms mostly refers to an activity and furniture (such as cubiculum, triclinium, tablinum),53 and not to the shape or function of the room. The second problem derives from it: it is not known merely on the basis of descriptions what the actual functions of the rooms of a domus were and what was the sociological background to the use of the residential rooms.54 Luckily, the Classical terminology can be easily decoded from the direction of human needs: the “Latin vocabulary of the house” consists of religious, family and social rituals.55

According to Vitruvius, the oecus means a room that can be found in the zone of the peristyle and was developed in a form that can be traced back to a Hellenistic antecedent,61 particularly because its types (oecus corithicus, o. aegypticus, o. cyzcenus, o. rhodiacus) have Greek names. The mention of triclinia of similar formation figuring in various loci (triclinium cyzecenum, triclinium corinthium) suggests that their furnishing and mode of use could agree with those of the oeci.62 The exedra means a room at the Roman authors that is attached to the garden; it has a broad aperture on the longer side and is furnished with chairs and klinés.63 The term diaeta clearly refers to a group of rooms but its architectural meaning cannot be precisely defined, in addition it is only sparsely mentioned before the end of the 1st century AD. The peristylium (or peristylia) figures mostly in the works of Varro and Vitruvius, and interestingly it is missing from Pliny’s descriptions of villas. Apparently the phrase was not totally incorporated into the Latin language and often ambulatio and porticus are used as synonyms. It is known from Vitruvius that it meant a courtyard surrounded on all four sides by a series of columns or portici. Its origin, similarly to the palaestra, should be looked for in Hellenistic public architecture.64

Looking at it from an archaeological point of view one can only see that the function of rooms named after their furnishings cannot be defined. The term cubiculum for instance refers to the fact that people used to lay in that room (ubi cubabant cubiculum – ubi cenabant cenaculum vocantur56), therefore there had to be space for a bed. This is such a general precondition that every room meets this

The term atrium can be mostly interpreted on the basis of Varro and Vitruvius,65 according to their description it corresponds to the entrance hall of Italian houses which was at once the central room of the part of the building. The first problem related to the atrium is the question of its Dickmann 1999 p. 26–29. Dickmann 1999 p. 24 and 29. 59 Dickmann 1999 p. 29 and particularly footnote 68. 60 Possibly the cenaculum refers to richly ornamented rooms of the early Imperial period. Dickmann 1999 p. 30. 61 Vitr. VI.3.8–11 and VI.7.3 62 Vitr. VI.7.3 and VI.3.9 63 Dickmann 1999 p. 34, Vitruvius describes a Hellenistic variant: VI.7.3– 4. 64 Vitr. VI.7.3 and Dickmann 1999 p. 35–37. 65 Varro: De lingua latina 5,161 and Vitr. VI.3.1; VI.5.1 57

See the work of F. Mazois, mentioned above. The attempt to determine the floor plan of the “Roman standard house” was launched on that basis (Overbeck, Mau 1884, p. 251. Abb. 135.; Mau 1900, p. 244. Abb. 134.). 51 Mau 1908 p. 261. 52 Wallace-Hadrill 1994 p. 8–14. 53 To the etymological analysis of the various room names see: Dickmann 1999, p. 23–48. 54 Dickmann 1999, p. 41–48. 55 Gros 2001, p. 21. 56 Varro: De lingua latina 5, 162 50

58

6

INTRODUCTION

origin: though we know from Vitruvius that it was not of Greek origin,66 which is also supported by a (accidentally faulty) linguistic deduction of Varro67 and based on the most frequently used term “atrium tuscanicum”, its origin is certainly Etruscan, yet the archaeological control of the above was necessary. The Etruscan origin can be justified on the basis of the Etruscan residental and funeral architecture68 and also that the scheme of residential houses with atrium appeared already in the 5th century BC in Italy, in cities such as Marzabotto, Acquarossa or Rosella.69 According to the most recent data atrium houses were present in Pompeii at least from the 4th century BC on.70

very likely such ones.80 The atrium tetrastylum can also be identified simply, but the atrium corinthicum can be ultimately identified with the peristylium, unless we have such an architectural development of it as the case of the oecus corinthicus. In the case of the provincial houses, those represent serious archaeological problems for the interpretation. The identification of representative and other (such as service) rooms is important because the significance of the use of the domus and the communications among rooms can only be mapped on that basis. In the following it will be seen that there are groups of rooms and details of the floor plan that can be grasped architecturally too but we only know of their use in rougher outline. As a consequence the “quality” of the domus81 cannot be determined unambiguously. A good example to it is the concept of the so-called “mini-atrium-house” which would mean such a small and and usually poorly decorated atrium house in which the atrium, the ala and the tablinum can be found (such as the Casa del Principe di Napoli, VI, 15, 7–8), but it was not suited for “representation”.82 It should be taken with some criticism however, that there is a borderline along which one could distinguish between “representative” and “non-representative” atrium houses because according to Vitruvius’s statement who does not need it should not have “magnifica vestibula nec tablina neque atria”,83 in other words, these buildings would fall under the category of domus at any rate. In the following we would use the term mini-atrium-house as a technical one, exclusively as an architectural concept and would understand the simple atrium houses under it which consisted of an atrium and the rooms surrounding it.

The question of origin has an other architectural aspect too: there are two major theories concerning the explanation of the development of the atrium. According to one of them the atrium may have been originally a courtyard and was covered only later,71 while the other theory holds that a covered unit of building was being divided into a growing number of parts72 and the atrium was the central room.73 It is important to decide because it is on this basis that the characteristically small houses can be interpreted where there was no atrium only a centrally located communicating room. It has become clear on the basis of the analysis of the meaning of the term atrium that it did not only mean a communicating room but also a representative one,74 while the cavum aedium was of a far more general meaning.75 Medianum also had a similar meaning like the latter one though it could be surely understood for a room the architectural development of which did not at all resemble that of the atrium,76 while the cavum aedium can also be regarded as a synonym of atrium. The second group of problems is related to the typology of atria. Though Vitruvius gave five different atria such as: displuviatum, testitudinatum, tuscanicum, tetrastylon and corinthium,77 their identification is not always easy.78 The difference between the atrium displuviatum and tuscanicum, since the roof structure and usually the walls were also destroyed, can, perhaps, be grasped archaeologically through the different depths of the impluvia.79

The floor plan criteria of the atrium house for purposes of archaeological identification can be summarised as follows: the most important is the existence of the atrium or cava aedium, hence there must be a relatively large covered central room in the floor plan,84 from where smaller rooms open, and if possible, an impluvium or traces of water drain85 can be found in it. If two cubicula can be found at the entrance of the atrium on both sides and alae are also linked to it, then it can be definitely identified. We have already mentioned that ala as a term figures in this sense only at Vitruvius and apparently he uses it as a technical term to indicate the two projections of the atrium.86 A further condition is that there should be a room contiguous to the atrium which can be defined either as tablinum or triclinium as well. Usually there is a peristylum belonging to the atrium houses, but at the identification one should be careful if the floor plan is only partially known because then the peristylium can only belong to an atrium house if the atrium is also there. Another characteristic of the

The atrium testitudinatum can be identified in Pompeii: those atria of Pompeii the width of which is bigger than the depth and there are no side rooms next to them are Vitr. VI.1. De lingua latina 5.161. 68 Boethius 1978 p. 85–94. 69 Gros 2001 p. 34–38, Nielsen 1997, Mansuelli 1963 70 de Haan et al. 2005, summary: p. 253–255. 71 Based on houses of Cosa, cf. Brown 1980 p. 63–66 and Figs. 81–83. 72 Which would be logical on the basis of early Etruscan tombs, cf. Tomba dei Volumni, Boethius 1979 p. 80 Fig. 72. 73 Richardson 1988 p. 382–383. 74 Gross 2001 p. 24–25, Dickmann 1999 p. 49–52. 75 Dickmann 1999 p. 37–39 76 Richardson 1988 p. 231 77 Vitr. VI.3.1–3. 78 Richardson 1988 p. 386–387. 79 With this the existence of the atrium displuviatum can be regarded as proved, for instance the Etruscan tomb the Tomba dei Mercareccia also imitates it: Boethius 1979 p. 90 Fig. 89. 66 67

de Haan et al. 2005 p. 255. Wallace-Hadrill 1988 p. 55. and Wallace-Hadrill 1994 p. 38 ff 82 Clarke 1991 p. 25. 83 Vitr. VI.5.1. 84 About the definition of atrium and the difference between the concepts of atrium and cava aedium see: Dickmann 1999, p. 49–52. 85 There must be some drainage of water even in the case of the atrium testitudinatum (Vitr. VI.3.2.). 86 Dickmann 1999 p. 38–39. 80 81

7

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL atrium house besides the atrium itself is its axiality.87 Symmetry arranged along the longitudinal axis holds true for the entire building, or in the case of more complex residential houses often to the environment of the atrium only. It also occurs that the doors opening from the atrium were arranged symmetrically, while the rooms linked were of different size and of different function. Such a set of conditions is necessary because there are simpler buildings the floor plan of which resembles a detail of an atrium house but they are definitely not ones, or peristyle houses can also have details that recall atrium houses.88 The often fragmentary houses of Gallia are categorized according to the terms defined above.

1.

The main characteristic of the peristyle house is that it has no atrium: its central room is the peristyle and all the other rooms are attached to it (Vitruvius VI.7.).89 Though in the case of buildings of such complex floor plan like the Casa del Fauno (VII,12,2/5) of Pompeii one can speak about a peristyle part and an atrium part, but as it was referred to above, it does not mean that the building consisted of two separate houses because it has an atrium, therefore it is an atrium house which has also a periystyle.

3. 2. Figure 6: Hellenistic buildings with peristyles: 1. The gymnasium of Priene 2. The gymnasion of Delos (after Gros 2001 p. 48 Fig. 32) 3. Ptolemais, Palazzo delle Colonne (after Lauter 1971 p. 150 Fig. 1)

The antecedents of the Roman peristylium (or of the peristyle part of the atrium house) apparently should be sought in the architecture of public buildings.90 The development of the Hellenistic peristyle houses is the opposite, their development can be traced back rather to the pastas house91 and the pattern of Hellenistic palace architecture.

Colonne” of Ptolemais of Cyrenaica (Figure 6/3) which is a good example of the axial peristyle house.93 This building can be originated directly from the Alexandrian palace architecture regarding its floor plan as well as its execution of architectural decoration. The Casa del Fauno of Pompeii is a kind of Roman variant of this house: many of their floor plan elements are identical.94 This similarity does not only appear on the level of ground pans but also at the decorative elements. The representative spaces of the Hellenistic palace expand the traditional domus with atrium of the 2nd and 1st century BC and the Egyptian Hellenistic influence appears in concentration in the programme of the Second Style.95 Apparently the appearance of axiality and symmetry was parallel to Roman expansion in the western provinces96 of Europe and does not precede it; in other words no Hellenistic antecedents can be expected in this field.

Architecturally the difference between the two types can be grasped by the fact that the floor plan of the palaestra is simple and usually has only one representatively developed room (Figure 6/1–2), whereas all the usual rooms of residential houses can be found in Hellenistic palaces92 besides separation (gynaikonitis/andronitis) characteristic of Greek residential houses. In the early Roman domus the adoption of the peristyle was not accompanied by the introduction of the series of rooms around the peristyle (which began only at the end of the Republican period). As it was seen, axiality was not at all unknown in the Hellenistic architecture of residential houses. Here only one example should be presented, the “Palazzo delle

4. Functional Interpretation of Rooms

Vitruvius dedicates a separate chapter to the importance of symmetry inside the residential building (Vitr. VI.2.). In greater detail see: Dickmann 1999, p. 69–73. 88 Building B of very simple execution built in the 2nd century AD at Arleuf - Les Raviers near Bibracte can be mentioned as an example (L. Olivier, Le Haut-Morvan romain, Dijon, 1983, p.188.). 89 In relation to the Greek residental architecture he states that as the Greek do not need an atrium, therefore they do not build any (Vitr. VI.7.1.), next he lists the parts of a Greek house and gives the Latin as well as Greek terms (Vitr. VI.7.1–6.), noting that these terms were not identical in the two languages (Vitr. VI.7.5.). On this basis rooms that are only characteristic of Roman residential houses can be identified, but one should handle with criticism this chapter of De Architectura because apparently the description pertains much more to an idealised Greek palace than to the Greek “standard residential houses” (Raeder 1988, p. 386.). 90 Zanker 1979, p. 467. Wallace-Hadrill 1988, p. 50 and p. 82. 91 E.g. the house 33 of Priene: Hoepfner, Schwandner 1994 p. 225. 92 E.g. the palace of Vergina: Lawrence 1996 p. 185–186 and Fig. 319. 87

As it could be seen earlier where the names of the rooms come from and that the actual meaning of those words is usually not related to architectural development. It also means that if the floor plan of a building does not correspond to the Vitruvian floor plan of a house then theoretically the same terms were not supposed to be used The original publication: G. Pesce – Il palazzo delle Colonne in Tolemaide di Cireneica, 1950, but we use: Lauter 1971 p. 149–150. 94 Gros 2001 p. 46–52. 95 McKenzie 2008, p. 96, but one has to refer to K. Fittschen’s basic work by all means: Fittschen 1976. 96 Meyer 1999 p. 117–121. The diagram in Figure 13 deserves special attention according to which the route through the vestibulum-peristyliumtriclinium also indicates the different levels of social contacts. 93

8

INTRODUCTION

because Vitruvius defined the rooms on the basis of their relative position to each other. For example a room not opening from the atrium cannot be a tablinum. The next problem is to understand the mode of using the rooms. While the location of furniture and items at least answers to the question what activity was in progress in a given room at the time of the outbreak of the Vesuvius in Pompeii,97 in the case of a building in Gaul, where structures could be destroyed even to the upper plane of the foundations nothing like that can be expected. Though it can be seen on the basis of the fresco fragments, of the more demanding flooring and mouldings or sculptural decoration which were the representative rooms, yet their exploration, at least in the case of the Gallo-Roman houses, is extremely limited. One reason is that frescoes survive in situ only in few houses and the other reason is that many floor plans are fragmentary. Nevertheless, the definition of the “representative” rooms is possible indirectly, for it can be decided upon on the basis of the size, layout or position of the room. One cannot know even that much about the sociological background of the use of buildings as in the case of the cities near the Vesuvius. We do not know if there were rooms that could be locked, or where the main scenes of daily life were. Even not much can be known about the owners of the houses: epigraphic proof is almost everywhere missing, even in places like Saint-Romain-en-Gal or Bibracte. At the same time we have proof that shows the social stratus the owners of houses came from: the urban miniatrium-houses of uniform size can be associated with the settlement of veterans. The first colony was Narbo Martius (118 BC and 45 BC), followed by Arelate, Lugdunum, Arausio, Baeterrae (Béziers), and Forum Iulii founded by Caesar or by other members of the Triumvirate. The origin of the colonists can also be identified: mostly they came from Central and Northern Italy. Only 6 to 13 percent of the population of the urban settlements was indigenous on the basis of names, while in the countryside the ration was the inverse.98 A number of the buildings of extensive floor plan can be found in settlements that had only Latin Rights (Vaison-la-Romaine99) or even not that (such as Bibracte), thus it is highly probable that they were owned by the native aristocracy.100

Like in the case of the Casa a Graticcio of Herculaneum: Maiuri 1958 p. 407–420. 98 Pelletier 1991 p. 29–31. 99 Civitas Vasio Vocontiorum, Bedon et al. 1988 p. 252–253. 100 Paunier et al. 2002 p. 284–285. 97

9

Chapter 2

N

N

Survey of Antecedents 1.

4.

1. Local Antecedents The Roman domus-type developed in Italy, thus there are no direct antecedents in Gallia prior to the Roman conquest, but the principles of a Mediterranean type of urbanisation were already known in that region.1 It is due to the Greek colonization, the beginnings of which are represented by the date of the foundation of Marseille (around 600 BC). Due to the researches done in the recent years one can know more not only about the bigger cities but also about the network of secondary settlements developing around them.2

N

N

5.

2.

N

N

The floor plans of the urban Greek residential houses are relatively uniform within a given period and area. This relative uniformity spreads from the extreme “standardisation” of the late Classical Age (such as Olynthos) 3 to a variegated combination of the basic forms of the Hellenistic age (like for instance in the case of Delos).4

3.

A basic precondition to the emergence of typification was the orthogonal system of streets or at least some system of the insulae which can be observed in the secondary settlements of southern Gaul in many cases.5 The pastas house and its derivatives can be found for quite a long time among the types of buildings: there is a house of Olbia which was built around 40 or 30 BC6 (Figure 7/1). Next to them there is a simple local building type, which has a courtyard of southern orientation like the pastas houses have, but the porticus and the andron are missing: the example of Arles presented7 developed between the 4th and 2nd centuries BC (Figure 7/2).

0

20

6.

Figure 7: Pre-Roman houses 1. Olbia, insula VI, Atlas 1996, p. 142., 2. Arles, Jardin d’Hiver, Sintes et al. 1987, p. 24., 3. Orange, Saint-Florent, Maison des Clodivs (A1), Atlas 1996 p. 239., 4. Orange, Saint-Florent, Maison au Brasero (B1), Atlas 1996 p. 245. 5. Orange, Saint-Florent, Maison E3, Atlas 1996 p. 275., 6. Orange, Saint-Florent, Maison E1, Atlas 1996 p. 268–269.

house but could be of artisanal or agricultural function, however, the scheme of the floor plan is very similar: the porticus is located at the northern side of the courtyard together with some rooms of presumably residential purpose.9 The eastern part of the E3 house10 also resembles the pastas house-type, while its western half consists of rooms organised around the courtyard (Figure 7/5). The courtyard functions as a foyer.

Several similar houses are known from Orange. All the four buildings listed below follow the floor plan scheme of the pastas house, the time of their construction can be uniformly dated between 10 BC and 10 AD and their ground surface is about 450 m2. The courtyard of the Maison de Clodivs (Figure 7/3) is flanked by a porticus at its northern side, and the room of T-shaped floor plan corresponding to an andron opens from there. A part of the porticus in front of the entrance of the andron stood on columns different from the rest, thus in all probability it was formed as according to the rhodiacum8 layout. The Maison au Brasero (Figure 7/4) was not only a residential

The E1 house shows an interesting floor plan (Figure 7/6): the courtyard in the western part of the house is not bordered by a porticus at the north but a room resembling an atrium with impluvium. This atrium, or rather cava aedium is communicating with 5 larger rooms around it. This solution allows the building to be more broad than the houses of linear porticos. It seems to be sure that the houses consisting of rooms organised around the courtyard appeared in the 2nd century BC, perhaps its earliest representative is the Maison à cour11 (Figure 8) of Lattara, built between 175 and 125 BC. This floor plan arrangement suggests the adoption of the Hellenistic peristyle house. Several examples of this type are known from the early 1st century BC on: the

Février 1973 p. 6–13. Paunier et al. 2002 p. 273. 3 Cf. Hoepfner, Schwandner 1994 4 Tang 2005 p. 29–65. 5 Février 1973 p. 7–13. 6 Atlas 1996, p. 140–141. 7 Sintes et al. 1987, p. 24-31 and p. 41, Gallia Inf. 1990 p. 141–143. The road network and the floor plan of the house shows Mediterranean influence, whereas the building materials used (stone foundation laid dry, adobe walls, the structuring of the surface of the walls and floors) follow local traditions. 8 Atlas 1996 p. 238–239. 1 2

Atlas 1996 p. 244–245. Atlas 1996 p. 274–275. 11 Garcia 1996 9

10

10

SURVEY OF ANTECEDENTS

îlot 19

A

0

20

0

20

Figure 10: Ensérune, insula X, Maison A, after Gallet-Santerre 1968, Pl. II.

Figure 8: Southern detail of Lattara, after Garcia 1996, p. 144, Fig. 1. XIII

V

a rarity, as it was already mentioned above), its walls were ornamented by frescoes corresponding to the Pompeian Second Style,,16, in other words the decoration shows a clear Roman influence.

II-III

VI

According to our data so far obtained, the Roman type of the domus appeared only at the time of the conquest of Caesar though some of its elements such as wall paintings, mosaics, elements of mouldings and sculpture 17 and perhaps the impluvium 18 were taken over by the local architecture earlier.

I VII

VIII

It is certain that on territories outside the former Gallia Transalpina one can not expect anything different. No domus earlier than 50 BC is known even in the southern part. There are several reasons: as it was mentioned earlier the cities of the region are difficult to explore, research itself had not been systematic for a long time, and also because Romanization started only at the end of the Republican period (the construction of public buildings began at that time) 19 and unfortunately the building activities of the Imperial period often destroyed the earlier remains.20. The buildings presented above, most of all at Glanum show the best examples that the Roman domus-type was not present in the region before the second half of the 1st century BC.

XI IV IX XIX XVI

XII

XV

N

0

20

One might ask whether local antecedents appeared in the later Gallo-Roman residental architecture. The answer is affirmative by all means. One could follow the survival of the pastas house above;;21; but it should also be stated that it did not play a decisive role in further development even though some elements of it did appear in the bigger residential houses.22. But the house type of rooms surrounding a courtyard (here the term peristyle house is deliberately avoided) became widespread.

Figure 9: Glanum in late 1st century BC, after Gros 2001 p. 146 Fig. 146.

Maison des Antes (Maison VI) 12 and the Maison des Atys (Maison VIII) 13 (Figure 9) of Glanum are among the best documented ones together with the Maison A (insula X, Figure 10) 14 of Ensérune. These houses are of the size between 400 and 600 m2. The Maison de Sulla (Maison XII, Figure 9) 15 of Glanum represents a simplified version of the peristyle house. There is no peristyle belonging to the square-shaped courtyard, the rooms are located in the two wings of the building consisting of rooms opening to the courtyard. The interior decoration of the house is of good quality, one of its demanding mosaic floors (in room C) has even preserved the name of the owner C. Sulla (which is actually

Barbet 1990 p. 113–128. van de Voort 1991 p. 5–7. 18 An early example of the impluvium was found at Ensérune, though the remains are of extremely poor condition: Gallet de Santerre 1968 p. 47–48 and p. 56. The irregular floor plan of the house resembles the simple peristyle houses. 19 The appearance of monumental architecture can be clearly dated to the Augustan period (such as the development of the centre of Nîmes). An older summary about the appearance of public buildings is: WardPerkins 1970. 20 Bedon et al. 1988 p. 14–18. 21 Or something like the pastas house. 22 Gros 2001 p. 144–145. 16 17

Atlas 1996 p. 290–295, de Voort 1992, Rolland 1946 p. 77–92. Atlas 1996 p. 296–299, Rolland 1946 p. 98–104. 14 Gallet de Santerre 1968, Vatin 1971 15 Gros 2001 p. 146–147, Atlas 1996 p. 313, Roth-Conges 1985, Rolland 1958 p. 120–129, Rolland 1946 p. 118–128. 12

13

11

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL triclinium installed even in the smallest houses.27 The most widespread solution was the peristyle built in the hortus joining the tablinum in the axis of the atrium part, and in that zone no residential rooms were built.28 The tablinum obtained a new role: it was not only a reception room belonging to the atrium but also as an entrance to the peristyle part,29 the appearance of the small corridor next to the tablinum30 suggests conflict between these two functions. Due to an ever denser building activity various compromises had to be made to the detriment of the sizes of rooms or of axiality.31 This change can be seen clearly on the floor plan of the last building period of the Casa di Sallustio: a corridor next to the tablinum appeared and a peristyle supplied with triclinium was crammed next to the atrium part.32

2. The Domus-Type in Italy It was already stated above that the domus-type with atrium was of Etruscan origin, appearing already in the 5th century BC in the northern parts of Italy, and was known in Pompeii at least since the 4th century BC. In the following we would briefly survey the major stages of its development taking the backbone of the chronology from J.-A. Dickmann. To our purpose the adoption of the peristyle for residential houses was an important stage. During the course of the 2nd century BC (in the Tuff Period according to the traditional chronology) several houses were significantly enlarged in Pompeii. The mode of extension depended on the possibilities: some houses were transformed into ones of two atria by the acquisition of a neighbouring house (such as the Casa del Labirinto – VI,11,9–10 or the Casa del Centenario – IX,8,1–6), other houses were enlarged by taking away areas from the hortus (such as the Casa del Principe di Montenegro – VII,16,12-13 or the Casa del Marinaio – VII,15,1–2).

As we have stated above, the peristyle was not primarily built for the construction of residential rooms in the domus, and this is proven by the fact that initially only a triclinium or an exedra joined it and the building of cubicula in the peristyle zone seems to be a later invention (which is a further argument against the separation of private and public life). From the early Imperial period on, however, the peristyle part was increasingly coming to the foreground: the triclinium belonging to the peristyle was of larger size than the tablinum; there were several residential rooms around the peristyle, hence the atrium was only a foreground to the peristyle as traditions (such as salutation) linked to the atrium were receding. One can assume there was a decreasing need for the atrium due to a change in the established customs.33

Changes can be interpreted in different ways: according to one assumption two central rooms were needed for the separation of the zones of private and public life. But that was non-existent in Roman residential houses according to our sources: Vitruvius wrote that a division of the house for the two genders (gynaikonitis, andronitis) was only characteristic of the Greek residential houses.23 If our earlier statement is repeated, namely that the rooms have had no permanent furnishing and consequently no permanent usage either,24 then purely functional separation does not seem to be justifiable.

This process can be broken down to several phases. After the appearance of the peristyle the next stage was a functional change of the tablinum which is reflected by the substitution of the tablinum windows with doors. Therefore it became traversable and depending on the opening of the doors it could be classified to belong to the atrium part or to the peristyle part.34 The tendency to emphasise the longitudinal axiality of the houses began in the early Imperial period and for this purpose they made the overview of the building unhindered from the entrance to the back garden or the peristyle (with the German term: Durchblick).35 A consequence of this is also the modification of the interior decoration and furnishing: the wellheads (putealia) located earlier in the longitudinal axis were now placed on the two sides in pairs in order to allow a free view and were used as decorative elements.36 As the peristyle was increasingly becoming the venue of daily

The type of the atrium-peristyle house is not an invention of Pompeii, because it appeared in Northern Italy already in the early 2nd century BC. The floor plan of the Casa del Cryptoportico excavated in Vulci shows fully mature solutions and the bath attached to it is far more complex than the private baths of Pompeii of the same period.25 Apparently the atrium was not at all so dominant in the North Italian residental architecture than in the architecture of Pompeii; the system of peristyles or portici and of the reception rooms had far greater significance. In the case of the North Italian buildings effacement of the atrium can be safely dated to the middle of the 1st century BC.26 Despite the fact that the first large houses of two atria appeared in the early 2nd century BC in Pompeii, a demanding formation of atria and the rooms surrounding them by the application of columns, travertine corbels or expensive flooring became uniform only at the turn of the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, and it was accompanied by the spread of the peristyle: attempts were made at least to have a part of a peristyle, a porticus or a small garden

Dickmann 1999, p. 127. ff. This would be the proof of originating from public buildings. 29 Dickmann 1999, p. 157–158. 30 It figures as andron at Vitruvius (VI.7.5) and was taken over also by Mau (Mau 1908 p. 266), but since this expression primarily denotes a room of the Hellenistic residential house we are not going to use it for denoting the corridor in the following. 31 Dickmann 1999, p. 125–126. 32 The first and last phases of the building of the Casa di Sallustio: Richardson 1988 p. 109 Figs. 12–13. 33 Richardson 1988, p. 318–322. 34 Dickmann 1999, p. 151–154. 35 Dickmann 1999, p. 301 ff 36 Sure enough the building of the aquaeductus of the Augustan period also played a role in it: Richardson 1988 p. 51–63. 27 28

Vitr.VI.7.2 Dickmann 1999, p. 52–69. 25 Gros 2001 p. 59–60. for the domus of Alba Fucens: Balty 1986 p. 25 Fig.2. 26 Gros 2001 p. 93–102 and George 1997 p. 5. 23 24

12

SURVEY OF ANTECEDENTS

Figure 11: The linear group of rooms of the A Casa del Labirinto in the zone of the peristyle, Dickmann 1999 p. 160 Fig. 39.

life the arrangement, furnishing and façade of the rooms around and opening to the peristyle also changed and the residential rooms were grouped around the peristyle part from the late 1st century BC onwards, giving up the earlier practice when the residential rooms were around the atrium.37. It should be noted, however, that buildings of two atria or of two peristyles could be created with the merger of urban houses in any period;;38; therefore the analogy of Pompeii can not be applied automatically.

such as for instance the Casa di Octavio Quartio (II,2,2), the late building phase of the Villa dei Misteri 41 or the Casa di Gavio Rufo (VII,2,16). In the case of the villa, the study of the building periods has revealed that all the residential rooms connected to the atrium were given up at the last rebuilding (at the beginning of the 1st century AD as latest), and afterwards the atrium only functioned as a kind of foyer,,42, which - as it will be seen - is not an isolated phenomenon.

A further development of the peristyle part is related to the appearance of the oecus or the triclinium 39 which made the tablinum unnecessary in the long run. The consequence is that attempts were made to arrange the façade looking at the peristyle symmetrically. If the garden triclinium is the main reception room then the axial view from the garden towards the entrance becomes important too. Symmetry becomes a more emphasized main feature of the floor plan. When the doors and windows also survive it is easy to see, but even when the contour of the rooms is visible the symmetrical arrangement can be observed. Parallel to this the atrium loses its original role and it can be inferred from certain signs of later periods that it was used only for communication as it was becoming part of the route leading to the peristyle or as a less exclusive reception room.

The chronology of the houses of Pompeii outlined above is mostly based on the observation of the last building phases therefore it appears to be convincing, yet the more important houses of Pompeii built after 30 BC cannot be left out of the analysis. A large part of them contain older building remains, but at least according to L. Richardson their last building phases evolved simultaneously with the appearance of wall paintings of the Third and Fourth Styles.43. The fact, however, cautions that the profound excavations carried out in some houses (for example in IX,1,11 and 12) have produced unexpected results, because even the more prudent users of the traditional chronology would not have supposed a date for building later than 80 BC on the basis of walls strengthened by africanumtype limestone ashlar 44 whereas finds from layers related to building clearly represent horizons from the late first century BC and from the Augustan period.45.

We have to point out by all means that the atrium–alae– tablinum connection can be found practically in every atrium house of Pompeii: the few houses of Pompeii that have closed atria 40 are of relatively late development,

The development of the linear suite of rooms in the zone of the peristyle appeared in the early first century BC. This group of rooms consists of rooms of different size

Dickmann 1999, p. 158. Examples to this are the joining of the Maison au Grand Opus Sectile and the Maison à la Salle en Hémicycle of Aix-en-Province in the 2nd century AD: Atlas 1996 p. 42–43. 39 Dickmann 1999, p. 213 ff 40 Houses located on narrow plots are not to be included here because there was no possibility for developing alae.

Richardson 1988, p. 355 ff Dickmann 1999, p. 200.ff. Later on we would return to this question. 43 The date of the two styles: Vitruvius VII,5,1-4 ; Beyen 1960; Barbet 1985. 44 Richardson 1988, 369 ff 45 Fulford, Wallace Hadrill 1998, p. 143–145.

37

41

38

42

13

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL and shape put side by side in the majority of cases (like for instance the Casa del Centenario built in the second part of the second century BC),46 but there is a very characteristic form as well a basic element of which is a set of four rooms on two sides of a big room of rectangular or square shape (oecus and 4 cubicula: like at the Casa del Labirinto – Figure 11). Two variants of the linear suite of rooms appear in the architecture of villas: one is the same47 as in the case of urban houses (like in the villa of Boscoreale).48 The other variant can be observed at villas with external porticus where the external porticus took over the role of the peristyle (because the peristyle belongs to the pars rustica) and the rooms - despite the fact that they are situated around the atrium - are open from the side of the outer porticus. As long as it was only the Villa dei Misteri49 representing this building type it could not be decided whether the isolation of the atrium was part of the rebuilding process of the villa after an earthquake, but since the villa of Settefinestre50 is also known apparently this may be an autonomous building type. It is also conspicuous at this building type that corridors lead from the atrium part to the external porticus: obviously because it was not possible to go out through the rooms next to the atrium. This element appears in villa architecture much more unbound because there are far less restrictions: there can be groups of rooms even at three sides of the peristyle whereas this type of a linear suite of rooms was mostly limited to the longer side of the peristyle in the case of urban houses. There it is not only the size of the plots that means a limitation: the effort is seen that these rooms should be located farthest away from the road.51. A highly informative summary can be seen in one of the supplements of Dickmann’s book:52 it can be observed on the floor plans presented there that attempts were made to avoid the location of representative rooms around the peristyle next to the street in Pompeii even if the house was built on a corner plot or a plot stretching over an insula.53

53 55

54

56

57

58

60

52

41 59

40

35 30

49

36

33

32

31

38

37

39

34 29

51 48

28

50 27 44 43

26b 42 26

46 7

22

23

45

a

21

20

16

14

8

47

19

6

18

3

15

5 2

11

0

5

10

4

20

Figure 12: Ground plan of the Villa dei Misteri, Dickmann 1999 Taf. 4c

anteroom part was also added to them besides a space needed for the setting up of three klinés. In all probability the anteroom part was the place for the servants which is supported also by the quality distribution of the fresco decorations in Pompeii: the internal part is usually more ornamented. Another new room is the cubiculum with a recess or niche which can be almost certainly originated from villa architecture.54 It has two types which differ from each other mostly from the facilities for furnishing: the kliné can be set up at the back wall of the first type (cf. Figure 11, down right), and two of them can be set up in the second one (Figure 12, rooms 8, 11–14 and 16). In addition the cubicula of uncharacteristic furniture continue to be present which can be located anywhere in the urban buildings but those are absolutely not characteristic of villa architecture.55 Only traces have survived of the furniture in the provincial houses but the cubicula with recess can be well recognised even without it.

Usually the individual rooms of the linear suite open into each other so that they constitute groups of two to four rooms (the villa of Settefinestre shows a good example) and as they belonged to the representative rooms of the building their decoration was corresponding to that. The latter one means in the provincial context that there was a greater chance for finding the more demanding floors (instead of rammed earth or simple terrazzo) of the house in those groups of rooms.

The change in the decorative furnishing of the atrium was already mentioned. This tendency can be followed through the furnishings of the atrium: it was at that time that the setting up of wellheads (putealia), ornamented stone tables (cartibula, mensae) and wash-hand-basins (labra) and similar objects of decorating purpose began. The loss of the original function of the wellheads (as it was mentioned above) was ultimately caused by the construction of the water supply system in Pompeii (and in the provinces too) therefore the location of the cistern or the wellhead can be used also as a basis for date. Even the atrium was transformed into a garden in many cases.56

New forms of rooms appeared at the end of the Republican period. One innovation was the elongated triclinium, the ground-plan proportions of which approximate 1:2 and functionally they differ from the former ones in that an

The appearance of groups of three rooms (Dreiraumgruppe at Dickmann) is a novelty of the Imperial period (Figure 13, rooms R,O and Q). Its beginning is indicated by the appearance of cenacula larger than the earlier ones which can be found in the zone of the peristyle and flanked on two sides by cubicula as well as the groups of rooms are of

Dickmann 1999 Taf 1b 47 The linear suite of rooms of the villa of Boscoreale and the Casa del Labirinto functionally correspond to each other: Dickmann 1999 p. 183–184. 48 Dickmann 1999 Taf. 4e 49 Dickmann 1999 Taf. 4c 50 Carandini et al. 1985, the floor plan used by us: Dickmann 1999 Taf. 4i 51 Dickmann 1999 p. 186–193. 52 Dickmann 1999 Taf. 3 53 Dickmann 1999 193–203. 46

Dickmann 1999 p. 219–229. Dickmann 1999 p. 226–227. 56 Dickmann 1999 p. 301–318. 54 55

14

SURVEY OF ANTECEDENTS

Y 38

X M

V

U

L K

result of which was the decline of the atrium houses.61. The Northern Italian situation discussed earlier was very similar to the Hispanic one and could have a role by all means in the residential house architecture of Gaul because - as it was briefly referred above - part of the population of the colonies came from Nothern Italy as suggested by their family names. In other words no such process can be seen in either of the region that would show tendencies contrary to the Italian one.

C

J

I

S

E B

A

7

D

T R G

6

O

F 5

Q

P

N

3. A Comparative Study of the typology 0

5

10

During our research the first task is the selection or development of the chronological system that may be a basis for the study of residential houses of Gaul. The latter one has appeared to be unnecessary because J.-A. Dickmann’s excellent study is available to which we have already often made references. In the following we would consider its contents as appropriate with notes where we consider them necessary. For comparison, we regard Pompeii suited for the purpose because the city constitutes an architecturally closed unit where architectural trends can be easily followed. We would see that if very same architectural elements can be discovered in our GalloRoman material that had been identified in Pompeii.

20

Figure 13: Casa degli Amorini dorati, Dickmann 1999 Taf. 7d

symmetrical arrangement. The presence of large cenationes and their symmetrical arrangement are important because three representative rooms of different size can also be found in earlier floor plans too. For a longer time research was of the view that the group of three rooms was of Hellenistic origin and was present in Italy already in the early first century BC 57 but this seems to be outdated now. Not much attention was paid to the internal façade of the atrium part and the outer one of the tablinum part (that is from the side of the peristyle or hortus) of older residential houses of Pompeii. Doors of different size and position were placed in the internal space of the atrium and the apertures on the outer façade of the tablinum were irregularly placed in keeping with the distribution of the rooms next to the tablinum. A new situation emerged with the appearance of the peristyle and with the alignment of representative rooms to it. Emphasis was given to the axiality in the interior space of the atrium and its result is the symmetrical development of the façade of the tablinum. Presumably its origin should be sought for in villa architecture and particularly at the development of the garden or main façade of villas. Apparently the Villa Oplontis of the first century BC is among the first such buildings which is confirmed by the fact that the wall paintings of Pompeii appear from the middle of the first century BC on which represent porticus villa façades seen from the garden: an emphasis added by architectural means.58. The garden ponds with semicircular exedrae which are often found in provincial architecture can also be dated to the Imperial age in Pompeii.59.

