 |
|
D.1.4. Appendix 1. Typology of Masonry Attested to on the
Site
|
|
| 542 |
The variety of building techniques adopted at the Licenza
villa, as elsewhere, cannot be taken as evidence of the structure’s
different building phases, nor can it in itself be a necessary and
sufficient basis upon which to establish an absolute chronology. A prominent
factor in the choice of a building technique is determined by the function
of the structure to be built, especially where some building materials, such
as brick, cost more than the stone that is locally available. Hence, outside
of the city of Rome brick is not used as nonchalantly and indiscriminately
as it might be, without economic consequence, in the Urbs itself. On the contrary, in situations where there are no
particular requirements, it is often the quality of the material more easily
available that determines the choice of masonry type. Another important
factor is the technical skill of the craftsmen and how up-to-date they are
with their craft.
|
| 543 |
In our case, the materials used most frequently are the
local limestone and the stone called cardellino. [78] Bricks appear in
smaller quantities, evidently employed for particular structures. This is
indirectly confirmed by the walls that have different facings on their two
sides, which were built in this way to respond both to functional
requirements and to the need to contain costs. The tufa used at the villa
merits separate treatment. It was particularly friable and therefore is
poorly preserved, but it is attested to in various parts of the opus reticulatum structures. [79] Moreover, as is seen elsewhere, in the
case of sites that have a long and continuous occupation and are subject to
dramatic remodeling, material becomes available from demolitions, and this
material, even if it is not always of high quality, is nevertheless reused
when necessary. [80]
|
| 544 |
The foundations, where they can be analyzed, prove to have
been built directly against the baulk of the construction trench, [81] generally with stones of small and medium
size set in mortar, earth, clay, or lime. Usually they conformed to the
natural slope (e.g., MSU 4215); sometimes they are stepped (e.g., the
foundation of MSU 10008). In the residential block, in at least one case,
the foundations were built above ground, from a certain level upward, with a
facing of stones of medium and large size. The slight declivity was
regularized by using a fill to level it. [82]
|
| 545 |
In the Licenza villa, opus
reticulatum has been read by previous scholars as a clear indication
of a Horatian date, but it is necessary to stress that this is a
simplification. This technique is often assigned exclusively to the Augustan
age, but it must be remembered that it was in use at least from the end of
the second century B.C. to the second century A.D., varying in chronology
and intensity of use from one geographical area to another. In the case at
hand, we find ourselves in a region where the technique was widely used. [83]
|
| 546 |
There is no doubt that the various types of building
techniques can be broad dating elements, [84]
but since each was used over a relatively long period of time, they cannot
offer the kind of precise dating needed to establish an absolute chronology.
This can only be obtained in the cases in which archaeological stratigraphy
has furnished reliable evidence. [85] In
addition, the presence of different techniques does not indicate
unequivocally distinct phases, because the choice of technique might have
been dictated by structural and functional considerations. It is important,
therefore, to seek to identify precisely which conditions have led to the
adoption of a particular building technique and how they have affected the
life of the building. Unfortunately, in the case of Horace’s Villa, as we
have already seen, the masonry remains, destroyed and then heavily
supplemented by restorations, rarely permit such readings.
|
| 547 |
A relative chronology and an approximate absolute
chronology can only be based on a method that combines stratigraphy,
building techniques, architectural planning solutions, functional
necessities, architectonic features, fittings, and installations. It would
be methodologically unsound to derive a date from data provided by only one
of these approaches.
|
| 548 |
Thus, the typology that follows is not intended as a
chronological sequence; its purpose is simply to demonstrate the variety of
solutions used and the close association of some of them with various
structural and functional requirements. In some cases, of course, a
difference in building technique does coincide with a difference in building
phase.
|
| 549 |
Finally, it should be emphasized that only in a very few
instances has it been possible to examine the tops and sections of
structures, because they were generally covered during restoration with a
protective coping.
|
1.
Opus Incertum
| 550 |
The use of this technique is encountered in several parts
of the site: on two of the perimeter walls of the villa; in rooms 38-39-40;
in fragments of walls in the area of the bath complex; in a foundation
structure built above ground with a facing; and on the small walls of a
basin. The last two examples, strictly speaking, should not in fact be
included in this category, because they are generally built with stone and
mortar, which could better be simply described as opus
caementicium. For rooms 38-39-40 it is possible to hypothesize, at
least tentatively, that the structures were built in opus
incertum only up to a certain quota and that the upper part of the
elevation was made in a perishable material (e.g., wood and clay).
|
1.1.
Opus Incertum
with Limestone Facing
| 551 |
- MSU 10068=4007; 4202 (figs. 28 and 29)
- Areas 23, 36. Sectors IV.1 and IV.2
- Maximum visible height: ca. 0.65 m; thickness: 0.55 m
This is the lower portion of the long external wall of the western
arm of the quadriporticus, running north-south. The east face is almost
completely hidden below the present surface level and obliterated by another
foundational structure (MSU 4203, at least from what can be inferred from
the excavation of Sector IV.2); only in the northern section is a part
preserved that is still visible, on which remain some tracts of red plaster.
In contrast, the west face is uncovered. The stones are small (6-11 x 8-16
cm) and are made of local limestone. They were carefully chosen or hewn in
the form of a wedge, and laid with a certain regularity, inclined and on
edge. One can observe that close attention was devoted to the joins, which
were given a special finish after installation, being smoothed over with a
whitish mortar and concave (at least in the area that preserves them, i.e.,
Sector IV.2). This was apparently done to improve the quality of the wall,
filling in voids and presumably facilitating the adhesion of the plaster.
|
| 552 |
The wall follows the sloping course of foundation 4215 and
it is overbuilt by MSU 10056. Its western face is abutted by the buttress
piers (10061, vel sim.).
|
| 553 |
Mortar of good quality (CM 99/29, 35, 60). |
| 554 |
The construction is datable on the basis of stratigraphic
data to not before the first century B.C.
|
| 555 |
Other MSU: 10080 (cf. fig. 14);
10006 (cf. figs. 42-43); and cf. 10004 (type 5.1,
figs. 56-58).
|
1.2.
