rome assignment

Jonathan Auty i7934415 BA Prehistoric & Roman Archaeology

Rome & Barbarian Europe Assignment 1:

The Roman Domus

Figure 1: Reconstruction painting of Woodchester Villa by Steve Smith (Johnston 2004, p.24)

By Jonathan Auty

i7934415

4322145

Ba Prehistoric & Roman Archaeology

Level I

Word count: 2,766

Pages: 10

1


Rome & Barbarian Europe Assignment 1

1. Describe in detail the major architectural elements of the Roman house of Woodchester Villa, Stroud, Gloucestershire. Explain, with extensive use of illustrations (drawings, plans elevations, photographs), the basic function of each room in the house as determined by archaeologists and / or historians (from the position of furniture, room outlook, internal décor etc) and argue whether or not you agree with the interpretations put forward. How, in your opinion, would the various internal elements of the house have worked (i.e. can you determine discrete social / business / official / entertainment / private areas within the ground plan) and what would you have experienced (i.e. what rooms would you have seen) as a visiting dignitary or private dinner guest? Is it possible to determine, from the archaeological evidence alone, what type of person would have lived and worked within the house?

The Roman Empire has left a distinct and lasting impression on Britain even though it was the last territory to be conquered and incorporated into the Empire and the occupation lasted for only a few hundred years. As for their presence within the archaeological record, they are represented mainly by the buildings and infrastructure they left behind such as forts, towns and cities, roads and town houses and villas. An example of a Roman “Domus” or house is Woodchester Roman villa in Gloucestershire, is not the normal type of villa that springs to mind due to it being a courtyard villa which are rare in Britain and it is certainly not lacking in grandeur despite their being nothing visible at present above ground. However, if you scratch the surface of the “villa field”, you will find a villa consisting of 3 courtyards easily big enough to contend with Fishbourne Roman Palace and possibly even Bignor.

A. Describe in detail the major architectural elements of the Roman house

Figure 2: A simple plan of the villa (Johnston 2004, p.25)

Woodchester Roman villa consists of a three court yarded villa. The first one comprises of a quadrangular winged villa measuring 30.94 metres square and which encloses a 27.43m by 28.4m (F.S.A 1973, p8) inner courtyard. The villa was entered from the south through a corridor between 2 large halls (rooms 26-27) in front of the

2


villa stretched the central courtyard (48.10m by 42.97m) which contains two outbuildings on the west and east side which are mainly used for agricultural and industrial purposes, although the eastern outbuilding contains a small “bath suite” (Clark et al. 1982, p.203). There is also a gatehouse which leads onto the third courtyard (the outer courtyard) which is made up of a western range which little is known about apart from it featuring on Samuel Lysons plan of the Villa from 1815 and only part of the eastern range was located and excavated in the 1970’s.

The northern wing of the villa consists of several high status rooms such as room 1 which contains the largest mosaic in the UK “and in Europe north of the Alps” (Johnston 2004, p.26) and the most intact one on the site which was known by Lysons as “The Great Pavement” (Mann 1963) and is also known as the Orpheus mosaic and is 15 m long. This room also contains under floor heating and fragments of wall plaster were found during the 1970’s excavations. Eight of the rooms in the north wing alone contain mosaics. The wings of the villa are connected by three interconnecting corridors containing windows looking out onto the courtyard. The mosaics in the northern and eastern corridor are still in existence whilst the western mosaic has disappeared. It has been suggested that the northern wing was used for entertaining, whilst the west and east were residential buildings containing mosaics, hypocausts, heating and highly decorative designs within the rooms. The south wing of the villa is dominated by 3 large halls, one of which, room 25, is possibly a granary while the other two may have been used for administrative purposes. The main bathhouse has not been located yet, however, it has been suggested that it may be situated above the north eastern corner of the villa where several walls have been located. Most of this land is dominated by the parish church and hence has not been excavated. However, it is probable that it may be located here due to the fact that the water conduit (Clark et al. 1982, p.216) is heading in that direction and also tesserae cubes have been found along with evidence of burning. It is not uncommon for bathhouses to catch fire which is why they were usually built slightly away from the villa or erected separately to protect the rest of the property from the potential fire risk. The Villa itself seems to have gone through at least three separate phases of occupation

