the accuracy of re-created Roman houses and villas in northwestern Europe and the justifications ...

498 Pages·2014·15.06 MB·English

Re-creating the past: the accuracy of re-created Roman houses
and villas in northwestern Europe and the justifications for their
creation
Martina-Sara Mueller-Zaugg
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Humanities
The University of Western Australia
2012

Abstract
Despitetheongoingpopularityofre-createdbuildings,includingthoseoftheRoman
period, they have been at the centre of much controversy. Not only the damage to
authentic remains caused by those built in situ, but also the conjectural character
of all such structures has been the focus of debates. This thesis investigates how
re-created buildings have been justified at sites concerned with the Roman period,
and how accurately such buildings reflect the ancient reality. Based on re-created
Roman houses and villas from eight different sites in northwestern Europe, including
in situ and ex situ buildings, the main reasons for re-creation are identified and
discussed; these range from presentation, interpretation, education and tourism to
research and experiment, use and re-use, TV production and, controversially, even
site preservation. An additional focal point is the Public Inquiry at South Shields in
1984 which was held in response to the planned re-creation of the west gate of the
Roman fort. It provides a rare insight into the justifications used for such a project
and the concerns raised against it.
Focusing on three features – ground plans, windows and wall paintings, the
question of accuracy is investigated by exploring the sources available for each of
these features and by comparing them with the re-created reality. The analysis not
only reveals how much information could be derived from the excavated building
usedasthemainprototype,butalsoidentifiesthedetailsforwhichadditionalsources
hadtobeconsidered.Theinvestigationexposesthefeatureswhichdonotcorrespond
with the original prototype despite evidence being available, and it shows that many
details which could not be derived from the prototype are based on very few sources
or on sources from the Mediterranean, or both. Finally, the inquiry highlights the
architectural and decorative elements which are subject to interpretation and those
which are freely adapted or even invented. The findings show that concerns about
the conjectural character of such structures are justified, particularly in the case of
buildings from the Roman period. For the first time such arguments can be based
on the detailed research results provided in this thesis.
– 1 –
Contents
Acknowledgements 5
Third Party Copyright 7
List of Figures 8
Part I – Text 33
1 Introduction 35
1.1 Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.2 Scope and method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.3 Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.4 Thesis structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.5 Research history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1.6 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
1.6.1 Re-creation, reconstruction and other terms . . . . . . . . . . 56
1.6.2 Authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
1.7 In situ re-creations and conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
1.7.1 Conservation theory and principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
1.7.2 Conservation principles vs. conservation practice . . . . . . . . 64
1.7.3 Ex situ re-creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
1.8 Constraints on accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
1.8.1 Outside factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
1.8.2 Choice of sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2 Justifications: The Public Inquiry at South Shields 79
2.1 The main aspects of the inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
– 2 –
2.2 Objections against the proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
2.2.1 Damage to remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.2.2 Permanent concealment of remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.2.3 Not enough evidence for re-creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.2.4 Large amount of conjecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.2.5 Visitors might take the re-creation for the original . . . . . . . 86
2.2.6 Cost of maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.2.7 Precedence would be set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.3 Justifications for the proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
2.3.1 Responses to concerns of opponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.3.2 Need for attractive means of interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2.3.3 Success of re-creations at other sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2.3.4 Tourism and its economic and social benefits . . . . . . . . . . 91
2.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3 Justifications for Roman Houses and Villas 95
3.1 Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.1.1 Providing a comprehensive picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.1.2 Appeal to the general public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.2 Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.3 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
3.4 Research and experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.5 Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
3.6 TV production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.7 Use and re-use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
3.8 Site preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4 Accuracy of Ground Plans 139
4.1 Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.1.1 Town houses – Augusta Raurica and Carnuntum . . . . . . . 141
4.1.2 Guest house with baths – Xanten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
4.1.3 Military house – Arbeia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
– 3 –
4.2 Villas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.2.1 Portico villa – Butser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4.2.2 Winged-corridor villas – Aubechies and Hechingen-Stein . . . 173
4.2.3 Palatial villa with three ranges – Borg . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4.3 Contentious inferences from ground plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.3.1 Upper storeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
4.3.2 Open or enclosed porticoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