Opus Incertum
in Limestone with Some Facing Blocks of
Opus Reticulatum
| 556 |
- MSU 10014 (=620), 10016 (=420, 802), 10017 (=623, 652), 10045
(=845) (figs. 30 and 31)
- Rooms 38-39-40. Sectors I.3, I.4, I.5, I.6, I.7
- Maximum visible height: 0.35-0.90 m; thickness: 0.60 m
For MSU 10014 and 10017, only the face toward the interior of the
room can be analyzed. These are structures in opus
incertum made of limestone chunks that are of small and medium
dimensions (7-12 cm x 15-20 cm), installed more or less in horizontal
courses and perhaps consisting in part of reused material. Small rectangular
parallelepiped blocks (8-11 cm x 20-24 cm) are also found. Characteristic of
the walls is the fact that they have a band of reticulate facing blocks
(7-10 cm x 7-10 cm) laid horizontally, to signal the point at which the wall
elevation begins. MSU 10017 is an exception. It limits the room on the east
and does not exhibit this feature, although it was built at the same time as
the other walls. But in this case, too, the stones of the first course have
been set horizontally, and one shows signs of having been cut on site rather
than in the quarry (fig. 32). The foundation of MSU
10016, the only one that could be analyzed (MSU 878), consists of small
chips of limestone. It reveals the imprint of the planks, at least in one
place, which demonstrate the presence of a form within the construction
trench (fig. 33). The binding agent used was of poor
quality and has an earthy (clayey?) matrix, so that it is perhaps incorrect
to call it mortar.
|
| 557 |
The walls delimit a room with a central impluvium with piers (cf. MSU 10041), the construction of which
is datable on the basis of stratigraphy to the late Republican period.
|
| 558 |
The structures present an elevation in small blocks of
limestone and cardellino that can be associated
with various building phases and are only partly attributable to restoration
interventions.
|
1.3.
Opus Incertum
with Medium to Large Stones of Limestone and
Cardellino
| 559 |
- MSU 10078 (=3125) (fig. 34)
- Room 12. Sector III.12
- Maximum visible height: 0.70 m; maximum visible length 1.86 m;
thickness: not determinable. Only the northern face has been
analyzed.
This is a foundation structure, partially faced, resting on a
foundation built directly against the baulk of the construction trench (MSU
3127). MSU 10078 (=3125) is composed of selected stones, not worked, of
medium to large size (10-15 cm x 15-20 cm; 40-45 cm x 15-22 cm), positioned
quite irregularly. The binding is a yellowish eroded mortar of poor quality.
Many small shims are present, and in the interface with the foundation
footing a roof-tile fragment is visible. This structure, at present heavily
restored (CM 01/09), was presumably meant to be buried, serving to level the
slope as part of the terracing of the residence block. In the absence of
stratigraphic data it is impossible to confirm with certainty that it did
not have an independent phase as a free-standing, raised wall, which was
later reused as a foundation structure. From the point of view of relative
chronology, it falls after the structures MSU 10074 and 10075.
|
1.4.
Opus Incertum
(?) in Stone and Mortar
| 560 |
- MSU 10074 (=3107), 10075 (=3123) (fig. 35)
- Room 12. Sector III.12
- Maximum visible height: 0.79 m; maximum visible length: 2.08 m;
thickness: 0.39 m
One side having been built against the baulk of the construction
trench (controterra), it is not possible to analyze
the only facing of these walls, because it is coated with cocciopesto. Thus, it is possible that they are simply opus caementicium walls, without any kind of proper
facing.
|
| 561 |
These two small walls, only partially visible, belong to a
basin. From the top and from the gaps in the cocciopesto one can identify a non-regular facing. The stones (small
to medium dimensions) are irregular and do not present evidence of having
been worked. They prove to have been flattened more or less into horizontal
layers in a mortar that is thick, grayish and fairly strong (CM 01/05).
|
| 562 |
These walls constitute one of the first known structures
on the site, dating to the late Republican period and later obliterated by
opus reticulatum structures. Structure 10075
seems to have been already subjected to restoration in antiquity (CM 01/12).
|
2.
Opus Reticulatum
| 563 |
This technique appears to have been broadly used in the
villa, at least to judge from the large quantity of facing blocks found
during the first excavations. We have seen how these were freely used in
Pasqui’s restorations, which were at times based only on foundation remains.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that opus reticulatum
must have played an important role in one phase of the life of the villa, in
connection with a remodeling or large-scale monumentalization. Opus reticulatum was employed in the residence and
in the quadriporticus. The coigning, when present, was in small blocks of
limestone. It is likely that some of the limestone tesserae (truncated pyramids) and the blocks of the coigning were
reused, sometimes in conjunction with other techniques (cf. type 5.3 below).
|
2.1. Limestone Facing Blocks
| 564 |
- MSU 10072 (= 3117) (figs. 36 and 37)
- Room 12. Sector III.12
- Maximum visible height: 0.28 m; maximum visible length: 3.25 m;
thickness: 0.48 m
This wall segment in the residence is made with truncated pyramids
of limestone with the quadrangular base exposed, 8-9 cm per side, arranged
at a 45-degree angle with ca. 1-2 cm mortar beds. The yellowish mortar has
only a modest binding capacity (CM 99/51).
|
| 565 |
The structure must be associated with the phase in which
the site underwent a thorough reworking, with the regularization of the
natural slope and the creation of a terrace for the residence block.
|
| 566 |
Cf. MSU 10056 (=4005, 4211); MSU 10073 (=4220) with
coigning in small limestone blocks.
|
2.2. Facing Blocks in Limestone and Tufa
| 567 |
- MSU 10003 (figs. 38 and 39)
- Room 34
- Maximum visible height: 0.30 m; maximum visible length: 1.82
(west), 2.51 (east); thickness: ca. 0.74 m
The west face emerges from the ground at ca. 2.10 m higher than does
the east face, because the wall up to that level was built directly against
the baulk of the construction trench. The east face, originally coated by a
layer of cocciopesto, has undergone extensive
refacing in the recent past. The few remaining original segments have facing
blocks of limestone and two blocks in terracotta (cf. MSU 10001). The west
face preserves a course of tufa facing blocks and has a weakly cohesive
yellowish mortar (CM 99/57). The use of tufa tesserae was also encountered in other wall tracts (rooms 1, 5, 13,
17). The structure, perhaps added as a second thought during the
construction phase, is later than the terracing system of the residence in
terms of design and construction.
|
2.3. Facing Blocks in Limestone and Cotto
(Terracotta)
| 568 |
For this very particular type, refer to 5.3.3 below.
|
3.