B. Explain, with extensive use of illustrations (drawings, plans elevations, photographs), the basic function of rooms in the house as determined by archaeologists and / or historians

3


Figure 3:The Great Pavement Restored by Samuel Lysons (F.S.A 1973, p.3)

Room 1 is the most well-known room in the villa and is situated at the centre of the north wing. It has been suggested due to its large size (15metres square) and the Orpheus mosaic within the room that it may have been used as an audience chamber. However, the lack of administrative finds disproves this theory and it has been suggested that it is more likely to be a dining room (F.S.A 1973, p.8) or reception room for feasting and merrymaking. The latter suggestion is due to the fact that it has a heated floor and that Orpheus is depicted which hints at the fact that either music was played or poetry performed in this room as a form of entertainment at a feast. The western door of room 1 leads to a corridor (room 8) which leads to room 10. It has been suggested that this room acted as a winter dining room due to the fact that its walls are thicker (“2 feet thick”(O’Neil 1955, p.174) than the rest of the house and also it has hypocaust and under floor heating which would keep the room warm throughout the winter months. Room 31 and 32 provide evidence of an earlier phase of the villa dating back to the Flavian or Trajanic period because the remains of an early bath suite have been found underneath present rooms.

Another area of interest is the eastern outbuilding because Samuel Lysons stated that room 38-40 were part of a Bath suite. It has been suggested that room 38 “had a concrete floor, and in the north-east corner Lysons recorded a basin hollowed out in the floor, from which a lead pipe passed through the external wall of the building.”

4


(Clark et al. 1982, p.203) It has been suggested that this was the hot room. From room 38 a passage ran to rooms 39 and 40. Room 39 has a concrete floor and the hypocaust and heating system below with its pipes is still intact and it has been suggested by Lysons that this was the laconicum (the Spartan style of dry sweating room). As for room 40, it is situated well below the level of the other two rooms. It consists of a “ledge along its south wall and two stone steps in the north-west corner. Lysons suggested that this room was a cold bath” (Witts 1883) or frigidarium. However the rest of the building has been identified as a granary and hence they might be rooms involved in the fermenting process rather than bathing.

C. Argue whether or not you agree with the interpretations put forward.

For the larger part I agree with the interpretation of room 1 that has been put forward by the antiquarian Samuel Lysons and Giles Clarke. However, as for Lysons’ interpretation of the doorways into room 1, it is obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of archaeology that there are in fact four doors into the room (Clark et al. 1982, p.199).

Figure 4: A portion of the Orpheus mosaic with Colum base (Johnston 2004, p.25)

Furthermore I have concerns as to Samuel’s interpretation of a domed roof as there are relatively few buttresses and also I don’t think that the 4 columns with wooden poles sticking out of the mosaic would be able to hold the weight of such a dome. As for room 10, I think that the interpretation of the room’s use is likely to be fairly accurate and no other substantive interpretations have been suggested by other historians or archaeologists. In regard to the purpose of rooms 31 and 32, I agree with the interpretation of the suggested use of the room as an early bath house. However, the suggestion that it could have been used as a bathhouse for the rest of the period of existence of the villa is open to question and I believe is a misinterpretation. As the villa grew in size and importance this small bath suite would be unlikely to serve the needs of a roman family let alone guests because it is extremely small and there are not enough amenities present for a ‘proper’ roman bath.

As for the interpretations of room 38-40 as a “bathing suite” (Clark et al. 1982, p.203) I am not entirely convinced as to the validity of this suggestion provided by Samuel

5


Lysons because the eastern outbuilding in plan looks more like an agricultural or industrial building. Even though aisled halls often did contain bath suites I believe there is stronger evidence to the contrary. Recently several of his peers have re-evaluated the evidence and “Morris has described Room 39 as a furnace or kiln”(Current Archaeology 1998) and “Applebaum has interpreted the rooms in terms of a malting establishment, steeping taking place in Room 38, drying in Room 39, and cooling in Room 40. Applebaum's suggestion would be consistent with the supposed granary in Room 42, but is as yet unsupported by comparative evidence. In the present state of knowledge definite interpretation of these rooms is not possible” (Clark et al. 1982, p.204).

