In this paper I present the large typological variety of residential spaces that occur in ancient Rome, both in rural and urban environments. This complexity contradicts the consolidated image of the aristocratic house converted into a paradigm for research. The frequent articulation of spaces from the atrium-alae-tablinum
nucleus, as a unique model of organization of domestic spaces, must be adjusted to their social context: Roman oligarchies. Who is going to build a House with tablinum and alae if these are dependencies where are located the family essences (records, documents, files, memories) and in which families is the main act of social representation of pater? Necessarily only oligarchic classes will require that kind of spaces, and without statistics, we can say that they were a minority, given the nature of unequal Roman society.
The vast majority of the population was common people without the social needs related to public life. At the same time, this image is linked to the historiographical tendency to project oligarchic models from the present to the past. The Roman Empire in this case, is presented as a society that seemed overly opulent and idle. The recent research, mainly from the archaeological perspective, approach issues relating to Roman society and the articulation of their domestic spaces in a more equilibrated way. The problem is that most of the population did
not live in the housing model commonly projected by historiographic production, but in popular housing that written sources associated with terms like home, tuguria, insulae, cenaculae or villulae. After characterize
these living spaces from written sources, we will contrast them with various examples provided by
archaeology. The house of Graticcio in Herculano or houses type Hoffmann of modest dimensions provides
some examples. This type does not have lobby and opens in a quadrangular space presumably associable
to the so-called atrium testudinatum, that would not be proper of an atrium, but a room of versatile functions,
given that articulates not rooms to its around. They do not present tablinum or alae, displacing the living
areas to an upper floor. I present the detailed case of Ostia characterized by the abundance of buildings and dwellings of modest dimensions and apartments (cenaculae), insulae, or humble living structures. I draw attention to the “story” buildings and called “apartments with separating” characterized by the replacement of the atrium by a distributor space (medianum) which configures an asymmetric flow direction (Hermansen 1982: 18-24). This type of houses has modest size (100-120 m2 on average), with a limited number of rooms (3-6) and partially lit by exterior windows. At the same time I accompany these statements with statistical data from Pompeii and Herculaneum which establish in a reliable manner that aristocratic housing models are minority. We can not ignore the projected image of Rome built in height and heavily depleted much of its urban layout and buildings. Situation and image which the archaeological record confirms. The nest part is devoted to the servile spaces and humble homes in the agricultural field: villas, farms and villulae. This section begins by highlighting the predominantly productive character of the villa rustica, a structure that also houses domestic spaces that have been used to articulate the oligarchic model of agricultural holding: sumptuous ornamentation, monumental, with rich areas dedicated to the otium.
This type of structures presents a separation between
the productive (rustic, usufruct) and residential (urban) parts from the Early Empire. Even the part asthe dominus housing presents a division of functions: representation (around the atrium and tablinum),private (cubicula, triclinia, oeci, etc.) as well as hot springs and other areas of entertainment. Both
written sources (Cato, Varro, Columella, Plinio the younger,...), as the predominantly artistic tradition of
romantic archaeology, present even in large sections
of the current research, have contributed to consolidate an agricultural landscape occupied by large and luxurious villae. However, this rural landscape has been characterized in a way confusing, mixing different types of villas: suburban, slave, colonial, villas strictly recreational or imperial villas, commercial farms and large estates. On the opposite side of the Roman rural housing structures are those devoted to the slaves, incorrectly
referred to generically as ergastula, a term that Columella (I, 6. 3) strictly defined as punishment cells
for slaves, and not exactly to their homes. This type of rooms would be simpler accommodation and that
they would mark the lowest social level. But their identification is difficult and conflictual, as they are
very poorly known structures and with very dubious archaeological models. In urban context, I include
the possible area of servile residence found in the basement of the domus of M. Emilio Scauro (Palatino,
Rome). This area has been discussed and interpreted by some authors as a possible lupanar or a department
of thermal or external services. The ergastula examples that are often used as a reference for the large
slave italics villas are not unquestionable models. The designated areas as of slaveholding accommodation
in the villa of Settefinestre present open spaces with direct communication with common areas. Similarly,
there are elements to put in doubt the servile spaces of the well known Villa dei Volusii at Lucus Feroniae
near Rome, presenting some excessive and rich ornamented rooms to house a slave group. The rural landscape not only had large villas, but it is documented a wide range of agricultural complex consisting of farms, villulae, vici, pagi, and even different types of villae. Most of these structures are functional and residencial spaces, without representation rooms, so often lack alae, atrium and tablinum. Again I call attention to the predominantly character of this type of structures in the rural areas, as we have previously featured for the urban environment. However, the modest monumental character of these residences has generated a traditional indifference to some artistic-archaeological schools and the lower quality of the building materials has made it difficult discovers these farms. However, abundant examples of villas without symmetrical and axial plant in provincial areas provide the model of different residences in rural areas. For example, the study for Britain by D. Perring presents evidence of a wide variety of types and forms of rural structures which differs from the canonical models of villa.