Opus Vittatum
| 569 |
This technique was employed at the villa both by itself
and with others (opus mixtum). We discovered that
the structures made only in small blocks of limestone (3.1) are associated
exclusively with the phase in which there is extensive use of opus reticulatum. However, the use of small blocks,
even with heterogeneous materials, is attested to over a very long stretch
of time. This is because of the ease of laying the blocks and the ready
supply of stone (coming in part from demolitions). With the exception of the
type with a brick socle (3.4.3), these are generally isolated interventions,
the purpose of which was to add new features or to modify existing rooms.
|
3.1. Small Blocks of Limestone
| 570 |
- MSU 10061 (figs. 40 and 41)
- Area 36
- Maximum visible height: 0.82 m; maximum visible length: 1.20 m;
thickness: ca. 0.60 m
This is one of the buttresses set at right angles (a pettine) abutting the exterior of the west and
south wings of the quadriporticus, built at regular intervals of 2.95 m
(though different for the southern wing) and in a homogeneous manner (only
those to the north can be analyzed in elevation). The blocks are regularly
squared (18-25 cm x 7-11 cm) and laid in regular courses, with joins of
1.5-2.0 cm. The mortar (CM 99/39) is poor (macra),
yellow/light-beige in color, compact, with small river-borne inclusions
(sand and river gravel).
|
| 571 |
The buttresses, in the original portions, are preserved to
a height that reaches the level from which the opus
reticulatum wall (10056) begins, and therefore they abut only the
structure in opus incertum (10068). They presumably
rest on a bed of limestone fragments, which delimits the sewer to the east.
The building of the series of buttresses must be associated with the time
when the opus reticulatum wall (10056) was built
and thus to the arrangement of the quadriporticus as visible today.
|
| 572 |
The coigning in opus reticulatum
and the stairs of room 34 were also built in small limestone blocks.
|
| 573 |
Owing to the extensive restorations, it is difficult to
give an opinion regarding the structures of the northwest zone of the villa
(rooms 27-30).
|
3.2. Small Blocks of
Cardellino
| 574 |
- MSU 10037
- Room 52
- Maximum visible height: 0.30 m: maximum visible length: 7.90 m;
thickness: ca. 0.60 m
A structure that runs in an east-west direction, built in small
blocks of cardellino laid in horizontal courses,
regularly bedded, is preserved to a maximum height of three courses (but the
archival photographs show clearly that it was preserved to a greater height
when discovered). The wall is joined to the analogous structure 10036
(thickness: 0.90 m). The mortar was not detectable.
|
| 575 |
The construction can be interpreted as a stairwell; it
dates to after the construction of the southwest thermal rooms, but no more
precise chronology is possible.
|
| 576 |
Other structures in small cardellino blocks include: MSU 10018 (rooms 44 and 45; only the south
face of the latter can be analyzed, but it seems to rest on another
structure in opus incertum); MSU 10050 (room 33, at
the closure of the small southern room); MSU 10060 (room 33, at the partial
closure of the apse); and MSU 10066 (Area 36).
|
3.3. Small Blocks of
Cardellino
, Limestone, and Bricks
| 577 |
- MSU 10007 (figs. 42, 43 and 44)
- Room 44
- Maximum visible height: 1.02 m; maximum visible length: 1.60 m;
thickness: ca. 0.60 m
This masonry structure is built of small blocks of limestone and
cardellino, with occasional use of brick shims.
It stands against MSU 1007, to which it is bonded by a series of masonry
mortise joints. The stones are arranged fairly regularly, but their lack of
formal homogeneity shows that they are reused (cf. type 7 below).
|
| 578 |
The structure covers two pre-existing wall segments
(10005, opus testaceum, presumably belonging to a
small wall of a praefurnium used for room 51; and
10006, opus incertum, visible only on the east
surface).
|
| 579 |
This activity is associated with a later use of the
thermal rooms, which at that point were no longer functioning as a bath.
Other analogous structures (10015; 10019; 10063) also attest to a
construction phase later than the thermal rooms, which are either modified
or obliterated by them.
|
3.4. With Brick Courses
3.4.1. With the first course in brick
| 580 |
- MSU 10042 = 810 (figs. 45 and 46)
- Room 38
- Maximum visible height: 0.42 m; dimensions: 0.61 m x 0.57 m
A pier nearly square at its base is constructed in small blocks of
cardellino (preserved for a maximum of four
courses), regularly arranged with joints between 1 and 3 cm and beds of 2
cm. The first course of the wall consists of brick (halved bessales), cut in triangles for the central part of
the pier and in rectangles at the corners; the core is made of irregular
pieces of bricks and stones. It is impossible to ascertain whether the
elevation was completely in small blocks, or if it had other courses of
brick, or was even completely different. The analogous pier 10044 was
covered by a column base (SU 612, see Camaiani et al., C.5.1.1). The excavation data
place the intervention between the second and the first century B.C. The
presence of bricks compels us to be cautious, and to lower the date to the
first century B.C. (but cf. type 4 for this question).
|
| 581 |
This pier, with other analogous piers 10041 (=1001), 10043
(=614), 10044 (=653), must have carried the compluviate roof of the atrium (see Camaiani, et al., C.5.1.1).
|
3.4.2. With double courses of brick (trimmed
roof-tiles)
| 582 |
- MSU 10057 (fig. 47)
- Room 32
This type only appears for the coigning of MSU 10057 (junction with
10054 and coigning by the two praefurnia), for
which see type 5.3.1 below.
|
3.4.3. With socle made of bricks
| 583 |
- MSU 10009=299=300=301=302 (figs. 48 and
49)
- Room 51
- Maximum visible height: 0.85 m; maximum visible length: 2.93 m;
thickness: not detectable. Only the north facing could be
analyzed.
