Troezen

0 100 500 m

AGORA

MUSEION CISTERN

TOWER RG2

RG1

RG

RG5

RG 3

P O T A M O S SANCTUARY

MODERN VILLAGE BRIDGE

RG 4

AQUEDUCT (?)

WALLS (?)

DIATICHISMA

Fig. 3.63 Plan of Troezen (based on Welter 1941)

Fig. 3.65 Troezen. Sketch with construction details of the ci‐

stern/castellum aquae

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 75

different vaulting, partially depending on the differ‐

ent period of construction. Nevertheless it should be noted that such a variety shows that the builders were able to use different techniques, according to their experience, availability of material and form of the vault. The building solutions skilfully balance the masses to resist the thrust coming from the vaults and the construction was clever in the use of centering to support the vault under construction.

Fig. 3.64Troezen. View of the cistern/castellum aquae

Chapter 3

76

On the slopes of the Aderes Mountain which rises from the plain of Troezen (fig. 3.63), close to the Hel‐

lenistic tower of the diatichisma, is a rectangular construction which can be identified as a cistern⁸¹ (fig. 3.64). It has a basin waterproofed with crushed brick mortar and a drainage hole, presumably the output for the delivery of the water to the city. The cistern is located close from the cleft and might have been supplied by a water conduit still visible on the bridge which crosses the cleft at ca. 500 m from the cistern (fig. 3.63). It is possible that the cistern was used also as castellum aquae and to cleanse the water. The building was very simple: it had a deep basin (fig. 3.65) and was covered by a barrel vault open towards the valley.

Description of the walls and the vault

The basin measures 5.27x4.44 m and had rubble masonries faced with bricks. Square bricks 27x27x3‐3.2 cm (M=63‐4 cm) were cut in a triangu‐

lar shape. The core of the wall was made with

mortared rubble. The lower part of the wall was thicker (1.02 m) than the higher part (0.58 m), to withstand the water pressure of the basin. The in‐

terior corners of the basin were reinforced with ad‐

ditional mortar to improve waterproofing (fig. 3.66).

The ca 115 cm high wall on which the vault abutted where setback of44 cm from the basin wall. Down‐

stream, the elevation of the wall above the level of the basin had only two pilasters and it presumably had an arched façade (fig. 3.65).

The vault (span 5.32 m) was made with large stones placed radially. On the west abutment there are three putlog holes (11x11 cm), four brick courses away from the impost.

They pass from one side to the other of the wall and were used for the scaffolding on both sides of the wall. On the opposite wall putlog holes are located at a different height, showing that they were not used for the centering too.

Centering must have been laid on the ground, prob‐

ably because of the weight of the solid stone vault.

3.2.1 The Cistern/Castellum acquae

GPS coordinates: 37°29’56.63”; N 23°21’20.21”E Basic bibliography: Welter 1941; M. Vitti‐P. Vitti 2010

3.2.2 The Museion

GPS coordinates: 37°29’57.51”N, 23°21’21.64”E Basic bibliography: Welter 1941, M. Vitti‐P. Vitti 2010

The so‐called Museionis located on the plain at the foot of the mountain, a short distance from the cis‐

tern/castellum aquae(figs. 3.63 and 3.67)⁸². The st‐

rigilated stucco⁸³ on the remains of one of two barrel vaults, suggests use as a thermal bath⁸⁴. Plain stucco is also preserved, on the wall under the vault (fig. 3.68).

The walls were built with mortared rubble faced with bricks (M=71‐72.5). The square bricks 29‐

30x29‐30x4‐4.2 cm used for the construction had grooves along the diagonal of one of the surfaces to facilitate the cutting into two or four triangles (fig.

3.68). The abutments were 1.05 m thick and were

ca 5.45 m apart. The end walls of the rooms were thinner (0.84 m), since they did not have to with‐

stand the thrust of the vaults. On the west wall, above the impost of the vault, the builders used larger stones (fig. 3.68). This solution is quite un‐

usual, since smaller material is usually preferred for the upper part of the building, in order to facilitate the lifting up of material onto the scaffolding. How‐

ever, this peculiarity seems reasonable in light of the fact that the west wall was free standing and the thrust was not balanced from the counteracted by an adjoining vault. The bigger stones could thus have been a good solution to add weight to the

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 77

Fig. 3.66Troezen. View of the upper level of the cistern/castellum aquaewith the remains of the vault

Fig. 3.67Troezen. View of the remains of the so‐called Museion

Chapter 3

78

haunches of the vault⁸⁵.

