John North Hopkins		john.hopkins@mail.utexas.edu  |  Via Angelo Masina 5, 00153 Roma, ITALIA | +39 06 5846 302
Dissertation		“The Topographical Transformation of Archaic Rome: A New Interpretation of Architecture and Landscape in the Early City”
Co-Advisors John R. Clarke Penelope J. E. Davies Committee Albert J. Ammerman Ingrid E. M. Edlund-Berry Nassos Papalexandrou Andrew Riggsby		Brief Statement of the Project   |   Prospectus   |    C.V. Statement of the Problem                                                                         delivered Oct. 17, 2006 According to first century BC historians Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the last three kings of Rome transformed their city's landscape between the late-seventh and sixth centuries BC with architecture "for which the new magnificence of these days has scarcely been able to produce a match."(Livy, I.56.2) Neither Livy nor Dionysius could know that in fact Rome's inhabitants went beyond architectural monumentalization, manipulating their city's very nature in a series of massive geographical transformations. Though scholars investigate individual architectural and geographic changes, no work of scholarship has taken as its primary concern the transformation of the city's topography in the archaic period, nor has any scholar questioned why at this time Romans wanted and were able to facilitate these changes. Livy, Dionysius and Cicero report that between the mid-eighth and late-seventh centuries BC, people established communities on the Palatine, Capitoline and Quirinal hills in Rome. Archaeological evidence for modest architecture, civic development and religious activity corroborates this testimony. It also demonstrates that these settlements overlooked the low-lying, seasonally inundated valley of the Velabrum. Annual flooding of this basin made permanent construction unsuitable, and so, the communities remained separate, unable to use the vast central space, and defensively vulnerable. In spite of these natural obstacles to their settlement, inhabitants built modest wattle-and-daub huts on the Palatine, Capitoline and perhaps on other hills (Gjerstad; Forsythe, 2005; Carandini, 1996). A Temple of Jupiter Feretrius stood on the Capitoline, but no archaic remains survive to indicate its form (Dion. II.34.4). Also seasonally inundated, the Circus Maximus at this time existed only as an open racecourse between the Palatine and Aventine. The most extensive construction lay at the northeast edge of the Velabrum valley, around the area that would become the Forum Romanum. At the base of the Capitoline, stood an altar of indeterminate form to Saturn; just east of this altar, inhabitants built a simple comitium and curia between the slopes of the Capitoline and Velia, and a small area sacred to Venus may have existed nearby (Smith, 1995; Holloway, 1994; Ammerman, 1996). At the bottom of the Palatine, residents built a house and shrine to Vesta alongside a spring dedicated to the goddess Juturna. Among other structures of contested function, an early wattle-and-daub Regia, perhaps the seat of the kings, stood along the Via Sacra, on the north slope of the Palatine near a long, low wall (Brown, 1967; Carandini, 2004). There is currently no archaeological evidence to suggest monumental scale or extensive sculptural programs for any of these structures. In sum, before the late-seventh century, Rome's urban topography was defined by hills, dotted with small public and private buildings overlooking a central uninhabitable basin. Archaeological and literary evidence demonstrate that from the mid-seventh to early-fifth centuries Romans redefined their city's geographic and architectural landscape through a series of monumental construction projects. In addition to formalizing the Circus Maximus with raised seating, Romans built the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, whose 54 x 74 meter cappellaccio podium would remain the largest of any known temple in Rome until the high Empire (Livy I.35.8-9; cf. Dion. III.68.1-4; Dion. III.69.1-2, IV.44.1 Livy I. 38.7, I.55.1-9; A. Mura Sommella 2000, 2001; Danti 2001; cf. Stamper 2005, who suggests a different reconstruction). This first known use of large cut-stone masonry blocks in construction marks a new period in Roman building practice. At the opposite end of the Forum, Romans reconstructed the Regia several times. They outfitted one of these reconstructions with a monumental foundation of cappellaccio blocks that are comparable in size and shape to those used in the Capitoline Temple (Brown 1967, 1974; S. Downey 1995). In the Forum Boarium, Romans erected temples with extensive sculptural decoration and on the Aventine, a Temple of Diana (Livy, I.44.2-3, cf. Dion. IV.25.4-5; cf. Armellin and Quaranta, 2004). Within this period, Romans also overcame the natural obstacle of the seasonally flooded Forum basin with a 10-20,000 cubic-meter landfill and monumental drainage system (Ammerman, 1990; Hopkins 2005). On this newly stabilized land they built two other monumental temples to Saturn and Castor, again utilizing cut-stone masonry. On the Palatine, they constructed a paved Auguraculum and at the Tiber a three-meter-high wall in cappellaccio (Ammerman, 2006). By the mid-fifth century BC, these monuments on the Aventine and in the Forum Boarium greeted visitors entering Rome from the Tiber. From the river, people could walk the path of the Vicus Tuscus past the newly articulated Circus and Auguraculum into a new city center, where monumental temples and civic buildings would surround them. Livy and Dionysius both maintain that the last three kings of Rome oversaw these monumental changes; yet scholars do not agree when these kings ruled or even that they existed. This disagreement arises from the