The wall structure, running east-west, consists of a very shallow
apse built with mixed facing: a brick socle (six courses) and opus vittatum with small blocks of cardellino.
|
| 584 |
An analogous situation is encountered for MSU 10023,
which, with its apse, forms the south side of room 51. Bricks and blocks are
laid regularly, in horizontal courses. Shims are used. The dimensions of the
materials are not homogeneous (bricks vary from 17 to 27 cm in length, from
3 to 5 cm in height; the blocks range from 16 to 30 cm in length, and from 6
to 10 cm in height). Compact mortar (CM 99/50) is pale yellow in color, with
lime, sand, and volcanic elements (black grains).
|
| 585 |
We exclude in this case more than one phase for room 51,
but it seems obvious that here the material was used in a manner that was
functional and economical. MSU 10009, whose south face can unfortunately not
be analyzed, joins MSU 10020. The latter, in its original section, is faced
in brick to a higher level than the socle of MSU 10009; this must be because
it was more exposed to heat (a praefurnium, heavily
restored, opens in the wall).
|
| 586 |
We suppose, conversely, that the interior of room 51 was
completely constructed in brick, and that we therefore ought to assign this
structure to the type described at 5.2 below.
|
| 587 |
MSU 10058 is also to be attributed to the same phase and
to the same technique.
|
| 588 |
See also MSU 10004, north face; MSU 10029, east face; and
MSU 10030, south face.
|
4.
Opus Testaceum
| 589 |
We can affirm without hesitation that opus testaceum was
used on this site with a parsimony typical of localities not very close to
the city of Rome. In the economics of construction, brick is found only
where a functional need requires it. At the villa the only structure known
to have been completely built in brick is the laconicum (room 53), an original construction of notable
architectural quality with its own special requirements (cf. D.1.3.5). Otherwise, recourse
was made to brick coverings or socles (cf. type 3.4 above), and more often
to masonry constructions with walls having various facings (cf. type 5
below). This no doubt optimized the use of building materials, but it also
meant a compromise in construction quality, since the different materials
responded differently to stress.
|
| 590 |
Despite the fact that brick was used infrequently on the
site, we have examples of the most common types. Roof-tiles (tegulae), found in large quantities in the course of
the excavations, were used not only for covering the roofs, but also as wall
facing; for the subfloors of the rooms with hypocaust systems (as in room
33); in the coverings a cappuccina (drain conduits,
niches for the heating conduits of building 53, the tomb in room 40); and on
the bottom of the drain conduits. Cover-tiles (imbrices) were evidently used for roof covering, but also employed in
pairs so as to form foot-holes in the sump of the piscina; they were also recycled in the covering of the tomb in room
40. Bricks bipedales and sesquipedales were used whole or as semilateres in the arched lintels (foundation of MSU 10008 and
building 53); in the subfloors of the rooms with hypocaust systems (rooms
47, 48, 53); and on the bottom of the drain conduits. Bricks bessales (laterculi, bessales) were used whole in the piers that
supported the floor in the rooms with hypocausts, or were cut as triangles
for the masonry facing. Some half-bricks (semilateres) from bessales were also found,
cut in rectangles (VH 224, with incisions). Note in particular that VH 225,
a piece of a brick bessalis, is of a clay mixture
very similar to that of the fragments of roof-tile that carry the stamp of
M’ NAEVIUS (VH 035, VH 125, VH 135, VH 185, VH 189, VH 201), and may well
have come from the same workshop. This data could be important as a
chronological reference for the use of brick at this site (for the brick
stamps, see Filippi, D.4). In
the archaeological literature, the first examples of facings made of baked
brick in Roman architecture were traditionally dated to the Augustan age or
at the earliest to that of Caesar. At that time, however, it is likely that
only broken roof-tiles were used. The normalization in the use and of the
dimensions of real bricks (tegulae=lateres cocti),
not made out of roof-tiles, began with Tiberius and became widespread during
the first century A.D. However, for specific purposes (small piers and
floors for hypocausts), baked bricks were already in use by about the middle
of the first century B.C., in sizes that later became canonical (cf. Vitr.
X, 5); it is therefore possible that, in exceptional cases, they were also
used in masonry at that time (cf. type 3.4.1 above). The question of the use
of baked brick in the Republican period has recently been re-opened by
Coarelli [87] ; he documents the use of
this material at Fregellae (roof-tiles) for masonry structures that are
datable on a stratigraphic basis to around 300 B.C. The author provides a
reinterpretation of literary sources and of some monuments, which
demonstrate an earlier use of baked brick (tegulae
and lateres cocti in opus
testaceum) than that traditionally accepted. In this perspective,
the data from the “Villa of Horace”, in particular those from the structure
discussed in type 3.4.1 above, can contribute to the question.
|
| 591 |
Among the particular fictile items found during our
excavations, note the fragments of small tubes (tubuli) of rectangular section, for the heating system; the bricks
shaped like the arc of a circle, for the masonry columns; the small bricks
for the herringbone flooring (opus spicatum, a
fragment of which is visible in situ in Area 44);
some small squares for rustic flooring (from the garden, cf. Gleason, C.3.4.2, activity 3); and the
architectonic terracotta elements (see Strazzulla, D.5).
|
| 592 |
Lugli also mentions four fragments of “fusiform tubes for
the ribbing of small vaults” (col. 568) and documents the use of roof-tiles,
with nails for spacing and fastening, as wall facing revetments that created
a hollow space in-between. In fact, he refers to the finding of a “fragment
of roof-tile, with a hole toward one end, in which was found inserted a long
iron nail, with T-shaped head,” emphasizing that “it was used for the lining
of the calidarium.” He notes the presence of other
T-shaped nails as well (col. 567).
|
4.1. In Roof-tiles
| 593 |
- MSU 10002 (figs. 50 and 51)
- Room 33
- Maximum visible height: 1.40 m; maximum visible length: 10.65 m;
thickness: 0.39 m
The structure runs north-south and is made of trimmed roof-tiles. It
is built against a stretch of the wall in opus
reticulatum (10056) that constitutes the west side of the
residence and the quadriporticus. Two successive stages of restoration can
be distinguished on the wall. The more recent of these, in modern brick,
closes the opening in the foundation of 10056 (cf. the commentary on AAR
2721, D.1.2.2, no. 8). The
wall has an offset, also made of roof-tiles, which protrudes for 7 cm and is
32 cm higher than the level of the subfloor (also paved with roof-tiles) of
the hypocaust system. The offset, which probably provided partial support
for a pipe, consists of, and is highlighted by, a course of roof-tile
fragments with their rims forming the facing. Eight courses above the offset
there is another course of untrimmed roof-tiles. This can be interpreted as
the string-course of the pavement suspended on the small pillars (suspensurae). I do not maintain that this course
must be taken as being in the “fashion” of the age of Domitian, as does
Lugli (col. 545, n1); the levels and the elements of an analogous course
found on the wall in front (MSU 10057, cf. type 5.3.1 below) point rather to
a building-site indication for the correct installation of the suspended
floor. Lugli reports that during the excavations, fragments of pavement were
discovered lined with bipedales bricks above and
below.