The vaults are preserved up to the haunches. The solution adopted is different from the one com‐

monly used in the Peloponnese ‐ solid‐brick shell with concrete mass set on its extrados ‐ since the bricks are used in the same technique as in the wall facing: they are triangular in shape and they bond to the mortared rubble⁸⁶.

The vault is a continuation of the vertical wall, with the difference that the bricks are set radially and not horizontally. The vault is preserved up to 12 brick courses from the impost. This section was built without centering.

The triangular bricks (1/4 square brick) were set in more or less horizontal position to avoid sliding during construction. For the same reason the top of the brick facing was made with bigger triangular bricks (1/2 square brick) to bond better to the mortared rubble.

Five mausoleaare preserved up to a considerable height in Troezen. For all of them the relationship with the city walls and the gates remains unknown.

RG1 and RG2 are located close to each other on the left bank of river Potami (ancient Chrisorroas ?⁸⁷), probably in the compound of the western necropo‐

lis⁸⁸(figs. 3.63 and 3.69). The two mausoleashow differences in the building techniques that together with their topographical relationship, suggest that they were built in two different periods. Since RG2 is built on the back of RG1, it must be older.

The mausoleum RG1 is a single room construction, square in plan (7.50x7.50 m), with plain walls, with the exception of two small niches (fig. 3.69). Two dovetail shape windows lit the interior (fig. 3.71).

Description of the building techniques

The entrance to the room faced east, i.e. the river

Fig. 3.68 Troezen. Sketch with construction details of the so‐

called Museion

3.2.3 The Mausoleum RG1

GPS coordinates: 37°30’20.47”N 23°21’18.38”E

Basic bibliography: Welter 1941, Fläming 2007, M. Vitti‐P. Vitti 2010.

and the city. The concrete foundation is visible on the west side, because of the erosion of the ground.

The walls were made with concrete faced with tri‐

angular bricks (M=69), cut from square 30x30x4 cm bricks with grooves on the diagonals (figs. 3.72).

Above the foundation is a brick‐moulded basement, made with two steps 26 cm high and a 13.5 cm moulded base (fig. 3.70). The walls were 1.05 m thick.

The brick facing is divided into strips of different colour (fig. 3.74), though the colored bricks are not homogenously distributed in all four exterior faces.

There are no remains of plaster on the brick surface.

The coloured strips were most probably caused by the different stocks of bricks used for construction and might have not had an aesthetical purpose. The lower strip, 2.60 m high, was made with yellow bricks (fig. 3.75‐A); the middle strip, 0.90 m high,

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 79

1 metre

Fig. 3.69Troezen. Restored elevation of the mausolea RG1 and RG2. The arrow shows the entrance

Fig. 3.70Troezen. Detail of the moulded brick base of the mau‐

soleum RG1

Fig. 3.71 Troezen. Detail of the brick above the dove‐tail win‐

dow on the mausoleum RG1 RG1

RG2

was made with red bricks (fig. 3.75‐B); the upper strip, 0.76 m high, used the same yellow bricks, as the lower one (fig. 3.75‐D). The room was covered by a solid‐brick vault, today preserved to only a few courses above the impost (fig. 3.73). The bricks were square and set radially. The brick vault was covered by concrete, only up to the haunches. The free standing section of the vault was covered only by crushed brick (th. 14 cm), necessary to water‐

proof the extrados of the construction⁸⁹, since few remains of crushed‐brick mortar on the top of the north wall show that this waterproofing layer abutted against the extrados of the brick‐vault (fig.

3.73).

Remarks on the building process and the struc- tural layout

The building phases can be reconstructed on the basis of the different colour of the brick facing of the south façade:

Phase 1. The walls were built up to the height of the