Finally, I would like encourage the debate on the interpretation of the Roman domestic and production spaces which do not conform to the predominant domus or villa model. In my opinion, the social and economic component is the mechanisms that shape the domestic spaces and settlement patterns. When interpreting the archaeological remains of a farm or small peasant settlement, that do not respond to our villa, not can use only cultural arguments to explain the configuration of their spaces. We also must necessarily assess the social and economic functionality of these structures, along with the consideration of other relevant parameters among which, of course, we find the cultural. Therefore, It is important to equilibrate the excess value of public representation on the subordinate, dependent social groups living in the subsistence levels. In this popular type of houses, the venustas or firmitas (in Vitruvian terms) was invalided by the utilitas.. Molina Vidal, Jaime. (2013). "Utilitas frente a venustas: viviendas populares de la antigua Roma". In this paper I present the large typological variety of residential spaces that occur in ancient Rome, both in rural and urban environments. This complexity contradicts the consolidated image of the aristocratic house converted into a paradigm for research. The frequent articulation of spaces from the atrium-alae-tablinum
nucleus, as a unique model of organization of domestic spaces, must be adjusted to their social context: Roman oligarchies. Who is going to build a House with tablinum and alae if these are dependencies where are located the family essences (records, documents, files, memories) and in which families is the main act of social representation of pater? Necessarily only oligarchic classes will require that kind of spaces, and without statistics, we can say that they were a minority, given the nature of unequal Roman society.
The vast majority of the population was common people without the social needs related to public life. At the same time, this image is linked to the historiographical tendency to project oligarchic models from the present to the past. The Roman Empire in this case, is presented as a society that seemed overly opulent and idle. The recent research, mainly from the archaeological perspective, approach issues relating to Roman society and the articulation of their domestic spaces in a more equilibrated way. The problem is that most of the population did
of the current research, have contributed to consolidate an agricultural landscape occupied by large and luxurious villae. However, this rural landscape has been characterized in a way confusing, mixing different types of villas: suburban, slave, colonial, villas strictly recreational or imperial villas, commercial farms and large estates. On the opposite side of the Roman rural housing structures are those devoted to the slaves, incorrectly
referred to generically as ergastula, a term that Columella (I, 6. 3) strictly defined as punishment cells
for slaves, and not exactly to their homes. This type of rooms would be simpler accommodation and that
they would mark the lowest social level. But their identification is difficult and conflictual, as they are
very poorly known structures and with very dubious archaeological models. In urban context, I include
the possible area of servile residence found in the basement of the domus of M. Emilio Scauro (Palatino,
Rome). This area has been discussed and interpreted by some authors as a possible lupanar or a department
of thermal or external services. The ergastula examples that are often used as a reference for the large
slave italics villas are not unquestionable models. The designated areas as of slaveholding accommodation
in the villa of Settefinestre present open spaces with direct communication with common areas. Similarly,
there are elements to put in doubt the servile spaces of the well known Villa dei Volusii at Lucus Feroniae near Rome, presenting some excessive and rich ornamented rooms to house a slave group. The rural landscape not only had large villas, but it is documented a wide range of agricultural complex consisting of farms, villulae, vici, pagi, and even different types of villae. Most of these structures are functional and residencial spaces, without representation rooms, so often lack alae, atrium and tablinum. Again I call attention to the predominantly character of this type of structures in the rural areas, as we have previously featured for the urban environment. However, the modest monumental character of these residences has generated a traditional indifference to some artistic-archaeological schools and the lower quality of the building materials has made it difficult discovers these farms. However, abundant examples of villas without symmetrical and axial plant in provincial areas provide the model of different residences in rural areas. For example, the study for Britain by D. Perring presents evidence of a wide variety of types and forms of rural structures which differs from the canonical models of villa.