|
| 594 |
As far as could be determined, the fragments of roof-tiles
have a roughly rectangular shape and are employed regularly, but they vary
considerably in length, being generally divisible into three sizes: shims
between 8 and 12 cm; medium ones between 17 and 22 cm; and exceptionally
large ones, between 25 and 30 cm. The thickness is constant, between 3.0 and
3.5 cm. The thickness of the rims ranges from 5 to 7 cm. The binder is made
of a friable mortar (CM 99/53), beige/light-gray in color, composed of lime
and sand with volcanic elements, and especially fine gravel. The only M’
NAEVIVS brickstamp found in situ was discovered in
this wall during restoration work in 2005 (Frischer’s personal
communication). Filippi (see D.4, table 2) dates M’ NAEVIUS’ production to the first century B.C. It is
not sufficient evidence, however, to offer a reliable chronology for the
wall since roof-tiles may easily have been reused.
|
| 595 |
This wall (MSU 10002) provides a solid brick reinforcement
for the wall behind it. This was evidently necessary for the functioning of
room 33, which is interpreted as a calidarium.
Analogous are the two avant-corps 10051 and 10052,
which make up the rectangular niche to the south of room 33, and which were
also made of trimmed roof-tiles.
|
| 596 |
To the same building phase we also ascribe MSU 10057,
10054, and 10055, which attest a construction decision once again dictated
by considerations of economics (cf. type 5.3.1 below).
|
| 597 |
- MSU 10076=3111
- Room 12, Sector III.12
- Maximum visible height: 0.70 m; diameter: 0.48 m
Another totally different example of opus
testaceum made of roof-tile fragments is a column found beneath
room 12. This element is not completely circular in shape, and is made of
pieces of roof-tiles laid irregularly in horizontal courses, in an abundant
whitish, adhesive mortar, and coated with a thin layer of cocciopesto (see De Simone, C.2.1).
|
| 598 |
This can be attributed to the earliest phase of
construction on the site (from the second to the first century B.C.).
|
4.2. In Brick
| 599 |
This is the only building known from this site that is entirely
constructed in opus testaceum, as is the wall that
joins it to the buildings immediately to the north (MSU 10025, room 49). It
is likely that the surrounding rooms, which belong to the thermal complex,
were built with the same technique. This is what MSU 10027 (rooms 44-48)
would suggest, but the situation may be analogous to that of room 51 (socle
and facing in brick only where made necessary by dampness or heat; cf. type
3.4.3 above and type 5.2 below). It is impossible to make a single
conjecture for all those structures, of which not more than four or five
courses survive (for instance, MSU 10008, rooms 47, 48, and 52).
|
| 600 |
The building that we identify as a laconicum (or sudatorium) has a fairly
homogeneous facing in bricks in its original parts. These bricks, positioned
as usual, are cut into triangular shapes (16-26 cm long, with the majority
23-25 cm; 3-3.5 cm thick; mortar beds and joints 1-1.5 cm). The floor
fragments (of the upper floor and of the hypocaust construction) are made of
bricks sesquipedales, as are the arched lintels of
the praefurnium, whose bricks taper slightly at the
bottom. The only original parts not in opus
testaceum, but in cardellino blocks, are on
the outside of the building, that is, on the north wall (below the entrance
door) and in the outer part of the praefurnium
corridor; this finding indicates, also in this case, a desire to limit the
use of the expensive brick material. Inside, however, the only elements in
heterogeneous material (i.e., limestone and cardellino) are the alterations made later, when the hypocaust was
remodeled as a hypogean chamber.
|
| 601 |
Room 53 has undergone restoration, refacing and
repointing, all of which preclude the analysis of its ancient binding, short
of destroying what remains of the building.
|
| 602 |
Lugli suggests a span of time between the Flavian period
and that of Hadrian for the building of this structure (col. 557). Another
indication of the date, to be used with all due caution, may be provided by
the lead fistula found “within the east wall” and
bearing the inscription C IULIUS PRISCUS F. [88] In all probability, this pipe belonged to the same conduit of which
lengths were found in Area 50 during the excavations of 1999 and 2000 (cf.
fig. 20, v). The fistula
with the inscription TI CLAUDIUS BURRUS presumably comes from this building
as well. [89]
|
| 603 |
In the absence of stratigraphic data, it is absolutely
impossible to give an exact dating, but the building must be placed
somewhere in the period between the end of the first century and the first
half of the second century A.D., as the architectural structure would also
suggest (cf. D.1.3.5).
|
| 604 |
Other MSU in opus testaceum:
10005 (cf. figs. 42 and 43);
10067=1233; MSU 1235 (faced foundations for piers).
|
5. Structures with Facing in
Opus Testaceum
on One Side Only
| 605 |
Brick was used with care in this site, and only where
necessary, which resulted in structures with different facings. This choice
may in part be attributed to the reuse of material that was available as
result of demolitions. In those cases, however, in which it was possible to
reuse a whole wall easily, the wall, or that part of it exposed to humidity
or heat, was protected by means of a further structure (cf. type 4.1 above,
MSU 10002). The wall MSU 10004 (cf. type 5.1 below) represents just such an
example. Obviously, construction of this kind is to be found in those rooms
that were, at least at some stage, part of the bath complex. No such
speculation can be advanced for the rooms of the residence, because the
scanty remains, having been completely reconstructed in opus reticulatum, leave no room for such an interpretation. Rooms
19, 20, and 21 are an exception to this; while preserving traces of
successive restructurings, [90] they offer no
certain indications as to building technique, in that the dividing walls (in
bricks and small cardellino blocks) have been
substantially recreated by modern restoration.