The study mentioned above discusses the architecture of the domus of Pompeii and puts the solutions of floor plan and of interior decoration in a chronological system. That system has its links to absolute chronology. The basis of the absolute chronology applied by us is developed by the research of L. Richardson 62 which is the ‘shortened’ version of the earlier chronology of Pompeii.63. In fact it is a great problem in this field that significantly different results were emerging during the past 150 years, concerning even the most basic issues of date of the urban architecture, a large part of which is based on considerations that had not been supported by observations of profound excavations. The urban chronological system of Pompeii applied in general can be traced back to the middle of the 19th century and it is based on synchronising the events described by Classical authors and of urban structure as well as the differences of architectural technology (building of walls) discovered by excavations.64. Based on the results of the past two decades apparently the oldest and still extant representatives of the residential houses of Pompeii were usually not much older than the middle of the second century BC and there is not always a clear connection between the last reconstructions and the earthquake of 62.65. In addition the relative chronology of the residential houses of Pompeii was supplemented by the analysis of frescoes and floors. Parallel to it attempts have also been made to systematise the floor plans and they are the most important ones to us because the acquisition of building and flooring materials depends on the local conditions in Gaul; the assessment of

After the history of development in Pompeii it should be discussed in brief how these trends reached Gaul. The two neighbouring areas were Hispania 60 and Northern Italy from where several houses are known. In Hispania the domus-type appeared in the 2nd century BC and an internal development was completed by the early Imperial age the

61 Lloris, Carillo 1996, particularly the chronological table (p. 62–63) and the maps of spread. 62 Richardson 1988 63 Cf. Overbeck 1875, p. 12 ff and Richardson 1988, 3 ff. 64 Overbeck 1875, p. 443 ff 65 Fundamental from this aspect: Fulford, Wallace-Hadrill 1998

Dickmann 1999 p. 322. Mielsch 1987 p. 52–54 and p. 57 Fig. 31. 59 Dickmann 1999 p. 359–364. 60 A volume collecting researches so far done: Lloris 1991 57 58

15

Arles Lattara Ensérune Ensérune Ensérune Glanum Glanum Glanum Gl Glanum Glanum Glanum Olbia Vaison-la-Romaine Vaison-la-Romaine Narbonne Bibracte Lyon Saint-Romain-en-Gal Nîmes Lyon Lyon Lyon Bibracte Nîmes Ruscino Ruscino Bibracte Fréjus Fréjus Vaison-la-Romaine Bibracte Bibracte Bibracte Bibracte Nîmes Nîmes Nîmes Fréjus Limoges Saint-Romain-en-Gal Lyon Aix-en-Provence Fréjus Fréjus Fréjus Ambrussum Genava St.Julien-lés-Martig. Nîmes Aix-en-Provence Aix-en-Provence Clermont-Ferrand Nîmes Soissons Taradeau Saint-Ulrich Lyon Lyon Lyon Lyon Limoges Limoges Sainte-Colombe Ambrussum Ambrussum Metz Limoges

Jardin d'Hiver m. á cour Insula X, m. A Insula X, m. C Insula X, m. B m. XI m. IV m. II m. VIII m. V m. VI I. VI prétoire m. au Dauphin Clos de la Lombarde PC, m. opus spicatum r.des Farges, m. 1 m. Citerne Villa Roma, m.08 Cybéle, "Prétoire" m. l'opus spicatum Cybéle, m. á atrium PCO 1 Villa Roma, m.14 plateau central, m. 1 plateau central, m. 2 PC 1 Butte Saint Saint-Antoine Antoine Plate-Forme Villasse Nord PC 2 PC 8 PC 23 PC 33 r. Nationale m. de Santé Protestante ZAC Halles, m. A place Formigé insula VII-5, early domus m. Pierres Dorées r.des Farges, m. Masques Chartreux, m. 1 Clos-de-la-Tour,i.III, m.IIa' Clos-de-la-Tour,i.III, m.Iib Clos-de-la-Tour,i.III, m.IIa" m. de la station rout. parc de la Grange Chateau dAgut r. Séguier Grassii, Pér. Rhod. Grassii, Grand Périst. bld. Trudaine Villa Roma, m.10 lycée Nerval Saint-Martin 1 villa 1 Vaise, m. aux Xenia Verbe Incarné, m. Laraire Verbe Incarné, m. E. Mosaique Verbe Incarné, m. Pilastres I. VII-5, m. cheminée mur. m. des Nones de Mars r. Joubert maison A maison B Arsenal m. l'emblema de lion

5

1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

E

B

5

1 1

1 1 1 1 D 1 1

B 3 1 2/1

1

1B

3rd-2nd century BC between 175-125 BC first half of the 1st century BC first half of the 1st century BC first half of the 1st century BC first half of the 1st century BC first half of the 1st century BC 1st century BC 1 1stt century t BC middle of the 1st century BC middle of the 1st century BC 40-30 BC 40-30 BC 50-30 BC 30 BC 31 BC between 30-20 BC around 20 BC around 20 BC around 20 BC around 20 BC around 20 BC after 20 BC between 20-10 BC between 20-5 BC between 20-5 BC last 2 decades BC end of the 1st century BC end of the 1st century BC age of Augustus age of Augustus ? age of Augustus ? age of Augustus ? age of Augustus ? age of Augustus ? first years AD first years AD between 0 and 5 AD between 11 and 38 AD between 10 and 20 AD around 20 AD around 20 AD around 20-25 AD around 20-25 AD around 20-25 AD around 25 AD between 10 BC and 30 AD between 25 and 30 AD around 30 AD first decades AD first decades AD age of Tiberius around 30AD 2nd quarter of the 1st century AD 2nd quarter of the 1st century AD 2nd quarter of the 1st century AD Tiberian-Claudian age Tiberian-Claudian age Tiberian-Claudian age Tiberian-Claudian age after 38 AD between 30-45 AD between 30-40 AD around 40 AD around 40 AD around 40 AD 1st half of the 1st century AD

16

decoration

average room size

rooms

area

datation

catalogue number

site

phase

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

x x x x x x x 88 92 55 21 50 76 62 44 45 46 20 64 71 72 22 30 31 94 23 24 25 26 57 66 56 32 41 77 51 11 35 37 36 16 38 74 67 5 6 29 63 86 87 83 52 49 48 47 42 40 85 14 15 54 43

990 1130 975 910 300 1338 530 3500 192 400 1800 525 600 600 3500 6000 6860 300 1120 1580 625 750 230 450 422 462 220 1305 900 160 264 231 197 422 1400 1600 1000 400 626 500 287 800 500 1500 630 380 315 350 1100 3734 1000 406 440 500 1800

16 34 23 10 10 17 9 27 7 9 24 16 11 13 38 47 120 8 30 21 8 18 7 18 9 16 6 30 15 6 8 7 4 7 22 14 9 20 36 6 10 17 43 18 12 17 13 7 16 40 5 10 13 5 6

61.88 33.24 x 42.39 x x 30.00 x 78.71 x 58.89 x 129.63 x 27.43 x 44.44 75.00 32.81 x 54.55 x 46.15 x 92.11 x 127 66 127.66 57.17 x 37.50 37.33 75.24 78.13 41.67 32.86 x 25.00 x 46.89 x 28.88 x 36.67 43.50 x 60.00 x 26.67 33.00 33.00 x 49.25 x 60.29 63 64 x 63.64 x 20.00 17.39 83.33 28.70 47.06 11.63 83.33 52.50 22.35 24.23 50.00 68.75 93.35

x x x x x x x x

x

40.60 33.85 x

entrance hall

group of three rooms

linear suite of rooms

andron

triclinium

axiality

symmetrical tablinum- or oecus facade

mini-atrium house

peristylium ? passage

closed

present

tablinum

vestibulum broad

narrow

4

3

2

1

T

porticus

T-shaped atrium

atrium width

atrium length (feet)

atrium length

quartile tect.

tusc.

tetrast.

atrium

pastas

courtyard

garden pond

SURVEY OF ANTECEDENTS

x x x

x

x x

x x x ? x x

x

x

x

x

x x x ?

x x x x

x

x

? x

x

x

x

3

x

8.3

28.0 8.1

?

x x

x x

x

x ? x

x

2

x

x x ? x x

16 9 7.5 15.6

54.1 11.8 x 30.4 7.5 25.3 5 52.7 9.9

6.7 6.8 13.6

22.6 12 23.0 11 45.9 10.4 x

x

x

? x

x x

x x x

? x x x ?

3 ? ?

x

6.15

20.8

6.4

? x x ?

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x x x x x

?

?

x x

3 x

x x x x x x x

x

x

x

?

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x ? ?

? 13

x x

43.9 10.7 x

1

x x

x

x x x

x x

x x x x x

x

x

x

x x

10.6

2 3

35.8

9.4

x ? x

x

x x

x

x

x x x x

x

37.2 50.7 50 7

10 11 x

x x x

3

x

x x

? x x x x x x ? 1 3

7.5 7.9 7 x

16

25.3 26.7 23.6 54.1

x

7 7.9 7 x x x

x x

x

x x x

x

x

x

x x x x x

x

x x x

x

x

? x

x x x x x x

x

x

? x

x

x x x x

x x

x

x

x x x

x x

x x x

9.8 x

x

x x ?

1

? x

x x x

? 11 15

x

x

x ?

?

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x ? x

x

17

x

A 1 I

1

1 3A III 1 II 1 III

2 2 2 1

III 2 2 1 2 4 IV 1

average

2400 400 280 2000 360 170 162 450 1246 130 1080 980 3391 650 1515 1627 5000 380 3200 345 1250 947 3500 509 9000 2000 885 900 450 2600 375 600 435 2900 600 880

29 6 9 30 8 7 10 13 19 10 12 19 42 9 36 30 53 9 22 11 12 15 34 7 90 28 13 10 17 39 8 18 17 43 18 13

1237.95

19.27

82.76 66.67 31.11 66.67 45.00 24.29 16.20 34.62 65.58 65 58 13.00

decoration

81 1 12 82 61 60 59 58 3 95 7 8 78 18 90 80 53 9 39 65 10 79 89 33 84 28 68 69 17 4 34 13 2 93 19 70

average room size

1st half of the 1st century AD 1st half of the 1st century AD 2nd quarter of the 1st century AD 1st century AD 1st century AD ? 1st century AD ? 1st century AD ? around 50-60 AD middle iddl off the th 1st 1 t century t BC 1st century AD 1st century AD 1st century AD around 50-60 AD 2nd half of the 1st century AD 2nd half of the 1st century AD 2nd half of the 1st century AD 2nd half of the 1st century AD 2nd half of the 1st century AD 2nd half of the 1st century AD 2nd half of the 1st century AD 1st century AD around 60 AD Flavian age around 65-70 AD Flavian age Flavian age Flavian age Flavian age between 60 and 80 AD the 70s AD around 70 AD around 70-80 AD around 70-80 AD between 80 and 100 AD around 110 AD end of the 1st century AD ?

rooms

m. au Vivier Archeveche Chartreux, m. 2 m. de l'Atrium Les Villégiales, m. C Les Villégiales, m. B Les Villégiales, m. A La Marseillaise stat. t t Pasteur P t m. Atrium Milhaud, Grand Périst. Reynaud, Gr.Opus Sect. m. Vest.á Colonnes Palais des Sports, m. 2 m. des Messii m. aux Colonnes Prés-Bas Reynaud, Salle en Hémicycle Villa des Vernes fontaine des Bénédictins Milhaud, Dieu Marin m. á Portique Peint prétoire place Formigé villa 1 Pardigon 3 q. Saint-Florient, m. A q. q Saint-Florient, Saint Florient m m. B Palais des Sports, m. 1 stat. Pasteur Clos-de-la-Tour,i.III, m.IIIa" Chartreux, m. 3 Archevêché m. au Dauphin Palais des Sports, m. 3 domus

area

Saint-Romain-en-Gal Aix-en-Provence Aix-en-Provence Saint-Romain-en-Gal Nîmes Nîmes Nîmes Nîmes Ai Aix-en-Provence P Vaison-la-Romaine Aix-en-Provence Aix-en-Provence Saint-Romain-en-Gal Amiens Vaison-la-Romaine Saint-Romain-en-Gal Loupian Aix-en-Provence La Boisse Nîmes Aix-en-Provence Saint-Romain-en-Gal Vaison-la-Romaine Fréjus Saint-Ulrich Cavalaire Orange Orange Amiens Aix-en-Provence Fréjus Aix-en-Provence Aix-en-Provence Vaison-la-Romaine Amiens Rezé

datation

catalogue number

site

phase

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

x x

x

x x 51.58 x 80.74 x 72.22 42.08 x 54.23 94.34 x 42.22 x 145.45 31.36 ? x 63.13 102.94 x 72.71 100.00 x 71.43 68.08 x 90 00 x 90.00 26.47 66.67 46.88 x 33.33 x 25.59 67.44 x 33.33 67.69

?

53.91

Table 1: The comparison of the building features

have only been made exceptionally in houses of more significant ornamentation in Pompeii. On the other hand wall paintings and mosaics can often be used at least for a broader chronological classification and this applies to a more limited extent for the architectural mouldings.67

provincial wall paintings - as it was already mentioned is possible and even extremely successful but its quantity is insufficient. At the same time the floor plan has been published only of the architectural details of a large part of the Gallo-Roman buildings to be studied by us whereas date is (usually) based on finds therefore we possess more or less exact but specific absolute chronological data.

If we would like to summarize: on the one hand there is the chronological system of Pompeii based on stylistics, whereas on the other hand there is the large quantity of residential houses excavated in Gallia and the two should be compared. Such a comparison should be bilateral, thus an attempt should be made to check the chronology of buildings in Pompeii with the help of the Gallo-Roman development of houses.

A chronology based on stylistics has certain hidden problems because it cannot at be considered sure that earlier architectural techniques like the ashlar walls built of tuff available in Pompeii were not applied later even from materials of secondary usage. The simpler types of flooring (like the pebble-ornamented terrazzo) in themselves are again difficult to date.66 In addition the relationship between the flooring and the other structures of a building is impossible to identify precisely without using destructive methods. Profound excavations 66

A new paper: Vassal 2006

67

18

Cf. with Chapter 11.

2 2 2

3 2 2

3 x

x ?

3

?

? ?

7.7 26.0 7.3

x x x x

1 1 1

1

3 1

3 2 x ?

9.7 32.8 5.6 x x

8 27.0 8 x

x

x x x x x x

x x x x x

19

x x x x

x x

x

x x ?

x ?

x x

x ?

x

x

x ? x

x

x

x

x

x

x x ?

x x x x ? x x x

x x x x x x

? ? x x x

mini-atrium house

peristylium ?

tablinum

vestibulum

porticus

T-shaped atrium

atrium width

atrium length (feet)

atrium length

quartile

atrium

x x x x

x

x x

? x x

x x

x x

x ? x x x x

x ? ? ? x x x x

x

x x x x

x ? x x

x x

x x

x x ?

x x

x x x x

x

x

x

entrance hall

group of three rooms

linear suite of rooms

andron

triclinium

axiality

symmetrical tablinum- or oecus facade

passage

closed

present

broad

narrow

4

3

2

1

T

tect.

tusc.

tetrast.

pastas

courtyard

garden pond

SURVEY OF ANTECEDENTS

?

x

x x x

x x x

x

x x

? x ?

x x

x x x

x x

x x

of the Villa dei Papiri was of this type1) but it was not very frequent2 and it was already stated above that the appearance of the second type with exedra can be dated to the Imperial period in Pompeii.3

Chapter 3 Floor Plans

In the case of the Gallo-Roman houses studied by us apparently each type is evenly represented, provided we assume that the ponds were built simultaneously with the buildings (Table 2). Interestingly a larger part of the representatives of the first type can be dated to the second part of the first century AD and even the two of the three earlier ones (40, 57, 87) that can be dated more reliably are also after AD 25 which suggests that the spread of the type was unfolding in the first century AD in Gaul. The second type pond of the Maison aux Pierres Dorées (77) of Saint-Romain-en-Gal was replaced by a first type pond in the next building phase (Maison au Vestibule à Colonnes, 78). At the same time the similar basin of the first phase of the Maison aux Colonnes (80) not far from the previous one was not demolished later on only built longer while the exedra was retained therefore it still resembles to the first type.4

A basic condition of comparability is that the study of buildings belonging to the same type should be done parallel to each other. Unfortunately only the ground plan is available in a large part of the buildings, therefore one can only make inferences about the much more structural solutions, the volume of buildings, their upper stories, façade or roof structure. In addition, only some details of the floor plan are known in many cases on the basis of which one can either classify the building under some typological category or it can be done only conditionally, as often there are some among the buildings where no phenomena were noticed during excavations that suggest the function of the various rooms, hence a definition of the rooms can only be done on the basis of parallels (the last phase of the PCO1 domus of Bibracte is also such a building). The situation is made significantly more complicated by the fact that the location of doors and passages is often uncertain, therefore the spatial connections inside the building cannot be unambiguously clarified either.

The second type has several sub-types. The exedra placed on the long side appears in the following places: Maison B (69) of Orange, the Maison au Vestibule à Colonnes (77) of Saint-Romain-en-Gal, the Maison au Portique Peint (79), the Maison aux Colonnes (80) and the Maison de l’Atrium (82), their parallel is in the peristyle of the Casa del Centenario (IX,8,3.6a).5 The exedra at the shorter side can be found at the pond of the villa of Loupian (53) and house 8 of the villa Roma of Nîmes (62), their parallel is the Casa di Pansa of Pompeii (VI, 6, 1.8.13.22),6 while in house 2 of Chartreux of Aix-en-Provence (12) there is an exedra on both shorter sides of the piscina. Though the semicircular pond (Casa del Citarista7 – I, 4, 5.6.25.28 and Casa di Trebio Valente – III.2.1) does have a parallel in Gaul (Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Maison A sous le lycée)8, but for the time being it cannot be linked to a date. The U-shaped basin appeared later and can be dated to the late first century AD on the basis of the examples of SaintRomain-en-Gal.9

The earliest buildings in the catalogue of buildings originate from Vaison-la-Romaine, their earliest point for date is around 50 BC (Maison au Dauphin, 92 and phase I of the so-called “Praetorium”, 88). As both are peristyle houses therefore one cannot speak about the appearance of a new type of house: this type of house is known from much earlier in Glanum. The earliest known atrium house is the house of Clos de la Lombarde of Narbonne (55), in other words the currently known earliest appearance of the atrium house can be dated to after 30 BC. Chronologically this means that trends of the Italian architecture of residential houses can be discovered of the Late Republican age as well as of the Imperial Age at least theoretically. This is why subsequently some characteristic details of buildings are to be investigated. 1. Garden Pond (piscina)

The only one of interest among the examples mentioned above is the pond of a house in Nîmes (62) because the house can be dated to 20 BC, in other words this is the terminus antequem for the development of this type and it seems to be earlier than the parallels in Pompeii referred to.

Three forms of garden ponds (Figure 14) could be isolated (the impluvia are not going to be discussed here). The first type is narrow and of an elongated rectangular shape, its longitudinal axis is usually parallel to the longitudinal axis of the peristyle. The second type has a semicircular exedra; the third one is rectangular and placed (often in pairs) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the peristyle. It can be observed that the ponds are usually of north-south orientation within the limitations of the possibilities, in other words, the third type is often perpendicular to the longitudinal or symmetry axis of the peristyle because the latter one is of east-west orientation.

Floor plan: Mielsch 1987 p. Dickmann 1999 p. 350–351. 3 See footnote 157. 4 Floor plan of phase 2: Atlas 1996 p. 398, floor plan of pase 3: Atlas 1996 p. 401. 5 Dickmann 1999 Taf. 6e 6 Dickmann 1999 Taf. 7c 7 Dickmann 1999 Taf. 7h 8 Atlas 1996 p. 360–361. 9 A survey of the piscinae of Saint-Romain-en-Gal: Desbat et al. 1994 p. 198–199. In addition there is also a survey in the case Fréjus as well: Rivet et al. 2000 p. 425. 1 2

Their date after examples from Pompeii is possible in a broad sense only: the narrow and long first type already existed before the end of the Republican period (the pond

20

floor plans

2.

1.

3.

Figure 14: Types of garden ponds (1: Taradeau, 2: Orange, 3: Lyon)

2. T-shaped rooms

With the exception of PC33, the houses are all among the big houses with a ground surface of 2000–3000 m2. According to this and the size of the atrium one may infer that these rooms are mostly characteristic for large buildings.

The two types of rooms are discussed together because their floor plans are similar. The T-shaped atrium stands for an atrium to which rooms are linked on both sides identifiable as alae according to Vitruvius. Two kinds of atria exist depending on the proportions of the alae: the one following Vitruvian proportions:10 such are the PC1 (5) and the PC33 (26) of Bibracte where the length of the side of the alae is at least one-fourth of the length of the atrium. The other kind can be regarded as a local variant where the length of the side of the alae is one-sixth to one-tenth of the length of the atrium; this is represented by the “Prétoire” of Lyon (44) and the Parc de la Grange (38) of Genava. The atria mentioned above belong to the category of the largest atria in the material studied by us (40–50 feet long) and are not found in the second part of the first century AD. Such an atrium belongs to the domus of the Maison des Nones de Mars of Limoges (40) too. Curiously enough the floor plan of the viridarium of the second peristyle is identical to the atrium. A similar T-shaped room can be seen on the floor plan of the first phase of the Maison au Vivier (81) of Saint-Romain-en-Gal (as the latter one can be found in the zone of the peristyle at the further side from the entrance this is why it cannot be called as atrium). As far we could follow no T-shaped rooms appear after the middle of the first century AD and even the existing one was reshaped during the second building phase of the Maison au Vivier. In this house it is the central part of the linear suite of rooms therefore its function can also be clarified: it seems to be a cenatio which can be presumably equated functionally to a group of three rooms. 10

As far as outlining the chronology of development is possible, the T-shaped atrium and the T-shaped room were used in the same period of time. Their connections to rooms correspond more or less to the Roman “standard house” of Vitruvius. However, one can find an interesting feature: there are internal corridors running parallel to the atria in the case of the “Prétoire” of Lyon and the Maison des Nones de Mars of Limoges and both of them had presumably an atrium tectum. This means the function of the T-shaped rooms is independent from the internal organization of the domus. 3. The Entrance Hall Under the term entrance hall such a room is understood that can be found at the entrance part of the domus and is of central (and usually axial) position. It differs from the atrium tectum in that either the hall does not suit the definition of atrium, or the rooms around it cannot be identified with the rooms of the Roman “standard house”. The difference is not at all marked which suggests that the entrance hall was taking over the role of the atrium and represents its simplified form. In our view the reason for building a domus without atrium and the simplification of the atrium part are a consequence for favouring the peristyle part. Representatives of the type are to be found in Aix-en-Province (8, 9), in Amiens (19) and in SaintRomain-en-Gal (77, 78, 81) thus they are present not only in specific areas.

Vitr. VI.3.4

21

The Spread of the Roman Domus Type in Gaul see the atrium tetrastylum in the early phases of Glanum and Ensérune,11 therefore it should be regarded as an established architectural element.

The earliest representative of the entrance hall is the Maison des Pierres Dorées (77) of Saint-Romain-en-Gal built around AD 15–20 and it was in use all along the first century AD. The last representative of this type in our Catalogue is at the entrance part of the great domus (19) of the Palais des Sports in Amiens which can be dated to AD 110, falling outside the period of our investigation.

6. Peristylium Rhodiacum The Rhodian peristylium described by Vitruvius12 had special architectural features: the intercolumnium of the peristyle part, which can be found in front of the triclinium, is adjusted to the width of the triclinium entrance and the part of the roof above it is raised. It can be recognised on the floor plan on the basis of the door aperture width and the synchrone of the intercolumnium with the columns of the porticus and we can also infer to it on the basis of the thicker columns there. The Maison de Clodivs (Figure 9) of Orange is of this formation among the earlier houses. Some other houses in the catalogue namely the Maison au Péristyle Rhodien (5) of Aix, the Clos de la Lombarde (55) of Narbonne, the Maison des Messii (90) of Vaison and the building B of Orange (69) should be mentioned here too.

The origin of the hall can be explained in two ways. The logical explanation would be the transformation of the atrium as it was mentioned above. It assumes that local types of atria emerged and the entrance hall was created as a result of an evolution. This assumption is difficult to sustain because, as it was seen, the entrance hall can be found even at the initial phase of the spread of the domus type. The other explanation may be that this type of room had evolved earlier and was adapted. We have already referred above to the Palazzo delle Colonne (Figure 6/3) of Ptolemais, the entrance hall of which is oecus aegypticus and room 4 of the Maison au Vestibule à Colonnes (78) shows strong similarities at least on the level of architectural concept. Though there is also an impluvium at the latter one in the entrance hall supporting the possibility of originating it from the atrium, the arrangement of the shallow and broad rooms around the entrance hall does not bear to much similarity to the atrium houses. The entrance hall of the Maison au Grand opus sectile (8) of Aix also has an impluvium, but it is not located in the geometric centre of the hall. Based on our current knowledge it can be interpreted as a type of room following Hellenistic traditions (the oecus aegypticus as a feature of internal decoration stands for this) that was developed in the atrium-peristyle-house and replaced the atrium.

7. Symmetrical Tablinum and Oecus Fronts The interior of the atrium and the symmetrical arrangement of the back wall of the tablinum towards the peristyle were applied right from the beginnings (around 30 BC) according to our data (Narbonne, Clos de la Lombarde, 55) and was continuously present in the surveyed period. This date corresponds to the one of Pompeii (cf. above). 8. Linear Suite of Rooms Due to the lack of decorative elements it is very difficult to find suites of rooms corresponding to the ones in Pompeii in our Gallo-Roman samples, as the representative function of a room is principally justified by the execution of the floors and the wall paintings. In addition the floor plans of houses are also simpler in a large number of cases, in other words the Gallo-Roman houses often consisted only of rooms surrounding the courtyard with peristyle. It should be noted, however, that the suite of rooms may consist of any shape, arrangement and size of rooms and in the simpler residential houses of Pompeii highly varied solutions may be found.13

4. Broad Vestibulum The broad vestibulum (an entrance corridor the width of which is larger than half of its length and leads directly to the atrium or peristyle) was present in the Gallo-Roman architecture right from the beginning. The most probable reason for its appearance is that there was no need for building tabernae at the part of the house facing the street (see Table 1). Its presence is characteristic of the entire period surveyed, therefore it is not suitable for dating.

A well definable type of the suite of rooms, however, could be discovered. Apparently, this type appeared for the first time in villa architecture, its typified floor plan scheme is shown below (Figure 15).

5. Atrium Tetrastylum The atria tetrastyla belong to the small-size atria, their greatest representative is in the villa rustica (75) of Valescure-Le Suveret, a building of agricultural role with an atrium of a length of 34.5 feet (though the room can be called an atrium only on the basis of the form of its floor plan). This type of atrium often appears in the mini-atrium-houses (see Table 1), hence its date range practically corresponds to that of the house type. The only exception is phase 4 of the Maison au Dauphin (93) from the late 1st century AD where a room of similar floor plan was used as the entrance courtyard or foyer (therefore it is an atrium as an architectural element without the original function). Mini-atrium-houses in our Catalogue are dated between 20 BC and AD 40. We could already

Figure 15: The typified form of a linear series of rooms

See the previous chapter. Vitr. VI.7.3 13 Dickmann 1999 Taf. 5 11

12

22

FLOOR PLANS

80 39

84

91

81

A

B

C

Figure 16: The appearance of the typified linear suite of rooms (the scale and orientation are not identical). See text below for details.

As far as its composition is concerned, it consists of a central room flanked by corridors on two sides. At the further side of the corridors two rectangular rooms can be found one of which is divided into more or less equal parts. This group of rooms can be found in phase 1 of the Maison aux Colonnes of Saint-Romain-en-Gal (80), in phase 2 of the Maison au Vivier (81), in the villa of Saint-Ulrich (84), and a similar suites of rooms can be discovered in the floor plan of the Maison au Buste d’argent of Vaison (91) and perhaps in the one of the villa of La Boisse as well (39) – (Figure 16). The suite of rooms bordering the large peristyle of Plate-Forme (31) of Fréjus from the south (51, 56–60 and their symmetrical equivalents) also appear to be of this type.

middle of the first century BC and the Horatius-villa15 of Licenza, as well as the villa of Barcola16 built in the first century AD (Figure 16, C, B, A) or the Villa San Marco of Roccolise.17 It can be seen that the linear suite of rooms is bordering the peristyle in every case. The peristyle is usually large but it can also be very small as in the villa of Barcola or in the case of the Maison au Buste d’argent. Based on the above one may infer that this series of rooms, replacing the original room order behind the atrium, represent the architectural solution for the arrangement of the symmetrical peristyle façade of villas. This solution emerged in the middle of the first century BC. The linear suite of rooms appears also in the villa of Montmaurin (Figure 17) from the late first century AD, in other words it is characteristic of the entire period under survey.

The linear suite of rooms were found in the Italian villas, too: one is the Villa dei Papiri14 which can be dated to the

Mielsch 1987 p. 62 Fig. 35. Gros 2001 p. 307 Fig. 322. 17 Gros 2001 p. 296. Fig. 319. 15 16

14

Gros 2001 p. 298 Fig. 320.

23

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

0

20

Figure 17: The first building phase of the villa of Montmaurin, Gros 2001 p. 345 Fig. 393

parts in the case of the villa of the Parc de la Grange of Genava (38) and in the Maison des Nones de Mars (40) of Limoges, just as it did in the case of the Maison des Messii (90) of Vaison.

9. Corridors Parallel to the Atrium In some cases corridors parallel to the atrium and also running next to it can be discovered among the atrium houses (Figure 18). The “Prétoire” (44) of Lyon and the Maison des Nones de Mars (40) of Limoges are of identical orientation. All the four buildings in the Figure 18 have T-shaped atria and have a broad vestibulum. Looking at them from the entrance, the corridors are located on the right side of the atrium. The corridors of the PC1 (22) of Bibracte and of the Maison des Nones de Mars bifurcate and there is a bath next to each. The bath section of the “Prétoire” of Lyon can be found at the northern part of the building. The villa of Genava (38) survived in a rather poor condition, therefore the corridor can be recognised on its floor plan but the functions of the rooms next to it cannot be identified. The houses mentioned here are dated between 20 BC and AD 45. Presumably this type of corridor was meant to separate the circulation of the slaves from the atrium. It can be considered as a definitely unusual detail and suggests that occasionally there could be a very sharp social borderline separating the owners of the houses from their servants.

The PCO1 domus (20) of Bibracte has even two such corridors (A and B) placed approximately symmetrically. These corridors, just as the other corridor next to the tablinum at the eastern part of the building and parallel to it (C and D) lead to the porticus surrounding the house, similarly to the corridors of the Villa dei Misteri (Figure 19). The first building phase of the Villa dei Misteri can be dated to the period after Sulla18 and the corridors already existed in that phase.19 A further similarity is that no alae belong to the atrium of either of the buildings and a room corresponding to the tablinum was structurally separate from the atrium,20 in other words there was a wall (a foundation slab in the case of the PCO1) between it and the atrium. A specificity of the Villa dei Misteri is that the atrium was isolated and if there were no parallel to its floor plan one should treat it with particular attention the fact that the part of the rooms around the atrium could be accessed only from the direction of the outer porticus.21 The villa of Settefinestre22 built around 40 BC is actually functionally rather similar to the Villa dei Misteri. Though the external porticus can be found there around the peristyle part, but it is visible that there the main direction

10. Corridors Perpendicular to the Atrium Corridors perpendicular to the atrium can also be observed besides the ones running parallel to the atrium (Figure 19). The role of these corridors could be different: the side corridor links the atrium with the entrance from the street on the western side in the case of the Maison au Grand opus sectile (8) in Aix. It ensured connection with the service

Maiuri 1931 p. 37–40 and p. 99–101 and Pernice 1938 p. 55–58. For the floor plan in the following: Dickmann 1999 Taf.4c 20 There is no foundation structure between the atrium and the tablinum for instance in the case of PC1 822) and PC33 (26) buildings of Bibracte. 21 Dickmann 1999 p. 171–176. 22 Carandini et al. 1986 and Dickmann 1999 p. 176–181. 18 19

24

FLOOR PLANS

44. Lyon, Sanctuaire de Cybèle (prétoire) 22. Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, PC1

0

38. Genava, Parc de la Grange

20

40. Limoges, Maison des Nones de Mars

Figure 18: Atrium houses with corridors parallel to the atrium (identical scale and identical orientation)

11. L-shaped Corridor The L-shaped corridor is a characteristic element of the ground-plan, it can be found in certain cases next to rooms whereas in others next to the courtyard (in this case it can have the appearance of a porticus). Presumably the reason for its development can be related to the use of certain rooms or to the solution of internal circulation problems as the making of secondary passages was inevitable in bigger houses. Particularly the circulation inside the service quarters required a secondary courtyard or a system of covered corridors depending on whether there was a need for natural light. The L-shaped corridor deserves special attention because it was most probably built in connection with the service rooms thus it may offer some basis to the function of the rooms even if finds or excavation observations are missing. It can be found in buildings 4, 8, 20, 42, 39, 51 and perhaps in the 40 too.

of access to several rooms was from the porticus (Figure 20). Both Italian villas are also similar in that they were placed on a partially artificial terrace, which is not there in the case of the domus of Bibracte. As summary, one may risk the statement that the architectural concept of the PCO1 domus of Bibracte of the Augustan period23 is similar to the two villas mentioned above in respect of the issue of the outer porticus. Presumably the three buildings represent a transitory type of the domus suburbana which is in between the Vitruvian atrium house and the firstcentury villas with peristyle façade.

23

As to the date: Timár et al. 2005 p. 44 és Beck et al. 2005.

25

str

eet

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

B

C A

D

20. Bibracte, PCO1

Pompeii, Villa dei Misteri

0

Figure 19: Corridors perpendicular to the atrium

24

25

3

26

4 2

23

21

12

14

13 29

28

11

27

30

10

9

46

35

19 55 34

45

54

33 32

44

51 50

43 42 0

5

10

20

Figure 20: The villa of Settefinestre (after Dickmann 1999 Taf. 4i)

26

20

Chapter 4 The Building Types The buildings types are to be surveyed after details of the floor plan. As it is shown by the catalogue of buildings there are basically two types: the atrium house and the peristyle house. In addition we do have buildings of atypical floor plan as well. 1. The Domus of Vitruvius This category includes those houses which correspond to the Vitruvian description at least to a large extent. Reference is often made to the Casa di Trebio Valente (III.2.1) as an example of Pompeii, in the Gallo-Roman material such one is the PCO1 (20), the PC1 (22) of Bibracte, the “Prétoire” (44) of Lyon, the Maison à Portiques (Clos de la Lombarde, 55) of Narbonne. The Maison des Messii (90) of Vaison has rooms that were interpreted by J. Sautel as atrium and the peristyle parts, although those are not to be found in each other’s continuation but are located side by side in the case of those two latter ones. All the other houses can be dated to the last decades of the first century BC which raises the question that how the Maison des Messii can fit into this series. There are two possible explanations: either its present date is not correct or the identification of the room figuring as atrium on the floor plan is wrong. The date of the building definitely possessing earlier building periods is based on the examination of the wall construction techniques,1 but it contradicts a date to the Flavian age that a part of the mosaics in the house could be made in the first half of the first century AD based on stylistics.2 Hence the issue of date cannot be decided upon on the basis of our present knowledge. The identification of the room defined as atrium is itself doubtful: most probably there was a courtyard in the place of the atrium,3 which seems to be justified also by the arrangement of the adjoining rooms, though a lot of details (and wall segments) were destroyed during the activities of the excavator J. Sautel.4 As a consequence of the facts above we do not regard the Maison des Messii as belonging to the present category, and we are going to discuss its problem later. 2. The Mini-Atrium-Houses The mini-atrium-houses were mentioned earlier:5 according to our definition they consists only of the atrium and the rooms around it. Their size is characteristically about 20 x20 m (400 m2). Most of these buildings figuring in the Catalogue are from Lyon (45, 46, 47, 48, 49) and Fréjus (32, 35, 36, 37); it can also be stated that their characteristic room is the atrium tetrastylum. In addition, houses excavated in Vaison-la-Romaine (94) and presumably the ones of Metz (54) and Ambrussum (15) were also of this Carru 1996 p. 339, Goudineau 1979 p. 190. Room 19: CAG 84/1 p. 257–258, Room 23: CAG 84/1 p. 258–259. 3 Goudineau 1979 p. 228. 4 CAG 84/1 p. 258–259. 5 See Footnote 82. 1 2

type, though the latter two as well as the houses of Fréjus should be treated with caution due to their fragmentary floor plans. There are altogether three of the above mentioned miniatrium-houses where some of the rooms of the Vitruvian atrium house can be recognised in the floor plan for certain. There is a room identifiable as ala or tablinum at the eastern side of the Maison à l’opus spicatum (45) of Lyon. An ala and a tablinum can be recognised in the floor plan of the Maison aux Pilastres (47), while a tablinum, accompanied by two corridors can be identified in the mini-atrium-house of the Villasse Nord (94) of Vaison. On the floor plan of the other mini-atrium-houses there is no room or connection of rooms that would be characteristic only for the atrium houses, in other words, they could be considered also as mini-peristyle-houses. The Maison du Laraire (49) of Lyon is most probably such a minimum-sized peristyle house because the side length of the impluvium is bigger than the distance between the impluvium and the walls surrounding it. Among the simple peristyle houses there are also earlier ones, we should only remember to Glanum (Figure 14), Ensérune (Figure 15) or even to the house 08 of the Villa Roma of Nîmes (62), The house with atrium tetrastylum of the Place Formigé (32) of Fréjus was transformed into a peristyle house in the Flavian period indicating that the atrium tetrastylum was not the smallest form of the peristyle. In point of fact, the mini-atrium-house corresponds to the fundamental form of the earliest atrium houses of Pompeii, a paradigmatic example of which is the first phase of the Casa di Sallustio (Figure 17). It can be regarded as the most conservative type of domus in the provincial environment. The context of urban architecture where it appears clearly refers to the circumstances of the emergence of the type: the newly settled provincial urban dwellers built their houses according to their modest means: but the floor plan, the number and type of rooms, the possession of “magnifica vestibula et tablina et atria”, could mean the illusion of belonging to a higher social class. The conservative floor plan was also its means or rather its consequence. 3. The Peristyle Houses A large part of buildings with a central courtyard are peristyle houses, but houses without peristyle and organised around a courtyard would also be discussed here. The lack of a porticus in itself does not prove that such a house was undemanding (an example to it was already seen above in the Maison de Sulla of Glanum – Figure 28), but if there was no interior decoration and it could be proved then two very important criteria of the definition of the domus would be missing. Such a building is the house excavated at the courtyard of the Archevêché of Aix (its two periods: 1 and 2), in the case of which the large ground surface (approximately 800 m2 if the currently known floor plan is completed) and the immediate neighbourhood of the forum (cf. Figure 4) would suggest that the building could not be totally insignificant. The next group of peristyle houses is that of the urban 27

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

stre

et ?

pas sag e

7 Aix-en-Province, Enclos Milhaud, Maison au Grand Péristyle

10 Aix-en-Province, Enclos Milhaud, Maison du Dieu Marin 1 2 4

3

9 6

8

7

Herculaneum, Casa dei Cervi

10

2 4

1

5

5

0 6 Aix-en-Province, Jardin de Grassi, Maison au Grand Péristyle

20

43 Limoges, Maison à l'emblema du lion

Figure 21: Urban houses with large peristyle (identical scale and orientation)

houses with large peristyle (Figure 21). Houses belonging to this group (6, 7, 10, 43) where usually of a ground surface bigger than 1000 m2. As far as their floor plan is concerned they belong to the peristyle house type, their central room is a big peristyle which takes up about one third of the total ground surface of the house. A common feature of the four floor plans presented here is that a big triclinium is found in the northern part which is also part of a group of three rooms in two cases (6, 43). Parallel to the triclinium runs the fauces, and the triclinium borders the road only in the case of two houses (7, 10). It is interesting because usually the triclinium was placed furthest away from the road. The two of them with the groups of three rooms can be dated to the first half of the first century AD, the other have uncertain dates. The parallel of their floor plan is the last building phase of the Casa dei Cervi of Herculaneum (IV, 21), which, can be dated to the Augustan–Tiberian period on the basis of pottery finds deposited in the rubble of a cistern.6 The peristyle houses were rather rare in Pompeii and in Herculaneum during the Imperial Age, but they were already frequent in Northern Italy in the first century BC.7 6 7

Presumably an older variant of the type can be seen below from Northern Italy (Figure 22) dated to the last decades of the first century BC. Despite the shortcomings of the floor plan their identity with houses in Gaul can be clearly seen. The kind of peristyle with rooms only at one or both sides requires attention among the floor plans (Figure 23). Our catalogue includes two such houses, both were built in the second half of the first century AD and both are of small size (cca 20 x 20 m). It can be rightly assumed that they replaced the type of the mini-atrium-house, particularly because the house of Fréjus was actually built in the place of a mini-atrium-house. The next group of peristyle houses was characteristically sized 30 x 30 m, with a square peristyle surrounded by series of rooms on the sides (Figure 24). These can be found not only in urban context but also in loosely built up environments like the Parc aux Chevaux of Bibracte. Though a large number of the houses figuring on the picture are of incomplete floor plan, such a building type can be isolated within the group where a large room is attached to the peristyle, similarly to the spatial connection between an atrium and an ala. That room may have the function

Dickmann 1999 p. 329–330, as to its date: p. 329, Footnote 168. Gros 2001 p. 93–102 and George 1997, p. 5ff

28

THE BUILDING TYPES of vestibulum (21, 41), or of another destination (perhaps corresponding to that of a cenaculum: 25, 70). The last group of peristyle houses is the type of multiple porticos and peristyles. Its characteristic feature is the loose connection between the peristyles and the rooms, and generally the lack of axiality (Figure 25). If the latter factor were disregarded, representatives of the palace type could also be classified under this category. Of the three houses on the figure, the domus of Aix was the result of two building phases and it can be assumed that residential houses with several peristyles were usually evolved from merging some houses. Such unification of buildings, however, can only be interpreted if a major part of the floor plan is known and the excavation itself was conducted on a proper scientific level.

0

The date of the houses found in the zone of the porte de l’Agachon in Fréjus8 misses practically every archaeological point of reference. The written documentation of the excavator A. Donnadieu did not survive and the excavation can be envisaged only on the basis of a map of 1:200 scale and some photos.9 Despite the fact that the domus with “atrium” is defined as contemporaneous with the foundation of the colonia in a report of the time of the

20

Figure 22: Domus under the Basilica of Aquileia, after Gros 2001 p. 100 Fig. 91.

8 9

Atlas 1996, p.132–133 and Rivet et al. 2000, p. 103–104, p. 412–413. Rivet et al. 2000, p. 103.

stree t

33 Fréjus, Place J. Formigé, phase 2

18 Amiens, Palais des Sports, maison 2, phase III

0 Figure 23: Small houses with peristyle (identical size and orientation)

29

20

21 Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, maison à l'opus spicatum

23 Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, PC2

30

41 Limoges, insula VII-5, early domus

Figure 24: Houses of square floor plan with peristyle (identical size and orientation)

24 Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, PC8

0

20

70 Rezé, Terrain Peigné, domus sud

25 Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, PC23

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

THE BUILDING TYPES

t ee str

t ee str 2 6 1 7 8 12

9

5 Aix-en-Province, Jardin de Grassi, maison au Péristyle Rhodien

XII

XI

I

VII

IV

VI

t ee str

I

4 Aix-en-Province, Parc de stationnement Pasteur 86 Soissons, lycée Gérard de Nerval (rue P. Deviolaine)

0

20

0

20

Figure 25a: Fréjus, porte de l’Agachon, Atlas 1996 p. 133. Figure 25: Houses with multiple peristyles (identical orientation and scale)

basin

"MA MAISON"

ECOLE EMILE COMBES

basin ?

opus signinum

mosaic floor

opus signinum

mosaic floor

opus signinum

impluvium ?

0 Figure 26: Saintes, L’école Émile Combes, CAG 17/2 p. 217 Fig. 249.

31

20

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL excavation,10 the present dating is based on the mosaic floors (first to second centuries AD). It can be assumed even on the basis of the fragmentary floor plan (Figure 25) that the currently known status is the result of a later rebuilding of an insula built earlier (even in the early first century AD). According to some assumptions the unit of a ground size of 35 x 35 m was developed by the merging of four buildings of the same size. At the same time neither the boundaries of the “atrium” house nor the eastern part of the insula is exactly known, therefore these statements have to be taken as hypotheses only. The floor of the “atrium” and the rooms north of it are white mosaic floors with black border, with the exception of the room (sized 6.45 x 4.30 m) north of it where the floor is an opus signinum decorated with imported colour stones. Mosaic floors of this execution seem to be characteristic of the first part of the first century AD, while the opus signinum, despite the fact that pieces of exotic marbles can also be found in it,11 could also possibly be made as early as the course of the first century.

21 20 18 19 Figure 27: Pompeii, Casa di Iasone, IX 5 18–21 (after Eschebach 1991)

The “Ma Maison” of Saintes and the domus found at the site “L’école Émile Combes”13 were also not included in the catalogue, because the floor plans are very fragmentary. Building technology and the execution of the flooring of the latter one seems to be uniform in the entire plot and on this basis a large complex can be outlined (Figure 26). 12

certainly belonged to the estate and the background of it was provided by the pars rustica (fructuaria) which constituted some kind of a building (or group of buildings) together with the pars urbana of residential function.16 The building and the area of land was called jointly praedium or fundus, in other words the two parts were inseparable in legal and common sense. Architecturally, the villa was not a definite building type, archaeological research has been recording those trends for long that had influenced the architecture of villas. The first essential influence was the conquest of the Hellenistic world, and as a consequence, several architectural elements appeared in the villas which originated from the residential houses of the Hellenistic elite. There were fewer restrictions at the development of villas than in the case of the urban domus and villa architecture could very well play a pioneering role in the Roman residential architecture.