Finally, I would like encourage the debate on the interpretation of the Roman domestic and production spaces which do not conform to the predominant domus or villa model. In my opinion, the social and economic component is the mechanisms that shape the domestic spaces and settlement patterns. When interpreting the archaeological remains of a farm or small peasant settlement, that do not respond to our villa, not can use only cultural arguments to explain the configuration of their spaces. We also must necessarily assess the social and economic functionality of these structures, along with the consideration of other relevant parameters among which, of course, we find the cultural. Therefore, It is important to equilibrate the excess value of public representation on the subordinate, dependent social groups living in the subsistence levels. In this popular type of houses, the venustas or firmitas (in Vitruvian terms) was invalided by the utilitas.
nucleus, as a unique model of organization of domestic spaces, must be adjusted to their social context: Roman oligarchies. Who is going to build a House with tablinum and alae if these are dependencies where are located the family essences (records, documents, files, memories) and in which families is the main act of social representation of pater? Necessarily only oligarchic classes will require that kind of spaces, and without statistics, we can say that they were a minority, given the nature of unequal Roman society.
The vast majority of the population was common people without the social needs related to public life. At the same time, this image is linked to the historiographical tendency to project oligarchic models from the present to the past. The Roman Empire in this case, is presented as a society that seemed overly opulent and idle. The recent research, mainly from the archaeological perspective, approach issues relating to Roman society and the articulation of their domestic spaces in a more equilibrated way. The problem is that most of the population did
not live in the housing model commonly projected by historiographic production, but in popular housing that written sources associated with terms like home, tuguria, insulae, cenaculae or villulae. After characterize
these living spaces from written sources, we will contrast them with various examples provided by
archaeology. The house of Graticcio in Herculano or houses type Hoffmann of modest dimensions provides
some examples. This type does not have lobby and opens in a quadrangular space presumably associable
to the so-called atrium testudinatum, that would not be proper of an atrium, but a room of versatile functions,
given that articulates not rooms to its around. They do not present tablinum or alae, displacing the living
areas to an upper floor. I present the detailed case of Ostia characterized by the abundance of buildings and dwellings of modest dimensions and apartments (cenaculae), insulae, or humble living structures. I draw attention to the “story” buildings and called “apartments with separating” characterized by the replacement of the atrium by a distributor space (medianum) which configures an asymmetric flow direction (Hermansen 1982: 18-24). This type of houses has modest size (100-120 m2 on average), with a limited number of rooms (3-6) and partially lit by exterior windows. At the same time I accompany these statements with statistical data from Pompeii and Herculaneum which establish in a reliable manner that aristocratic housing models are minority. We can not ignore the projected image of Rome built in height and heavily depleted much of its urban layout and buildings. Situation and image which the archaeological record confirms. The nest part is devoted to the servile spaces and humble homes in the agricultural field: villas, farms and villulae. This section begins by highlighting the predominantly productive character of the villa rustica, a structure that also houses domestic spaces that have been used to articulate the oligarchic model of agricultural holding: sumptuous ornamentation, monumental, with rich areas dedicated to the otium.