|
| 606 |
It must be stressed that in the structures with different
facings on the two sides one is always in brick; no exception to this has
been found. This shows that brick was only used when necessary; therefore,
it was not a case of the builder’s caprice, nor simply the employment of
recycled materials. [91]
|
| 607 |
Because we wish to concentrate on the material used rather
than the exterior appearance of the facing, we are also including in this
section MSU 10001 (type 5.3.3 = 2.3), which is undoubtedly very rare and
must have been the result of the whim of its builder.
|
5.1. Other Side in
Opus Incertum
| 608 |
- MSU 10004 (figs. 56, 57 and 58)
- Rooms 42-44
- Maximum visible height: 0.65 m (south wall), 0.49 m (north wall);
maximum visible length 3.15 m; thickness 0.64 m
The south wall of the masonry structure, which is aligned east-west,
is in opus incertum of local limestone, mainly made
with selected stones, but also with some roughly shaped stones (10-12 x
11-13 cm, up to a maximum of 17 x 11 cm). The facing still preserves traces
of a cocciopesto layer. It has not been possible to
determine the level from which the wall began (spiccato) because of the modern flooring.
|
| 609 |
The north wall is faced with triangular bricks, probably
made from bessales (26 cm long, 3.5 cm thick). The
revetment on this side must have been of marble panels. There is no way to
analyze the binding (in the facing there is virtually nothing other than
earth and modern mortar). The wall is the south side of room 42, which is
identifiable as a small basin.
|
| 610 |
It is not possible to affirm with certainty that this is a
single wall, and not a wall in opus incertum, which
was protected on one side with a brick structure, since the top of it cannot
be analyzed and its thickness is not decisive on its own. Moreover, there is
an addition to the height in small cardellino
blocks, the result of restoration. It is perfectly possible that the cardellino blocks were found at the moment of
excavation, in which case it cannot now be established whether they derive
from a later arrangement or whether they are connected to structures like
type 3.4.3 above. Although the restoration works make it impossible to
define the stratigraphic relationships with certainty, if we hypothesize an
opus incertum wall, only later protected by a
brick structure, it could be related to the walls that bound the square room
38-39-40 (the Republican atrium). [92]
|
5.2. Other Side in
Opus Vittatum
| 611 |
- MSU 10029
- Rooms 44-46
- Maximum visible height: 0.45 m (east face); maximum visible
length: 2.50 m (east face); thickness: 0.56 m
The masonry structure is aligned north-south. The east wall is in
opus testaceum, with bricks cut into triangles;
the facing of the west wall is in small cardellino
blocks. It joins the analogous MSU 10030 (with its south facing in brick; on
the north face only a course of cardellino blocks
is visible, which is restoration work).
|
| 612 |
MSU 10029 is in fact largely restored and it is impossible
to state with certainty that the west wall was in fact built in opus vittatum in cardellino
blocks (repair work done with modern mortar prevents us from determining the
actual antiquity of the masonry). Moreover, its northward extension (by room
45) has small cardellino blocks on its east face as
well.
|
| 613 |
There may well have been an opus
testaceum socle in this structure also, at least on the east side
(see type 3.4.3 above).
|
5.3. Other Side in
Opus Reticulatum
with Coigning in Blocks (Limestone)
| 614 |
This is the most common type among those structures that
have a different facing on each side. It is difficult to explain why,
however. We could suggest the chronological proximity to the other walls in
opus reticulatum, but it might be just as valid
to speculate that these structures were built at a time when there were
large quantities of opus reticulatum tesserae
available as result of demolitions.
|
5.3.1.
Opus testaceum
in roof-tiles
| 615 |
- MSU 10057 (figs. 59, 60 and 61)
- Rooms 32 and 33
- Maximum visible height: 1.50 m (east face), 2.10 m (west face,
heavily restored); maximum visible length 11.30 m (west face), 10.65
m (east face); thickness: 0.73 m
The masonry structure, aligned north-south, is the west side of the
large apsidal room 33, and has two openings covered with arches (praefurnia) joining corridor 32.
|
| 616 |
The east side is faced in opus
testaceum of trimmed roof-tiles, analogous to 10002 (cf. type 4.1
above). In the southern portion (from the south praefurnium as far as the avant-corps
10052), the twelfth course from the bottom (from the level of the subfloor
roof-tiles) is composed of untrimmed roof-tiles, placed with their rims
forming the facing. This course respects the praefurnium (it is only just above it) and evidently serves as the
string-course, analogous to that of MSU 10002 (cf. type 4.1 above). Its
absence in the remaining part is easily explained, in that the two praefurnia would have been enough of an indication
for setting the level of the floor. There is another partial course of
untrimmed roof-tiles below the previous one, separated by two regular rows.
|
| 617 |
On both sides, the arched lintels of the two much-restored
praefurnia are built of rims of roof-tiles cut
in rectangles (ca. 5-6 x 8-10 cm), in a manner analogous to those elements
employed in MSU 10001 (cf. type 5.3.3 below).
|
| 618 |
The west side is faced with opus
reticulatum in limestone (regular blocks, with sides of 8-9 cm,
set at a 45-degree angle). Occasionally cotto
elements appear, made from roof-tiles (such as those used in 10001; cf. type
5.3.3 below).
|
| 619 |
The praefurnia and the juncture
of the apse MSU 10054 have coigns in blocks of limestone and brick (one
course of limestone alternating with two courses of brick; cf. type 3.4.2,
above, and fig. 47).
|
5.3.2.
Opus testaceum
in roof-tiles and bricks
| 620 |
- MSU 10054 (fig. 62)
- Room 33
- Maximum visible height: 1.40 m (south face); width of the opening
(span) 4.42 m; height at keystone ca. 1.95 m; thickness 0.55
m
The shallow apse (the proportion in Roman feet is 15 of span to 7 of
height at the keystone) forms the northern side of room 33. The internal
face (south) is in opus testaceum of bricks and
trimmed roof-tiles (heavily restored), while the north face (external) is
faced in limestone opus reticulatum. It joins both
the analogous structure on the east (MSU 10055) and the lateral walls of
room 33 (MSU 10002 and 10057). In the more eastern part, the internal facing
has a course of broken roof-tiles, positioned with the rims showing, to
serve as the string-course; this is similar to what was found at MSU 10002
(type 4.1 above) and 10057 (type 5.3.1 above).
|
| 621 |
The binding is a pale beige-grey mortar, consisting of
lime and sand with volcanic elements and, above all, small gravel (CM
99/68).
|
| 622 |
On the inside of room 33, there is a fragment, which
probably belonged to the suspended floor, which abuts onto the apse at the
point where there also survives a portion of cocciopesto revetment (fig. 63). If there had
been such a floor actually touching the wall, there could have been no flue
(intercapedo) to allow the circulation of hot
air along the walls.
|
5.3.3.