The greatest problem of these houses is that total excavation is impossible. Wherever excavations on large surface could be done, they were executed already before the second half of the 20th century but without attempts to isolate the building periods.14 4. Houses of atypical Floor plan The houses of atypical floor plan do not correspond to the definition of the domus but one should briefly take a view on them. It was already observed in Pompeii that there were houses the rooms of which were of equal standing with the rooms of the domus in view of their function and decoration, but the floor plan was without peristyle as well as atrium. House 1 of the rue des Farges in Lyon (50) is a representative of this type. Its parallel is the Casa di Iasone (IX 5 18-21) in Pompeii,15 where an interesting architectural solution can be seen: the rooms of the atrium house were separated and rotated in order to allow the best use of space (Figure 27).

Expressly economic buildings figure just as much in our catalogue (Ambrussum, Maison A and B – 14 and 15, Nîmes, rue Séguier – 67, Saint-Raphael, Valescure – 75) as villas having also a pars urbana (or only that one) (Cavalaire, Pardigon 3 – 28, Loupian, Prés-Bas – 53, Nîmes, ZAC des Halles, Maison A – 56, Saint-Julien – 74, Saint-Ulrich, villa 1 – 84, Taradeau, Saint-Martin – 87). The floor plan of houses belonging to the first group is extremely simple; they are the undecorated variants of the urban domus with the exception of the house of Saint-Raphael. The house of Saint-Raphael with its symmetrical design and rooms of uniform size recalls the pars rustica part of the villa of Boscotrecase where there was an ergastulum consisting of rooms built around the peristyle.17

5. Villas According to the original classical interpretation a villa is a building that is located outside the city walls and an estate (ager) belongs to it. Agricultural activities Lantier (R.): Recherches archéologiques – Fréjus, Gallia I, 1943, p. 254. 11 The import of exotic marbles was already widespread by the second part of the first century AD. Cf. footnotes 291 and 292. 12 CAG 17/2, p. 192–203. 13 CAG 17/2, p. 213–218. 14 An other expressive example is the urban centre of Saint-Bertrand-deComminges: May 1968 p.127. 15 Richardson 1988, p. 223. 10

16 The description of the pars urbana is missing from Vitruvius, he dealt only with pars rustica: Vitr. VI.6.1–7. 17 Mielsch 1987 p.13–15 and Fig. 3 and Richardson 1988 p. 242–244. According to the latter one the villa dated to 12 BC was a transitory type between the traditional one and the villa with porticus.

32

THE BUILDING TYPES

32

33

31

26

25 24

30

2

15

7

16

10

5

35 3

6

1

4

47

Pompeii, Villa di Diomede

89 Vaison-la-Romaine, prétoire

0

20

Figure 28: Sunken garden with triclinium (identical scale and orientation)

The villas in the second group are of complex floor plan; in two cases the pars rustica was located in a separate wing (74, 84). As they had not only agricultural function there is decoration in them as well. Their floor plans are greatly variegated but their common feature is that a peristyle is their central room.

6. Palaces Two very large buildings of unusual floor plan are included in the Catalogue. The buildings of the Butte Saint Antoine (30) and Plate-Forme (31) of Fréjus dated to the Imperial period are next to the city wall and both buildings were built as an integral part of the defensive system which suggests that they were of prominent importance. The remains of the buildings survive in a very poor state, and earlier excavations, treasure hunts and construction activities of the modern age20 figured as further aggravating circumstances. Their size and complex floor plan points far beyond the urban residential houses therefore they will be called palaces in the following. According to the excavators they were built for high-ranking persons, therefore we have to look for their parallels in the architecture of the Imperial period (Figure 29).

It should be noted that a suite of rooms of economic oragricultural function (on the southern as well as northern sides) also belonged to phase 2 of the Praetorium of Vaison (89) that means it can also be considered as a villa. The road network appeared in the last third of the first century AD at the Maison au Dauphin (92 and 93) and on that basis one should assume that the economic part of the Praetorium (taking up about 20% of the area of the building) was built earlier. The garden of the Praetorium surrounded by porticus with a nymphaeum and garden triclinium is located on a deeper level than the building, resembling to the sunken garden of the Villa di Diomede18 of Pompeii (Figure 28). The date of the latter one is given within broad limits, most probably the garden part was developed in the Augustan period and it was merged to the older part of the building or was rebuilt after the earthquake of 62 AD.19 The Praetorium had an earlier phase (around 40 to 30 BC, see Catalogue entry 88) which serves as a terminus postquem in the present case, in other words we can risk the statement that the two gardens were developed more or less at the same time and they also represent the same architectural trend.

The first Roman representative of the type was the house of Augustus21 and the earliest known provincial palace of the Imperial period was the palace of Caesarea Maritima22 presumably owned by Herod. The latter one followed the local architectural traditions23 but the colonnaded reception hall of the upper palace (E) with the linked rooms resembles to the “tablinum” (10) of the Casa di Augusto and the related rooms (9, 11). The emphasis on the back portion of the reception hall can be observed in both cases: in the Ceasarean palace there is a floor with Cf. Donnadieu 1932 Gros 2001, p. 235, Fig. 258. 22 Gleason 1998 23 Such an element is the ritual bath (Gleason 1998 p. 44–45) and the big basin (op.cit. 39). The function of the latter one is doubtful (piscina or natatio). It should be noted that characteristically large basins were attached to the palaces of the Hasmonean dynasty (l. Netzer 1996). 20 21

Mielsch 1987 p. 41–43 and Fig. 17, Richardson 1988 p. 348–355 and Fig. 52. 19 Richardson 1988 p.354. 18

33

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

/\RQSUDHWRULXPVDQFWXDU\RI&\EHOH

5RPD&DVDGL$XJXVWR

3WROHPDLV3DOD]]RGHOOH&RORQQH

&DHVDUHD0DULWLPD3DODFHRI+HURG

)UpMXV3ODWH)RUPH

2EHUDGHQSUDHWRULXP

)UpMXV%XWWH6DLQW$QWRLQH )LVKERXUQHYLOOD







P

Figure 29: Comparison of palace buildings (identical scale, different orientation). 1: entrance hall, 2: courtyard, 3: reception room Based on Rivet et al. 2000 p. 391 Fig. 697. Casa di Augusto: after Gros 2001, p. 235, Fig. 258; Caesarea Maritima: after Gleason 1998 p. 30 Fig. 4c, Oberaden: after Kühlborn 1991)

34

THE BUILDING TYPES hypocaustum between the back wall and the last row of columns, whereas in the Augustan palace platforms are located at three sides of the room. In the domus of the Plate Forme of Fréjus a large room can also be observed (73) where there could be a similar podium as indicated by the foundations.24 It can be stated that the urban type of peristyle house described above closely resembles the floor plan of the lower (western) part of the Herodian palace. In addition to the above mentioned ones, we have to refer to the praetorium of Oberaden25 (which was a military building) and we have listed even two later parallels such as the a Domus Augustana26 and the villa of Fishbourne.27 The floor plan concept of the praetorium of Oberaden is that the entrance route led to the reception room through a hall and a courtyard28 and parallel communication was possible through the secondary peristyles and internal corridors. In the case of the Plate-Forme of Fréjus, though there the building has two axes, the entrance route leading through the tower of the city wall was similar (there is a courtyard with peristyle instead of an entrance hall). This route through an entrance hall–peristyle–reception hall suite could be already observed on the floor plan of the Palazzo delle Colonne (Figure 6/3) as well as in the building of Butte-Saint Antione (with a turn of 90 degrees), on the floor plan of the villa of Fishbourne and also in the case of the Domus Augustana (the latter one is not of linear construction, therefore we have indicated only its western side).

0

20

Figure 30: Saint-Agnant, Le Châtelet, after CAG 17/1, p. 243 Fig. 232

the archaeologists assume that the building could rather be a sanctuary instead of a residential house, though if it was a residential house it must by all means be classified under the category of palaces. Based on the finds the building was in use from the second part of the first century AD up to the late Roman period and was transformed many times.29

The “Prétoire” of Lyon is also shown there. It is obvious that its floor plan is entirely different: it is an atrium house. As its extent is limited at the peristyle part (the series of tabernae are deeper by about 10 m) therefore it could have had a reception hall only if there were a U-shaped porticus instead of a quadriporticus peristyle, and the hall would be placed over the substructure provided by the tabernae. In our view this would by itself decide what its function could have been, but one can also see that the contemporary praetorium of Oberaden and the two buildings of Fréjus had entirely different floor plans.

The floor plan only known as a sketch is symmetrical, and consists mostly of a system of courtyards with peristyles. In the middle part of the complex, as it can be judged on the basis of the remains, a linear suite of rooms can be seen. Groups of three rooms belong to the northern peristyle; their floor were ornamented by mosaics of geometric pattern. An ensemble of baths joined the main building at the southern part. In the case if it was a shrine it can be assumed that some elements of the residential architecture may have appeared also in the architecture of public buildings.

Another building of unusual floor plan should also be mentioned which was found at the site Le Châtelet at SaintAgnant (Figure 30), though its exploration was only limited to probes. The large building partly made of ashlar (its gross area is 133 x 112 m, exceeding the size of the PlateForme of Fréjus) had at least six rooms with mosaic floors. The mosaics are of uniform execution and most probably were made in the late first century AD. Several fragments of mouldings were found, such as fragments of column shafts, bases and capitals. Due to the unusual floor plan, the large size and the small quantity of household objects

Another problem should be dealt with in brief. The identification of scholae and collegia can be done without any doubt by epigraphic data, but unfortunately there is little opportunity to do so in Gaul. One of the fortunate exceptions is the so-called “monument d’Ucuétis” in Alésia,30 consisting of rooms organised around a peristyle. There are some buildings in our Catalogue which have a floor plan and spatial organisation that may suggest they were collegia (entries 40, 77–78 and 91 in the Catalogue) but they also clearly correspond to the set of criteria of the domus type. The floor plan of the Maison au Buste d’argent (91) has rather unusual features for a residental building, therefore it seems to be likely that it had a public function.31 The entrance part with a deep porch and a decorated room (a kind of reception hall) has a similar

The room, in contrast to the excavator A. Février, was probably covered. The documentation of the excavations is rather deficient and conclusions drawn from it are often not proved. Cf. Rivet et al. 2000, p. 251–255 and p. 390–391, Fig. 697. 25 Kühlborn 1989 26 Ward-Perkins 1981, p. 78-84 27 Cunliffe 1971, Cunliffe 1991 28 Here we considered the entire part of the building between the two secondary peristyles as covered. We regard the courtyard as identical with a peristyle. 24

CAG 17/1, p. 243–246. Martin, Varéne 1973 31 See the entry in the Catalogue and Gross 2001, p. 159. 29 30

35

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL concept as the entrance part of the Schola del Traiano in Ostia32 which seems to be a further evidence. The logical explanation for problems concerning the building phases and the ground plan of the Maison au Buste d’argent would be the assumption that the western part with the large peristyle was a palaestra which belonged a schola housed in the eastern part.33 Even if the houses mentioned above were seats of cultic associations, the way of their use could be similar to residential houses of matching floor plans: meetings were held in the representative rooms the same way, the rooms serving for administration and the life of servants as well as the service ones were just as present. Although their ultimate destination was different, the use of their rooms followed quotidian patterns. Therefore, their discussion as domus is justified by all means.

32 33

Gros 2002, p. 380, Fig. 434. See also the Catalogue entry for further bibliography.

36

Regarding the functions of rooms, we do not have by far such data as in the case of Pompeii. It seems to be convincing on the floor plans of some houses that the rooms along the road were tabernae but it is impossible to know from what period the traces of artisanship are. A precise identification of the service rooms which have no fixed furniture is also rarely possible. The representative rooms can be well identified in case there is a parallel to their floor plan or there are decorations survived. Some of the architectural details have been recorded in a Table 1. The existence of atria and peristyles (porticos) can be relatively well observed, but it is one of the basic criteria of the domus type to have at least one of the two. The number of porticos was also separately recorded, though here too it applies what we have noted in relation to the deficient floor plans.

22.35

380

17

24.23

315

13

27.43 28.88

192 462

7 16

31.43

440

14

33.24

1130

34

33.33

600

33.85

87

192

7

27.43

x

6

300

8

37.5

5

315

13

24.23

48

49

350

7

50

47

3

catalogue entry nr.

x

1

type of the pool

20

decoration

400

average room size

20.00

number of rooms

x

total area

x

36

catalogue entry nr.

43

626

type of the pool

500

17.39

45 94

48

375

8

46.88

45 32

380 400

17 20

22.35 20

75

400

9

44.44

46

92

406

10

40.6

14

18

19

422

7

60.29

440

13

15

422

9

46.89

37.50

300

8

94

440

13

33.85

15

40.60

406

10

14

440

14

31.43

75

41.67 42.08

750 1515

18 36

x

3

26 90

462 500

16 43

28.88 11.63

42.39

975

23

x

3

55

509

7

72.71

43.50

1305

30

x

2

77

600

18

33.33

44.44

400

9

46

600

11

54.55

x x x

x

34

x

49 5

3

16 x

x x

56

1

32 87

1

33 19

x

71 72

46.15

600

13

x

72

600

13

46.15

x

46.88

375

8

x

34

626

36

17.39

x

6

46.89

422

9

x

56

630

12

52.5

x

52

50.00

350

7

47

650

9

72.22

18

52.50

630

12

x

52

750

18

41.67

26

54.55 57.17 60.00

600 6860 900

11 120 15

x x x

71 31 51

880 900 975

13 15 23

67.69 60 42.39

3 3

x x

3 3

70 51 55

60.29

422

7

16

990

16

61.88

61.88

990

16

88

1130

34

33.24

x

63.64 65.58

1400 1246

22 19

38 3

1246 1305

19 30

65.58 43.5

x

66.67

2600

39

3

4

1338

17

78.71

x

67.44 67.69

2900 880

43 13

2

93 70

1400 1515

22 36

63.64 42.08

x x

71.43

2000

28

28

1580

21

75.24

24

72.22

650

9

18

1800

24

75

20

x

x

88 92 2

3 77 76

3

38 90

the existence of decoration because of the lack of decorative elements. No connection could be discovered between the size of the ground surface and the type of ponds either. The serial arrangement of the data was done by two considerations. At first it was done by the average size of rooms, and next by the size of the ground surface of the buildings. Though there was no direct connection between the average room size of rooms and their numbers or the size surface size of buildings, yet it can be sensed that the rooms of bigger buildings were also larger.

The statistical analysis of the factors studied was made in the following manner. Houses of very fragmentary floor plan were removed from Table 2. The table summarizes the data of a large part of the houses, because the average size of rooms can be obtained from the proportion of the excavated surface and the known rooms, at least for the purposes of orientation. Unfortunately it is impossible to demonstrate a relationship between the size of rooms and 2

11.63

Table 2: Average sizes of rooms and ground surfaces (agricultural buildings are highlighted)

It can be stated only in exceptional cases how many rooms of a building originally had mosaic floors or wall decorations corresponding to one of the Pompeii styles. Therefore we have recorded the types of the decorative elements in our Catalogue but only the fact of their existence was mentioned in the summary in the Table 1. Parallel to this we have also summarised the garden ponds separately which revealed that decoration and the existence of ponds were practically corresponding. Everything was considered as decoration that was not a rammed clay or simple terrazzo floor as well as unpainted plaster.

1

decoration

It does not seem to be worth preparing statistical tables in the traditional sense of the term using such a heterogeneous and relatively small sample. A. WallaceHadrill has developed a method of statistical assessment for the houses of Pompeii,1 which we have to adapt within the range of possibilities. Unfortunately the houses of Gaul have been greatly damaged and the preparation of a summary demonstrating the proportions of atria and peristyles2 should be handled with great caution because the complete floor plan of at least half of the houses studied by us is unknown. Concerning the size of the houses, the first problem is that the excavated size is not always identical with the real one. In many cases it is not even given in publications how extent the surface of the excavation was. The number of rooms on the ground floor is also uncertain in a majority of cases.

number of rooms

Statistical Analyses

total area

Chapter 5

average room size

INTRODUCTION

It can also be shown that buildings of domus floor plan that have agricultural function belong to buildings of smaller ground surface, with the exception of the large villas. Wallace-Hadrill distributed the houses of Pompeii on the basis of their area into four groups (quartiles) for statistical analysis.3 He drew the borderline of the groups so that a

Wallace-Hadrill 1994 p. 71–72 and generally the entire Chapter 4. Wallace-Hadrill 1994 p. 86 Tab. 4.3

3

37

Wallace-Hadrill 1994 p. 69–82.

average room size

area

number of rooms

atrium length

atrium length in feet

atrium width

calculated atrium are

catalogue entry nr.

average room size / atrium size

atrium width / length

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

27.43 22.35 24.23 28.88 31.43 37.50 41.67 42.39 44.44 46.15 50.00 54.55 60.29 63.64 66.67 75.00 82.76 92.11 93.35 129.63

192.00 380.00 315.00 462.00 440.00 300.00 750.00 975.00 400.00 600.00 350.00 600.00 422.00 1400.00 2000.00 1800.00 2400.00 3500.00 3734.00 3500.00

7.00 17.00 13.00 16.00 14.00 8.00 18.00 23.00 9.00 13.00 7.00 11.00 7.00 22.00 30.00 24.00 29.00 38.00 40.00 27.00

9.00 7.50 7.90 10.60 10.20 6.15 13.00 8.30 7.50 6.80 7.00 6.70 11.00 15.00 8.00 15.60 9.70 13.60 16.00 16.00

30.41 25.34 26.69 35.81 34.46 20.78 43.92 28.04 25.34 22.97 23.65 22.64 37.16 50.68 27.03 52.70 32.77 45.95 54.05 54.05

7.50 7.00 7.90 9.40 8.50 6.40 11.00 8.10 5.00 11.00 7.00 12.00 10.00 11.00 8.00 9.90 5.60 10.00 9.80 12.00

67.50 52.50 62.41 99.64 86.70 39.36 143.00 67.23 37.50 74.80 49.00 80.40 110.00 165.00 64.00 154.44 54.32 136.00 156.80 192.00

45 49 48 32 75 94 26 55 46 72 47 71 16 38 82 20 81 22 40 44

0.41 0.43 0.39 0.29 0.36 0.95 0.29 0.63 1.19 0.62 1.02 0.68 0.55 0.39 1.04 0.49 1.52 0.68 0.60 0.68

0.83 0.93 1.00 0.89 0.83 1.04 0.85 0.98 0.67 1.62 1.00 1.79 0.91 0.73 1.00 0.63 0.58 0.74 0.61 0.75

Table 3: Room sizes of atrium houses

more or less equal number of houses belonged to each group. Houses belonging to the first two quartiles were mostly of domus type and are smaller than 170 m2, those belonging to the third one were usually ‘typical’ residential houses of Pompeii but smaller than 345 m2. The houses of Gaul studied by us mostly correspond to the fourth quartile of Pompeii (above 350 m2). It means that the domus of Gaul were bigger than those of Pompeii. The average number of rooms was 23.28 in Gaul, whereas in Pompeii it was only 16.4 in the fourth quartile.

but also in respect of the size of the atria. Room XXVI of the huge palace of the Butte Saint-Antoine of Fréjus, that can be even regarded as a basilica privata due to its length of 29 m, although the other rooms characteristic of atria are missing, functionally corresponds to a 100 feet-long atrium type. The width of atria given by Vitruvius (3:5 or 2:3 of the length of the atrium) is only partly typical of our material and can be met mostly in the case of the bigger buildings. The large size of atria and proportions close to the Vitruvian ones are characteristic of the early large domus (Bibracte: 20, 22 – Lyon: 44 – Genava: 38 – Limoges: 40), the small atrium size and the proportion around 1:1 or bigger is typical of the mini-atrium-houses. Even a borderline can be drawn between the two categories on this basis: it is at the atrium size of 100 m2 and 8:9 of atrium proportions.

Table 3 presents the data of atrium houses. We have tried to find relation between the size of rooms, the length of the atrium and the area of the atrium, but our attempts were not successful. It is possible to isolate two groups: the category of the shortest atria (25 feet and less), and the group of the biggest ones (40 feet and above). If the lengths are compared to the Vitruvian standards4 we find that the houses studied by us and figuring in the Table 3 usually belong to the two smallest Vitruvian types of atrium houses, to the ones of the length of 30–40 feet or 40–50 feet. He did not even assume the existence of an atrium shorter than 30 feet. Atria of the length of 60–80 feet or 80–100 feet were surely not only existent in the theories of Vitruvius: the huge atrium of the domus Aemilii Scauri had a size size of about 60 x 80 feet and its ground surface area 500 m2.5 The largest atrium of Pompeii belongs to the Casa delle Nozze d’Argento and is of a ground surface of 144 m2;6 our Table 3 includes one of similar size and five atria of an even larger size. Therefore the atrium houses of Gaul were larger not only in respect of the average room sizes 4 5 6

1. Case studies Architectural trends can be followed through changes of the floor plans. Unfortunately there are relatively few houses with more than one documentated building phases. Some houses built before the end of the first century AD were selected that seemed to be important. Fréjus, Place Formigé In the first building phase (32) a mini-atrium-house with atrium tetrastylum was built on the spot around 1–5 AD. The rooms of demanding execution are located at the northern part of the house, whereas the tabernae and the entrance corridor are at the southern side in the zone along the road. Sometime around 50 or 60 AD the intercolumnia

Vitr. VI.3.3–4. Gros 2005 p. 319–320. Gros 2001 p. 74–75 and Fig. 65.

38

STATISTICAL ANALYSES around the impluvium were closed by low walls (pluteus) and flower boxes were placed on three sides. Closing by low walls was part of the trends of the Imperial Age in Pompeii but there it was the intercolumnia of the peristyles that were closed down with them, occasionally not even by walls but by pieces of furniture, presumably in order to redirect internal circulation.7 Of the houses in the Catalogue such a transformation only occurred in the case of the Maison aux Xenia (52) of Lyon. It cannot be stated on the basis of our current knowledge what could its cause be, but the large number of peristyle houses refuses the plausible explanation according to which it would have been needed because of the weather in Gaul. The task of the pluteus built in the villa dei Misteri may have been the separation of the agricultural part from the residential part,8 but these two houses of Gaul do not at all possess a purely economic part or any other part of a building.

peristyles and the part looking to the street was pushed into the background in the second phase. The group of rooms between the two peristyles appears to be a simplified and doubled variant of the linear suite of rooms and it is dated to 50–60 AD, in keeping with the date of the building. A similar doubling of the suite of rooms can be seen also in the case of the second phase of the villa of Saint-Ulrich (84) dated to the Flavian age. Vaison-la-Romaine The four building phases of the Maison au Dauphin are discussed under two entries (92 and 93) in the Catalogue. The floor plans of the first two phases do not greatly differ from each other and they are dated to 50–30 BC and 10–20 AD. The most important alteration of the second phase is the construction of the baths, which is a significant change. We know two houses from the last two decades of the first century BC which had balnea (the “Prétoire” of Lyon–44 and the PC1–22 of Bibracte). The room identifiable as courtyard and marked with W is an interesting element of the floor plan, which, provided it was really open to the sky, can even be interpreted as a derivate of the pastas.9 The floor plan scheme of the house is extremely simple: the main bulk of the building is constituted by the courtyard with peristyle and the rooms around it, similar to the Maison des Antes10 of Glanum.

In the second building phase (33), dated to the Flavian age, a house of totally different floor plan was erected over the ruins of phase one, though some walls were retained and reutilized. The new house had a courtyard with peristyle, and its rooms are known at its southern side so far, but apparently there could be some narrow suite of rooms at the western side too. The fundamental difference between the floor plans of the two phases can be assessed as the loss of the importance of the conventional atrium house by the Flavian age and this is why a peristyle house was built in the second phase. This is supported by the fact that no atrium house was built after the middle of the first century AD.

In phases 3 and 4 (after 80 AD) major transformations were carried out on the house. The northern and western parts had to be pulled down and rebuilt because of the changes in the road network. The most remarkable changes took place at the entrance part and in the northern zone of the peristyle. In the third phase, the peristyle part could be accessed through the courtyard, but it was rebuilt into a room with the floor plan of an atrium tetrastylum in the fourth phase. The former room R, which may be compared to room D of the domus (55) of the Clos de la Lombarde of Narbonne or the large northern room of the Maison des Antes of Glanum by its proportions and location of the floor plan, was rebuilt. With the setting up of the new room (32) no such room was left that could adjoin the peristyle 27 by its longitudinal side. The changes described above can be interpreted with some caution as a sign that the floor plan concept of the Maison du Dauphin originally of Hellenistic origin was modified during the subsequent reconstructions by the introduction of typical elements of the Roman architecture.

Saint-Romain-en-Gal The house called Maison aux Pierres Dorées (77) is dated to around AD 15–20. Next to the broad vestibulum (A) there are 2–2 rooms identifiable as tabernae of equal size (B–E) bordering the street at its entrance part. Getting further inside there is the entrance hall H from where the courtyard with peristyle opens. Series of rooms can be found at the northern and western sides of the courtyard, the largest of the rooms is the one marked by T which may correspond to a cenaculum. The floor plan of the house was significantly modified in the next construction phase (Maison au Vestibule à Colonnes, 78) though the concept of the floor plan remained unchanged. The tabernae at the part facing the street were replaced by smaller rooms (only room 9 remained as a taberna) and the entrance hall (4) was transformed to a monumental one compared to the previous phase. Rooms were retained only at the northern and southern sides of the peristyle, the suite of rooms of the northern side was doubled, thus separate representative rooms were opened to the back garden (16, 19, 20–22), the façade of which was symmetrically arranged. The main difference between the two floor plans is that the representative rooms were transferred to the segment of the building between the two

2. Chronological Evaluation Sure enough we have to rely on dates published in literature, hence their accuracy or lack of it may greatly influence assesments that could be drawn from the Table 1, but it could be seen above that the archaeological date of the various parts of buildings and architectural trends corresponds to the dates in Pompeii.

According to the assumption for ensuring the undisturbed enjoyment of the “hortus conclusus”: Dickmann 1999 p. 355–358. 8 Maiuri 1931 p. 92–99, Richardson 1988 p. 173. 7

9 10

39

Gros 2001 p. 145 See Figure 14 és Atlas 1996 p. 291–295, de Voort 1991.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the periods generally used for dating the mouldings and the architectural sculptures11 do not correspond to the tendencies of the changes in the floor plan.

vestibulum

broad

atrium

T-shaped

houses

peristyle

houses

mini atrium

atrium houses

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

50 BC 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 AD Table 4

The information above can be assessed as follows with the help of the Table 4: houses with courtyards (including the derivates of the pastas type of house) still were built before the age of Tiberius, but later on there were much fewer of them, and often porticoes were built in the formerly created courtyards. Building atria can be limited to a well defined period, which, according to our data , begins around 30 BC and ends around 50 AD. Our very last atrium house of exact date is the Maison des Nones de Mars of Limoges (between 30 and 45). The mini-atrium-houses are characteristic of the entire atrium period, though their first representative appeared only around 20 BC according to Table 4, but as the construction of the mini-atriumhouses was closely related to the early development of the urban centres, therefore it may be assumed that it began with some delay compared to the domus built by the local aristocracy. Peristyle houses can be identified from the early first century BC on in Glanum and Ensérune and their distribution was even during the entire period under survey. When composing Table 1 we also wanted to map the evolution of some room types. The changes in the form of atria, particularly the presence of the T-shaped atrium did not stand apart within the entire duration of the construction of atrium houses (20 BC to 50 AD), and the building of tablina cannot be associated with a specific period. The broad vestibulum also appeared right at the beginning, but its implementation did not end with the disappearance of atrium houses. The tablina open on both ends could be discovered only in a few cases but their distribution was even in the period under survey. The symmetrical arrangement of the façade of the tablinum can be discovered for the first time in the case of the “Prétoire” of Lyon (20 BC), and became characteristic for about half of the buildings later on.

11

40

Based on Roth-Congés 1983 and Tardy 1989.

Chapter 6 Comparison with the Residential Houses of Pompeii The residential houses of Pompeii used for comparison were selected on the basis of the work of L. Richardson. The 16 buildings constitute two horizons of date; the first 8 presumably obtained their final form between 30 BC and AD 62, whereas the second 8 did so between 62 and 79.1 Each of the buildings has parts built earlier but they are not significant, at least from the angle of the concept of the floor plan concept. If we take a look at the floor plans of Pompeii we find variants of relatively small houses. The Casa de Spurio Messore, the Casa del Frutteto, the Domus Ceiorum, the Casa del Poeta Tragico, IX, 5,6 and VI, 15,9 represent the first group; they only have an ala, and with the exception of the last one their tablinum is open on two sides and can be passed by at the side; all of them are mini-atrium-houses by type, such as the houses of the Verbe Incarné insula of Lyons (46–49), or phase one of the domus of the Place Formigé (32). There is no tablium belonging to the atrium of the Casa della Fortuna and the Casa dei Vettii just like in the case of the Maison aux Pierres Dorées (Saint-Romainen-Gal, 77) or the Parc de la Grange (44) of Genava. The triclinum of the Casa di Sulpicio Rufo and the Casa di Sacerdote Amando, constituting the second group is on the side next to the road and the central room of a form of peristyle with six columns can be approached along the corridor next to it. This triclinium at the front to the road can be observed also in Aix-en-Province (7). The atrium part of the Casa di Frontone corresponds to the first variant (Casa di Spurio Messore), but instead of a peristyle at the back part of the house there is only a porticus in front of the cubicula and the triclinium. A similar solution is found in the Casa di Ifigenia and in one of the houses of the Clos de la Tour of Fréjus (34). Actually it appears on the basis of the systematic excavations in Pompeii that a porticus was not only built instead of a peristyle due to saving space but for some other reason as well,2 and so-called “truncated peristyles” (in German: Rumpfperistyl) can also be observed in Gaul, for instance there is the Maison au Grand Péristyle Rhodien (5) of Aix, the rue des Farges, Maison aux Masques (51) of Lyon, the Maison aux Xenia (52) of Vaise, and presumably in relation to the “Prétoire” of Lyon (44), though the latter is very incertain. The Casa degli Amorini Dorati, the Casa di Meleagro and the Casa di Vibio all show the degradation of the atrium part, in all the three cases a huge and decorated triclinium belongs to a peristyle part of ornamental execution, while the tablinum (or its remains) dropped out even from the main route of communication. The Maison des Messii (90) of Vaison corresponds to this scheme. Interestingly, only the builders of the Casa della Fortuna and 1 2

Richardson 1988, p. 221–229 and 311–346. Dickmann 1999, p. 135.

the Casa di Vibio cared for the symmetrical development of the tablinum façade, this proportion is much bigger among the houses of Gaul, and the axial arrangement is also not characteristic for the half of the Pompeian houses mentioned here. In summary it can be stated that the atrium houses of Pompeii that were apparently built after AD 30 do have Gallo-Roman counterparts in each case which are identical in the concept of floor plan even if not in detail. We started the comparison of residential houses of Pompeii and Gaul with the hope of being able to establish some connection between their stylistic and absolute chronologies. The material of Gaul proved to be rather heterogeneous yet chronologically of equal distribution, the only demonstrable change was the disappearance of the atrium which can be dated to the second part of the first century AD. In the case of the residential houses of Pompeii, at least in the case of the 16 ones used for comparison, this tendency also appeared, and the neglect of the atrium and tablinum can also be fully identified. The aim of making a table originally was the creation of such a system which, similarly to the modern method of the processing of pottery, would offer a definition by grouping done at the registration of the material. The floor plans of buildings, however, besides the quantity that could be processed (97 pieces) did not constitute a sample to make such processing meaningful. There are two major obstacles: one is that the floor plans, in contrast to pottery fragments are never identical, and one may refer to similarities only in some of the cases. The second problem is that the floor plans of buildings are so specific in a non-negligible part of cases that they can be grouped only along very broad lines, because a classification based on exact criteria would result in a separate category for each building. Consequently we have given up the systematic characterisation of the floor plans by codes. 1.

Houses in the urban context

In some cases it is possible to analyze groups of buildings in their original urban context. In the following chapter we present some case studies. In 1987–1988 five residential houses were identified in a densely built up though peripheral quarter of Aquae Sextiae (Figure 31), of which three are included in our Catalogue (11,12,13). The orientation of the houses is adjusted to the decumanus maximus excavated nearby (and presumably passing close to the houses), a 3.7 m wide internal road is between them which opened to the decumanus maximus and served as access to the houses inside the insula. House IV (area so far known: 420 m2), not figuring as a separate entry in the Catalogue survived in a rather poor shape; only a small piece of the mosaic could be identified of the floors. In house V (area so far known: 280 m2) a garden (A), a corridor or porticus (B) and part of a basin (C) could be identified in the area excavated. The earliest floor levels of the corridor could be made after 10–15 AD, 41

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

V se I hou

II se I hou

C A

stre

B

et

se V hou

I se I hou se I hou

0

20

Figure 31: Aix-en-Province: Les Chartreux (Gallia Inf. 1990, p. 132 Fig. 47)

The site Villa Roma of Nîmes is located in the central part of the antique city, almost in the immediate neighbourhood of the fountain shrine, yet its road network and the shape of the insulae are irregular.. The houses of which we have included nr. 08, 10 and 14 in the Catalogue (under the entries 62, 63 and 64) are also of irregular floor plan, the walls do not join in right angles and the rooms are of different depth. Similarly to the above ones there is no atrium house among the houses of modest sizes (Figure 34).

and the garden was used at least up to the fourth century. The excavated area is the internal part of an insula. The irregular but dense plan suggests that the fragmentation of the plot and the building up the inner part of the insula were already in an advanced stage one or two decades after the Augustan foundation of the colony.3 Another relatively contiguous residential quarter of Aixen-Provence is the Jardin de Grassi4 (Figure 32). The sloping area was developed into terraces with the help of retaining walls. The terraces are of identical size; the plots are of regular shape and obviously were formed when the city was established. Remains of a building of intensive development can be seen at the eastern part, in other words, the fragmentation of plots can most probably be identified there, whereas the masion au Péristyle Rhodien (5) and the Maison au Grand Péristyle (6) of the western part were not partitioned.

There are even not less than three mini-atrium-houses on the Verbe Incarné insula of Lyon (Figure 35). The building up of the insula can be dated to the Tiberian–Claudian period. Here also, the plots were developed on terraces supported by retaining walls because of the sloping terrain. The buttresses, as it could be seen above in the case of the Jardin de Grassi of Aix, did not hinder the fragmentation of the plots later on.6 As a result of the regular insula shapes and the system of buttresses the floor plans of the houses are also regular. We have three of the houses in our Catalogue (47, 48, 49). The construction and the floor plan of the houses are practically identical with the two mini-atrium-houses above the “Prétoire” (45 and 46, see the layout at the Catalogue entry).

At the site of the Clos de la Tour of Fréjus, the crossing of two major roads was found with corners of insulae bordering them (Fiure 33). The archaeological periodisation of the area has made the observance of the building progress possible from the early first century AD up to the third century. Here the general tendency was the merging of plots which began in the Flavian Age5 and the reason may be found in the small sizes of the original framework of the plots. Four houses figure in our Catalogue come from here (34–37).

There are houses among the larger ones that originate from a less densely built up environment like the domus of the Parc aux Chevaux (Figure 36) of Bibracte and others belonging to a dense urban context like the Maison des Nones de

Bedon et al. 1988 p. 47. CAG 13/4 p. 287–288. 5 Rivet et al. 2000 p.412–413. In the same place Fig. 744 presents changes of the floor plans of houses. 3 4

6

42

Delaval 1996 p. 135 Fig.7 and p. 136–137.

COMPARISON WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES OF POMPEII

6 7

8

9

2

6

4

10

7 1 8

5

1

2

9 12

208 m

198 m

0

Figure 32: Aix-en-Province: Jardin de Grassi (after CAG 13/4 p.287 Fig. 278)

initial phase

final phase 0

20

Figure 33: Fréjus, Clos de la Tour, phase 1: AD. 20–25, phase 2: 2nd century AD (after Février 1973, p. 23, Fig. 5)

43

20

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

insula A

3

7

insula B

27 2

str 11

1

6

ee

et G

insula D

9

24

25 stre

5

26

12

stre

tH

et I

8

10 insula E

30 insula C 29

str

ee

tJ

14 15

insula F 0

20

Figure 34: Nîmes, Villa Roma, after Monteil 1999, p. 110 Fig. 87

maison à l’Emblema Mosaïqué

maison aux Pilastres

hortus ?

maison du Laraire

0

Figure 35: Lyon, Verbe Incarné insula, after Delaval 1996, p. 134, Fig. 6

44

20

COMPARISON WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES OF POMPEII

Figure 36: Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, after Meylan 1995

irregularly10 to a smaller or bigger distance from each other, their orientation is also different.

Mars (40) of Limoges, occupying the half of an insula7 or the “Prétoire” of Lyon (44) streching over the surface of an entire insula.8 The Parc aux Chevaux is interesting because urbanisation obviously halted with the giving up of the oppidum in the Augustan period, but a condition can be studied there which supposed to be similar to the early phase of the urbanisation of Vaison-la-Romaine9 or of Saint-Romain-en-Gal. The houses are located apparently

7 8 9

In the case of Saint-Romain-en-Gal (Figure 37)11 it can be assumed that some elements of the road network (such as the road from north to south) originate from a period before urbanisation, and the different orientation of houses and insulae as well as of their size is also a heritage from a period preceding urbanisation.

Loustaud 2000 p.180 Fig. 26. See the layout at the Catalogue entry. Layout: Bellet et al.1990 p. 72.

An attempt was made to reconstruct an assumed system of streets and terraces: Meylan 2000. 11 See also: Prisset et al. 1994 p. 2–6, Desbat et al. 1994 p. 13–15. 10

45

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

insula B

insula A

Rhôn e

insula C

0

20

Figure 37: Saint-Romain-en-Gal, after Prisset et al. 1994, p. 3, Fig. 2

46

Chapter 7 Mouldings The date of the architectural mouldings is usually determined by stylistic criteria in archaeological practice if it is impossible to obtain a result of satisfactory precision on the basis of other finds. The present chapter wishes to give a brief overview of their dating in the Late Republican and Early Imperial periods of Gaul. The study would have not been possible without references to Italian parallels but a summary of the history of research has to be abandoned in the interest of conciseness.

seen, they represent a transitory phase according to RothCongès.9 The capitals of the second group are show a softer handling of ornamentation and the acanthuses of asymmetric cut; these buildings were erected in the second and last decades BC and the porte d’Aguste of Nîmes, the Pont-Flavien of Saint-Chamas, the Maison Carrée and conditionally the triumphal arch of Orange belong to this group.10 Thus possibilities of dating with the capitals are rather limited: practically only that much can be identified that the capital in question was made at the time of the Second Triumvirate or later. 2.

1.

Corinthian Capitals

The Corinthian capitals on the public buildings of Gaul from the Late Republican and Early Imperial periods correspond to the Corinthian “standard capitals”1 (korinthische Normalkapitelle) with a few exceptions. Therefore, dating is only possible by the observation of the details of capitals and bases of columns. It is not worth separating the typology of Corinthian capitals occurring in residential houses from those of public buildings as types only characteristic of residential houses are apparently missing in Gaul.2 The basis of chronology is offered by the study of A. Roth-Congès in the case of capitals, which is based on the variants of the acanthus leaf types:3 in contrast to an earlier typology which was only based on the characteristic shapes of leaves she distinguishes between leaves of symmetrical and asymmetrical cut and five sub-types on the basis of the forms of cut. Acanthuses of a symmetrical cut of leaves appeared on several public buildings in the city of Rome in the fourth and third decades BC,4 whereas the type of asymmetrical leaf, though it can be found sparsely in Italy during the same period5 appeared in Rome with a delay of 10 to 20 years.6 The capitals of the buildings of the first chronological group (between 40 and 20 BC)7 are characterised by symmetrically cut leaves: such is the arc du Rhône in Arles, the first building phase of the temple of Vienne, the tholos of the mausoleum Iulii,8 the Valetudo temple and the so-called twin temple of Glanum (temples XXIV and XXV), the temple of Vernégues, the mausoleum of Allens and the columns of the forum of Arles. On the parascaenium of the theatre of Arles and in some parts of the nymphaeum of Nîmes leaves of asymmetric cut can be

Heilmeyer 1970, p. 35 f. and Wilson Jones 1989 As contrasted to Pompeii, where local variants developed (Cocco 1975, p. 155 ff). 3 Roth-Congès 1983, p. 103 ff. 4 Cf.: Strong 1963, p. 74 ff. 5 Roth-Congès 1983, p. 106–110. 6 The acanthus type appears for the first time on the pillar capitals of the peristasis of the Mars Ultor (Heilmeyer 1970, p.27–29 and Taf. 2,1). 7 Questions of the date of the various buildings: Roth-Congès 1983, p. 111 ff 8 It can be dated to a period around 45–40 BC on a stylistic basis. (Heilmeyer 1970, p. 111.) 1 2

Composite Capitals

Though the appearance of the Composite capital, which by definition is a hybrid of the Corinthian and the Ionian capitals with corner volute is disputed, yet researchers agree to date it to some time at the beginning of the rule of Augustus. The related problem is that the “fantasy capitals” of Composite nature, definitely of the Augustan age (such as the inner semi-engaged pillar capitals of the Mars Ultor temple11) can be stylistically regarded as predecessors of the “standard” Composite capital with difficulty, as the earliest specimens of known origin that can be dated without doubt come from the Flavian period. On the basis of researches done by D. Strong the development of the Composite capital can be dated to the middle of Augustean period,12 thus the application of Composite capitals can be considered as terminus postquem. Composite capitals are not really frequent in the Gallo-Roman material, but three specimens made of limestone are known from Autun: they may have belonged to relatively small columns,13 therefore can be related to the architecture of residential houses. 3.