This type of structures presents a separation between
the productive (rustic, usufruct) and residential (urban) parts from the Early Empire. Even the part asthe dominus housing presents a division of functions: representation (around the atrium and tablinum),private (cubicula, triclinia, oeci, etc.) as well as hot springs and other areas of entertainment. Both
written sources (Cato, Varro, Columella, Plinio the younger,...), as the predominantly artistic tradition of
romantic archaeology, present even in large sections
of the current research, have contributed to consolidate an agricultural landscape occupied by large and luxurious villae. However, this rural landscape has been characterized in a way confusing, mixing different types of villas: suburban, slave, colonial, villas strictly recreational or imperial villas, commercial farms and large estates. On the opposite side of the Roman rural housing structures are those devoted to the slaves, incorrectly
referred to generically as ergastula, a term that Columella (I, 6. 3) strictly defined as punishment cells
for slaves, and not exactly to their homes. This type of rooms would be simpler accommodation and that
they would mark the lowest social level. But their identification is difficult and conflictual, as they are
very poorly known structures and with very dubious archaeological models. In urban context, I include
the possible area of servile residence found in the basement of the domus of M. Emilio Scauro (Palatino,
Rome). This area has been discussed and interpreted by some authors as a possible lupanar or a department
of thermal or external services. The ergastula examples that are often used as a reference for the large
slave italics villas are not unquestionable models. The designated areas as of slaveholding accommodation
in the villa of Settefinestre present open spaces with direct communication with common areas. Similarly,
there are elements to put in doubt the servile spaces of the well known Villa dei Volusii at Lucus Feroniae
near Rome, presenting some excessive and rich ornamented rooms to house a slave group. The rural landscape not only had large villas, but it is documented a wide range of agricultural complex consisting of farms, villulae, vici, pagi, and even different types of villae. Most of these structures are functional and residencial spaces, without representation rooms, so often lack alae, atrium and tablinum. Again I call attention to the predominantly character of this type of structures in the rural areas, as we have previously featured for the urban environment. However, the modest monumental character of these residences has generated a traditional indifference to some artistic-archaeological schools and the lower quality of the building materials has made it difficult discovers these farms. However, abundant examples of villas without symmetrical and axial plant in provincial areas provide the model of different residences in rural areas. For example, the study for Britain by D. Perring presents evidence of a wide variety of types and forms of rural structures which differs from the canonical models of villa.
Finally, I would like encourage the debate on the interpretation of the Roman domestic and production spaces which do not conform to the predominant domus or villa model. In my opinion, the social and economic component is the mechanisms that shape the domestic spaces and settlement patterns. When interpreting the archaeological remains of a farm or small peasant settlement, that do not respond to our villa, not can use only cultural arguments to explain the configuration of their spaces. We also must necessarily assess the social and economic functionality of these structures, along with the consideration of other relevant parameters among which, of course, we find the cultural. Therefore, It is important to equilibrate the excess value of public representation on the subordinate, dependent social groups living in the subsistence levels. In this popular type of houses, the venustas or firmitas (in Vitruvian terms) was invalided by the utilitas.. Molina Vidal, Jaime. (2013). "Utilitas frente a venustas: viviendas populares de la antigua Roma". In this paper I present the large typological variety of residential spaces that occur in ancient Rome, both in rural and urban environments. This complexity contradicts the consolidated image of the aristocratic house converted into a paradigm for research. The frequent articulation of spaces from the atrium-alae-tablinum
nucleus, as a unique model of organization of domestic spaces, must be adjusted to their social context: Roman oligarchies. Who is going to build a House with tablinum and alae if these are dependencies where are located the family essences (records, documents, files, memories) and in which families is the main act of social representation of pater? Necessarily only oligarchic classes will require that kind of spaces, and without statistics, we can say that they were a minority, given the nature of unequal Roman society.
The vast majority of the population was common people without the social needs related to public life. At the same time, this image is linked to the historiographical tendency to project oligarchic models from the present to the past. The Roman Empire in this case, is presented as a society that seemed overly opulent and idle. The recent research, mainly from the archaeological perspective, approach issues relating to Roman society and the articulation of their domestic spaces in a more equilibrated way. The problem is that most of the population did
not live in the housing model commonly projected by historiographic production, but in popular housing that written sources associated with terms like home, tuguria, insulae, cenaculae or villulae. After characterize these living spaces from written sources, we will contrast them with various examples provided by archaeology. The house of Graticcio in Herculano or houses type Hoffmann of modest dimensions provides some examples. This type does not have lobby and opens in a quadrangular space presumably associable to the so-called atrium testudinatum, that would not be proper of an atrium, but a room of versatile functions, given that articulates not rooms to its around. They do not present tablinum or alae, displacing the living areas to an upper floor. I present the detailed case of Ostia characterized by the abundance of buildings and dwellings of modest dimensions and apartments (cenaculae), insulae, or humble living structures. I draw attention to the “story” buildings and called “apartments with separating” characterized by the replacement of the atrium by a distributor space (medianum) which configures an asymmetric flow direction (Hermansen 1982: 18-24). This type of houses has modest size (100-120 m2 on average), with a limited number of rooms (3-6) and partially lit by exterior windows. At the same time I accompany these statements with statistical data from Pompeii and Herculaneum which establish in a reliable manner that aristocratic housing models are minority. We can not ignore the projected image of Rome built in height and heavily depleted much of its urban layout and buildings. Situation and image which the archaeological record confirms. The nest part is devoted to the servile spaces and humble homes in the agricultural field: villas, farms and villulae. This section begins by highlighting the predominantly productive character of the villa rustica, a structure that also houses domestic spaces that have been used to articulate the oligarchic model of agricultural holding: sumptuous ornamentation, monumental, with rich areas dedicated to the otium.
