- This topic has 4 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
Work is being done by an archaeological team which is unearthing evidence that Roman architecture was already grand well before the imperial era. There's an article in the NY Times about the excavation of the site at Gabii (never heard of it before this) which dates to 350-250 B.C.:
They have uncovered ruins of a vast complex of stone walls and terraces connected by a grand stairway and surrounded by many rooms, a showcase of wealth and power spread over an area more than half the size of a football field. They say this was most likely the remains of a public building in the heyday of the city-state Gabii, or possibly an exceptionally lavish private residence.
Rome’s Start to Architectural HubrisThe potential significance of this is that it shows the Romans were already building on a monumental scale well before the empire, and even before serious interactions with the Greeks. Most of what we consider when we study Roman architecture falls in the imperial era, when Rome was expanding to its greatest extent and constructing buildings and monuments to reflect its power. This excavation may help to frame our vision of Rome's vision of grandeur even during its first few centuries as a republic.
Yes, I think you are right. However, I think the forum can be explained as a reasonable public construction in any capital city.
I gathered from the article that the authors had the notion that Romans lived in shacks until they gained an empire and then suddenly started building on a grand scale. The idea itself strikes me as ludicrous. Everybody, everywhere, at every time has tried to showcase their wealth and power with the grandest construction they could build. The distinguisher is what materials they had to hand and their durability. I guarantee you there was some rich dude in ancient Sumer that built the biggest house he could afford to impress his visitors, why would Rome or Romans be any different?
Following with what you are saying, the article also gave me second thought about the significance of such a find near Rome. The article suggests the significance was because of the following:
Dr. Terrenato noted that the findings appeared to contradict the image of early Roman culture, perpetuated by notables like Cato the Elder and Cicero, “as being very modest and inconspicuous.” It was said that this did not change until soldiers returned from the conquest of Greece in the second century B.C., their heads having been turned by Greek refinements and luxuries.
Adding to this, the Romans had already come across Greek artifacts/architecture when they conquered Syracuse around 211 B.C. (not sure why the archaeologist didn't mention that) and brought the stuff back to Rome. If we assume that scholarship had claimed that Roman architecture was simpler prior to the end of the third century B.C., and that it only became elaborate after exposure to the Greeks, then the excavation finds may be more noteworthy. However, I have to imagine that Republican-era figures like Cato and Cicero were probably waxing nostalgic when they praised their predecessors' "simpler" and more noble ways. I have heard that the Romans liked to appeal to what was done "back in the day" as a means of influencing contemporary action. Could it have been that our understanding of Roman buildings before 200 B.C. have been mislead by Roman propaganda? Perhaps.
Could it have been that our understanding of Roman buildings before 200 B.C. have been mislead by Roman propaganda? Perhaps.
Could it have been that our understanding of Roman buildings before 200 B.C. have been mislead by Roman propaganda? Perhaps.
That is precocious isn't it? He quoted the last sentience of the post preceding his.
I have been catching quite a few the past few days since I have nothing better to do than surf the net.