Tuscan Capitals

The Tuscan capitals are mostly characteristic of residential houses in the architecture of Gaul, but few datable specimens are available, hence to find out their date is problematic. The foundations of the typology were laid down by P. Broise, but it is not possible to establish a The capitals (with acanthuses of symmetrical cut) of the theatrum’s scaene frons and architrave were made of Carrara marble, the other parts of local limestone. The elaboration of the limestone parts where the acanthuses of asymmetric cut appear is far more provincial, therefore it can be assumed that it was the work of local stonecutters whereas the marble parts could be made by foreign masters. (Gros 2001, p. 480 and Roth-Congès 1983, p. 113). 10 See also: Gros 2002 p. 145-149 11 Ward-Perkins 1978, p. 33, Fig. 10 12 The rosette running along the volutes of the Composite capital shows relations with the Corinthian capitals of pillars of the early Imperial period (between 40 and 20 BC), therefore the development of the capital can be dated to a somewhat later time. The “standard capital” of Composite style that come from the earliest assessable context can be found in the Grande Palestra of Pompeii: they were newly plastered not much before the eruption, but the older stucco capital also survived under the plaster which presumably is from the Augustan age, but it cannot be proved archeaologically (Strong 1960, p. 120 and 122). 13 Olivier 1985, p. 72–73. 9

47

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

Figure 38: Mouldings from the basilica of Bibracte

chronology on the basis of his publication.14

dieux Océan (around 160 AD),18 and also in the case of the monument d’Ucuétis (cannot be dated, but the third period important to us is almost certainly from the period after Augustus)19 of Alésia.

An approximate date of the capitals figuring in the archaeological material of the Maison au Dauphin was possible with the help of the column bases belonging to them. The early type of capitals more or less corresponds to the “standard” Tuscan capital of Vitruvius15 and represents an identical type like the pieces of Ensérune and Glanum,16 thus it is a type that can be more or less dated to the early first century BC. The next horizon, however, can be put to the middle or end of the first century AD and is represented by a great variety of the forms of capitals but their closer chronological condition remains unexplored. The shaping of the capitals after the Augustan period can be fairly well followed on examples like the Maison des nones Mars of Limoges (between 35 and 45 AD),17 the Maison des

It is a logical consequence of the above that the Tuscan capital cannot be dated, and it can be assumed only about the pieces corresponding to the Vitruvian description that they were made before our era. 4. Columns Bases The column bases represent a single type: this is the socalled Attic type,20 several variants and derivates of which can be observed in the architecture of Southern Gaul, but Desbat et al. 1994, p. 76–78. Martin, Varène 1973, p. 151–156, layout: Pl. 25, elements of columns: 20 The name is based on the description of Vitruvius (III, 5, 2). The situation is made somewhat obscure by the fact that the term ‘Attic’ is used in French literature after Vitruvius comprehensively in the case of all capital bases having two toruses. 18 19

Broise 1969 Vitruvius IV, 7 16 Goudineau 1979, p. 217 ff 17 Loustaud 1992, p. 68, elements of columns: p. 65 14 15

48

MOULDINGS the column bases of the nymphaeum and of the Maison Carrée 31of Nîmes are characteristic of the Hellenistic variant,32 which can be regarded as a phenomenon of the Augustan period. One has to dwell upon the triumphal arch of Orange also in relation to the date of the column bases. There is a column base built in with plinth, and it was used as a reference for dating the construction to the Tiberian period.33 Nevertheless, date to the period of the Tiberian–Claudian dynasty should be challenged by all means.34 Incidentally, the column base of the basilica of Bibracte of the Republican age found in situ (Figure 38) was also carved together with the plinth and a short segment of the shaft.35

it is not the Hellenistic variant that has spread there but the Italian variant had become exclusive already in the second century BC,21 the main feature of which is the similar height of the toruses and the narrow trochilus of a shape of almost a flute. The earliest column bases of Gaul were discovered in the settlements of Ensérune, Glanum and Ambrussum and served as bases of Tuscan and Ionian columns.22 In the period under survey the Ionian columns were replaced by the Corinthian ones, yet no inference can be drawn as to the order with the help of the column bases.23 The column bases of Glanum can be classified under five groups by their shape, but it is a common feature that all bases with the exception of group 5 are without plinth, carved with a relatively high piece of the shaft and the two toruses of the base are of a more or less identical diameter and height. The first three groups can be dated to the end of the second century BC or the beginning of the first century, whereas the others may have been made in the second part or the end of the first century BC.24 A base of Ambrussum25 shows similarities with groups 4 and 5 of Glanum, which can be dated to the third quarter of the first century BC by the context of the excavation, but another similar piece was also found which was made before the end of the second century BC.26

5. Floral Ornaments The floral scroll-design ornamental motif (garland motif) that has its best example on the Ara Pacis and the frieze with acanthuses are of Hellenistic origin36, the early style variant of the former one appeared in Rome already sometime in the 30s BC37. This early style of motif can also be observed on the propylon of the southern temple area in Glanum from the time of the reconstruction of the city after 49 BC. Landscaping was done when the propylon was built, but there was no sigillata find in the material used for filling up, therefore the building of the propylon may have begun before 30 BC on the basis of the somewhat uncertain argumentum ex silentio,38 which also offers the terminus antequem of the execution of the frieze.

The column bases found in Vaison-la-Romaine can be compared to groups 3, 4 and 5 of Glanum with the exception of those belonging to the large peristyle of the Maison du Buste en Argent, with the difference that only a short transitory part of the shafts was carved together with the base, whereas the bases of the Maison du Buste en Argent miss even that. All the pieces of Vaison can be dated to the second part of the first century BC, in relation to the first building periods of the Maison au Dauphin and the Maison à Atrium.27

The friezes of the nymphaeum of Nîmes, of the theatrum and the Arc admirable of Arles were made sometime around 25 BC in a more mature style handling floral patterns less geometrically according to the inscription on the nymphaeum, hence this group can be regarded as the second stage of development. The latest group is represented by the Pont-Flavien of Saint-Chamas, by the Maison Carrée, the triumphal arches of Cavaillon and Orange, as well as by the arc du Rhône of Arles, their formation in architectural sculpture can be closely related to the Ara Pacis,39 and they were essentially built at the same time.40

During the first building period of the domus of the Clos de la Lombarde of Narbonne, dated to the end of the Republican age,28 two column bases of Attic type were built into a passage in a way that the lower torus was put under the floor level.29 The curious placement of the column bases can be traced back either to secondary utilisation or it refers to a change in fashion during the time of construction.30

6. Other Stone Mouldings Only elements of columns are found in the Gallo-Roman archaeology in a quantity that may serve as a basis for any comparison and date. Yet it is worth surveying possibilities related to other architectural elements.

The column bases mentioned above may be derived from the Italian variant of the Attic type, but some details of Cf. Gabii: Shoe Meritt 1969, p.199 fig. 5a Shoe Meritt 1969, p. 193. Broise 1969, p. 16. 24 Goudineau 1979, p. 211–212. 25 Fiches 1986, p.119 fig. 100/c 26 Fiches 1986, p. 117–119. 27 Goudineau 1979, p. 212–214. 28 Sabrié et al.1987, p. 73 ff, the summary chronological table: op. cit. p. 126. 29 Sabrié 1987, p. 66 fig. 29 30 The descriptions of Vitruvius often represent the fashion trends in many cases (such as concerning the wall painting) at the time of writing. Unfortunately, we did not have the possibility to study how the Vitruvian Tuscan “normal capital” (IV. 7) with a base of only one torus appears in the archaeological context, at any rate it cannot be totally excluded that here too a new type appeared to the detriment of the already developed provincial variants in the Augustan age. 21 22 23

Gros 2001, p. 496, fig. 607 Shoe Meritt 1969, p. 199. 33 Goudineau 1979, p. 207 34 The early date does not seem to be unambiguous even in architectural aspect: Anderson 1987, p. 170–171, nor historically: op. cit. p. 190–191. 35 For further details: Szabó et al. 2007 36 According to our knowledge both the frieze with acanthuses and floral ornamentation originate from Pergamon: Börker 1973. 37 Gladiss 1972, p. 66. 38 Gladiss 1972, p. 67. 39 Gladiss 1972, p. 68 ff. 40 We only have some point of reference about the building of the arc du Rhône of the above-mentioned buildings (before 4 AD), based on a rather fragmentary inscription (Gladiss 1972, p. 62.). 31 32

49

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

Impluvia

7. Case Studies

The impluvia are surrounded by a profiled stone frame in part of the cases: there was an attempt to prepare a typology in Pompeii. Of the four types of N. Fadda the category A is dated to the late third century BC, the one under B1 from the second part of the second century to the early first century, the one under B2 from the late second century to the early first century, and finally the appearance of type C is dated to the Augustan period41. Unfortunately date the types is not based on the setting up of a relative chronology, but on the comparison of the architectural elements of the impluvia of various Italian public buildings. The GalloRoman impluvia are usually very simple and therefore they can not be classified.

There is a well documented building in Saint-Romainen-Gal, the first and second phases of its construction, important from our angle, are called Maison à la Citerne and Maison aux Pierres dorées. Several elements of architectural mouldings were found among the ruins of the buildings, and the analysis of their stone material was also done. Saint-Romain-en-Gal The date of the Maison à la Citerne (period 1) is somewhat uncertain, but it could be built after 29 BC on the basis of coins, whereas according to the sigillata material it was definitely standing before 15 BC. During the existence of the building the flooring was also renewed (phase 1), a cup belonging to service II of Haltern was found from one of its layers and on that basis excavators dated the time of the renewal to 12–10 BC.48 Phases 1B and 1C representing minor reconstructions and floor renewals are from before our current era on the basis of the finds. The Maison aux Pierres dorées (building phase 2) was built immediately after the Maison à la Citerne was pulled down between 15 and 20 AD, here the terminus postquem (10–15 AD) is represented by two coins of Tiberius, and the sigillata of La Grafesenque also appeared in the material in this phase (2A).49 In the next phase the building was once again rebuilt sometime in the period of Claudius and Nero (2B), and was further expanded in the Flavian age, but subsequently there was no major reconstruction up to the time when the building was abandoned and collapsed in the late fourth century AD.

Stone Tables The dating of the stone tables used in residential houses is based on the work of E. Pernice who separated groups of the Republican period from those of the Imperial age among the small number of table legs and table tops arbitrarily paired already in Antiquity as well as in the 19th century42. Each side of the table surfaces found in GalloRoman Mediolanum (a 1 x 1 m and a 50 x 50 cm)43 were elaborated; they were supported by a column placed in the middle44, on this basis the time of their production is to be dated to the Imperial age without any more exact definition of their age. On the smaller table from Mediolanum there is a sign intended to help the assembly of the matching table top and support that has Pompeian parallels.45 It indicates that it was not made as a unique piece of furniture but was produced in quantities in a workshop and its use could be wide spread.

Though a building of wood and adobe structure was in the site during the first period of construction, the timber columns of the porticus were based on stone blocks in phase 1A from which two remained in their original place, further on a column drum used secondarily was also found. All was made of a soft limestone called “Pierre du Midi” mined in the valley of the Rhône in the neighbourhood of Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux and Arles.50 Only dispersed stone splinters remain on the levels of construction from the period 1B.51

Putealia The well head cylinder related to the building phase 2A of the Maison à Portiques on the plot of the Clos de la Lombarde of Narbonne (dated between 10 BC and 10 AD46) is not later than the building phase but the piece does not show any characteristic feature: practically it is a tube of smooth surface. Though this type can be located in the typological system of Pompeii, presumably the same typology cannot be applied in Gaul due to the lack of ornamented types and chronological contradictions.47

The architectural programme was significantly expanded during period 2: the large peristyle or hall was also built at that time. The stone used for building was obtained from several places; only some ashlars were made of the “pierre de Midi” used earlier, or pieces of it were included as fragments in the stylobates wall of the peristyle.

Fadda 1975, p. 166. Pernice 1932, p. 1–11. 43 Olivier 1988, p. 43 pl. 7 / 22, 23 and p. 35–36. 44 Two small columns figure in the material published: Olvier 1988, p. 42, Pl. 6 / 20, 21. 45 Pernice 1932, p. 3 Abb. 3 46 Sabrié et al.1987, p. 94–95. 47 Cf. Pernice 1932, p.12 ff. and Taf 7–9. They can be hardly used for dating the well cylinders of Pompeii: they offer only that much of reference that the type of smooth side is characteristic for the Republican age, but it did not disappear later either; whereas specimens with ornamentation or made of marble with triglyphs (Taf 9, 6, 10) appeared only in the Imperial period in Pompeii. But it cannot be inferred from this that the GalloRoman piece in question was made prior to the Augustan period. 41

Of the other kinds of stone a threshold slab, a sewage and a bloc built in as a foundation for stairs were found, all were made of the yellowish limestone (“Pierre de Seyssel”) quarried from Mont d’Or northwest of Lyon; and in the layer resulting from the demolition of the second period a carved capital made of limestone of unknown origin and

42

Desbat et al. 1994 , p. 73. Desbat et al. 1994, p. 74, 76. 50 Desbat et al. 1994, p.223. 51 Desbat et al. 1994, p.225. 48 49

50

MOULDINGS the fragments of a phallic well were found besides some fragments of capitals made of limestone of Franclens south of Bellegarde. An altar stone with irregular holes could also belong to this building phase and the pieces of hard limestone found in the material of the floors.

and adobe brick partition walls appeared already in the early first century AD in the case of the place Formigé.54 The use of brick in walls was not characteristic in the period under survey; only the elements used for roofs as well as some supplementary elements such as columns shaft segments were made of that material.55

The later periods were characterised by the large-scale use of hard limestone: several column bases, shafts and altars were found during excavations. The surviving capitals, however, were not made of hard limestone but of “pierre du Midi” and “Pierre de Seyssel”. The only column base of soft limestone was made of the latter one.

As it could be seen, the material of the architectural mouldings may be characteristic for the different building phases due to the operation of quarries or changing transport possibilities, but one has to be cautious because secondary use of stones may make it impossible to set up a relative chronology based on it. The carving technique of stone elements may also be suited for date: some observations could be made in Glanum.56

Column bases of a late period were found by the excavations of period 4 (between AD 160 and 180). Their characteristic feature is that the trochilus is more or less as high as a torus, which is a significant difference compared to pieces of the Augustan period (cf. above).

9. Mortars We had the possibility to analyse some mortar samples found in the walls of domus PCO1 of Bibracte. The material tests were carried out in order to assess the possibilities for further research.57 After the analysis of the samples the composition of the mortar could be reconstructed,58 thus an opportunity was offered for the determination of maximal compressive strength. On that basis the maximum load bearing capacity of the walls of given thickness could also be calculated which is indispensable for the control of the theoretical reconstruction. Based on that calculation, 0.088 x 1550 = 136.4 kg calcium hydroxide (of a volume of 0.273 m3), had to be added to one m3 (ρ=1550 kg/m3) sand (hence the proportion is 1:3.66)59. Vitruvius recommended a proportion of 1:2 or 1:3, depending on the kind of sand.60 The results of the analyses definitely correspond to others done at other sites: in the late 1970s the research group of M. Frizot carried out a great number of tests in the region of Burgundy.61

Fréjus The stones used in Antiquity and found at the excavations in Fréjus can be grouped into two categories: igneous stones quarried locally and the sedimental stones brought from elsewhere. Of the latter ones the limestones have a structure that is identical with the stones of the quarry of Bois des Lens.52 Marble was brought from a great distance: Carrara marble was used in many cases in the decoration of public buildings. In the late first century BC marbles of the following provenance were found in Butte Saint-Antoine alone: Carrara, Chemtou (Tunisia), Mani Peninsula (Peloponnesos), Khis, Karistos (Euboia), Teos, Synnada (Phrygia), Thasos and Sparta. It is worth to note that these materials appeared in Vasion-la-Romaine in the Flavian period.53 8. Construction Technology

The use of building materials has chronological aspects too. It can be shown that stone walls laid into mortar had already appeared prior to Romanization as well as the use of processed (rough cut or ashlar) stones and the use of tegulae was characteristic in Lyon already in the second century BC. Houses of adobe and timber structure did not disappear either from architecture at the beginning of Romanization,62 but were continuously used. Some

The earliest Roman buildings were often made of walls with clay or earth as binding agents. Such walls were still made in the first quarter of the first century AD in Fréjus (at the Clos del la Tour, for example). Parallel to it, adobe walls also appeared more or less at the beginning of our era (place Formigé), where usually adobe bricks of 48 x 30 x 8 cm were used. In addition timber-framed clay walls were also broadly built (Butte Saint-Antoine, place Formigé, Clos de la Tour). The opus caementicium appeared in that period too, and was at first used in larger buildings (Butte Saint-Antoine, Plate-Forme). An opus reticulatum wall was found in a relatively short wall segment (PlateForme). The opus mixtum consisting of irregular stone wall with brick layers appeared from the Flavian period onwards but its widespread use can be dated to the second century AD.

Rivet et al. 2000, p. 57–59. Rivet et al. 2000, p. 57. van de Voort 1991 p. 2–3. 57 The tests were carried out in the Laboratory of Geotechnics of the Mélyépterv Kultúrmérnöki Kft. (Ltd), the results were published in: Timár et al. 2005 p. 38–39 and Tab. I.3. 58 When lime hydrate solidifies (Ca(OH)2 + CO2 = CaCO3 + H2O) 74 g lime hydrate transforms into 100 g of calcium carbonate, the proportion of the masses is 74 % , which means that the maximum of 12% lime content in the samples taken from the domus meant 12 x (0.74) = 8.88 mass percentage in the recipe of the mortar. 59 Of the lime mortars now used for walls those of bigger solidity (pressure limit=0.3 kN/cm2) contain 125 kg of lime hydrate which corresponds to 0.25 m3 lime pulp added to one m3 of sand (proportion 1:4). In the practice of the early 20th century an even bigger proportion of mixture was applied, adding two cubic content units of sand to one cubic content unit of lime which could be entirely general before the discovery of the Portland cement. 60 Vitruvius II.5.1. 61 Frizot et al. 1979 62 Desbat 2005 p. 24–247 and Paunier et al. 2002 54 55 56

The general trend of development leads from clay walls towards stone ones, but the speed was absolutely not even in every part of Fréjus: while in the houses of the Clos de la Tour stone walls in “Roman style” were started only in the Flavian period, the regular use of load-bearing stone walls 52 53

Rivet et al. 2000, p. 56 and Bessac 1986, p. 162. CAG 84/1 p. 261–262.

51

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL kind of chronological change can also be noticed here: it is the wall of timber structure built on stone socle which became the most frequent one from the late first century AD onwards.63. 10. Conclusions We have already mentioned above that no exact date can be expected for architectural stones which bear no inscription that refer to a chronological point. The stone mouldings common in Italy were partly unknown in the province or were stylistically very far from the original types; their relative chronology can be set up only in very broad lines. On this basis only that much can be identified for the date of the Corinthian columns whether they were made in the 40s to 20s BC or later according the execution of their capitals. In the case of the column bases there is only the Maison Carrée type that can be dated to the last years before the beginning of our era. The stylistical changes in the typology of the floral ornamentation with tendrils came later by one decade compared to the capitals. According to our current knowledge the Composite capital appeared in its mature form only around the 10s BC. Concerning the Tuscan capitals it can be assumed only that the the Italian pattern was not followed after the second part of the first century BC. Dating the column bases is possible on the basis of comparing them to the groups of Southern France, but the results are not supposed to be precise. Apparently, the plinth united with the column base has no dating value. Despite of the little opportunity for a precise dating of mouldings (or architectural sculpture, where this expression can be applied at all) on stylistical basis, it seems to be still possible to date certain sets grosso modo.

63

Desbat 1981 p. 63–64.

52

Chapter 8 Interpretation of the Remains An interpretation of remains is indispensable in the case of buildings that came to daylight as a result of archaeological excavations. The best way of interpretation is if we try to sketch the original volume of the building which results in some kind of a reconstruction in drawing. As the remains of buildings represent (with a few exceptions) only a fragment of the original building’s structures, therefore the usual method is to find parallels for comparison: buildings of similar layout, floor plan, dimensions and date. This would be an excellent solution if the Antique buildings had been built along identical standards and plans. According to our assumption this conditions are not met without reserve, therefore the architectural parallels should be controled in some way in each case, particularly if the parallels available consist often of the floor plans only. It is not expressly frequent that walls survive higher than 50 to 100 cm in the case of provincial residential houses. The heights of walls, however, do not only determine the inner and outer appearance of the building but also the basic features of the roof structure and geometry. Several groups of problems can be defined in connection with the reconstruction of buildings. The first one is related to the roof shape and the destination of rooms, because the floors do not always survive or their type does not clearly indicate whether a specific room was covered or not. At first sight this may not seem to be important, but it may have a decisive role in choosing the ground plan parallels. The second problem is to decide whether the given building was of one or more stories. It is not insignificant in the case of residential houses, because if it is proved that a house also had an upper story then our data related to the ground floor rooms can only be used for statistical purposes with proper caution. Engineering offers the most plausible solution of this problem which can be supplemented also by a structural stability analysis. The latter means the control of the existence of very simple mechanical conditions: for instance a building with stories placed over columns must have braces or solid wall sections in both directions in order to ensure the stability of the superstructure (Figure 39). The makers of graphic reconstructions of colonnades or upper levels of basilicas are often not aware of this problem and their reconstructions are faulty from the engineer’s aspect. Other problems are related to the analysis too . The first one is that it is difficult to identify the size of the structures of a house, its material and its very layout on the basis of the remains. The second one is that we have very few points of reference concerning the quality of building materials used or the properties of the soil of that time. The third is that the present building standards and codes were developed with a lot of simplifications and roundings which do not only help to simplify the calculations but are always to

Figure 39: A principal stability problem and its solution

the benefit safety. In some cases the engineering models that are utilized as bases of calculations do not represent the reality but a far more disadvantageous situation (especially in the case of columns). It means that following the established norms we obtain only approximate results whether the building studied by us would correspond to the current standards or not, yet a structure not meeting the standards would not necessarily collapse. The above problems can be avoided if calculations are only used for control. In other words we control the structure on the basis of architectural parallels, basic engineering principles and descriptions from the Antiquity. These checks are sufficient to be done at critical points of the assumed building, for instance at the most loaded compression members. Finally, the building has to be checked as an entire unit whether it meets the minimum requirements for stability. If the building fails to correspond to the requirements then the theoretical reconstruction has to be modified and controlled again. The advantage of this method is that it allows a real control of the reconstruction ideas. Roman Plans and Designs If we would consider the descriptions of Vitruvius as basis,1 we would have only a rather confused image of designing buildings in the Antiquity.2 He describes the basic concepts (ordinatio, dispositio, eurythmia and symmetria), and in the case of the dispositio he also presents the concepts of ichnographia, ortographia and scaenographia in a sentence each,3 and it is revealed by this explanation that the latter three refer to planning procedures or kinds of plans. According to his brief explanation, ichnographia meant also drawing with a pair of compasses and a ruler, and on this basis it could even be a procedure similar to the designing with geometric grids in the Middle Ages. We present one example of such a geometric grid below (Figure 54). There are a some arguments standing against the use of geometric grids in the Antiquity. The first is that Vitruvius gave exact lengths of rooms when he set the size of a residential house and the other sizes derived from them Vitr. I.2.1–9 A good summary is given about issues of designing, building models and construction in: Gros 2001 p.504-518. 3 Ichnographia est circini regulaeque modice continens usus, e qua capiuntur formarum in solis arearum descriptiones. Ortographia autem est erecta frontis imago modiceque picta rationibus operis futuri figura. Item scaenographia est frontis et laterum abscendentium adumbratio ad circinique centrum omnium linearum responsus. (Vitr. I.2.2) 1 2

53

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

19 13 12 45 32 32

Figure 41: Tombstone from Perugia (Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria, Inv.No. 27-486, after Gros 2001 p. 381 Fig. 435)

12 16

20

12

Another problem of the Roman building planning is whether the Romans had recognised the basic rules that constitute the theory of statics today. The answer is that presumably they had not, but had discovered a great deal on empirical basis. Without such knowledge it would have been impossible to create buildings like the Pantheon. Vitruvius indicates clearly that in the case of larger intercolumniation the thickness of the columns should also be increased: Quemadmodum enim crescunt spatia inter columnas, proportionibus adaugendae sunt crassitudines scaporum.10 He states though that it is due to aesthetic reasons but a few paragraphs earlier one can read that stone architraves can not be used in combination with the araeostylos spacing of columns,11 thus obviously he was aware of engineering problems.

Figure 40: A blueprint of an atrium after G. Hallier

can also be described by simple fractions.4 Another proof is that a floor plan of a tomb survived on a tombstone of Perugia that shows a building, the dimensions of which are given by numbers parallel to the walls (Figure 55), in other words, the floor plan was not defined by nodes of circles and lines. Therefore we believe that the designing process itself (as written by Vitruvius) was done by compass and ruler, but the dimensions were given in numbers, and when the location was measured out presumably the same method was used, namely certain points were set out using a thread and the dimensions were set by measuring rods (e.g. decempeda). If we study the layouts of buildings we find such inaccuracies (for example at the angles of the joining walls) that could have been excluded if a geometric grid were used on the spot.

A discussion of this issue goes beyond the framework of the present study, therefore only those details are dealt with here that can be utilized for the theoretical reconstruction of buildings. This is nothing else but the interrelationship between the load bearing capacity and slenderness of walls and columns (ratio of free standing height and wall thickness).12 In the case of the PCO1 of Bibracte we have already tried to check the load bearing capacity of the walls and the values calculated by us did correspond to those found at architectural parallels.13 If we take a look at some Pompeian examples (Table 5) one can see that the

The floor plan of the PCO1 domus of Bibracte (20) was set out with accuracy5 but so far no point of reference could be found for a geometric grid: we have not found anything that would have pointed beyond the basic rules of geometry.6 The setting out of the upper plane of the foundation is also very accurate: its execution was done with a precision of cca. 10 cm in the 30 m long atrium part.7 Actually the precision of the Roman surveying instruments8 does not seem to be too good at all as they were simple instruments without telescope.9

Vitr. III.3.11 In araeostylis autem nec lapideis nec marmoreis epistyliis uti datur, sed imponendae de materia trabes perpetuae. Vitr. III.3.5 12 The most important from the angle of reconstruction is the proportion of the free height of the wall and its thickness (slenderness, 10/h). A building manual from the early 20th century determines the value of 10/h between 8 to 12 in the case of a free standing wall, while the thickness of the load bearing wall by the equation d=(2t+h)/48 supported longitudinally at distances equal to its height at least (Junk 1906, p. 833), where ’t’ is the span of the ceiling and ’h’ is the height of the wall. For instance, if d=45 then h=45 x 48 – 2 x 800 =560 cm and the slenderness is 560/45=12.44. Current standards permit even the 10=20h height in the case of stone walls laid in cement mortar. The relationship between slenderness and load bearing capacity is not linear. The load bearing capacity of building materials is found out experimentally and described by mathematical functions in order to ensure a relatively easy handling. These functions only roughly approximate reality and rounding is alwas done for safety. 13 Timár et al. 2005 p. 40–43. 10 11

A detailed discussion of the issue: Knell 1987 p. 145–174. Timár et al. 2005 p. 31–32. 6 For instance a circle can be drawn around every square, therefore if we draw circles around the rooms and the square covering the entire building then their points of intersection would define straight lines in the case of a symmetrical building which would coincide with the walls of the rooms. But this is evident anyway. 7 Cf. with data of levels: Timár et al. 2005 p. 21–27. 8 Adam 1995 p. 9–22. 9 According to geodetic manuals they can be used up to a distance of 30 to 50 m. 4 5

54

Interpretation of the Remains

house

section

wall thickness, height between total height, lt h floors, l

l/h

lt/h

lt-l

reference

C. di Iasone

IX,5,18-21

rooms a-e, southern wall

30

410

590

13.67

19.67

180

Pirson 1999, p. 281 Taf. 7a

C. di Iasone

IX,5,18-21

interior load bearing wall

40

410

580

10.25

14.50

170

Pirson 1999, p. 281 Taf. 7a

C. di Iasone

IX,5,18-21

peristyle, southern wall

40

380

600

9.50

15.00

220

Pirson 1999, p. 281 Taf. 7b

C. di Vibius Italus

VII, 2, 18-19

rooms a-c, southern wall

50

440

620

8.80

12.40

180

Pirson 1999, p. 283 Taf. 9b

C. di Vibius Italus

VII, 2, 18-19

rooms k-l, western wall

50

440

620

8.80

12.40

180

Pirson 1999, p. 283 Taf. 9c

VI, 15, 7-8

fauces b, northern wall

30

377

377

12.57

12.57

0

Strocka 1984, p. 18 and Fig. 43

VI, 15, 7-8

atrium d, western wall

30

377

568

12.57

18.93

191

Strocka 1984, p. 19 and Fig. 43

VI, 15, 7-8

tablinum e, western wall

40

377

412

9.43

10.30

35

Strock 1984, p. 22 and Fig. 43

C. del Labirinto

VI, 11, 9-10

ala 7, western wall

40

450

535

11.25

13.38

85

Strocka 1991, p. 24 and Fig. 49

C. del Labirinto

VI, 11, 9-10

exterior wall, western corner

40

450

550

11.25

13.75

100

Strocka 1984, p. 17 and Fig. 49

C. del Principe di Napoli C. del Principe di Napoli C. del Principe di Napoli

Table 5

The floor plan and cross section of the domus of the Place Formigé of Fréjus are shown in Figure 57, on which we demonstrate our reconstruction method. We reconstructed the walls on the cross-section: walls of 1:10 slenderness are marked in black, the part above it up to the maximum 1:20 slenderness is filled with grey. The wall in a critical situation is of nr. 2 (and also its symmetrical counterpart on the southern side); its height defines the eaves of the roof plane being highest. The highest northern roof plane reaches walls 1 and 3 under the maximum possible height, therefore it is suitable from this angle.

ratio of the thickness and height of walls was around 1:10 between two stories, and do not exceed 1:20 for the entire height of the wall. If this is compared to the dimensions of the column orders either on the basis of Vitruvius14 or the standing monuments,15 then once again we obtain a value around 1:10 for the column heights. We used these values for our theoretical reconstructions. The first step of the reconstruction is the determination of the minimal and the maximal possible heights of the outermost load-bearing walls.The next step is an attempt to reconstruct the roof geometry (taking into consideration the position of the rooms open to the sky) and the sketching of the building’s cross-section by starting from the outer walls. We have chosen to draw roof planes that have 25 degrees of inclination.

Then we have defined the lowest roof plane on the basis of the width of the porticus (cca 2.8 m). This height is unsuitable because then ceiling height in the side rooms (rooms 8 and 10), assuming a floor thickness of 20 cm, would be about 2.6 m (which seems to be too low compared to the Pompeian average). Technically, it would be sufficient itself but the internal decoration of the house can be reconstructed in this part. In some places the frescoes17 survived in situ up to a height of 1.5 m height. Above the dado of 70 cm, sets approx. 2.4 m wide framed panels can be reconstructed and these panels are supposed to be at least as high as wide, therefore they would reach the height of 3.1 m even without an upper cornice or band.

The lowest possible height of the exterior load-bearing walls is about 200-240 cm between the ground to the eaves. Once we succeeded on drawing the cross-section we also proceed with the drawing in the opposite direction, setting out from the highest possible points of the innermost load-bearing walls. In an ideal case, we obtain two crosssections at the end, one would show the highest height of the wall (and thus of the building) and the other one the lowest. Despite the fact that this does not sound too complicated, some problems do always emerge that force us to reconsider the shape of the roof. It is due to the reason that the roof planes starting from the outer walls reach very soon the maximal wall height of the inner walls calculated on the basis of their presumed slenderness. Often there are several solutions as well; hence one has to select the most plausible one.

The highest possible roof plane cannot be applied to the house because the columns of the atrium tetrastylum would be too tall then. On the drawing the roof plane marked by v1 belongs to the column of a slenderness ratio of 1:10, therefore it should be accepted. Plane v1 and the intersection line of wall 2 are near to the ceiling height that can be drawn on the basis of the depth of the tablinum, and if we accept that height we obtain an acceptable ceiling height between the highest northern roof plane and the ground floor. The southern side is of similar size, thus the measures of the northern side can be applied there too. It should not be forgotten that the height of the eaves of the atrium must be identical on all sides. Thus the exterior load-bearing wall of the house is about 10.5 to 11 m high which still appears to be acceptable.

The authenticity of reconstruction can be supported by the analysis of the architectural mouldings and wall paintings found on the spot. If columns or their fragments were found then it should be controlled after the reconstruction of the columns if they could be fit into their place in the newly reconstructed building. This procedure was used for the theoretical reconstruction of the Basilica of Bibracte and the result was convincing so far.16

wFortunately, several of the frescoes of this house of Fréjus could be reconstructed. According to A. Barbet, the back

Vitr. III. 5 (See the entire chapter). Wilson-Jones 1989 p.39 Tab.B 16 Szabó et al. 2007 14 15

17

55

Rivet et al. 2000 p. 137 Fig. 348 and p. 138 Fig. 350.

The Spread of the Roman Domus Type in Gaul



 









































  









Figure 42: Reconstruction sketch of the domus of Place Formigé (32) of Fréjus, based on Rivet et al. 2000 Fig. 346 and 347

It is worth to notice that if we imagine a part of an upper story of an interior height of 2 to 2.5 m above rooms 6 and 8, then the complete height of wall 3 is almost ten times as much as its thickness, in other words their its slenderness is 1:10.

wall of the atrium was 5 m high.18 This almost precisely corresponds to the intersection line of plane v1 and of wall 2. The ceiling height of room 6 could be around 3.50 m, and the interior height of room 8 was at least 3.19 m, but not higher than 3.56 m.19 These dimensions fit without problems within the values determined by our calculations. 18 19

Barbet 2002, p. 66. Barbet 2002, p. 70-72

56

Chapter 9 Summary As the principal aim of the present study was to map the spread of the Roman domus type we also summarise that in the form of a map as well (Figure 43). In addition to the places marked on the map many buildings and building fragments can also be found for example in

Alba,1 Alésia,2 Autun,3 Besançon,4, Périgueux5 or Saintes6 which were built during the period surveyed but were not identifiable due to later reconstructions or were of a floor plan that could not be regarded as one belonging to the domus type, even though we do not have strict criteria for the type. Beal, Dupraz 1990 Mangin 1981, Martin, Varène 1973 3 Blanchard-Lemée et al. 1986, Rebourg 1991, Rebourg 1998 4 Pinette, Guilhot 1992 5 Balmelle 1996, Barrière et al. 2001 6 Lauranceau, Maurin: Fouilles de ’Ma Maison’ – Études sur Saintes antique, 1988 1 2

Figure 43: Location of the houses in the catalogue: dark spots indicate places where only a peristyle house, and black circles indicate where atrium houses (and peristyle houses) are known

57

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL

Figure 44: Spread of the Pompeian First and Second styles, after Barbet 1987 p. 8 Fig. 1–2

This map is expedient for a comparison with maps of the spread of wall-painting styles. The spread of the Pompeian Styles (Figure 59 and 60) indicates well the progress of Romanization: at first it became dispersed along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, then along the river Saône and finally in the entire Gaul. We have also noted in relation to the residental architecture that for instance the urbanisation of Amiens or Metz was lagging behind by 40 to 50 years compared to that of Vaison-la-Romaine7 in the south. When we surveyed the antecedents we could see that a type similar to the pastas house survived in a local form, on the other hand we could see that local variants of Roman origin appeared early in painting, mosaics and architecture related sculpture. The spread of the First and Second Style

is significant (Figure 59): a large part of settlements found there did not have a Roman title higher than civitas at that time. On our map it can also be seen that the diffusion of the atrium houses stopped somewhere in the middle of the present day France. Its reason is only partly due to the “speed” of the spread of Romanization. The northernmost atrium houses originate from Bibracte, Genava and Limoges, in the latter town the Maison des Nones de Mars (40) is perhaps the oldest atrium house (built between 35 and 45 AD). But we know atrium houses in the two other settlements from the Augustan period. The dating of buildings based purely on architectural features proved to be rather limited. We have not seen such detail of the floor plan besides the T-shaped rooms

Both of them, as well as Vasion, have the title civitas only: Bedon et al. 1988 p. 52 and 175

7

58

SUMMARY

Figure 45: Spread of the late and early variants of the Pompeian Third Style, after Barbet 1987 p. 13 Fig.8–9

by which a building could be dated. The mouldings and elements of architectural sculpture can also be used for dating with limitations only.

just as well as the house consisting of a series of rooms surrounding the square courtyard with peristyle (Casa de Likine, Carminrea), or the large atrium-peristyle house 8 (Casa Villanueva, Ampurias).

The types of buildings were summarised above and we have tried to observe also some characteristic elements of the floor plans. On this basis we attempt to outline the direction of the spread of the building types.

Sure enough the influence of Hellenistic culture could only be an indirect one. One can find several elements among the details of the residential houses that are clearly of Hellenistic origin: like the Rhodian peristyle, or the peristyle itself, the garden viridarium (Maison de Mars, 40), or the entrance hall (Maison au Vestibule à Colonnes, 78). With the exception of the entrance hall all of them can be identified in Pompeii, they are also referred in the text of Vitruvius, thus have become part of Roman architecture.

It seems to be the most feasible that Hispania, the Hellenistic world and Italy may be the external sources of architectural trends. The Hispanic residental architecture can be divided into two categories in the middle of the first century BC: there are houses following the Italian scheme which have an atrium, whereas the other category comprises residential houses following Hellenistic traditions. The mini-atriumhouse with atrium tetrastylum (Neapolis) can be found

Lloris, Carillo 1996, Gros 2001 p. 137-142, Vincente Redon et al. in: Lloris 1991 p. 81–129 8

59

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL The entrance hall, however, is not without antecedent: it takes over the function of the atrium; it obtains columns that can be traced back to Hellenistic precedents only in Saint-Romain-en-Gal. We could see that the suite of the entrance hall–peristyle–reception room was present in the Hellenistic palace architecture already from the second century BC9 and presumably it was taken over from there into the praetoria and palaces, and subsequently to the architecture of residential houses. The Italian influences are clearly justified by the presence of Gallo-Roman domus of Vitruvian floor plan. The building types appearing in the architecture of public buildings and the style of the decorations are clearly Italian. The centuriatio,10 the city gates or the forum complexes and basilicas show Northern Italian influence.11 According to our present knowledge, the public architecture of Southern Italy has spread first of all in North Africa.12 The North African residental architecture is unambiguously of Hellenistic origin and takes over only parts of the Roman architecture. Apparently the axial peristyle houses spread in greater numbers in North Africa at the end of the first century AD13 which makes impossible their comparison with the Gallo-Roman material studied here. In the Northern Italian residental architecture the decreasing popularity of the atrium in favour of the peristyle can be seen already in the first century BC.14 It can also be sensed that the type of house with large peristyle was already present (Figure 29). Initially there was no uniform architectural trend in the residential architecture of Gaul: the Italian variant of the atrium house disappeared by the middle of the first century AD. We could see examples of building a peristyle house in its place15 but the house with the axial order of vestibulum–peristylium–cenaculum persisted and even in the early second century AD such one was built in Amiens (Palais des Sports, Maison 3, phase IV, Catalogue entry 19). One can recognise that even a derivate of the linear suite of rooms originating from the villa architecture can be recognised at the northern part of that building of Amiens.

0

20

Figure 46: The Atriumhaus of Aguntum, after Tschurtschenthaler 1997, p. 72. Abb 1.

end of the first century AD (Ventimiglia, Luni 2, Aosta 1, Brescia 8),17 moreover a large part of them could be dated with confidence, but these rooms, similarly to the Maison au Dauphin of Vaison (93) are dated between 80 AD and the second part of the 2nd century. Their “atrium tetrastylum” seems like an archaizing feature, appearing in a different architectural context than the one corresponding to the definition of the atrium on the basis of Vitruvius. In brief it means that the atrium-like rooms with impluvia of the buildings mentioned above may be regarded rather as derivates of the atrium. The Northern Italian withdrawal of the atrium does not necessarily mean an end to its further spread: the houses with atria continued to exist for long and could serve as preliminary images to the next generations of builders with a rather conservative taste in Gaul, Noricum or even Pannonia. In this respect it is worth looking at the floor plan of the so-called Atriumhaus of Aguntum in Noricum (Figure 61). The atrium part, that is to be dated presumably to the age of Claudius, was enlarged by a peristyle part in the 2nd century AD.18 The atrium part itself with its broad vestibulum and with its more or less square atrium resembles to the mini-atriumhouses of Gaul, but the concept seems to be similar to what one can find in Saint-Romain-en-Gal.

We have discussed the Northern Italian architecture of residential houses (similarly to the Hispanic one) primarily for controlling the trends of Gaul. It should be noted that comparability is limited, because a large part of the North Italian parallels are of fragmentary floor plan and the houses are widely distributed chronologically as well. In the work serving for comparison16 62 floor plans or fragments of floor plans are studied altogether, of which one may find rooms in 6 cases that would at least partially meet the criteria we set for atria. There are some among them that may be belonged to building periods after the The lavishly decorated boat of Ptolemy IV is usually regarded as the first proven representative of the type: Raeder 1988 p. 368. 10 Cf. Piganiol: Les documents cadastraux de la colonie romaine d’Orange, Gallia supplt. XVI, Paris, 1962 11 Ward-Perkins 1970 p. 4–13. 12 Ward-Perkins op.cit. 14–19. 13 Meyer 1999 p. 115–121 14 Gros 2001 p. 93-95, George 1999 p. 3–6 and 36ff 15 See Chapter 0. 16 George 1997 9

If we take a look at the ground plans of the Gallo-Roman houses, a surprising uniformity can be discovered in their orientation: a larger part of the houses in the Catalogue 17 18

60

George 1997, p. 61; p. 51–52; p. 38; p. 47. For further details see: Tschurtschenthaler 1997.