D. How, in your opinion, would the various internal elements of the house have worked (i.e. can you determine discrete social / business / official / entertainment / private areas within the ground plan)

The elements of the house which can mainly be associated with the business aspects and day to day running of the villa are the western and eastern outbuilding of the central courtyard and the western range of the outer courtyard which would have been used for agricultural and industrial purposes. The Eastern Central outbuilding even contains a bath suite for the workers to clean themselves at the end of a hard day’s work. Also two coal burning ovens have been found in the central courtyard to the left of the gatehouse which shows industrial processes at work. It has been suggested that room 25 may have been a granary at one point as well. There also seems to be a clear southerly demarcation between this part of the villa and the inner courtyard where other activities took place. However the missing bathhouse would also have been used as a place to discuss business whilst relaxing in comfort and style. As for as the official side of the villa you would be met at the gatehouse (rooms 47-9) by a representative of the villa who would take you to one of the two big halls (room 26+27) after you had stated your business at the gatehouse. It has been suggested that rooms 26 and 27 were used as audience chambers and meeting places where official business (Mann 1963) would be discussed (rather like the way the basilica in the town would be used.) These two halls were highly decorated and to reach them you would have had to go through an impressive arch, the entrance to the inner courtyard, it must have been a very daunting and grandiose prospect to enter.

Several of the rooms within the house will have been used for private functions and it has been suggested in The Roman Villa at Woodchester by Mann that the North wing of the Villa was used solely by the family who owned the villa. Also room 10 the winter dining room would have been mainly used by the family for meals rather than using room 1 which would have only have been used when guests were present. Also the bathhouse would have been used by the family. For social purposes, the dining room (room 1) would have been mainly used along with the baths and room 5 and 3 which acted as small rooms for entertaining people. Room 1 would have been used for important social events including feasting and celebrating. The west and east wings of the villa would have been used for residential purposes to accommodate large numbers of guests and also the bathhouse would have been in regular use by visitors to the owner and his family.

6


E. What would you have experienced (i.e. what rooms would you have seen) as a visiting dignitary or private dinner guest?

Figure 5: A picture of David Neal’s 1972 recreation of what survives of the Orpheus Mosaic (Current Archaeology 1998)

As a visiting dignitary you would have been greeted with pomp and ceremony at the gatehouse and then processed on horseback or in a wagon to the entrance of the inner courtyard where you would be met by an impressive extravagant red tile fronted building with a massive colonnaded arch. The dignitary would then have walked down an entrance corridor with marble floors , columns on both sides and several statues in niches such as the statue of Diana Luna and the statue of Cupid and Pysche. He then would have been shown into one of the halls probably room 26 due to the fact that it is the grander of the 2 halls and is also bigger where he would have been met with a spacious room of opulent furnishing and decoration where he would conduct his business and dispense justice or entertain people. If he stayed for dinner then they would have seen the dining room with its painted walls, grandiose Orpheus mosaic and a spacious room possibly with a domed ceiling supported by four slender columns. If the dignitary was an overnight visitor then he would probably have been given room 22 which is the biggest of the guest quarters in the western range and has heated flooring, hypocaust and wall painting and excellent views of the countryside. Clearly he would have used the bathhouse during his visit.

7


Figure 6: Statue of Diana Luna and Statue of Cupid & Pysche (Clark et al. 1982, p.230)

It is also likely that the private dinner guest he would have seen the opulent dining room with its Orpheus Mosaic and domed roof. As to whether he would have seen the rest of the villa this depends on two things one if he was someone important who they were trying to entice as a business contact or a friend of the family then they would have stayed the night and seen the entire villa and probably some of the estate. There would have been much feasting involved and they would have used the baths. However if it was an informal visit they may have only seen the dining room because it can be entered from a door in the back wall of the North wing hence bypassing the rest of the villa. If the owner or guest wanted to keep their visit private then they could have stayed in room 6 or 3 which are accessed through connecting doors from the dining room.

