ROMAN VAULTING AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE PELOPONNESE CASE STUDIES
Phase 3. Completion of the barrel vault
3.2.7 The Mausoleum RG5
GPS coordinates: 37°30’21.12”N; 23°21’37.23”E
Basic bibliography: Welter 1941, Fläming 2007, M. Vitti‐P. Vitti 2012 Plate: 6
low the intrados, was topped by three uncut‐brick courses (pedales30x30x4,5 cm) placed radially (fig.
3.90). The mortar used in the vault is visibly differ‐
ent from the one used in the wall, because of its red colour, suggesting brick powder was used together with other aggregates. The same bricks, marked by a deep groove along the diagonals, were used for the following section of the vault, built in the vertical‐
brick technique.
Remarks on the vault
This medium‐sized vault was built in mixed tech‐
niques with both radial‐stone/brick and vertical‐
brick. The section above the impost was built without centering with rubble stones and was lev‐
elled by three brick courses. The remaining section of the vault was built with the vertical‐brick tech‐
nique.
The radial brick courses thus created a uniform sur‐
face on which the vertical bricks could be laid. The brick powder added to the mortar used in the brick shell shows that possibly the builders were aware that a similar mortar had a higher quality than one made only with calcareous aggregates, as the one used for the mortared rubble that covered the brick
The mausoleum RG5 has a rectangular plan (6.69x8.20 m) and is located to the north of the city (fig. 3.63). Above the entrance there is a recess where the tabulawith the inscription of the owner was originally set (figs. 3.91 and 3.93‐d). The regu‐
lar exterior volume does not correspond to the more elaborate interior room, with two arcosoliaon each side and a single arcosoliumin front of the entrance (fig. 3.92).
The roofing was even more elaborate, since two seg‐
mental vaults placed at the ends of the main axis created a square‐plan area at the centre of the room,
Fig. 3.90 Troezen. Sketch of the Mausoleum RG4 with con‐
struction details
extrados. Brick powder was also used in the mortar of a similar vertical brick vault in Epidaurus (see § 3.3.2).
which was higher and covered by a sail vault (fig.
3.93).
The room was lit by wedged windows located at the centre of the arcosolia. The arcosolia were 2.28 m long and 0.90‐0.95 m wide.
Description of building techniques and vaulting Walls. The walls (fig. 3.94) were made with mortared rubble faced with bricks and had huge stone blocks, irregular in dimension, placed at the corners (fig. 3.95)99. The brick facing (M=72.5‐73 cm) was made with rectangular bricks (fig. 3.96), ir‐
Fig. 3.92Troezen. Mausoleum RG5. View of the end wall with the arcosoliumlit with a window
Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 95
Fig. 3.91 Troezen. View of the entrance elevation of the mausoleum RG5. Above the entrance is the imprint of the tabula with the inscription
P. VITTI del. et rest. MMXII 100 cm
a entrance
b arcosolium
c window
d tabula with inscription e hole for centering (?) f putlog hole
g reused stone block
8,20m
6,68m
2,28m 0,60m 2,28m
0,60m 0,90m 0,78m 0,78m
0,95m 0,60m
0,95m 0,95m R 1,8m R 2,56m
e
f
g c
d
b b a
TROEZEN RG5
N
TROEZEN
RG5
a entrance
b arcosolium
c window
entrance arcosolium window
d t
e hole
f p
g reused
a l u b a
t with inscription hole for centering (?)
g o l t u
p hole
reused stone block
inscription
(?)
d
e
f
c
b b b
b b b
b
g b
a
N
8,20m
0,95m
N
R2,56m56
0,95m
m
6,68m
0,95m
0,60m
2,28m
0,78m 0,95m
R 1 2,56m
0,60m 2,28m
1,8m8 2,56m
2,28m
0,60m 0,90m 0,78m
6,68m
0,60m
0,95m
100 cm
cm
P. VITTI del. et rest. MMXII MMXII Fig. 3.93Troezen. Restored plan and section of the mausoleum RG5 with geometrical interpretation
Chapter 3
96
regularly cut from pedales (29‐30x29‐30x3.4‐3.7 cm) which had grooves on their diagonals to facili‐
tate cutting. Windows had, above and below, bipedales (58x58x6 cm). Putlog holes measure 21x13 cm or 13x13 cm (fig. 3.94).
Arches and vaults. Uncut pedaleswere used in the interior for the arches and vaults (fig. 3.97). The ar- cosoliawere covered by radial‐brick barrel vaults and had limestone blocks at the impost. The seg‐
mental vaults placed at both ends of the room were 0.86 m deep and were also made with bricks laid ra‐
dially. At 14 cm from the extrados there was a reliev‐
ing arch with the same profile and building technique (fig. 3.94).
The sail vault was made with square bessales (21x21x3 cm) which were laid according to the pitched technique (fig. 4.7). The top of the wall had a sloping surface towards the centre of the vault in order to lay the bricks in pitched position. The first course of bricks was thus laying directly on the arched shape of the walls; all the other courses were built with arches parallel to the first one. These arches interlocked along the diagonals (fig. 3.97).
The extrados was covered by mortared rubble (fig.
3.98).
Remarks on the pitched-brick sail vault
The pitched‐brick sail vault is a remarkable example of technical expertise. The vault was formed by the brick shell and the mortared rubble mass placed above (fig. 3.93).