SUMMARY

Figure 47: Sizes of urban residential houses (houses of identical scale from different sites)

the floor plans of their houses did not significantly differ and that the houses reflected the progress of Romanization as well. The second one was that the hierarchy of the provincial society also appeared on the level of the types of houses. According to his third theory a continuous development led from the atrium house to the peristyle houses. These theses seem to be greatly justified so far but we have to remark that his three statements seems to be the consequences of each other. The provincial hierarchy was reflected in the financial status of the house owners and floor plan of their houses depended on the size og the plot of land they could afford.

were of northwest–southeast orientation; the setting out of the towns of Aix, Fréjus, Limoges and Orange was carried out according to this direction. In these towns the representative rooms of the houses face to the south with a few exceptions. It is obvious that the orientation of urban houses depended on the system of insulae and their orientation, but it is conspicuous that even in the case of the loosely built up Parc aux Chevaux of Bibracte or the Parc de la Grange of Genava we could find the same positioning. If we study the houses drawn to an identical scale and orientation we discover that the type of the floor plans also depended on the size of the plot. The miniatrium-houses occupy the smallest plots as well as the smallest peristyle houses, and we have to note that also the size of their central rooms is uniform. The next plot size is represented by the houses with a square atrium and they are followed by the atrium–peristyle houses. The latter ones are more or less twice as big as the square atrium houses. In the Figure below we try to demonstrate how the size of insulae and plots relate to the floor plans (Figure 62). On the area of the entire insula (A) four square peristyle houses of equal size can be placed (B), or there can be two smaller and two bigger ones. On the same area there can be built two big domus (F) or eight to ten mini-atrium-houses (C) as well. Buildings on plots of similar orientation and size follow identical schemes, therefore it can be stated that the floor plan type of the houses largely depends on the possibilities offered by the size of the plot.

The change in the architectural trends: the rejection of the atrium seems to be of Italian origin by all means on the basis of what was said above but it is interesting to observe a survival of traditions (or the traces of a conservative taste) in the process of breaking away from the atrium. Our final statement is that the comparison with the development of the Pompeian houses was not fruitless: the Pompeian architectural trends could be discovered in Gaul too. It is perhaps not a precipitation to regard this as proof that the architectural trends of Pompeii and Herculaneum were not only the reflections of a local fashion of relatively peripheral small towns20 but are also tangible phenomena in provincial architecture.

Thus the Roman domus did not spread and develop further as a certain building type, but consisted of a connection of various architectural elements and spaces free to be assembled, and the builders (or their commissioners) chose the type that corresponded best to their aims, demands and financial limitations. At first it is surprising that the floor plan types depend on the size of the plot, and what we thought to be a great variety actually means a kind of schematism. P. Gros has set up three initial theses in his introduction to the study of the domus in Gaul and Iberia.19 The first one was that the lifestyle of the higher social classes of provincial and Italian origin was similar, which means that Even if the family of Poppaea Sabina can also be traced back to there: Richardson 1988 p.19. 20 19

Gros 2001, p. 148–150.

61

62

Catalogue

The major aim of the Catalogue is to provide a collection of the floor plans with a brief description. The descriptions primarily rely on the relevant literature used, therefore their quantity and detail is varying according to the accessible sources. Data collection was closed in November 2008, only some amendments were made later on. We cannot undertake the adaptation of the system of description used by the Atlas 1996 due to several reasons, first of all because of the lack of data from unpublished excavation documents that was available to the authors of the Atlas. Consequently we have focused on the floor plans, the number of their rooms and the existence of upper floors if at all, as well as the nature of decorations in the texts. In the case of the latter ones the descriptions are rather heterogeneous: in some cases we can only learn about the existence of frescoes or floors from the relevant literature, but there are cases when a detailed description is also available. If there is no data it may equally mean the lack of decoration or of information. Cataloguing of floors and wall paintings began some 30 years ago: the first ones are discussed by the series “Recueil général des mosaïques de la Gaule” whereas the latter ones by the “Recueil général des peintures murales de la Gaule”; and there are several summaries as well (Barbet 2007, Barbet 1985). References indicate literature actually used. In the case of some buildings brief descriptions were published in the issues of Gallia or Gallia Informations as well, but they were included in the Catalogue only if no other information was available. The Carte archéologique de la Gaule offered help in many such cases too.

63

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 1. Aix-en-Provence, Cour du Théatre de l’ Archevêché (Phase 1)

2. Aix-en-Provence, Cour du Théatre de l’ Archevêché (Phase 2) u dec

ma

nus

o?

o?

d car

d car

courtyard

nus

ma

u dec 0

um dec

20

Phase 1: after Fixot et. al. 1985, p.10, Fig. 6

anu

0

Specificities of ground plan: courtyard without porticus

s

20

Phase 2: after Atlas 1996, p.19.

The building was excavated between 1984 and 1985; the documentation of the excavations is reliable.

Specificities of ground plan: courtyard without porticus

Reference: Fixot et al. 1985, Fixot et al. 1986, Atlas 1996 (Aix, fiche nr. 1)

Reference: Fixot et al. 1985, Fixot et al. 1986, Atlas 1996 (Aix, fiche nr. 2), CAG 13/4 p. 307–309.

Urban structure: The building is located on insula I next to the forum; there is a street (decumanus) bordering the insula from the south, its width is 14.9 m.

Datation: The building of Phase 1 was rebuilt during the first century AD (presumably in the Flavian period). The remains are in a relatively good condition, some walls sections survived in elevation. The stone walls made of lime-mortar were built on clay-bound rubblework foundation; the partition walls are of timber framed structure. The roofing was made of imbrices and tegulae. Even remains of a simple wall painting were found in a room.

Datation: The first part of the first century AD (Phase 1), later construction activities proceeded in the 70s and 80s (Phase 2) and in the late Antiquity (Phase 3). The N–S extent of the insula is about 19.8 m; its dimension in the other direction is unknown. Only segments of the building’s foundations survive, their structure is rubble masonry put in clay. The width of the foundations is between 60–70 cm and they do not show an unform execution. The roofing of the house was made of imbrices and tegulae.

The plan of the insula was altered in Phase 2 when an independent suite of rooms was built to the already existing house at the E side which was enlarged to the south. The insula belonging to the building thus developed was of a ground surface of 39.5 x 25.75 m. It had at least 17 rooms on ground level; the flooring of 3 of them was of rammed earth, and terrazzo in 13 of them. The total area is more than 435 m².

The location of the entrance belonging to Phase 1 of the building cannot be identified. The ground plan belonging to Phase 1 is rather fragmented but visibly it had a system identical with that of Phase 2, but as contrasted to the latter one, it did not occupy the total area of the insula.

Area: at least 435 m² Number of rooms: at least 17

The building consists of rooms organised around a central courtyard, which is about 9 m wide and longer than 10 m, its ground surface is at least 87 m2. The depth of the wings around the courtyard was about 5 m. The number of rooms cannot be determined (but more than 5), no flooring survived.

Upper floor: Decoration: simple fresco.

Area: at least 400 m² Number of rooms: at least 6 Upper floor: Decoration: -

64

CATALOGUE 3. Aix-en-Provence, Parc de stationnement Pasteur (Phase 1)

Upper floor: eastern wing Decoration: 4 mosaics, wall paintings 4. Aix-en-Provence, Parc de stationnement Pasteur (Phase 2)

0

20

after Rouard 1842, pl.1 and CAG 13/4 p. 274, Fig. 258 Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, porticus E. Rouard was the first to excavate the building in 1842. From 1947 on minor probes were done and a new excavation was started in 1985, but a control of the results of the nineteenth century was only partially done. Hence the documentation of the excavations can be regarded as reliable only partially.

0

20

after CAG 13/4 p. 278, Fig. 261

Reference: Rouard 1942, Atlas 1996 (fiche nr. 4), CAG 13/4 p. 276–284.

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, group of three rooms, porticus, peristyle

Urban structure: It can be found at the NE part of the Antique settlement, about 20 m from the cardo maximus.

Reference: Rouard 1942, Atlas 1996 (fiche nr. 5), CAG 13/4 p. 276–284.

Datation: Middle of the first century AD; after some 20 years of existence it was extended in southern direction in the AD 70s (Phase 2).

Datation: the AD 70s For the main features see the previous entry.

The building consists of two wings located in L-shape (N and E sides), looking at a central courtyard, the size of the entire building is about 30 x 40 m. The entrance is located at the eastern side. The depth of the wings is about 6 m and it is about 3 m of the porticus. The central garden is about 25 x 20 m (500 m²), with two pools at its eastern side. Another garden of unknown dimensions can be found at the north-eastern corner of the building. The building has 3 rooms of rammed clay floor, 11 rooms of terrazzo floor and 4 rooms with monochrome mosaic floor; they are located on the eastern side. Remains of wall paintings were also found.

Description: During its enlargement the house was expanded in southern direction, where a group of three rooms and some other rooms were built around a peristyle. The walls of both were decorated with wall paintings of red background. Area: at least 2600 m² Number of rooms: 39 Upper floor: eastern wing Decoration: 12 mosaics, wall paintings, marble capitals (partly from the second century)

Description: The ground plan belonging to Phase 1 is based on E. Rouard’s observations at the excavations published inaccurately and left partially still unexplored. Despite the fact that according to some signs construction activities related to Phase 2 affected the buildings of Phase 1 only to a minimum extent, the question arises whether the mosaics and the pools were really contemporaneous with Phase 1. Area: 1246 m² Number of rooms: 19 65

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 5. Aix-en-Provence, Jardin de Grassi – Maison au Péristyle Rhodien (villa de Grassi)

The floor of the three rooms 6, 7 and 8 at the western side was also covered by mosaics. At the southern part the corridor 9 with mosaic floor led to the only partially excavated hall (12) which had frescoes of red backdrop on its walls and one of their surfaces was decorated by the image of a vessel datable to the middle of the first century AD (CAG 13/4, p. 290, Fig. 286).

2

Area: at least 400 m²

6 1

Number of rooms: at least 20

7 8 9

0

Upper floor: may be presumed

12

Decoration: 10 monochrome mosaics, 2 opus sectile floors, floor covered with stone slabs, wall paintings.

20

6. Aix-en-Provence, Jardin de Grassi – Maison au Grand Péristyle after Atlas 1996, p. 29. and CAG 13/4 p. 287, Fig. 278b Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, pool, porticus The building was excavated in three campaigns (1939–45, 1960, 1987); it can be visited even today. The relevant literature may be regarded as reliable.

9 6

Reference: Atlas 1996 (Aix, fiche nr. 6), CAG 13/4 p. 289–291.

8

7 10

2

Urban structure: The building is located on an insula of unknown dimensions (but of a surface of at least 400 m²); its orientation is adjusted to the part of the city of the forum and it is at a distance of about 300 m from it in northwest direction. Immediately next to it to the east is the Maison au Grand Péristyle.

4

1 5

Datation: It was built in the first decades of the first century AD, but later on the peristyle was rebuilt. Its use in the Late Roman Age can be identified and the building existed for four centuries.

0

Presumably the entrance of the building was on its west side. With the exception of one case where clay bricks were used, its walls were made of stone. The roof was covered with tegulae and imbrices. In half of the rooms (in 10 cases) monochrome mosaic floors of geometric pattern were found, the courtyard was paved by stone slabs and there is a small and shallow pond as well. The long eastern partition wall separates it from the neighbouring Maison au Grand Péristyle.

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 31, CAG 13/4 p. 287, Fig. 278 Specificities of ground plan: group of three rooms, symmetrical internal façade, peristyle The building was excavated together with the Maison au Péristyle Rhodien, at first its northwest side in 1939–45, and the rest in 1957. Reference: Atlas 1996 (Aix, fiche nr. 7)

Description: The currently known ground plan of the house consists of rooms organised around the peristyle of a size of 9 x 9 m, its full dimensions are unknown. The entire courtyard was paved by stone slabs and there is a 2.7 x 2.3 m and 20 cm deep pool in the middle. A simple white mosaic of black border was found inside the porticus. The capitals of the columns supporting the roof of the porticus were of Ionian and Corinthian style. At the entrance to the room 2 identified as oecus (size: 6.8 x 5.95 m) a large-size threshold can be found, its floor is covered by a monochrome mosaic of geometric pattern. The floor of the hall (3) north of it was paved with stone slabs.

Urban structure: It is a building next to the Maison au Péristyle Rhodien, located west from it. Datation: Built in the first decades of the first century AD, the building existed for 3 to 4 centuries. Description: The building is 33 m wide and is at least 60 m long; there is a 20 x 37 m garden in its central part (1). There are representative rooms at the northern part of the building and an 84 m² hall (6) can be found in the axis of the building. On both sides of the hall there are smaller rooms (7 and 8) and two corridors (perhaps staircases). The floor of rooms (2), (6) and (7) was of opus signinum 66

CATALOGUE

Number of rooms: at least 36

a cenaculum (of opus sectile floor identified as from the age of Trajan) and a corridor can be found, their floor is monochrome mosaic, their walls were ornamented with blue, green, red and pink floral volutes and leaves. In the central part of the building there was a garden of 22 x 35 m (approximately 770 m²) and a pool of about 30 m². The arrangement of the southern part is uncertain, the 8 column bases found there in situ may have belonged to a porticus or peristyle which presumably surrounded the entire garden. The ground surface of the building is about 1080 m²; its size is about 50 x 22 m.

Upper floor: presumably at the northern part

Area: 1080 m²

Decoration: at least 3 monochrome mosaics, at least 3 opus sectile.

Number of rooms: at least 12

made of imported stones, while floors of the rooms (3), (4) and (5) were covered with white mosaic with black border. The ground plan in the picture presumably represents several building phases simultaneously (particularly at the northern part), and its southern part is highly hypothetical. Area: at least 626 m²

Upper floor: presumably above the northern part

7. Aix-en-Provence, Enclos Milhaud – Maison au Grand Péristyle

Decoration: at least 5 mosaics, wall paintings, and a 4.4 m² area covered by marble slabs north of the pool. 8. Aix-en-Provence, Enclos Reynaud – Maison au Grand Opus Sectile, Phase 1

e sag pas

0

20

after Rouard 1841, pl. 1. and Atlas 1996, p. 37. Specificities of ground plan: pool, symmetrical internal façade, peristyle 0

The building was excavated by E. Rouard in 1841.

20

after Rouard 1842, pl. 2 and Atlas 1996, p. 39.

Reference: Rouard 1841, Atlas 1996 (Aix, fiche nr. 10), CAG 13/4 p. 301–303.

Specificities of ground plan: pool, entrance hall (broad vestibulum), peristyle

Urban structure: It is located at the northern part of the city 140 m from the city border. It is of the same orientation as the nearby buildings (on the western side there is a public bath, in the south-western and south-eastern directions there is the Maison à la Salle en Hemicycles and the Maison du Dieu Marin); its position within the insula is unknown.

The building was excavated by E. Rouard in 1841. Reference: Rouard 1842, Atlas 1996 (Aix, fiche nr. 11), CAG 13/4 p. 299. Urban structure: It is located at the northern part of the city 100 m from the city border. It is of the same orientation as the neighbouring Maison à la Salle en Hemicycle.

Datation: It can be dated to the first century on the basis of the floorings and the structures excavated nearby.

Datation: Based on the floorings it was presumably built in the first century, but it had at least one earlier period as well.

Description: As the ground plan of the building is mostly unknown therefore only some major units can be distinguished. At the northern part at least 3 rooms and

Description: From the north the building is bordered by a 67

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL Number of rooms: 9 or 10

road and by a smaller street from the west. At the northern part there are two bigger rooms in the longitudinal axis of the building, and there is a pool of 19 m² at the southern part, surrounded by a peristyle. The entire ground surface of the building is about 980 m², of a size of about 45 x 24 m.

Upper floor: perhaps above the northern part Decoration: at least 6 monochrome mosaics. 10. Aix-en-Provence, Enclos Milhaud – Maison du Dieu Marin

During the second century the house was rebuilt and several high quality mosaic floors as well as opus sectile floors were made.

stre

et ?

Area: 980 m² Number of rooms: 19 e sag pas

Upper floor: presumably there was one Decoration: 7 monochrome mosaics. 9. Aix-en-Provence, Enclos Reynaud – Maison à la Salle en Hémicycle (Phase 1) et stre

0

20

after Rouard 1844, pl. 1 and Atlas 1996, p. 45. 0

Specificities of ground plan: pool, broad vestibulum, peristyle

20

The building was excavated by E. Rouard in 1841 and 1843.

after Rouard 1842, pl. 2 and Atlas 1996, p. 41. Specificities of ground plan: symmetrical internal façade, entrance hall (broad vestibulum), peristyle

Reference: Rouard 1844, Atlas 1996 (Aix, fiche nr. 14), CAG 13/4 p. 297–298.

The building was excavated by E. Rouard in 1842, and next A. Kauffmann did probing excavations at certain points in 1979–80.

Urban structure: It is located at the northern part of the city 100 m from the city border. Its orientation is the same as that of the neighbouring Maison au Grand Péristyle.

Reference: Rouard 1842, Atlas 1996 (Aix, fiche nr. 12), CAG 13/4 p. 298–299.

Datation: Built presumably in the first century. Description: The ground plan of the house is only known in rather rough outlines. It is bordered by a road to the north and there is a narrow street at its eastern part. A broad entrance room is located at the northern part and there is an approximately 30 m² pool that is presumably surrounded by a peristyle. So far two monochrome and three polychrome mosaics are known, the latter ones may belong to a later (third century) building phase. Its supposed area is about 1250 m²; its total size is about 50 x 25 m.

Urban structure: It is located at the northern part of the city 100 m from the city border. It is of the same orientation as the neighbouring Maison au Grand Opus Sectile. Datation: Presumably the second part of the first century. It was joined with Phase 2 of the Maison au Grand Opus Sectile in the second century. Description: A decumanus borders the building from the north and the Maison au Grand Opus Sectile from the west. There are three rooms at the northern part of the building and there is a peristyle in the middle part; the series of columns of its northern porticus are arched. Nearly all of the known rooms had monochrome mosaic flooring. The southern part is mostly unexplored. The area of the excavated part of the building is about 380 m²; its size is about 25 x 14 m.

Area: presumably 1250 m² Number of rooms: at least 12 Upper floor: Decoration: 2 mosaics.

Area: at least 308 m² 68

CATALOGUE 11. Aix-en-Provence, Les Chartreux, Maison I, Phase 1

12. Aix-en-Provence, Les Chartreux, Maison 2

stre et

courtyard

0

20

0

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 47.

after Atlas 1996, p. 53.

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, peristyle

Specificities of ground plan: pool, a group of three rooms (?), porticus.

Reference: Atlas 1996 p. 46–47, CAG 13/4 p. 322–323.

Reference: Atlas 1996 p. 53–54, CAG 13/4 p. 326–327.

Urban structure: see above.

Urban structure: see above.

Datation: Around AD 20 according to the excavator, with modifications at the end of the first century and with further repeated rebuilding in the second century.

Datation: After AD 25. Description: A house of relatively modest construction, there is only an opus signinum floor in one room (6) and clay floors in the others which were renewed in the second century AD. The detail of the ground plan so far known consists of a courtyard with pool and surrounded by porticus and rooms arranged next to the courtyard at its northern and eastern sides. Its area so far excavated is about 280 m²; its size is about 17.5 x 20 m.

Description: House I (extension so far known: 120 m²) is presumably the oldest part of the plot, having two building phases. The first one can be dated to the last quarter of the first century BC, and the second one to the second part of the second century AD. The first phase could be identified on the basis of the rammed clay floor surviving in some rooms and the irregular stone walls set in clay also belong to that phase. In the AD 10s a caementicium floor was made in room 2, and the other rooms were renewed. A major modification affecting the ground plan was made after 60 AD: caementicium floor, mosaic in room 5, colour wall paintings. During the second century changes affecting mostly interior decoration were made. According to our present knowledge the building consisted of rooms around a courtyard or peristyle. The area so far excavated is about 160 m²; its size is about 10 x 18 m.

Area: at least 280 m² Number of rooms: at least 9 Upper floor: Decoration: 13. Aix-en-Provence, Les Chartreux – Maison 3, Phase 1

stre

Area: at least 160 m²

et

Number of rooms: at least 6 Upper floor: may be presumed Decoration: - (the polychrome mosaics and frescoes found may be dated to the second century). 0

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 55. Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, peristyle Reference: Atlas 1996, p. 54–55, CAG 13/4 p. 327–328. Urban structure: see above Datation: It was built in the early Flavian age. 69

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 15. Ambrussum, Maison B

Description: A peristyle with rooms surrounding it as well as a courtyard at the southern part can be identified on the basis of the fragmentary ground plan. Five monochrome and a polychrome mosaic were found, they can be partly linked to its reconstruction in the second century. Its area so far excavated is about 600 m²; its size is about 30 x 25 m.

1

2

3

4

entry

5 courtyard

defensive wall

Area: at least 600 m²

6 11

10

Number of rooms: at least 18

9

Upper floor: -

7 8 12

courtyard

Decoration: 5 monochrome mosaics. 14. Ambrussum, Maison A

0 after CAG 34/3, p. 396, Fig. 383

7 4

y entr

6

5

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, a building for economic activities, porticus

1 8 ard

Reference: CAG 34/3, p. 396–397, Fiches 1986, p. 16–42, 57–61.

rty cou

2 3

20

e

rac r ter

lowe

0

Urban structure: It is located at the north-eastern part of the settlement.

20

Datation: around AD 40

after CAG 34/3, p. 396, Fig. 382

Description: The building, similarly to the other house of Ambrussum (No. 14 in the Catalogue) consists of rooms built around a courtyard and has a ground surface of about 80 m². Two sides of the courtyard are edged by porticos, and the intercolumnia are closed by low walls. Room 5 at the entrance is the biggest one of the house with a ground surface of 45.5 m².

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, a building for economic activities, porticus Reference: CAG 34/3, p. 395–396, Fiches 1986, p. 16–41 and 49–57. Urban structure: It is located at the south-western part of the settlement.

Area: about 440 m²

Datation: around AD 40.

Number of rooms: 13

Description: Every floor of the simply conceived building of an internal size of 17 x 13 m was of stamped earth. The central room of the house was the courtyard with peristyle. Rooms 7 and 8 can be identified as residential ones. Of room 5 of a ground surface of 35 m² fragment of a lararium and a piece of a Sucellus statue were found. Its walls were made of stone.

Upper floor: Decoration: -

Area: about 406 m² Number of rooms: 10 Upper floor: Decoration: -

70

CATALOGUE 16. Ambrussum, Maison de la Station routière (zone 9)

17. Amiens, Palais des Sports, Maison 1, Phase III

phase C

phase III

street

courtyard cellar

street

0

20

0

20

after CAG 34/3, p. 402, Fig. 389 (Phase D)

phase IV

street

phase D peristyle

street

bricks laid in adobe

0

bricks laid in mortar

0

20

after Binet 1996, p. 85, Fig. 1–2

20

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, porticus

after CAG 34/3, p. 402, Fig. 390 (Phase C) Specificities of ground plan: group of three rooms, pars rustica, atrium tetrastylum (10 x 11 m)

Reference: Binet 1996, p. 84–86. Urban structure: The site called Palais des Sports is situated at the western periphery of the Antique city on insula 15. The size of the excavated area was almost 10,000 m². At the earlier excavations in Amiens (rue des Otages, Lycée Michelis) very modest buildings were found, thus residential houses No. 4 or 5 of a comparatively demanding construction are considered as a significant discovery by all means from the angle of the analysis of residential architecture of Samarobriva. During the excavations altogether 7 residential houses could be isolated two of which are at the border of the neighbouring insula and were only partially excavated. The archaeological chronology of the area explored is not uniform with the exception of the destruction layers of fires between 125 and 130 AD; at any rate the use of the buildings can be placed between the first to third centuries AD.

Reference: Fiches 2003, p. 53, CAG 34/3, p. 401–402. Urban structure: It is located north of the oppidum of Ambrussum and belongs to the group of buildings at the road stop by the Via Domitiana. Datation: Around 25 AD (Phase D), subsequently it was repeatedly modified. The ground plan presented above and belonging to Phase C emerged during the course of the first century AD. Later on further modifications were done up to about 125 AD, when it was abandoned. Description: Originally the building (Phase D) consisted of three wings built around a central room with impluvium. Its walls were made of rubble with earth as binding material. During Phase C the house was partly enlarged and a blacksmith’s workshop was developed in the southern part. In this building phase its wall were made of stone laid in mortar.

Datation: Only a few structures survived from its earlier building phases (Phase II between 50 and 60 AD: a cellar later on filled up, remains of partition walls). The Phase III can be dated between 60 and 80 AD.

Area: 422 m²–483 m² Number of rooms: 7 in Phase D, 15 in Phase C. Upper floor: It had certainly in Phase C.

Description: The ground plan is U-shaped; it consists of altogether 17 rooms arranged around the inner courtyard

Decoration: 71

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL with peristyle. The cellar built in the previous building phase was still in use at that time.

19. Amiens, Palais des Sports, Maison 3, Phase IV

Minor modifications of the ground plan were made in the next building phase (Phase IV around 80 AD). Area: 450 m² triclinium ?

Number of rooms: 17

peristyle ?

Upper floor: Decoration: -

peristyle maison 3 bis

18. Amiens, Palais des Sports, Maison 2, Phase III 0

20

maison 3

stree

t

after Binet 1996, p. 89, Fig. 9 Specificities of ground plan: groups of three rooms, symmetrical internal façade, entrance hall, broad vestibulum, peristyle street

Reference: Binet 1996, p. 87–88. Urban structure: see above

0

20

Datation: around AD 110

after Binet 1996, p. 87, Fig. 5

Description: The house was built in the early second century AD, around 110; prior to that the area was only partially built up with light-frame buildings. The shape of the building suggests that it was erected on several plots merged together.

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, peristyle Reference: Binet 1996, p. 86. Urban structure: see below

Despite the fact that we have drawn the limit of the period under survey at the Flavian age, yet the discussion of this building is justified, as its ground plan scheme recalls the earlier domus-type. At the southern part there is a unit consisting of rooms grouped around an atrium or a covered entrance hall and the other rooms are located around a courtyard with peristyle at the northern part. The axes of the atrium part, of the peristyle and the room adjoining the peristyle (possibly identified as triclinium) practically coincide (provided we disregard the indentation at the southern side of the peristyle).

Datation: second part of the first century AD. Description: The ground surface of the house is 650 m². The first permanent residential building was erected in building phase III, which can be dated to the second part of the first century AD. The central element of the ground plan is a courtyard with peristyle and the adjoining rooms can be found at its northern and southern sides. The building did not only function as a residential one but also as a workshop in that building phase, although it is practically impossible to determine the function of the various rooms due to the fact that the floor levels are missing.

Both sides of the walls of the house were covered by stone (at least at the surviving part of the dado). The roof was covered by tegulae, walls were at least partially decorated by wall paintings, and the floor of the representative rooms was of terrazzo. In all probability the house was owned by someone belonging to the upper social stratum which is also supported by the rich finds of the layers of debris. Yet no bath or hypocaustum was found in the house.

Area: 650 m² Number of rooms: 9 Upper floor: Decoration:

The residential building called 3bis joins the house from the west and since the adjoining zone of the two houses was almost totally destroyed by activities of the modern age, 72

CATALOGUE therefore neither their architectural nor their stratigraphic interrelations can be clarified. If building 3bis was not an organic part of the large domus then it can also be assumed that it was part of the building of service function.

Upper floor: It cannot be excluded. Decoration: A local variant of opus signinum (scaiole) in some rooms.

Area: at least 600 m² 21. Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, Maison à l’opus spicatum

Number of rooms: at least 18 Upper floor: Decoration: 5 monochrome mosaics

L11

L9

L1

L2

L5 L4

20. Bibracte, Pâture du Couvent, PCO 1

L14

L3 L7

L13

eet

L8

str

L15

0

20

after Paunier, Luginbühl 2004, p. 80, Fig. 4.47 Specificities of ground plan: broad vestibulum, peristyle 0

20

Date of excavations: 1988–1998

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, symmetrical internal façade, atrium tectum (15.6 x 9.9 m), peristyle

Reference: Paunier, Luginbühl 2004 p. 79–98. Urban structure: The building can be found at the part of the oppidum of Bibracte called Parc aux Chevaux, which is a relatively flat area articulated by minor slopes and elevations.

Date of excavations: 1993– Reference: Timár, Szabó, Czajlik 2005, Gruel-Vitali 1998

Datation: between 30 BC and 15 AD.

Urban structure: The domus is located on the insula called Ilot des Grandes forges on the territory of the Pâture du Couvent. The main road of the oppidum borders the domus from the west.

Description: The building of about 30 x 30 m internal size of a ground plan of somewhat trapeze shape is only partially known, as it can be found under the PC1 domus (entry 22 in the Catalogue); but its extent can be relatively precisely defined. The currently known part of the building consists of a broad fauces and an entrance hall (vestibulum) belonging to it, of a peristyle and rooms adjoining it, such as a kitchen and at least two rooms for baths (the two rooms were furnished with hypocaustum: L5b and L5). Flooring: opus spicatum (L4), scaiole (a local variant of opus signinum, L2, L3, L7, L13, L15, L16), black and red terrazzo of geometric pattern (L9) and stiff clay floor (L1, L10, L14). Its roofs were of tegulae.

Datation: The domus was built on the ruins of the Republican basilica in the late Augustan period. Description: As to the ground plan of the domus it consists of two parts: an atrium part and a peristyle part. An only partially excavated part of a peristyle belongs to the entrance and there was an external porticus around the atrium part. The size of the atrium displuviatum is 15.6 x 9.9 m, and not less than four corridors can be found among the rooms surrounding it. The function of the various rooms can only be determined on the basis of parallels as the walls were destroyed in a great many places. Presumably the building of the house was not completed, because finds referring to everyday use are missing. The walls were built of stone; its floors were of terrazzo and opus signinum.

Area: at least 910 m² Number of rooms: at least 10 Upper floor: Decoration: opus spicatum and opus signinum floors.

Area: Its assumed total size is: about 30 x 60 m (1800 m²). Number of rooms: at least 24 73

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 23. Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, PC 2

22. Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, PC 1 BZ

BY

BX

BO

BP

BM

BN

X

K

J

B

0 0

20

20

after Meylan 1994, p. 10 and Paunier, Luginbühl 2004, p. 91, Fig. 4.69

after Paunier, Luginbühl 2004, p. 24, Fig. 2.9 Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, symmetrical internal façade, broad vestibulum, atrium tuscanicum (13.6 x 10.4 m), peristyle.

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, groups of three rooms, symmetrical internal façade, peristyle Reference: Paunier, Lüginbühl 2004, Oelmann 1924

Date of excavations: 1871–1875, 1988–1998

Urban structure: see 21 of the Catalogue

Reference: Paunier, Luginbühl 2004, Gruel, Vitali 1998, Oelmann 1920, Bulliot 1899a

Datation: presumably Augustan Age Description: The internal size of the house is about 40 x 30 m. The 9 x 10 m courtyard with peristyle is the central element of the ground plan which is surrounded by rooms. The entrance is at the northern side. Room 6 of the size of 6 x 7 m which can be defined as a cenaculum is bordered by two cubicula and the symmetry axis of this unit coincides with the axis of the peristyle and the three cubicula found at its other side. The kitchen of the house and the bath with hypocaustum of the house can also be identified.

Urban structure: see 21 in the Catalogue Datation: between 1 and 15 AD Description: The size of the building is about 65 x 55 m; its ground surface is 3500 m² without the further adjoining parts of buildings located at the southern part. The external walls do not conncet in right angle, but the internal walls only partially follow the irregularities of the external walls (and hence those of the plot and the street network). The full ground plan was first published as a result of J.-G. Bulliot’s excavations in the nineteenth century, and a control of those excavations was done 100 years later.

Area: about 1120 m²

The main axis of the building is of north-south orientation and the vestibule (BO), the atrium tetrastylum (BN), the tablinum, the peristyle (X, K) and the oecus (J) joining it are adjusted to that axis. The kitchen is located west of the atrium (room BP) as well as several small-size servicing rooms, and there is a larger size room of economic function at its eastern side (BM). The bath section consists of three rooms (BX, BY, BZ – the two latter ones are equipped with hypocaustum) and two of its building phases could be isolated.

Upper floor: -

Number of rooms: 30 Decoration: -

Several kinds of floorings were found: monochrome mosaic (B), opus signinum and rammed clay floor. Its walls were equalized serial stone walls with ashlar closures at the ends of walls. Area: about 3500 m² Number of rooms: about 38 Upper floor: Decoration: monochrome mosaic, opus signinum 74

CATALOGUE 24. Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, PC 8

25. Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, PC 23

0

20

after Meylan 1995, p. 10. and Paunier, Luginbühl 2004, p. 91, Fig. 4.69 Specificities of ground plan: peristyle Reference: Paunier, Lüginbühl 2004 p. 91, Meylan 1995 Urban structure: see 21 of the Catalogue 0

Datation: Augustan Age (?)

20

after Meylan 1994, p. 10 and Paunier, Luginbühl 2004, p. 91, Fig. 4.69

Description: The size of the house is about 25 x 30 m. Only few of its details are known, but even then it is visible that the rooms of the building surround a courtyard with peristyle.

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, peristyle Reference: Paunier, Lüginbühl 2004 p. 91, Meylan 1995 p. 17–26.

Area: about 625 m²

Urban structure: see 21 of the Catalogue

Upper floor: -

Datation: early Augustan Age

Decoration: -

Number of rooms: at least 8

Description: The size of the house is about 40 x 40 m (without the adjoining structures). Only few of its details are known, but even then it can be seen that the rooms of the building surround a courtyard with peristyle. The entrance may have been on the eastern side, and the series of rooms surround the central courtyard on three sides.

26. Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, PC 33

Area: about 1580 m²

H

Number of rooms: at least 21 Upper floor: -

C

Decoration: -

0

20

after Déchelette 1904, pl. XI and Paunier, Luginbühl 2004, p. 91, fig. 4.69 Specificities of ground plan: symmetrical interior of atrium, broad vestibulum, atrium tuscanicum (13 x 10.7 m) Reference: Déchelette 1904, p. 44–56; Oelmann 1920, p. 53–54, Meylan 1995 p.13–16. Urban structure: see 21 of the Catalogue Datation: early Augustan Age (?) 75

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 28. Cavalaire, Pardigon 3

Description: The ground surface of the house is about 750 m², its size is about 30 x 32 m. J. Déchelette defined a courtyard as the central room of the house, but according to Oelmann’s opinion the central room was an atrium which is supported by the existence of rooms corresponding to two alae and tablinum. A broad vestibulum is at the entrance, and there may have been a bath at the northern part of the building. There are relatively few rooms in the house but their size is rather big: the ground surface of hall C is about 75 m², and of H is about 81 m².

68 53 11 2

Area: about 750 m²

16

Number of rooms: 18

60 61 31

Upper floor: Decoration: -

0

20

Ground plan of Phase 1 after CAG 83/1, p. 325, Fig. 262

27. Bibracte, Parc aux Chevaux, Maison des Pierriers

Specificities of ground plan: agricultural part, peristyle Reference: CAG 83/1 p. 324–330, comprehensive ground plan, CAG 83/1 p. 326, Fig. 263. Urban structure: The villa is to be found at the seacoast. Datation: Phase 1 can be associated with the Flavian Age. Description: The size of the building is about 50 x 30 m. A large storage building can be found at the northern part (52 x 12 m). The entrance was at the western side, and the entrance room opened to the south to a room with impluvium (2) surrounded by six columns which can be identified as an atrium. The latter one had connections with the garden (16, the peristyle seems to have been developed later) and with two residential rooms (60, 61) which were presumably also open from the direction of the southern porticus (31). Presumably there was a tower at the southwestern corner of the building.

?

0

20

after Paunier, Luginbühl 2004, p. 91, Fig. 4.69 Specificities of ground plan: peristyle

The building of the bath quarter took place only in a later phase. Rooms at the northern and eastern sides of the garden (16) may have been residential ones.

Reference: Paunier, Lüginbühl 2004, Meylan 1995 p. 31–34. Urban structure: see 21 of the Catalogue

The agricultural part is located north of the courtyard 11. Room 53 was presumably a stable, and 68 was related to wine production, the main activity of the villa as it is testified by the bottoms of dolia excavated in situ inside it.

Datation: Augustan age Description: The size of the house is about 35 x 35 m. Only few details of it are known but even then it is obvious that the units of the building surround a courtyard with peristyle. Area: about 1010 m²

The walls of the building are of stone with a meagre mortar for binding material. The columns were built of pottery elements and millstones.

Number of rooms: at least 8

Area: about 2000 m²

Upper floor: -

Number of rooms: at least 28

Decoration: -

Upper floor: Decoration: -

76

CATALOGUE 29. Clermont-Ferrand, 4 boulevard Trudaine 3

1

30. Fréjus, Butte Saint-Antoine

4

2

XXV LX

VI

XXVI

VII

0

20 X XIII

XVI XV

after CAG 63/1 p. 177, Fig. 84

courtyard

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms (?), peristyle Date of excavations: 1990 Reference: CAG 63/1 p. 174–175. 0

20

Urban structure: 200 m east of the assumed theatrum Datation: reign of Tiberius, the building was already abandoned at the Flavian Age.

after Rivet et al. 2000, p. 280, Fig. 513

Description: The ground plan of the building is extremely fragmentary but its system can be recognised: it consists of rooms grouped around a courtyard. The courtyard is surrounded in L-shape by a porticus (2). The flooring of the porticus and of rooms 1 and 3 was of terrazzo, the walls of the porticus and of room 1 were ornamented by frescoes of red–pink–black basic colours. The material of the rubblework walls was basalt put in mortar.

Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, group of three rooms, symmetrical internal façade, peristyle The first systematic excavations of the building took place between 1955 and 1974–76 under the supervision of P.-A. Février; the results of the excavations were published only in the form of brief reports. The building survives in a rather poor state. Reference: Rivet et al. 2000, p. 278–281, Atlas 1996, p. 100–101, Février 1956

Area: at least 500 m² Number of rooms: at least 6

Urban structure: The building is located at the southwestern part of Fréjus, at a protruding part of the Antique city wall, next to the port. It is bordered by the city walls on three sides.

Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes

Datation: Late first century BC Description: The size of the building of an only partially known ground plan was about 100 x 60 m; its gross area could be about 6000 m². Its central room is the 35 x 11 m courtyard with peristyle, in addition it had three secondary courtyards too (XXV, XXVI and LX). A hall of 20 x 25 m (XXVI) joins the courtyard from the north. With the exception of the corridors the decoration and function of the other rooms cannot be identified. The function of the building, similarly to the huge house of the Plate-Forme (31 in the Catalogue) is uncertain but the floor plan reflects the features of a residental building. Fragments of its terrazzo floors were found under the big peristyle and in rooms VII, XV, XVI and XXV. Area: about 6000 m² Number of rooms: at least 47 Upper floor: cannot be proved. Decoration: Impossible to identify due to the poor condition of the building. 77

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 31. Fréjus, Plate-Forme

cannot be excluded either that the present ground plan was partly developed at such a late date. The bath section was repeatedly rebuilt. Area: about 6860 m² Number of rooms: 120

9 8 24 26 29

Upper floor: presumably at least above one of the wings. There are several such rooms that can be considered as a staircase.

23 25

13 21

Decoration: more than 4 monochrome mosaics and more than 4 opus sectile floors.

84

73

32. Fréjus, Place J. Formigé, Phase 1 63 0

20

8

6

7

after Février 1962, fig. 2 and Rivet et al. 2000, p. 253, Fig. 456

10

5

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, pool, peristyle

9 3

The first systematic excavations of the building were done between 1930 and 1939 by Donnadieu; the results were published only in the form of brief reports. The final excavations were done between 1960 and 1963 under the leadership of P.-A. Février.

4

1 2

0

The building itself survived in a rather poor condition, the walls were destroyed almost everywhere to the upper plane of the foundation.

20

after Rivet-Saulnier 1996, p. 94 and Rivet et al. 2000, p. 197, Fig. 346

Reference: Rivet et al. 2000, p. 251–255 and p. 264–265, Atlas 1996, p. 104–105, Février 1962, Donnadieu 1932

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, atrium tetrastylum (10.6 x 9.46 m), taberna, mini-atrium-house

Urban structure: The building can be found at the southeastern part of Fréjus on a prominent spot. It is bordered by the city wall on two sides.

The building was excavated in 1988, its remains survive in a very good state; some segments of walls were 1.8 m tall at the time of the excavations.