Opus reticulatum
in
cotto
(terracotta)
| 623 |
- MSU 10001 (figs. 64 and 65)
- Rooms 33 and 34
- Maximum visible height: 1.20 m (north face), 0.30 m (south face,
restored at the ridge); maximum visible length: 2.95 m (north face);
thickness: 0.46 m
The south side preserves a tiny portion of the original facing, in
limestone opus reticulatum (tesserae 8 x 8 cm). The residual binding is mortar in very poor
condition, yellowish in color and very insubstantial.
|
| 624 |
Because its northern face is so unusual, this structure is
a very rare example of opus reticulatum in cotto, built using the rims of roof-tiles cut so as
to give an L-shaped element. The exposed rim facing (6.5-7 x 7-8 cm) looks
very similar to the stone tesserae. The upright of
the L is inserted into the core of the masonry like the point of a pyramidal
small block. Structurally, however, there is a certain lack of homogeneity,
and the quantity of mortar is increased in order to fill the gap behind the
“tessera” in cotto.
These elements, which are made from roof-tiles in such a way as to resemble
the tesserae of opus
reticulatum, are used only in this masonry and in the lintels of the
small arches of the praefurnia of MSU 10057. They
otherwise appear sporadically (three or four examples) in MSU 10003 (east
face), 10053 (east face), 10057 (west face), and therefore only in
connection with the group of rooms 32, 33 and 34.
|
| 625 |
The structure joins the avant-corps in opus testaceum (MSU 10051 and
10052). Lugli had already stressed the rarity of this technique, which is
essentially a faux opus reticulatum in cotto, finding a single comparandum in the temples (Tempietti)
of Chieti, where, however, the tesserae are made of
brick fragments. Another example can be found in Pompeii, IX, 13, 4-5, near
the House of Iulius Polybius. [93]
|
5.3.4.
Opus testaceum
in bricks
| 626 |
- MSU 10010=280, 296, 446 (figs. 66, 67 and 68)
- Room 37
- Maximum visible height: 0.72 m (south face, external), 1.20 m
(south face, internal); span 4.33 m; height at keystone ca. 2.02 m;
thickness 0.76 m. South part analyzed.
This is an apse, with a central rectangular niche. At its ends, the
apse joins two more rectangular niches and forms the basin of a thermal room
(certainly a frigidarium). At about 1.15 m from the
floor level, the thickness of the wall diminished, thereby creating a sort
of platform or bench.
|
| 627 |
On the outside, the building is faced with a rectangular
patch of opus reticulatum, immediately above the
offset of the foundation, and blocks of cardellino
and limestone (tesserae 8 x 8 cm; small blocks
20-22 x 9-10 cm; exceptional ones 30-40 x 9-10 cm; joints and beds in mortar
2.5-4 cm). It adjusts to the slope; there is a difference in height of 42 cm
between west and east.
|
| 628 |
The internal part is entirely constructed in bricks cut
into triangles, probably made from bessales (18-26
cm; thickness 3.5-4-5 cm; mortar beds 2.5-3 cm; mortar joints 0.5-1 cm).
There are still traces of revetment on this wall: a layer of cocciopesto, crumbled brick for attaching the marble
panels, some fragments of these same panels and marble chips sunk in cocciopesto for anchoring the bronze clips. The
floor of the basin is at a lower level than the foundation offset of the
external wall.
|
| 629 |
The binding is a compact mortar, grey-beige in color,
composed of lime, sand and volcanic elements (crumbled tufa or black pozzolana?; CM 99/45 and 99/49).
|
6. Structures Set Against Earth (Controterra, with Only One Side
Faced)
| 630 |
All the structures that are affected by differences in
level between two areas, more or less accentuated, are constructed in this
manner. In general, the builders would go below ground level to build
hypogean spaces (e.g. room 32) or semi-hypogean (e.g. room 34), or simply
channels for fountains or basins. In the first case, the wall is completely
built against one side of the construction trench. In the case of the
semi-hypogean rooms, however, building against earth is only up to a certain
level, from which the wall then rises, with both faces exposed; the
retaining wall for the residential block belongs to this second type, and
creates the terrace above the garden.
|
6.1.
Opus Reticulatum
| 631 |
- MSU 10053
- Room 32
- Maximum visible height: 1.60 m (original, east face); length:
12.95 m; thickness: 0.76 m; apse: span 4.49 m; height to the
keystone ca. 0.95 m
The masonry structure, aligned north-south, has a very shallow apse
about half way along (cf. fig. 16). The east side is
faced in limestone opus reticulatum (tesserae 8-9 cm), with coigning in blocks of the
same material (ca. 23 x 8 cm). At the point where the apse springs, the
blocks are shaped in such a way as to follow its form. Tesserae of opus reticulatum in tufa and
cotto (rims of roof-tiles, cf. type 5.3.3
above) appear from time to time. The west side of the wall, on the other
hand, is evidently constructed against earth (controterra), with slivers of limestone and mortar. The binding is an
insubstantial mortar, yellowish in color.
|
| 632 |
The wall, which created a hypogean corridor accessible
from the north, should be considered as a retaining structure, without an
elevation above the floor level. The apse was built for two reasons, both
exclusively functional: to withstand the thrust of the earth behind it and
to increase the space for maneuvering near the praefurnia (cf. fig. 15).
|
| 633 |
Comparable are MSU 10062, 10047 and 10003 (the last two,
however, are constructed controterra up to the
floor level only; from there upward, they have an elevation). MSU 10047 is
built against a wall, while the elevation of MSU 10003 above the floor level
is regularly faced on both sides. Here, note in particular the presence of
tufa tesserae together with limestone ones.
|
| 634 |
The wall that separates the residential block from the
garden area must also have been built controterra
up to a certain level. The slight natural slope was corrected in order to
produce a small terrace, sustained by the wall in question, which was
probably supplied with a vespaio (a loose stone
structure to facilitate natural water drainage).
|
6.2.