The bricks instead of being laid in rings (fig. 4.8) were laid in arches. This technique allowed for using uncut brick also in the pendentives, while in the sail vaults with bricks laid in rings the bricks at the pen‐
dentives were all cut (fig. 3.109). The vault was thus stiffer, because of being entirely built with uncut bricks.
Another major advantage of this technique was that it could be built without centering. For this reason the bricks used for the construction were smaller
and thinner (bessales3 cm thick) than those used for the other vaults and arches of the mausoleum (pedales3.8 cm thick). The reduced weight of these bessalesfacilitated the building process, based on the inclined position of the bricks, which were laid one above the other, and on the adhesive property of the mortar.
In fact the smaller dimension of the bricks con‐
tributed to reduce their weight and prevent sliding.
However, two larger putlog holes (13x21 cm and 0.77 m deep) above the crown of each arcosolium (fig. 3.93‐e and 3.97) may suggest that a kind of template was used to visualise the line along the di‐
agonals were the arches interlocked. These tem‐
plates were laid on timber beams inserted in the larger putlog holes.
A similar vault in Epidaurus (see § 3.3.3) can be con‐
sidered a terminus post quemfor the dating of this technique, since it was built in the second half of the second century while the mausoleum of Troezen might possibly belong to a later period, because of the characteristics of the brick facing.
The model of the interior volume of this mausoleum was Roman. A sail vault is first documented in Petra, in the so‐called bath building100. However, sail vaults became more common only in the 2ndcentury, and can be found in many mausoleaof Rome. For the construction technique is important to note that in Rome sail vaults and other more elaborate forms were built in concrete, as for instance the tomb Z under St. Peter’s in the Vatican, dated to the end of the 2ndcentury101.
Concrete was particularly suitable for curved sur‐
faces but needed complicate formwork, because the timber boards had to be adapted to the curved sur‐
face of the intrados. The pitched brick sail vault of‐
fered an ideal solution for the construction of small sail vaults since it did not require centering. In later vaults this technique developed with more elabo‐
rate patterns, such as in a vault in Ephesus (fig. 3.99) where the arches have a fan shape and intersected at different levels. The difference from the sail vault
Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 97
Fig. 3.94Troezen. Sketch with construction details of the mausoleum RG5
Chapter 3
98
in the Peloponnese is that in Ephesus the vault was built above arches and not directly on the walls. In Byzantine architecture the fan brick courses, also called “vaults with arched brick courses” are docu‐
mented in many examples, together with the more usual pitched brick sail vault as the ones of Troezen and Epidaurus102.
Remarks on the architectural layout
The difference between the simple exterior volume
Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 99
Fig. 3.95 Troezen. View of the exterior wall with re‐used stone blocks at the corners and brick fa‐
cing on the other surfaces
and the elaborate interior space is documented in Rome since the end of the 2ndcentury, when the ar‐
chitectural decoration and luxury was concentrated in the interior of the funeral buildings, while the ex‐
terior remained as simple as possible103. This corre‐
spondence to the funerary architecture in Rome is particularly meaningful since it shows how the elite of a minor city of the Peloponnese were deeply in‐
fluenced by the models of the capital.
Fig. 3.96 Troezen. Mausoleum RG5. Detail of the brick facing
Fig. 3.97Troezen. Mausoleum RG5. View of the interior with pendentive of the sail vault
Fig. 3.99Sketch of a sail vault and a barrel vault in the houses on the Curetes street in Ephesus
Chapter 3
100
Fig. 3.98Troezen. Mausoleum RG5. Detail of the pitched‐brick sail vault and the mortared‐rubble set on its extrados
Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 101
The sanctuary of Epidaurus was renovated in the 2nd century after a period of destruction and neglect which followed the defeat of the Achaian League in 146 BCE. The building activity also involved the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas, located ca. 900 m east of the sanctuary of Aklepios. Hadrian visited the sanctuary of Epidaurus in 124, when he enforced the new regulations for the ministers and the recur‐
rence of the games, together with a new system of dating which remained for the years to come104. The visit of the Emperor must thus be considered as the starting point for the renovation of the Sanctuary.
During the 2ndcentury the complete renovation of the buildings was sponsored by Sextus Iulius Maior Antoninus Pythodorus, a senator also involved in the renovation of the sanctuary of Asclepius at Perg‐
amon105. In the sanctuary of Epidaurus at least six bath buildings are documented, dating from the Classic to the Roman period106. In this analysis the
vaults of two of these baths shall be examined. Both of them have been attributed to the sponsorship of Antoninus on the basis of the stamps on the tiles, bearing his name107. According to Pausanias ( Paus.
2.27,6‐7) “Antoninus, made in our own day a bath of Asklepios and a sanctuary of the gods they call Epi- dotai.He made also a temple to Hygieia, Asklepios, and Apollo, that last two surnamed Egyptian. He moreover restored the portico that was named Por‐
tico of Cotys (…). Among the things Antoninus made for the Epidaurians are various buildings for the sanctuary of the Maleatas, including a reservoir into which the rain‐water collects for their use”108. These interventions took place between 160 and 180 and have been identified on the base of epigraphic evi‐
dence, an inscription mentioning the Senator as eu- vergetes, an imperial epistula mentioning his name and the stamps, also found in the sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas (fig. 3.117)109.