4.3.3 Halls or yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
4.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
5 Accuracy of Windows 205
5.1 Position and size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
5.2 Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
5.3 Jambs, lintels and sills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5.4 Glazed windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
5.4.1 Window glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.4.2 Single and double glazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.4.3 Frequency of glazed windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.4.4 Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
5.4.5 Movable windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
5.5 Grilles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
5.5.1 Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
5.5.2 Simple metal grilles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
5.5.3 Metal or wooden grilles with crosses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
5.5.4 Terracotta grilles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
5.6 Shutters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
5.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
6 Accuracy of Wall Paintings 251
6.1 The state of the evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
6.1.1 Preservation of sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
6.1.2 Restoration of sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
6.2 Provenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
– 4 –
6.2.1 Italian sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
6.2.2 Mosaics as sources for wall paintings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.2.3 Sources from the provinces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
6.2.4 No specific source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
6.3 Dating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
6.3.1 Contemporary decorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
6.3.2 Borderline cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
6.3.3 Decorations from other time periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
6.4 Building type and room function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
6.5 Extent of decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
6.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
7 Summary and Conclusions 317
Appendix A 329
Appendix B 331
Bibliography 333
Part II – Supplemental Figures 381
– 5 –
Acknowledgements
This thesis, which started in Perth and was finished in Sydney, owes its completion
to the support and encouragement of many people. First of all I would like to thank
my supervisor David Kennedy for suggesting the topic and for bearing with me
through all the complications caused by my relocation to the big city on the other
side of the continent. He always responded swiftly to my requests and questions,
read my drafts and provided much appreciated comments and suggestions. I am
grateful for all his support and enthusiasm. I would also like to thank my external
supervisor Ina Kehrberg-Ostrasz for taking care of me in Sydney, for reading and
commenting on my thesis and for the many stimulating chats we had on my topic
in specific and on archaeology in general. I am indebted to John Melville-Jones for
looking after all the forms when necessary and for his invaluable advice to limit the
initial scope of my thesis. He was so right.
The thesis would not have been written had I not been able to visit all the
sites discussed in this study. Various trips to Europe were generously supported by
the Don Boyer Roman Archaeology Scholarship (2007), the UWA Grant for Re-
search Student Training GRST (2010), the Rodney R. T. Prider Travel Scholarship
(2011) as well as by grants from the School of Humanities and the Graduate Re-
search School at the University of Western Australia. I am deeply thankful for all
this support which also enabled me to conduct research at the State Archives of
Basel and to attend and present parts of my thesis at conferences. Most of all I am
immensely grateful for having been granted an International Postgraduate Research
Scholarship.
During my field trips several people in charge of re-creation sites kindly made
time available to meet me and to provide invaluable information: Gerhard Weber at
– 6 –
Kempten, Peter Kienzle at Xanten, Egon Schallmayer and Carsten Amrhein at the
Saalburg (Bad Homburg), Bettina Birkenhagen and Gerd Schmitt at Borg, Donald
Offers at Augusta Raurica, Paul Bidwell at Arbeia, Simon Jay at Butser and Bar-
bara Berry at the Lunt in Baginton. Although not all of the sites I visited were
ultimately chosen for discussion, I am deeply thankful for the insight I was able to
gain during these meetings and for everything else that was generously provided,
including unpublished material, plans, drawings and books. Those people whom I
contacted afterwards patiently responded to all my additional questions, like many
others who replied to my repeated requests for information, including Franz Humer,
Karl F. Gollmann and Eduard Pollhammer from Carnuntum, Alex R. Furger and
Beat Ru¨tti from Augusta Raurica and Stephan Schmidt-Lawrenz from Hechingen-
Stein.
I would also like to thank Elke L¨ohnig who opened the archives at the Saalburg
for me, Paul Austen for his generous advice on Hadrian’s Wall and Stefanie Martin-
Kilcher who was most helpful in pointing me to the State Archives of Basel-Stadt,
where I indeed found a wealth of additional material on the Roman House at Au-
gusta Raurica. I am also indebted to Ju¨rg Ewald who was so kind to inquire about
the estate of Alban Gerster. Roeland Paardekooper not only provided invaluable
information, contact addresses and articles about the topic, but he also most gen-
erously offered his assistance during my visits to Europe. The staff at the Graduate
ResearchOfficeandmygraduateresearchco-ordinatorsattheUniversityofWestern
Australia have been of great help, and I would particularly like to thank Michael
Azariadis and Rob Stuart for their support. Glenys Wootton, Sandra Ottley and
Barbara Pauk made sure that I had something to laugh about and that my coffee
intake remained steady whenever I was in Perth. Everything is greatly appreciated.
My husband Sam was the one who encouraged me to write this thesis and
to him I owe more than I can express. I thank him for listening when I needed to
talk, for reading and commenting on several of my chapters and for insisting that I
use LaTeX to write this study. Most of all I thank him for his love, friendship and
support and for being there every step of the way.