Datation: late first century BC

Reference: Rivet et al. 2000, p. 195–198, Atlas 1996, p. 110–111, Février et al. 1990, 206–214

Description: The size of the huge building is 98 x 68.5 m; its area is about 6860 m². Its central room is the 40 x 40 m courtyard with peristyle. Wings of rooms surround the courtyard on all sides. A bath quarter can be found at the eastern wing (13, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29), as well as a smaller (12 x 12 m) courtyard with peristyle (8), from where an exit opens to the tower (9) of the city’s fortification system. Room 73 is in the axis of the western wing of the building, which was, according to A. Février of open roof “in all probability”, north and south of it there are smaller peristyles of a size of about 12 x 12 m each (84 and 63) with groups of rooms around them. Along the walls bordering the large peristyle the rooms are arranged symmetrically. The function of the building is uncertain, but according to some opinions it was the domus or praetorium of a highranking military officer or governor (Donnadieu 1932, p. 115–118 or Février 1962, p. 177). As there is one among the mosaic floors which can be dated to the second century AD on the basis of stylistic considerations therefore it

Urban structure: It can be found 200 m south of the crossing point of the cardo and the decumanus maximus. Datation: around AD 1–5 Description: The building had a mixed system of walls (the external walls were built of stone, the internal ones were made of adobe brick standing on stone foundations, whereas the partition walls were of clay in wood framework), its width is 18.50 m, its length is 25.20 m. The central room of the house is courtyard 5 with peristyle 9. There is an approx. 9 m3 vaulted cistern under the courtyard; its upper opening is ornamented by a puteus. In the 50s or 60s the intercolumnia were closed with walls and flower containers were placed at three sides of the courtyard. In all probability room 2 was a taberna. The large entrance room 1 was flanked by two pillars at its external side, next to it there was a corridor 3 with the function of staircase 78

CATALOGUE and a servicing room or taberna 4. The floor of those four rooms was rammed earth. On the contrary, the flooring of the rooms at the northern side was highly demanding: there is a mosaic floor (5.30 x 5.25 m) in room 6, an opus signinum floor in room 7, whereas in room 8 there was flooring made at least partially of marble. Apparently all the walls were plastered and there was some kind of a wall painting on each of them. The frescoes were of red–blue, red–yellow, or red–white basic colours.

which water was supplied through a lead pipe. The walls of the building survive only to the height of about 50 cm. Area: at least 509 m² Number of rooms: at least 7 Upper floor: presumably there was one. Decoration: -

Sometime between 65 and 70 AC the house burned down, afterwards it was demolished.

34. Fréjus, Clos de la Tour, insula III, Maison IIIa (Maison à la Mosaïque, Decor de Grecques), Phase 2

Area: 462 m² Number of rooms: more than 16 Upper floor: There was definitely one as testified by the corridor identified as a staircase. o rd ca

Decoration: monochrome mosaic floor of geometric pattern, opus signinum floor, marble sheet flooring, limestone puteus, frescoes.

us an um c de

33. Fréjus, Place J. Formigé, Phase 2

0

20

after Atlas 1996, p.117. Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, porticus Reference: Rivet et al. 2000, p. 127, Atlas 1996, p. 116–117, Février et al. 1972, p. 355–386.

0

Urban structure: The building is located about 120 m west of the theatre and about 65 m south of the city wall in the central part of the settlement.

20

Datation: a complete reconstruction of the first phase around 70 AD.

after Atlas 1996, p. 113.

Description: It was built in the early Flavian age after two small plots were merged and the simple three-room buildings on them were pulled down. During the course of the excavations 8 rooms could be identified. The building had stone walls put in clay, its width was 16.25 m, and its length 23.10 m. In one room a monochrome mosaic of geometric pattern was found. The house was rebuilt during the second century AD.

Specificities of ground plan: pool, broad vestibulum, peristyle Reference: Rivet et al. 2000, p. 195–198, Atlas 1996, p. 110–111, Février et al. 1990, 206–214. Urban structure: It can be found 200 m south of the crossing point of the cardo and the decumanus maximus. Datation: The house was built in the early Flavian Age, after the house of the previous phase (32 in the Catalogue) burned down. Some walls of the earlier building were also used.

Area: 375 m² Number of rooms: 8 Upper floor: presumably there was one.

Description: Five rooms could be excavated at the southern part of the building and a courtyard at its northern part. As to its dimensions its length agrees with that of the building of the previous phase (32 in the Catalogue), whereas it is 1.4 m wider. The courtyard is surrounded by a 2.96 m wide peristyle, there is a 9 x 2.2 m pool in the courtyard, to

Decoration: monochrome labyrinth-patterned mosaic floor in the room at the southern corner.

79

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 36. Fréjus, Clos de la Tour, insula II, Maison IIa’’ (Maison aux Sols de Terrazzo), Phase 1

35. Fréjus, Clos de la Tour, insula II, Maison IIa’ (Maison a l’Emblema en Nid d’Abeille), Phase 1

de

us an um c de

s nu ma cu

o rd ca

0

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 123. 0

20

Specificities of ground plan: mini-atrium-house (?)

after Atlas 1996, p. 121.

Reference: Rivet et al. 2000, p. 126, Atlas 1996, p. 122–123, Février et al. 1972, p. 355–386.

Specificities of ground floor: mini-atrium-house (?)

Urban structure: The building is located about 70 m west of the theatre and about 60 m from the city wall in the central part of the settlement.

Reference: Rivet et al. 2000, p. 126, Atlas 1996, p. 120–121, Février et al. 1972, p. 355–386. Urban structure: The building is located about 70 m west of the theatre and about 60 m south of the city wall in the central part of the settlement.

Datation: Between 20–25 AD Description: Three rooms could be identified during the excavations. The building was built of stone walls put in clay, its width is 12.20 m, its length is more than 16 m. There was an opus signinum floor in two rooms. The house was united with the neighbouring residential house (35 in the Catalogue) in the second century AD.

Datation: 20–25 AD Description: During the excavations 8 rooms could be identified. The building was built of stone walls put in clay, its width is 16.25 m and its length is more than 16 m. A monochrome mosaic of geometric pattern was found in one of its rooms, and there was terrazzo flooring in two others. The building was united with the next residential building during the course of the second century AD.

Area: at least 197 m² Number of rooms: at least 3 Upper floor: -

Area: more than 264 m²

Decoration: two floors or opus signinum.

Number of rooms: at least 8 Upper floor: Decoration: monochrome geometric mosaic, presumably with a later central emblema.

80

CATALOGUE 37. Fréjus, Clos de la Tour, insula II, Maison IIb, Phase 1

38. Genava, Parc de la Grange

us

an

um

c de

0

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 127. Specificities of ground plan: mini-atrium-house (?) Reference: Rivet et al. 2000, p. 126, Atlas 1996, p. 126–127, Février et al. 1972, p. 355–386.

0

20

after Haldimann et al. 2001, p. 5, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Specificities of ground plan: symmetrical internal façade, broad vestibulum, T-atrium (11 x 15 m), peristyle

Urban structure: The building is about 65 m west of the theatre and about 50 m south of the city wall in the central part of the settlement.

Reference: Haldimann et al. 2001

Datation: between AD 20–25

Urban structure: -

Description: During the excavations 7 rooms could be identified. The building was built of stone walls put in clay, its width is 14.80 m, its length is more than 16 m. There was an opus signinum floor in one of its rooms (at the northern corner). The house was rebuilt in the second century AD.

Datation: Augustan Age, with some changes in the Flavian era. Description: The villa was at first excavated in 1919, and subsequently between 1995 and 2001. Not only the main building could be explored but also the boundary wall (approx. 150 x 400 m) and details of some other buildings have also become known. One has to note that there is a portico in front of the entrance, which is quite widespread in urban contexts but seems to be rare in the countryside.

Area: at least 231 m² Number of rooms: at least 7 Upper floor: Decoration: one opus signinum floor

The internal size of the building is about 30 x 50 m; its ground surface is about 1400 m². The building consists of two parts: the one grouped around the 11 x 15 m atrium at the entrance side, and the peristyle part around the 12 x 21 m courtyard with peristyle. During the excavations a very large quantity of wall painting fragments was found from the zone of the atrium and the area of the peristyle. Area: about 1400 m² Number of rooms: 22 Upper floor: ? Decoration: frescoes

81

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 40. Limoges, insula IV-6, Maison des Nones de Mars

39. La Boisse, Villa des Vernes

61 57 56

1

60

59 55 2 19 15

54 53

5

34

7

58

8

52

33

35

51 9

16

50

36 3 30

17

37 38 46

43 39 44

45

42

0

20

after Loustaud 1996, pl. I Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, pool, group of three rooms, symmetrical internal façade, broad vestibulum, T-atrium (16 x 9.8 m), peristyle Date of excavations: 1982, 1990–1991 0

20

Reference: CAG 87, p. 107-110, Loustaud 2000 p. 179, 191, Loustaud et al. 1993, Loustaud 1992

after CAG 01, p. 112, Fig. 53 and Vicherd, Baudrand 1982, p. 128, Fig. 5

Urban structure: It is located about 150 m from the forum.

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, peristyle

Datation: between 35 and 45AD

Reference: Vicherd, Baudrand 1982, CAG 01 p. 112.

Description: The internal size of the building is 39 x 96.5 m. The ground plan can be divided into four parts: the eastern entrance (entrance hall 30 and its environment), the smaller courtyard with peristyle (8, 9, 15) and the rooms surrounding it, the bigger peristyle (1–3, 7) and the back part of the building (50–61).

Urban structure: Datation: It was built in the second part of the first century AD (?). Description: Based on the very scarce datable finds apparently the building was abandoned in the later first or early second century AD, but the excavators are of the view that building Phase 1 dated to the second part of the first century AD was followed by yet another three building phases (Vicherd, Baudrand 1982, p. 126–131.). This datation seems to be somewhat problematic but it is practically impossible to give any more exact datation due to the lack of finds and building remains.

The broad entrance vestibulum (37) leads to a 164 m² room of monochrome mosaic floor (30), which corresponds to an atrium (with two alae) in the traditional interpretation, though it has no impluvium. Service parts can be found at the two sides of room 30: on the western side, next to the secondary courtyard 33 there is a culina (34) and tabernae (35–36), and there are also tabernae (39, 42) at the eastern side next to corridor 38 as well as baths (43–46).

The size of the building without the baths is about 40 x 80 m; its ground surface is about 3200 m² and it consists of 22 rooms. The ground surface of the bath quarter is about 500 m² and consists of 10 rooms, with the exception of the latter one the entire building is measured on the basis of a 3.3 m module (Vicherd, Baudrand 1982, p. 129). Practically only its fundaments and trenches of the fundaments remain.

The ground surface of the smaller courtyard with peristyle is 521 m². The porticos have 24 columns: 4–4 Corinthians at the shorter sides each and 8–8 Tuscan ones at the longer sides. The floor of the porticus is monochrome mosaic. Hall 19 is situated at the north-eastern side of the peristyle, its ground surface is 108 m²; presumably it was a triclinium or oecus. Its floor was a simple terrazzo, but its walls were decorated with frescoes of a surprisingly good quality. Room 4 is also located at the north-eastern part of the peristyle; there was a cellar below it. The fresco decorations of the room are again of rather demanding execution and the material of the paints must have been costly (Egyptian blue, Italian and Hispanic cinnabar). The paintings reflect the elements of Pompeian Third Style and

Area: about 3200 m² Number of rooms: at least 22 Upper floor: Decoration: -

82

CATALOGUE can be dated to cca. 30–40 AD on stylistic basis.

Area: at least 220 m²

Room 7 is located in the axis of the bigger courtyard with peristyle; its size and ground plan is identical with those of the entrance hall (30). Its floor is a polychrome mosaic and corresponds to the Cyzicenian hall of Vitruvius on the basis of its execution. (Vitr. VI.3.10). The porticus (1–3) had 33 Tuscan columns. A smaller ensemble of baths is at the south-eastern part of the building (45–47).

Number of rooms: at least 6 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes 42. Limoges, insula VII-5, Maison à la cheminée murale

Terrazzo floors can be found everywhere in the building without visible brick fragments, which suggests that this type of floor was already dominant around 30–40 AD. Based on epigraphic proofs the kind of stone used for ashlars appeared in the first century AD in Augustoritum. The opus caementicium walls are of very good quality. In contrast to the earlier buildings of the city, elements of architectural mouldings also appeared.

55

60

stree t

Area: 3734 m² Number of rooms: at least 40 Upper floor: can be assumed Decoration: mosaic, frescoes, architectural mouldings

0

20

after Loustaud 2000, p. 206, Fig. 67

41. Limoges, insula VII-5, early domus under the Maison à la cheminée murale

Specificities of ground plan: broad vestibulum (?), peristyle Reference: Loustaud 2000, p. 205–206. Urban structure: It is in the immediate neighbourhood of the forum, west of it. Datation: around 40–50 AD (it burned down around 70–80 AD)

0

Description: The internal size of the building is about 40 x 40 m; its ground plan is only partly known. Its central room was an approx. 200 m² courtyard with peristyle. The full length of the western side towards the street was bordered by a porticus. The floor of room 55 was terrazzo, and the floor of room 60 had hypocaustum. The remains of the house survive in a rather poor state and further architectural details are unknown.

20

after Loustaud 2000, p. 177, Fig. 23 Datation: between 11 and 38 AD, according to dendrochronological data

Area: at least 1600 m²

Specificities of ground plan: broad vestibulum, peristyle

Number of rooms: at least 16

Reference: Loustaud 2000, p. 176–177.

Upper floor: -

Urban structure: It is located in the neighbourhood of the forum, west of it. Datation: Between 11 and dendrochronological data).

38

AD

(based

Decoration: -

on

Description: The building is under the foundation layers of the Maison à la cheminée murale (42 in the Catalogue). The walls of the building were of wooden and clay structure, its floors were made of terrazzo. The ground plan survives in a rather fragmentary condition, only that much can be discernible that it consisted of rooms grouped around an 8 x 10 m courtyard with peristyle. There was a smaller hall in the axis of the peristyle. Fragments of frescoes were also among the finds. 83

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 43. Limoges, insula VI-5, Maison à l’emblema du lion

44. Lyon, Sanctuaire de Cybèle, “Prétoire”

1 2 4

3

5

0

20

0

after Loustaud 2000, p. 191, Fig. 37 Specificities of ground plan: group of three rooms, peristyle

20

after Desbat 1998, p. 257, Fig. 19 and p. 258, Fig. 21 Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, symmetrical inner façade, broad vestibulum, T-atrium (16 x 11.8 m), porticus

Reference: Loustaud 2000, p. 191–193. Urban structure: In the immediate vicinity of the forum, west of it.

Reference: Desbat 2005, Desbat 1998, CAG 69/2 p. 562–563, Wuilleumier 1951

Datation: Before the middle of the first century AD. Description: The ground plan of the building is not fully known, but that much can be discerned that there was a wing north as well as south of the 20 x 23 m peristyle. Room 1 was of 12.6 x 7.8 m (its ground surface was 98.28 m²). The walls of the room were decorated with frescoes (colours used: red, yellow, black, and white), its floor was a monochrome mosaic of geometric pattern with an emblem representing a felid (lion ?). Rooms 2 and 3 (4.3 x 4.3 m) had white terrazzo floor. In room 4 (4 x 6.2 m) there was a monochrome geometric mosaic. Sometime around AD 50–70 the bath 5 was expanded by a part with hypocaust.

Urban structure: It is located at the western part of Lugdunum, at the side of the Colline du Fourvière, on an artificially created 80 x 53 m terrace created above the theatres, the terrace is bordered by a buttress of about 12 m height at the eastern side. Datation: It was built around 20 BC and pulled down around 10 AD. Description: According to older assumptions it was known as the shrine of Cybele (after an altar and a head of a statue found in 1704). During the excavations done in the first part of the twentieth century the building phases were not separated and the remains of several unrelated buildings were preserved by an in situ reconstruction. As a result of the control excavations beginning in 1991 the actual ground plans and the chronology are finally available. On this basis the first earth and wood structured buildings were constructed between 40 and 20 BC in the place and the “prétoire” was built around 20 BC. The house survived in a rather poor condition, at many points only the foundations could be excavated, thus the precise function of the rooms can be defined only on the basis of parallels.

Area: at least 1800 m² Number of rooms: at least 6 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes, mosaics.

The ground plan of the “Prétoire” follows the so-called Italian scheme: after the broad vestibulum there is the atrium part to be followed by the peristyle part. The atrium of 11.8 x 16 m (about 189 m² ground surface) had no impluvium. The arrangement of the rooms flanking the atrium on both sides is almost totally symmetrical to the longitudinal axis of the atrium, the only difference is represented by the bath section of the northern side and the long corridor of the southern side, but the internal wall elevations of the atrium 84

CATALOGUE 45. Lyon, Sactuaire de Cybèle, Maison à l’opus spicatum

are symmetrical. A room identifiable as tablinum can also be found at the longitudinal axis of the atrium which is bordered by two smaller rooms.

street

street

The façade of the peristyle part from the side of the atrium is of symmetrical execution, the peristyle itself does not survive but its substructures. This is why not only the closure of the peristyle but also the arrangement of the cenaculum or other rooms that might have belonged to a possible peristyle remains unknown. Despite the fact that it is not absolutely necessary for a peristyle to extend even over the series of tabernae this possibility cannot be excluded either. In this case, however, the partition walls of the tabernae would have to support the constructions the peristyle, but on the basis of the excavated remains the walls of the tabernae coincide with the row of the walls of the rooms found in the zone of the tablinum, but not with those of the peristylium stylobates. Although it is entirely a hypothesis, it would not be surprising if the linear suite of rooms connected to the atrium would have its counterpart over the tabernae. The sketch below shows a possible arrangement (note that the grey fills are simply mirrored, they do not represent true room shapes).

0

20

after CAG 69/2, p. 563, Fig. 522 Specificities of ground plan: taberna, mini-atrium-house (atrium: 9 x 7.5 m) Reference: CAG 69/2, p. 564, and Desbat 2007, p. 199. Urban structure: The building is located on the insula neighbouring the “Prétoire” on the Colline du Fourvière. Datation: around 20 BC. Description: The internal house is of 16 x 12 m; its ground surface is 192 m². A corridor-like vestibulum at the northern side leads to the atrium of 9 x 7.5 m. The bottom of the impluvium is covered by opus spicatum. The culina is next to and west of the vestibulum where a fireplace can be found. The 4 x 4.5 m tablinum joins the eastern side of the atrium; its walls were decorated with a fresco of red background (presumably of the Third Style). The walls of a room at the southern side were covered by a fresco of white background in red and black. A series of three tabernae join the house from the east and a porticus joins the façade looking to the street. The walls of the house were made of adobe with stone foundation.

On the basis of the location and execution of the building and particularly of the existence of the baths presumably it was the residential house of a high-ranking person (according to some assumptions it could even be the residence of Agrippa, cf. Desbat 1998, p. 256).

Area: 192 m²

At the southern part of the wall separating the atrium part from the peristyle an approximately 1 x 1 m detail of a fresco was found in situ in 1974 at the level of the cryptoporticus. The dado part of the fresco of white background has a black line border, whereas the upper panels are framed by red and yellow. In the middle of the upper surviving field a geranomachia is visible: a pygmy is fighting against a bird (for a detailed description see Caparros 2001). Subsequently several other fragments were found including the representation of a pair of blue doves. The fresco corresponds to the Pompeian Third Style (Caparros 2003). These frescoes, however, cannot be considered as of demanding quality.

Number of rooms: 7 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes

Area: about 3500 m² Number of rooms: at least 27 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes

85

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 46. Lyon, Sactuaire de Cybèle, Maison à atrium (Maison au bassin de calcaire)

47. Lyon, Clos du Verbe Incarné (rue Roger Radisson), insula VII, Maison aux Pilastres str

ee

t

stree

s? rtu ho

t

street

0

0

20

20

after CAG 69/2, p. 563, Fig. 522

after Delaval 1996, p. 134, Fig. 6

Specificities of ground plan: atrium tetrastylum (7.5 x 5 m), taberna, mini-atrium-house

Specificities of ground plan: taberna, mini-atrium-house Reference: Delaval 1996 p. 132.

Reference: CAG 69/2, p. 564, and Desbat 2007, p. 199.

Urban structure: The building is located on the insula next to the “Prétoire” (44 of the Catalogue) on the Colline du Fourvière.

Urban structure: The building is situated on the insula next to the “Prétoire” (44 of the Catalogue) on the Colline du Fourvière.

Datation: cca. under the reign of Tiberius–Claudius

Datation: about 20 BC

Description: The building of a size approx. 22 x 16 m consisted of rooms organised around an atrium. At the northern side looking to the street there are three tabernae at the two sides of the entrance. The atrium (about 7 x 7 m) joins the hortus through a room identifiable as tablinum. This axis of the atrium–tablinum–hortus has a break by right angle to the entrance which is also justified by the relatively small depth of the building. The floors are mostly made of terrazzo, the house had a timber-frame structure.

Description: A relatively broad vestibulum leads into the house. There are 11 rooms around the 7.5 x 5 m atrium and there was a staircase placed opposite the vestibulum leading to the upper floor. The impluvium was made of limestone, its sides are about 1.75 m long and it is about 10 cm deep. Two fireplaces can be found in the large room at the north-eastern corner. The building had a timber-frame structure with adobe fillings.

Area: about 350 m²

Area: about 400 m²

Number of rooms: at least 7

Number of rooms: 9

Upper floor: presumably there was one

Upper floor: -

Decoration: -

Decoration: -

86

CATALOGUE 49. Lyon, Clos du Verbe Incarné, insula VII, Maison du Laraire

48. Lyon, Clos du Verbe Incarné, insula VII, Maison à l’Emblema Mosaique e str

et

0

0

20

20

after Desbat, Mandy 1991 p. 95, Fig. 15

after Desbat 2007, p. 200, Fig. 75

Specificities of ground plan: atrium tetrastylum (7.9 x 7.9 m), taberna, mini-atrium-house

Specificities of ground plan: atrium tetrastylum (7 x 7.5 m), taberna, mini-atrium-house

Reference: CAG 69/2 p. 539–540, Desbat, Mandy 1991 p. 95–97.

Reference: CAG 69/2, p. 564, and Desbat 2007, p. 199–200.

Urban structure: The building can be found on the insula neighbouring the “Prétoire” (44 of the Catalogue) on the Colline du Fourvière.

Urban structure: The building is located on the insula called Verbe Incarné on the Colline du Fourvière.

Datation: The building itself may be dated to the Tiberian– Claudian age, but the name-giving mosaic is from the second century AD.

Description: The street façade of the building sized about 19 x 20 m is bordered by a porticus and two tabernae on each side edge the long entrance corridor in the axis of the façade part. The central room identified as atrium tetrastylum is surrounded by 10 residential rooms on three sides. A corridor identifiable as a staircase and two bigger rooms with terrazzo floor can be identified at the western side of the atrium.

Datation: Tiberian–Claudian age

Description: The ground plan scheme of the house (19 x 19 m) is identical with that of the neighbouring Maison du Laraire (49 in the Catalogue): the entrance corridor is accompanied by tabernae on both sides; the central room of the building is the atrium tetrastylum and the remaining rooms are arranged around the atrium. There are three bigger rooms at the southern part of the atrium.

Area: about 380 m² Number of rooms: 17

Area: 315 m²

Upper floor: can be assumed

Number of rooms: at least 13

Decoration: -

Upper floor: presumably there was one Decoration: -

87

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 51. Lyon, Rue des Farges, Maison aux masques

50. Lyon, Rue des Farges, Maison 1

storage

C

B

court

street

G

courtyard

A

fireplace B12

D B20

0

20

court ?

0

20

after Desbat 1984, p. 46, Fig. 44

after Desbat 1984, p. 23, Fig. 25 and p. 42, Fig. 40

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, porticus

Specificities of ground plan: atypical ground plan Time of exploration: 1974–80

Reference: Desbat, 1984 p. 45–48, Desbat 2007, p. 200.

Reference: Desbat 1984, p. 42–44.

Urban structure: The site is located about 200 m to the south of the theatrum.

Urban structure: The site is located about 200 m from the theatrum.

Datation: about 20 AD (Phase 2A), later on it was rebuilt around 40 AD (Phase 2B).

Datation: Between 30 and 20 BC (Phase 1A), it was rebuilt around 10 BC (Phase 1B).

Description: The ensemble of rooms surrounds a courtyard of 16.6 x 16.6 m with porticos on three sides. The columns of painted mortar finish consisted of bricks and had a limestone base. The eastern part of the garden was occupied by a 5.4 x 2.6 m pool. Two larger rooms belonged to the building: one (B12, 10.5 x 6.5 m) was more or less located in the axis of the peristyle and the other one (B20, 8.2 x 6 m) was at the eastern porticus of the peristyle. There were six pillars in this hall which presumably supported also the upper floor. The majority of the rooms had terrazzo floors.

Description: The building located under the remains of the next building phase could not be fully excavated. On the basis of the ground plan so far known it can be assumed that it could be about 40 m long in north-south direction but its extent in the other direction is unknown. Apparently the house was originally organised around the 10 x 8 m courtyard marked by A. Room B of 4.4 x 7.3 m is at its northern side which opened from the direction of the courtyard and also had an entrance from corridor G. Later on room B was shortened by about 1.1 m. From the west the courtyard was bordered by room C of 7 m width. Most probably room D opened to the street and could be a taberna. The floor of room B was terrazzo; the floor of the other rooms was of rammed clay.

The frescoes of red–green–black basic colour survived to a height of 2 m in the south-eastern corner of the peristyle.

The walls of room B were ornamented by high quality frescoes of red, green and yellow background colours in an arrangement corresponding to Pompeian Third Style. The fields were separated by the motif of candelabra and the fragment of a figural motif representing a female figure (Muse) was also found. In addition fresco fragments were also found in room D.

Area: at least 900 m² Number of rooms: at least 15 Upper floor: presumably there was one Decoration: frescoes, terracotta theatrical masks in the zone of the peristyle.

Area: at least 300 m² Number of rooms: at least 10 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes

88

CATALOGUE 53. Loupian, Prés-Bas, villa, Period II

52. Lyon, Vaise, Maison aux Xenia, Period 2 10

9 8

courtyard

7 37

5 4 2

6

1 et

stre

0

? 0

20

20

approximate scale

after Delaval et al. 1996, p. 75, Fig. 35

after CAG 34/2, p. 249, Fig. 287

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, porticus

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, pool, group of three rooms, peristyle

Reference: Delaval et al. 1996

Reference: CAG 34/2, p. 244–256 and Bermond, Pellecuer 1997, p. 71–76.

Urban structure: It can be found about 1000 m northwest of Fourvière on a slightly sloping terrain known as Plaine de Vaise.

Urban structure: Datation: The building of the second period began in the second part of the first century AD and continued in the second century.

Datation: Tiberian-Claudian age (Phase II/1); further division of rooms and minor transformations in the Claudian-Flavian age (Phase II/2).

Description: The rooms of the villa surviving in a rather poor condition are organised around two big courtyards. Mortar was already used for the stone walls in the building phase IIa. The size of the building is 80 x 45 m. The bigger courtyard with peristyle (37) has a ground surface of 450 m². The part of the building identified as residential is located at the western side of the courtyard. Several rooms had terrazzo floors and in some rooms there were even opus sectile and mosaic floors. The final publication of the building is still expected; on the basis of the description available the location of the floorings cannot be identified.

Description: The building of 24 x 28 m had a simple ground plan: there were a series of rooms at the eastern and southern sides of a courtyard surrounded by a porticus on three sides. The two bigger rooms (9 and 10) had a size of about 9 x 5.8 m. Based on their size and position they could be the representative rooms of the house. The building had stone walls, there were terrazzo floors in rooms 7, 8, 9 and 10, and brick flooring in rooms 5 and 6, while clay floors were made in the rest of the rooms. With two exceptions the thresholds were made of wood.

Area: about 5000 m²

In Phase II/2 a new room was developed at the southern corner of the peristyle, the intercolumnia of the peristyle ere walled in and a supporting wall was built about 1 m distance from the eastern side of the house.

Number of rooms: 53 rooms belong to Period II, part of them are definitely from the second century AD.

Frescoe fragments of very good quality were found in rooms 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as well as from the zone of the peristyle.

Decoration: mosaic floors, opus sectile floor

Upper floor: presumably there was one

Area: about 630 m² Number of rooms: 12 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes.

89

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 55. Narbonne, Clos de la Lombarde, Maison à Portiques, Phase 1

54. Metz, quartier de l’Arsenal, Phases 1B and 1C phase 1C

phase 1B

str eet

F str

D

eet

street

street

H K

B

U

M

T J

str

court eet

street

street

0

N

I

S

en

20

0

tra

atrium

A

nc

O

e?

20

Phase 1B after Heckenbenner et al. 1992, p. 19, Fig. 1; Phase 1C after Heckenbenner et al. 1992, p. 21, Fig. 12

after Sabrié et al. 1987, p. 62, Fig. 25

Specificities of ground plan: taberna, mini-atrium-house (?)

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, pool, symmetrical inner façade, atrium: 8.3 x 8.1 m, peristylium rhodiacum

Reference: Heckenbenner et al. 1992, CAG 57/2, p. 227.

Reference: CAG 11/1 p. 180–181, Sabrié 1989, Sabrié et al. 1987

Urban structure: It is located at about 100 from the Antique forum in northwest direction.

Urban structure: It is 70 m southeast of the Via Domitiana

Date of building: Phase 1B: about 40 AD, Phase 1C: about 60–70 AD.

Datation: It was built around 30 BC, the peristyle part was given up around 180–200 AD (Phase 3) and the entire building had a similar fate around 210–230.

Description: The early first-century phase of the building from the second and third centuries AD survived in an extremely poor condition. It can be discerned from the ground plan of Phase 1B that houses of identical size were built side by side each other and presumably there were tabernae at the street front and as well as a portico at the façade part. Further details of its ground plan are unknown but it cannot be excluded that it was a mini-atrium-house which is supported by the tabernae along the side of the street and by the relatively long corridors.

Description: The size of the building is about 40 x 23 m and can be divided into two parts: an atrium and a peristyle part. Hall D of opus signinum floor (10.1 x 5.2 m) is located at the northern half of the peristyle part (23 x 23 m) and its large entrance was flanked by two columns. The floor of room F next to it was of opus spicatum whereas that of room H was rammed earth. The peristyle surrounds a courtyard of 12 x 6.5 m where a well and two pools of opus spicatum masonry were found. A suite of smaller sized rooms is situated at the southern side (U, T, J, S, the first two had opus signinum floors).

Area: at least 500 m² Number of rooms: at least 5 Upper floor: -

The southern part of the atrium (23 x 18.4 m) was destroyed. The location of the entrance is known hence it can be assumed that the central room identifiable as atrium could be reached through a long corridor. Representative rooms (K, M, N) can be found north of the atrium. The floor of room K (8.5 x 5.2 m) was opus signinum, and the floor of room M (3.34 x 5.1 m) was terrazzo with a mosaic emblema. The floor of rooms N, O, and A as well as of the atrium was of opus signinum type.

Decoration: -

The load-bearing walls were made of small regular stones and the partition walls had timber-framed structure on stone foundations. Area: about 975 m² Number of rooms: 23 Upper floor: It is assumed on the basis of a stairs starting at 90

CATALOGUE 57. Nîmes, Rue Nationale

the south-western part of the building. Decoration: frescoes, opus signinum, monochrome mosaics 56. Nîmes, ZAC des Halles, Maison A, Phase 1 A10

0

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 193.

courtyard

Specificities of ground plan: pool, broad vestibulum, peristyle Reference: Monteil 1999, p. 169–170, Atlas 1996, p. 192–193.

0

Urban structure: It is located 230 m east of the forum, next to the ZAC des Halles (56 in the Catalogue).

20

Datation: Presumably built in the Augustan age, it was renewed between AD 60 and 90.

after Monteil 1999, p. 167, Fig. 140

Description: The fragmentary ground plan reveals only that much that the rooms of the building were located around a courtyard of a size of 10 x 10 m with a pool and peristyle. The entrance may have been at the southern side. Its walls were adobe walls put into clay on stone foundation.

Specificities of ground plan: agricultural part, peristyle Reference: Monteil 1999, p. 166–168, Atlas 1996, p. 190–191. Urban structure: It is located 200 m east of the forum. Datation: It was built around the beginning of the calendar era.

Area: at least 230 m²

Description: During the excavations 9 rooms could be identified. The main exterior walls of the building are of stone laid in mortar, its interior load-bearing walls and partition -walls were made of clay or timber-frame. The southern courtyard of 8 x 15 m is surrounded by 7 rooms, and courtyard A10 joins the house from the north. The first wall paintings appear in the Flavian age when a big pool was made in the courtyard but all the floors of the house remained stamped earth. According to the finds there was also a butcher’s shop operating in the house. The house was rebuilt during the second century AD.

Upper floor: -

Number of rooms: at least 7 Decoration: opus signinum floors, frescoes

Area: about 422 m² Number of rooms: 9 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes of the Flavian age

91

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 58. Nîmes, La Marseillaise

59. Nîmes, Les Villégiales, Maison A 9 MR4

B

A3

C A4

D

A9 A6

A

A8

SL47

A5

E

A1

A2

A7

G M J

H

eet str

I

L K

stre

et 0

20

after Garmy, Monteil 2000, p. 79, Fig. 65 0

20

Specificities of ground plan: peristyle

after Monteil 1999, p. 140, Fig. 114

Date of excavations: 1991

Specificities of ground plan: peristyle

Reference: Garmy, Monteil 2000, p. 78–81, Monteil 1999, p. 134.

The building was excavated in the framework of a rescue operation in 1966, only a few pieces were preserved of the finds, without precisely indicating their provenance.

Urban structure: It is located 400 m northwest of the Maison Carrée.

Reference: Garmy, Monteil 2000, p. 64–73 and Monteil 1999, p. 139–144.

Datation: The second building period of the house that is presented here can be dated to the end of the first century AD or the beginning of the second century, and no data are available about the earlier period.

Urban structure: The house is located on a sloping terrain with a small road at its southern and western sides. Presumably there was an approximately 45 cm wide ambitus next to the northern outer wall of the house.

Description: The area of the excavated building is 162 m², the excavated length of its northern external wall (MR49) is 12.20 m; its north–south dimension is about 10 m.

Datation: about AD 50–60

Building (A) is at the southern edge of the excavated area. Its remains were found in a rather poor state and only part of its ground plan is known. Courtyard A9 was bordered by two portici (A7 and A8) from the northern and western side and 6 rooms (A1–A6) are known in that part. Room A2 had white terrazzo floor, A3 had rammed floor, A4 had opus signinum floor, but the types of the flooring could not be identified in the case of A1 and A6. Rooms A7 and A8 had white opus signinum floors in the first building period, in the second period which is presumably related to the building of the hexagonal pool north of the building porticus A8 was provided with a monochrome mosaic floor supplied with an emblem representing a polychrome krater and a pair of panthers (SL47). The foundations were made of stone, the walls were made of clay.

Description: The remains of the building survive under a 2 m thick layer of debris, the wall were preserved in a height of less than 50 cm. The rooms (B–I) face a courtyard (A) with pool. The courtyard is bordered on two sides by a stylobates consisting of ashlar blocks which was presumably covered by porticos. The eastern part of the building was destroyed earlier and its ground plan is unknown. A significant part of the rooms of the building had very simply executed mosaic floors (C, D, E, F), and wall paintings were found on some walls (C, D, E). Area: about 450 m² Number of rooms: at least 13 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes, simple mosaics.

The total ground surface of the building could be around 600 to 800 m². It is probable on the basis of parallels that the size of room A1 was equal with that of room A3 and room A2 could be a kind of triclinium (the mosaic with panthers is located in front of the entrance to the room), thus the three rooms form a unit similar to the linear suite of rooms. Area: about 600 m² (estimated) Number of rooms: at least 10 Upper floor: Decoration: opus signinum, mosaic 92

CATALOGUE 60. Nîmes, Les Villégiales, Maison B

61. Nîmes, Les Villégiales, Maison C

t stree

B2

stre et

B3

B4

B1

C2

C5

B5

C1

C4

well

C3

stre

C6

et

C7 C8

0

20

after Garmy, Monteil 2000, p. 81, Fig. 70 0

Specificities of ground plan: peristyle

20

Date of excavations: 1991

after Garmy, Monteil 2000, p. 84, Fig. 75

Reference: Monteil 1999, p. 135, Garmy, Monteil 2000, p. 82–83 and 118–127.

Specificities of ground plan: peristyle

Urban structure: It is located 400 m northwest of the Maison Carrée.

Reference: Garmy, Monteil 2000, p. 83–88 and Monteil 1999, 135–138.

Datation: It is quite uncertain; floor B4 could have been made in the second part of the first century AD while the finds from the garden make datation probable between 60 and 90.

Urban structure: It is located 400 m northwest of the Maison Carrée.

Date of excavations: 1991

Datation: Based on the mosaic of room C4 and its stylistic features it can be dated to the second century AD; but the datation of the building itself can be put between 40 and 60 AD on the basis of the finds discovered in its foundations and of other archaeological material.

Description: The 6 excavated rooms occupy about 170 m². The ground plan of the house is similar to building A (previous entry): at least one side of courtyard B6 was bordered by a porticus (B5) and the other rooms (B1–B4) were around them.

Description: The 7 rooms excavated occupy a surface of about 810 m². The ground plan can be reconstructed as follows: courtyard C6 and the zone next to it and consisting of rooms C7 and C8 are bordered by three rooms (C3–C5). Back garden C2 and room C1 are located at the northern side of these three rooms. Room C1 had rammed earth floor, rooms C4 and C5 had polychrome mosaic floors, and room C7 had limestone paving.

The courtyard was 8 m wide and at least 6 m long, apparently with a well instead of a pool. Several pits were found in the courtyard dug for plants. B1 of the rooms had a white terrazzo floor, B2 had some kind of simple mortar floor, B3 had stamped earth floor, B4 had terrazzo floor of white basic colour and black geometric pattern, whereas the porticus had an opus signinum-type of floor.

Presumably a staircase led up from room C8 to an upper floor part above C7 or much more above rooms C1, C3, C4 and C5.

Area: at least 170 m² Number of rooms: at least 7

The total ground surface of the house could be around 1000 m².

Upper floor: Decoration: opus signinum

Area: about 1000 m² (estimated) Number of rooms: 8 Upper floor: there was one. Decoration: mosaic

93

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 63. Nîmes, Villa Roma, Maison 10, Phase B

62. Nîmes, Villa Roma, Maison 08 str ee t

str eet K

phase E

court

t ee str

str ee t

phase D

0

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 219. Specificities of ground plan: peristyle, a linear suite of rooms. Date of excavations: 1991–1992

t ee str

str ee t

Reference: Monteil 1999, p. 104–109 and 110–112, Atlas 1999, p. 218–219.

phase C

Urban structure: It is located about 80 m southwest from the Augusteum. Datation: about 30 AD. Description: The building consists of rooms organised around a courtyard with peristyle. Rooms 02 and 03 were ornamented with figural frescoes of red and black background. The floor of room 02 was of opus signinum, its entrance was framed by engaged pillars. There was stucco ornamentation on the ceiling of room 03.

t ee str

after Atlas 1996, p. 209. (Phase E), Atlas 1996, p. 211. (Phase D) and Atlas 1996, p. 213. (Phase C)

Room 02, located in the axis of the courtyard and of representative function based on its ornamentation, was flanked by rooms of identical size on both sides.

Specificities of ground plan: pool, peristyle

Area: at least 287 m²

Date of excavations: 1991–1992

Number of rooms: at least 10

Reference: Monteil 1999, p. 110–113, Atlas 1996, p. 208–213.

Upper floor: -

0

20

Decoration: frescoes, stucco

Urban structure: It is located at the north-eastern periphery of the city, near the spring sanctuary. Datation: Phase E: around 20 AD, PhaseD: around AD 20, Phase C: around AD 50. Description: During the excavations 9–11 rooms could be identified for the different phases. The building was made of stone walls put in clay; its width was about 17 m and its length about 22 m. In Phase d a peristyle was built in the courtyard and stone sheet pavement was put around the pool. A further difference between the ground plans of the building phases is that some rooms were partitioned in Phases D and C. Area: at least 530 m² Number of rooms: 9–11 (different in phases) Upper floor: There was definitely one in Phase D (traces of stairs in the room at the western corner of the courtyard). Decoration: There were frescoes in every room with the exception of the peristyle in Phase C. 94

CATALOGUE 65. Nîmes, Fontaine des Bénédictins

64. Nîmes, Villa Roma, Maison 14, Phase B

1

2

court

19

ee str

court

tJ

12

0

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 225

0

Specificities of ground plan: pool, taberna, peristyle

after Monteil 1999, p. 122, Fig. 97

Date of excavations: 1991–1992

Specificities of ground plan: pool, peristyle

Reference: Monteil 1999, p. 104–109 and 110–112, Atlas 1999, p. 224–225.

Date of excavations: 1982

20

Reference: Monteil 1999 p. 122–124, Atlas 1996 p. 196–197.

Urban structure: It is located at the north-eastern periphery of the city, near the spring sanctuary.

Urban structure: It is located about 350 m from the Maison Carrée found in the north-western part of the city.

Datation: between 20 and 10 BC Description: The building consists of rooms organised around a courtyard with peristyle. The rooms of the northeastern wing are of demanding execution; their floors are of opus signinum, monochrome mosaic and terrazzo. The peristyle part does not correspond to the axis of the building but pushed somewhat to the east and corridors 12 and 19 lead to the peristyle from the entrances. It can be assumed on the basis of the long corridors and of some excavated details that there had been a series of tabernae at the part along the road. Frescoes were also found when the building was excavated.

Datation: Due to the lack of finds it is unclear, but apparently it was built in the second part of the first century AD and was renewed or transformed in the course of the second and third centuries.

Area: at least 525 m²

Description: The building consists of rooms organised around a courtyard with pool and peristyle. The mosaic and opus signinum floors of rooms 1 and 2 (4.6 x 5.3 and 3.8 x 5.3 m) clearly indicate the representative nature of the two rooms though they can be dated to the second century. Only a small part of the ground plan survives therefore even the extent of the building cannot be unambiguously determined.

Number of rooms: at least 16

Area: at least 345 m²

Ground floor: -

Number of rooms: at least 11

Decoration: frescoes.

monochrome

mosaic,

opus

signinum,

Upper floors: Decoration: The surviving decoration can be dated to the second and third centuries AD.

95

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 66. Nîmes, Maison de Santé Protestante

2

1

7

67. Nîmes, rue Séguier

4 6 3

20

0

14

20

after Monteil 1999, p. 269, Fig. 241 and Monteil 1999, p. 271, Fig. 244

0

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, peristyle

20

after CAG 30/1, p. 421, Fig. 328

Reference: CAG 30/1, p. 302–303, Monteil 1999, p. 270–273.

Specificities of ground plan: agricultural part, peristyle Reference: Monteil 1999, p. 56–57, CAG 30/1, p. 420.

Urban structure: It is located at the north-western part of the city about 500 m from the Maison Carrée.