This type of structures presents a separation between the productive (rustic, usufruct) and residential (urban) parts from the Early Empire. Even the part asthe dominus housing presents a division of functions: representation (around the atrium and tablinum),private (cubicula, triclinia, oeci, etc.) as well as hot springs and other areas of entertainment. Both written sources (Cato, Varro, Columella, Plinio the younger,...), as the predominantly artistic tradition of
romantic archaeology, present even in large sectionsof the current research, have contributed to consolidate an agricultural landscape occupied by large and luxurious villae. However, this rural landscape has been characterized in a way confusing, mixing different types of villas: suburban, slave, colonial, villas strictly recreational or imperial villas, commercial farms and large estates. On the opposite side of the Roman rural housing structures are those devoted to the slaves, incorrectly
referred to generically as ergastula, a term that Columella (I, 6. 3) strictly defined as punishment cells
for slaves, and not exactly to their homes. This type of rooms would be simpler accommodation and that
they would mark the lowest social level. But their identification is difficult and conflictual, as they are
very poorly known structures and with very dubious archaeological models. In urban context, I include
the possible area of servile residence found in the basement of the domus of M. Emilio Scauro (Palatino,
Rome). This area has been discussed and interpreted by some authors as a possible lupanar or a department
of thermal or external services. The ergastula examples that are often used as a reference for the large
slave italics villas are not unquestionable models. The designated areas as of slaveholding accommodation
in the villa of Settefinestre present open spaces with direct communication with common areas. Similarly,
there are elements to put in doubt the servile spaces of the well known Villa dei Volusii at Lucus Feroniae near Rome, presenting some excessive and rich ornamented rooms to house a slave group. The rural landscape not only had large villas, but it is documented a wide range of agricultural complex consisting of farms, villulae, vici, pagi, and even different types of villae. Most of these structures are functional and residencial spaces, without representation rooms, so often lack alae, atrium and tablinum. Again I call attention to the predominantly character of this type of structures in the rural areas, as we have previously featured for the urban environment. However, the modest monumental character of these residences has generated a traditional indifference to some artistic-archaeological schools and the lower quality of the building materials has made it difficult discovers these farms. However, abundant examples of villas without symmetrical and axial plant in provincial areas provide the model of different residences in rural areas. For example, the study for Britain by D. Perring presents evidence of a wide variety of types and forms of rural structures which differs from the canonical models of villa.
Finally, I would like encourage the debate on the interpretation of the Roman domestic and production spaces which do not conform to the predominant domus or villa model. In my opinion, the social and economic component is the mechanisms that shape the domestic spaces and settlement patterns. When interpreting the archaeological remains of a farm or small peasant settlement, that do not respond to our villa, not can use only cultural arguments to explain the configuration of their spaces. We also must necessarily assess the social and economic functionality of these structures, along with the consideration of other relevant parameters among which, of course, we find the cultural. Therefore, It is important to equilibrate the excess value of public representation on the subordinate, dependent social groups living in the subsistence levels. In this popular type of houses, the venustas or firmitas (in Vitruvian terms) was invalided by the utilitas.
Otras noticias interesantes del Blog
|
Otros artículos de Interés
|
Espectacular post:
ResponderEliminarpuede seguir lecciones de Autocad 2020 en: https://youtu.be/aiTbDKH2ihg