Gytheion

Chapter 3

156

Gytheum(modern Gytheion) in Roman times was the most important of the Eleutherolakonescoastal cities. Augustus established the koinonof Free Lako‐

nians in 21 BCE, giving a formal structure to a group of cities that had been separate from the Spartan hegemony since Sparta’s defeat under Titus Quintus Flaminius (196 BCE). To compensate for the loss of Gytheum, the port of Sparta, Augustus gave to Sparta the Messenian coastal city of Cardamily, which also had a small harbour. However, it seems likely that autonomous Gytheumremained the port via which Sparta communicated with the outside word²³¹. The

importance of this city as a commercial hub for south Lakonia must have guaranteed a degree of wealth for its citizens. In the bay of Valtaki, west of Gytheum, there are remains of a Roman villa with opus mixtum walls (fig. 3.183) and a cistern (fig.

3.184), ca. 26x15 m, with at least three building phases and tanks covered by solid‐brick vaults sup‐

ported by walls with bipedalisbonding courses (fig.

3.185).

The aqueduct of the city was of course a major work, important both for the harbour and for everyday life.

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 157

bonding brick‐courses 1.20 cm apart. The bonding‐

courses were 25 cm high and were built exclusively with larger 53‐55 cm square bricks large, 4 cm thick.

These bricks had grooves made with two fingers on one side. The 10x10 cm putlog holes were filled with bricks.

At 57 cm from the higher bonding course and 1 m below the impost of the vault the masonry was dif‐

ferently built (fig. 3.187). Large rubble was floor of the cistern is buried, its height is unknown.

The walls, up to 1 m from the impost of the vault, were made with mortared rubble faced with bricks (M=57 cm).

The exterior walls were 1.03 m thick, while the mid‐

dle wall was 0.90 m thick. The square bricks 27x27x2.7‐3 cm were cut into two rectangles and used to create a brick cladding which did not bond to the core of the wall. However, the wall had four

Fig. 3.184 Gytheion. Sketch of the cistern of a Roman villa in the bay of Valtaki

Chapter 3

158

mortared with roughly horizontal courses, not al‐

ways discernible. The putlog holes (10x15 cm) were different in size from the ones in the brick wall, the first line being immediately above the higher brick course. Larger 34x34 cm square holes, placed 25 cm above the higher brick course and passing through the thickness of the wall, were certainly for the tim‐

ber beams which supported the vault centering. The

same rubble was used for the vault, at present pre‐

served only ca. 40 cm above the impost. A disconti‐

nuity in the masonry at the impost shows that the construction of the vault was carried out after posi‐

tion of the centering. The imprints of the formwork show that 22 cm‐boards were used when laying the vault.

The use of brick facing for the part which was in

Fig. 3.185 Gytheion. Sketch with construction details of the cistern of a Roman villa in the bay of Valtaki

contact with the water is similar to the cistern of the northeast baths in Epidaurus (see §3.3.3). The rec‐

tangular bricks of the wall facing did not provide any bonding to the mortared rubble core, which was probably poured into the brick facing, using small rubble to reduce possible cavities in the core of the wall and create a more homogenous structure. How‐

ever, the brick courses were used to bond the wall

and give stiffness to the structure.

The construction technique and materials of the upper construction follow a completely different ra‐

tionale, suggesting that it was possibly rebuilt in later period. The different size of the putlog holes in the wall may confirm that a later construction was set upon the last course of bricks.

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 159

Fig. 3.186 View if the cistern at Gytheion

Fig. 3.187 Gytheion. The brick facing of the Roman wall and the upper rubble masonry wall (medieval?)

Fig. 3.188 Gytheion. Sketch with construction details of the cistern

Chapter 3

160

This small bath was located between Corinth and Sicyon, on a natural terrace close to a nearly square cistern, 2.20 m long and with 25 cm thick walls. The description of this bath is based only on the 1955 publication. The only vaults still preserved are the ones covering three small service rooms.

The bath covered a surface of 16x16 m and had two building phases. Its dating was based merely on the building techniques²³². The first building phase (end of 2^nd‐ early 3^rdcentury) used 28 cm square bricks, 3‐3.4 cm thick. An apodyteriumand three service rooms in opus mixtum²³³were added in the second phase (4^thcentury). The joints had grooves repro‐

ducing an isodomic construction. Larger square bricks (28x28x0.4 cm) were also used in the second phase²³⁴. Other types of bricks were used in the building for the cavity walls and the suspensurae, in‐

cluding spacers for bipedalesused against the wall and fixed with nails.

The three service rooms were only 1.3 m wide and 2.58‐2.33 m long. They were built with thicker bricks and were covered with solid‐brick vaults.

Bricks were placed radially, except the crowning

which was made in vertical‐brick construction, sim‐

ilar to a lunette in the service corridors of the Great Hall in Argos (fig. 3.28) and to the vault covering the corridor between room (n8) and (n9) in the north‐

west baths in Epidaurus (see §3.3.2).

Remarks on the vaults

The three vaults were built on reeds, used as form‐

work. This technique, though not documented in other examples which have been examined, must have been a typical solution for such small vaults in the 4^thcentury. However, the use of vertical‐brick construction for the crown is hard to explain.

The suggestion advanced by L. Lancaster²³⁵, that the vertical‐brick vault on the crown avoid cracking along the joint at the centre of the vault, seems ex‐

cessive for such a small vault, though cannot be ex‐

cluded.

It is clear, however, that for such small vaults the builders did not add a concrete layer above the ex‐

trados of the brick shell, showing that they consid‐

ered concrete a necessity for the structural behaviour of bigger vaults.

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 161