Urban structure: It is located about 300 m southeast of the city.

Datation: around the beginning of the calendar era.

Datation: around 30 AD.

Description: Room 1 may have had opus signinum flooring; its supposed function was vestibulum. The floors of rooms 2, 3, 4, and 6 were of opus signinum type, and in the middle of the courtyard (7) surrounded by them there was a 12 m² pool. Room 8 was 4.1 m wide and at least 8 m long, its floor did not survive. The floor of room 14 was of opus signinum type; its size is 3.8 x 5.3 m. The floors of rooms 14 and 20 were of terrazzo, the walls of the latter one were ornamented by frescoes as well. The floor of the other rooms did not survive.

Description: The central room of the building is the 130 m² courtyard with peristyle. So far only the group of rooms north of the courtyard could be excavated. There is a cellar under the southernmost one of the group of rooms. The building was dedicated to agriculture when it was abandoned sometime around 70 or 80. Area: about 1000 m² Number of rooms: at least 9

Area: at least 450 m²

Upper floor: -

Number of rooms: at least 18

Decoration: -

Upper floor: Can be assumed Decoration: frescoes

96

CATALOGUE 68. Orange, quartier Saint-Florent, Maison A – Maison à la Mosaïque aux Méandres

69. Orange, quartier Saint-Florent, Maison B – Maison à la Mosaïque Polychrome

d1

f

b

a b

a d1 e1

e4

e2

e5

0

0

20

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 241.

after Atlas 1996, p. 249.

Specificities of ground plan: pool, group of three rooms, symmetrical internal façade, peristyle

Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, pool, symmetrical internal façade, peristylium rhodiacum

Reference: Atlas 1996, p. 240–241.

Reference: Atlas 1996, p. 248–250.

Urban structure: It is located 100 m west of the theatrum, on the eastern side of the building Maison à la Mosaïque Polychrome (69).

Urban structure: It is located 100 m from the theatrum at the western side of the Maison à la Mosaïque aux Méandres (68).

Datation: It was built in the second part of the first century AD.

Datation: It was built in the Flavian age and later on was transformed during the second century.

Description: The building consists of rooms around a centrally located 9.7 x 9.7 m courtyard (e1–e4) with pool and peristyle. Room a. on the northern side had a mosaic floor, and bath f. had a hypocaustum. Number of rooms: at least 13

Description: The central room of the building is the garden with pool and peristyle (about 13 x 13 m). The room a. with mosaic floor is located in the axis of the courtyard, next to it there are rooms d. and b. also decorated with mosaics (remains of mosaics were found in altogether 8 rooms). The southern part of the house is unexcavated. Its walls were made of rubblework put in mortar.

Upper floor: -

Area: at least 900 m²

Area: 885 m²

Decoration: mouldings

monochrome

mosaic

floors,

frescoes,

Number of rooms: at least 10 Upper floor: Decoration: monochrome and colour mosaic floors, frescoes, mouldings

97

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 70. Rezé, Terrain Peigné, domus sud

71. Ruscino, plateau central, Maison 1

E1 E2

B

0

street

A

t stree

20

after Balmelle 1996, p. 120, Fig. 1 0

20

Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, peristyle

after CAG 66 p. 465, Fig. 486

Reference: Balmelle 1996, Deschamps et al. 1992, p. 114–117.

Specificities of ground plan: symmetrical arrangement, atrium (6.7 x 12 m), peristyle

Urban structure: It is about 200 m south of the building identified as fanum.

It was excavated in 1976. Reference: CAG 66 p. 464, Marichal 1983

Datation: late first century AD (Phase 2)

Urban structure: It is located east of the forum.

Description: The building of 33 x 36 m survived in an extremely poor condition. There may have been a series of tabernae facing the road at its northern part (along the pattern of rooms E1 and E2). The presently known ground plan evolved in two building phases, but only the later Phase 2 can be dated.

Datation: between 20 and 5 BC Description: The size of the building is 50 x 12 m. Its entrance is at the southern side; the concept of the ground plan corresponds to the Italian traditions. The entrance elevated by stairs leads to a vestibulum followed by a room that can be identified as atrium. In the middle at the back wall of the atrium the room corresponding to tablinum can be found which is flanked by a triclinium and a room of unknown function. The courtyard of a surface of 7 x 7 m is at the back portion of the building and it is surrounded by a peristyle. A large quantities of high quality fresco fragments were found in the building which correspond to the Pompeian Second and Third Styles (candelabra, sphinx, theatrical mask). The atrium had no impluvium, presumably it was covered.

Courtyard A is surrounded by a peristyle (B), and the rooms of the building open to the porticus. Area: about 880 m² Number of rooms: at least 13 Upper floor: Decoration: -

Area: about 600 m² Number of rooms: at least 11 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes

98

CATALOGUE 72. Ruscino, plateau central, Maison 2

73. Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, Coupéré

7

22

street

8

6

10

9

11

12

13

20

t stree

0

20 0

after CAG 66 p. 466, Fig. 487

20

after CAG 31/2 p. 358, Fig. 437 and CAG 31/2 p. 359, Fig. 438

Specificities of ground plan: symmetrical arrangement, atrium (6.8 x 11 m), peristyle It was excavated in 1976.

Specificities of ground plan: symmetrical inner façade, peristyle

Reference: CAG 66 p. 464, Marichal 1983

Reference: CAG 31/2, p. 357–367.

Urban structure: It is located east of the forum.

Urban structure: The ensemble is located about 200 m east of the city centre.

Datation: between 20 and 5 BC

Datation: about 20–40 AD.

Description: The ground plan is practically identical with that of the neighbouring building (71 in the Catalogue); the size of the building is 50 x 12 m. Its entrance is at the southern side too. The entrance elevated by stairs leads to a small vestibulum followed by a room identifiable as atrium. In the middle at the back wall of the atrium the room corresponding to tablinum can be found which is flanked by two rooms of unknown function. The courtyard of a surface of 7 x 7 m is at the back portion of the building and it is surrounded by a peristyle. The atrium has no impluvium, presumably it was covered.

Description: As excavations only started from 1990 on after the first exploration of the remains (1910) the available documentation is reliable (the results of the excavations done in the first part of the twentieth century cannot be interpreted – cf. May 1986, p. 124–128). During the excavations archaeologists have isolated 9 periods. There may have been a very simple building in the first period. The first building was built between 20 and 40 AD during the second period (which is the first building phase), burned down at the turn of the first and second centuries. Building activities were preceded by the construction of water supply and sewage. The building itself survives in a very poor condition, its walls were practically destroyed to the upper plane of the foundation and only a few m² of its floors could be documented.

Area: about 600 m² Number of rooms: at least 13 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes

The building of the first construction phase was of a ground surface of almost 5000 m², its rooms were organised around a large courtyard (47 x 33.9 m) with peristyle. The courtyard with peristyle of the symmetrical building surrounded a pool of opus signum internal covering (room 6 – internal size of 17.8 x 10.2 m, depth of 1.15 m). In the longitudinal axis of the peristyle of simple opus signinum floor there was a large hall (13 x 9.5 m) the walls of which were strengthened by buttresses at the outer side during the first century AD (between 40 and 60). The rooms adjoining 99

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL the peristyle from the north and south did not survive with the exception of a round-shaped pool of Nr. 20. There is a sewage system (7–11) under the building, canal 22 of the northern side and the adjoining pool were meant to ensure water supply.

made of stone laid into clay; its floors are of terrazzo type. Rooms N, M and L were of agricultural destination testified by the oil press set up there. In the second building phase (around 50 and 60 AD) a second courtyard and a bath section were added to it at the southern part. In that phase the walls were already put into mortar and a monochrome mosaic floor was made in one of the rooms.

The interpretation of the building is made more difficult by the small quantity of remains. If there were no more rooms at the northern and southern sides the building currently known it could not be of residential function then. The lack of podium suggests that it could not be a temple either but the system of canals and pools makes its identification as palaestra, schola or campus not impossible. In case it was part of a residential house it may be put in parallel with the peristyle part of the domus of the Parc de la Grange of Genava.

Area: about 1600 m² Number of rooms: at least 14 Upper floor: Decoration: mosaic 75. Saint-Raphael, Valescure, Le Suveret

During the second building period a residential house of totally different ground plan was erected on the ruins of the first phase. Area: about 5000 m² Number of rooms: at least 11 Upper floor: -

C atrium

Decoration: -

B

74. Saint-Julien-lès-Martigues, Building Phase 1 ?

Château

d’Agût,

?

?

?

0

20

?

after Gallia Inf. 1990, p. 234, Fig. 151 ?

Specificities of ground plan: symmetrical inner façade, agricultural part, atrium tetrastylum (10.2 x 8.5 m) 0

Reference: Rivet et al. 2000, p. 465, Gallia Informations 1990, p. 234.

20

after Rivet 1993 and CAG 13/1 p. 250, Fig. 143

Urban structure: -

Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, agricultural part, peristyle

Datation: first part of the first century AD Description: A house of a ground surface of 22 x 22 m stood in an area of 30 x 70 m surrounded by wall. The carriage entry of the area is 3 m wide and it also has a side entrance at the western side. The walls of the house are modest, made of sandstone put into clay. There are 7 columns at the main façade, the column bases were made of sandstone; the shafts were built of bricks. The building is of symmetrical arrangement; its central room is a square

Reference: Rivet 1993, CAG 13/1 p. 250–252. Urban structure: Datation: Phase 1: between 25 and 30 AD. Description: The building was only partially excavated between 1975 and 1985. Its central room is a courtyard with peristyle of the size of 25.2 x 11.8 m. Its first building phase can be dated between 25 and 30 AD. Its walls were 100

CATALOGUE Q); its ground plan is irregular. It had two unroofed rooms: courtyard K and garden P. Construction activities of later building phases had greatly damaged the remains. The load-bearing walls of the house stood on stone footing and were made of either rubblework or earth and wood, the partition -walls were less well founded; their footing was made of stone and tegula fragments, while the upgoing parts were made of plank. There was a cistern with a large round stone ring in the garden of the house. The stone walls put in mortar were 60 cm wide; the width of the wooden walls with stone footing was 30 cm. A relatively large quantity of fresco fragments was found in the destruction layers of the building which could not be precisely associated with rooms. These fragments can be classified under three groups (with monochrome or bichrome dado, monochrome candelabra ornamentation, monochrome panels) and stylistically can be dated to the reign of Augustus

atrium of the length of 3.3 m. The rooms had rammed clay floors with the exception of room A equipped with hypocaustum. Rooms B and C had a function related to wine production. The house was used only for a short time. It was built in the first part of the first century AD, but it partly burned down. After the fire some minor reconstructions were made and the building was abandoned in the late first century AD. Area: about. 440 m² Number of rooms: 14 Upper floor: Decoration: 76. Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Maison à la Citerne (MDO Phase 1B)

Area: about 1338 m² Number of rooms: at least 17 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes P

77. Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Maison aux Pierres Dorées (MDO Phases 2A and B) Q 1

2

K

B Y

A

T

0

20 W

after Desbat et al. 1994, p. 89, Fig. 57 H

Specificities of ground plan: atypical ground plan B

Date of excavations: 1970, 1981–1985

C D

Reference: Atlas 1996, p. 365–366, Desbat et al. 1994, p. 89–103.

E

street

Urban structure: It is located 230 m from the right bank of the river Rhône at road No I.

0

20

after Desbat et al. 1994, p.108, Fig. 80 and p.138, Fig. 114

Datation: between 5 and 1 BC Description: The size of the building is about 23 x 55 m. Its sides facing the streets were flanked by portici (A, B, 101

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 78. Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Maison au Vestibule à Colonnes, Phase 3A

Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, pool, entrance hall, broad vestibulum, taberna, peristyle, porticus Date of excavations: 1970, 1981–1985

31

Reference: Atlas 1996, p. 369, Desbat et al. 1994, p. 103–135.

25

30

Urban structure: as under 76 of the Catalogue

28

26

27

Datation: 15–20 AD, in the place of the Maison à la Citerne (76) (Phase 2A). The garden (Y) was expanded between 40 and 70 (Phase 2B). 23B

Description: The building of the former phase was completely pulled down and the area was filled in and the surface was raised by about 2 m. The foundations of the new building go down to the layers under the filling, in other words the height of the foundation structures is between 2 to 3 m.

23A 20

14

12

The size of the building is about 23 x 55 m; most of its rooms are organised around the courtyard with peristyle W (about 17 x 13 m). Four rooms identified as tabernae (B, C, D, E) can be found at the entrance part. The significance of room H identified as vestibulum is also proved by the related fragments of frescoes. Room T can be identified as tablinum.

13

4

In Phase 2B the garden was enlarged and the enlarged part (2) is surrounded by portici on three sides (1) at the border of the plot.

1

The walls were made of rubblework laid in mortar representing a local variant of opus caementicium. Limestone mouldings appearred in this building phase (thresholds, fragments of Corinthian capitals). Walls of wood and clay structure still do not disappear in this phase but their occurrence is minimal.

0

Desbat et al. 1994, p.142, Fig. 118 Specificities of ground plan: pool, symmetrical internal façade, entrance hall, taberna, peristyle, porticus

Area: 1305 m²

Date of excavations: 1970, 1981–1985

Number of rooms: 30

Reference: Atlas 1996, p. 372–375, Desbat et al. 1994 p. 140–159, Prisset et al. 1994

Upper floor: there was one on the basis of stairs Decoration: signinum

frescoes,

20

monochrome

mosaics,

opus

Urban structure: as of 76 in the Catalogue Datation: After the partial demolition of the previous building (77 in the Catalogue) of the first phase between 50 and 60 AD. Description: It does not follow the ground plan of the demolished first phase but the development of some parts of the building shows some similarity (the articulation was retained: entrance part – peristyle – rear part – garden). The size of the building is about 100 x 24.8 m. Its southern façade is flanked by a porticus, the entrance (1) is here and next to it there is a huge entrance hall of 154 m² which presumably had mosaic floor once (4, 12.9 x 11.9 m). In the room with impluvium in the centre there were 4 bases of columns or pillars in two rows. This arrangement does not correspond to any of the atrium types, but it resembles to the oecus Corinthius described by Vitruvius. 102

CATALOGUE The residential part occupied only the internal part of the insula, its entrance was through room 5. Its central room is a garden with portici on three sides (2–4) with two pools, one of them was U-shaped and the other one had an apse.

The next part of the building is the garden or courtyard 13 with pool (13.5 x 12 m) and the peristyle 12 surrounding it and consisting of 3 m wide porticos. Room 14 (7.7 x 6.3 m, 49 m²) in the longitudinal axis of the building opened to peristyle12; while room 20 of a similar position (6 x 5.1 m) opened to the back garden. The latter one is located in the middle of the garden façade of the symmetrically arranged porticus 23A. Two stairs lead from terrace 23B to the garden 26 (30 x 19 m) which is surrounded by a pool and porticus 25 in U-shape. Room 30 joins porticus 25 from the west and is the second biggest room of the house by its size (14.5 x 9.4 m, 143 m²) and could be of representative function due to its location but when it was excavated it was revealed that it only had a rammed clay floor.

Area: 947 m² (total) Number of rooms: at least 15 Upper floor: Decoration: 80. Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Maison aux Colonnes, Phase 1 B

1

A

10

D

The walls were made of opus caementicium. Remains of frescoes were found in some rooms. (25, 27, 28, 30, 31) of the northern part.

C G F / tico por

Area: 3391 m²

rt ? cou

Number of rooms: at least 42 Upper floor: it cannot be excluded

str ee t

Decoration: frescoes, mosaic

4

I H

8

5

11 9

6

K J 13

M L

O N Q P

et stre

79. Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Maison au Portique Peint 0

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 395. t ee str

Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, symmetrical internal façade, taberna, porticus Reference: Atlas 1996 p. 395, Glay 1970

street

Urban structure: It is located 120 m from the present right bank of the river Rhône. Datation: second part of the first century AD (with antecedent from the Tiberian–Claudian age)

0

Description: The size of the presently known part of the building is 37 x 45.2 m. There is a suite of tabernae at the western side (A–Q); the structure of which is identical with that of the residential house.

20

after Atlas 1996, p. 393.

The house definitely had a peristyle (1), with room 8 in the axis of the building. The latter is part of a suite of rooms which is of identical arrangement (4–6 and 9–11). A porticus flanked the courtyard 13 with pool from the north.

Specificities of ground plan: pool, taberna, porticus Reference: Atlas 1996 p. 392–393. Urban structure: It is located 150 m from the present right bank of the river Rhône.

Area: about 1627 m²

Datation: around 60 AD.

Number of rooms: at least 30

Description: The building follows the irregular shape of the plot. The eastern as well as western part of the house opens to a street; both are bordered by porticos, presumably there were tabernae and rooms of commercial function on both sides (12–15 and 9–11).

Upper floor: Decoration: -

103

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 81. Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Maison au Vivier, Phases A and B 11

12

street

18

17

20

19

10 8

15

14

82. Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Nymphéas, Maison de l’Atrium I

9

2

7

1

3

33

4

13 5

14

23 46

25 27

6

21

22

23 26

e str

24

4

2

5

et 0

20

0

Phase A: after Atlas 1996, p. 407.

after Atlas 1996, p. 417.

20

19

18

17

10 8

15

14

Specificities of ground plan: pool, group of three rooms, symmetrical internal façade, atrium (8 x 8 m), peristyle

11

12

street

9

2

7

Date of excavations: 1977, 1984–1986

1

3

Reference: Atlas 1996 p. 417–418, archéologiques – Gallia 38/2, p. 514–517.

4

13 5

14 25 27

20

6

21

22

e str

24

23 26

Informations

et

Urban structure: It is located 110 m from the present right bank of the river Rhône. Datation: first century AD (built over the ruins of a building from Tiberian age)

0

Description: The building can be divided into two parts: the part around atrium 2, and the part around the courtyard with peristyle 46. Presumably it had further rooms in northern and southern direction but their excavation has not been realised.

20

Phase B: after Atlas 1996, p. 409. Specificities of ground plan: (Phase A) pool, symmetrical internal façade, entrance hall (?), T-atrium (9.7 x 5.6 m), peristyle, porticus

The entrance of the house may have been from the road at the eastern side. The 8 x 8 m atrium with impluvium is located at the longitudinal axis of the building; there is a corridor at the place corresponding to a tablinum which leads to room 4 and is flanked by two bigger halls (23 and 5). There is a pool at the western part of the courtyard with peristyle 46. Room 33 (about 10 x 5 m) can be found in the axis of the peristyle at both sides of which one smaller room opens from the peristyle.

Reference: Atlas 1996 p. 406–409, Glay 1970 Urban structure: It is located 60 m from the present right bank of the river Rhône. Datation: First part of the first century AD. Phase B cannot be dated but the building existed for 50 to 80 years. Description: The size of the building is 28 x 85 m. The eastern entrance part is unknown. The ground plan is almost perfectly symmetrical and can be divided into four units: entrance hall (1) and its environment (2–12), courtyard with peristyle (13), the quarters behind the courtyard (14–25) and garden (27). In Phase B room 14 (with a ground plan that resembles the viridarium of the Maison des Nones de Mars of Limoges /40/) was slightly modified and two stairs were built which communicate with porticus 25 facing the garden.

The walls of the building were made of stone; the foundation plane of the walls ends at a depth of 2.5–3.5 m. Area: about 2000 m² Number of rooms: 30 Upper floor: There was one on the basis of staircase 22. Decoration: monochrome mosaic floors, frescoes (in rooms 30 and 40)

Area: about 2400 m² Number of rooms: 29 Upper floor: It can be assumed on the basis of room 20 which can be interpreted as a staircase. Decoration: 104

CATALOGUE 83. Saint-Ulrich, villa 1, Phase 1

84. Saint-Ulrich, villa 1, Phase 2

66

68

11

courtyard I

14

27 2 23

courtyard II

27

0

0

20

20

after CAG 57, p. 401, Fig. 231

after CAG 57, p. 403, Fig. 233

The villa and its environment located on a slightly sloping terrain were excavated in the nineteenth century and the documentation of the excavations done at that time is extremely inaccurate. From the late 1960s onwards a series of modern excavations were carried out for the purpose of identifying the periodisation of the building. As a result it was revealed that the main building of the villa located on two terraces is not from the third century AD but it has far earlier building phases as well. However, everal additional buildings can be found in the vicinity of the villa which can mostly be dated to the second to fourth centuries AD.

Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, group of three rooms, symmetrical internal façade, peristyle Reference: Lutz 1971, Lutz 1972, Heckenbenner 1995, CAG 57/ p. 397–410. Urban structure: Datation: Flavian age Description: The building obtained its largest extension in the second building phase (Phase 2). Structures on the upper terrace were replaced by a building of different ground plan, but the axis of symmetry of the building belonging to the second phase is identical with the first one. The size of the new house is 117 x 114 m and has about 90 rooms (in earlier literature there were 120 rooms, but that included also the rooms of several phases). After the filling up of the U-shaped courtyard of Phase 1 a large hall was built in its place, and a courtyard with peristyle was created in front of the old external façade.

Specificities of ground plan: axial symmetry, porticus Reference: CAG 57/ p. 397–410. Urban structure: Datation: second quarter of the first century AD Description: The building belonging to Phase 1 could be archaeologically explored only on the upper terrace of the ones occupied by the villa. The building itself is has a size of 53 x 29 m and it is of U-shaped ground plan, it was bordered by a buttress wall from the north. The ground plan is almost totally symmetrical, its eastern façade had a portico. Entry to the building placed on a podium was through a couple of stairs and there was a 13.2 x 8.65 m sized hall, placed in the axis of symmetry. The bath section was in the north-western corner. Only traces remain of the decorations of this phase.

Two smaller courtyards (14 and 23) were developed in the inner part of the building which may have served to provide light to the inner rooms. Courtyard I with peristyle was built at the eastern side of the building flanked by two wings of buildings, but it definitely had no pool. The cryptoporticos 27 and 68 provided access to the other building parts on terraces. Cellar windows ensured the lighting of the underground corridor segments. The bath 11, located at the north-western part of the building of Phase 1 was transformed into a cellar and certain signs indicate that it could be used as a place of cult.

Area: about 1500 m² Number of rooms: 18

The floor of room 2 was supplied with hypocaustum, and Phase 2 could be dated with the material coming from the archaeological layers beneath.

Upper floor: Decoration: mosaic, opus sectile

The agricultural part of the building belonging to the early phases was at the northern part of the complex on the lower terrace. The bath section was built after this building 105

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 86. Soissons, lycée Gérard de Nerval (rue P. Deviolaine)

was pulled down, and there are several hypothetical reconstructions concerning its development. The part around courtyard 66 was a two-storied one, but the upper floor cannot be precisely determined on the basis of the currently known remains. Several fragments of frescoes were found in this part of the building.

XII

XI

I

VII

IV

Area: about 9000 m² VI

Number of rooms: about 90

I

Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes, mosaics 0

85. Sainte-Colombe (Vienne), rue Joubert

20

after Defente 1990, p. 59, Fig. 27 Rooms decorated with frescoes Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, peristyle Date of excavations: 1982–1991 Reference: CAG 02, p. 433, Defente 1990, Roussel 2002, p. 39.

0

Datation: After the demolition of wooden structure antecedents it was built in the second quarter of the first century AD, presumably in the 20s. Later on the building was reconstructed and subsequently pulled down in the second century.

20

after CAG 69/1 p. 337, Fig. 351

Urban structure: uncertain

Specificities of ground plan: pool, peristyle

Description: As far as it can be discerned from the fragmentary ground plan the building consists of rooms organised around a courtyard with pool and an atrium; its axis had an east-west orientation. The ceiling height of some rooms could reach 4.60 m according to the wall painting remains. Several fragments of frescoes were found which were partly made in the first part of the first century and partly, after the reconstruction, in the second part of the first century. The published ground plan and the description does not reveal what was the ground plan of the earlier phase, but apparently some rooms (such as room IV) were partitioned.

Date of excavations: 1992, 1994 Reference: CAG 69/1 p. 337–338. Urban structure: It is located on the right bank of the river Rhône, east of Saint-Romain-en-Gal. Datation: about 30–40 AD, later on it was rebuilt Description: The ground plan is fragmentary but that much can be stated that the 2.2 m wide, U-shaped porticus surrounding an about 12 x 10 m pool could be the central part of a building. No floors belonging to the building survive.

Upper floor: -

Decoration: The wall paintings were made in the Pompeian Third Style and show different regional influences (Defente 1990). The good quality figural frescoes have black, red, white and green background, the latter one was apparently on the external façade of the southern part of the building. Apparently their datation is based on stylistics.

Decoration: -

Area: at least 800 m²

Area: at least 1000 m² Number of rooms: at least 5

Number of rooms: at least 17 Upper floor: Decoration: frescoes

106

Catalogue 87. Taradeau, Saint-Martin 1, Phase 3

88. Vaison-la-Romaine, Maison à la Tonnelle = “le Prétoire”, Phase 1

pars agraria pars urbana

16

2

5

4

14 S.

3

1

13

0

20

after CAG 84/1 p. 268, Fig. 424 0

Specificities of ground plan: a linear suite of rooms, peristyle

20

Date of excavations: 1928–1929, 1990 after CAG 83/2 p. 764, Fig. 969

Reference: CAG 84/1 p. 267–277, Goudineau 1979 p. 226–227., Allag, Barbet 1995

Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, pool, symmetrical internal façade, agricultural part, peristyle Reference: CAG 63/1 p. 174–175.

Urban structure: It is located between the Maison des Messii and the portico shrine.

Urban structure: -

Datation: around 30–40 BC

Datation: second part of the first century AD

Description: The building of Phase 1 with rubblework walls is of simple ground plan; its central room is a courtyard (room 1) with peristyle (rooms 2-5). The entrance was at the south-western corner of the building (rooms 13–14). The only room that can be definitely identified is the culina (16). The house, sized 30 x 33 m, was completely rebuilt in the early first century AD.

Description: The 34 x 34 m building part identified as pars urbana was constructed later than the agricultural buildings. The pars urbana consists of rooms organised around the courtyard edged by porticos on three sides, the courtyard itself is about 15 x 20 m, the width of the porticos is 2.5 m. There is a 7.2 x 2.8 m pool in the middle of the courtyard; its interior is lined with opus signinum. In one of the rooms (s) at the western side of the courtyard there was an opus signinum floor which can be dated to the first century AD. A large variety of stones was used for the decoration of the pars urbana: marbles from Carrarra, Skyros, Teos, and Chemtou as well as porphyry from Egypt, Sparta and Estérel.

Area: 990 m² Number of rooms: 16 Upper floor: Decoration: -

The walls of the pars urbana were made of small stones with opus caementicium technology. With the exception of two the columns of the porticos were made of pottery elements laid in lime mortar. Area: at least 500 m² Number of rooms: 43 Upper floor: Decoration: opus signinum, marble panelling

107

The Spread of the Roman Domus Type in Gaul 89. Vaison-la-Romaine, Maison à la Tonnelle = “le Prétoire”, Phase 2

32

33

31

26

In the axis of the stairs and the garden triclinium a nymphaeum (5) of semicircular back wall was found at the western part of the garden which had at least two previous building periods as well. The service quarter is located north of the garden, around courtyards 30 and 33. The representative rooms (6, 7) are located east of garden 1; and presumably above the courtyard 10 with porticus. Rooms 15 and 16 were small baths.

25 24

30

2

15

7

The decorative elements of the building were mostly destroyed but pieces of mosaics were found in some places (1, 2–4, 5, 35 and rooms around courtyard 10) as well as fragments of frescoes also came to light.

16

10

5

35

A long suite of rooms were excavated north of the garden, in some of which simple frescoes evoking the Pompeian First Style (31–32) and others of simple white background (24–26) were found in relatively good condition. The partition -walls of this suite of rooms were made of clay and brick.

6

3 1

4

It can be stated in general that the currently known ground plan of Phase 2 evolved to the second century AD after smaller or major modifications; hence it is absolutely not sure that the characteristic features listed above were already extant in the second half of the first century AD.

47

Area: about 3500 m² (only the residential part) Number of rooms: at least 32 Upper floor: presumably above courtyard 10 Decoration: mosaic floor, frescoes, mouldings 0

20

90. Vaison-la-Romaine, Puymin, Maison à l’Apollon lauré = Maison des Messii

after CAG 84/1 p. 268, Fig. 421 Specificities of ground plan: pool, peristyle Date of excavations: 1928–1930, 1988, 1990 Reference: CAG 84/1 p. 267–277, Goudineau 1979 p. 226–227.

28 29

25

24

32

street

Urban structure: It is located between the Maison des Messii and the portico shrine.

11 10

23

Datation: presumably Flavian age

9

12

22 18

Description: The building of the previous phase was rebuilt sometime during the first century AD; the new parts were constructed with small-size ashlar walls. The building of Phase 2 can be divided into two parts: the residential part (about 50 x 70 m) grouped around courtyards and gardens (1, 10, 30, 33), and the southern economic part (room 47 and the part of the building surrounding it).

8

14 15 16 1

0

The 11.20 x 10.30 m garden is surrounded on three sides by a 2.95 m wide porticos of cryptoporticus substructure (2, 3, 4.). On the southern side there is a porticus duplex (4). Descent to the garden is ensured by double stairs at the eastern side. The foundations of a room (marked 35, of the size of 7.15 x 4.4 m) of T-shaped ground plan were found in the middle of the garden, which was presumably a garden triclinium.

20

after Sautel 1946, Fig. 8 and CAG 84/1 p. 255, Fig. 391 Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, pool, atrium (?) (7.3 x 7.7 m), peristylium rhodiacum Date of excavations: 1922–1929 108

CATALOGUE 91. Vaison-la-Romaine, La Villasse, Maison au Buste d’Argent

Reference: CAG 84/1 p. 255-263, Goudineau, Kisch 1991, p. 58, Atlas 1996 p. 340–341. Urban structure: It is located next to the shrine with porticus. Datation: second part of the first century AD Description: The building can be divided into three parts: the service part in the north-western zone (entrance, courtyards, culina, and bath), the residential part at the eastern and southern sides located around the atrium and the peristyle, and the storage section at the eastern part.

1

10

C

The entrance at the western side, belonging to the service part opens to courtyard 28 surrounded by service rooms (culina – 25, praefurnium – 32, supposed latrine – 29).

9

8 A 7

B

The entrance to the residential part is at the south-western corner of the house and leads to entrance hall 18 (which was presumably open to the sky). The bath section had two building phases and in the second phase which cannot be dated, was slightly reshaped. Fragments of frescoes of red– white–blue background colour with figural ornamentation were found in one of the rooms.

0

20

after Sautel 1946, Fig. 3 and CAG 84/1 p. 168, Fig. 197 Specificities of ground plan: pool, symmetrical internal façade, peristyle

A corridor leads from entrance hall 18 to room 22 which can be identified as atrium. Next to it there is room 17 (8.75 x 5.2 m) of simple monochrome mosaic floor; its walls were decorated by frescoes of red–yellow–green background colour.

Reference: CAG 84/1, p. 168–181, Bouet 1998, Gros 1997, p. 230–233, Carru 1996, Gouidneau 1979, p. 230–233, Sautel 1946 Urban structure: It is located at the right bank of River Ouvèze, about 100 m from the bank.

There is a 2.3 x 2.24 m impluvium covered with mosaics in the middle of the so-called atrium (room 22). Room 23 of uncertain function (3.5 x 2.8 m) is located between room 24, identified as summer triclinium, and the atrium; its floor is monochrome geometric mosaic of geometric pattern. Rooms 10, 11 and 14 are located around courtyard 12; each of them is decorated with frescoes.

Datation: in the second part of the first century AD Description: The entrance of the building is at the eastern side. The entrance part is 12 m wide and it is flanked by corridors of a width of 2.5 m each. The entrance itself has three apertures. Room 7, which can be identified as vestibulum is of the size of 10.5 x 6.5 m and its floor is paved by stone sheets. Next to the vestibulum there is the 7.5 x 5 m courtyard with peristyle marked A (formerly it was called atrium). The remains of stairs leading to the upper floor are north of the courtyard. Room 8, presumably serving for representation was already part of the next part of the building in the axis of which there was courtyard C surrounded by quadriporticus and room 9 as well as 10 (6.6 x 7.5 m) and there was also courtyard B. The floor of a room at the south-western corner of courtyard C was made of mixed technique where mosaic, opus signinum and opus sectile techniques were used. Stylistically it can be dated to the Flavian age.

Courtyard 1 is located at the eastern part of the building; three of its sides so far known are flanked by porticos. Room 9 (10.5 x 8.9 m) was identified as triclinium, its floor is opus sectile made of imported marble and mosaic (they could be made in the Flavian age as earliest), wall paintings survive on its walls to a height of about 2.5 m. The floor of rooms 15 and 16 was opus sectile (of the Flavian age or the reign of Trajan); the floor of room 8 is terrazzo signinum. There is a long, 15 m long and 6.3 m wide hall of two naves along the eastern side of the peristyle which was presumably a store room. Area: at least 1515 m² (presumably around 2000 m²)

The pavement level of courtyard B (15 x 13.5 m) flanked by porticos on four sides is about 1 m lower than that of courtyard C.

Number of rooms: 36 Upper floor: presumably there was one above rooms 6–10.

There was a large quadriporticus (1) (36 x 30 m) at the western part of the room; its identification is disputed. Its first definition was of peristyle, but later on it was suggested that it was a palaestra of public use (Bouet 1998). This proposition also meant a reconsideration of the datation and periodisation of the building, therefore the assumption of J. Sautel, the first excavator increasingly seems to be

Decoration: mosaics, frescoes

109

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 92. Vaison-la-Romaine, Maison au Dauphin, Phases 1 and 2

less probable that the house (which, in his view fully corresponded to “traditions of Pompeii, Herculaneum and Ostia”) was built at the turn of the first and second centuries AD. It is far more probable that the currently known ground plan is the result of several building phases: initially the western quadriporticus 1 (campus, palaestra) was a public building which was established in the early first century AD, and the assumed residential house was only built at the eastern part of the plot later, in the Flavian age (Carru 1996, p. 343.) or the reshaping of the complex was done at the end of the first century (Goudineau 1979, p. 233). This is supported by the different orientations of the two parts of the building and the fact that the huge palaestra (2235 m²) supplied with bath is disproportionately large compared to the residential house of rammed floor.

D Q

R

C B

T

S

U

P

A1

O W N

L

M

V

K X

Area: about 3400 m² Number of rooms: at least 47

0

Upper floor: there was definitely one above the northern part.

20

Phase 1, after Goudineau 1979, pl. XI

Decoration: mosaic, opus sectile, opus signinum, frescoes

baths

D Q

R

C B

S

T U

P

A1

O W N

M

L

V

K X

0

20

Phase 2, after Goudineau 1979, pl. XI Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, peristyle Reference: CAG 84/1, p. 181–184, Goudineau 1979, Liou 1971, Ginouvés 1949 Urban structure: It is located about 100 m from the right bank of river Ouvèze. At the time of Phase 1 the environment of the building was not yet built up and even the construction of the road network was done later. Datation: Phase 1: between 50 and 30 BC, Phase 2: between 10 and 20 AD. Description: Chr. Goudineau identified four building phases in his orgininal publication (Goudineau 1979). The first building phase corresponds to a rural building which may have been mostly of agricultural function (Goudineau 1979, p. 114–115). The house consisted of two parts: the covered building A1 at the north-western part and the wing next to it consisting of rooms (B, C, D) of the function of baths joins the residential house of an inner size of 34.5 x 32.8 m closing an obtuse angle with it. The central room of the house is a 110

CATALOGUE 93. Vaison-la-Romaine, Maison au Dauphin, Phases 3 and 4

17.7 x 18.4 m courtyard with a peristyle of 5 x 5 columns. One of the entrances is at the southern side and the peristyle could be accessed through corridor L. The large rooms (M, K) beside the corridor were presumably of economic function. The three large rooms of the western wing (N – 8 x 3.8 m, O – 8 x 5.4 m, P – 8 x 5.6 m) and room R (11.5 x 5.5 m) of the northern wing could have residential function, whereas room Q was most probably a culina. Presumably the other entrance of the house was at corridor T.

street 36

8

10

9

35

37

32

38

33 29

30

31

7

street

28

1

West of the bath quarters remains of a room (8.6 x 12 m) were found and its mosaic floor survived on an area of about 2 m². On a stylistic basis it can be dated to the datation phase 1 (Goudineau 1979, p. 109–111).

2

17

39 25 18

40

19

23

22

26

24

44

41 42 43

The building of relatively less careful execution (the walls do not meet in right angle but are crooked) had walls of rubblework laid into mortar; its floors were of rammed clay.

48 45

47 0

In the second building phase the northern part of the building was rebuilt and new baths were developed. The opus sectile floor of the baths seems to be of secondary use and originally may have belonged to the baths of Phase 1. Another alteration is that some workshops were attached to the zone of the baths.

20

Phase 3, after Goudineau 1979, pl. XI street 36

8

10

9

35

37

32

38

Area: 1130 m²

33 30

31

29

7 28

street

Number of rooms: 34

1

Upper floor: There definitely was one based on staircase J.

2

17

39 25 18

40

Decoration: mosaic, opus sectile (?)

19

22

23

26

24

44

41 42 43

48 45

0

20

47

Phase 4, after Goudineau 1979, pl. XI Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, pool, peristyle Reference: CAG 84/1, p. 184–190, Goudineau 1979, Liou 1971, Ginouvés 1949 Urban structure: as at the previous entry Datation: Phase 3: between 80 and 100 AD, Phase 4: between the Flavian age and the second part of the second century AD Description: It was built after a partial demolition of the building of Phase 2 and the rearrangement of the borders of the plot (garden W and part of room U were attached to the Maison au Buste d’argent). With the progress of urbanisation a road was built at the western side of the building, therefore the baths of Phase 1 were completely pulled down. The rooms next to the road (36–42 and 9–10) may have been of commercial function. 111

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 94. Vaison-la-Romaine, Villasse Nord

The new entrance with stairs of the building (1) opens from the road, next there is a courtyard with opus spicatum floor (2), from where the zone of the peristyle can be accessed through corridor 17a. The courtyard with peristyle (room 27, 21 x 17.65 m) itself was rebuilt. Rooms O and P of the earlier phase remained unchanged, but room Q was partitioned. The baths of the northern part were reshaped (29, 30, 33 and 35) and two rooms (room 31 – 5.3 x 4.45 m, room 32 – 8.8 x 5.7 m) were developed. The symmetrical pair of room 32 is room 23 of mosaic floor found at the southern side. The floor of room 28 made out of the remains of rooms U and W was of opus signinum.

C

D Q

A N

0

Room 26 of the southern part of the building was newly developed, whereas room 24 and 25 were made by the partition of room VX. Room 23 of terrazzo floor ((7.4 x 4.45 m) is located in the axis of the peristyle and its axis is identical also with one arched part of the pool of the southern courtyard (48). There was a mosaic floor of three parts in room 21. The excavations revealed fragments of mosaic floor and frescoes from room 18 and corridor 19.

20

Walls of the earliest building phase, after Bellet et. al. 1990, p. 74, Fig. 3 Specificities of ground plan: broad vestibulum, atrium (6.15 x 6.4 m), mini-atrium-house (?) Date of excavations: 1958–1959, 1989 Reference: CAG 84/1 p. 196–197, Bellet et al. 1990 p. 73–78.

The southern part of the building opens to garden 48 (32 x 14.5 m), which is surrounded by peristyle (43, 44, 45, and 47). There is a pool of 32.4 x 2.1 m ornamented with three arched exedrae in the garden. The garden part had a separate entrance (42).

Urban structure: It is located about 300 m from the right bank of river Ouvèze. Datation: Augustan age

At the time of Phase 4 the entrance courtyard 2 was reshaped as an atrium tetrastylum (for a brief evaluation see Gros 2001, p. 157-158). The floor may have been paved with opus sectile or mosaic, and even remains of frescoes were found in the room. Remains of a stone table (cartibulum) were excavated, the footing of the table was ornamented (lion head and paw). Rooms 7 and 8 north of the new atrium were transformed into latrines. Several modifications were done at the other parts of the building, but the scheme of the ground plan remained unchanged. As we have drawn the chronological limit of the Catalogue at the Flavian age therefore these two phases of building are presented only to illustrate the direction of further development.

Description: The axis of the house is of north-south orientation; its central room was an atrium tuscanicum (6.5 x 6.5 m). The bottom of the impluvium was made of a single stone sheet (1.84 x 1.29 x 0.145 m); its rim was made of marble.

