The development of upper class houses.

[Klingan]

I have, as you may know, been running around at a great number of Italian sites during the last 6 weeks or so and I have noticed over and over again how the upper class houses change shape somewhere around 100-200 A.D from the classical atrium/peristyle houses into a less strictly planned and heavier decorated type. What makes me curious is what's behind this change, as I can think of a number of reasons (of which none might be correct).

 

- The influenced by the emperors palaces on the Palatine where the classical plans are lost.

- A decline in the need for public manifestation as political power were constantly growing more difficult to archive by such measurements.

- Loss of classical conservative values (or perhaps classical imaginative values).

 

Any other thoughts on the matter?

[Northern Neil]

Klingan, is this change Empire wide? Reason I ask, it seems that later period villas in Britain are peristyle-less as well, and I cannot see, in my brief speed - reading of relevent books, many late Roman public buildings that have this feature either. I wonder if it reflects the change in public building style. When I look at later Roman public buildings, I see monuments such as the basilica at Trier, which seems to be without an associated square collonade. Also, later forts such as the Saxon Shore fort at Lympne have headquarters buildings, with cross hall and offices, but lacking the enclosed collonade.

[Klingan]

Klingan, is this change Empire wide? Reason I ask, it seems that later period villas in Britain are peristyle-less as well, and I cannot see, in my brief speed - reading of relevent books, many late Roman public buildings that have this feature either. I wonder if it reflects the change in public building style. When I look at later Roman public buildings, I see monuments such as the basilica at Trier, which seems to be without an associated square collonade. Also, later forts such as the Saxon Shore fort at Lympne have headquarters buildings, with cross hall and offices, but lacking the enclosed collonade.

 

I actually don't know exactly how wide the change is, I have only very recently noticed the phenomena. However, the only exception I've found so far is Paestum, which could be explain by the back waters state of the city during the empire. (There are atrium houses being constructed there until 25 AD)

[caldrail]

I think we do need to be aware of local fashions. Also, local circumstances. For instance, houses of the wealthy in Rome before and after the Great Fire of AD64 were biound to be different to some degree, partly because of changing land ownership, partly because of Nero's regulations, and partly because of social changes including the need to find or build a home in Rome that more urgently.

 

The period quoted (100-200ad) falls within the Pax Romana and thus a period without any particular stress in society, apart from political changes, but I'm not aware of any widespread damage and most fires were local in scope (though I must include the possibility of fashion gradually replacing older properties by way of accidental destruction).

 

Is the emperor Hadrian partially responsible? He was very keen on supporting the arts, and certainly had an interest in architecture. If he preferred a heavier and decorated style, the need to curry favour would mean homes of the wealthy would tend to follow that fashion.

[Klingan]

Is the emperor Hadrian partially responsible? He was very keen on supporting the arts, and certainly had an interest in architecture. If he preferred a heavier and decorated style, the need to curry favour would mean homes of the wealthy would tend to follow that fashion.

 

Could be, I would need to get out to his villa sooner rather than later. Favonius Cornelius album here might be a good start.

 

It's fairly frustrating that Vitruvius and the Campanian region are is so dominant in the modern literature.

[Ludovicus]

Klingan, is this change Empire wide? Reason I ask, it seems that later period villas in Britain are peristyle-less as well, and I cannot see, in my brief speed - reading of relevent books, many late Roman public buildings that have this feature either. I wonder if it reflects the change in public building style. When I look at later Roman public buildings, I see monuments such as the basilica at Trier, which seems to be without an associated square collonade. Also, later forts such as the Saxon Shore fort at Lympne have headquarters buildings, with cross hall and offices, but lacking the enclosed collonade.

 

 

Was there a change in weather patterns that may have effected a change in house architecture?

[Maladict]

somewhere around 100-200 A.D from the classical atrium/peristyle houses into a less strictly planned and heavier decorated type.

 

Can you provide a few examples? I know this change is very apparent from the later third century onwards, but not so much during the second.

Then again, I don't know that much of the early period.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Maladict

[Ludovicus]

somewhere around 100-200 A.D from the classical atrium/peristyle houses into a less strictly planned and heavier decorated type.

 

Can you provide a few examples? I know this change is very apparent from the later third century onwards, but not so much during the second.