Opus Testaceum
| 635 |
- MSU 10064 – Fountain (fig. 69)
- Area 8
- Space occupied by the fountain 10.35 x 9.51 m
On the north side the fountain structure breaks through and goes
beyond the so-called perimeter wall. MSU 10064 relates to the south,
exterior, wall of the fountain, which is analysed in its entirety.
|
| 636 |
The structure consists of three masonry rectangles, set
one inside the other. The outermost one is formed of a wall (ca. 40 cm
thick) with brick facing on one side only, while the other side of the wall
is built against earth (controterra), out of rough
calcareous stones. The north side is completely reconstructed, and it is by
no means sure that the work was done as originally; at the moment of its
discovery, it would appear that there was no more than a trace on the
ground. The intermediate wall is 30 cm thick and faced on both sides. The
space between these two walls forms a channel 70 cm wide, which is ca. 50 cm
deep in relation to the present soil level. The innermost wall (30 cm thick)
is only faced on one side, while its other side, which fronts on the center
of the structure, is built controterra. It is
arranged with four small semicircular niches (radius 75 cm), one in the
center of each side of the rectangle. Between the innermost wall and the
intermediate one there is a small gap (intercapedo)
barely 5 cm wide.
|
| 637 |
The opus testaceum facings are
composed of bricks cut into triangles, set in regular courses. Due to the
restorations, it is difficult to analyze the mortar beds and joins, and also
the quality of the binding agent. The walls preserve faint traces of a
protective coating of cocciopesto. Two holes,
through which passed a conduit, open in the southwest corner of the
structure, one in the outermost wall, the other in the intermediate one.
|
| 638 |
Structure 10011 (=8007, 8008, 8020, 8032, 8033; Area 55;
figs. 70 and 71) is
constructed in an analogous manner; this can be interpreted as being a
fountain basin, arranged with oval and rectangular niches, even if no water
system was found during the recent excavation.
|
7. Heterogeneous Masonry Structures Built of Recycled
Materials
| 639 |
These structures are only preserved now in the western
zone of the villa and in part of the eastern wing of the quadriporticus.
This is principally due to two causes. First, the depth of the earth
covering the ruins diminished in the area of the residential block (a track
passed that way and bits of mosaics had come to the surface). To the west,
however, a deeper layer of earth permitted better preservation of the
structures, where some rise from subfloor levels. Second, during the
1911-1914 excavations, many of the structures identified as “late” were
demolished.
|
| 640 |
It is obviously impossible to provide accurate
chronological indications for these walls on the sole basis of their
construction technique, which is mainly irregular opus
vittatum. The only indisputable fact is that they date to a period
after the constructions that they altered. These are always works that were
aimed at readapting pre-existing structures, with the creation of new rooms
and a redistribution of the spaces. There was a marked preference for blocks
of limestone and cardellino among the recycled
materials, as they could be used with the greatest ease. Recycled brick was
used to adjust the courses and as shims. The tesserae of opus reticulatum were also
occasionally reused flat and not at 45-degree angle.
|
| 641 |
- MSU 10015a=461 demolished (fig. 72); cf.
type 3.3
- Maximum visible height: ca. 0.30 m; length: ca. 5.90 m; thickness:
0.75 m; north-south alignment
- MSU 10015b=850
- Maximum visible height: ca. 0.35 m; length: c. 9.60 m; thickness:
0.66 m; east-west alignment
- MSU 10040=843
- Maximum visible height: ca. 0.25 m; length: ca. 4.45 m; thickness:
0.57 m; north-south alignment
- Rooms 37-40
These structures were restored in the course of the excavations in
the 1970s, when their tops were identified. The walls, constructed
contemporaneously with one another, were built to re-divide the spaces,
making use of pre-existing structures, at a time when the basin (room 37)
must have already been out of use and buried.
|
| 642 |
The poorly preserved facings show irregular reuse of
blocks of cardellino and limestone (17-21 x 8-9 cm)
and of bricks (20-27 cm, 3-3.5 cm thick). The better-preserved bricks were
chosen for use in courses (the north face of 10015b and west face of 10040);
broken ones were used as shims. The mortar (CM 99/40, 99/52), where it can
be traced, is compact, reddish-brown in color, composed of lime and sand,
earthy, with volcanic elements and a small amount of fine gravel. The
partially uncovered foundations were built in an irregular way, with stones,
at times large, pebbles and recycled material. In MSU 422 (foundation of the
wall 10015a=461) a fragment of a sculpture was also found (VH 179; inv. SAL
114451).
|
| 643 |
- MSU 10059
- Maximum visible height: ca. 0.25 m; length: ca. 3.35 m; thickness:
0.50 m; north-south alignment. Also analogous are MSU 10065 and
10069.
- Room 33
The much-restored masonry structure was built directly onto a
roof-tile floor, which constituted the subfloor of the hypocaust; it seems
highly probable that it was therefore a foundation structure, built, with
others, in order to be able to divide room 33 into several smaller rooms.
|
| 644 |
The materials used are certainly recycled, set irregularly
and of various sizes; small blocks and chips of limestone, small blocks of
cardellino, limestone opus
reticulatum tesserae (placed horizontally), and brick chunks. The
binding (CM 99/69) is a very friable mortar, grey-beige in color, composed
of lime and, above all, of sand.
|
| 645 |
The wall is set against MSU 10050 and in all probability
is joined to 10065, but this cannot be verified on account of the coping
added during restoration.
|
| 646 |
It is possible to see from archival photographs (SAL E
729; see D.1.2.2, no. 2) that
at the moment of excavation these structures survived to a greater height.
It is also relevant to note that from a certain level upward they displayed
a fairly regular facing in small blocks (opus
vittatum); this would confirm the hypothesis that the remains visible
today originally served as foundations.
|
| 647 |
The two walls that support the architrave inside building
53, and the architrave itself, consist of recycled materials, set
irregularly. The presence of corner stones is characteristic, as is the
absence of regular horizontal courses.
|
8. Specialized
Opus Caementicium
with No Distinction between Core and Facing
|
The Horace's Villa Project 1997-2003: 