questionable historicity of the late accounts of these two authors and the resulting difficulty of fitting material evidence within a secure history. It seems certain that a central administration was in place to oversee enormous projects like the Capitoline Temple and Forum Landfill, but it is difficult to assign a name to the person or body of power in charge. Past studies have focused on this debate, and consequently overlook several larger questions: why, at this time, were Romans so keen to connect their hills, create a stable platform for construction, and monumentalize their architecture, and how did they come by the technology, skills, funds and manpower to achieve this end? My dissertation seeks to answer these questions. I will analyze each monument's location, construction technique, associated finds and, where applicable, masonry and decoration. Based on this study I plan to locate in the Italic Peninsula stylistic, technological and tectonic precedents for these structures as well as points of origin for materials employed in their manufacture. Though I may not find comparanda and material sources for every structure, I have already found enough evidence in the case of the Regia and Capitoline Temple to demonstrate the value of such an investigation. This analysis would suggest how consistently or inconsistently in each project and in their city as a whole Romans borrowed other cities' and cultures' architectural and engineering practices; it would further demonstrate from whom Romans borrowed these practices and to what extent, in what capacity, and for which types of monuments they did so. I will combine the results of this research with a thorough study of peoples with whom Romans were in contact in order to explore why Romans chose to make great changes to their cityscape and how they made them possible. State of the Research In his 1936 article, "La Grande Roma dei Tarquini," G. Pasquali suggested that Rome became a "great city" in the seventh and sixth centuries BC. While scholars disparage Pasquali's historicizing treatment of the Tarquin kings, his omission of Servius Tullius and his suggestion that Rome 'became' a city under the Tarquins, many recognize his identification of a great shift in Roman history (Sommella, 2000; Gabba, 1998; Cornell, 1995; Carafa, 1996; Ampolo, 1988; Thomson, 1980;). A. Carandini (1986-2004) has argued for an broad acceptance of the literary tradition alongside archaeological evidence for Rome's early history. E. Palmer (1970) and K. Raaflaub (1986) have sought to define a social and political history of archaic Rome based largely on literary evidence. In contrast to Carandini, other scholars question the value of the literary tradition and the historicity of the "rei Romani" (Wiseman, 1995; Pallottino, et al., 1992; Gabba, 1991; Cornell, 1986; Ogilvi, 1965). E. Gjerstad (1953-73), J. Meyer (1983), G. Sartori et al. (1989), T. Cornell (1995), A. Carandini, et al. (2000) and others present interdisciplinary literary and archaeological histories, while R. Holloway (1994), C. Smith (1995) and G. Forsythe (2005) present histories of early Rome that favor archaeological evidence to the near exclusion of literary testimony. In the wake of Pasquali's article, Archaic Rome's topography has received less scrutiny. In 1989 and 1990, two exhibitions reopened the investigation into a great shift in late-seventh-century Roman art and architecture. Among other interests, the 1989 show "Il viver quotidiano in Roma arcaica," presented evidence for the effects of architecture on every day archaic Romans. In 1990, "La Grande Roma dei Tarquini" displayed material evidence for a change in Roman importation and manufacture of ceramics, metal and precious material objects from the mid-seventh to late-sixth centuries. Although the 1990 show's title suggests otherwise, both focused on material rather than literary evidence for early Rome. G. Meyers (2003) and G. Sartori, et al. (1989) have begun to question interaction and approach to temples and communal spaces in the archaic city. Still, Rome's archaic topography is not the primary concern of these studies. Since Pasquali's treatment of the city, archaeologists have unearthed new evidence that both strengthens old hypotheses and redefines modern conceptions of the archaic city. Excavations, soundings and reexaminations of evidence for the Temple of Jupiter and its surroundings (eg. Sommella, 2000, 2001; Cristofani, 1990; Danti, 2001, Stamper, 2005), the archaic Regia and its environment (Stamper, 2005; Filippi, 2004 and 2005; Scott, 1993), the Forum Romanum (Ammerman 1990, 1998; Ammerman and Filippi, 2004, Filippi, 2005), the archaic sanctuaries in the Forum Boarium (Sommella, 1977; Ammerman 2005, 2006), the Temple of Diana on the Aventine (Armellin and Quaranta, 2004), the course of the Tiber (Ammerman and Filippi, 2004; Ammerman, 2006), the north slope of the Palatine (Carandini, 1986, 1992, 1995, 2004; Carandini and Carafa, 2000) and the valley of the Circus Maximus (Rossetto, 1985, 1986) have yielded a wealth of new information on the archaic topography of Rome. Of these publications, none has sought to consider the architectural and geographical changes in the city as a whole. Systematic reporting techniques and the small scale of excavations keeps archaeological publications focused on small areas. Social and political histories have only incidentally considered the physical city. Meyers considers the urban landscape of Rome, but only in the context of one's approach to buildings and does not consider the city as a whole. No current treatment of the archaic city's architecture and geography as a whole exists, nor has anyone sought to explain why at this juncture, Romans chose to alter their city on such a massive scale. Works Cited
		top     home