F. Is it possible to determine, from the archaeological evidence alone, what type of person would have lived and worked within the house?

Over the years there has been extensive debate and discussion over who owned Woodchester Roman Villa. Unfortunately, we have no datable evidence that attests to the identity of the owner of the villa. This is in contrast to, for example, Piddington Villa in Northamptonshire where two tile stamps name two different owners of that property. Originally it was thought that this villa was built in one phase however due to Britannia’s 1982 article, The Roman Villa at Woodchester by Giles Clarke that is no longer the case and hence we are now looking for at least three owners, possibly more due to the fact there are at least three distinct building phases which have now been identified.

We also have to look at the villa in a wider economic landscape due to the fact that it had good road access which connected it to four major towns Bath (Aquae Sulis), Cirencester (Corinium), Gloucester (Glevum) and Caerwent (Venta) which would have provided them with access to local markets. The nature of the landscape would suggest that the owner would probably be involved in raising sheep and trading wool

8


as well as managing the villa’s agricultural land. The villa may have belonged to an aristocrat or someone who held office or an important position in one of the nearby wealthy towns. However Cirencester did not become a major regional centre until after the last building phase had happened and hence it is unlikely that the villa owner’s wealth was a result of connections with that town.

Hence to find the villa’s owners we may have to look further afield to Gaul or certainly someone of Gallic descent because the style of statues and technique of applying mosaics points to the Mediterranean and we know from literary evidence that at the time Gauls were present in Gloucestershire. Furthermore Giles Clarke suggest that the plan of the villa is Gallic in style and that the Orpheus mosaic is similar to several found in Gaul notably the one in Trier (Clark et al. 1982, p.221). Although in my view it is more likely that it was an opulent villa built for Anted the Client King of the Dubunni or one of his descendants as representatives of a friendly tribe and ally during the Flavian dynasty. This perhaps hints at native ownership similar to Fishbourne Roman palace near Chichester which, it is suggested, was owned by Cogidubnus. I have reached this conclusion because Woodchester has so many adaptations to the traditional Gallic ‘mould’. In conclusion then, the archaeological evidence provides a number of clues as to the type of person who would have lived and worked within Woodchester villa but it is not in itself conclusive. A further excavation might perhaps provide a key piece of evidence which would identify the owner or his position in society or at least allow archaeologists to refine the possible options.

Bibliography

Clark, G., Shepherd, J.D. & Rigby, V., 1982. The Roman Villa at Woodchester. Britannia, 13, pp.197–228.

Current Archaeology, 1998. AD 300 – Roman Mosaics : Current Archaeology. Available at: http://www.archaeology.co.uk/the-timeline-of-britain/roman-mosaics.htm [Accessed March 20, 2012].

F.S.A, D.J.S., 1973. The Great pavement and Roman Villa at Woodchester Gloucestershire, Woodchester Roman Pavement Committee.

Johnston, D.E., 2004. Roman Villas 5th New ed., Shire Publications Ltd.

Mann, M.D., 1963. The Roman villa at Woodchester, Gloucestershire: An account of the Roman antiquities discovered at Woodchester, with special reference to the great “Orpheus”, pavement 1st ed., Rev.W.N.R.J.Back.

O’Neil, H.E., 1955. Woodchester Roamn Villa. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 74, pp.172–175.

Witts, G., 1883. Witts’ Handbook of Gloucestershire • Roman Villas. Available at:

9


http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Great_Britain/England/Gloucestershire/_Texts/WITGLO*/Villas.html [Accessed March 20, 2012].

10

rome assignment

Documents

woodchester roman villa

courtyard villa

villa johnston

villa field

roman empire

roman house figure

normal type of villa

roman domus figure