Then again, I don't know that much of the early period.

 

 

I can't provide any examples. If I had the time I'd do an online search for climate change in the Europe during the time of the architectural changes noted above. I know that there was a mini-ice age during medieval times. So weather patterns can change abruptly, even within short spans of time.

 

Villas seem to decrease in number after 200 AD in Italy, as well. I've always thought that was the result of the chaotic political situation in the Empire. Maybe climate changed played a factor, too.

[Ludovicus]

somewhere around 100-200 A.D from the classical atrium/peristyle houses into a less strictly planned and heavier decorated type.

 

Can you provide a few examples? I know this change is very apparent from the later third century onwards, but not so much during the second.

Then again, I don't know that much of the early period.

 

 

I can't provide any examples. If I had the time I'd do an online search for climate change in the Europe during the time of the architectural changes noted above. I know that there was a mini-ice age during medieval times. So weather patterns can change abruptly, even within short spans of time.

 

Villas seem to decrease in number after 200 AD in Italy, as well. I've always thought that was the result of the chaotic political situation in the Empire. Maybe climate changed played a factor, too.

 

 

Here and there on the internet you see references to the "Roman Optimum," the mild weather in Europe before the drop in temperature that lasted between 200 and 500 AD. "Roman Britain to Saxon England" by C. J. Arnold mentions this climate change and its effects. You can read the excerpt here at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1EIOAAAAQ...lt&resnum=9

 

From this I am not surprised that the architecture of the Roman home would have changed in the 3rd century.

[Klingan]

somewhere around 100-200 A.D from the classical atrium/peristyle houses into a less strictly planned and heavier decorated type.

 

Can you provide a few examples? I know this change is very apparent from the later third century onwards, but not so much during the second.

Then again, I don't know that much of the early period.

 

Take a look at the Domus delle Muse (Ostia, III,IX,22) dated to the Hadrian period in Ostia. I'm sure that I will come up with further examples as I go.

 

[Maladict]

Interesting. I've noticed that the later Roman domus tended to emphasize the most important rooms (aula, courtyard) at almost any cost. The connections between the various areas are given much thought as well, but the less important rooms seem to be placed wherever they fit. Some of this can alreay be seen in the Ostian example, although it seems perfectly Vitruvian when compared to 4th-5th century domus.

[Klingan]

Interesting. I've noticed that the later Roman domus tended to emphasize the most important rooms (aula, courtyard) at almost any cost.

 

Good point.

 

The connections between the various areas are given much thought as well, but the less important rooms seem to be placed wherever they fit.

 

Yes it seems that the movement in the house is much more well planned in later houses, probably due to the irregular room pattern? There must have been a greater need for movement planning when there was no central room such as a atrium.

 

Some of this can alreay be seen in the Ostian example, although it seems perfectly Vitruvian when compared to 4th-5th century domus.

 

Haha yeah. I thought that I could post another example, Domus di Amore e Psiche (I,XIV,5) also in Ostia (it would be interesting if anyone could find examples from other Roman sites.) normally dated from the mid fourth century - fifth century(depending on who you ask), where the plan has gone completely renegade.

 

 

it would be very interesting to find a middle phace between these two houses.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Klingan

[Maladict]

A rather extreme example from Rome, S. Lucia in Selcis.

The church of S. Lucia in Selcis was originally a late antique domus, constructed in the 4th century. Recent research has established its appearance before its conversion in the seventh century. Limitations on the available space meant that the parts of the complex that were deemed essential (large peristyle court, a possible nymphaeum and the aula which became the church) were ordered awkwardly in relation to each other. The large apsidal aula opens onto a narrow alley, and was not directly connected to the other parts of the complex. Apparently it was more important to build the more monumental parts of the complex in as grand a fashion as possible, than to have them relate to each other in a harmonious fashion.

 

[Klingan]

Do you think that Nympheae was considered an important part in these late houses?

[Maladict]

Do you think that Nympheae was considered an important part in these late houses?

 

I guess nymphaea are tricky things in archaeology. It's all too easy to classify a highly decorated room with some plumbing but without a clear purpose as a nymphaeum, and it's only quite rarely that there is convincing proof. That said, nymphaea were common in late Roman domus and especially villae, as they were in earlier times. I haven't noticed a particular emphasis in the later period.