Area: about 2900 m²

Upper floor: -

Number of rooms: 43

Decoration: opus signinum

The floors of rooms Q and N were opus signinum. Based on the situation of room N presumably it was a tablinum. The floor of rooms C and D was of rammed earth; presumably they were tabernae facing the street and had no connection to room A. The rest of the building was not excavated. Area: about 300 m² Number of rooms: at least 8

Upper floor: there definitely was one (based on stairs 14 and 15b). Decoration: opus spicatum, mosaic, frescoes

112

CATALOGUE 95. Vaison-la-Romaine, Maison à Atrium

0

20

after CAG 84/1 p. 203, Fig. 279 and Sautel 1946, p. 6, Fig. 3. Specificities of ground plan: linear suite of rooms, peristyle Date of excavations: 1936, 1995 Reference: CAG 84/1 p. 207–209. Urban structure: It is located between the palaestra and the Maison au Buste en argent. Datation: first century AD Description: The ground plan of the building, excavated partially only, is of trapeze shape as it is determined by the geometry of the plot, its recently known size is about 12.5 x 12 m. The excavated rooms of the building open from the courtyard with peristyle originally identified as “atrium” (width: 5.15–6.1 m, the width of the peristyle: 2.1–3.5 m). The northern exterior wall is also the buttress of the neighbouring palaestra. The floor of the room at the north-western corner (4.5 x 3.6 m) is a monochrome mosaic. The floor of the next building of 4.2 x 4.5 m was opus signinum, and the walls were decorated with frescoes of red–yellow–black background colours. In situ remains of frescoes were found also in the trapeze-shaped room at the north-eastern corner; their background colours were red, black, green and blue. Area: at least 130 m² Number of rooms: at least 10 Upper floor: Decoration: mosaic, opus signinum, frescoes

113

114

Bibliography In order to allow an easier presentation we have handled literature of the sites separately and here we have given also publications that have not been included in the Catalogue, mostly because they repeat information incorporated in another publication. Abbreviations BAR

British Archaeological Reports

JRA

Journal of Roman Archaeology

CRAI Compte rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres CAR

Cahiers d’archéologie romande

RAN

Revue Archaeologique de Narbonnaise

1. General bibliography Adam 1995 : Adam (J.-P.) – La construction romaine, Picard, Paris, 1995 Andreae, Kyrieleis 1975 : Andreae (B.), Kyrieleis (H.) (eds.) – Neue Forschungen in Pompeii und den anderen vom Vesuvausbruch 79 n.Chr. verschütteten Städten, Recklighausen, 1975 Atlas 1996 : Borgard (Ph.) (ed.) - La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines - Atlas: Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996 Balmelle 1990 : Balmelle (C.) – L’habitat urbain dans le Sud-Ouest de la Gaule romaine, in: Villes et agglomérationes urbaines antiques du Sud-Ouest de la Gaule, 2éme coll. Aquitania, Aquitania supplt. 6, Bordeaux, 1990, p. 335-364 Balty 1986 : Balty (J.Ch.) – Une grande Maison urbaine d’Alba Fucens : contribution à l’étude de l’architecture domestique en Italie centrale, Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia 25, 1986, p. 19-37 Barbet 1985 : Barbet (A.) (dir.) – Peinture murale en Gaule, Actes de séminaires AFPMA 1982-1983, BAR Int. Ser. 240, 1985 Barbet 1987 : Barbet (A.) – La diffusion des Ier, IIer et IIe styles pompéiens en Gaule, CAR 43, 1987, p. 7-27 Barbet 2002 : Barbet (A.) – La restitution des peintures murales en connection avec l’architecture, in: Gogräfe (R.), Kell (K.) (eds.) – Haus und Siedlung in den römischen Nordwestprovinzen, Hombutg-Saar, 2002, p. 63-80 Barbet 2007 : Barbet (A.) - La peinture murale en Gaule romaine, Paris, 2007 Bats et al. 2003 : Bats (M.), Dedet (B.), Garmy (P.), Janin (Th.), Raynaud (Cl.), Schwaller (M.) - Peuples et territoires en Gaule méditerranéenne – Hommage à G. Barruol, Montpellier, 2003

Beck et al. 2005 : Beck (T.), Szabó (M.), Czajlik (Z.) – Les céramiques sigillées découvertes lors des fouilles hongroises de l’université ELTE de Budapest à Bibracte, in: Études Bibracte 1, Glux-en-Glenne, 2006, p. 81-98 Bedon et al. 1988 : Bedon (R.), Chevallier (R.), Pinon (P.): Architecture et urbanisme en Gaule romaine. Tome 2, L’urbanisme en Gaule romaine, Paris, 1988 Bessac 1996: Bessac (J.C.) – La pierre en Gaule Narbonnaise et les carrières du Bois des Lens, JRA Suppl. 16, Ann Arbor, 1996 Bessac et al. 2002 : Bessac (J.C.), Sablayrolles (R.) ed. – Carriéres antiques de la Gaule, Gallia 59, 2002, p. 1-204 Bessac – Fiches 1979 : Bessac (J.C.), Fiches (J.-L.) – Étude des matériaux en pierre découverts à Ambrussum, Archéologie en Languedoc 2, 1979, p. 127-154 Bessac et al. 1984 : Bessac (J.-C.), Fincker (M.), Garmy (P.), Pey (J.) – Recherches sur les fondations de l’amphithéâtre de Nîmes, RAN 17, 1984, p. 223-237 Beyen 1960 : Beyen (H. G.) – Die pompejanische Wanddekoration vom zweitem bis zum vierten Stil, Hagen, I, 1938, II, 1960 Boethius 1978 : Boethius (A.) - Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture: Penguin, London, 1978 Börker 1973 : Börker (C.), Neuattisches und pergamenisches an den Ara Pacis-Ranken, JdI 88, 1973, p. 283-317 Borgard 1996 : Borgard (Ph.) (ed.) - La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines - Texte: Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996 Broise 1969 : Broise (P.), Éléments d’un ordre toscan provincial en Haute-Savoie, Gallia XXVII / 1, 1969, p. 15-22 Brown 1980 : Brown (F.E.) – Cosa: The Making of a Roman Town, Michigan, 1980 CAG 31/2 : Sabrayolles (R.), Beyrie (A.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 31/2 - Le Comminges, Paris 2006 CAG 34/3 : Vial (J.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 34/3 – Le Montpelliérais, Paris, 2003 CAG 83/1 : Brun (J.-P.), Borréani (M.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 83/1 – Le Var, Paris, 1999 CAG 83/2 : Brun (J.-P.), Borréani (M.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 83/2 – Le Var, Paris, 1999 Carandini et al. 1985 : Carandini (A.), Ricci (A.) (eds.) - Settefinestre: Una Villa Schiavistica Nell’Etruria Romana, Modena, 1985 Caparros 2001 : Caparros (Th.) - Note sur un décor nilotique découvert à Lyon en 1974, RAE 50, 2001, p. 373-380 Caparros 2003 : Caparros (Th.) – Un décor pariétal du troisième style augustéen à Lyon, dans l’édifice dit du «prétoire d’Agrippa», RAE 53, p. 445-462 Chazelles-Gazzal 1997 : Chazelles-Gazzal (C.-A.) - Les Maisons en terre de la Gaule méridionale, Editions Mergoil, Montagnac, 1997 Clarke 1991: Clarke (J.R.) : The houses of Roman Italy, 115

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL 100 B.C.-A.D.250 : Ritual, space and decoration, University of California, Berkeley, 1991 Cocco 1975 : Cocco (M.), I capitelli corinzio-italici e a sofà di Pompei, in: Andreae B., Kyrieleis H.(ed.): Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Recklinghausen, 1975, p. 155-160 Cunliffe 1971 : Cunliffe (B.) (ed.) – Excavations at Fishbourne (1961-69), London, 1971 Cunliffe 1991 : Cunliffe (B.) – Fishbourne revisited: the site and its context, JRA 4, 1991, p.160-169 Desbat 1981 – Desbat (A.) – L’architecture de terre à Lyon à l’époque romaine, in: Walker (ed.) BAR International Series 108/1981, p. 55-81 Dickmann 1999 : DICKMANN (J.A.) – Domus frequentata – Anspruchvolles wohnen im pompejanischen Stadthaus, Studien zur antiken Stadt 4: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, München,1999 Eschebach 1970 : Eschebach (H.) - Die Städtebauliche Entwicklung des antiken Pompeji: Mitteilungen des DAI - Römische Abteilung Supp. 17., Heidelberg, 1970 Fadda 1975 : Fadda (N.), Gli impluvi modanati delle case di Pompei, in: Andreae B., Kyrieleis H.(ed.): Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Recklinghausen, 1975, p. 161-168 Février (P.-A.) – The origin and growth of the cities of southern Gaul to the third century A.D., JRA 68, 1973 Fittschen 1976 : Fittschen (K.) - Zur Herkunft und Entstehung des 2. Stils - Probleme und Argumente: in: Hellenismus in Mittelitalien vol. II, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. III. 97, 1976 Frizot 1975 : FRIZOT (M.) – Mortiers et enduits peints antiques. Ētude technique et archéologique. Université de Dijon, Centre de recherches sur les techniques gréco-romaines, Dijon, 1975 (rééd. 1982) Fulford, Wallace-Hadrill 1998 : Fulford (M.), WallaceHadrill (A.) – Unpeeling Pompeii, Antiquity 72, 1998, p. 128-145

Gros 2001 : Gros (P.) - L’architecture romaine 2, Maisons, palaces, villas, et tombeaux, Paris, 2001 Gros 2002 : Gros (P.) - L’architecture romaine 1., Les monuments publics, Paris, 2002 (2nd ed.) Gros 2005 : Gros (P.) - La basilique dans la maison des notables, in: Blouet (P.) - Autocélébration des élites locales dans le monde romain : contextes, textes, images (IIe s. av. J.-C. - IIIe s. ap. J.-C.), ClermontFerrand, 2005, p. 311-328. Goudineau, Rebourg 1991 : Goudineau (Chr.), Rebourg (A.) (ed.) - Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, Actes du Colloque international d’Autun, 7,7 et 8 juin 1985, Autun, 1991 Guzzo, Guidobaldi 2005 : Guzzo (P.G.), Guidobaldi (M.P.) (ed.) – Nuove richerche archeologiche a Pompei ed Ercolano – Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma 28-30 novembre 2002, Roma, 2005 de Haan et al. 2005 : de Haan (N.), Peterse (K.), Piras (S.), Schipper (F.), Iorio (V.) – The Casa degli Scienzati: Elite Architecture in Fourth-Century B.C. Pompeii, in: Guzzo, Guidobaldi 2005, p. 240-256 Heilmeyer 1970 : Heilmeyer (W.D.), Die korintische Normalkapitelle, RM Erg.16, Heidelberg, 1970 Hoepfner, Schwandner 1994 : Hoepfner (W.), Schwandner (E.-L.) – Haus und Stadt im klassischen Greichenland, München, 1994 Hoepfner, Brands 1996 : Hoepfner (W.), Brands (G.) (ed.) - Basileia: Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige, Mainz, 1996 Janon 1986 : Janon (M.) – Le décor architectonique de Narbonne, Les rinceaux, RAN supplt. 13, 1986 Knell 1985 : Knell (H.) - Vitruvs Architekturtheorie Versuch einer Interpretation: Darmstadt, 1985 Lauter 1971 : Lauter (H.) – Ptolemais in Lybien – ein Beitrag zur Baukunst Alexandrias, JdI 86, 1971, p.149178 Lloris 1991 : Lloris (M.-B.) (ed.) – La casa urbana hispanoromana - Ponencias y comunicaciones, Saragossa, 1991

George 1997 : George (M.) – The Roman domestic architecture of Northern Italy, BAR International Series 670, Oxford, 1997 Goudineau et al. 1991 : Goudineau (Ch.), Rebourg (A.) (ed.) - Les villes augustéennes de Gaule. Actes du Colloque international d’Autun 1985, 1991 Gladiss 1972 : von Gladiss (A.), Der „Arc du Rhône” von Arles, RM 79, 1972, p. 17-87 Gleason et al. 1998 : Gleason (K.-L.) – The promontory palace at Caesaria Maritima: preliminary evidence for Herod’s Praetorium, JRA 11, 1998, p. 23-52 Grenier 1958 : Grenier (A.) – Manuel d’archéologie galloromaine, Paris, 1958 Gros 1987 : Gros (P.) – Un programme augustéen le centre monumental de la colonie d’Arles, JdI 102, 1987, p. 339-363 Gros 1996 : Gros (P.) – La palais hellénistique et l’architecture augustéenne : l’exemple du complexe du Palatin, in: Hoepfner, Brands 1996, p. 234-239

Lloris, Carillo 1996 : Lloris (M.-B.), Carillo (A.M.) - La casa romana en Hispania, in: Atlas 1996, p. 61-71 Maiuri 1931 : Maiuri (A.) - La Villa dei Misteri: La Libreria dello Stato, Roma, 1931 Maiuri 1933 : Maiuri (A.) – La Casa del Menandro e il sou tesoro di argenteria, Roma, 1933 Maiuri 1942 : Maiuri (A.) – L’ultima fase edilizia di Pompei, Roma, 1942 Maiuri 1958 : Maiuri (A.) – Ercolano. I nouvi scavi (19271958), Roma, 1958 Maiuri 1973 : Maiuri (A.) – Alla ricerca di Pompei preromana (Saggi stratigrafici), Napoli, 1973 Mansuelli 1963 : Mansuelli (G.) – La casa etrusca di Marzabotto, Constatazioni nei nuovi scavi: Mitteilungen des DAI - Römische Abteilung, 70, 1963, p. 44-62 Marichal 1983 : Marichal (R.) – Ruscino, capitale du Roussillon antique, Archaeologia 183 (oct. 1983), p.34-41 Martin, Varène 1973 : Martin (A.), Varène (P.) – Le 116

BIBLIOGRAPHY monument d’Ucuétis à Alésia, Paris, 1973 Mau 1882 : Mau (A.) - Geschichter der dekorativen Wandmalerei in Pompeji, Leipzig, 1882 Mau 1908 : Mau (A.) - Pompeji in Leben und Kunst, Leipzig, 1908 Meyer 1999 : Meyer (K.-E.) – Axial peristyle houses in the western empire, JRA 12, 1999, p. 101-121 Mielsch 1987 : Mielsch (H.) – Die römische villa – Architektur und Lebensform, München, 1987 Monthel 2002 : Monthel (G.) – La carrière gallo-romaine de Saint-Boil, in: Bessac et al. 2002, Gallia 59, 2002, p. 89-120 Netzer 1996 : Netzer (E.) - The Hasmonaean Palaces in Palaestina, in: Hoepfner, Brands 1996, p.203-208. Nielsen 1996 : Nielsen (I.) - Oriental Models for Hellenistic Palaces, in: Hoepfner, Brands 1996, p.209-212 Nielsen 1997 : Nielsen (E.) – An atrium-house of the 6th c. B.C. at Roselle, JRA 10, 1997, p.323-326 Olivier 1988 : Olivier (A.), L’architecture, in: Roussel (L.) ed., Mediolanum- une bourgade gallo-romaine, Dijon, 1988, p. 27-44 Olivier 1985 : Olivier (A.), Les éléments d’architecture d’Autun, in: Pinette (M.) ed., Autun-Augustodunum, Capitale des Éduens, Autun, 1985, p. 62-75 Overbeck 1875: Overbeck (J.) - Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthümern und Kunstwerken, Leipzig, 1875 Overbeck, Mau 1884 : Overbeck (J.), Mau (A:) - Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthümern und Kunstwerken, Leipzig, 1884 Packer 1975 : Packer (J.E.) – Middle and lower class housing in Pompeii and Herculaneum: a preliminary survey, in: Andreae, Kyrieleis 1975, p. 133-146 Paunier et al. 2002 : Paunier (D.), Desbat (A.), Meylan (F.) – Les premiers habitats romanisés en Gaule du CentreEst – un témoignage de l’aristocratie indigène ?, in: Guichard (V.), Perrin (F.) (dir.) – L’aristocratie celte à fin de l’âge du Fer, Bibracte 5, Glux-en-Glenne, 2002 Pellecuer 1993 : Pellecuer (C.) (dir.) – Formes de l’habitat rural en Gaule Narbonnaise, Juan-les-Pins, 1993 Pelletier 1991 : Pelletier (A.) – La société urbaine en Narbonnaise, in: Goudineau, Rebourg 1991, p. 29-39 Pernice 1932 : Pernice (E.), Hellenistische Tische, Zisternenmündungen, Beckenutersätze, Altäre und Truhen, Die hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji 5, Berlin, 1932 Pernice 1938 : Pernice (E.) - Pavimente und figürliche Mosaiken: Die Hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji 6, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1938 Pirson 1999: Pirson (F.) – Mietwohnungen im Pompeii und Herculaneum, Studien zur antiken Stadt 5, München, 1999 Prayon 1975 : Prayon (F.) - Frühetruskische Grab- und Palastarchitektur: Mitteilungen des DAI - Römische Abteilung Supp. 22., Heidelberg, 1975 Raeder 1988 : Raeder (J.) - Vitruv de arch. VI. 7 (aedificia Graecorum) und die hellenistische Wohnhaus- und Palastarchitektur: Gymnasium 95 / Heft 4, Heidelberg, 1988

Richardson 1988 : Richardson (L.) - Pompeii: An Architectural History, Hopkins, Baltimore,1988 Roth-Congès 1983 : Roth-Congès (A.), L’acanthe dans le décor architectonique protoaugustéen en Provence, RANarb. 16, 1983, p. 103-134 Schalles et al. 1992 : Schalles (H. J.), von Hesberg (H.), Zanker (P.) – Die römische Stadt im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Köln, 1992 Shoe Meritt 1969 : Shoe Meritt (L.), The geographical distribution of Greek and Roman Ionic bases, Hesperia XXXVIII /2, 1969, p. 186-204 Strocka 1984 : Strocka (V. M.), Casa del Principe di Napoli, Häuser in Pompeii 1, Tübingen, 1991 Strocka 1991 : Strocka (V. M.), Casa del Labirinto, Häuser in Pompeii 4, München, 1991 Strong 1960 : Strong (D. E.), Some early examples of the composite capital, JRS 50, 1960, p. 119-128 Strong 1988 : Strong (D.E.), Roman Art, London, 1988 Strong 1963 : Strong (D.E.), Some observations on early Corinthian, JRS 53, 1963, p. 73-84 Szabó et al. 2007: Szabó (M.), Timár (L.), Szabó (D.) – La basilique de Bibracte – Un témoignage précoce de l’architecture romaine en Gaule centrale, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 37/4, 2007, p. 389-408 Tang 2005 : Tang (B.) – Delos, Carthage, Ampurias – The Housing of Three Mediterranean Trading Centres, Annalecta Romana Isntituti Danici supplt. XXXVI, Roma, 2005 Tardy 1989 : Tardy (D.) – Le décor architectonique de Saintes antique, Les chapiteaux et bases, Aquitania supplt. 5, 1989 Tardy 1995 : Tardy (D.) – Le décor architectonique de Saintes antique, Les entablements , Aquitania supplt. 7, 1995 Tschurtschenthaler 1997 : Tschurtschenthaler (M.), Das Garten-Peristyl des Atriumhauses von Aguntum, Archäologie Österreichs 8/2, 1997, p. 70-75 Varone 2005 : Varone (A.) – Il progetto di scavo e pubblica fruizione dell’insula popeiana dei Casti Amanti, in: Guzzo, Guidibaldi 2005 p. 191-199 Vassal 2006 : Vassal (V.) – Les pavements d’opus signinum, BAR Int. Ser. 1472, Oxford, 2006 Vitruvius: Vitruvii de architectura libri decem – Zehn bücher über Architektur (ed. Curt Fensterbusch), AkademieVerlag (Lizensausgabe der Wissenschaftlichen Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt), Berlin, 1964 Ward-Perkins 1978 : Ward-Perkins (J. B.), Roman Imperial Architecture, London, 1978 Wallace-Hadrill 1988 : Wallace-Hadrill (A.) - The social structure of the Roman house, in: Papers of the British School at Rome 56, London, 1988 Wallace-Hadrill 1994 : Wallace-Hadrill (A.) – Houses and society in Pompeii and Herculaneum, Princeton, 1994 Wallace-Hadrill 2005 : Wallace-Hadrill (A.) – Excavation and standing structures in Pompeii Insula I.9, in: Guzzo et al. 2005, p. 102-108 Wilson Jones 1989 : Wilson Jones (M.), Designing the Roman Corinthian order, JRA 2, 1989, p. 35-69 117

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL Zanker 1979 : ZANKER (P.) - Die Villa als Vorbild des späten pompejanischen Wohngeschmacks, in: Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäeologischen Institutes 94, Berlin, 1979

l’habitat urbain en Gaule, Bibliothèque pro Alésia VIII, Dijon, 1981 Martin, Varène 1973 : Martin (R.), Varène (P.), Le monument d’Ucuétis à Alésia, Gallia supplt. XXVI, Paris, 1973

Bibliography by sites

Ambrussum

Aix-en-Provence

Fiches 1986 : Fiches (J.-L.) - Les Maisons gallo-romaines d’Ambrussum, La fouille du secteur IV, DAF 5, Paris, 1986 Fiches 2003 : Fiches (J.-L.) – L’apport des fouilles récentes (1993-2000) à la conaissance de la station routière d’Ambrussum, in: Bats et al. 2003 : Peuples et territoires en Gaule méditerranéenne – Hommage à G. Barruol, Montpellier, 2003, p. 49-58

Benoit 1947 : Benoit (F.) – Recherches archéologiques dans le région d’Aix-en-Province II: La Maison à double péristyle du Jardin de Grassi à Aix-en-Province, Gallia 5, 1947, p. 98-122 Benoit 1958 : Benoit (F.) – Informations archéologiques, Gallia 16, 1958, p. 417-419 Benoit 1960 : Benoit (F.) – Informations archéologiques, Gallia 18, 1960, p. 296-30 Berard et al. 1991 : Berard (G.), de Luca (B.), Landure (C.) – Les fouilles de l’enclos des Chartreux de l’Antiquité au XVIIe siècle, Documents d’Archéologie Aixoise 5, 1991 CAG 13/4 : Mocci (F.), Nin (N.) (dir.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 13/4, Aix-en-Provence, Pays d’Aix et Val de Durance, Paris, 2006 Jacob 1988 : Jacob (J.-P.) - Informations archéologiques, Gallia 47, 1988, p. 226 Jacob 1990 : Jacob (J.-P.) - Informations archéologiques, Gallia 49, 1990, p. 131-135 Fixot et al. 1985 : Fixot (M.), Guyon (J.), Pelletier (J.-P.), Rivet (L.) – Les fouilles de la cour de l’Archevêché, Documents d’Achéologie Aixoise 1, 1985 Fixot et al. 1986 : Fixot (M.), Guyon (J.), Pelletier (J.-P.), Rivet (L.) – Des abords du forum au palais archiepiscopal, étude du centre monumental d’Aixen-Provence, Bulletin Monumental 144, 1986, p. 195 – 291. Rouard 1841 : Rouard (E.) – Rapport sur les fouilles d’antiquités qui ont été faites à Aix dans les prémiers mois de 1841, Aix, 1841 Rouard 1842 : Rouard (E.) – Rapport sur les fouilles d’antiquités qui ont été faites à Aix en 1842, Aix, 1843 Rouard 1844 : Rouard (E.) – Rapport sur les fouilles d’antiquités qui ont été faites à Aix en 1843 et 1844, Aix, 1844

Amiens Binet 1996 : BINET (E.) : Le site antique du ˝Palais des Sports˝ à Amiens, in: Revue du Nord T.LXXVIII, N° 318, Lille, 1996 Arles Benoît 1964 : Benoît (F.) – Le développement de la colonie d’Arles et la centuriation de la Crau, CRAI 1964, p. 156-169 Sintés (ed.) 1987 : Sintés (Cl.) (ed.) – Du nouveau sur l’Arles antique, Revue d’Arles 1, 1987 Gallia Informations 1990, p. 141-143 Autun Blanchard-Lemée et al. 1986 : Blanchard-Lemée (M.), Olivier (A.), Rebourg (A.) – Deux Maisons à pavements d’Augustodunum, Gallia 44, 1986, p. 121-149 Rebourg 1991 : Rebourg (A.) - Les origines d’Autun : l’archéologie et les textes, in : - Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, Actes du Colloque international d’Autun, 7,7 et 8 juin 1985, Autun, 1991, p. 99-106 Rebourg 1998 : Rebourg (A.) – L’urbanisme d’Augustodunum, Gallia 55, 1998, p. 141-236 Besançon Pinette, Guilhot 1992 : PINETTE (M.), GUILHOT (J.-O.) (ed.) - Le fouilles du parking de la Mairie à Besançon, Musée des Beaux-arts et d’Archéologie, Besançon, 1992

Bibliography classified by sites Alba Beal, Dupraz 1990 : Beal (J.C.), Dupraz (J.) – Architecture et urbanisme antiques d’Alba – documents nouveaux, RAN 22, 1989, p. 99-145

Bibracte Beck, Szabó, Czajlik 2005 : Beck (T.) , Szabó (M.) , Czajlik (Z.) – Les céramiques sigillées découvertes par les fouilles hongroises à Bibracte (1988-1999), Études sur Bibracte 1, Glux-en-Glenne, 2005, p. 47-60 Bulliot 1899 : Bulliot (J.-G.) – Fouilles du Mont Beuvray (ancienne Bibracte) de 1867 à 1895, 2 volumes, Autun,

Alésia Mangin 1981 : Mangin (M.) – Un quartier de commerçants et d’artisans d’Alésia, Contribution à l’histoire de 118

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1899 Déchelette 1904: Déchelette (J.) - Fouilles du Mont Beuvray de 1897 à 1901: Mémoires de la société Éduenne XXXII., Autun, 1904 Gruel - Vitali 1998 : GRUEL (K.) - VITALI (D.) — L’oppidum de Bibracte. Un bilan de onze années de recherche (1984-1995). Gallia 55, 1998, CNRS, Paris, 1999 Meylan 1995: Meylan (F.) – Une année de recherche sur le Parc aux Chevaux, Rappor annuel 1995, vol. 3 Meylan 2000 : MEYLAN (F.) – Éléments d’urbanisme à Bibracte. Les Maison du Parc aux Chevaux, Les processus d’urbanisation à l’âge du Fer. (Actes des colloques des 8-11 juin 1998 ; Bibracte 4), Glux-enGlenne, 2000 Oelmann 1920 : OELMANN (F.) - Haustypen in Bibrakte, in: Germania, Heft 3/6, Frankfurt, 1920 Paunier 1997 : PAUNIER (D.) – Étude de la domus PC1 et la voirie antique au Parc-aux-Chevaux, in: Rapport Annuel 1997, Centre archéologique européen du Mont Beuvray, Glux-en-Glenne, 1997. Paunier, Luginbühl 2004 – Paunier, (D.); Luginbühl, (Th.) (ed.) – Le site de la Maison 1 du Parc aux Chevaux (PC1), Collection Bibracte 8, 2004 Timár, Szabó,Czajlik 2005 : Timár (L.), Szabó (M.), Czajlik (Z.) – La domus du dernier état de l’îlot des Grandes Forges, Études sur Bibracte 1, Glux-en-Glenne, 2005, p. 13-46

p. 206-214 Goudineau 1971 : Goudineau (C.) – Informations archéologiques, Gallia 29, 1971, p. 449-456 Goudineau 1973 : Goudineau (C.) – Informations archéologiques, Gallia 31, 1973, p. 555-558 Rivet 1996 : Rivet (L.) - Fréjus, in: La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines: Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996. Rivet et al. 2000 : Rivet (L.); Brentchaloff, (D.); Roucole, (S.); Saulnier, (S.) – Fréjus, Atlas topographique des villes de Gaule méridionale 2, RAN Supplt. 32, 2000

Clermont-Ferrand

Barbet 1990 : Barbet (A.) – Les peintures de Glanum : une relecture, Gallia 47, 1990, p. 113-128 Rolland 1946 : Rolland (H.) – Fouilles de Glanum , Ier suppl. à Gallia, 1946 Rolland 1958 : Rolland (H.) – Fouilles de Glanum (19471956), XIéme suppl. à Gallia, 1958 Roth-Conges 1985 : Roth-Conges (A.) – Glanum préromaine: recherche sur la métrologie et ses applications dans l’urbanisme et l’architecture, RAN 18, 1985, p. 189-220 Roth-Conges 1992 : Roth-Conges (A.) – Nouvelles fouilles à Glanum (1982-1990), JRA 5, 1992 Van de Voort 1992 : Van de Voort (J.-F.) – La Maison des antes à Glanum, RAN 24, 1992, p. 1-17

Genava Blondel-Davier 1922 : Blondel (L.), Davier (G.) – La villa romaine de la Grange, Genéve, Indicateur des Antiquités Suisses ns 24, 1922, p. 72-88 Haldimann et al. 2001 : HALDIMANN (M.A.), ANDRÉ (P.), BROILLET-RAMJOUÉ (E.), POUX (M.) - Entre résidence indigène et domus gallo-romaine: le domaine antique du Parc de la Grange: AS 24, Basel, 2001 Ternier 2000 : Ternier (J.) – Parc de la Grange, Découvertes archéologiques dans le canton de Genéve, Genava ns XLVIII, 2000, p. 191-194 Glanum

CAG 63/1 : Provost (M.), Menessier-Jouannet (Chr.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 63/1 – ClermontFerrand, Paris, 1994 Ensérune Gallet de Santerre 1968 : Gallet de Santerre (H.) – Fouilles dans le quartier ouest d’Ensérune, RAN 1, 1968, p. 38-83 Vatin 1971 : Vatin (Cl.) - Maisons d’Ensérune, Études d’archéologie provençale 1, 1971, p. 123-130 Fréjus

La Boisse Donnadieu 1932 : Donnadieu (A.) – Fouilles du praetorium de l’arsenal naval du Forum Iulii, CRAI 1932, p. 115-118 Février 1956 : Février (P.-A.) – Fouilles à la citadelle méridionale de Forum Iulii en 1956, Gallia 14, 1956, p. 35-53 Février 1962 : Février (P.-A.) – Fouilles à la Plate-forme du Forum Iulii en 1960 et 1961, Gallia 20, 1962, p. 177-203 Février et al. 1972 : Février (P.-A.), Janon (M.), Waroqueaux (Cl.) – Fouilles au Clos du Chapitre à Fréjus, CRAI 1972, p. 355-386 Février et al. 1990 : Février (P.-A.), Fixot (M.), Rivet (L.) – Fréjus, place Formigé et cathédrale, Gallia 47, 1990,

CAG 01 : Buisson (A.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 01, L’Ain, Paris, 1990 Vicherd, Baudrand 1982 : Vicherd (G,), Baudrand (M.-N.) – Fouilles récentes à La Boisse (Ain) du Bronze final au Bas-Empire, RAE XXXIII, 2-3-4, 1982, p. 123-138 Lalonquette Lauffray et al. 1973 : Lauffray (J.), Schreyeck (J.), Dupré (N.) – Les établissements et villas gallo-romains de Lalonquette, Gallia 31, 1973, p. 123-156

119

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL Lattes

développement de Lyon à l’époque augustéenne: l’apport des fouilles récentes, in: Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, Actes du Colloque international d’Autun, 7,7 et 8 juin 1985, Autun, 1991 Lancel 1975 – Lancel (S.) – Informations archéologiques, Gallia 33, 1975, p. 548-549 Wuilleumier 1951 : Wuilleumier (P.) - Fouilles de Fourviére a Lyon, Gallia supplt. IV, Paris, C.N.R.S., 1951

Garcia 1994 : Garcia (D.) (ed.) – Exploration archéologique de la ville portuaire de Lattes, Lattara 7, 1994 Garcia 1996 : Garcia (D.) – Le passage de la Maison de type protohistorique à la Maison gallo-romaine, l’exemple de Lattes, in: Borgard et al., La Maison en Gaule Narbonnaise, 1996, p. 144- 153 Py, Garcia 1993 : Py (M.), Garcia (D.) – Bilan des recherches archéologiques sur la ville portuaire de Lattara, Gallia 50, 1993, p. 1-93

Loupian Bermond, Pellecuer 1997 : Bermond (I.), Pellecuer (Chr.) – Recherches sur l’occupation du sol dans la région de l’étang de Thau: apport à l’étude des villae et des campagnes de Narbonnaise, RAN 30, 1997, p. 63-84

Limoges CAG 87 : Perrier (J.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 87, La Haute-Vienne, Paris, 1993 Loustaud 1992 : Loustaud (J.-P.) - La Maison des Nones de Mars, Travaux d’archéologie limousienne 12, 1992, p. 23-102 Loustaud et al. 1993 : Loustaud (J.-P.), Barbet (A.), Monier (F.) – Les peintures murales de la Maison des Nones de Mars à Limoges, Aquitania XI, 1993, p. 63-111 Loustaud 2000 : Loustaud (J.-P.) - Limoges antique, Limoges, 2000

Metz Heckenbenner et al. 1992 : Heckenbenner (D.), Brunella (Ph.), Leroy (M.), Milutinov (M.), Thion (P.) – Le quartier de l’Arsenal à Metz (Moselle): topographie urbaine et évolution architecture durant l’Antiquité, Gallia 49, 1992, p. 9-35 CAG 57/2 : Flotté (P.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 57/2 - Metz, Paris, 2005

Lyon Montmaurin CAG 69/2 : Le Mer (A.-C.), Chomer (C.) - Carte archéologique de la Gaule 69/2 – Lyon, Paris, 2007 Delaval 1996 : DELAVAL (E.) - Espace urbain et habitat privé á Lyon: in: La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines: Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996. Delaval 1994 : Delaval (E.) – Un îlot d’habitations romaines à Lyon, Clos du Verbe Incarné, colline de Fourviére, in: Actes du Ier congrés Méditerrannéen d’Ethnologie Historique, Lisbonne, Mediterrâneo 4, 1994, p.203-229 Delaval et al. 1995 : Delaval (E.), Bellon (C.), Chastel (J.), Plassot (E.), Tranoy (L.) – Vaise – un quartier de Lyon antique, DARA 11, Lyon, 1995 Desbat 1984 : Desbat (A.) - Les fouilles de la rue des Farges à Lyon (1974 – 1980), Groupe Lyonnais de Recherche en Archéologie gallo-romaine, Lyon, 1984 Desbat 1998 : Desbat (A.) – Nouvelles recherches à l’emplacement de prétendu sanctuaire lyonnais de Cybéle, Gallia 55, 1998, p. 237-277 Desbat 2005 : Desbat, A – Lyon-Lugdunum: structures et mobilier à la fin de la Téne et aux premiers temps de la romanisation, in: Kaenel, G. – Martin-Kilcher, S. – Wild, D. (ed.): Colloquium Turicense – Siedlungen, Baustrukturen un Funde im 1 Jh. v. Chr. zwischen oberer Donau und mittlerer Rhone, Cahiers d’archéologie romande 101, Lausanne, 1995, p. 241-272 Desbat 2007 : Desbat (A.) – Les Maisons de Lugdunum, in: CAG 69/2, Paris, 2007, p. 198-204 Desbat, Mandy 1991 : Desbat (A.), Mandy (B.) – Le

Fouet 1969 : Fouet (G.) – La villa gallo-romaine de Montmaurin, Gallia supplt. 20, Paris 1969 Narbonne CAG 11/1 : Dellong (E:) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 11/1 – Narbonne et le Narbonnais, Paris, 2002 Sabrié et al. 1987 : Sabrié (M.), Sabrié (R.), Solier (Y.), La Maison à portiques du clos de la Lombarde à Narbonne, RANarb. supplt. 16, Paris, 1987 Sabrié 1989 : Sabrié (M.), Sabrié (R.) – La Maison à Portiques du Clos de la Lombarde à Narbonne, décoration des piéces autour de l’atrium, RAN 22, 1989, p. 237-286 Nîmes CAG 30/1 : Fiches (J.-L.), Veyrac (A.) (dir.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule – Nîmes, Paris 1996 Garmy, Monteil 2000 : GARMY (P.), MONTEIL (M.) (ed.)– Le quartier antique des Bénédictins à Nîmes, Découvertes anciennes et fouilles 1966-1992, DAF 81, Paris, 2000 Monteil (1999) : Monteil (M.) – Nîmes antique et sa proche campagne, Étude de topographie urbaine et périurbaine, Monographes d’archéologie méditerranéenne 3, CNRS, Lattes, 1999 Sabrié 1996 : SABRIÉ (M.) - Nîmes, in: La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines: Documents d’archéologie 120

BIBLIOGRAPHY vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996.

Saint-Julien-lès-Martigues CAG 13/1 : Gateau (F.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 13/1, L’Étang-de-Berre, Paris, 1996 Rivet 1993 : Rivet (L.) - Saint-Julien-lès-Martigues – Château d’Agût, in: Pellecuer 1993, Juan-les-Pins, 1993, s.p.

Olbia Bouiron 1996 : Bouiron (M.) – Olbia-de-Provence, Hyéresles-Palmiers. Var, in: La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines: Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996, p. 135-145 Coupry 1964 : Coupry (J.) – Les fouilles d’Olbia a Hyères, CRAI 1964, p. 313-321

Saint-Roman-en-Gal André et al. 1991 : André (P.), Desbat (A.), Lauxerois (R.), le Bot-Helly (A.) – Données nouvelles sur la Vienne augustéenne, in: Les villes augustéennes de Gaule, Actes du Colloque international d’Autumn, 7,7 et 8 juin 1985, Autun, 1991 Brissaud et al. 1996 : BRISSAUD (L.), DELAVAL (E.), LE BOT-HELLY (A.), PRISSET (J.-L.) - Vienne, in: La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines: Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996. Desbat et al. 1994 : Desbat (A.), Leblanc (O.), Prisset (J.-L.), Savay-Guerrac (H.), Tavernier (D.), La Maison des dieux Océan à Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Gallia supplt. 55, Paris, 1994 Goudineau 1971 : Goudineau (Ch.) - Informations archéologiques – Gallia 29, 1971, p. 421-425 Le Glay 1970 : Le Glay (M.) – Découvertes archéologiques à Saint-Romain-en-Gal, RA 1, 1970, p.173-183 Le Glay, Torrenc 1971 : Le Glay (M.), Torrenc (S.) – L’originalité de l’architecture domestique à Vienne d’aprés les découvertes récentes de Saint-Romain-enGal, CRAI 1971, p. 764-773 Prisset et al. 1994 : Prisset (J.-L.), Brissaud (L.), Lebalanc (O.) – Évolution urbaine à Saint-Romain-en-Gal, la rue du Commerce et la Maison aux Cinq Mosiques, Gallia 51, 1994, p. 1-133

Orange Mignon 1996 : Mignon (J.-M.) – Approche morphologique et fonctionelle de la Maison (Orange), in: La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines: Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996, p. 219-234 Périgueux Balmelle 1996 : Balmelle (C.) – La Maison romaine en Aquitanie, in: La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines: Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996, p. 117-128 Barrière et al. 2001 : Barrière C., Sarradet M., Domus Pompeia, rue des Bouquets à Périgueux. Inventaire du mobilier archéologique- Document d’archéologie et d’histoire 15, 2001 Rezé (Ratiatum) Deschamps et al. 1992 : Deschamps (S.), Guerin (F.), Pascal (J.), Pirault (L.) – Ratiatum (Rezé, Loire-Atlantique): Origines et développement de l’organisation urbaine, RA de l’Ouest 9, 1992, p.111-127

Saint Ulrich Lutz 1971 : Lutz (M.) - Le Domaine gallo-romain de SaintUlrich (Moselle) I, Gallia 29, 1971, p. 17-44 Lutz 1972 : Lutz (M.) - Le Domaine gallo-romain de SaintUlrich (Moselle) II, Gallia 30, 1972, p. 41-82 Heckenbenner 1995 : Heckenbenner (D.) - Espace architectural et peintures murales dans le secteur central de la villa gallo-romaine de Saint-Ulrich (Moselle), Revue archéologique de Picardie numéro spécial 10, 1995, p. 209-217 CAG 57 : Flotté (P.), Fuchs (M.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 57 - La Moselle, Paris, 2004

Ruscino CAG 66 : Kotarba (J.), Castellvi (G.), Mazière (F.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 66 -Les Pyrénées-Orientales, Paris, 2007 Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges CAG 31/2 : Sablayrolles (R.), Beyrie (A.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 31/2 – Le Comminges, Paris, 2006 May 1986 : May (R.) – Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, Le point sur les connaissances, Toulouse (?), 1986 (?)

Sainte-Colombe CAG 69/1 : Faure-Brac (O.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 69/1 – Le Rhône, Paris, 2006

121

THE SPREAD OF THE ROMAN DOMUS TYPE IN GAUL Saintes CAG 17/2 : Maurin (L.) (dir.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 17/2 - Saintes, Paris, 2007 Saint-Agnant CAG 17/1 – L. Maurin: Carte archéologique de Gaule 17/1 - La Charente-Maritime, Paris 1999 Soissons CAG 02 : Pichon (B.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 02, L’Aisne, Paris, 2002 Defente 1990 : Defente (D.) – Représentations figurées de quelques sites en Picardie, RA Picardie nº 1/2 – 1990, p. 41-73 Roussel 2002 : Roussel (D.) – Soissons, Documents d’évaluation du patrimonie archéologique des villes de France, Paris, 2002 Vaison-la-Romaine Allag, Barbet 1995 : Allag (C.), Barbet (A.) - Vaisonla-Romaine, la maison dite “Le Prétoire”, Revue archéologique de Picardie numéro spécial 10, 1995, p. 85-92. Bellet et al. 1990 : Bellet (M.-E.), Boccacino (C.), Borgard (Ph.), Bouillot (J.) – Nouvelles observations sur l’habitat gallo-romain à Vaison-la-Romaine, RAN 23, 1990, p. 71-115 Bouet A. – Un nouvel exemple de campus en Gaule Narbonnaise – Vaison-la-Romaine (Vaucluse), RAN 31, 1998, p. 103-117 CAG 84/1 : Provost (M.), Meffre (J.-Cl.) – Carte archéologique de la Gaule 84/1 – Vaison et ses campagnes, Paris, 2003 Carru 1996 : Carru (D.) – Vaison-la-Romaine, in: La Maison urbaine d’époque romaine en Gaule Narbonnaise et dans les provinces voisines: Documents d’archéologie vauclusienne 6, Service d’archéologie du conseil générale de Vaucluse, Avignon, 1996, p. 333-345 Ginouvès 1949 : Ginouvès (R.) – Remarques sur l’architecture domestique à Vaison, Rev. Arch. 34, 1949, p. 286-301 Goudineau 1979 : Goudineau (Ch.) - Les fouilles de la Maison au Dauphin, Gallia supplt. XXXVII, Paris, 1979 Goudineau, Kisch 1991 : Goudineau (Ch.), de Kisch (Y.) – Vaison-la-Romaine, Paris, 1991 Lassus 1971 : Lassus (J.) – Remarques sur le mosaïques de Vaison-la-Romaine II, Gallia 29, 1971, p. 45-72 Liou 1971 : Liou (B.) – La Maison du Dauphin à Vaisonla-Romaine, CRAI 1971, p. 286-301 Sautel 1946 : Sautel (J.): La Maison d’un riche galloromain à Vaison au temps de l’Empire, tome II de la serie Études et Documents sur Vaison-la-Romaine, Avignon 1946

122