Heating the household

[caldrail]

One thing we admire about roman buildings is the technique of heating them. By allowing hot air to circulate below the floor and up through channels in the wall it means a room can be very comfrotably warm indeed. However it occurs to me that heating an entire villa, some of which were of a considerable size and complexity, is almost impossible. Archaeology bears this out, because a fire large enough to heat the entire home would have required an enormous furnace - and that furnace required fuel. Thats a lot of timber put aside to burn. I've never read anything to suggest the romans engaged in any large scale deforestation except where warfare was concerned, when the local damage is only for the duration of hostilities.

 

So - Only a portion of the house is heated during winter. In britain this must have impacted on family life, but what about household slaves? Were they condemned to freezing conditions in the slave quarters? Perhaps not, but they wouldn't have a good time of it. Did this mean that life for a wealthy family was any different for a family in italy, or north africa? On the one hand they would have lived as romans did everywhere but surely this retreat to warm sections of the house meant that their lives were restricted from their normal way during cold periods?

 

Socialising is an important side effect. Of course wintery weather makes it less likely you'd receive visitors but they're not going to think much of your hospitality if they're put up in palatial but freezing bedchambers!

 

I wonder if family life (particularly in britain or northern europe) became much closer in winter. It had to.

[CiceroD]

I was under the Impression that Hypocausts were only used in baths.

 

It sounds like the amount of fuel to heat even a normal sized Roman House round the clock would be astronomical.

 

I assumed that ancient homes were heated using braziers in different rooms much in the same way that traditional Japanese homes were. Remember the Hearth wasnt the center of the home. In fact the Kitchen was generally for the servants. At the center of Roman Houses was the Atrium which had a whole in the roof!. Not exactly heat conserving. And in insulae they wouldnt have any other option (no kitchen)

[Pertinax]

The hypocaust design appears in two guises, (Northern Neil will I suspect be the man to tell us the situation in Britain as far as "nuts and bolts go") , my understanding is as folllows:

 

a steam room in the baths needs a specific furnace to fir eit, hence the frequent removal of garisson bathhouses some little way from the Fort because of the fire risk involved.The pattern of construction is as shown here:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=429

 

this is the early bathhouse at Vindolanda.

 

Then we have the domestic context for a similarly designed system that would operate at a lower level of intensity, and not involve the tanking or sealing of the rooms above (to seal in heat and stop damp travelling).

 

Here is the CO's house at Vircovicivm :

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...=si&img=446

 

but here we see similar work to achieve ventilation and cooling in a granary sub floor!

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...si&img=1408

[CiceroD]

But still Hypocaust heating would only be for the very rich (I'd imagine). So what filled in for the other 90% of Romans?

[Northern Neil]

In Bathhouses the CALIDARIVM or hotroom was indeed heated by a furnace, the run - off from this (in terms of water and heat) providing lesser heating for the TEPIDARIVM. The Frigidarium of course required no heating, although that, in turn, was probably warmed to a degree by the continual run off from the other rooms. After all, in winter there's no point in having a plunge bath with a layer of ice on top! The Lancaster excavations produced a furnace about the size of a large open fire.

 

Often it has been remarked that hypocausts have been found, but with no accompanying furnace. It has also been remarked, quite correctly, that heating all the hypocausts in some buildings would be prohibitively expensive and impractical. I believe that most of them probably weren't heated. After all, a hypocaust without heating is an excellent way of preventing rising damp.

 

In Northern provinces, the atrium with the hole in the roof (IMPLVVIVM) was a relative rarity, as there was no need to conserve rainwater in the summer. One finds these mainly in the meditterranean provinces.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Northern Neil

[Pertinax]

AS I suspected NN , (whose architectural re-creations are in the Gallery area), has an interesting point to make about he "domestic" configuration of potential heating technology. The Roman "tiles" would ,in a ventilated stack of the same , be an excellent DPM (damp proof membrane) , given the unremmiting wetness of Northern Britain the notion is beguiling.

As granary sub-floors look very similar to "hypocaust" construction (but coolness and thorough ventilation are required to stop ergot forming on grain) perhaps ventilation/surface water run-off was most important.

 

Dont forget that it is suggested that many buildings might have had half-height walls (stone to knee or waist high then timber to eaves height), given the Roman propensity to clear sites by burning redundant property prior to re-construction.I dont suggest this a s a technique for urban areas! The context is military as a logical development of razing wooden temporary structures.

 

But still Hypocaust heating would only be for the very rich (I'd imagine). So what filled in for the other 90% of Romans?

 

Hearths I have to assume, though again NN may wish to comment. I have noted the siting of bread ovens in the extremities of Wall Fort gate sites, again to minimise fire risk.The two constant factors of Northern weather are rain and cold, and the exclusion of the former and amelioration of the latter.